seems the US has a new monarch

@bookofmorons He is trying but the non-political leaders in the pentagon are warning us about him which is one step from him being removed by force. The US constitution does provide for that...

@Lizard_of_Ahaz time will tell

Thud.

I order you to read Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville. He supported the monarchy and explained why. Fascism is not to be confused with monarchists.

You're part of a long standing pattern on the web of saying if you don't like it, it must be fascist.

It is good to be the king.

@WonderWartHog99 Not so good to be a slave which is what most people under a king are....

@Lizard_of_Ahaz One of the last people in the 20th century that was a monarch in Egypt (King Farouk I, overthrown 1952) who didn't have slavery in his country. I am not talking about figure head monarch, such as the queen of England.

Under monarchs who do endorse slavery, most people aren't slaves. Slavery requires a top heavy management plan. Prior to the civil war, slavery was referred to as by southerns as a "peculiar institution" because how strange the management rules are to make it profitable. Northern Yankees used to have slavery but they couldn't make it profitable. Yankees aren't as clever as they think they are.

It's a forgone conclusion that you won't read Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville although it's available for free on line.

@WonderWartHog99 Do you even know who Alexis de Tocqueville was? He came from a Norman aristocratic family that fled Paris to avoid being shortened during the French revolution. Of course he hated Democracy it took much of his family's power and wealth away from them and ended serfdom so he actually had to pay wages instead of "collecting taxes"

@Lizard_of_Ahaz Short story: you still refuse to read his book on the fear he'd make too much sense.

I forget: how common was it, prior to the French revolution, to own slaves?

@WonderWartHog99 He makes no sense at all recommending the same failed system that was the problem to begin with. Besides they did give the same failed system a try shortly after the revolution remember Napoleon?...

@Lizard_of_Ahaz There is a longer list of failed democracies than unsuccessful monarchies. Most democracies are democratic in name only. If the government says the czar is in charge, the czar is in charge.

If you had followed my reading recommendation you'd be going "Uh wait a second -- he's making sense again.

@WonderWartHog99 Actually there is a far larger list of failed monarchies which you would know if you read more than one book to get your information.... You lack sense and so did that stupid monarchist who wrote the drivel you drool over.... In India alone during the Vedic Era more monarchies collapsed than the total number of Democracies in the history of the world. Many of the Democracies in the Middle East were sabotaged by Western European countries and the USA and the fascists like Hitler were only able to succeed in their take overs because of extremely wealthy people in the US who financed them. Thus from reality we can postulate that Democracies are more stable than monarchies, or any other form of government which restricts or eliminates upward social mobility including fascism or communism... Dictatorships don't work.
If you had any brains at all you would have realized that from 1618 to 1648 hundreds of monarchies in Europe simply ceased to exist. A little thing called the 30 Years War remember?... The so called "Holy Roman Empire" was none of those things it was simply the church controlling thousands of small countries throughout the region of Europe. The Catholic church started the war thinking to regain those small monarchies they had lost to the Protestants alone with the church properties they took with them. In the end nobody won not even the pope...

@Lizard_of_Ahaz ... You lack sense and so did that stupid monarchist who wrote the drivel you drool over...

When you don't have a good case and no authorizes to cite -- call them names. Ah, a flamer lamer. Of course my source was stupid. Me too!

The 19th century text [Democracy in America] is considered so significant that it is a recommended textbook for political science courses in colleges even today.

Source: [thefamouspeople.com]

When I'm thrown off of yet another discussion group on the internet because I'm not echoing what others think (especially religious groups), I am reminded of him.

@Lizard_of_Ahaz > If you had any brains at all you would have realized that from 1618 to 1648 hundreds of monarchies in Europe simply ceased to exist. A little thing called the 30 Years War remember?

You don't seem to remember the 30 year war wasn't a SINGLE war.

Thirty Years’ War, (1618–48), in European history, a series of wars fought by various nations for various reasons, including religious, dynastic, territorial, and commercial rivalries.

Source: [britannica.com]

Dictatorships don't work.

They often just last as long as the life of the dictator. Remember Papa Doc? Baby Doc was unable to continue as ruler and a revolution got him out of office.

What you are confusing is dictators who arise from revolution with king. A king has religious backing and his people assume his word is the word of God. Once religions change the king is on shaky grounds. It's why there are few absolute monarchies in the world. People learned to ask question about generally held assumptions.