Jerm, time for you to take a serious look at Catholicism. The Papacy is a monarchy (the Pope is a steward, Jesus is the King), the various diocese are run by Bishops who are local monarchs. We call this subsidiary. It has worked for 2,000 years.
Just don’t look into it without knowing the current church has been usurped by an anti-Pope. The Freemasons said they would accomplish this, and they have.
You should interview Patrick Coffin, if you want to know more.
Love your show and substack. My homeschoolers loved your interview with the 12 year old.
Why does Catholicism honor “St. John” as its true highest saint? Because “St. John” is the “exoteric” presentation of the pagan deity Janus for the catechumen masses passed off as “John the Baptist” or “John the Evangelist” or whatever. Janus in turn is a mask for the devil, its two heads representing the two incarnations of the prince of Tyre: the light side as Lucifer and the dark side as Satan.
Ultramontanist Catholicism = king of the north ideology
The Knights of Malta were suppressed. We honor St. John because Jesus said he was the greatest man born of woman.
If your name is real, then this requires no further explanation. There is a reason why you hate Jesus. He loves you, though. So do I.
On the Bible stuff, try reading the New Testament where the law gets fulfilled and evil things (like crosses) get turned to good. Read about the Queen of Heaven in Revelation. Mary is the mother of the King, so she is the Queen. I dare you to pray the Rosary for a week. See what happens :). You will be filled with peace, not anger.
Yeah, that's what the hid-from-the-truth catechumen believe about "St. John."
LOL not even hiding your ultramontane antisemitism, I see! Sure a nice effort of projection on your part.
Read Matthew 5 again -- Jesus's statement on the fulfillment of the law is stated as a direct negation of any notion that the law passes away in substance. And, "if you love me, keep My commandments." (Jn. 14:15)
Evil things are turned into good? Says *where*? Last I checked...
- "The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun." (Ecc. 1:9)
- "For I am the Lord, I CHANGE NOT; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed." (Mal. 3:6)
- "And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail." (Heb. 1:12)
- "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." (Heb. 13:8)
Seeing God's character does not change, your notion that "bad things become good" is unbiblical. Mary was only the earthly mother of the fleshly incarnation of the Son of God. Also, there is no "Queen of Heaven" in Revelation. The woman in Rev. 12 is the constitution of God's true believers from OT type to NT antitype -- 12:6 and 12:14 states that the woman goes into the wilderness for 1,260 days; a day in stated prophecy translates to a literal year in fulfilled reality (Num. 14:34, Ezek. 4:6), and the real Miriam the mother of Jesus died before possibly living over a millennia.
Go to any massive historical art museum and find the "Madonna and child" paintings -- that's where the origin of the Catholic concept of Mary comes from, aka the ancient Semiramis/Tammuz cult. Calling paganism Christianity doesn't make it biblical any more than calling Jolly Ranchers a serving of fruit makes it fruit.
The Rosary is of pagan origin. And "peace" is not what a Christian needs in a time of immense suffering across the world, especially in Gaza. "Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled." (Matt. 5:6)
"Woe unto you that are full! for ye shall hunger. Woe unto you that laugh now! for ye shall mourn and weep." (Lk. 6:25)
So, you are okay with the private property of Bill Gates and the other plutocrats? Thousands of years ago Isaiah condemned this version of private property (Isaiah 5:8) "Woe to you who add house to house and join field to field till no space is left and you live alone in the land." How about Klaus Schwab and his "you will own nothing and be happy?" and the unsaid part of that "because the whole planet will be privatized by the 100 or so elite families and there will be nothing but slavery for the rest." Or how about Adam Smith's observation in 1776 in "An inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations" "All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind." Discarding the search for a good oligarchic democracy for a search for a good king is futile. Both are about monopolies but the very few to enslave the many.
Wow! Anyone would think that the western form of democracy and the western form of monarchy were all that there is to choose from as systems of governance! That is so limiting!
There are many other ways to form a civilisation, some are probably yet to be formulated.
Personally, I like Muammar Gaddafi's Green Book. In the first six pages he trashes the western governing system but follows it with under one hundred pages of pure logical gold.
I wrote about the system he created in Libya here:
Of course the monarchist Black Nobs could not permit rivals and had him assassinated.... they trashed his country too but, while it lasted, Libya was a shining light of fairness and happiness.
My argument is based on the writing of Hoppe, who argues that monarchy is not a system of governance, but a natural state of order. Nobody, thousands of years ago, decided to 'form a monarchy'. It just happened organically, based on who owned property. A farmer, for example, is a monarchist, to a degree, as the farm workers who live on his land abide by his rules. Democracy, meanwhile, is an artificial form of governance and 'gets installed'. South Africa, for example, had democracy 'installed' in 1994.
Has Mr Hoppe ever heard of Nimrod? He wanted to form a monarchy and was the first to claim ownership of land. He was Noah’s great grandson and he was rebelling against God. Mind you, he wanted to rule the entire world! Megalomania like that is not a natural state of order, it is psychopathic!
Most ‘monarchs’ only achieved their status by violence, displacement of people and land theft… I don’t call that ‘just happening organically’, do you?
In my piece I specifically refer to Plato and Aristotle who argued that a kingdom is most effective up til a certain size. That said, ownership is natural order too. You have a door with a lock on your house because your home is not somebody else’s property. Similarly, a farmer doesn’t want anybody accessing his land. Whether we like it or not, order is tightly related to hierarchy and that has always occurred through conquest, for good or for bad. I’m not condoning conquest, but it is what it is.
In other words, a good monarch is happy with his kingdom and knows his community, who in turn are happy to live and work there (like a farm).
I guess there must be a ruler somehow. In all animal kingdom there’s a ruler. The key is that the ruler has the best interest of its people. If this is the case, the ruler would encourage private property and wealth, which is a matter of social justice. It’s interesting to think that there’s a critical size over which the system starts to crumble. It seems that we should go back to reasonable size kingdoms and enjoy what Mother Nature had to offer. This is impossible, sadly. Man is too greedy.
How much experience of the animal kingdom have you had?
Who is the king of the kangaroos? What about sharks? Have you observed the life of a turtle? A polar bear? A fly?
Independence is as common a life style as community, so I wonder why you would assume that we necessarily need to be locked into some sort of hierarchy. I agree with you that we can have private property and wealth but that should not mean that we are kings within our domain, more custodians, surely?
You are right. Maybe more specifically: sociable animals. I think the examples you give are not sociable animals. I’m not an expert.
I don’t see human beings living as individuals in the strictest sense of the word (if this is what you mean). This is rather the exception. The species would extinct. I’m saying that in every community there has to be a leader and this makes the rest as being ruled (by default).
In mammals, there certainly seems to be natural order and hierarchal structures, looking at lions, elephants, etc. I don’t see it as a problem if it’s natural order, not artificial order.
I agree with you that it is a natural order of things. We only have to look at our primate cousins. Very similar. Too similar for some people. Too close for comfort.
Do you think it's a good thing that leadership or monarchy is passed down to their children?
Flip flopping democracies have led to the tyranny we now see. Voting changes nothing because the government is never under the thumb of the citizen. It does what it wants. A monarchy seems a better proposition in that private property is well protected. The lunacy is that the voter thinks he has a say and he really doesn't. Will the citizens under monarchy rule have a say that may be worth much more than a useless vote? In today's digital realm, everything is lickety-split and long term is a lost concept.
The idea of a king or queen or royal blood ruling over me is not easy to accept. This is the type of rule the early US wanted to escape. I can see how smaller kingdoms of a few thousand might work fairly well. Say a kingdom consisted of 3,000 members. For a country the size of the US, that would mean over 100,000 separate kingdoms. That seems impractical since many will be ruled by tyrants and warring with each other. It's the nature of mankind.
The concept of private verses public has been the way the world has worked for centuries...going from one to the other and than back again. No system is permanent as corrupt and tyrannical individuals always wreck it. There will always be a gang of thugs that want more power, control and wealth than all the rest.
Question - should monarchs be subject to their own laws? Basically, how do we prevent despotic rulers? Or even just corrupt ones? Should people be able to criticise monarchs without fear of retribution? There have been some pretty horrid monarchs through time. Most of whom grabbed power by force and murder and wars in the first place, and then their families down the ages have held on to this power in a tyrannical manner. As a Brit I can certainly vouch for this. I'm sure places like the Philippines can also claim to know a bit about absolute rulers. I'm not saying that you aren't right. I'm sure I would have been a royalist in our own civil war. However, there has to be some way of curbing the excesses of those in power, whoever they are.
There are some good points here. Choosing one evil over another evil still puts a man or men in a position higher than other men and that has never turned out well for the masses. I always think of the studies by R.J. Rummel- https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM And a couple of other statements that seem to ring true. 1. Man was never meant to direct his own step ( so how could he possibly direct the steps of others) 2. Man has dominated man to his injury. Seems no matter what we choose as a system of man leading man is already doomed to failure for the general populous.
Interesting take. I think your most compelling point is how a democracy with elections every X years will naturally trend to politicians having short term thinking and policy. It's a fair critique.
Also, we are going to be under monarchy in the end (or perhaps the beginning?) when there are a New Heaven and New Earth - with an emphasis that Jesus is a perfect and good king (Revelation 22:1-5)
All good and well to talk about dreams and ideals, but how do we get from where we are now, to Monarchies? There's no way back. One superseded the other. Democracies drive people to more productivity, and more technological progress. And I say democracy as 'the illusion of choice'. Then, as a nation, you either have to follow the leader or be conquered. And big groups beat small groups etc.
The excuse for the failure of communism is that it "has never been implemented properly." But neither have Monarchy or Democracy. However I am willing to give Anarchy one more try because it has never been implemented properly (seriously, that's what I gravitate to). I am also going to follow up on Frances Leader's tip about Libya. She was a fascinating guest here.
Is anyone actually swayed by non-sensical election campaign advertising? Does anyone bother to question the slogans? When was America actually great? What does 'great' mean?
I guess there must be a ruler somehow. In all animal kingdom there’s a ruler. The key is that the ruler has the best interest of its people. If this is the case, the ruler would encourage private property and wealth, which is a matter of social justice. It’s interesting to think that there’s a critical size over which the system starts to crumble. It seems that we should go back to reasonable size kingdoms and enjoy what Mother Nature had to offer. This is impossible, sadly. Man is too greedy.
Wow! Conservative Catholics would agree wholeheartedly with you!
Thank you for taking down a notch this sacred cow among Americans called "democracy"!
Maybe this idea of monarchy might just catch fire among more and more people so sick of this dysfunctional if nonfunctional "democracy" (even if the US is a "constitutional republic" -- yet the Constitution is continually violated by the "democratically elected" pols who do nothing but interfere with the lives of the people).
Am all for being left alone to live our lives. Agree that the continual changing of government (supposedly) is only destabilizing here.
This may not please Americans steeped in worship of "democracy," but do listen to George Galloway here, talking about "voting" in "western democracies" vs. voting in China: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEZGiBmDLRQ
Jerm, time for you to take a serious look at Catholicism. The Papacy is a monarchy (the Pope is a steward, Jesus is the King), the various diocese are run by Bishops who are local monarchs. We call this subsidiary. It has worked for 2,000 years.
Just don’t look into it without knowing the current church has been usurped by an anti-Pope. The Freemasons said they would accomplish this, and they have.
You should interview Patrick Coffin, if you want to know more.
Love your show and substack. My homeschoolers loved your interview with the 12 year old.
Freemasonry comes from the same strain of neo-Templarite romanticism as the ultramontane Jesuit Order and is a “backdoor” gateway to the high esoteric/occult secrets of Catholicism. Not to mention that the Knights of Malta have proven Satanic Freemasonic links: https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1989/eirv16n08-19890217/eirv16n08-19890217_058-knights_of_malta_launch_a_crusad.pdf
Why does Catholicism honor “St. John” as its true highest saint? Because “St. John” is the “exoteric” presentation of the pagan deity Janus for the catechumen masses passed off as “John the Baptist” or “John the Evangelist” or whatever. Janus in turn is a mask for the devil, its two heads representing the two incarnations of the prince of Tyre: the light side as Lucifer and the dark side as Satan.
Ultramontanist Catholicism = king of the north ideology
Also: guess what the Bible says about your “queen of heaven” Mary Isis: https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=queen+of+heaven&version=KJV
The Knights of Malta were suppressed. We honor St. John because Jesus said he was the greatest man born of woman.
If your name is real, then this requires no further explanation. There is a reason why you hate Jesus. He loves you, though. So do I.
On the Bible stuff, try reading the New Testament where the law gets fulfilled and evil things (like crosses) get turned to good. Read about the Queen of Heaven in Revelation. Mary is the mother of the King, so she is the Queen. I dare you to pray the Rosary for a week. See what happens :). You will be filled with peace, not anger.
Yeah, that's what the hid-from-the-truth catechumen believe about "St. John."
LOL not even hiding your ultramontane antisemitism, I see! Sure a nice effort of projection on your part.
Read Matthew 5 again -- Jesus's statement on the fulfillment of the law is stated as a direct negation of any notion that the law passes away in substance. And, "if you love me, keep My commandments." (Jn. 14:15)
Evil things are turned into good? Says *where*? Last I checked...
- "The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun." (Ecc. 1:9)
- "For I am the Lord, I CHANGE NOT; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed." (Mal. 3:6)
- "And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail." (Heb. 1:12)
- "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." (Heb. 13:8)
Seeing God's character does not change, your notion that "bad things become good" is unbiblical. Mary was only the earthly mother of the fleshly incarnation of the Son of God. Also, there is no "Queen of Heaven" in Revelation. The woman in Rev. 12 is the constitution of God's true believers from OT type to NT antitype -- 12:6 and 12:14 states that the woman goes into the wilderness for 1,260 days; a day in stated prophecy translates to a literal year in fulfilled reality (Num. 14:34, Ezek. 4:6), and the real Miriam the mother of Jesus died before possibly living over a millennia.
Go to any massive historical art museum and find the "Madonna and child" paintings -- that's where the origin of the Catholic concept of Mary comes from, aka the ancient Semiramis/Tammuz cult. Calling paganism Christianity doesn't make it biblical any more than calling Jolly Ranchers a serving of fruit makes it fruit.
The Rosary is of pagan origin. And "peace" is not what a Christian needs in a time of immense suffering across the world, especially in Gaza. "Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled." (Matt. 5:6)
"Woe unto you that are full! for ye shall hunger. Woe unto you that laugh now! for ye shall mourn and weep." (Lk. 6:25)
So, you are okay with the private property of Bill Gates and the other plutocrats? Thousands of years ago Isaiah condemned this version of private property (Isaiah 5:8) "Woe to you who add house to house and join field to field till no space is left and you live alone in the land." How about Klaus Schwab and his "you will own nothing and be happy?" and the unsaid part of that "because the whole planet will be privatized by the 100 or so elite families and there will be nothing but slavery for the rest." Or how about Adam Smith's observation in 1776 in "An inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations" "All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind." Discarding the search for a good oligarchic democracy for a search for a good king is futile. Both are about monopolies but the very few to enslave the many.
"So, you are okay with the private property of Bill Gates and the other plutocrats?"
No, and that has nothing to do with my Substack. How did you even arrive at that?
Conversely, are you opposed to owning your own property?
Wow! Anyone would think that the western form of democracy and the western form of monarchy were all that there is to choose from as systems of governance! That is so limiting!
There are many other ways to form a civilisation, some are probably yet to be formulated.
Personally, I like Muammar Gaddafi's Green Book. In the first six pages he trashes the western governing system but follows it with under one hundred pages of pure logical gold.
I wrote about the system he created in Libya here:
https://francesleader.substack.com/p/immoral-free-world
Of course the monarchist Black Nobs could not permit rivals and had him assassinated.... they trashed his country too but, while it lasted, Libya was a shining light of fairness and happiness.
My argument is based on the writing of Hoppe, who argues that monarchy is not a system of governance, but a natural state of order. Nobody, thousands of years ago, decided to 'form a monarchy'. It just happened organically, based on who owned property. A farmer, for example, is a monarchist, to a degree, as the farm workers who live on his land abide by his rules. Democracy, meanwhile, is an artificial form of governance and 'gets installed'. South Africa, for example, had democracy 'installed' in 1994.
Has Mr Hoppe ever heard of Nimrod? He wanted to form a monarchy and was the first to claim ownership of land. He was Noah’s great grandson and he was rebelling against God. Mind you, he wanted to rule the entire world! Megalomania like that is not a natural state of order, it is psychopathic!
Most ‘monarchs’ only achieved their status by violence, displacement of people and land theft… I don’t call that ‘just happening organically’, do you?
In my piece I specifically refer to Plato and Aristotle who argued that a kingdom is most effective up til a certain size. That said, ownership is natural order too. You have a door with a lock on your house because your home is not somebody else’s property. Similarly, a farmer doesn’t want anybody accessing his land. Whether we like it or not, order is tightly related to hierarchy and that has always occurred through conquest, for good or for bad. I’m not condoning conquest, but it is what it is.
In other words, a good monarch is happy with his kingdom and knows his community, who in turn are happy to live and work there (like a farm).
Interesting argument for monarchy.
I guess there must be a ruler somehow. In all animal kingdom there’s a ruler. The key is that the ruler has the best interest of its people. If this is the case, the ruler would encourage private property and wealth, which is a matter of social justice. It’s interesting to think that there’s a critical size over which the system starts to crumble. It seems that we should go back to reasonable size kingdoms and enjoy what Mother Nature had to offer. This is impossible, sadly. Man is too greedy.
"In all animal kingdom there’s a ruler."??
How much experience of the animal kingdom have you had?
Who is the king of the kangaroos? What about sharks? Have you observed the life of a turtle? A polar bear? A fly?
Independence is as common a life style as community, so I wonder why you would assume that we necessarily need to be locked into some sort of hierarchy. I agree with you that we can have private property and wealth but that should not mean that we are kings within our domain, more custodians, surely?
You are right. Maybe more specifically: sociable animals. I think the examples you give are not sociable animals. I’m not an expert.
I don’t see human beings living as individuals in the strictest sense of the word (if this is what you mean). This is rather the exception. The species would extinct. I’m saying that in every community there has to be a leader and this makes the rest as being ruled (by default).
In mammals, there certainly seems to be natural order and hierarchal structures, looking at lions, elephants, etc. I don’t see it as a problem if it’s natural order, not artificial order.
I think the problem is in finding a good monarch!
I agree with you that it is a natural order of things. We only have to look at our primate cousins. Very similar. Too similar for some people. Too close for comfort.
Do you think it's a good thing that leadership or monarchy is passed down to their children?
Flip flopping democracies have led to the tyranny we now see. Voting changes nothing because the government is never under the thumb of the citizen. It does what it wants. A monarchy seems a better proposition in that private property is well protected. The lunacy is that the voter thinks he has a say and he really doesn't. Will the citizens under monarchy rule have a say that may be worth much more than a useless vote? In today's digital realm, everything is lickety-split and long term is a lost concept.
The idea of a king or queen or royal blood ruling over me is not easy to accept. This is the type of rule the early US wanted to escape. I can see how smaller kingdoms of a few thousand might work fairly well. Say a kingdom consisted of 3,000 members. For a country the size of the US, that would mean over 100,000 separate kingdoms. That seems impractical since many will be ruled by tyrants and warring with each other. It's the nature of mankind.
The concept of private verses public has been the way the world has worked for centuries...going from one to the other and than back again. No system is permanent as corrupt and tyrannical individuals always wreck it. There will always be a gang of thugs that want more power, control and wealth than all the rest.
Very interesting. Thank you for posting this.
Question - should monarchs be subject to their own laws? Basically, how do we prevent despotic rulers? Or even just corrupt ones? Should people be able to criticise monarchs without fear of retribution? There have been some pretty horrid monarchs through time. Most of whom grabbed power by force and murder and wars in the first place, and then their families down the ages have held on to this power in a tyrannical manner. As a Brit I can certainly vouch for this. I'm sure places like the Philippines can also claim to know a bit about absolute rulers. I'm not saying that you aren't right. I'm sure I would have been a royalist in our own civil war. However, there has to be some way of curbing the excesses of those in power, whoever they are.
There are some good points here. Choosing one evil over another evil still puts a man or men in a position higher than other men and that has never turned out well for the masses. I always think of the studies by R.J. Rummel- https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM And a couple of other statements that seem to ring true. 1. Man was never meant to direct his own step ( so how could he possibly direct the steps of others) 2. Man has dominated man to his injury. Seems no matter what we choose as a system of man leading man is already doomed to failure for the general populous.
Interesting take. I think your most compelling point is how a democracy with elections every X years will naturally trend to politicians having short term thinking and policy. It's a fair critique.
Also, we are going to be under monarchy in the end (or perhaps the beginning?) when there are a New Heaven and New Earth - with an emphasis that Jesus is a perfect and good king (Revelation 22:1-5)
All good and well to talk about dreams and ideals, but how do we get from where we are now, to Monarchies? There's no way back. One superseded the other. Democracies drive people to more productivity, and more technological progress. And I say democracy as 'the illusion of choice'. Then, as a nation, you either have to follow the leader or be conquered. And big groups beat small groups etc.
The excuse for the failure of communism is that it "has never been implemented properly." But neither have Monarchy or Democracy. However I am willing to give Anarchy one more try because it has never been implemented properly (seriously, that's what I gravitate to). I am also going to follow up on Frances Leader's tip about Libya. She was a fascinating guest here.
Is anyone actually swayed by non-sensical election campaign advertising? Does anyone bother to question the slogans? When was America actually great? What does 'great' mean?
Size matters. Both would work for a village. Both fail on a grander scale.
I did say that too.
I am just trying to move my King one space at a time and you've already taken my Queen and a Bishop. Quite a thought provoking article, thanks Jerm.
Democracy is just voting for a Monarch.
Which is why monarchy is superior. It skips all the foreplay and gets straight to business.
Interesting argument for monarchy.
I guess there must be a ruler somehow. In all animal kingdom there’s a ruler. The key is that the ruler has the best interest of its people. If this is the case, the ruler would encourage private property and wealth, which is a matter of social justice. It’s interesting to think that there’s a critical size over which the system starts to crumble. It seems that we should go back to reasonable size kingdoms and enjoy what Mother Nature had to offer. This is impossible, sadly. Man is too greedy.
https://odysee.com/@lancewdetrick:b/IA---Statism---The-Most-Dangerous-Religion-(feat.-Larken-Rose):8
Choose not to be ruled.
I literally said this in the start of the Substack. And I’ve interviewed Larken.
I move we elect a new king.
We just did. His Royal Majesty King Donald. He's from the Royal Borough of Queens NYC.
Wow! Conservative Catholics would agree wholeheartedly with you!
Thank you for taking down a notch this sacred cow among Americans called "democracy"!
Maybe this idea of monarchy might just catch fire among more and more people so sick of this dysfunctional if nonfunctional "democracy" (even if the US is a "constitutional republic" -- yet the Constitution is continually violated by the "democratically elected" pols who do nothing but interfere with the lives of the people).
Am all for being left alone to live our lives. Agree that the continual changing of government (supposedly) is only destabilizing here.
This may not please Americans steeped in worship of "democracy," but do listen to George Galloway here, talking about "voting" in "western democracies" vs. voting in China: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEZGiBmDLRQ