If you find yourself being catcalled on Castro street, side-stepping needles and sniffing human excrement? Be troubled. For you are in San Francisco, and you're surrounded by cucks!
If you find yourself alone driving down Maple Street with the the smell of urine and feces stinging your nostrils, do not be troubled, for you are on Skid Row and your already Garcettied.
I always fall asleep right after he is captured after returning home to find his wife and son were brutally tortured and murdered at Jaquin's orders. The music...
Eh. It’s the least worst option, it’s great when it works. And is the least likely to result in a shit feast. But like an old building sometimes it can’t be fixed and needs to be torn down and rebuilt.
We MUST have term limits for this to work. I also think we need to ban multinational corporations from donating to politicians as that’s a conflict of interest and the reason our jobs disappeared. We also need to enact something like the cursus honorum they had in Rome where if you have a government position you can only serve in the role you’re in for a set amount of time— if you don’t have the right stuff to get promoted, you’re out. That combined with an easier recall system to remove Bureaucrats that aren’t performing well for their constituents (building code inspectors, that sort of thing) would solve many issues.
A very true saying although not all lions are nice. Look at the Stalin, the Kim’s or the Ayatollahs for example. Lions ruling sheep sounds great till you find yourself in a furry white coat...
Not denying ours is fucked and in need of an enlightened dictator to fix it. Just pointing out you gotta be careful and that democracy when working is the least likely to get you killed.
I'm fine with rolling it back a little. There are too many enfranchised illiterate dishonest morons in our society. Maybe limit voting to landowners, or business owners.
If we were to have a dictator I'd expect and hope him to be more of a Cincinnatus than a Julius.
I honestly believe our rise of cities and industrial everything has made everyone lazy, physically,intellectually and spiritually. I don't think its coincidence but rather a product. Almost everyone 100+ years ago knew how to raise crops and livestock. This seems moot to most people but being self sufficient changes your whole perception of reality.
I have been thinking about that for the last year and came to the same conclusion. This was a problem even before the industrial revolution - back when America was founded, hence the electoral college. Jefferson hated cities and if he had his way every state would have gotten 1 elector, period.
So in my opinion we should come up with some system that lowers representation of cities. Like electoral colleges within the states. Or gerrymandering that slices cities up like a pie and combines each district with a large rural district outside the city. Basically your level of electoral power should be inversely proportional to the population density where you live. (the opposite of how it is now where big cities control the whole state) But I haven't worked out anything beyond that.
Your pie idea is really interesting! I’ve been thinking about this lately too, and I wonder if forcing cities to become their own states by way of rural secession would work (it would be easiest to do when the city already lies near the coast or state border.)
For instance, I live in Pa and Philly really messes everything up. Well they’ll never split with Pa on their own because they’re not the ones being screwed over while paying exorbitant taxes to dictator Wolf. It would be imperative on the rest of the state to say enough is enough.
I’m not sure how the electoral vote issue would work in this idea- maybe split the original vote total between the new states?
I just feel like if Democrats want to eventually add states anyway, then we may as well beat them to it and create new conservative states with strict state constitutions that would shut down leftist policies leaking in (like build universal concealed carry into the state constitution so it’s much more difficult for someone to eventually try to impose gun control).
Almost everyone 100+ years ago knew how to raise crops and livestock.
"Modernity" takes many forms--and always has--but writ large I might describe it as vertical systematic complexity, with each higher tier of technological ascendency relying on that below, and participants on said higher levels being, as a function of human intellectual limitations, incapable of participating in any tier but their own.
That's a exceptionally windbag way of saying, that's not true. 100, 1000, and even 10,000 years ago there were plenty of people specializing. Whether you were the Animal Skin Guy, the Marble Carving Guy, or the Industrial Machine Guy, you were not self-sufficient.
That said, you point as a trend stands. While there may certainly have been those living in Rome that wouldn't know which part of a plow went in which part of a field, people today take dependency--on many things, but overall on a world in which they are utterly insulated from scarcity or the deprivations of war--to a whole new level.
Keep in mind that Julius was a true "man of the people", a nationalist and populist in the truest sense. He was always working towards returning Rome to its republican roots but was constantly thwarted by the roman elite, and of course ultimately destroyed by them. The roman elite were analogous to our current elitist class, swamp-dweller types.
Meh. I like some aspects of Caesar (and one of my favorite historical figures) but he was also corrupt, a dictator, and funded a ton of ridiculous politicians. You can't take the good without the bad. You say he thwarted the Roman elite but all he did was put himself and his friends at the top. He didn't give power to the people but just consolidated it.
Brilliant commander though. If it wasn't for him and his right-hand man, Lepidus, Rome would've easily taken another 100+ years to conquer Gaul.
Believe Ceasar passed many reforms that benefitted the people. From my memory, and I hadn't had my covfefe yet, I believe Ceasar was closer to "a man of the people" than not.
We can get the Republic back on an even keel once the crisis is over.
Trump would actually step down, if he had succeeded in purging the globalist traitors.
Just one year, with him actually in total control of the government, would see the complete fulfillment of his agenda.
So doing nothing and letting dem governors act like faggot dictators in perpetuity is a winning strategy how? Should Lincoln have let Dem governors secede and break up the country? Should Eisenhower have let dem governors enforce segregation and allow dems and their Klan footsoldiers the right to terrorize US Citizens? During a coup and a fraudulent election counter measures will not be sunshine and genial back and forth. And frankly if faced with a Nationalist Right wing dictatorship or an Internationalist Left wing one I'll choose the former.
Bro they are joking and you are getting your panties in a bunch which is making them fuck with you more. You got to learn the inside jokes/ vernacular around here.
It should be pretty evident at this point that plenty of well-informed people, rather than tripping over their own rank hypocrisy in cheering alea iacta est as you assume at a glance, may in fact be keenly aware that most of the historical Roman dictators were appointed in times of crisis, to save the Roman Republic, though their reputations have been smeared over the ages by a societal elite fearful of any check on their power, and further, that our Republic is in dire need of aggressive reform which the recent few weeks should have already shown is virtually impossible to achieve via systematic means.
I see you're already embroiled in several other debates in which you've been called out on your own hypocrisy vis-a-vis Honest Habeas Corpus Abe, so I'll leave you to it!
Well the thing is dictatorship is a matter of perspective historically. There's benevolent and malevolent dictators. A fine line for sure but depends which side of the spear you're on.
Very true; I probably would have been a loyalist back then, as I would have supported my King, especially since it wasn't really King George III that was screwing over the colonists, but rather the (ironically elected) Parliament of Great Britain. And ironically, the King actually used his reserve powers to push Parliament to back off and used royal edicts to try and quell the sentiment, but it was too little, too late.
The whole move to Canada thing though--ugh, too cold. Maybe I would have moved to the Bahamas LOL.
I am definitely still a loyalist, though, in 2020--absolutely loyal to His Excellency* Donald Trump, President of the United States of America.
(* His actual legal title; Mr. President being for use inside the US).
Think about it this way: We never had a republic. Kennedy stole the election from Nixon in 1960. Tammany hall was a giant corruption machine from the 1840s to the 1930s. The election of 1876 was decided in backroom deals. The election of 1826 was stolen from our President's favorite President: Andrew Jackson. I would honestly be surprised if we had a single fair election other than President Washington.
The only difference between our power now and having a monarchy under King Donald, is that our unelected leader has our best interests at heart and has full authority to do what he needs to do.
Not a king, but a dictator. An office given absolute power for a prescribed period of time in order to guide the Republic through periods of existential threats.
Trumps too old to get it all done in the years he has left. He’d need someone good to come in after and finish the job. Augustus was able cleanse the empire because he ruled for so long that by the time he croaked few could remember what it was like before him. That momentum is what allowed him to permanently change the game and allow his (either crappy or meh) successors to keep power for decades after his death.
Bit of a non-sequitur as there is no way Barrack Obama would be King in a Trump dynasty... Unless you happen to have Barry's real birth certificate and his birth name was actually Barrack Trump.
Ahhh, so you’re just advocating for monarchies without having any idea how they actually work, or any grasp of their history. And if you like American principles, how do you square that up against the wanting the form of government we were founded by opposing? I swear, some of the people in here are about as clueless and hypocritical as the average Leftist.
Thank you!! This is why political ideas like a philosopher king fail. Humans die (or are killed). You can't have a king without knowing you're going to, sooner or later, get 1 that royally fucks everything up. And then another. And another.
Rather take my chances on Trump and Junior than continue our current system.
If you haven't noticed, we are one stolen election away from complete medical tyranny and technocracy. I really don't know wtf people like you are looking at. What are you gonna do if they steal this election? Blatantly and in your face? Are we gonna rEd WaVe 2022? Lol, if they allow us.
Honestly, what country are some of yall living in? The constitution is already shredded. They've limited your freedoms and enslaved your children and your children's children with debt. They're replacing the population. They don't investigate or arrest their own.
This moral grandstanding is nauseous. If December 5th, 2020 is what the US constitution gets us, it's an unquestioned failure. By almost every metric.
Yall asking me to pretend we're in a legit republic is the same as people telling me to wear a mask. It's make believe. Do your representatives represent you? Mine sure as hell don't, and I live in a red state with republican representatives. Just keep pretend voting for red and everything will be fine, even if they steal the election. Low IQ take.
You didn't understand my point. Okay, you flip the system into a dictatorial one. And then Trump dies, as every human does. And then what?? Okay, Trump Jr. And then after him??
Consolidation of power is fine so long as you have a leader like Alexander the Great.
It's crazy how fast people here forget what we've been saying to the left, "ya you increase your power now but wait until the other side wields the hammer".
You're advocating for an entire change of the system? Why?? You can do a reset. You mistake me saying philosopher king, monarchy, etc. are bad systems as "just keep the current status quo" and that, sir, is a low IQ take. I agree that the current system is broken. But like you said, we're not living in a constitutional republic anymore. Most civil wars throughout all of human history have enacted resets, not revolutions.
I know what the reply is going to be too. "Well if it's failed, we need to switch."... as if the other systems have never failed. As if you can achieve some utopian fix if you just roll the die enough times...
Technically the republic didn’t die. It was greatly changed. Octavian didn’t create a single title of emperor. He had a slew of political, religious, military, and honorific titles (Augustus being one of them) that gave him sole power in Rome. The senate continued on under the emperor although it gradually lost influence. Especially during the crisis of the third century, where barracks emperors and their armies were the true power. Diocletian turned the empire into an official military autocracy. In fact the senate would outlast the western emperors by over a century.
Even long after Rome had become an autocratic empire, the citizens of Rome continued to believe that they lived in a republic. If you had asked them what their government is they would have told you that it was a republic with no king.
Fun Fact: Allegedly during the Battle of Abritus in 251 Emperor Decius’s son, Herennius Etruscus, was killed, and upon hearing of it Decius said, “Let no one mourn. The death of one soldier is not a great loss to the Republic.”
I would go as far as to claim that the Roman Empire was NOT a monarchy at all, or at least it wasn’t at first.
I would argue that from 27 BC to AD 284, the Roman Empire was Family-Military Dictatorship.
This system combines a Military Dictatorship with a Family Dictatorship.
In this system, the state is under the complete control of the military whose leader holds absolute power with said leadership being decided by familial relation to the current leader.
It wasn’t until Diocletian came to power It wasn’t until Diocletian came to power in 284 that Rome became a true Monarchy, and it wasn’t until Constantine the Great unified the country in 324 that the Monarchy became Hereditary.
If you want a modern example of this look up the Somoza Dynasty of Nicaragua. They ruled that nation from 1936 to 1979.
Yup. At first it was the principate, where the senate still had some power and influence. It was the republic but with the princeps at the helm with a hell of a lot of power. It was a very much a benevolent dictatorship.
Then Diocletian turned it into a true military autocracy in the form of the dominate. Although I wouldn’t argue that it was Constantine that made it hereditary, dynasties had been a thing since the beginning.
I would say the Principate were a “Republic in name Only” but they were de facto dictators. The most use the senate had during the principate was providing legitimacy to the Imperator.
It was Diocletian that created the “Dominate” in which he was the divinely ordained absolute ruler of Rome. He created what we would call today an absolute monarchy, but it was one in which succession was determined by appointment not by blood.
This changed with Constantine who took the principle of the dominate and made succession de facto hereditary rather than by appointment.
Constantine’s dynasty was, after all, the first imperial dynasty of the Dominate.
Yup. At first it was the principate, where the senate still had some power and influence. It was the republic but with the princeps at the helm with a hell of a lot of power. It was a very much a benevolent dictatorship.
How so? Octavian wasn't challenged on anything, and made Caesar a god (and therefore, he was the (adopted) son of one).
and it wasn’t until Constantine the Great unified the country in 324 that the Monarchy became Hereditary.
Just because the control of it switches from different Houses doesn't mean it wasn't an empire with a monarch.
There are many Houses that have been in charge of the British crown. Same with the Chinese dynasties. Power swaps don't fundamentally change the nature of the government.
The Republic died with Octavian beating Antony at Actium. Pure consolidation of power is not a republic anymore. Yes, the senate still existed. But who cares, it was entirely toothless. That's like saying Napoleon wasn't an emperor because he kept around the French parliament... they got to decide nothing.
They were generals that were declared emperor (some successfully and others not so much) by their soldiers during the crisis of the third century. From the death of Alexander Severus to the rise of Diocletian (himself a barracks emperor) there were like 60 legitimate and illegitimate emperors.
Augustus held many titles such as princeps (his main title and where we get prince from) and imperator (basically general, where we get emperor from) as well as consular authority wherever he was. He created the principate.
Diocletian ended the time when the senate had power with his reforms a and reformed the empire into the dominate where it was a true miltary autocracy.
there were like 60 legitimate and illegitimate emperors.
Can't remember if this was the period where 1 of them just bought the emperorship from the Praetorians or if that was 1 during the Year of the Five Emperors.
No problem, the crisis isn’t often talked about in school. For me (iirc, it’s been about 6 years) once we got past the five good emperor the rest just gets glossed over with only Constantine and a few others being brought up before the fall...of the west, they never talk about the very successful east.
The sixty includes a lot of men who claimed to be emperor but are not recognized as true emperors and are instead labeled as usurpers. But it was like 50-60 in fifty years.
Rome died in 1453. Romes cultural peak was Christian Constantinople in my opinion. Although it did not produce nearly as many legendary names as the Western half. Trump talks a lot about momentum. When you keep the momentum, great things can happen. When you lose it, things start to decline. It amazes me just how long the Romans held out in the east, despite them having lost their momentum after the fall of the West and Justinians reconquering efforts. Anyway, I hope Trump is more like a succesfull Pompeius who restores the republic rather than a Caesar who establishes a dictatorship. The Trump political dynasty can be the peoples dynasty. But democracy should be restored and trusted, because you don't want Nero Trump to rule the land in the future.
That is the problem with all forms of government as our current situation has demonstrated. Every leader save Trump since 1990 has been malevolent and I can name countless more tyrant Presidents.
"Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes exhausts and murders itself. There never was a Democracy Yet, that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to Say that Democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious or less avaricious than Aristocracy or Monarchy. It is not true in Fact and no where appears in history." - President John Adams
Monarchies get a bad rap in the USA but Jesus Christ, historically democracies have been awful. The USA is supposed to be a Constitutional Republic anyway, not a democracy. As a Brit Monarchist, I wish we’d just return to absolutism. I’m tired of corrupt politicians, as everyone is across the world.
Haha, thanks pede, you too. In terms of ideology, divine right of Kings etc, I’m absolutely a Jacobite. Although I do agree to an extent that the ‘Glorious Revolution’ was necessary. American Monarchism has always intrigued me, what kind of system would you like to see, under King Donald I of course 😉.
Non centralized absolutism. While I can appreciate the ideas behind the Magna-Carta it had the unfortunate effect of undermining monarchism by changing the legitimacy of government away from Divine Right. Divine Right is inseparable from Monarchy because it explains why the hierarchy exists in the first place. A monarchist site that I frequent explained is thusly:
When it is said that the kings have descended from the divine, it means that they are the continuation of the best in our people, which is closest to the divine because such people have the best understanding of reality, the highest moral standards, and will advance civilization by not merely reacting to conditions but by imposing a creative focus to their leadership by which they not only do what is practical, but improve the quality of what exists so that it rises above what we previously thought was possible.
To hominids gathering beetles, roots and bush meat it must have been inconceivable that something like imperial Rome or pre-democracy Athens might exist. In the same way, to modern people it seems impossible that life can be anything more than gathering jobs, consumer products and triplicate forms. But it is possible to rise above and then keep on rising.
For that reason, traditional societies saw their aristocrats as a gift from God. These were people blessed with not just intellectual power, but moral goodness, and within that, the aesthetic preference for beauty, truth, sanity and excellence. These people alone can make a great society.
At the same time, power needs to be kept local. Your town's local lord knows what is best for the town than the King located on the other side of the continent even though the King knows what is best for the nation as a whole.
Wouldn’t you say it’s become one in all but name only? Constitutional safeguards such as state legislators sending electors seem to have been abandoned in favour of just going for whoever (supposedly) wins the popular vote in the state, regardless of the potential damage to the constitution. You are an American though so you’d know more than me on your own system lol
It is in vain to Say that Democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious or less avaricious than Aristocracy or Monarchy. It is not true in Fact and no where appears in history."
Correct, and this was Milton Friedman's point about communism. People act as if our society is exclusively greedy. You're not killing or starving millions of your own people without some greed.
he would return the presidency to normal four year terms after he fixes our country>
There’s something called precedent, which is why George Washington refused kingship when it was offered to him. Nobody would ever be able to return the presidency to normal after such a step. The phrase ‘crossing the Rubicon’ means going beyond the point of no return.
Rome encountered this issue many times but it did inevitably solve it in the Eastern Empire by allowing people to adopt someone and declare them their successor if they lacked a son or daughter that was not up to the task in their opinion. As such they could groom anyone they wanted to be their successor, not just their children.
That empire lasted until the 1400s, only falling because it was crippled by the 4th crusade, and only failing to retake the west because of the Justinian Plagued that lasted for several hundred years. Once the plague was over, Rome had the Muslims to deal with, and as I said above, were eventually backstabbed in the 4th crusade.
The plague was half the reason why he couldn’t retake Italy. Justinian needed to send more troops, plus some blunders gave the Ostrogoths the will to launch a counter attack. They could’ve easily retaken Italy and Illyria before the plague hit.
There was also the issue of that major volcanic eruption that shifted the climate in Europe for several hundred years making it harder to grow crops. (Which I hypothesize also gave rise to the Nobility hunting games in Europe)
Some believe that a lot of apocalypse stories, particularly Norse Fimbulwinter is actually based on that event.
I’ve heard of that too but the more immediate causes where Belisarius’ lack of troops+mundus losing a battle and dying after his sons died in a victorious battle. This allowed the goths to reorganize and retake most of Italy. Then the plague hit. Which screwed everything up even more. This caused the war to last 20 years and ruined Italy for about 500+ years.
4 th Crusade is an eternal stain on Christendom. However the Battle of Manzikert set the decline and fall in motion. Emperor Romanus Diogenes went to fight Alp Arslan, a Seljuk, and was abandoned in the thick of fighting by generals loyal to members of the Court and Anatolian Military Aristocracy. Think Bureaucracy and Military Intelligence abandoning their Commander in Chief to their most hated foe. He had tried to curb the Court's influence and introduce reform to help the small land owning class (bulk of troops, food, taxes) against the wealthy military Aristocracy. From there Central Turkey (manpower, taxes, food) was lost and not even the Comnenus revival could save it.
Trump declares himself Temporary Supreme Leader of America while at the same time stepping down from the office of President and allowing Pence to take the position.
Once the Corruption has been flushed away, or when his term would have expired on January 20, 2025, he can abolish his temporary position and outlaw it to make sure that no one else follows in his footsteps
In this way the office of president remains untouched and can take up its normal duties once Trump is finished.
Wha??? I can name you 2 in just the 1st dynasty alone, Caligula and Nero. After Nero there were another 3 in just 1 year. Then you have the entire crisis before Diocletian...
Read about the frequent atrocities and abuses committed by many Roman emperors. You really want to embrace a system that consolidates power in one individual?
In addition to what u/Jarlason10 wrote, I wouldn't trust the history books on that one. Not only have the negative parts of their rule been greatly exaggerated by their rivals, but that negativity has also been exaggerated by our post French Revolution zeitgeist.
To put another way: You know how the left lies about Republicans and makes us out to be the ultimate villains? They have been lying about classical conservatives (monarchists) for even longer.
The Plymouth Council for New England sponsored several colonization projects, eventually establishing the permanent Plymouth Colony in 1620 which was settled by English Puritan separatists, known as the Pilgrims.[3] The Dutch, Swedish, and French also established successful American colonies at roughly the same time but most of these eventually fell under the rule of the British Crown.[4]
In 1765, many Americans, known to day as the Patriots, grew upset with what they saw as overreach by the British Government. This started the Revolutionary War. They listed their grievances in the Declaration of Independence. Essentially, many colonists believed that since they were not directly represented in Parliament, many laws passed by Parliament, and specifically tax related laws such as the Sugar Act and the Stamp Act, were illegal according to the Bill of Rights 1689, and were a denial of their rights as Englishmen.[5][6] They adopted the phrase "no taxation without representation" as an unofficial motto. The revolutionary war officially ended in 1783 with the signing of the Treaty of Paris. This marked the official end of monarchy in the United States with George III of the United Kingdom being the last monarch.[7][8]
According to legend, George Washington, First President of the United States, was offered the position of "King of the United States," but turned it down in favor of a Republican government.[9]
If they were so in favor of monarchy, why didn't they enact one when they had the chance?
Wikipedia is a leftist source as articles like these show. If you wouldn't trust what they have to say about you Modern Conservatives do not trust what they have to say on anything about Classical Conservatives (Monarchists). The left have been lying about us since 1789. Only difference is that most of my camp gave up fighting long ago to try and work within the system of democracy to keep the values of monarchism (Realist Philosophy) alive (these people would be the old school American conservatives such as the Federalist Party and especially the Know-Nothing Party) while you all are still fighting. It hasn't worked out well for us obviously considering the most conservative party now is the GOP, but this thread has shown the rising amount of people who want to go back to the time and tested way of doing things. Amazing white-pill!
If they were so in favor of monarchy, why didn't they enact one when they had the chance?
They saw democracy as inevitable. The values of the Enlightenment that swept Europe changed the focus of living from working within the natural order to create the good and beautiful (what the Greeks called Arete) to man as the center of all things (what the Greeks called Hubris). That change in values destroyed the legitimacy of divine right which is essential to monarchism. So it was decided that since democracy was inevitable that the best course of action was to pre-empt a French like reign of terror in a generation or two by creating a democracy; but severely hamstringing it to limit the damage that it could do. This is the reason for all the checks and balance in our government, the reason we use the electoral college rather than a popular vote, and the reason we have a bill of rights. This is also why suffrage was originally given to only the landed men (a proto-aristocracy). It was a valiant effort on part of the Founding Fathers to halt the rising tide of leftism, but all it did was slow our decent into leftist rule rather than avoid it.
If you are interested in a good redpill on the Founding Fathers, then check out Dr. Nelsons The Royalist Revolution. No online PDF, but since it is the Christmas season all the online retailers like Amazon are offering free returns until January. If you can read 240 so pages by month's end, its a great study on the part of our history that the left has managed to hide. Everything is immaculately sourced using contemporary documents as well. The bibliography in the back of the book can direct you to all matters of personal correspondence that the Founding Fathers had with each other which highlighted their feelings. Hard to beat straight from the horses mouth.
You must mean the British crown-sympathizing Hamilton types.
You would be amazed of how many Founding Fathers supported monarchy. At the start of the war the biggest fear amongst the British was that the Patriots were an extension of the Jacobite wars (which advocated the Stuarts divine right to rule).
The Casus Belli of the war, taxation without representation, was caused because Parliament overstepped their bounds. The colonies were the personal dominion of the crown and thus only the King had jurisdiction. That is why there were no colonial representatives in Parliament. The War of Independence wasn't a war against a tyrannical king, but a war against a tyrannical parliament which usurped the rightful ruler. If you don't believe me, you can take the word of a Founding Father:
"You young men who have been born since the Revolution, look with horror upon the name of a King, and upon all propositions for a strong government. It was not so with us. We were born the subjects of a King, and were accustomed to subscribe ourselves 'His Majesty's most faithful subjects'; and we began the quarell which ended in the Revolution, not against the King, but against his parliament." - Rufus King
The simple reality is that Democratic systems, democracy, republic, oligarchy, they don't last long. It is their nature to act as precursors to empires, or collapse. They last for about 300 or so years and then they either collapse, or become an Empire. I'd choose empire over collapse.
Most of those atrocities were no different to the atrocities that the Roman Republic did prior to being an Empire. The atrocities occurred because it was Rome, not because it had a dictator. The moment emperors started doing stuff the public disagreed with, they found themselves assassinated by their own guards.
The public agreed with the atrocities, and they would have happened even if the country remained a Republic.
As to restraints, you can put constitutional restrictions on a dictator. The English did it long before they formed a parliament.
I agree with one aspect here and that is it was easier for people fed up with the system to enact change. It wasn't about convincing the masses, many of whom are ignorant or don't care, but to just take action.
But you also had the Year of the 5 Emperors and the Crisis of the 3rd Century. Pax Romana occurred because Rome dealt with all of its external threats before becoming an empire. Gauls, Parthians, Egyptians, Greeks... all of them crushed just before. And of course others like the Nubians were decimated either internally or by someone other than Rome.
The nature of dictators is very different from country to country. Some have had absolute power some have not. Some are military dictators whereas some are not. It all depends on who sets up the system and how one arranges it.
It's not Russian roulette. It's not up to chance, it's entirely dependent upon WHO sets it up, just how the nature of this Republic was dependent upon who set it up.
Different cultures set up different styles of each form of government. An American empire would be built around the constitution, around liberty.
Many cultures in the world set up violent and oppressive styles of government no matter what form of government it is, dictatorship or democratic. Other cultures set up peaceful styles, others again set up restrictive styles like in Japan, and others set up libertarian styles like the English speaking world.
The model of government may change but the style does not. The model changes when the current model begins to go against the cultures original vision of their style of government. Usually because of some kind of cultural contamination, in our current day example the contamination is a Marxist one.
This is because the modern examples of dictators are terrible. People don't realize that sometimes it's nessecary to have a dictator, and that they are not inherently bad things to have.
Wrong. Dictatorships have great success at expanding or getting specific jobs done (ie. pyramids, colosseum). Meh. The big issue is most leaders are not that good and even when you get a good one (ie. Alexander), they die. And then... you either get guys like King Louis XIV or you fragment the whole place like when Alexander died.
Pompey and the senate were corrupt pieces of shit. Caesar did nothing wrong. Was he perfect? No but he was in the right.
It was the COMMONERS who carried Caesars body in the streets and killed/chased the swamp rat fucks out of town. Caesar had the backing of the soldiers, small business owners, slaves and working class.
Trump will join Caesar as one of the best men to ever live. Taking down swamp rats and slaying grade A pussy.
He did plenty wrong. You can say the others were worse at the time but FFS, he literally went around buying elections for people. FYI, he was good friends with Pompey and key political allies but both of their ambitions clashed.
And if it wasn't for Pompey listening to the senate, he would've won the war.
Umm, no. Caesar was told to withdraw from Gaul and disband his troops. His refusal was breaking the law. He used his legions to attack migrating civilians and enslaved them to sell them for profit. And while Sulla marched on Rome before him, that action was also considered horrific and anti-Republican to Roman historians.
They were already getting tribute from Gaul. He didn't have to slaughter them, he did it because he was tired of dealing with small insurrections in an area he viewed well below him. He was a man of ambition who didn't want to be stuck in Gaul having to babysit the area all the time.
He was told to do so by a corrupt senate that just needed him to leave his post of governor so he could lose his immunity so they could put him on trial and destroy everything he did. The corruption of the late Roman republic makes our shit show look like a joke.
And while Sulla marched on Rome before him, that action was also considered horrific and anti-Republican to Roman historians.
Sulla's rival, Marius, created the anti-Republic power struggle that would follow with Caesar. Sulla won a civil war and returned the senate. He isn't considered anti-Republic at all. In fact, he marched on Rome TWICE because the other political party couldn't stop (and never really did) trying to completely take over the republic.
Even though Caesar was a power hungry, war mongering, ego maniac. What the Senate did to him was straight up hypocritical and wrong.
They tried to use a bullshit excuse in an attempt to force Caesar out of his governorship (which would have made him susceptible to being prosecuted for his “crimes” he committed during his term as Consul).
They also accused him of being a tyrant and breaking election laws while Pompey was doing the EXACT SAME THING.
And don’t even get me started on Cato, that cuck was an idiotic piece of shit who did everything in his power to sabotage Caesar since day 1. He single handily torpedoed a compromise that would have prevented a civil war but his hatred for Caesar blinded him to this fact.
The senate backed Caesar into a corner, for his own safety he needed to March on Rome.
Meh, by the time he crossed no one had given a damn about legality for a century. The grachi were murdered in the streets while Marius and Sulla had both marched on Rome and murdered their rivals. Caesar’s hand was forced by the likes of Cato.
One thing to realize about DJT is he operates like some of the greatest Generals in History.
In this case, DJT isn't crossing the Rubicon; he's got a giant wall with artillery ready to blast the democrat/commies/criminals who cross it. When they cross it, they get stuck in the trap and cannot get out.
It's a really beautiful battle plan.
To keep the corrupt & commies from flanking, there's still time to head the commies off at the pass.
That part is going to come into play with the state legislatures choosing electors. Also repealing the 17th (among others) needs to be a mainstream discussion.
Ok yes I agree with you guess what i was trying to say was that we are fighting this fraudulent election not just for trump but to preserve our right to elect our representatives
I was saying this country was not set up as a democracy, it is a republic but several people commented on that before I refreshed the page. My point was that the legislatures of each swing state might decide the electors instead of the “November 3” vote, thus fucking democracy.
This wouldn't even require a new form of government. Just restoring the US Constitution to the highest law of the land. The swamp is anything that stands in the way of that.
When it comes to the US Constitution, the provision is a Constitutional convention. This puts literally everything on the table. We could wind up with no 1A, no 2A, no anything in the bill of rights; all the bs Alexander Hamilton wanted including a permanent ruling class. Which is kinda what we have anyway, but at least this way we can call it corruption and it is possible to overthrow it. They could codify it into law that we could never overthrow.
This is eerily similar to the imposition of OWG.
Government of the people, by the people and for the people is a better idea! We aren't going to do better than the foundation of the US Constitution. If we want to improve it, they put that process in place; amendments. Most amendments that have passed started and passed in a short time, about 2 years.
Purging obsolete laws would help. The biggest problem here is not laws but regulations. Rubicon Don has made progress with this for the first time, ever. Regulatory agencies bypass Constitutional separation of powers, creating their own regulations (legislative) deciding if you broke their regulation, (judicial) and sentencing and enforcement of that sentence. (executive) In almost all cases that's a fine. Then they're self funding, meaning they need those fines to have an operating budget. This is corrupt as can be!
A massive re-haul is in order. I suggest regulatory agencies themselves need to be dismantled. A different way should be discovered. Some personnel might be ok? Just like some of their regulations might make sense.
This is similar to the CIA, FBI, and how many others in our IC. Flush them entirely! Are any of the personnel salvageable? The necessary / beneficial function hasn't even been their goal, for decades. Their culture puts their bureau above the Constitution.
Restoring the US Constitution to the highest law of the land gives us a stability that would be especially valuable in the midst of all the upheaval we really do need.
What a dream to be free of that scam. Can you think of any good 3 letter agencies? I can't myself but I guess I don't spend much time trying either lol
Start reading the Magna Carta move to the English Bill of Rights of 1689, then read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
Start reading the works of the Founding Fathers and Patriots of the Old and New Worlds.
I don’t want you to think about excuses, taking care of extended family? Husband/Wife and kids? Working? you take ever amount of free time you have and read aloud to everyone around.
You either demand Truth and Justice for Treason, Sedition and Insurrection or you become nothing more than domesticated animal.
Romans were superstitious and Julius was waiting at the river for some kind of sign from the heavens to tell him what to do. When the sign appeared (whatever that was) he said the words and crossed the river. The phrase itself is alluding to a game played with dice. Another translation would be "Let the die be cast!" or "Let the games begin!"
Franky, that's what he NEEDED to be doing. It would have helped build and keep pressure faster and kept morale high, as well as giving him some control over the MSM narrative. But the major thing he loses without the rallies is his connection to us and what we want. All he has are his advisors, and quite often they are out of touch with the rest of America.
Isn't it amazing how perfectly natural he looks photoshopped into an outfit like this? Can you imagine trying to do the same thing with pedo Joe's head?
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. ~Thomas Jefferson
"Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes exhausts and murders itself. There never was a Democracy Yet, that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to Say that Democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious or less avaricious than Aristocracy or Monarchy. It is not true in Fact and no where appears in history." - President John Adams, Founding Father
“In every community where industry is encouraged, there will be a division of it into the few and the many. Hence, separate interests will arise. There will be debtors and creditors, etc. Give all the power to the many, they will oppress the few. The voice of the people has been said to be the voice of God, and however generally this maxim has been quoted and believed, it is not true in fact. The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right Give therefore to the first class a distinct, permanent share in the government. They will check the unsteadiness of the second, and as they cannot receive any advantage by a change, they therefore will ever maintain good government. Can a democratic assembly, who annually revolve in the mass of the people, be supposed steadily to pursue the public good? Nothing but a permanent body can check the imprudence of democracy.” - Lt. Col Alexander Hamilton, Washington's Secretary of the Treasury and Founding Father
"You young men who have been born since the Revolution, look with horror upon the name of a King, and upon all propositions for a strong government. It was not so with us. We were born the subjects of a King, and were accustomed to subscribe ourselves 'His Majesty's most faithful subjects'; and we began the quarell which ended in the Revolution, not against the King, but against his parliament." - Rufus King, Delegate to the Constitutional Convention and Founding Father.
The Founding Fathers are with you President Trump, cast aside the rotten Republic like Caesar before you.
Father keep him safe at the rally tomorrow. Keep him in the hollow of your hand. Surround him with legions of angels to fend off evil. Protect him and let no harm come to him. We ask this in Jesus name. Amen and Amen!!
When you read CATO , remember that he stole reserved retirement lands from legion veterans and lands reserved for a moderate lease by their widows and the disabled by using nominal owners, paid them peanuts for the rights.
Cato was an Optimate, he believed the ancientness of his house and wealth put him above all other Romans, in a select group. Like Bill Gates.
Caesar did right by his troops, instituted a ton of reforms, pardoned his enemies, and ruled justly. The Roman Senate at the time was a clear majority of Elitists. They demanded he basically commit suicide by coming to Rome without his Legions to be killed, after winning countless victories. Pompey was suborned by being invited into the Elite class and betrayed his friend Caesar and the People. They also "mass migrated" countless slaves which took away the jobs of the ordinary Roman Citizens and gave them a little Anona - welfare - in compensation. Sound familiar?
Amen, always nice to see another lover of roman history. People call Caesar and Augustus tyrants but they forget that they brought upon the best of times for Rome. From Augustus to Marcus Aurelius the empire prospered. And while from Commudus to Alexander Severus things got worse they were still peaceful and ok.
Well, helps when by the time the empire comes around you've subdued (in different extremes) the Gauls, Greeks, Carthaginians, Egyptians, and Parthians. You've also just had 2 civil wars with manpower from surrounding areas like Spain and the rest of Italy.
Things like Pax Romana had less to do with Augustus himself and more to do with the foundation set before him.
The foundation he built upon was terrible. The late republic was unstable as fuck. It’s economy had gone to shit because of the land owners gobbled up the soldiers farms. Germans invaded inflicting several cannae level defeats. Wars with mithridates in the east. And at home the political situation had deteriorated greatly. The first century BC was full of internal wars, from the social war to the final war of the republic. Augustus ended the wars between the Romans and made massive reforms that allowed for Pax Romana.
Can you imagine the Roman crazy Nancy, Crying Chuck, Mad Max-ine and Schiftty Schift demanding welfare for the barbarians, kneeling in the senate to virtue signal and using facial diapers during the Antonine Plague?
Cato really wanted him gone for good, he was extremely popular and if they exiled him, he was wealthy and influential enough to raise legions.
I lean towards Cato and Optimates demanding Execution. They were unbelievably stubborn and both Pompey Magnus & Cicero's compromises were rejected by Cato and the Optimates.
Even just one province and two legions they rejected.
Soon the final decision will be made and they chose not to negotiate. Their goal is absolute power over you. Compromise has been ignored despite our efforts. Yet we are still willing to negotiate? The hard line has been crossed. Our God given rights are stolen by petty thieves. Our voice, our freedom, our lives. Tyranny is here if you allow it to survive.
I believe he's going to do it, folks. I'm done worrying about whatever the courts will decide. If even the Supreme Court doesn't have the balls to defend our country, the United States military will. The traitors will rue the day they thought they would get away with selling out our country to its enemies without tangling with our armed forces sworn to protect it.
WHAT WE DO IN THIS LIFE ECHOES IN ETERNITY
Echo
Cho
Kamala Harris has entered the chat.
You beat me to it
CROSS THE RUBICON, DON!
He was the only one beating anything to her.
He isn't your father boi!
lol
Kek..One cannot pay for this kind of hilarity...not even with bitcoin.
WHOEVER DOWNVOTED THIS MUST BE INSTANT DEPORTED AND THEIR WHOLE FAMILY TOO!!!
highly underrated comment
AND MY AXE!
How about memeing side by side with a fren?
Ho
Merry Christmas!
What's the difference between Santa and Bill Clinton? Santa stops after 3 hoes.
Well, after you marry the first one, it's really hard to quit.
I get it. "echoes"
choes
hoes
kamala
ho, ho, hoes
Kamala gives 2 Heels up to this chain. TYVM
Merry Christmas
Great song, all 23-24 minutes of it. The Live at Pompeii version is the best one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_69ApglQdxI
Love that version!!
Do it please, GEOTUS
If you find yourself alone, riding in the green fields with the sun on your face, do not be troubled. For you are in Elysium, and you're already dead-
If you find yourself being catcalled on Castro street, side-stepping needles and sniffing human excrement? Be troubled. For you are in San Francisco, and you're surrounded by cucks!
If you find yourself alone driving down Maple Street with the the smell of urine and feces stinging your nostrils, do not be troubled, for you are on Skid Row and your already Garcettied.
Surrounded by lots more than cucks if you are in the Castro.
Demons
I downloaded the gladiator hans zimmer instrumentals. I used to sleep to them in the service.
-- and Dominion will still count your vote.
So ready for the rally tomorrow
SO JELLY RIGHT NOW
I just watched this movie last night with my son.
Just buy it. And 300 everyone should own those.
Dont get me started. MAGA
Its on hbo max, just rewatched it yesterday. Worth a buy tho, used to own the directors special edition.
I always fall asleep right after he is captured after returning home to find his wife and son were brutally tortured and murdered at Jaquin's orders. The music...
An absolute classic
UNLEASH HELL
On my command!
The empire got 200+ years of prosperity after decades of disasters. Good times.
Fuck democracy
Eh. It’s the least worst option, it’s great when it works. And is the least likely to result in a shit feast. But like an old building sometimes it can’t be fixed and needs to be torn down and rebuilt.
No. Fuck Democracy. Lions are not to be governed by sheep.
No public school teacher. We're a constitutional Republic. Always have been.
We MUST have term limits for this to work. I also think we need to ban multinational corporations from donating to politicians as that’s a conflict of interest and the reason our jobs disappeared. We also need to enact something like the cursus honorum they had in Rome where if you have a government position you can only serve in the role you’re in for a set amount of time— if you don’t have the right stuff to get promoted, you’re out. That combined with an easier recall system to remove Bureaucrats that aren’t performing well for their constituents (building code inspectors, that sort of thing) would solve many issues.
We live in a banana democracy.
No a pear oligarchy
A very true saying although not all lions are nice. Look at the Stalin, the Kim’s or the Ayatollahs for example. Lions ruling sheep sounds great till you find yourself in a furry white coat...
Not denying ours is fucked and in need of an enlightened dictator to fix it. Just pointing out you gotta be careful and that democracy when working is the least likely to get you killed.
Democracy nearly always precedes dictatorship though, it’s an common precursor.
Plato wrote about this nearly 3000 years ago.
You do understand the average person doesn't understand this? By design me says.
Very true. It’s like war and peace. The peace never lasts. Then you get a terrible war followed by a great peace.
Stalin was based - he killed SO many commies.
Well...you’re not wrong. He does lead the world in killing commies (or did mao kill more?).
The 200iq take.
I'm fine with rolling it back a little. There are too many enfranchised illiterate dishonest morons in our society. Maybe limit voting to landowners, or business owners.
If we were to have a dictator I'd expect and hope him to be more of a Cincinnatus than a Julius.
tax paying Americans should be sufficient to start.
You could have multiple paths to the franchise.
Essentially, reserving the franchise solely for those who put effort into the well-being of society.
net
agreed pede
I honestly believe our rise of cities and industrial everything has made everyone lazy, physically,intellectually and spiritually. I don't think its coincidence but rather a product. Almost everyone 100+ years ago knew how to raise crops and livestock. This seems moot to most people but being self sufficient changes your whole perception of reality.
I have been thinking about that for the last year and came to the same conclusion. This was a problem even before the industrial revolution - back when America was founded, hence the electoral college. Jefferson hated cities and if he had his way every state would have gotten 1 elector, period.
So in my opinion we should come up with some system that lowers representation of cities. Like electoral colleges within the states. Or gerrymandering that slices cities up like a pie and combines each district with a large rural district outside the city. Basically your level of electoral power should be inversely proportional to the population density where you live. (the opposite of how it is now where big cities control the whole state) But I haven't worked out anything beyond that.
Your pie idea is really interesting! I’ve been thinking about this lately too, and I wonder if forcing cities to become their own states by way of rural secession would work (it would be easiest to do when the city already lies near the coast or state border.) For instance, I live in Pa and Philly really messes everything up. Well they’ll never split with Pa on their own because they’re not the ones being screwed over while paying exorbitant taxes to dictator Wolf. It would be imperative on the rest of the state to say enough is enough. I’m not sure how the electoral vote issue would work in this idea- maybe split the original vote total between the new states? I just feel like if Democrats want to eventually add states anyway, then we may as well beat them to it and create new conservative states with strict state constitutions that would shut down leftist policies leaking in (like build universal concealed carry into the state constitution so it’s much more difficult for someone to eventually try to impose gun control).
"Modernity" takes many forms--and always has--but writ large I might describe it as vertical systematic complexity, with each higher tier of technological ascendency relying on that below, and participants on said higher levels being, as a function of human intellectual limitations, incapable of participating in any tier but their own.
That's a exceptionally windbag way of saying, that's not true. 100, 1000, and even 10,000 years ago there were plenty of people specializing. Whether you were the Animal Skin Guy, the Marble Carving Guy, or the Industrial Machine Guy, you were not self-sufficient.
That said, you point as a trend stands. While there may certainly have been those living in Rome that wouldn't know which part of a plow went in which part of a field, people today take dependency--on many things, but overall on a world in which they are utterly insulated from scarcity or the deprivations of war--to a whole new level.
well said pede
Wherever accountability is lacking, entitlement thrives.
Keep in mind that Julius was a true "man of the people", a nationalist and populist in the truest sense. He was always working towards returning Rome to its republican roots but was constantly thwarted by the roman elite, and of course ultimately destroyed by them. The roman elite were analogous to our current elitist class, swamp-dweller types.
Meh. I like some aspects of Caesar (and one of my favorite historical figures) but he was also corrupt, a dictator, and funded a ton of ridiculous politicians. You can't take the good without the bad. You say he thwarted the Roman elite but all he did was put himself and his friends at the top. He didn't give power to the people but just consolidated it.
Brilliant commander though. If it wasn't for him and his right-hand man, Lepidus, Rome would've easily taken another 100+ years to conquer Gaul.
Believe Ceasar passed many reforms that benefitted the people. From my memory, and I hadn't had my covfefe yet, I believe Ceasar was closer to "a man of the people" than not.
Also, wasn't Lepidus a damn traitor (to Ceasar)?
PS fuck Brutus
RESTORE CEASAR
Absofukinglutely.
Eh...that remove many of us pedes who don’t have either of those. But I do agree we need huge changes.
Well Cincinnatus faced far different issues than Julius, less serious.
We can get the Republic back on an even keel once the crisis is over. Trump would actually step down, if he had succeeded in purging the globalist traitors. Just one year, with him actually in total control of the government, would see the complete fulfillment of his agenda.
The real answer is that most forms of government can be successful if the makeup of the country is correct.
Our makeup isn't correct and it's too late to do anything about it.
Depends on how hard we wanna go.
Democracy went out the window with dominion
Democracy went out the window with the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, to be slightly more specific.
Fair enough
That it did.
Based Level: 100
Down with the rotted republic. Long live King Donald!
WE THEOCRATIC MONARCHIST NOW CUCKS! DEAL WITH IT!
Caesar Donald
That is why I say King Donald rather than Dictator Donald. Dictatorships are a corrupted form of monarchism where the sovereign rules for his benefit rather than that of his nation.
But only four more years of Trump is Jeb! levels of energy compared to 400 more years.
The Trump train has no breaks. Not today, not tomorrow. not four years from now!
Username checks out.
Consul.
So doing nothing and letting dem governors act like faggot dictators in perpetuity is a winning strategy how? Should Lincoln have let Dem governors secede and break up the country? Should Eisenhower have let dem governors enforce segregation and allow dems and their Klan footsoldiers the right to terrorize US Citizens? During a coup and a fraudulent election counter measures will not be sunshine and genial back and forth. And frankly if faced with a Nationalist Right wing dictatorship or an Internationalist Left wing one I'll choose the former.
We always play by the rules. We always vote. We are peaceful and patient. Doesn't work out so well, I'm afraid.
A lot of people called Honest Abe a tyrant for what he did during the Civil War.
All of it was necessary to save the Country.
Bro they are joking and you are getting your panties in a bunch which is making them fuck with you more. You got to learn the inside jokes/ vernacular around here.
LMFAO. Cry more, cuck. DJT will be your next president. How do you feel about that?
So do you have an answer to my question or nah?
It should be pretty evident at this point that plenty of well-informed people, rather than tripping over their own rank hypocrisy in cheering alea iacta est as you assume at a glance, may in fact be keenly aware that most of the historical Roman dictators were appointed in times of crisis, to save the Roman Republic, though their reputations have been smeared over the ages by a societal elite fearful of any check on their power, and further, that our Republic is in dire need of aggressive reform which the recent few weeks should have already shown is virtually impossible to achieve via systematic means.
I see you're already embroiled in several other debates in which you've been called out on your own hypocrisy vis-a-vis Honest Habeas Corpus Abe, so I'll leave you to it!
Well the thing is dictatorship is a matter of perspective historically. There's benevolent and malevolent dictators. A fine line for sure but depends which side of the spear you're on.
Finally, another American monarchist on here!!!
In the 1770's they called you loyalists
Very true; I probably would have been a loyalist back then, as I would have supported my King, especially since it wasn't really King George III that was screwing over the colonists, but rather the (ironically elected) Parliament of Great Britain. And ironically, the King actually used his reserve powers to push Parliament to back off and used royal edicts to try and quell the sentiment, but it was too little, too late.
The whole move to Canada thing though--ugh, too cold. Maybe I would have moved to the Bahamas LOL.
I am definitely still a loyalist, though, in 2020--absolutely loyal to His Excellency* Donald Trump, President of the United States of America.
(* His actual legal title; Mr. President being for use inside the US).
Nah, Emperor Donald I or bust.
Rubicon Don!
I don’t want to lose the republic. But if I have to choose between democrat tyranny or MAGA , I choose MAGA any day.
Think about it this way: We never had a republic. Kennedy stole the election from Nixon in 1960. Tammany hall was a giant corruption machine from the 1840s to the 1930s. The election of 1876 was decided in backroom deals. The election of 1826 was stolen from our President's favorite President: Andrew Jackson. I would honestly be surprised if we had a single fair election other than President Washington.
The only difference between our power now and having a monarchy under King Donald, is that our unelected leader has our best interests at heart and has full authority to do what he needs to do.
I don’t know if I agree with everything you said, but I definitely see your point. And I’d say that that the republic ended in ACW 1.0.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_dictators
Not a king, but a dictator. An office given absolute power for a prescribed period of time in order to guide the Republic through periods of existential threats.
The president doesn't have absolute power.
You're just being pedantic now.
Yep, right on.
That said, I would fully expect that Trump would willingly cede power should the republic be cleansed and restored. Then we'd see him on Rushmore.
Trumps too old to get it all done in the years he has left. He’d need someone good to come in after and finish the job. Augustus was able cleanse the empire because he ruled for so long that by the time he croaked few could remember what it was like before him. That momentum is what allowed him to permanently change the game and allow his (either crappy or meh) successors to keep power for decades after his death.
I propose someone like Nick Fuentes. He is 22.
Sounds familiar but I can’t remember. We’d need someone a bit older and more experience.
You know there would be other kings after him, right?
I can only hope so!
Oh, so you’re OK with King Barack?
Bit of a non-sequitur as there is no way Barrack Obama would be King in a Trump dynasty... Unless you happen to have Barry's real birth certificate and his birth name was actually Barrack Trump.
Ahhh, so you’re just advocating for monarchies without having any idea how they actually work, or any grasp of their history. And if you like American principles, how do you square that up against the wanting the form of government we were founded by opposing? I swear, some of the people in here are about as clueless and hypocritical as the average Leftist.
Monarchs: the original globalists.
Exactly my point. They are determined by birth and by who kills the king.
Thank you!! This is why political ideas like a philosopher king fail. Humans die (or are killed). You can't have a king without knowing you're going to, sooner or later, get 1 that royally fucks everything up. And then another. And another.
Rather take my chances on Trump and Junior than continue our current system.
If you haven't noticed, we are one stolen election away from complete medical tyranny and technocracy. I really don't know wtf people like you are looking at. What are you gonna do if they steal this election? Blatantly and in your face? Are we gonna rEd WaVe 2022? Lol, if they allow us.
Honestly, what country are some of yall living in? The constitution is already shredded. They've limited your freedoms and enslaved your children and your children's children with debt. They're replacing the population. They don't investigate or arrest their own.
This moral grandstanding is nauseous. If December 5th, 2020 is what the US constitution gets us, it's an unquestioned failure. By almost every metric.
Yall asking me to pretend we're in a legit republic is the same as people telling me to wear a mask. It's make believe. Do your representatives represent you? Mine sure as hell don't, and I live in a red state with republican representatives. Just keep pretend voting for red and everything will be fine, even if they steal the election. Low IQ take.
You didn't understand my point. Okay, you flip the system into a dictatorial one. And then Trump dies, as every human does. And then what?? Okay, Trump Jr. And then after him??
Consolidation of power is fine so long as you have a leader like Alexander the Great.
It's crazy how fast people here forget what we've been saying to the left, "ya you increase your power now but wait until the other side wields the hammer".
You're advocating for an entire change of the system? Why?? You can do a reset. You mistake me saying philosopher king, monarchy, etc. are bad systems as "just keep the current status quo" and that, sir, is a low IQ take. I agree that the current system is broken. But like you said, we're not living in a constitutional republic anymore. Most civil wars throughout all of human history have enacted resets, not revolutions.
I know what the reply is going to be too. "Well if it's failed, we need to switch."... as if the other systems have never failed. As if you can achieve some utopian fix if you just roll the die enough times...
Don't try to predict my reply because you got it wrong. The consensus is that Trump need to be like Lincoln. We're talking years, not lifetimes.
Technically the republic didn’t die. It was greatly changed. Octavian didn’t create a single title of emperor. He had a slew of political, religious, military, and honorific titles (Augustus being one of them) that gave him sole power in Rome. The senate continued on under the emperor although it gradually lost influence. Especially during the crisis of the third century, where barracks emperors and their armies were the true power. Diocletian turned the empire into an official military autocracy. In fact the senate would outlast the western emperors by over a century.
Even long after Rome had become an autocratic empire, the citizens of Rome continued to believe that they lived in a republic. If you had asked them what their government is they would have told you that it was a republic with no king.
Fun Fact: Allegedly during the Battle of Abritus in 251 Emperor Decius’s son, Herennius Etruscus, was killed, and upon hearing of it Decius said, “Let no one mourn. The death of one soldier is not a great loss to the Republic.”
Very true. And yeah I’ve heard that quote before, very sad but epic.
I would go as far as to claim that the Roman Empire was NOT a monarchy at all, or at least it wasn’t at first.
I would argue that from 27 BC to AD 284, the Roman Empire was Family-Military Dictatorship.
This system combines a Military Dictatorship with a Family Dictatorship.
In this system, the state is under the complete control of the military whose leader holds absolute power with said leadership being decided by familial relation to the current leader.
It wasn’t until Diocletian came to power It wasn’t until Diocletian came to power in 284 that Rome became a true Monarchy, and it wasn’t until Constantine the Great unified the country in 324 that the Monarchy became Hereditary.
If you want a modern example of this look up the Somoza Dynasty of Nicaragua. They ruled that nation from 1936 to 1979.
Yup. At first it was the principate, where the senate still had some power and influence. It was the republic but with the princeps at the helm with a hell of a lot of power. It was a very much a benevolent dictatorship.
Then Diocletian turned it into a true military autocracy in the form of the dominate. Although I wouldn’t argue that it was Constantine that made it hereditary, dynasties had been a thing since the beginning.
I would say the Principate were a “Republic in name Only” but they were de facto dictators. The most use the senate had during the principate was providing legitimacy to the Imperator.
It was Diocletian that created the “Dominate” in which he was the divinely ordained absolute ruler of Rome. He created what we would call today an absolute monarchy, but it was one in which succession was determined by appointment not by blood.
This changed with Constantine who took the principle of the dominate and made succession de facto hereditary rather than by appointment.
Constantine’s dynasty was, after all, the first imperial dynasty of the Dominate.
How so? Octavian wasn't challenged on anything, and made Caesar a god (and therefore, he was the (adopted) son of one).
Just because the control of it switches from different Houses doesn't mean it wasn't an empire with a monarch.
There are many Houses that have been in charge of the British crown. Same with the Chinese dynasties. Power swaps don't fundamentally change the nature of the government.
The Republic died with Octavian beating Antony at Actium. Pure consolidation of power is not a republic anymore. Yes, the senate still existed. But who cares, it was entirely toothless. That's like saying Napoleon wasn't an emperor because he kept around the French parliament... they got to decide nothing.
They were generals that were declared emperor (some successfully and others not so much) by their soldiers during the crisis of the third century. From the death of Alexander Severus to the rise of Diocletian (himself a barracks emperor) there were like 60 legitimate and illegitimate emperors.
Augustus held many titles such as princeps (his main title and where we get prince from) and imperator (basically general, where we get emperor from) as well as consular authority wherever he was. He created the principate.
Diocletian ended the time when the senate had power with his reforms a and reformed the empire into the dominate where it was a true miltary autocracy.
Can't remember if this was the period where 1 of them just bought the emperorship from the Praetorians or if that was 1 during the Year of the Five Emperors.
That was the year of the five emperors, Julian or something.
No problem, the crisis isn’t often talked about in school. For me (iirc, it’s been about 6 years) once we got past the five good emperor the rest just gets glossed over with only Constantine and a few others being brought up before the fall...of the west, they never talk about the very successful east.
The sixty includes a lot of men who claimed to be emperor but are not recognized as true emperors and are instead labeled as usurpers. But it was like 50-60 in fifty years.
Rome died in 1453. Romes cultural peak was Christian Constantinople in my opinion. Although it did not produce nearly as many legendary names as the Western half. Trump talks a lot about momentum. When you keep the momentum, great things can happen. When you lose it, things start to decline. It amazes me just how long the Romans held out in the east, despite them having lost their momentum after the fall of the West and Justinians reconquering efforts. Anyway, I hope Trump is more like a succesfull Pompeius who restores the republic rather than a Caesar who establishes a dictatorship. The Trump political dynasty can be the peoples dynasty. But democracy should be restored and trusted, because you don't want Nero Trump to rule the land in the future.
this goes above the Ds
That is the problem with all forms of government as our current situation has demonstrated. Every leader save Trump since 1990 has been malevolent and I can name countless more tyrant Presidents.
"Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes exhausts and murders itself. There never was a Democracy Yet, that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to Say that Democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious or less avaricious than Aristocracy or Monarchy. It is not true in Fact and no where appears in history." - President John Adams
Monarchies get a bad rap in the USA but Jesus Christ, historically democracies have been awful. The USA is supposed to be a Constitutional Republic anyway, not a democracy. As a Brit Monarchist, I wish we’d just return to absolutism. I’m tired of corrupt politicians, as everyone is across the world.
Absolutely based! Are you a Jacobite?
Haha, thanks pede, you too. In terms of ideology, divine right of Kings etc, I’m absolutely a Jacobite. Although I do agree to an extent that the ‘Glorious Revolution’ was necessary. American Monarchism has always intrigued me, what kind of system would you like to see, under King Donald I of course 😉.
Non centralized absolutism. While I can appreciate the ideas behind the Magna-Carta it had the unfortunate effect of undermining monarchism by changing the legitimacy of government away from Divine Right. Divine Right is inseparable from Monarchy because it explains why the hierarchy exists in the first place. A monarchist site that I frequent explained is thusly:
At the same time, power needs to be kept local. Your town's local lord knows what is best for the town than the King located on the other side of the continent even though the King knows what is best for the nation as a whole.
The US isnt a democracy
Wouldn’t you say it’s become one in all but name only? Constitutional safeguards such as state legislators sending electors seem to have been abandoned in favour of just going for whoever (supposedly) wins the popular vote in the state, regardless of the potential damage to the constitution. You are an American though so you’d know more than me on your own system lol
Yes the entire system has become corrupted. The founding fathers foresaw this and told us what to do.
Correct, and this was Milton Friedman's point about communism. People act as if our society is exclusively greedy. You're not killing or starving millions of your own people without some greed.
There’s something called precedent, which is why George Washington refused kingship when it was offered to him. Nobody would ever be able to return the presidency to normal after such a step. The phrase ‘crossing the Rubicon’ means going beyond the point of no return.
At this point, what choice do we have.
Who knows, maybe living under an Autocratic American Empire might not be so bad.
And who knows, maybe we can restore the constitution once the rots been throughly purged.
Rome encountered this issue many times but it did inevitably solve it in the Eastern Empire by allowing people to adopt someone and declare them their successor if they lacked a son or daughter that was not up to the task in their opinion. As such they could groom anyone they wanted to be their successor, not just their children.
That empire lasted until the 1400s, only falling because it was crippled by the 4th crusade, and only failing to retake the west because of the Justinian Plagued that lasted for several hundred years. Once the plague was over, Rome had the Muslims to deal with, and as I said above, were eventually backstabbed in the 4th crusade.
The plague was half the reason why he couldn’t retake Italy. Justinian needed to send more troops, plus some blunders gave the Ostrogoths the will to launch a counter attack. They could’ve easily retaken Italy and Illyria before the plague hit.
There was also the issue of that major volcanic eruption that shifted the climate in Europe for several hundred years making it harder to grow crops. (Which I hypothesize also gave rise to the Nobility hunting games in Europe)
Some believe that a lot of apocalypse stories, particularly Norse Fimbulwinter is actually based on that event.
I’ve heard of that too but the more immediate causes where Belisarius’ lack of troops+mundus losing a battle and dying after his sons died in a victorious battle. This allowed the goths to reorganize and retake most of Italy. Then the plague hit. Which screwed everything up even more. This caused the war to last 20 years and ruined Italy for about 500+ years.
4 th Crusade is an eternal stain on Christendom. However the Battle of Manzikert set the decline and fall in motion. Emperor Romanus Diogenes went to fight Alp Arslan, a Seljuk, and was abandoned in the thick of fighting by generals loyal to members of the Court and Anatolian Military Aristocracy. Think Bureaucracy and Military Intelligence abandoning their Commander in Chief to their most hated foe. He had tried to curb the Court's influence and introduce reform to help the small land owning class (bulk of troops, food, taxes) against the wealthy military Aristocracy. From there Central Turkey (manpower, taxes, food) was lost and not even the Comnenus revival could save it.
Pretty much this.
He needs to dissolve the government. Otherwise someone else would take over.
Yes I meant this by walk away. Like Washington did.
Lets hope it plays out that way, justice and liberty dont tend to win looking at history.
Here is an idea:
Trump declares himself Temporary Supreme Leader of America while at the same time stepping down from the office of President and allowing Pence to take the position.
Once the Corruption has been flushed away, or when his term would have expired on January 20, 2025, he can abolish his temporary position and outlaw it to make sure that no one else follows in his footsteps
In this way the office of president remains untouched and can take up its normal duties once Trump is finished.
That's how it currently works every 4 years. Trump was elected to do that and drain the swamp
Pence got the secret envelope.
Most Roman emperors were good. With the exception of like 3
Wha??? I can name you 2 in just the 1st dynasty alone, Caligula and Nero. After Nero there were another 3 in just 1 year. Then you have the entire crisis before Diocletian...
In addition to what u/Jarlason10 wrote, I wouldn't trust the history books on that one. Not only have the negative parts of their rule been greatly exaggerated by their rivals, but that negativity has also been exaggerated by our post French Revolution zeitgeist.
To put another way: You know how the left lies about Republicans and makes us out to be the ultimate villains? They have been lying about classical conservatives (monarchists) for even longer.
My name is AmericanMonarchist so it would be rather odd if I was a republican (lower case r).
What I argue though is the same wisdom of our Founding Fathers. What can be more American than that?
From wikipedia:
The Plymouth Council for New England sponsored several colonization projects, eventually establishing the permanent Plymouth Colony in 1620 which was settled by English Puritan separatists, known as the Pilgrims.[3] The Dutch, Swedish, and French also established successful American colonies at roughly the same time but most of these eventually fell under the rule of the British Crown.[4]
In 1765, many Americans, known to day as the Patriots, grew upset with what they saw as overreach by the British Government. This started the Revolutionary War. They listed their grievances in the Declaration of Independence. Essentially, many colonists believed that since they were not directly represented in Parliament, many laws passed by Parliament, and specifically tax related laws such as the Sugar Act and the Stamp Act, were illegal according to the Bill of Rights 1689, and were a denial of their rights as Englishmen.[5][6] They adopted the phrase "no taxation without representation" as an unofficial motto. The revolutionary war officially ended in 1783 with the signing of the Treaty of Paris. This marked the official end of monarchy in the United States with George III of the United Kingdom being the last monarch.[7][8]
According to legend, George Washington, First President of the United States, was offered the position of "King of the United States," but turned it down in favor of a Republican government.[9]
If they were so in favor of monarchy, why didn't they enact one when they had the chance?
Wikipedia is a leftist source as articles like these show. If you wouldn't trust what they have to say about you Modern Conservatives do not trust what they have to say on anything about Classical Conservatives (Monarchists). The left have been lying about us since 1789. Only difference is that most of my camp gave up fighting long ago to try and work within the system of democracy to keep the values of monarchism (Realist Philosophy) alive (these people would be the old school American conservatives such as the Federalist Party and especially the Know-Nothing Party) while you all are still fighting. It hasn't worked out well for us obviously considering the most conservative party now is the GOP, but this thread has shown the rising amount of people who want to go back to the time and tested way of doing things. Amazing white-pill!
They saw democracy as inevitable. The values of the Enlightenment that swept Europe changed the focus of living from working within the natural order to create the good and beautiful (what the Greeks called Arete) to man as the center of all things (what the Greeks called Hubris). That change in values destroyed the legitimacy of divine right which is essential to monarchism. So it was decided that since democracy was inevitable that the best course of action was to pre-empt a French like reign of terror in a generation or two by creating a democracy; but severely hamstringing it to limit the damage that it could do. This is the reason for all the checks and balance in our government, the reason we use the electoral college rather than a popular vote, and the reason we have a bill of rights. This is also why suffrage was originally given to only the landed men (a proto-aristocracy). It was a valiant effort on part of the Founding Fathers to halt the rising tide of leftism, but all it did was slow our decent into leftist rule rather than avoid it.
If you are interested in a good redpill on the Founding Fathers, then check out Dr. Nelsons The Royalist Revolution. No online PDF, but since it is the Christmas season all the online retailers like Amazon are offering free returns until January. If you can read 240 so pages by month's end, its a great study on the part of our history that the left has managed to hide. Everything is immaculately sourced using contemporary documents as well. The bibliography in the back of the book can direct you to all matters of personal correspondence that the Founding Fathers had with each other which highlighted their feelings. Hard to beat straight from the horses mouth.
You would be amazed of how many Founding Fathers supported monarchy. At the start of the war the biggest fear amongst the British was that the Patriots were an extension of the Jacobite wars (which advocated the Stuarts divine right to rule).
The Casus Belli of the war, taxation without representation, was caused because Parliament overstepped their bounds. The colonies were the personal dominion of the crown and thus only the King had jurisdiction. That is why there were no colonial representatives in Parliament. The War of Independence wasn't a war against a tyrannical king, but a war against a tyrannical parliament which usurped the rightful ruler. If you don't believe me, you can take the word of a Founding Father:
"You young men who have been born since the Revolution, look with horror upon the name of a King, and upon all propositions for a strong government. It was not so with us. We were born the subjects of a King, and were accustomed to subscribe ourselves 'His Majesty's most faithful subjects'; and we began the quarell which ended in the Revolution, not against the King, but against his parliament." - Rufus King
That sound like more of a you problem.
The simple reality is that Democratic systems, democracy, republic, oligarchy, they don't last long. It is their nature to act as precursors to empires, or collapse. They last for about 300 or so years and then they either collapse, or become an Empire. I'd choose empire over collapse.
Most of those atrocities were no different to the atrocities that the Roman Republic did prior to being an Empire. The atrocities occurred because it was Rome, not because it had a dictator. The moment emperors started doing stuff the public disagreed with, they found themselves assassinated by their own guards.
The public agreed with the atrocities, and they would have happened even if the country remained a Republic.
As to restraints, you can put constitutional restrictions on a dictator. The English did it long before they formed a parliament.
I agree with one aspect here and that is it was easier for people fed up with the system to enact change. It wasn't about convincing the masses, many of whom are ignorant or don't care, but to just take action.
But you also had the Year of the 5 Emperors and the Crisis of the 3rd Century. Pax Romana occurred because Rome dealt with all of its external threats before becoming an empire. Gauls, Parthians, Egyptians, Greeks... all of them crushed just before. And of course others like the Nubians were decimated either internally or by someone other than Rome.
I edited to respond to the 2A issue.
The nature of dictators is very different from country to country. Some have had absolute power some have not. Some are military dictators whereas some are not. It all depends on who sets up the system and how one arranges it.
It's not Russian roulette. It's not up to chance, it's entirely dependent upon WHO sets it up, just how the nature of this Republic was dependent upon who set it up.
Different cultures set up different styles of each form of government. An American empire would be built around the constitution, around liberty.
Many cultures in the world set up violent and oppressive styles of government no matter what form of government it is, dictatorship or democratic. Other cultures set up peaceful styles, others again set up restrictive styles like in Japan, and others set up libertarian styles like the English speaking world.
The model of government may change but the style does not. The model changes when the current model begins to go against the cultures original vision of their style of government. Usually because of some kind of cultural contamination, in our current day example the contamination is a Marxist one.
Fuck you and your stupid libertarian ideals
Yes. Fuck small government. I'm a big government conservative
We already have the guns, and NO ONE regardless which side, is giving them back.
This is because the modern examples of dictators are terrible. People don't realize that sometimes it's nessecary to have a dictator, and that they are not inherently bad things to have.
Left vs right is not authoritarian vs liberalism
Wrong. Dictatorships have great success at expanding or getting specific jobs done (ie. pyramids, colosseum). Meh. The big issue is most leaders are not that good and even when you get a good one (ie. Alexander), they die. And then... you either get guys like King Louis XIV or you fragment the whole place like when Alexander died.
Literally anything is better than being owned by China.
Why are we the only side that thinks this? Isn't it obvious how humiliating it would be to be ultimately owned by the bugmen?
You could be owned by the bankers...oh wait
the banker stuff is so weak
Denying the power of the federal reserve is foolish.
we live in a society
I hope thats a joker reference
That's indoctrination for you.
Isn't it obvious how humiliating it would be to be ultimately owned by goblins?
Wondering this too. I'm not sure what this would look like.
It will look a bit like this
u/Blacksunfun1
That's a dam good read.
Call on us sir... They'll regret everything they've done.
They'll wish their mom never met their dad
It also looks like when they murder an innocent kid driving in his car to set an example and scare Kemp. It looks like that. Exactly like that.
Username checks out.
Awesome article and under-upTrumped comment.
This^
It would look like martial law.
We’re dipping our pinky toes in the water right now.
It’s time to go full steam ahead. After all, THIS TRAIN STOPS FOR NO ONE!
Not yet. 12/14 is a significant date, as is 1/6. That gives 1 weeks to muster and finish appropriately.
Pompey and the senate were corrupt pieces of shit. Caesar did nothing wrong. Was he perfect? No but he was in the right.
It was the COMMONERS who carried Caesars body in the streets and killed/chased the swamp rat fucks out of town. Caesar had the backing of the soldiers, small business owners, slaves and working class.
Trump will join Caesar as one of the best men to ever live. Taking down swamp rats and slaying grade A pussy.
He did plenty wrong. You can say the others were worse at the time but FFS, he literally went around buying elections for people. FYI, he was good friends with Pompey and key political allies but both of their ambitions clashed.
And if it wasn't for Pompey listening to the senate, he would've won the war.
Umm, no. Caesar was told to withdraw from Gaul and disband his troops. His refusal was breaking the law. He used his legions to attack migrating civilians and enslaved them to sell them for profit. And while Sulla marched on Rome before him, that action was also considered horrific and anti-Republican to Roman historians.
I said Caesar wasn’t perfect. Moral standards then were different then now. You don’t think Pompey and others did fucked up shit too?
And I really don’t give a shit if Caesar was breaking the “law” set in place by Roman bureaucrats. He did what was necessary.
They were already getting tribute from Gaul. He didn't have to slaughter them, he did it because he was tired of dealing with small insurrections in an area he viewed well below him. He was a man of ambition who didn't want to be stuck in Gaul having to babysit the area all the time.
He was told to do so by a corrupt senate that just needed him to leave his post of governor so he could lose his immunity so they could put him on trial and destroy everything he did. The corruption of the late Roman republic makes our shit show look like a joke.
Sulla's rival, Marius, created the anti-Republic power struggle that would follow with Caesar. Sulla won a civil war and returned the senate. He isn't considered anti-Republic at all. In fact, he marched on Rome TWICE because the other political party couldn't stop (and never really did) trying to completely take over the republic.
Even though Caesar was a power hungry, war mongering, ego maniac. What the Senate did to him was straight up hypocritical and wrong.
They tried to use a bullshit excuse in an attempt to force Caesar out of his governorship (which would have made him susceptible to being prosecuted for his “crimes” he committed during his term as Consul).
They also accused him of being a tyrant and breaking election laws while Pompey was doing the EXACT SAME THING.
And don’t even get me started on Cato, that cuck was an idiotic piece of shit who did everything in his power to sabotage Caesar since day 1. He single handily torpedoed a compromise that would have prevented a civil war but his hatred for Caesar blinded him to this fact.
The senate backed Caesar into a corner, for his own safety he needed to March on Rome.
Meh, by the time he crossed no one had given a damn about legality for a century. The grachi were murdered in the streets while Marius and Sulla had both marched on Rome and murdered their rivals. Caesar’s hand was forced by the likes of Cato.
One thing to realize about DJT is he operates like some of the greatest Generals in History.
In this case, DJT isn't crossing the Rubicon; he's got a giant wall with artillery ready to blast the democrat/commies/criminals who cross it. When they cross it, they get stuck in the trap and cannot get out.
It's a really beautiful battle plan.
To keep the corrupt & commies from flanking, there's still time to head the commies off at the pass.
WIN&WIN PLAN! Keep it going Pedes. SEND IT ALONG!
https://thedonald.win/p/11Q8EhtERu/for-everyone-who-wants-djtpence-/
And Get your Republican State Legislatures to appoint their DJT/Pence Electors!
We’re just about there. We better make sure we’re Caesars and not Catos.
Hail Trump! We salute you!
In all seriousness, it's now or never. Fuck democracy
Sometimes you can’t keep repairing something, yah just gotta tear it down and rebuild it.
Fuck democracy?? Are we not doing this to save democracy? Just a reminder a fraudulent election is not a democratic one
That part is going to come into play with the state legislatures choosing electors. Also repealing the 17th (among others) needs to be a mainstream discussion.
Can you explain the difference I’m not certain
our republic is a type of democracy
It doesn't matter. Not everyone should be able to vote. Every amendment after the 10th is illegitimate
Unironically this.
what about the slavery one
Right not debating that
America has never been a democracy.
Yes yes i know that just saying were doing this to preserve our freedom to choose our elected officials
We choose The Don.
Ok yes I agree with you guess what i was trying to say was that we are fighting this fraudulent election not just for trump but to preserve our right to elect our representatives
How do u mean??
I was saying this country was not set up as a democracy, it is a republic but several people commented on that before I refreshed the page. My point was that the legislatures of each swing state might decide the electors instead of the “November 3” vote, thus fucking democracy.
This wouldn't even require a new form of government. Just restoring the US Constitution to the highest law of the land. The swamp is anything that stands in the way of that.
Drain the swamp, Rubicon Don!
rubidon
I like the idea of wiping law every twenty years.
When it comes to the US Constitution, the provision is a Constitutional convention. This puts literally everything on the table. We could wind up with no 1A, no 2A, no anything in the bill of rights; all the bs Alexander Hamilton wanted including a permanent ruling class. Which is kinda what we have anyway, but at least this way we can call it corruption and it is possible to overthrow it. They could codify it into law that we could never overthrow.
This is eerily similar to the imposition of OWG.
Government of the people, by the people and for the people is a better idea! We aren't going to do better than the foundation of the US Constitution. If we want to improve it, they put that process in place; amendments. Most amendments that have passed started and passed in a short time, about 2 years.
Purging obsolete laws would help. The biggest problem here is not laws but regulations. Rubicon Don has made progress with this for the first time, ever. Regulatory agencies bypass Constitutional separation of powers, creating their own regulations (legislative) deciding if you broke their regulation, (judicial) and sentencing and enforcement of that sentence. (executive) In almost all cases that's a fine. Then they're self funding, meaning they need those fines to have an operating budget. This is corrupt as can be!
A massive re-haul is in order. I suggest regulatory agencies themselves need to be dismantled. A different way should be discovered. Some personnel might be ok? Just like some of their regulations might make sense.
This is similar to the CIA, FBI, and how many others in our IC. Flush them entirely! Are any of the personnel salvageable? The necessary / beneficial function hasn't even been their goal, for decades. Their culture puts their bureau above the Constitution.
Restoring the US Constitution to the highest law of the land gives us a stability that would be especially valuable in the midst of all the upheaval we really do need.
Good point. I lose sight of the regulatory agencies too often.
This includes the IRS. They're just the collection agency for the Federal Reserve Bank.
What a dream to be free of that scam. Can you think of any good 3 letter agencies? I can't myself but I guess I don't spend much time trying either lol
To dream, the impossible dream
This is why we voted for Rubicon Don!
https://thedonald.win/p/11QlFkuHOW/theyre-getting-it-now-/c/
To all the civilians here. You are in a War.
Start reading the Magna Carta move to the English Bill of Rights of 1689, then read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
Start reading the works of the Founding Fathers and Patriots of the Old and New Worlds.
I don’t want you to think about excuses, taking care of extended family? Husband/Wife and kids? Working? you take ever amount of free time you have and read aloud to everyone around.
You either demand Truth and Justice for Treason, Sedition and Insurrection or you become nothing more than domesticated animal.
Alea iacta est
"The die have been cast" - for those who haven't been studying their latin.
what does it mean?
i think in this context, something like "there is no going back now"
Romans were superstitious and Julius was waiting at the river for some kind of sign from the heavens to tell him what to do. When the sign appeared (whatever that was) he said the words and crossed the river. The phrase itself is alluding to a game played with dice. Another translation would be "Let the die be cast!" or "Let the games begin!"
Wait for tomorrow's rally.
Trump literally gets his strength from us. Tomorrow will re-energize him like never before. After that, who knows what we'll see.
It will scare the fuck out of the establishment when they see the sea of red and how we are all armed Patriots: IRATE, TIRELESS, DETERMINED
They only have soft power, Trump has hard power, the power to move men into action. Bad time to have picked Biden, he don't move men.
Franky, that's what he NEEDED to be doing. It would have helped build and keep pressure faster and kept morale high, as well as giving him some control over the MSM narrative. But the major thing he loses without the rallies is his connection to us and what we want. All he has are his advisors, and quite often they are out of touch with the rest of America.
Strength and Honor
Do it! The public has your back!
and we have drained the shelves of ammo for months and still are
Amen
It is now or never, Mr. President.
Isn't it amazing how perfectly natural he looks photoshopped into an outfit like this? Can you imagine trying to do the same thing with pedo Joe's head?
It is the equivalent of a King wearing his regalia compared to a child in Halloween dress.
be careful! there's a dog running around somewhere, don't need any tripping
I bet 10 Rare Pepes this will be in the sidebar eventually
You have 10 rare pepes? I just have a few uncommon ones and a feels good man...
PAX TRUMPANA
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
Em vino Veritas
alea iacta est
Don't even need a new government. Just restore the US Constitution to the highest law of the land. Anything standing in the way is the swamp.
Drain the swamp, Rubicon Don!
"Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes exhausts and murders itself. There never was a Democracy Yet, that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to Say that Democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious or less avaricious than Aristocracy or Monarchy. It is not true in Fact and no where appears in history." - President John Adams, Founding Father
“In every community where industry is encouraged, there will be a division of it into the few and the many. Hence, separate interests will arise. There will be debtors and creditors, etc. Give all the power to the many, they will oppress the few. The voice of the people has been said to be the voice of God, and however generally this maxim has been quoted and believed, it is not true in fact. The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right Give therefore to the first class a distinct, permanent share in the government. They will check the unsteadiness of the second, and as they cannot receive any advantage by a change, they therefore will ever maintain good government. Can a democratic assembly, who annually revolve in the mass of the people, be supposed steadily to pursue the public good? Nothing but a permanent body can check the imprudence of democracy.” - Lt. Col Alexander Hamilton, Washington's Secretary of the Treasury and Founding Father
"You young men who have been born since the Revolution, look with horror upon the name of a King, and upon all propositions for a strong government. It was not so with us. We were born the subjects of a King, and were accustomed to subscribe ourselves 'His Majesty's most faithful subjects'; and we began the quarell which ended in the Revolution, not against the King, but against his parliament." - Rufus King, Delegate to the Constitutional Convention and Founding Father.
The Founding Fathers are with you President Trump, cast aside the rotten Republic like Caesar before you.
What does "crossing the Rubicon" mean? Dumb today, sorry.
Edit: Nvm, looked it up myself.
Edit 2: For those that don't know, it is a metaphor that means "to pass a point of no return".
caesar crossed the rubicorn river on his way to a civil war. Trump is caesar
! Official sources debooonk that crossing the Rubicon is necessary.
I rebooonk; it's absolutely necessary! Leftists are insane. Their ideas don't even bear repeating.
Alea iacta est*, “the die is cast”
*Dictator for life. Not emperor. His grand nephew/adopted son was the first Emperor.
It's much much deeper, keep reading
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossing_the_Rubicon
Father keep him safe at the rally tomorrow. Keep him in the hollow of your hand. Surround him with legions of angels to fend off evil. Protect him and let no harm come to him. We ask this in Jesus name. Amen and Amen!!
Amen.
Amen
LETS GO!!!!!!
The expansion of Rome to the late republic was about 300 years. We’re at about 250 now. Seems like appropriate timing.
When you read CATO , remember that he stole reserved retirement lands from legion veterans and lands reserved for a moderate lease by their widows and the disabled by using nominal owners, paid them peanuts for the rights.
Cato was an Optimate, he believed the ancientness of his house and wealth put him above all other Romans, in a select group. Like Bill Gates.
Caesar did right by his troops, instituted a ton of reforms, pardoned his enemies, and ruled justly. The Roman Senate at the time was a clear majority of Elitists. They demanded he basically commit suicide by coming to Rome without his Legions to be killed, after winning countless victories. Pompey was suborned by being invited into the Elite class and betrayed his friend Caesar and the People. They also "mass migrated" countless slaves which took away the jobs of the ordinary Roman Citizens and gave them a little Anona - welfare - in compensation. Sound familiar?
Amen, always nice to see another lover of roman history. People call Caesar and Augustus tyrants but they forget that they brought upon the best of times for Rome. From Augustus to Marcus Aurelius the empire prospered. And while from Commudus to Alexander Severus things got worse they were still peaceful and ok.
Well, helps when by the time the empire comes around you've subdued (in different extremes) the Gauls, Greeks, Carthaginians, Egyptians, and Parthians. You've also just had 2 civil wars with manpower from surrounding areas like Spain and the rest of Italy.
Things like Pax Romana had less to do with Augustus himself and more to do with the foundation set before him.
The foundation he built upon was terrible. The late republic was unstable as fuck. It’s economy had gone to shit because of the land owners gobbled up the soldiers farms. Germans invaded inflicting several cannae level defeats. Wars with mithridates in the east. And at home the political situation had deteriorated greatly. The first century BC was full of internal wars, from the social war to the final war of the republic. Augustus ended the wars between the Romans and made massive reforms that allowed for Pax Romana.
Can you imagine the Roman crazy Nancy, Crying Chuck, Mad Max-ine and Schiftty Schift demanding welfare for the barbarians, kneeling in the senate to virtue signal and using facial diapers during the Antonine Plague?
They would not have killed him, he would've been exiled.
Cato really wanted him gone for good, he was extremely popular and if they exiled him, he was wealthy and influential enough to raise legions.
I lean towards Cato and Optimates demanding Execution. They were unbelievably stubborn and both Pompey Magnus & Cicero's compromises were rejected by Cato and the Optimates.
Even just one province and two legions they rejected.
That expression is so perfect for this picture.
"Rudycon"
Rubicon Don!
A name too perfect to waste. It must be done!
People Should Know When They're Conquered....
Soon the final decision will be made and they chose not to negotiate. Their goal is absolute power over you. Compromise has been ignored despite our efforts. Yet we are still willing to negotiate? The hard line has been crossed. Our God given rights are stolen by petty thieves. Our voice, our freedom, our lives. Tyranny is here if you allow it to survive.
For the glory of The United States.
Rubicon status: crossed
Once this is true I will be celebrating with tequila blanco while polishing guns.
Once the Rubicon is crossed, the time for polishing is over.
Let’s do it; I’ll bring the covfefe.
I'll bring the ammo
When it's crossed, we won't be here discussing it. We'll be out fighting.
Ave Trump!
God damn, I love this kind of art that shows Trump as a glorious leader
CROSS THE RUBICON
Username..... hey wait a minute.....
I believe he's going to do it, folks. I'm done worrying about whatever the courts will decide. If even the Supreme Court doesn't have the balls to defend our country, the United States military will. The traitors will rue the day they thought they would get away with selling out our country to its enemies without tangling with our armed forces sworn to protect it.
Finally, the rise of Trumpwave
Really, it has to be done. Otherwise we are screwed.
Warrior King, long may he live.
Men die, Women Die PEPE’S live forever this is our time..
Rubicon Don!
I would upvote this 1000000000 times if I could. In honor of the amount of rounds I would shoot into commies and deep state traitors.
He is the modern day Caesar
I got plates, now I need pelts too?
Nah. Plates are fine.
Yes do it!
He comes Ralphie from the Sopranos
Cry "Havoc!" and let slip the dogs of war,
Yep.
Let's do it.
Nice work!! REALLY nice work.