Why aren't you an Orthodox Monarchist?

Why aren't you an Orthodox Monarchist?

bump

Because I am an American.

Why aren't you an American Orthodox Monarchist?

Americans do not believe in Monarchism. Our Constitution permabans royal families. It is a self-evident truth that all men are created equal. Among other things this means they cannot be divided into Royalty and commoners.

America is probably the most wicked nation to ever exist in all of history.

>It is a self-evident truth that all men are created equal

But that's wrong tho. We are all equal before God but we are not equal in this world.

That is correct. But because it is self-evident, the burden of proof that some people are less equal falls on the person making the claim, on a case by case basis.

because fuck you and your monarchy thats why

But it is not self-evident is the point. That was a very new concept to the world when it was written, and billions of people disagree with it to this very day.

Boom.

/thread

The president is a king in all but name. His power exceeds every monarch in the world. The only difference is every 4 years there is an election that wastes billions of dollars and makes half of the country hate the other half.

Hamiltonian Republicanism would've saved Russia. Alexander Hamilton was the Hero the Russian Empire needed in 1905.

If you give it some thought I am sure you will find it has to be self-evident. I agree not everyone is equal. For example, physical minors do not have the same rights as adults. The exact age at which they become equals varies with the subject at hand and is also cultural. Unfortunately some minors do not develop fully and are still intellectual children at the age of majority. These people are not equal to other adults in spite of their physical age and for their own protection have to be treated unequally and be protected. But the burden of proof is on the person making the claim of inequality, not the person against whom the claim is made.

>The president is a king in all but name
No.
>His power exceeds every monarch in the world.
Not sure if every, but it exceeds most monarchs because WWI ended most of the powerful monarchies in Yurop, WWII ended Japan's and most of the others had already or have now surrendered their powers

You could say fascism is the next step. Check out Mysterium Fasces

This is only true because our Congress has become increasingly spineless, and unable to discipline the presidency. The Congress controls the budget. The President can accomplish nothing unless Congress agrees to pay for it, and the president cannot force it to do so.

>But the burden of proof is on the person making the claim of inequality, not the person against whom the claim is made

I would say since equality is not traditional, the burden of proof is on the modern man that his way is better. And given the results of modernity, I don't think that is the case.

1776 was some time ago. Details on the reasoning behind this can be found in the writings of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, John Locke, Karl Marx, and many others. The people who wrote the U.S. Constitution did not reject Monarchism and Royalty by flipping a coin.

>It is a self-evident truth that all men are created equal

I am but I'm Ethiopian and Sup Forums thinks I'm an undesirable.

I'm listening to this podcast.
These guys all sound like arrogant children.

I'm a Cypriot Orthodox Fascist

And they were all wrong, what's your point?

Thanks for reintroducing me to this blog.

"Orthodox Christian Monarchy is government divinely established, and directed, ultimately, to the other world, government with the teaching of Christian Truth and the salvation of souls as its profoundest purpose; Nihilist rule--whose most fitting name, as we shall see, is Anarchy---is government established by men, and directed solely to this world, government which has no higher aim than earthly happiness.

The Liberal view of government, as one might suspect, is an attempt at compromise between these two irreconcilable ideas. In the 19th century this compromise took the form of "constitutional monarchies," an attempt--again--to wed an old form to a new content; today the chief representatives of the Liberal idea are the "republics" and "democracies" of Western Europe and America, most of which preserve a rather precarious balance between the forces of authority and Revolution, while professing to believe in both.

It is of course impossible to believe in both with equal sincerity and fervor, and in fact no one has ever done so. Constitutional monarchs like Louis Philippe thought to do so by professing to rule "by the Grace of God and the will of the people"--a formula whose two terms annul each other, a fact as equally evident to the Anarchist as to the Monarchist.

Now a government is secure insofar as it has God for its foundation and His Will for its guide; but this, surely, is not a description of Liberal government. It is, in the Liberal view, the people who rule, and not God; God Himself is a "constitutional monarch" Whose authority has been totally delegated to the people, and Whose function is entirely ceremonial. The Liberal believes in God with the same rhetorical fervor with which he believes in Heaven. The government erected upon such a faith is very little different, in principle, from a government erected upon total disbelief, and whatever its present residue of stability, it is clearly pointed in the direction of Anarchy."

"A government must rule by the Grace of God or by the will of the people, it must believe in authority or in the Revolution; on these issues compromise is possible only in semblance, and only for a time. The Revolution, like the disbelief which has always accompanied it, cannot be stopped halfway; it is a force that, once awakened, will not rest until it ends in a totalitarian Kingdom of this world. The history of the last two centuries has proved nothing if not this. To appease the Revolution and offer it concessions, as Liberals have always done, thereby showing that they have no truth with which to oppose it, is perhaps to postpone, but not to prevent, the attainment of its end. And to oppose the radical Revolution with a Revolution of one's own, whether it be "conservative," " non-violent," or "spiritual," is not merely to reveal ignorance of the full scope and nature of the Revolution of our time, but to concede as well the first principle of that Revolution: that the old truth is no longer true, and a new truth must take its place."

because organizing yourself with slavs is suicide worthy.

I am sure they were all wrong about something at one time or another.

But here is a 'point'. I am a human being. This is self-evident to me but may not be to you. In addition to this identity, I am a male, and a natural-born American citizen. All of this is self-evident to me. Now the question may come up (disembodied voice over ) "Am I a commoner or Royalty?" Since I can determine those other identities/labels, surely I can find the answer to this one as well. And that is "Neither, as the question is invalid as it assumes that it possible to divide people, into royalty and commoners and I have no evidence that it is possible to do so." I am self aware. I am not a commoner and not Royalty. How then can I make such a distinction among my fellow human beings?

The answer to the question is no, you are not royalty, you are a commoner.

And how did you make that distinction about me.? And yourself?

Because if you even have to ask, you're not royalty. I'm not royalty either.

This is why Monarchism is actually a mental illness, and you should seek help. You are quite right, neither of us are Royalty. You just did not go far enough. Neither of us are commoners. And no one else is either of this. It is a false view of what it means to be human, and a false view of reality. Much like phlogiston.

Monarchist yes, orthodox...well I don't know much about it? As in eastern orthodox? I'm Anglican by birth. What's the difference?