Medieval Monarchy vs Democracy- A Critical Look at Democracy

The Barbarian said:

But you seem to have no response at all to the information I gave you. I'm pretty sure why.

Click to expand...

accept of course an in depth 6 page thread on the subject you refuse to read.

Medieval Monarchy vs Democracy- A Critical Look at Democracy

With the material posted for you to see on this thread. post 24 and 30-36. It gives in in depth response to every single one of your misconceptions. Of course you have given no response to it and, I am pretty sure we know why.


So what I have found happens often when I post on forums is some people google the first article they can find that tells them what they want to hear. They than post it thinking or wanting it to be true and support their narrative they desire. When they are challenged to support the claimed myths in the article [the authors could not even defend the claims] and are given sources/facts that refute those claims, they stand alone and are unsure what to do as they have supported a myth. This has just happened above on your posts.

The Barbarian said:

More significantly, when I was in the AF, I was stationed where there was little to do but take college classes or go drinking. So I accumulated a lot of coursework in European and American history. Wouldn't hurt you to do some reading.

Click to expand...

I would say to you it would not at all hurt you to do some reading sir. You claimed to have done much on the subject, yet refuse to read a single thread or my response. But I also wonder how you think I came about making these threads and quoting from all these books and authors if i did not read. You seem to think it would hurt me to do some reading. I would like this explained. Further why if it hurt to read, why would i read your posts? You cannot even support your position as you dont even know what it is. You are sure you disagree but cant support it and are not sure why.

The Barbarian said:

I'd suggest This might be a start.
The Rise of Christian Europe

It's not too academic and it will give you a quick idea of things.

Click to expand...

But why do you wish to hurt me be causing me to read? Thanks for the suggestion but its $900 on amazon and 52 paperback so I think i will have to wait this one out. Might i recommend a free source for you, it has dozens of scholarly books referenced that would be of interest for the honest reader.

Feudal Monarch of the Christian Middle Ages- the age of Self Government

But since you have read this book or so claimed. What and how does it differ from what I have said anywhere?

The Barbarian said:

You might also read historian Barbara Tuchman's work A Distant Mirror, which gives a good idea of what was going on in the 14th century, as encountered by French nobleman Enguerrand de Coucy.

Click to expand...

Now this looks a great source, thanks. As i said, the above link I gave will give you dozens of books i would suggest for you to read. But once more since you have read it, where and how does it disagree with anything I have written?

The Barbarian said:

Suffice to say, history does not record what you've assumed. And while the winners do write history, the losers are no more likely to be right. That's what historians are for. Read and learn.

Click to expand...

Just what I am asking you to do, read and learn.

Feudal Monarch of the Christian Middle Ages- the age of Self Government

Its on this very thread for free, post 30-36. You say history does not record what I say, well than show me how it does not. Take your own advice, its good advice. Dont assume history matches your version you cannot support, and read and learn out of your comfort zone.

Rusviking876 said:

Which historians do you mean? They aren’t all of one mind. “Read and learn”. How condescending.

Click to expand...

especially when I quote leading medieval scholars.

I sent you the wrong link. Sorry. For feudalism and the middle ages see here

Feudal Monarch of the Christian Middle Ages- the age of Self Government

It was the last time people were actually free. Or you can read post 30-35. I would love your comments/thoughts.

The Barbarian said:

Show me from the literature, one historian who claims people were more free in feudal Europe than they are in America today.

Click to expand...

I know this was not to me but what the hell why not? You will find dozens of historians on these threads comparing/showing how and why even a peasant was more free than today's citizen. But opinion is not what is needed, facts matter. So you can have them as well.


Feudal Monarch of the Christian Middle Ages- the age of Self Government
Medieval Monarchy vs Democracy- A Critical Look at Democracy

The Barbarian said:

Land was wealth in feudal economies. Have you actually looked into how that worked then?

Click to expand...

He was saying not that land did not equal wealth. He said "landed military aristocrats" in that he is correct as are you in saying land was wealth.

The Barbarian said:

It was more like a crime family. Loyalty came down through grants from the top, and the average person had no say at all in this.

Click to expand...

No it is the modern citizen in democracy who has not say at all as my op shows. The peasant had actual choice and self government.


The greatest power in the middle ages was custom and tradition and these were local. These traditions and customs were fixed and could not be altered by any ruler including a King.


“They stand as monuments to the intense localism of the High Middle Ages, when every man’s country’ was not the kingdom, duchy, or county in which he lived, but his own town or village... Even the law might change from village to village; a thirteenth-century judge pointed out that in the various counties, cities, boroughs, and townships of England he had always to ask what was the local customary law and how it was employed before he could successfully try a case... Davis describes medieval civilization as “firmly rooted. It grew out of the earth, as it were.” The Road from Serfdom “
-Bionic Mosquito Decentralization Hidden in the dark Ages

Unlike in a democracy actual self government by consent rather than force was practiced. The people had the choice of witch Lord to follow and what political system to live under. Generally men would swear an oath to the Lord of their choice who would give the peasant land to work and protection. In return the peasant would give a small % of his produce back to the Lord. And also at times volunteer military service to the Lord. Lords protected the people in their domain who in return would swear an allegiance to the lord. It was a mutual beneficial situation that encouraged Lords to serve his/her people well as he would have more and more loyal men who would willingly fight under his banner. This was a loyalty by choice not a forced servitude. Thomas Aquinas said “ Good kings, on the contrary, are loved by many when they show that they love their subjects and are studiously intent on the common welfare, and when their subjects can see that they derive many benefits from this zealous care, government of good kings is stable, because their subjects do not refuse to expose themselves to any danger whatsoever on behalf of such kings.” Likewise a wicked ruler will have no support from his people and his kingdom will not last. French historian Leon Gautier writes in his book Chivalry the Everyday Life of the medieval Knight on the bonds between Lord and his men “The bonds of feudalism were stronger than family ties. The Lord was greater than a father, and a vassal was more than a son.”

the prince, who in doing his duty so wins the affection of all that every one of his subjects would expose his own head to imminent peril for him ... and would sacrifice his own skin for the sake of the royal skin; and all that a man has he will give up for the life of the prince.”
-John of Salisbury 1115-1180 Policraticus

The “state” as we think of it today did not exists. Tax were not a regular occurrence and were usually only at various times in dire need and were not forced but agreed upon. Private property was actually your property, not rented from the government [ property tax] and you could do with your property as you pleased as there was no government regulations. Or a mans home was really his castle. Before the second half of the nineteenth century under absolute monarchies tax never rose above 5-8%. In medieval monarchies it was far lower. The peasants rights were as good as the kings. “on his own ground entitled to hold off the king”

“The Lords is not interested in messing with the profitability of these towns... and if that means to let the town manage itself, than most of these Lords are willing to go along with that. And since they are in competition with other Lords, in other towns, its in their interest to make there's work to the best benefit. These towns....become self governed.”
-Thomas Madden The Modern Scholar: The Medieval World, Part II: Society, Economy, and Culture

Instead Lords protected the people in their domain who in return would swear an allegiance to the lord. It was a mutual beneficial situation that encouraged Lords to serve his/her people well as he would have more and more loyal men who would willingly fight under his banner. A much better situation for the people rather than modern democracies forcing men to fight for them or using state power to persecute them for “treason.”


Catholic Monarchs

“That the ruler must have the law of God always before his mind and eyes, and he is to be proficient in letterss... The law of Deuteronomy,... And the prince properly writes Deuteronomy in a book because he may thus reflect upon the law in his reason without the letter disappearing from before his eyes....All censures of law are void if they do not bear the image of the divine law; and the ordinance ( constitutio ) of the prince is useless if it does not conform to ecclesiastical discipline. Nor did this escape the notice of the most Christian prince, who pro¬ claimed that his laws were not to disdain imitation of the sacred canons. And not only should one aspire to be ruled by the examples of priests, but the prince is dispatched to the tribe of Levi in order to obtain its benefits. Note how diligent in guarding the law of God should be the prince, who is commanded to hold it, to read it and to reflect upon it always.”
-John of Salisbury 1115-1180 Policraticus

“The medieval society... was obsessively dedicated to this faith [Catholicism], almost every feature of daily exsistance being conditioned to its doctrines...in Urban's day, this faith dominated and dictated everyday life to an extent that can seem almost inconceivable to a modern observer.”
-Thomas Asbridge the First Crusade Oxford university Press 2004

“One must add that the idea of a Christian monarchy is quite distinct from the monarchical idea of antiquity, not only on account of the concept of legitimacy but also due to certain qualities which are intrinsic characteristics of a Christian monarchy.”
-Erik von Kuehnelt- Leddihn The Menace of the Herd or Procrustes at Large Bruce Publishing Company Milwaukee 1943

Unlike democracy that desires moral relativist and atheist. The medieval monarch built up the church and promoted it. The kings Christianity also effected his politics. Christianity in the middle ages was not relegated to a personal belief system of an individual or placed within the four walls of a church. It was seen as the guide to all life's activities. Education, family, politics, culture, music, science, art etc etc everything was influenced and revolved around Catholicism. As French historian Leon Gautier in his book the Everyday Life of the medieval Knight wrote “ The fatal separation which consists in isolating the faith from all other knowledge did not exists” and “It is no exaggeration to compare the church during the middle ages to the sun, witch illuminates everything...The thought of God then filled and animated all and it was as the breath of their nostrils in those believing centuries.” In the middle ages democracy and it accompanying philosophies had not convinced Christians that the Bible and the church were a spiritual personal belief of theirs not fit for public life. To the middle ages christian the Bible and church law were divine commands to form your every thought and action around. And monarchy encouraged this.

“It goes without saying that, as all presidential republics or parliamentary democracies see authority as primarily coming up temporarily to elected rulers from the people of the nation themselves and not down from God upon divinely anointed and consecrated king and queens, no elected system can theoretically or practically embody, manifest, or make real the solemn and covenantal three-way relationship that exists between God, a crowned and anointed monarch, and his or her people.”
-Quoted from A Theological and Political Defense of Monarchy Ryan P. Hunter

“logic suggests and history demonstrates that monarchies have been much more stable than democracies in their adherence to Christian faith and morality. The history of democracy since the French Revolution shows an ever-accelerating decline in faith and morality, and an ever-expanding undermining of the natural hierarchical relations that God has placed in human society, whether these be between parents and children, husbands and wives, teachers and pupils, or political rulers and their subjects. And by undermining these natural heirarchical relations, it implicitly undermines the most important heirarchical relationship of all, that between God and man. The Orthodox monarchy, on the other hand, strengthens all these relationships, and orients society as a whole to spiritual goals rather than the exclusively secular and material goals of contemporary democracy.”
-Vladamir Moss

A King who believed the church and the bible's view was Governments are instituted among men to protect those unalienable rights that come from a higher authority than man [government] that is God. The medieval king constantly acknowledged that biblical higher power that they were accountable to. Man was not the ultimate authority. A monarch authority comes from God not a magic blood line [pagan] or a Roman republic [government] the King was under the churches and Gods authority. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn wrote “Kingship was not only an office with religious implications (the coronation of a Catholic ruler is a sacramental), but the whole traditional Christian monarchy was deeply imbued with a religious spirit.” John of Salisbury in Policraticus summed up the difference of a prince and tyrant as one former had the holy spirit and the latter did not. And later “The prince is, therefore, to fear the Lord and he is to profess his servility to Him by an evident humility of mind and by the performance of pious works. For indeed a lord ( dominus ) is the lord of a servant. And so the prince serves the Lord provided that he faithfully serves his fellow servants, namely, his subjects.” This philosophy that reorganizes a creator, produces a limited government. “the Christian European monarchy was through most of its history of a constitutional pattern, which circumscribed and limited the ruler's sphere of action by the law of God and the law of the land.” wrote Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn in Liberty or Equality the Challenge of our Time.Government is not the ultimate authority but is to protect all citizens god given liberty and law. It also believes that man should alter and abolish a government that is destructive to those rights of the people.

“He who receives power from God serves the laws and is the slave of justice and right. He who usurps power suppresses justice and places the laws beneath his will. Therefore, justice is deservedly armed against those who disarm the laws, and the public power treats harshly those who endeavour to put aside the public hand. And, although there are many forms of high treason, none of them is so serious as that which is executed against the body of justice itself. Tyranny is, therefore, not only a public crime, but, if this can happen, it is more than public.
-John of Salisbury 1115-1180 Policraticus

“In the traditional order, the source of power is God, the almighty. In him power resides in its essence, all other power is delivered from this essential power....power is delegated by the creator to human beings, and this is expressed symbolically and most lucidly in the traditional monarchical order where the King governs “by the grace of God” and is responsible before his celestial principle.”
-Tage Lindbom the Myth of Democracy Wm. B Eerdmans Publishin Co 1996

In a christian monarchies Christ was the true king and Kings obeyed God and law and reigned in the fear of the Lord. Thomas Aquinas in on kingship said a King who's actions benefited himself was not a King at all and in fact the best example of a hypocrite. He quoted another church leader Augustine as writing

““we do not call Christian princes happy merely because they have reigned a long time, or because after a peaceful death they have left their sons to rule, or because they subdued the enemies of the state, or because they were able to guard against or to suppress citizens who rose up against them. Rather do we call them happy if they rule justly, if they prefer to rule their passions rather than nations, and if they do all things not for the love of vainglory but for the love of eternal happiness. Such Christian emperors we say are happy, now in hope, afterwards in very fact when that which we await shall come to pass....Therefore it is God alone Who can still the desires of man and make him happy and be the fitting reward for a king.”

“In the Europe of the Middle Ages, the noble was concerned with his eternal life and God’s eternal kingdom and this concern shaped his behavior; no longer the case since the Enlightenment.”
-Daniel Ajamian the Cost of the Enlightenment

Continued

The Bible speaks of the eternal King to come who will rule from Jerusalem the model for an earthly King. Further the Old testament was not viewed as a collection of fables or myths but was taken as actual history and fully Gods word and authoritative on its politics. Thomas Aquinas On Kingship quotes constantly from the bible and the overwhelming majority are from the Old testament. The other great political work of the middle ages Policraticus by John of Salisbury as well overwhelmingly uses the Old Testament for justification of political rulers. Leading crusade scholar Christopher Tyerman in his massive book Gods war a new history of the Crusades wrote ““the medieval church placed considerable importance on the old testament.” To quote Leon Gautier agagin, “the spirit of atheism was not fitted, to enter into the mind of the feudal baron.”

“Tamar the Great ...At the beginning of her reign, Tamar convened a Church council and addressed the clergy with wisdom and humility: “Judge according to righteousness, affirming good and condemning evil,” she advised. “Begin with me — if I sin I should be censured, for the royal crown is sent down from above as a sign of divine service. Allow neither the wealth of the nobles nor the poverty of the masses to hinder your work. You by word and I by deed, you by preaching and I by the law, you by upbringing and I by education will care for those souls whom God has entrusted to us, and together we will abide by the law of God, in order to escape eternal condemnation.… You as priests and I as ruler, you as stewards of good and I as the watchman of that good.”
-Fr. Zakaria Machitadze The Lives of Georgian Saints quoted from A Theological and Political Defense of Monarchy Ryan P. Hunter

Kings reigned by biblical standards and did not rule or control its people as we have today. John of Salsibury said the King must have wisdom, justice, mercy, humility, charity, selfishness, prudence, charity, he must be reluctant to punish and quick to reward. In on Kingship Thomas Aquinas wrote “ From this it is clearly shown that the idea of king implies that he be one man who is chief and that he be a shepherd, seeking the common good of the multitude and not his own.” Instead they led by example as moral christian royal families. To live godly lives. Unlike today's modern pagan celebrities who lead the masses away from Christ. '

“Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes, or film-stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison.”
- C.s Lewis

Even today kids grow up pretending naturally to be princess, queens, knights and kings, not presidents or lobbyist. Disney makes a killing off of its princesses and castles. Something of the monarchist system in mankind looks to royalty as a positive influence and christian morals. Every family has a father and mother just as a monarch serves as a form of father/mother to the country. This helps unification of the country rather than division from politicians like in democracies. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn in his book Liberty or Equality the Challenge of our Time wrote “Families, for instance, are minor kingdoms—ideal spheres for the development of personality; and free societies always have strongly developed hierarchically built family cells” They also symbolize christian ideals of marriage, family and unity. Like nature a monarchy seems to make sense as Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn in his book Liberty or Equality said “Monarchy seems to be the most natural sort of government, for whatever nature produces with more than one head is esteemed monstrous.” And Aquinas wrote "There is only one queen among the bees and in the whole universe one God, Creator and director of all," Aquinas mentions the Kings only just functions as

-To exsersize just judgment in his kingdom.
-To have his rule under the authority of the church and the bible
-To make suitable for his people to seek heavenly happiness and forbid the contrary
-Protect his realm from foreign invasion
-Restrain men from wickedness and push them to virtuous deeds following the example of God
-And finally

“the Book of Deuteronomy (17:18-19) that “after he is raised to the throne of his kingdom, the king shall copy out to himself the Deutoronomy of this law, in a volume, taking the copy of the priests of the Levitical tribe, he shall have it with him and shall read it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, and keep his words and ceremonies which are commanded in the law.” Thus the king, taught the law of God, should have for his principal concern the means by which the multitude subject to him may live well.”
-Thomas Aquinas On Kingship

And like the biblical decentralized/tribal model, the people remained in power and the King did not control an entire “nation”.

“It is plain, therefore, from what has been said, that a king is one who rules the people of one city or province, and rules them for the common good.
-Thomas Aquinas On Kingship to the king of Cyrus 1225-1274

“Ancient Jewish society, even in the heyday of monarchy, never gave way to abolitionism [absolute monarch] . The “people” always remained, directly and indirectly a body of influence on the affairs of the state”
-Chaim Herzog and Mordechai Gichon Battles of the Bible GreenHill Books London 2002

The similarity in Catholicism also led to more peace and less war.

“The first monarchs, the founders of the European dynasties, were all outstanding people who excelled either through their wisdom, virtue, bravery, sanctity, or at least through their shrewdness, diplomacy, brutality, or daredevil courage. None of them was insignificant. The families of these rulers constantly intermarried; even back in the early Middle Ages the tendency was clearly one of intermarriage between the royal and imperial houses with the result that we find at the end of this epoch in the Christian Occident one large family of rulers with many different branches, united by the common faith as well as by the ties of common ancestors, of common tombs, of common blood.”
-Erik von Kuehnelt- Leddihn The Menace of the Herd or Procrustes at Large Bruce Publishing Company Milwaukee 1943

The Barbarian said:

Originally. The old posse comitatus.
Comitatus was in ancient times the Latin term for an armed escort or retinue. The term was used especially in the context of Germanic warrior culture, for a warband tied to a leader by an oath of fealty.
Comitatus - Wikipedia

It quickly hardened into a hereditary class that lived off everyone else by force.

Click to expand...

Please support the claim. Support that Lords ruled by force as does our government today. This is not so for many reasons I give.

Medieval Monarchy vs Democracy- A Critical Look at Democracy
Feudal Monarch of the Christian Middle Ages- the age of Self Government

How would they go about this? a Lord and I assume some knights force numbers far beyond their to work their land as slaves or be killed? how did they manage to control so many and force them into it? how could they keep it up while other lords allow freedom to their peasants, would not the peasants run away from the tyrant lord?


A power structure of a centralized democracy can not be removed easily, where as a tyrant king [a single person] can be. Think of a town mayor turning tyrannical, he will be easily resisted, a strong military and centralized democracy turns evil it will lead to mass destruction. Centralized governments and the modern state can turn as tyrannical as they wish and have a monopoly on force through police and the military. If a monarchy did so it would pit him against all his population who could than turn against him and in a decentralized system, such as the medieval time period, he would be hopelessness outnumbered and the people would truly rule. Thomas Aquinas in on Kingship said kingdoms should be arranged so if a King turned into a tyrant, he can be easily removed and his power should not be absolute but limited so as to avoid his potential to become a tyrant. ” This is the medieval decentralized system. So today what a centralized authority declares law, it is so, with no hope of recourse no matter how tyrannical or contrary to previous laws. In the decentralized medieval system [as in antebellum America as well] laws were the authority.

democracies “has placed the state above the law – the state self-defines and self-interprets the constitution; the state has a monopoly on the adjudication of its dictates. This places the state in a position to decide what law is, and how law is applied. The only hope one has to influence this is to turn a minority into a majority. Such a concept was unknown to the mediaeval mind – each individual held a form of veto. No majority was necessary, and minority rights were fully protected – even for the minority of one.”
-Bionic Mosquito Decentralization Hidden in the dark Ages


Liberty During the Middle Ages

“A period, about 900, when there was no empire, no state, and no public authority in the West. The state disappeared, yet society continued. It was discovered that economic life, religious life, law, and private property can all exist and function effectively without a state. … In Rome, in Byzantium, and in Russia, law was regarded as an enactment of a supreme power. In the West, when no supreme power existed, it was discovered that law still existed as the body of rules which govern social life.”
-Carroll Quigley Tragedy & Hope: A History of the World in Our Time Jun 1 1975

“Before the advent of absolutism, monarchs were often in dire financial straits which could only be alleviated borrowing and not by taxation. Taxes were more or less voluntary contributions by cities and estates.”
-Erik von Kuehnelt- Leddihn The Menace of the Herd or Procrustes at Large Bruce Publishing Company Milwaukee 1943

The “state” as we think of it today did not exists. Tax were not a regular occurrence and were usually only at various times in dire need and were not forced but agreed upon. Private property was actually your property, not rented from the government [ property tax] and you could do with your property as you pleased as there was no government regulations. Or a mans home was really his castle. Before the second half of the nineteenth century under absolute monarchies tax never rose above 5-8%. In medieval monarchies it was far lower. The peasants rights were as good as the kings. “on his own ground entitled to hold off the king” To covet another property and to than steal it [democracy] would be seen as sinful in a christian monarchy not raised in a democratic education system. Hoppe in his book Democracy the God that Failed The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy and Natural Order wrote “All members of society learned to regard the taking and redistribution of another man's property as shameful and immoral.” And Bionic Mosquito in Decentralization Hidden in the dark Ages wrote ““...The idea of destroying a village to save it, or abrogating property rights to preserve them, or stealing from one to help another in more need would be quite foreign to the medieval mind”

“monarchs will tend to support a free market to gain competitiveness on a global scale. Prince Hans Adam II of Liechtenstein does exactly this. As a result, his economy thrives. A monarch looks for the best, most prosperous system, because ideological lines are not his or her goal. Rather, a monarch’s goal is to bring prosperity to the owned country.”
-Daniel Szewc The Case for Libertarian Monarchism

A King or Lord would only benefit from uniting his people. A King took an oath to protect and serve all his people unlike a democrat who serves those who elected them and numbers rule as a tyrant. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn wrote “The monarchic principle is thus, as St. Thomas characterized it in his De regimine principum, a uniting, not a dividing principle.—Every election, on the other hand, is a solemn manifestation of division.” Kings did not need to social engineering for more power or steal money [tax] to buy votes as they inherit the position. In a monarchy power seekers [aka politicians] will not receive power since it is inherited and not gained by campaigns, manipulation and money from special interests. Think of the time, money, and energy saved by avoiding campaigns. In a monarchy public opinion would not be manipulated by educators/media to sway a majority this way or that. Indoctrination would not gain any ground in its efforts as it would wholly useless. A Lord due in part to multiple competitors in any given area, would support free markets and low taxes specifically of the merchant class.

“The Lords is not interested in messing with the profitability of these towns... and if that means to let the town manage itself, than most of these Lords are willing to go along with that. And since they are in competition with other Lords, in other towns, its in their interest to make there's work to the best benefit. These towns....become self governed.”
-Thomas Madden The Modern Scholar: The Medieval World, Part II: Society, Economy, and Culture


Continued

The Power of the Crown in a Feudal Monarch

“a man of our time cannot conceive the lack of real power which characterized the medieval King, from witch it naturally followed that in order to secure the exaction of a decision he needed to involve the other leaders whose say-so reinforced his own.”
-Bertrand De Jouvenel

“the feudal king was one Lord among other Lords.... the title of King did not signify that his economic or military power was greater than that of some particular vassal....The feudal King possessed none of the attributes reorganized as those of a sovereign power. He could not decree general laws nor collect taxes on the whole of his Kingdom nor levy an army”
-Regine Pernoud Those Terrible Middle Ages Debunking the Myths Ignatius press San Francisco

“Feudal lords and kings did not typically fulfill the requirements of a state; they could only “tax” with the consent of the taxed, and on his own land every free man was as much a sovereign as the feudal king was on his. Tax payments were voluntary. ...The subordination of king to law was one of the most important of principles under feudalism. The king was below the law”
-Bionic Mosquito Decentralization Hidden in the dark Ages

Absolute monarchies and the “divine right of Kings” were later protestant and enlightenment inventions. In the middle ages Kings did not create laws or legislate as do modern states to their own benefit they were under the law and local tradition, the true rulers of the middle ages. Medieval laws were not created by bureaucracies but were “given” and “fixed” by tradition and custom. All Lords, Dukes, and Kings were bound by the same laws. If a King was to become tyrannical, he was resisted and could be tried for violation of the laws.

“The subordination of King to law was one of the most important of principles under feudalism.”
-Nisbet Prejudices A Philosophical Dictionary Cambridge Mass Harvard U Press quoted in Democracy the God that Failed

“There is wholly or mainly this difference between the tyrant and the prince: that the latter is obedient to law, and rules his people by a will that places itself at their service, and administers rewards and burdens within the republic under the guidance of law in a way favourable to the vindication of his eminent post..the prince is the public power and a certain image on earth of the divine majesty. ….For all power is from the Lord God, and is with Him always, and is His forever. Whatever the prince can do, therefore, is from God, so that power does not depart from God, but it is used as a substitute for His hand, making all things learn His justice and mercy.”
-John of Salisbury 1115-1180 Policraticus

Decentralization was such that Oxford scholar Christopher Tyerman said “few of the great princes in France bothered to pay homage and feality to the King” and “the vast majority of Frenchmen, their spheres of economic, public and private life operated entirely beyond the reach of necessity of royal influence or power.” Medieval scholar Thomas Madden in the medieval world part 2 sums up the Kings power by saying “Medieval kings are pretty weak” and Christophe Buffin de Chosal in the end of Democracy says “The law was not at the monarchs disposal, for most rules of common life were fixed by custom”Kings were under the law only, not above it nor could they change law. Thus they function very different than a politician. Leland B Yeager in his article A Libertarian Case for Monarchy writes ““The king stands in contrast with legislators and bureaucrats, who are inclined to think, by the very nature of their jobs, that diligent performance means multiplying laws and regulations”Kings did not tyrannize their own people but provided protection and enforcement of the laws as a compact as with other Lords and peasants and the Lord would in return lend the King help out of loyalty or family ties and tradition. The King as the [usually] largest land owner would also be the number one protector of private property laws.

“State expenditures, as we call them, were thought of in feudal times as the Kings own expenditures. It is somewhat as if a government of our times were expected to cover its ordinary expenditures from the proceeds of state owned industries”-
-Bertrand De Jouvel Sovereignty quoted in Democracy the God that Failed

A king was more accountable. He would be alone reliable for debt and it would pass on to his kids not to all of “we the people.” He could not force tax on his people for his own benefit. John of Salisbury wrote of the Kings money as not being his “he must count his wealth as the people’s. He does not, therefore, truly own that which he possesses in the name of someone else, nor are the goods of the fisc, which are conceded to be public, his own private property. Nor is this a surprise, since he is not his own person but that of his subjects.” A monarch has reason to leave his holdings better than when he began for his family. Monarchs seek the best for his Kingdom in low tax, high production efforts. The better his domain's situation the better off he is. If a King were to become tyrannical, he and he alone, would be to blame. And with other competing local Lords, he would be forced to treat people in his domain well. Most of the Kings army were men sent from Lords and allies to help the King out of their own free will. As John of Salisbury wrote “The fighter and the farmer were identical; but they would merely exchange their equipment.” The King himself did not own a massive army. G.K Chesterton wrote in Heretics ““The middle ages, when no King had a standing army. But every man had a bow or sword.”

“The Kings of France struggled even to control small territory centered around Paris, while the Frankish realm fractured into murmurous dukedoms and counties whose power eclipsed that of the Royal house.”
-Thomas Asbridge the First Crusade Oxford University Press 2004

All governments tend towards expansion of territory and power. However the monarch has the option to do so through marriage. Nobels would marry other nobles to increase power [also why incest happened to keep power within the family] instead of warfare. The medieval wars were usually disputes over complex inheritance issues and extinct dynasties. Warfare was for the most part guided by the christian principles of chivalry. Wars were the domain of the King and his allied nobles- not of the country as a whole, nor of the people. The typical citizen would not realize a war was going on in either country. Prisoners of war instead of being locked up in concentration camps or prisons [at tax payer exspence] were released on their word of honor and were allowed to go home. The King was responsible to finance the expedition himself and civil life was left alone. If territory expansion was conducted by government [king] it benefits only him and he should pay experiences alone. This made wars very costly and a King would be reluctant to engage in long or large scale disputes. Add to that foreign policy was far more stable in monarchy unlike newly elected officials who change policy every four years, and we get reduced causes of international disturbance. Hoppe quotes Palmer in “A history of the eastern world” as saying of warfare in the medieval time period “Never had war been so harmless.”

“definitely regarded as a kind of single combat between two armies, the civil population being merely spectators. Pillage, requisitions, acts of violence against the population were forbidden the home country as well as the enemy country... soldiers being scarce and hard to find...meticulous trained, but as this was costly, it rendered them very valuable, and it was necessary to let as few be killed as possible... generals tried to avoid fighting battles. The object of warfare was the exacustion of skillful maneuvers and not the annihilation of the adversary... war became a kind of game between sovereigns”
-Guglielmo Ferrero Peace and war

“wars were largely the occupation of Kings, courtiers and gentlemen. Armies lived on their depots ….soldiers were paid out of the kings privy purse they were too costly to be thrown away lighltey on massive attacks..”
-Fuller war and Western Civilization quoted in Democracy the God that Failed

In the feudal age nobles were expected to not just fight, but lead the armies into battle. Unlike in democracy were politicians send out none relatives conscripts to fight for them. Because of the costs to the King directly [does not have ability to steal through tax like a democracy] , limited numbers, and because of decentralization in the political system causalities were far lower. But also wars were far less frequent or total. Further the soldiers under the King were not forced mercenaries/slaves [conscripts] made to fight for a cause that does not benefit them and that they might disagree with or think evil. Instead Lords protected the people in their domain who in return would swear an allegiance to the lord. It was a mutual beneficial situation that encouraged Lords to serve his/her people well as he would have more and more loyal men who would willingly fight under his banner. A much better situation for the people rather than modern democracies forcing men to fight for them or using state power to persecute them for “treason.” The king could not extract contributions only solicit subsides from loyal subjects who through their own free will supported the king and used it as an opportunity to make deals . Often deals were made to save each Lord from continuation of the expensive war and wars were won or lost based on small scale objectives.

“Monarchy in the Christian world is an international institution.As long as it was a living force the wars between political units were of a relative and restricted nature— Kabinettskriege, as the Germans say. Between 1100 and 1866 A.D. no Christian kingdom was eliminated permanently from the map. (Naturally we exclude from consideration the Napoleonic period, and the casualties among the Italian republics, and the Rzeczpospolita Polska, the " Polish Commonwealth " under an elected King who was—to the greatest misfortune of the country—" nobody's " relative.) No monarch was thoroughly dispossessed, and the price to be paid for military defeat was merely a city, a county, a province. After the battle of Solferino the Emperor Francis Joseph said simply: " I have lost a battle and I pay with a province." He was not progressive enough to believe in " unconditional surrender " and in the guerre aux allures déchaînées—nor did Napoleon III. Conscription was an invention of the French Revolution, and so were wars on a nation-wide basis with great collective passions.”
-Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn Liberty or Equality the Challenge of our Time Caxton Printers LTD Galdwell Idaho 1952

Kings were not just under tradition and laws, but also there own vassals. To be able to have the power to do anything such as a war, he needed his allies to help. So he must through diplomacy and gifts or other actions due to some degree the will of his vassals in return for service. If he were to try and force a vassal or become tyrannical this would push more and more resistance within his own kingdom against himself. To become powerful a feudal king must literally be the servant of others and a model rather than a dictator. As Thomas Madden in the medieval world part 2 says “ It is not possible for him to command them [vassals]...some are more powerful and quit dangerous to him.”

“then every subject, every section of the people, and even the whole community was free to resist him..whereas today it is an illegal act for the people to resist the government authority, during this period after the fall of Rome the lords had a duty to resist the king who overstepped his authority. ... the act of resistance in and of itself was not considered illegal. It was a duty respected by king and people alike. …
-Bionic Mosquito Decentralization Hidden in the dark Ages

The “divine right of kings” teachings started with protestants in the 17th century never accepted by the catholic church. The Magna Carta of 1215 was written by a mix of nobles and church leaders. Absolute monarchies [such as what the colonies resisted] started after the Renaissance. From Agustin and Aquinas to John of Salisbury to the church fathers and councils, the catholic church held the biblical doctrine of resistance to tyranny. John of Salisbury states it very simple “by the authority of the divine book it is lawful and glorious to kill public tyrants.”

Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God

It was protestants and the enlightenment who when come into power steadily increase the power of the state weather to absolute monarchies or various republic/democracies. Thomas Aquinas in on kingship wrote “If to provide itself with a King belongs to the right of a given multitude, it is not unjust that the King be disposed or have his power restricted by that same multitude, becoming a tyarant, he abuses his royal power.” Erik von Kuehnelt- Leddihn in his book The Menace of the Herd wrote “The theory of the Divine Rights of Kings, as we see it under debate in the seventeenth-century England, is naturally not a part of Catholic theology.” John of Salisbury the great medieval political scholar wrote around 1159 in Policraticus “ I submit to his [the king] power... so long as it is exercised in subjection to God and follows His ordinances. But on the other hand if it resists and opposes the divine commandments, and wishes to make me share in its war against God; then with unrestrained voice I answer back that God must be preferred before any man on earth.” and

“Furthermore, the law is a gift of God, the likeness of equity, the norm of justice, the image of the divine will, the custodian of security, the unity and confirmation of a people, the standard of duties, the excluder and exterminator of vices, and the punishment of violence and all injuries It is attacked either by violence or by deceit and, one might say, it is either ravaged by the savagery of the lion or overthrown by the snares of the serpent. In whatever manner this happens, the grace of God is plainly being assailed and God is in a certain fashion being challenged to a battle. The prince fights for the laws and liberty of the people; the tyrant supposes that nothing is done unless the laws are cancelled and the people are brought into servitude. The prince is a sort of image of divinity and the tyrant is an image of the strength of the Adversary and the depravity of Lucifer, for indeed he is imitated who desired to establish his throne to the north and to be like the Most High, yet with His goodness removed. For if he had wished to be like Him in goodness, he would never have endeavoured to snatch away the glory of His power and wisdom. Yet perhaps he aspired to be rewarded by being raised to the same level. As the image of the deity, the prince is to be loved, venerated and respected; the tyrant, as the image of depravity, is for the most part even to be killed. The origin of tyranny is iniquity and it sprouts forth from the poisonous and pernicious root of evil and its tree is to be cut down by an axe anywhere it grows.”
-John of Salisbury 1115-1180 Policraticus

"The Church never endorsed the notion of the divine right of kings. That was first proclaimed by James I of England (1566– 1625), a Protestant...From St Augustine through St Thomas Aquinas, the great Church theologians denied the moral authority of the state and condemned tyrants, warranting their overthrow....in 1215 the English bishops participated in forcing King John to sign the Magna Carta... Indeed, Luther fully supported ‘the development of strong centralized states and absolute monarchies’."
-Rodney Stark Reformation Myths Five Centuries of Misconceptions and (Some) Misfortunes SPCK Publishing

The Barbarian said:

That was the theory. In practice it was pointless for a serf to complain. But in the high middle ages, this was why peasants and merchants supported a strong central government against the nobles; they had learned justice was less arbitrary from a central government, than from the long warlord.

Click to expand...

Please support such a claim so contrary to history and logic.

From Confederation to Consolidation the Political Effects of the Civil war



Decentralization and Self Government During the Feudal Monarchical Middle Ages

“By the end of the tenth century the kingdom of France remained a legal and ideological construct, but it's kings exerted little genuine power outside their own family lands. The main political foci were the great counties ruled as autonomous principalities by comital families...contrast mirrored different histories customs and laws. The far south retained a tradition of written law.... there was no uniformity of rules of landowning, judicial systems, weights, measures or currency. A kingdom often in name alone.”
-Christopher Tyerman Gods war a new history of the Crusades Harvard U Press Cambridge Mass 2006

“Medieval civilization was also decentralized, and it was vast in scale. It was a mosaic of thousands of independent and quasi-independent political units: kingdoms, principalities, dukedoms, bishoprics, papal states, republics, free cities, and tens of thousands of titled manors. The medieval contribution to politics is the idea of a federated polity where various independent political units are held together in a larger realm by compacts and traditional hierarchy.”
- Donald Livingston The Southern Critique of Centralization

The agrarian western european christian middle ages were the most decentralized libertarian societies ever known. Medieval scholar Thomas Madden in The Medieval World, Part II: Society, Economy, and Culture says “ Feudalism was a set of practices that arose....during the middle ages.” Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn wrote “Federalism in the European anti-centralistic sense has always been part and parcel of Catholic political ideologies.” There were various forms of monarchies usually hereditary but some were elected by Lords and Bishops, or a mix of both. For example France elected Kings until Hugh Caput in 987 and than started a hereditary monarchy. Decentralization was at a peak, Lords controlled within their own spheres, as did dukes, princes, barons etc and held autonomy. Each realm had their own laws and courts and near everything was done by the local village with no influence from the Kings Capital. In describing France in the middle ages medieval scholar and Oxford professor Christopher Tyerman said “few of the great princes in France bothered to pay homage and feality to the King” and “the vast majority of Frenchmen, their spheres of economic, public and private life operated entirely beyond the reach of necessity of royal influence or power.” and the region of France had an“absence of national instincts.” “a Europe that contained no nation states in the modern understanding” Thomas Asbridge in his book the first crusade described France as a national identity as “endured only in imagination” Erik von Kuehnelt- Leddihn in his great work The Menace of the Herd said of the mindset of medieval man as first and foremost his loyalty was to his family, witch had its own flag and arms, second was to their local town or village, than to their region. Any sense of a nation was almost mystical. In his book Liberty or Equality the Challenge of our Time he stated “The Middle Ages and their aftermath were characterized by a multitude of such autonomous and semi-autonomous spheres; medieval man frequently belonged to a variety of these.” The greatest power in the middle ages was custom and tradition and these were local. These traditions and customs were fixed and could not be altered by any ruler including a King. In the Holy Roman Empire Dukes and Archbishops elected their kings and the states [such as Saxony Swambia Bavaria etc] and had near complete autonomy where they were “dominated by its own Duke.” Often wars such as the Germans into into Poland were funded and controlled by local Lords and Dukes with no input from the King. Famed French historian Regine Pernoud in her book Those terrible middle ages debunking the myths wrote “Only local powers reined.”

“As people came before courts or before judges they would have to declare witch they were and what law they lived under”
-Thomas Madden The Modern Scholar: The Medieval World, Part II: Society, Economy, and Culture

“They stand as monuments to the intense localism of the High Middle Ages, when every man’s country’ was not the kingdom, duchy, or county in which he lived, but his own town or village... Even the law might change from village to village; a thirteenth-century judge pointed out that in the various counties, cities, boroughs, and townships of England he had always to ask what was the local customary law and how it was employed before he could successfully try a case... Davis describes medieval civilization as “firmly rooted. It grew out of the earth, as it were.” The Road from Serfdom “
-Bionic Mosquito Decentralization Hidden in the dark Ages

Unlike in a democracy actual self government by consent rather than force was practiced. The people had the choice of witch Lord to follow and what political system to live under. Generally men would swear an oath to the Lord of their choice who would give the peasant land to work and protection. In return the peasant would give a small % of his produce back to the Lord. And also at times volunteer military service to the Lord. Lords protected the people in their domain who in return would swear an allegiance to the lord. It was a mutual beneficial situation that encouraged Lords to serve his/her people well as he would have more and more loyal men who would willingly fight under his banner. This was a loyalty by choice not a forced servitude. Thomas Aquinas said “ Good kings, on the contrary, are loved by many when they show that they love their subjects and are studiously intent on the common welfare, and when their subjects can see that they derive many benefits from this zealous care, government of good kings is stable, because their subjects do not refuse to expose themselves to any danger whatsoever on behalf of such kings.” Likewise a wicked ruler will have no support from his people and his kingdom will not last. French historian Leon Gautier writes in his book Chivalry the Everyday Life of the medieval Knight on the bonds between Lord and his men “The bonds of feudalism were stronger than family ties. The Lord was greater than a father, and a vassal was more than a son.”

“Secular histories report that, when it was observed that Dionysius, the tyrant of Sicily, surrounded his person with guards, Plato inquired: ‘Have you committed so much evil that you need to have so many guards?’ This is in no way fitting for the prince, who in doing his duty so wins the affection of all that every one of his subjects would expose his own head to imminent peril for him ... and would sacrifice his own skin for the sake of the royal skin; and all that a man has he will give up for the life of the prince.”
-John of Salisbury 1115-1180 Policraticus

A local government is more accountable to the people, and more in line with the local people. Decentralization allows diversity in government that a centralized government cannot offer. If one area wishes to provide universal health care, socialist tax code it can. If the area next town/county/state over wishes to have a libertarian society and a fair tax code, it can. The people can decide for themselves. This would also stop so much fighting between separate groups because neither could force themselves on the other as we do today in our modern centralized democracy. Wars would not be needed as there would be no cause when all can live as they wish. No cohesion. People could literally vote with their feet. Think of east Germans of the centralized soviet socialist who blocked in their runaway slaves [citizens] and shot them for running away from the tyranny. Decentralization also would allow multiple ways of dealing with a certain problem be tried and tested. We could have a dozen separate ways to do education, we could than test the results. The areas that “failed” in their way could adopt another more successful way if they chose to. But If the centralized government does education a certain way, and it fails, than everyone suffers. Since there are so many different opinions on how to better the education system in America, all could have it their own way instead of being forced by a central dictatorship in Washington- centralization forces conformity. Further this would force competition on government to behave and treat its citizens well and avoid corruption as this would give people choice and they could move to an area of like minded people. This is also the reason corrupt governments always seek centralization to avoid choice so as to be able to become more corrupt. True diversity would blossom as would free markets.

“A highley decentralized power structure composed of countless independent political; units explains the origin of capitalism- the expansion of market participation and of economic growth. It is not by accident that capitalism first flourished under conditions of extreme political decentralization.”
-Hans- Hermann Hoppe Democracy the God that Failed The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy and Natural Order Routledge 2001

“”secession/decentralization Increases ethnic, linguistic, religious, and cultural diversity, while centuries of centralization have stamped out hundreds of distinct cultures.”
-Hans- Hermann Hoppe Democracy the God that Failed The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy and Natural Order Routledge 2001

A power structure of a centralized democracy can not be removed easily, where as a tyrant king [a single person] can be. Think of a town mayor turning tyrannical, he will be easily resisted, a strong military and centralized democracy turns evil it will lead to mass destruction. Centralized governments and the modern state can turn as tyrannical as they wish and have a monopoly on force through police and the military. If a monarchy did so it would pit him against all his population who could than turn against him and in a decentralized system, such as the medieval time period, he would be hopelessness outnumbered and the people would truly rule. Thomas Aquinas in on Kingship said kingdoms should be arranged so if a King turned into a tyrant, he can be easily removed and his power should not be absolute but limited so as to avoid his potential to become a tyrant. ” This is the medieval decentralized system. So today what a centralized authority declares law, it is so, with no hope of recourse no matter how tyrannical or contrary to previous laws. In the decentralized medieval system [as in antebellum America as well] laws were the authority.

democracies “has placed the state above the law – the state self-defines and self-interprets the constitution; the state has a monopoly on the adjudication of its dictates. This places the state in a position to decide what law is, and how law is applied. The only hope one has to influence this is to turn a minority into a majority. Such a concept was unknown to the mediaeval mind – each individual held a form of veto. No majority was necessary, and minority rights were fully protected – even for the minority of one.”
-Bionic Mosquito Decentralization Hidden in the dark Ages

The Barbarian said:

I already mentioned them as exceptions. You're not paying attention.

Click to expand...

I would be aware of you own self first for telling others they are not paying attention, you are ignoring lots of data you dont like.

The Barbarian said:

Not in practice. To do so, the king had to do it by force, which required calling in the noble's fellow noblemen and besieging him into submission. Not worth the effort in almost all cases. The nobles would often band together and defy the king, or even remove him for another faction in the royal family. More like a crime family.

Click to expand...

Resistance to tyrants is biblical. And it keeps tyrants from starting

Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God

we have nothing today, we are powerless against the state and we see the results. Decentralization of power in the middle ages is what kept them free.

The Barbarian said:

War between nobles was pretty common. Violence was often the way things were settled.

Click to expand...

Lets compare warfare in democracy vs monarchy.

Most of the Kings army were men sent from Lords and allies to help the King out of their own free will. As John of Salisbury wrote “The fighter and the farmer were identical; but they would merely exchange their equipment.” The King himself did not own a massive army. G.K Chesterton wrote in Heretics ““The middle ages, when no King had a standing army. But every man had a bow or sword.”

All governments tend towards expansion of territory and power. However the monarch has the option to do so through marriage. Nobels would marry other nobles to increase power [also why incest happened to keep power within the family] instead of warfare. The medieval wars were usually disputes over complex inheritance issues and extinct dynasties. Warfare was for the most part guided by the christian principles of chivalry. Wars were the domain of the King and his allied nobles- not of the country as a whole, nor of the people. The typical citizen would not realize a war was going on in either country. Prisoners of war instead of being locked up in concentration camps or prisons [at tax payer exspence] were released on their word of honor and were allowed to go home. The King was responsible to finance the expedition himself and civil life was left alone. If territory expansion was conducted by government [king] it benefits only him and he should pay experiences alone. This made wars very costly and a King would be reluctant to engage in long or large scale disputes. Add to that foreign policy was far more stable in monarchy unlike newly elected officials who change policy every four years, and we get reduced causes of international disturbance. Hoppe quotes Palmer in “A history of the eastern world” as saying of warfare in the medieval time period “Never had war been so harmless.”

“definitely regarded as a kind of single combat between two armies, the civil population being merely spectators. Pillage, requisitions, acts of violence against the population were forbidden the home country as well as the enemy country... soldiers being scarce and hard to find...meticulous trained, but as this was costly, it rendered them very valuable, and it was necessary to let as few be killed as possible... generals tried to avoid fighting battles. The object of warfare was the exacustion of skillful maneuvers and not the annihilation of the adversary... war became a kind of game between sovereigns”
-Guglielmo Ferrero Peace and war

“wars were largely the occupation of Kings, courtiers and gentlemen. Armies lived on their depots ….soldiers were paid out of the kings privy purse they were too costly to be thrown away lighltey on massive attacks..”
-Fuller war and Western Civilization quoted in Democracy the God that Failed

In the feudal age nobles were expected to not just fight, but lead the armies into battle. Unlike in democracy were politicians send out none relatives conscripts to fight for them. Because of the costs to the King directly [does not have ability to steal through tax like a democracy] , limited numbers, and because of decentralization in the political system causalities were far lower. But also wars were far less frequent or total. Further the soldiers under the King were not forced mercenaries/slaves [conscripts] made to fight for a cause that does not benefit them and that they might disagree with or think evil. Instead Lords protected the people in their domain who in return would swear an allegiance to the lord. It was a mutual beneficial situation that encouraged Lords to serve his/her people well as he would have more and more loyal men who would willingly fight under his banner. A much better situation for the people rather than modern democracies forcing men to fight for them or using state power to persecute them for “treason.” The king could not extract contributions only solicit subsides from loyal subjects who through their own free will supported the king and used it as an opportunity to make deals . Often deals were made to save each Lord from continuation of the expensive war and wars were won or lost based on small scale objectives.

“Monarchy in the Christian world is an international institution.As long as it was a living force the wars between political units were of a relative and restricted nature— Kabinettskriege, as the Germans say. Between 1100 and 1866 A.D. no Christian kingdom was eliminated permanently from the map. (Naturally we exclude from consideration the Napoleonic period, and the casualties among the Italian republics, and the Rzeczpospolita Polska, the " Polish Commonwealth " under an elected King who was—to the greatest misfortune of the country—" nobody's " relative.) No monarch was thoroughly dispossessed, and the price to be paid for military defeat was merely a city, a county, a province. After the battle of Solferino the Emperor Francis Joseph said simply: " I have lost a battle and I pay with a province." He was not progressive enough to believe in " unconditional surrender " and in the guerre aux allures déchaînées—nor did Napoleon III. Conscription was an invention of the French Revolution, and so were wars on a nation-wide basis with great collective passions.”
-Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn Liberty or Equality the Challenge of our Time Caxton Printers LTD Galdwell Idaho 1952



Warfare - Total war or Chivalry?

“the influence of the spirit of nationalism, that is of democracy, on war was profound... it emotionalized war, and consequentially, brutalized it... wars were largely the occupation of Kings, courtiers and gentlemen. Armies lived on their depots ….soilders were paid out of the kings privy purse they were too costly to be thrown away lighltey on massive attacks. The change came about with the french revolution...armies became more and more institutions of the people, not only did they grow in size but in ferocity.”
-Fuller war and Western Civilization quoted in Democracy the God that Failed

“War became total war, in large part driven by another gift of the Enlightenment, modern democracy. While Lincoln established the precedent fifty years earlier, it was finally in the Great War when war of all against all became generally accepted throughout and within Europe, an event for the nation and not merely the combatants Poison gas, air raids over civilian populations, submarines destroying ships regardless of flag or purpose, the blockade of civilian food and supplies, even peace not leading to relief.And church towers used as observation posts, leading to their destruction; painting a picture of the cost of the Enlightenment”.
-Daniel Ajamian the Cost of the Enlightenment

In a democracy war is the only means of expanding its exploitation [tax] base. Democracy brought about great instability among nations since the rise of democracy near constant wars and revolutions have occurred. Thomas Aquinas in On Kingship wrote “Provinces or cities which are not ruled by one person are torn with dissensions and tossed about without peace... On the other hand, provinces and cities which are ruled under one king enjoy peace, flourish in justice, and delight in prosperity.” Further centralization and democracy brought total war and nationalism. Wars were now fought far more frequent and were far more devastating seeking submission of the enemy and reconstruction in the winners image. Sherman, Sheridan , and Grant brought total war to the south and than reconstructed it from its decentralized republic to a centralized democracy in the image of the northern republicans. They than went to war on the Indians and expanded the empire west. WW1 and WW2 followed their paths. Today they engage in various wars around the world spreading American “democracy.” Wars are now between the entire nations as all of “we the people” are at war. Now taxes are used to build massive armies with the help of government conscription were losses are easily replaced and battles are now sought to annihilate the enemy and wear them down since the politicians money and men are not used. Soldiers are now slaves of the government forced into conscription to fight a war for their masters [elected officials] weather they agree with the war or not. Hoppe quotes Fuller in the god that failed as writing ““In 150 years conscription had led the world back to tribal barbarism.” In the feudal age nobles were expected to not just fight, but lead the armies into battle.

“Progressive nations have to bleed to death in their wars. Rulers felt that they had to be sparing with the lives of their subjects, but leaders have the marvelous excuse that they are nothing but executors of the general will.”
-Erik von Kuehnelt- Leddihn The Menace of the Herd or Procrustes at Large Bruce Publishing Company Milwaukee 1943

Solders pillage large scale, attack, steal, rape, confiscate private property on a massive scale since the introduction of democracy. Because war was now total and the “people” against another nation rather than a Kings loyal knights, the whole of the enemy becomes a target an weapons on mass destruction were sought and created such as the machine gun and bombs. In the medieval west, many saw the bow and later the long bow as immoral and cowardly. In WW2 America dropped bombs on the civilian cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killing 150,000 to 200,000 men woman and children. Some took weeks or months to die after the bombing. That these were used to save lives seems to come after the war [see Don’t Whitewash the Hiroshima Bombing By Peter Van Buren ] “Harry Truman, in his 1945 annosuncment of the bomb, focused on vengeance, and on the new power to destroy at a button push—“We are now prepared to obliterate more rapidly and completely every productive enterprise the Japanese have above ground in any city,” The Americans were the “good guys” in this war, such is the terror of total war. While in the middel ages.

“Inventors of poison gas, tanks, pursuit planes, bombers, floating mines, etc., might have run the usually decried risk of getting into trouble with the ecclesiastic authorities. They might have been possibly accused of being in league with the devil — an accusation probably not without foundation.....“Crime also profits largely by new technical inventions. One can say without exaggeration that almost every new technical invention harbors the potentiality of the most demoniacal misuse. We have to ask ourselves honestly whether the invention of the Wright brothers — made in best faith — will not bring much more sorrow than joy to mankind before this present war is over. The answer is obvious. Orville Wright was convinced that the airplane would deal a dashing blow to militarism, eliminating the element of surprise in warfare. Instead it made the enslavement of numerous countries possible and destroyed the finest historical landmarks of London. One feels definitely less sure that a few old-fashioned cardinals and higher ecclesiastics who declared in the seventeenth century that machinery may be the work of Satan, were totally incorrect.”
-Erik von Kuehnelt- Leddihn The Menace of the Herd or Procrustes at Large Bruce Publishing Company Milwaukee 1943

The Barbarian said:

It was good to be king. Not so good to be a serf.

Click to expand...

In some ways yes in some ways no. As i posted earlier the catholic monarch was the servant of his people. The real statement is "it was good to be a medieval peasant" "Not so good to be a citizen in a democracy"

The Barbarian said:

It's accountable, of course. That's why there are elections and Congress to make laws. It's just that the state is too deep for any one person to take control of it and rule as an autocrat. It's why Trump has failed.

Click to expand...

The Barbarian said:

The record:
List of American federal politicians convicted of crimes - Wikipedia

Click to expand...

Are you claiming democracies are more accountable than kings? we can see from my op how democracies tyranny is not accountable. But were kings?


Lords protected the people in their domain who in return would swear an allegiance to the lord. It was a mutual beneficial situation that encouraged Lords to serve his/her people well as he would have more and more loyal men who would willingly fight under his banner. This was a loyalty by choice not a forced servitude. Thomas Aquinas said “ Good kings, on the contrary, are loved by many when they show that they love their subjects and are studiously intent on the common welfare, and when their subjects can see that they derive many benefits from this zealous care, government of good kings is stable, because their subjects do not refuse to expose themselves to any danger whatsoever on behalf of such kings.” Likewise a wicked ruler will have no support from his people and his kingdom will not last.


A power structure of a centralized democracy can not be removed easily, where as a tyrant king [a single person] can be. Think of a town mayor turning tyrannical, he will be easily resisted, a strong military and centralized democracy turns evil it will lead to mass destruction. Centralized governments and the modern state can turn as tyrannical as they wish and have a monopoly on force through police and the military. If a monarchy did so it would pit him against all his population who could than turn against him and in a decentralized system, such as the medieval time period, he would be hopelessness outnumbered and the people would truly rule. Thomas Aquinas in on Kingship said kingdoms should be arranged so if a King turned into a tyrant, he can be easily removed and his power should not be absolute but limited so as to avoid his potential to become a tyrant. ” This is the medieval decentralized system. So today what a centralized authority declares law, it is so, with no hope of recourse no matter how tyrannical or contrary to previous laws. In the decentralized medieval system [as in antebellum America as well] laws were the authority.

democracies “has placed the state above the law – the state self-defines and self-interprets the constitution; the state has a monopoly on the adjudication of its dictates. This places the state in a position to decide what law is, and how law is applied. The only hope one has to influence this is to turn a minority into a majority. Such a concept was unknown to the mediaeval mind – each individual held a form of veto. No majority was necessary, and minority rights were fully protected – even for the minority of one.”
-Bionic Mosquito Decentralization Hidden in the dark Ages

Medieval laws were not created by bureaucracies but were “given” and “fixed” by tradition and custom. All Lords, Dukes, and Kings were bound by the same laws. If a King was to become tyrannical, he was resisted and could be tried for violation of the laws.

“The subordination of King to law was one of the most important of principles under feudalism.”
-Nisbet Prejudices A Philosophical Dictionary Cambridge Mass Harvard U Press quoted in Democracy the God that Failed

“There is wholly or mainly this difference between the tyrant and the prince: that the latter is obedient to law, and rules his people by a will that places itself at their service, and administers rewards and burdens within the republic under the guidance of law in a way favourable to the vindication of his eminent post..the prince is the public power and a certain image on earth of the divine majesty. ….For all power is from the Lord God, and is with Him always, and is His forever. Whatever the prince can do, therefore, is from God, so that power does not depart from God, but it is used as a substitute for His hand, making all things learn His justice and mercy.”
-John of Salisbury 1115-1180 Policraticus

Decentralization was such that Oxford scholar Christopher Tyerman said “few of the great princes in France bothered to pay homage and feality to the King” and “the vast majority of Frenchmen, their spheres of economic, public and private life operated entirely beyond the reach of necessity of royal influence or power.” Medieval scholar Thomas Madden in the medieval world part 2 sums up the Kings power by saying “Medieval kings are pretty weak” and Christophe Buffin de Chosal in the end of Democracy says “The law was not at the monarchs disposal, for most rules of common life were fixed by custom”Kings were under the law only, not above it nor could they change law. Thus they function very different than a politician.

A king was more accountable. He would be alone reliable for debt and it would pass on to his kids not to all of “we the people.” He could not force tax on his people for his own benefit. John of Salisbury wrote of the Kings money as not being his “he must count his wealth as the people’s. He does not, therefore, truly own that which he possesses in the name of someone else, nor are the goods of the fisc, which are conceded to be public, his own private property. Nor is this a surprise, since he is not his own person but that of his subjects.” A monarch has reason to leave his holdings better than when he began for his family. Monarchs seek the best for his Kingdom in low tax, high production efforts. The better his domain's situation the better off he is. If a King were to become tyrannical, he and he alone, would be to blame. And with other competing local Lords, he would be forced to treat people in his domain well. Most of the Kings army were men sent from Lords and allies to help the King out of their own free will. As John of Salisbury wrote “The fighter and the farmer were identical; but they would merely exchange their equipment.” The King himself did not own a massive army. G.K Chesterton wrote in Heretics ““The middle ages, when no King had a standing army. But every man had a bow or sword.”

“The Kings of France struggled even to control small territory centered around Paris, while the Frankish realm fractured into murmurous dukedoms and counties whose power eclipsed that of the Royal house.”
-Thomas Asbridge the First Crusade Oxford University Press 2004

The Barbarian said:

Works better than anything else we can do.

Click to expand...

in a democracy of course. So in other words in a democracy we can do nothing.


“[in democracy]A man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practise this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two.
-Lysander Spooner


Two Party System and Self Government


“Under Democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule- and both commonly succeed, and are right.”
-H.L. Mencken

“A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to chose a new master once in a term of years”
-Herbert Spencer the right to Ignore the state quoted in Against Democracy

In a centralized democracy self government is nothing but an illusion, would anyone suggest the Jews in Germany were given self government under Hitler? Hitler was elected democratically. Did half the country get self government under Trump? Was the south allowed representation by Abraham Lincoln? A libertarian in Vermont has as much chance of changing his government as a peasant under the most absolute monarchy. For those who lose the vote they are not represented by the opposing party and vice versa, next election for the winning side. The major parties regulate to keep out third parties from being elected. Usually around 1/3 of the population do not even vote. Chosal suggest most people do not vote since none of the politicians represent them, or they find the whole of politics ugly and corrupt. Maybe they see the use of force and cohesion of others as a moral wrong and chose not to vote. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn in his book “Liberty or Equality the Challenge of our Time” said “" politics " are looked upon by a healthy public opinion as a cocktail of deceit, lying, treachery, double-dealing, graft, theft, insincerity, perjury, imposture, dishonourable compromise and other vices.” Neither does your vote count. Chosen called self rule “a myth which loses all substance once confronted with the real practice in democracy.” and because of this Chosen says the average voter “sense themselves powerless against the state, and indeed they are.” Tage Lindbom wrote in the myth of democracy “nowhere is man so insignificant as in a democracy.” Your more likely to win the Powerball multiple times than change an election with your vote. In democracy few actually govern, it is not we the people. Because deep down we know this, most dont invest time to properly educate ourselves to make an informed vote. Democracies don't not care of the individual, but the collective. That is why the democratic mindset forces everyone into groups [voting blocks] based on religion, race, gender, etc etc

“This insane concept of voting brings with it the ridiculous and false notion that self-rule is evident. Self-rule is freedom, but in a democracy, each individual has surrendered all sovereignty to an unknown entity called the nation-state. This country has never been ruled over by the people at large.”
-Gary D Barnett The Invention of Modern Slavery Called Democracy

Debates and elections are just rituals as the parties have already decided who will win, voting really does no good. Further the politician must pay back those interest groups and do their bidding to maintain there power. If their really was democracy and the parties did not have the control, than people would vote for who best they like, rather than who the party has told them to vote for. Those in America who won the election likely would without parties struggle to be above 5%, even if they were the highest vote getter. In America both parties are democratic/Marxist/socialist/centralizers and statist anyways. The differences between right and left ignore the fact they both are for increasing centralized power. Jason Brennan writes in against democracy ““They [political parties] both agree to buy the Camry, there now just debating weather to get the sports package or hybrid.”

But in reality neither gets what they want because the power structure in a mass democracy belongs to the interest groups, big business, the political parties, the politicians, corporations, lawyers, bureaucrats, media, education and bankers. We done elect them or give them our consent yet this does not matter.

“The government forces you to abide by its rules, no matter what you do, and will fine, imprison, beat, or even kill you if you resist.”
-Jason Brennan Against democracy Princeton University Press Princeton and Oxford 2017

We have no reasonable way of opting out of government control. As Brennan points out “you cant even move to Antarctica- the governments of the world forbid you to live there.” Picking a democrat or republican is like a group of men telling an innocent women she must have sex with one of them, but she can chose witch one. Or do you wish to be shot or stabbed? We are told “no means no” but to the government our “no” means yes. The government might through education teach against your beliefs and do a poor job at that so you home school. Yet still you must pay for government to teach what you see as evil. Same with participation in democracy.

“in democracy we are not volunteers, we are conscripts, we cannot opt out, we are forced into it....governments do not merely advise us to follow their rules....they enforce their laws and rules with violence, or threats of violence.”
-Jason Brennan Against democracy Princeton University Press Princeton and Oxford 2017

No matter how you vote, the outcome is the same, the democratic mindset forces us into large groups and the individual and his desire for self government is lost. Test it, do not vote or vote every time and see if it makes any difference. It is a con to have you believe you decide your government. To quote Brennan again he writes “Democracy isent meant to empower individuals, its intended to disempower all the individuals in favor or large groups.” If a well meaning politician is elected after the people have been divided into their groups by race, religion, gender etc it is usually one section's elected who is pushing for his or her “group” interests that run counter to others. It is one big fight to coerce the rest of the citizens and mold them as they desire. Nothing could divide people more or cause more hatred anger and aggression tearing apart families and friends. As Hoppe in democracy the god that failed pints out, “ Under democracy everyone becomes a threat.” Further Politicians are not experts in their field neither do they have time to study subjects in depth and here all view points, rather lobby groups inform them. And as the Virginian John Taylor said elections simply are us choosing what master [political party] will rule over us. In the end we do not vote for ourselves, but for others as a whole or group. We simply select the lesser or two evils. Only in a decentralized system could self government ever be realized.

“The concept of an organic [self rule] society was abolished at the time of the french revolution....everything which allowed the people to protect themselves from the power of the state was crushed in the name of liberty.”
-Christophe Buffin de Chosal The end of Democracy Tomblar House 2017

A power structure of a centralized democracy can not be removed easily, where as a tyrant king [a single person] can be. Centralized governments and the modern state can turn as tyrannical as they wish and have a monopoly on force through police and the military. If a monarchy did so it would pit him against all his population who could than turn against him and in a decentralized system, such as the medieval time period, he would be hopelessness outnumbered and the people would truly rule. So today what a centralized authority declares law, it is so, with no hope of recourse no matter how tyrannical or contrary to previous laws. In the decentralized medieval system [as in antebellum America as well] laws were the authority.

democracies “has placed the state above the law – the state self-defines and self-interprets the constitution; the state has a monopoly on the adjudication of its dictates. This places the state in a position to decide what law is, and how law is applied. The only hope one has to influence this is to turn a minority into a majority. Such a concept was unknown to the mediaeval mind – each individual held a form of veto. No majority was necessary, and minority rights were fully protected – even for the minority of one.”
-Bionic Mosquito Decentralization Hidden in the dark Ages

The Barbarian said:

Voting makes him a bit afraid of not representing them. Yes, they try to Gerrymander and suppress voting so they can avoid those consequences, but so far, they've only been partially successful. We certainly do need to crack down on that kind of corruption,though.

Click to expand...

No not doing the special interest is what they are afraid of as my op showed. These people are psychopaths generally as my op showed. They are in it to maintain power.

The Barbarian said:

Because history has shown that it is less likely to be abusive than other forms of government.

Click to expand...

What a statement. We see here one clearly has accepted the winners version of history as the opposite is true. Just because your government teaches you something does not make it so.


You Shall Know Them by Their Fruits

“The worst evils which mankind has ever had to endure were inflicted by bad governments.”
-Ludwig Von Mises

“R. J. Rummel has studied the phenomenon of the state killing people within its jurisdiction. He calculates that nearly four times as many people have been killed by their own governments as have been killed in all the wars, domestic and foreign, fought around the globe in the twentieth century. Killing on this scale would not be possible without the subversion of independent social authorities caused by massive centralization. If so, the greatest threat to human life in the twentieth century has not been war but the massive centralization of power in modern states. Rummel says, its as if nuclear war occurred, and no one noticed.”
-Donald Livingston The Southern Critique of Centralization

“The “bads” of the Enlightenment are not so readily admitted by its proponents: communism, eugenics, racial purity, selective breeding, National Socialism, Fabianism, Progressivism, fascism, egalitarianism, modern democracy.”
-Daniel Ajamian the Cost of the Enlightenment


Centralized Democracies of the last century have killed more [often of its own people] and caused more evil than all the medieval Kings combined. Stalin, Hitler, Pol pot to name a few. Further they have trampled the liberties of its people and forced them using the cohesive power of the state to shape and control large sections of its populace often with death to those who would not conform to the new centralized dictates. Democracy produced communism, fascism, socialism, and social democracy [liberalism]. Think of a town mayor turning tyrannical, he will be easily resisted, a strong military and centralized democracy turns evil it will lead to mass destruction.

“The recently ended twentieth century was characterized by a level of human rights violations unparalleled in all of human history. In the book death by government, Rudolph Rummel estimates some 170 million government-caused deaths in the twentieth century. The historical evidence appears to indicate that, rather than protecting life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of their citizens, governments must be considered the greatest threat to human security.... it is states that are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions of people and immeasurable destruction of the 20th century alone. Compared to that, victims of private crimes are almost negligible.”
-Hans- Hermann Hoppe Professor Emeritus of Economics at UNLV, Distinguished Senior Fellow with the Mises Institute

“Standardization was the keynote of the French Revolution and in spite of the fact that these standardizations... the general effect upon Europe was disastrous. Nationalism, so necessary for every aggressive mass army, soon swept all over Europe and brought havoc to those parts of the Old Continent The greatest suffering was reserved not only to the national-linguistic minorities in particular but to all minorities in general. People, who in one way or the other belonged to a minority group, had to pay the penalty to the majority rule of the "general will." Whoever opposed the general will was automatically a "traitor" and severest punishment was inflicted upon him.The more "democratic" Europe became, the worse was the fate of minorities. The years 1918-1919 and 1933 heralded the darkest periods for European minorities....If the herdist spirit is strong the minorities will be automatically disliked for the mere fact that they dare to be "different." The hatred of the democratic masses for the minorities is the driving force and the cement for these "democratic" dictatorships under popular leaders ”
-Erik von Kuehnelt- Leddihn The Menace of the Herd or Procrustes at Large Bruce Publishing Company Milwaukee 1943



Warfare - Total war or Chivalry?

“the influence of the spirit of nationalism, that is of democracy, on war was profound... it emotionalized war, and consequentially, brutalized it... wars were largely the occupation of Kings, courtiers and gentlemen. Armies lived on their depots ….soilders were paid out of the kings privy purse they were too costly to be thrown away lighltey on massive attacks. The change came about with the french revolution...armies became more and more institutions of the people, not only did they grow in size but in ferocity.”
-Fuller war and Western Civilization quoted in Democracy the God that Failed

“War became total war, in large part driven by another gift of the Enlightenment, modern democracy. While Lincoln established the precedent fifty years earlier, it was finally in the Great War when war of all against all became generally accepted throughout and within Europe, an event for the nation and not merely the combatants Poison gas, air raids over civilian populations, submarines destroying ships regardless of flag or purpose, the blockade of civilian food and supplies, even peace not leading to relief.And church towers used as observation posts, leading to their destruction; painting a picture of the cost of the Enlightenment”.
-Daniel Ajamian the Cost of the Enlightenment

In a democracy war is the only means of expanding its exploitation [tax] base. Democracy brought about great instability among nations since the rise of democracy near constant wars and revolutions have occurred. Thomas Aquinas in On Kingship wrote “Provinces or cities which are not ruled by one person are torn with dissensions and tossed about without peace... On the other hand, provinces and cities which are ruled under one king enjoy peace, flourish in justice, and delight in prosperity.” Further centralization and democracy brought total war and nationalism. Wars were now fought far more frequent and were far more devastating seeking submission of the enemy and reconstruction in the winners image. Sherman, Sheridan , and Grant brought total war to the south and than reconstructed it from its decentralized republic to a centralized democracy in the image of the northern republicans. They than went to war on the Indians and expanded the empire west. WW1 and WW2 followed their paths. Today they engage in various wars around the world spreading American “democracy.” Wars are now between the entire nations as all of “we the people” are at war. Now taxes are used to build massive armies with the help of government conscription were losses are easily replaced and battles are now sought to annihilate the enemy and wear them down since the politicians money and men are not used. Soldiers are now slaves of the government forced into conscription to fight a war for their masters [elected officials] weather they agree with the war or not. Hoppe quotes Fuller in the god that failed as writing ““In 150 years conscription had led the world back to tribal barbarism.” In the feudal age nobles were expected to not just fight, but lead the armies into battle.

“Progressive nations have to bleed to death in their wars. Rulers felt that they had to be sparing with the lives of their subjects, but leaders have the marvelous excuse that they are nothing but executors of the general will.”
-Erik von Kuehnelt- Leddihn The Menace of the Herd or Procrustes at Large Bruce Publishing Company Milwaukee 1943

Solders pillage large scale, attack, steal, rape, confiscate private property on a massive scale since the introduction of democracy. Because war was now total and the “people” against another nation rather than a Kings loyal knights, the whole of the enemy becomes a target an weapons on mass destruction were sought and created such as the machine gun and bombs. In the medieval west, many saw the bow and later the long bow as immoral and cowardly. In WW2 America dropped bombs on the civilian cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killing 150,000 to 200,000 men woman and children. Some took weeks or months to die after the bombing. That these were used to save lives seems to come after the war [see Don’t Whitewash the Hiroshima Bombing By Peter Van Buren ] “Harry Truman, in his 1945 annosuncment of the bomb, focused on vengeance, and on the new power to destroy at a button push—“We are now prepared to obliterate more rapidly and completely every productive enterprise the Japanese have above ground in any city,” The Americans were the “good guys” in this war, such is the terror of total war. While in the middel ages.

“Inventors of poison gas, tanks, pursuit planes, bombers, floating mines, etc., might have run the usually decried risk of getting into trouble with the ecclesiastic authorities. They might have been possibly accused of being in league with the devil — an accusation probably not without foundation.....“Crime also profits largely by new technical inventions. One can say without exaggeration that almost every new technical invention harbors the potentiality of the most demoniacal misuse. We have to ask ourselves honestly whether the invention of the Wright brothers — made in best faith — will not bring much more sorrow than joy to mankind before this present war is over. The answer is obvious. Orville Wright was convinced that the airplane would deal a dashing blow to militarism, eliminating the element of surprise in warfare. Instead it made the enslavement of numerous countries possible and destroyed the finest historical landmarks of London. One feels definitely less sure that a few old-fashioned cardinals and higher ecclesiastics who declared in the seventeenth century that machinery may be the work of Satan, were totally incorrect.”
-Erik von Kuehnelt- Leddihn The Menace of the Herd or Procrustes at Large Bruce Publishing Company Milwaukee 1943

Democracy- the Enemy of the Church? The People?

“If men will not be governed by God, they will be ruled by tyrants.”
-William Penn

“Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them or by a power without them; either by the Word of God or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or by the bayonet.”
– Robert Winthrop, Speaker of the House U.S

“All those who by their free will or their disposition are unable to conform to the prescribed standards of equality — and there will always be such a minority... These are then usually the "traitors" who do not "play the game" and must be executed, exiled, or weeded out like the aristos under Robespierre, the burzhuys under Lenin, or the Jews under Adolf Hitler.” -Erik von Kuehnelt- Leddihn The Menace of the Herd or Procrustes at Large Bruce Publishing Company Milwaukee 1943

Democracies mold the population to their desire, those with principle/religion/tradition/customs/tribal beliefs that would not conform faced annihilation. Mao killed 78 million of his own people. Hitler 17 million and Stalin 23 million. Voltaire and the Atheistic french revolution leaders directly attacked the catholic church as its enemy. They sought to dispel Catholicism and monarchy by persecution. Some of the new democracies government actions were to Drown priests, while killing thousands of priests, nuns and bishops. 16 nuns were arrested for private prayer and guillotined than striped naked and thrown in common grave . They took church property. Closed monasteries and convents while dissolving religious orders. Took away their money through tithes. Confiscated valubels. Did away with church holidays, names of streets, towns etc. Did not allow public displayed of crosses and outdoor worship was outlawed . No visible statues or church bells could not be rung. Later only the only legal priest were those who supported the “state” that did what the state wanted and gutted Christianity and were forced to denounce the Pope. They criminalized non state clergy, the death penalty to any who harbored non state priest . Priest could not wear Priestley cloths. Tombstones were smashed that had crosses. No building could be purchased for “religious” purposes. Cults replaced Christianity. The cult of reason worshiped a statue of the goddess of reason and they met in the cathedral of Notre Dame. Street signs were renamed as were holidays based on saints. France changed from the biblical 7 day work week to a 10 day work week. Sep 1792 3 priest were drowned 200 in Paris killed. Priest and nuns executed in Lyon hundreds thrown in prison. Among the victims of the revolution in 1793 that killed tens of thousands of non conforming [nor represented] citizens were thousands of priests and nuns. When Pierre-Rene Rogues carried the Eucharist through the streets on Christmas= eve he was arrested and executed. In the three years of the anti catholic/monarchist democratic revolution victims were Guillotined, 17,000; shot at Toulon, 2000; drowned at Mantes, men, women, and children, 4,800. Then there were the murders by the mob about 10,000 were killed without trial in the province of Anjou alone.

“We have at once and for all declared war on religion and religious ideas”
-Fredrich Engels 1844

“Socialism is the natural enemy of religion... the entry of socialism is, consequential, the exodus of religion. No man can be consistantley both a socialist and a christian.... socialism, both as a philosophy and as a form of society, is the antitheses of religion.”
-Executive committee of the socialist party of Great Britain 1911

When Lenin came into power he executed priest, bishops, nuns and monks by the thousands. Closed monasteries and convents and imprisoned or shut up in labor camps and mental hospitals. In 1922 their was a concentration camp for clergy on an island in the white sea and they were executed by firing squad. 200,000 in all were killed for their faith. Throughout Russia they were crucified, mutilated, castrated, frozen alive, buried alive, burned, thrown into burning tar, scalped, strangled, drowned, and given communion with melting lead. Estimated that as many as 20 million in all were killed for their religion and monarchist opinions in Russia. 6,832 members of the Catholic clergy were murdered in the Spanish Republican Red Terror of 1936. For more detail on the horrors see “Rodney stark bearing false witness debunking centuries of anti-catholic history templton press.” Centralized government have always treated Christianity the same. Rome offered the first massive persecution but does the same as modern centralized democracies. Yet both claim to hold to diversity and acceptance. G.K Chesterton in Orthodoxy said of the pagan Roman empire “The instincts of the pagan empire would have said “you shall all be Roman citizens and grow alike” and as scholar Thomas Madden says “Romans were extremely tolerant of any kind of religion.” Any kind that will go along with Rome as the state highest authority and willing to accept various Gods.

“The Roman Empire had brought to the Mediterranean basin an unprecedented political unity... the general policy of the empire was to encourage as much uniformity as possible... in order to achieve greater unity, Imperial policy sought religious uniformity by following two routes syncrestism [the indiscriminate mixing of elements from various religions] and emperor [state] worship. Rome had a vested interest in having its subjects from different lands believe that although their Gods had different names, they were ultimate the same gods... syncretism became the fashion of the time. In that atmosphere Jews and Christians were seen as unbending fanatics who insisted on the sole worship of their God- an alien cyst that must be removed for the good of society.”
-Justo L Gonzalez the Story of Christianity Volume 1 Harper One 2010

The state won out. Government has replaced God and people look to it for welfare, education, health, money, rules, morality and anything else they desire. Catholicism and much of Christianity by force was removed from the political sphere and is now a “private” matter forced within the four walls of church buildings. A “personal belief” but not something to guide politics or to be allowed in a public setting.

“Fundamentally, the western christian church lost its attempt to control civil society. ..In justice as well as government, secular authority emerged as the arbiter, guardian and enforcer of law.. Christendom was dead...political and civil action now rested with secular states”
-Christopher Tyerman Gods war a new history of the Crusades Harvard U Press Cambridge Mass 2006

Within a democracy a short steeping stone to socialism/communism there is not enough room for two Gods. Secularism, naturalism and other atheistic philosophies sought to gain the power of the catholic church of the medieval time period and make it their own. After their success as the winners they wrote the history vilifying the medieval time period and putting themselves in a positive light. When they gained control of government they used education and other avenues to create a secular population that would desire conformity, centralization and expanded government control.

“Your enemy, if your a liberal, is the established powers of the middle ages...and that means first and foremost the monarchy, secondly the catholic church”
-Professor Thomas Madden The Modern Scholar: The Lost Warriors of God The True History of the Knights Templar

“What was a generally accepted belief in Christianity throughout the population began to dissolve in the eighteenth century.....“Wipe out the disgrace!” Voltaire said of the Roman Catholic Church. Voltaire....No more of this God of the Bible; Deism became the religion of “reasonable” men. God did create the universe, but the story of Genesis is a fable. God did set the rules – the laws of science; He has no reason to interfere thereafter. Jesus? Sure, He was a wise and good man; but out with the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection. Man-made ethics would be at the top of the pyramid; the enlightened elite were happy to comply. They would be the “superman,” establishing a “new ethos”: new standards of right and wrong, replacing Christian virtues.... western culture and society were transformed in speed and magnitude perhaps unknown in history....all intermediating institutions, especially Christianity and the Church, had been stripped of any meaningful role. Each individual was standing naked, to be molded like clay by these progressive, enlightened, “reasonable” intellectuals. Legislation would solve every problem in life. Every need and want would be met, all bestowed via government largesse...man’s liberation from all norms, traditions, and customs; nothing left to provide governance except the state – and a state happy to oblige...The state encourages and subsidizes culture-destroying behavior, as absent governance provided by custom and tradition, governance will be provided by the state. Reason Without God: As the Enlightenment freed our reason from revelation and tradition, the result should be no surprise. Just because your reason has been freed doesn’t mean that the strongman’s reason will leave you alone or that your reason will convince him. As his reason is no longer bound by anything other than his reason, it will not be your reason that governs but his. To what higher authority can you appeal? There is no authority higher than man’s reason, and the strongman’s reason has bigger guns than does your reason..This is what man has given up in the Enlightenment. We have traded Christian morality – and therefore our liberty – for the enlightened super-man’s reasonable right to decide what is moral.
-Daniel Ajamian the Cost of the Enlightenment

The Barbarian said:

No. Mob rule is the antithesis of law. Mob rule is essentially the comitatus of early feudalism.

Click to expand...

You claim to have read history yet you keep making statements the p-perfect opposite of what is true. We have mob rule today as the mob [majority] decides what laws to make and how to interpret those laws. Please exspalin how mob rule is related to feudalism. Law was the authority in the middle ages, not any mob or person.

The Barbarian said:

And we have, well... see above. I think we're done here.

Click to expand...

So what I have found happens often when I post on forums is some people google the first article they can find that tells them what they want to hear. They than post it thinking or wanting it to be true and support their narrative they desire. When they are challenged to support the claimed myths in the article [the authors could not even defend the claims] and are given sources/facts that refute those claims, they stand alone and are unsure what to do as they have supported a myth. This has just happened above on your posts.