Monarchy vs Democracy A Critical Look at Democracy

[Sar1n]

So once more you have failed to give a proper example. Spain was christian before the Muslim invasion. They simply retook the lands. As for claims of forced conversion of Muslims, well that would be a myth. Great sources out there for those willing to learn.

https://www.amazon.com/Modern-Schola.../dp/B001JHT8A6
https://www.amazon.com/Bearing-False...7763581&sr=8-1
https://www.amazon.com/Real-Story-Ca...MZ0A0AYYFG2SM8

Meanwhile you cannot deny this happens in democracy around the world. And are you saying the crusades were to convert?

https://www.christianforums.com/thre...sades.8136591/

Muslims were invaders, as were Visigoths before them, and Romans before. Nothing new. The forced conversions, of which you can read here:
https://books.google.cz/books?id=td3...kC&redir_esc=y
https://books.google.cz/books?id=7QJ...cC&redir_esc=y
https://books.google.cz/books?id=wvF...AJ&redir_esc=y
...were something new.
And meeting the conquest with conquest AND unprecedented violence against civilian population is not a good principle for a good government.

And again, I suggest you start educating yourself. Northern crusades, Albigensian crusade, anti-Hussite crusades, those were primarily attempts of forced conversion. You seem to be confusing those with the crusades to middle east, which are entirely different and complex matter.

BTW, what "forced conversion" in democracy are you talking about? In case you missed it, UN declaration of human rights, and bills that followed it, grant religious freedom as universal human right.

The truthfulness has nothing to do with my argument, the belief that it is true [vs secular] is. There is no justification within atheism to grant liberty to people and no safety net to protect liberty outside of a biblical society that has higher law than the state. These are the truths/arguments i made. And history shows this true. That is the debate regarding this thread and the debate you have ran away from. As for your claims above and arguments. I would love to debate them here when a relevant thread is on the topic that you have inspired me to do. But if you cannot wait. here is a great 1v1 debate forum where I will be glad to do just that. You have brought up many topic that should be debated alone. Here is the sight i am sighed up register and we shall debate proper.

https://www.debate.org/


Its really a wonderful site and format. Lots of fun.

I would say you have blind eyes to what democracy has produced on this matter. The only allowed state religion is secular. You cant have a "religion" so you must adhere to and teach/preach atheism/evolution, moral relativism and the other philosophies that help master democracy/ the state consolidate power. You claim Religion is an individual's choice, and not something that can be imposed on other" without realizing in saying so you have accepted secular thinking and presuppositions that you have been taught in a secular state. And than claim we are not secular. No science is not given priority over the secular religion of the state [evolution] as you claim.

You than claim " But neither are the beliefs themselves persecuted-as long as you don't act on those that would violate rights of others." unless the rights violated are say christian or monarchist, than we genocide them by the millions. And of course they dont have rights to a monarch or christian society, no only secular societies in democracies that teach/preach atheism and related philosophies using tax money we force from the people to teach against their beliefs. We use christian dollars to build secular temples. And than claim "For example, teaching creationism in schools is banned in most secular countries (some backward US states being the exception) because it puts specific religious belief above science and imposes it on children, thus violating their right of religious freedom"

and claim its for religious liberty. So the state can teach anti-science false claims/lies in textbooks etc to convince its people of its religion evolution/atheism yet creation is "religious" and so its banned for freedom. So Christians have no rights to teach truth instead must pay money to teach lies and wont be allowed to raise as they want and we call it freedom. And you claimed we are in a free society and not a secular one? Please use logic for that one.

Jail. Sure, dont pay your taxes that go to funding a religion [secularism.atheism/evolution] in public schools. Dont pay the fine since it is unjust since we are a "free" society and treated equal. Than dont show up to court because we are a free fair society, see what happens.

I said they come from secular law, from roman state law, not christian. Perhaps the most fun I have had was the claim that " the power of a religious organization, and thus total antithesis to secular ideas"
how do you explain the enforcement of power by secular/democracies? they are the single best example of enforced power and cohesion. But where do you get all these ideas about the inquestions? it is because you are raised in a secular state. So you are told to believe certain things as a form of brainwash to keep you secular. To continue to support the democratic atheistic state.

I would suggest your confusing a secular state with outlawing a religion entirely and persecuting it as so many democracies did while they killed millions of Christians for their faith or beliefs in monarchies.

How about the millions killed or told to accept atheism and democracy in Russia? However this is a common myth of the forced conversion of muslims. For those who wish to learn ....

https://www.amazon.com/Modern-Schola...7765881&sr=8-1
Great, come make all those claims and support them here.

https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...dal-Monarchies
BTW I can tell you never read my thread by what you posted. Hope you join. If all else fails ill just post the material over here.

I'll try it once more, see if you can understand what secularism and science really is.
The essential idea behind secularism is that all religions are equal and equally unproven/unprovable. Logic behind which I demonstrated before. Therefore, the basis of govenment is humanism and provable, objective reality. Science is a system that uses provability, testing and application as means of descivering the objective reality. Scientific frauds don't last long due to this. There's always someone who puts them to actual test.
The difference between creationism and evolution is this. Evolution is a product of scientific research, grounded in countless data and, despite many cases where creationists try special pleading, it is proven, tested and applied. Just like any other scientific advancement, it does not exist in vacuum. Archaeological evidence is grounded in physics, chemistry and biology that provide means of dating the records, biological mechanisms of it are intertwined with molecular biology, and use of it already provided new medicines and ways to combat diseases. Compared to that, creationism is grounded in a single myth. It's not an equal alternative. For that, it would have to fulfill same standards of evidence as evolution. Good luck with that.
What you call repression is, in fact, case where your conviction that your belief is true leads you to special pleading against system that hold every religious or quasi-religious idea equal. That includes atheism, but the fun fact about that is that since atheism does not require its followers to believe much that is unprovable, it gets along secular philosophy just fine.
You keep spouting how the democracies killed milions of christians and monarchists for their belief (acting with malicious intent against other people based on your belief, that's different thing). But short of one quote that's been proven to be torn out of context and in fact, is part of the book that came to the opposite conclusion, you've been unable to properly substantiate that.

And speaking of that...I've read first part of your...whatever and skimmed the rest. Nothing there is really substantial. I've put my criticism here along with reasons. I prefer to argue with logic, rather than just throwing quotes on other people.

[18611096]

That is the romantic fantasy and now the hard truth for good old time dreamers:

SERFDOM

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Serfdom, condition in medieval Europe in which a tenant farmer was bound to a hereditary plot of land and to the will of his landlord. The vast majority of serfs in medieval Europe obtained their subsistence by cultivating a plot of land that was owned by a lord. This was the essential feature differentiating serfs from slaves, who were bought and sold without reference to a plot of land. The serf provided his own food and clothing from his own productive efforts. A substantial proportion of the grain the serf grew on his holding had to be given to his lord. The lord could also compel the serf to cultivate that portion of the lord’s land that was not held by other tenants (called demesne land). The serf also had to use his lord’s grain mills and no others.

The essential additional mark of serfdom was the lack of many of the personal liberties that were held by freedmen. Chief among these was the serf’s lack of freedom of movement; he could not permanently leave his holding or his village without his lord’s permission. Neither could the serf marry, change his occupation, or dispose of his property without his lord’s permission. He was bound to his designated plot of land and could be transferred along with that land to a new lord. Serfs were often harshly treated and had little legal redress against the actions of their lords. A serf could become a freedman only through manumission, enfranchisement, or escape.

From as early as the 2nd century ce, many of the large, privately held estates in the Roman Empire that had been worked by gangs of slaves were gradually broken up into peasant holdings. These peasants of the late Roman Empire, many of whom were descendants of slaves, came to depend on larger landowners and other important persons for protection from state tax collectors and, later, from barbarian invaders and oppressive neighbours. Some of these coloni, as the dependent peasants were called, may have taken up holdings granted them by a proprietor, or they may have surrendered their own lands to him in return for such protection. In any case, it became a practice for the dependent peasant to swear fealty to a proprietor, thus becoming bound to that lord.

The main problem with the coloni was that of preventing them from leaving the land they had agreed to cultivate as tenant farmers. The solution was to legally bind them to their holdings. Accordingly, a legal code established by the Roman emperor Constantine in 332 demanded labour services to be paid to the lord by the coloni. Although the coloni were legally free, the conditions of fealty required them to cultivate their lord’s untenanted lands as well as their leased plot. This not only tied them to their holdings but also made their social status essentially servile, since the exaction of labour services required the landlord’s agents to exercise discipline over the coloni. The threat, or the exercise, of this discipline was recognized as one of the clearest signs of a man’s personal subjection.
By the 6th century the servi (= latin for slave), or serfs, as the servile peasants came to be called, were treated as an inferior element in society. Serfs subsequently became a major class in the small, decentralized polities that characterized most of Europe from the fall of the Roman Empire in the 5th century to the initial reconstitution of feudal monarchies, duchies, and counties in the 12th century.


By the 14th century, economic conditions in western Europe were favourable to the replacement of serfs by a free peasantry. The growth of the power of central and regional governments permitted the enforcement of peasant-landlord contracts without the need for peasant servility, and the final abandonment of labour services on demesnes removed the need for the direct exercise of labour discipline on the peasantry. The drastic population decline in Europe after 1350 as a result of the Black Death left much arable land uncultivated and also created an acute labour shortage, both economically favourable events for the peasantry. And finally, the endemic peasant uprisings in western Europe during the 14th and 15th centuries also forced more favourable terms of peasant tenure. Although the new peasants were not necessarily better off economically than were their servile forebears, they had increased personal liberties and were no longer entirely subject to the will of the lords whose lands they worked.

This favourable evolution was not shared by the peasants of eastern Europe. Peasant conditions there in the 14th century do not seem to have been worse than those of the west, and in some ways they were better, because the colonization of forestlands in eastern Germany, Poland, Bohemia, Moravia, and Hungary had led to the establishment of many free-peasant communities. But a combination of political and economic circumstances reversed these developments. The chief reason was that the wars that devastated eastern Europe in the 14th and 15th centuries tended to increase the power of the nobility at the expense of the central governments. In eastern Germany, Prussia, Poland, and Russia, this development coincided with an increased demand for grain from western Europe. To profit from this demand, nobles and other landlords took back peasant holdings, expanded their own cultivation, and made heavy demands for peasant labour services. Peasant status from eastern Germany to Muscovy consequently deteriorated sharply. Not until the late 18th century were the peasants of the Austro-Hungarian Empire freed from serfdom, thus recovering their freedom of movement and marriage and the right to learn a profession according to personal choice. The serfs of Russia were not given their personal freedom and their own allotments of land until Alexander II’s Edict of Emancipation of 1861.

Throughout Chinese history, land-bound peasants were considered freemen in law but depended entirely upon the landowner for subsistence. In this system of serfdom, peasants could be traded, punished without due process of law, and made to pay tribute to the lord with labour. All serfs were freed, however, upon the creation of the People’s Republic of China in 1949.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/serfdom

Yes, i can:

The Burning of Beziers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_at_B%C3%A9ziers

Thanks for the comments and discussion. I'll take the second first. This is not an example of forced conversion to Catholicism but the removal of those who rose to power that threatened the comunity and killed papal legates. First the church held councils and condemned the heresy but it continued to spread rapid. An earlier Pope had sent missionaries to teach/preach and worked with secular rulers for help. Later a secular leader kills a papal legate and the pope calls a crusade in reaction. This was not aimed at people who were not catholic but what was viewed as a serious threat to the people [highest form of worship was to commit suicide]. the people under these leaders called for help as it spread. The crusade was not aimed at the people but the leaders only and removing them. We even see this in your source as it says they sought peace and the leaders only. But they would not hand them over and they were than asked to leave. It was rejected and normal siege warfare happened. As i said this is not an example of forced conversion but a crusade to remove pagan leaders from former catholic lands who were converting its people and who were willing to fight/die for their power. But I think greater context is still needed, see here

https://www.christianforums.com/thre...tions.8136588/

Further I hope this one incident we dont forget what democracies have done to their version of heretics.




You have chosen the lowest rank in feudal the serf. While what was said was not wholly false, only in some areas, it does not either tell the whole truth or the reality of life for the serf. Compared to the verge slave wage laborer of today working 9-5 and a citizen in a democracy, this lowest of class of the medieval time period was far more free than us. We are all forced serfs of the state and they take far greater % of our labor than any Lord would have dreamed. And our lives are more regulated and controlled by the state plus a boss than any serf ever had to submit to. One thing left out is the "serf" before he was so called, was generally a citizen who moved from the city to the country. He had no lands himself. people had the choice of witch Lord to follow and what political system to live under. Generally men would swear an oath to the Lord of their choice who would give the peasant land to work and protection. In return the peasant would give a small % of his produce back to the Lord [nothing compared to modern rent or taxes]. And also at times volunteer military service to the Lord. Lords protected the people in their domain who in return would swear an allegiance to the lord. It was a mutual beneficial situation that encouraged Lords to serve his/her people well as he would have more and more loyal men who would willingly fight under his banner. This was a loyalty by choice not a forced servitude. Thomas Aquinas said “ Good kings, on the contrary, are loved by many when they show that they love their subjects and are studiously intent on the common welfare, and when their subjects can see that they derive many benefits from this zealous care, government of good kings is stable, because their subjects do not refuse to expose themselves to any danger whatsoever on behalf of such kings.” Likewise a wicked ruler will have no support from his people and his kingdom will not last. French historian Leon Gautier writes in his book Chivalry the Everyday Life of the medieval Knight on the bonds between Lord and his men “The bonds of feudalism were stronger than family ties. The Lord was greater than a father, and a vassal was more than a son.”


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

Today government can change deals but not in the past. And if one Lord when outside of the local laws/traditions or went back on his agreed upon deal with the "serf" he was to be resisted by all. And since their were many local lords all competing for service, this made Lords accountable. Further unlike mass centralized democracies A Lord, due in part to multiple competitors in any given area, would support free markets and low taxes specifically of the merchant class.

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


Lords and Knights often swore oaths to protect the weak and poor as well as monks and priests. They were Catholics that believed they would be judged by God on how they conducted themselves. Further any "serf" could "move up" and become a peasant with his own land and earn income on the side by craft or become a knight, if he so wished and live the American "dream"


“TheAmerican male of the white-collar class does not work himself todeath... What he wants is the desired place in the community, thebetter "background" for his children. Up to the age offorty-five when he gets his nervous breakdown, or to the age offiftyfive when he dies in the Cancer Hospital, or at 60 when he isfound dead over the dictaphone, he hardly gets more than a fortnighta year off from his work to enjoy life and freedom (like his wife orhis daughter). There is the type of the young lawyer in downtown NewYork who works daily till eleven p.m. in order to "make good." -Erikvon Kuehnelt- Leddihn The Menace of the Herd or Procrustes at LargeBruce Publishing Company Milwaukee 1943



But money was not yet god. People were not taught to want to steal others money or feel the need for materialistic idols.


“Thegenuine European peasant never thinks about increasing his wealth;he is deeply rooted in the soil and timeless. Just like theproletarian he works in order to live and not the other way round. Hestands nearer to nature than the bourgeois, but he is neither ananimist, nor a pantheist, and least of all a deist. None of thesephilosophies attract him because he is near to nature. He fells treesand knows that they are not animated by any spirits, he moves thecorn and is well aware that it is the wind whispering in the stalksand not the souls of the dead. In spite of the fact that his strongimagination is focused on his inner world, he is realistic and drycut. All natural things are near to him — they are to himundemoniacal and transparent. Birth, death, love, illness, and sexare to him the fundamental facts of life. But the dweller of thecities uprooted from his usual artificial surroundings gets drunklike Rousseau when left alone with the forces of nature, theUrgewalten der Natur, which remind him of eternity and hisfiniteness.”
-Erikvon Kuehnelt- Leddihn The Menace of the Herd or Procrustes at LargeBruce Publishing Company Milwaukee 1943


“If each person laboured upon his own improvement and counted the affairs of others as outside his concerns, the circumstances of each and every person would be absolutely optimal, and virtue would flourish and reason would prevail, mutual charity reigning everywhere, so that the flesh would be subjected to the spirit and the spirit would be a servant in full devotion to God.”
-John of Salisbury 1115-1180 Policraticus


Not yet fully updated but for more on change in philosophy from our agrarian past to today's democratic/industrialist/ money obsessed culture see here

http://www.politicalforum.com/index....ost-1071262784




medival serf not slave rights woker 4 lord protection all other rights the situation of the serf, as we see, was radically different and in no way comparable to that of the slave.”-defense



“Modern man in the city is from that point of view even worse off than the serf. In eighty out of a hundred cases he does not own a home but lives in literal serfdom. Provided he earns four checks of fifty dollars each in a month he can retain three of those, but the fourth he has to turn in to his landlord. That means — to all practical purposes — that the individual tenant works one and a half days each week for the landlord. His refusal to do so would end more disastrously than the ancient serf's because he would be turned out from his home and his meager possessions be removed to the street. Thus to talk about modern freedom is mere cant when we exalt it in juxtaposition to medieval freedom.”
-Erik von Kuehnelt- Leddihn The Menace of the Herd or Procrustes at Large Bruce Publishing Company Milwaukee 1943






‘The feet’ is the name of those who exercise the humbler duties, by whose service all the members of the republic may walk along the earth. In this accounting may be included the peasants who always stick to the land, looking after their cultivated fields or plantings or pastures or flowersFor inferiors must serve superiors, who on the other hand ought to provide all necessary protection to their inferiors. For this reason, Plutarch says that what is to the advantage of the humbler people, that is, the multitude, is to be followed; for the fewer always submit to the more numerous. Therefore, magistrates were instituted for the reason that injuries might be averted from subjects and the republic itself might put shoes, as it were, on its workers. For when they are exposed to injuries it is as if the republic is barefoot; there can be nothing more ignominious for those who administer the magistracies. Indeed an afflicted people is like proof and irrefutable demonstration of the prince’s gout. The health of the whole republic will only be secure and splendid if the superior members devote themselves to the inferiors and if the inferiors respond likewise to the legal rights of their superiors, so that each individual may be likened to a part of the others reciprocally and each believes what is to his own advantage to be determined by that which he recognises to be most useful for others.” -John of Salisbury 1115-1180 Policraticus


“The industrious man is a truly feminine phenomenon. In male cultures men only work in order to live, but in nations where women domineer, men show ambition, zeal for labor, and they frequently work themselves to death firmly believing that they live in order to work......Haste is not only unmanly, but — as Ortega has demonstrated it — also the very negation of our immortality. The Middle Ages was a period without haste, it was male and timeless.”
-Erik von Kuehnelt- Leddihn The Menace of the Herd or Procrustes at Large Bruce Publishing Company Milwaukee 1943

[18611096]

That is the romantic fantasy and now the hard truth for good old time dreamers:

SERFDOM

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Serfdom, condition in medieval Europe in which a tenant farmer was bound to a hereditary plot of land and to the will of his landlord. The vast majority of serfs in medieval Europe obtained their subsistence by cultivating a plot of land that was owned by a lord. This was the essential feature differentiating serfs from slaves, who were bought and sold without reference to a plot of land. The serf provided his own food and clothing from his own productive efforts. A substantial proportion of the grain the serf grew on his holding had to be given to his lord. The lord could also compel the serf to cultivate that portion of the lord’s land that was not held by other tenants (called demesne land). The serf also had to use his lord’s grain mills and no others.

The essential additional mark of serfdom was the lack of many of the personal liberties that were held by freedmen. Chief among these was the serf’s lack of freedom of movement; he could not permanently leave his holding or his village without his lord’s permission. Neither could the serf marry, change his occupation, or dispose of his property without his lord’s permission. He was bound to his designated plot of land and could be transferred along with that land to a new lord. Serfs were often harshly treated and had little legal redress against the actions of their lords. A serf could become a freedman only through manumission, enfranchisement, or escape.

From as early as the 2nd century ce, many of the large, privately held estates in the Roman Empire that had been worked by gangs of slaves were gradually broken up into peasant holdings. These peasants of the late Roman Empire, many of whom were descendants of slaves, came to depend on larger landowners and other important persons for protection from state tax collectors and, later, from barbarian invaders and oppressive neighbours. Some of these coloni, as the dependent peasants were called, may have taken up holdings granted them by a proprietor, or they may have surrendered their own lands to him in return for such protection. In any case, it became a practice for the dependent peasant to swear fealty to a proprietor, thus becoming bound to that lord.

The main problem with the coloni was that of preventing them from leaving the land they had agreed to cultivate as tenant farmers. The solution was to legally bind them to their holdings. Accordingly, a legal code established by the Roman emperor Constantine in 332 demanded labour services to be paid to the lord by the coloni. Although the coloni were legally free, the conditions of fealty required them to cultivate their lord’s untenanted lands as well as their leased plot. This not only tied them to their holdings but also made their social status essentially servile, since the exaction of labour services required the landlord’s agents to exercise discipline over the coloni. The threat, or the exercise, of this discipline was recognized as one of the clearest signs of a man’s personal subjection.
By the 6th century the servi (= latin for slave), or serfs, as the servile peasants came to be called, were treated as an inferior element in society. Serfs subsequently became a major class in the small, decentralized polities that characterized most of Europe from the fall of the Roman Empire in the 5th century to the initial reconstitution of feudal monarchies, duchies, and counties in the 12th century.


By the 14th century, economic conditions in western Europe were favourable to the replacement of serfs by a free peasantry. The growth of the power of central and regional governments permitted the enforcement of peasant-landlord contracts without the need for peasant servility, and the final abandonment of labour services on demesnes removed the need for the direct exercise of labour discipline on the peasantry. The drastic population decline in Europe after 1350 as a result of the Black Death left much arable land uncultivated and also created an acute labour shortage, both economically favourable events for the peasantry. And finally, the endemic peasant uprisings in western Europe during the 14th and 15th centuries also forced more favourable terms of peasant tenure. Although the new peasants were not necessarily better off economically than were their servile forebears, they had increased personal liberties and were no longer entirely subject to the will of the lords whose lands they worked.

This favourable evolution was not shared by the peasants of eastern Europe. Peasant conditions there in the 14th century do not seem to have been worse than those of the west, and in some ways they were better, because the colonization of forestlands in eastern Germany, Poland, Bohemia, Moravia, and Hungary had led to the establishment of many free-peasant communities. But a combination of political and economic circumstances reversed these developments. The chief reason was that the wars that devastated eastern Europe in the 14th and 15th centuries tended to increase the power of the nobility at the expense of the central governments. In eastern Germany, Prussia, Poland, and Russia, this development coincided with an increased demand for grain from western Europe. To profit from this demand, nobles and other landlords took back peasant holdings, expanded their own cultivation, and made heavy demands for peasant labour services. Peasant status from eastern Germany to Muscovy consequently deteriorated sharply. Not until the late 18th century were the peasants of the Austro-Hungarian Empire freed from serfdom, thus recovering their freedom of movement and marriage and the right to learn a profession according to personal choice. The serfs of Russia were not given their personal freedom and their own allotments of land until Alexander II’s Edict of Emancipation of 1861.

Throughout Chinese history, land-bound peasants were considered freemen in law but depended entirely upon the landowner for subsistence. In this system of serfdom, peasants could be traded, punished without due process of law, and made to pay tribute to the lord with labour. All serfs were freed, however, upon the creation of the People’s Republic of China in 1949.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/serfdom

Yes, i can:

The Burning of Beziers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_at_B%C3%A9ziers

Sorry, I forgot to add this to my section on the serfs.



“Modernman in the city is from that point of view even worse off than theserf. In eighty out of a hundred cases he does not own a home butlives in literal serfdom. Provided he earns four checks of fiftydollars each in a month he can retain three of those, but the fourthhe has to turn in to his landlord. That means — to all practicalpurposes — that the individual tenant works one and a half dayseach week for the landlord. His refusal to do so would end moredisastrously than the ancient serf's because he would be turned outfrom his home and his meager possessions be removed to the street.Thus to talk about modern freedom is mere cant when we exalt it injuxtaposition to medieval freedom.”
-Erikvon Kuehnelt- Leddihn The Menace of the Herd or Procrustes at LargeBruce Publishing Company Milwaukee 1943



Thefeet’ is the name of those who exercise the humbler duties, bywhose service all the members of the republic may walk along theearth. In this accounting may be included the peasants who alwaysstick to the land, looking after their cultivated fields or plantingsor pastures or flowersFor inferiors must serve superiors, who on theother hand ought to provide all necessary protection to theirinferiors. For this reason, Plutarch says that what is to theadvantage of the humbler people, that is, the multitude, is to befollowed; for the fewer always submit to the more numerous.Therefore, magistrates were instituted for the reason that injuriesmight be averted from subjects and the republic itself might putshoes, as it were, on its workers. For when they are exposed toinjuries it is as if the republic is barefoot; there can be nothingmore ignominious for those who administer the magistracies. Indeed anafflicted people is like proof and irrefutable demonstration of theprince’s gout. The health of the whole republic will only be secureand splendid if the superior members devote themselves to theinferiors and if the inferiors respond likewise to the legal rightsof their superiors, so that each individual may be likened to a partof the others reciprocally and each believes what is to his ownadvantage to be determined by that which he recognises to be mostuseful for others.”
-Johnof Salisbury 1115-1180 Policraticus

[18611096]

Muslims were invaders, as were Visigoths before them, and Romans before. Nothing new. The forced conversions, of which you can read here:
https://books.google.cz/books?id=td3...kC&redir_esc=y
https://books.google.cz/books?id=7QJ...cC&redir_esc=y
https://books.google.cz/books?id=wvF...AJ&redir_esc=y
...were something new.
And meeting the conquest with conquest AND unprecedented violence against civilian population is not a good principle for a good government.

And again, I suggest you start educating yourself. Northern crusades, Albigensian crusade, anti-Hussite crusades, those were primarily attempts of forced conversion. You seem to be confusing those with the crusades to middle east, which are entirely different and complex matter.

BTW, what "forced conversion" in democracy are you talking about? In case you missed it, UN declaration of human rights, and bills that followed it, grant religious freedom as universal human right.

I agree, and that is one reason why democracies are so awful, how there wars are faught vs medieval. But it seems you admit than this was not a case of forced conversion but Christians recapturing lands taken by force by the Muslims. Yes it was taken by force before but that does not change the facts of why the Christians retook their lands. What if a army from canada came and invaded the us and they were monarchist and christian, i bet you would be ok with us retaking it for "democracy"


I thank you for the books linked but could you give a specific example of forced conversion by the catholic church? or in the bible? If you read those books you should be able to. As for forced conversion in democracy read my op's. Public secular education [approved by the state of course] is how it is most often done.

I'll try it once more, see if you can understand what secularism and science really is.
The essential idea behind secularism is that all religions are equal and equally unproven/unprovable. Logic behind which I demonstrated before. Therefore, the basis of govenment is humanism and provable, objective reality. Science is a system that uses provability, testing and application as means of descivering the objective reality. Scientific frauds don't last long due to this. There's always someone who puts them to actual test.
The difference between creationism and evolution is this. Evolution is a product of scientific research, grounded in countless data and, despite many cases where creationists try special pleading, it is proven, tested and applied. Just like any other scientific advancement, it does not exist in vacuum. Archaeological evidence is grounded in physics, chemistry and biology that provide means of dating the records, biological mechanisms of it are intertwined with molecular biology, and use of it already provided new medicines and ways to combat diseases. Compared to that, creationism is grounded in a single myth. It's not an equal alternative. For that, it would have to fulfill same standards of evidence as evolution. Good luck with that.
What you call repression is, in fact, case where your conviction that your belief is true leads you to special pleading against system that hold every religious or quasi-religious idea equal. That includes atheism, but the fun fact about that is that since atheism does not require its followers to believe much that is unprovable, it gets along secular philosophy just fine.
You keep spouting how the democracies killed milions of christians and monarchists for their belief (acting with malicious intent against other people based on your belief, that's different thing). But short of one quote that's been proven to be torn out of context and in fact, is part of the book that came to the opposite conclusion, you've been unable to properly substantiate that.

And speaking of that...I've read first part of your...whatever and skimmed the rest. Nothing there is really substantial. I've put my criticism here along with reasons. I prefer to argue with logic, rather than just throwing quotes on other people.

Only because you have taken the blue pill do you not see it. To someone who is in the matrix they have no other reality, so long as they accept it they can only see what is told them to believe by the machine, in this case democracy philosophy via schools. You dont even see it when you admit it. You said

r "The essential idea behind secularism is that all religions are equal and equally unproven/unprovable."

This is part of what I have been saying. they teach relativism on certain subjects that would disfavor the state [any higher authority than it] and absolute truth when it favors them [all religions are equal and unproven] of course they than do their best to disprove the bible. If you ever actually read my op, you will see I point out the contrary philosophies in secular democracy and medieval monarchies and how since the time of Rome, the centralized state has always endorsed relativism in religion and why that is. And how these and other philosophies effect politics and culture. Its kind of a big section you might want to read before posting.


Wow that is allot of blue pill you have taken.

"Evolution is a product of scientific research, grounded in countless data and, despite many cases where creationists try special pleading, it is proven, tested and applied. Just like any other scientific advancement, it does not exist in vacuum. Archaeological evidence is grounded in physics, chemistry and biology that provide means of dating the records, biological mechanisms of it are intertwined with molecular biology, and use of it already provided new medicines and ways to combat diseases. Compared to that, creationism is grounded in a single myth. It's not an equal alternative. For that, it would have to fulfill same standards of evidence as evolution. Good luck with that."

Thanks and good luck to you. I will allow you to chose the debate topic. I would love best to have you try and defend the above claims but we both know you wont do that. So pick you favorite one subject, lets debate.

https://www.debate.org/


Or a general creation vs evolution would do well. I love showing how blue the pill we swallow is. And really these are tied in as my op said. They need in secular states us to be relativist and atheist and evolutionist. Interesting fact. When the communist took over east eruope first thing they did was teach evolution even before democracy/communism. Why? it provided the justification for it.


You keep spouting how the democracies killed milions of christians and monarchists for their belief (acting with malicious intent against other people based on your belief, that's different thing). But short of one quote that's been proven to be torn out of context and in fact, is part of the book that came to the opposite conclusion, you've been unable to properly substantiate that


Not sure what you read but the quote was not at all taken out of context, was not even claimed by the other poster. In his desperation he tried to argue against other sections of the article i did not quote, and said that unless i referenced as he did [i almost always did he found 2 i did not] a quote could be taken out of context. That is where he has been, I challenged him to find one out of context, he did not do so. He even admitted to the quote being true. But you think it out of context go ahead and show me.


“R.J. Rummel has studied the phenomenon of the state killing peoplewithin its jurisdiction. He calculates that nearly fourtimes asmany people have been killed by their own governments as have beenkilled in all the wars, domestic and foreign, fought around the globein the twentieth century. Killing on this scale would not be possiblewithout the subversion of independent social authorities caused bymassive centralization. If so, thegreatest threat to human life in the twentieth century has not beenwar but the massive centralization of power in modern states.Rummel says, its as if nuclear war occurred, and no one noticed.”
-DonaldLivingston TheSouthern Critique of Centralization

here is the article

https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/b...entralization/


The only objection was that Rummel though democracy a safeguard against state killing its people. The author of this article professor Donald Livingston is also for democracy of a kind, a constitutional decentralized republic like the U.S was before the civil war. I did not quote him or rummel as monarchist, but as to admitting the state governments of democracies have killed more people than anything in history including wars. I like this quote much much better anyways.



“Therecently ended twentieth century was characterized by a level ofhuman rights violations unparalleled in all of human history. Inthe book death by government, Rudolph Rummel estimates some 170million government-caused deaths in the twentieth century. Thehistorical evidence appears to indicate that, rather than protectinglife, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of their citizens,governments must be considered the greatest threat to humansecurity.... it is states that are responsible for the deaths ofhundreds of millions of people and immeasurable destruction of the20th century alone. Compared to that, victims of privatecrimes are almost negligible.”
-Hans- HermannHoppe Professor Emeritus ofEconomics at UNLV, Distinguished Senior Fellow with the MisesInstitute



What is important is not their opinion on monarchy, but on facts related to the state killing non conformists. This is all made clear if one reads my op. But you and the other poster refuse to. Instead you are trying to take shots blind in the dark. You disagree, you dont like my post but are not sure why because you dont read it. You than make desperate attempts at nothing related to my op in the first place. So here is what I ask of you.



1- support democracy. Tell me why it is the best system.

2- defend democracy. Defend it against my objections.

3- tell me why a feudal monarchy is wort than democracy. This is what should be happening.

[Sar1n]

I agree, and that is one reason why democracies are so awful, how there wars are faught vs medieval. But it seems you admit than this was not a case of forced conversion but Christians recapturing lands taken by force by the Muslims. Yes it was taken by force before but that does not change the facts of why the Christians retook their lands. What if a army from canada came and invaded the us and they were monarchist and christian, i bet you would be ok with us retaking it for "democracy"


I thank you for the books linked but could you give a specific example of forced conversion by the catholic church? or in the bible? If you read those books you should be able to. As for forced conversion in democracy read my op's. Public secular education [approved by the state of course] is how it is most often done.

You're apparently incapable of understanding the term forced conversion.
But here's something very specific. All the information is sourced from either previously linked books or others. You can find plenty of materials about it.
The military phase of Reconquista ended in 1491 with treaty of Granada. The treaty, among other things, stipulated the freedom of muslims to continue practicing their religion in Granada.
In 1499, Archdeacon of Toledo, Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros, arrived in Granada and, unsatisfied with efforts to peacefully convert the muslims of Granada, ordered seizure and burning of all arabic manuscripts in the city, as well as imprisonment and torture of muslim noblemen that resisted conversion, to be released only after converting.
Or maybe you'd like to hear about the Alhambra decree, that gave jews within territories of kingdoms of Castille and Aragon one month to either convert or leave the kingdoms, on penalty of death, or similar decree in 1502 concerning muslims.

Only because you have taken the blue pill do you not see it. To someone who is in the matrix they have no other reality, so long as they accept it they can only see what is told them to believe by the machine, in this case democracy philosophy via schools. You dont even see it when you admit it. You said

r "The essential idea behind secularism is that all religions are equal and equally unproven/unprovable."

This is part of what I have been saying. they teach relativism on certain subjects that would disfavor the state [any higher authority than it] and absolute truth when it favors them [all religions are equal and unproven] of course they than do their best to disprove the bible. If you ever actually read my op, you will see I point out the contrary philosophies in secular democracy and medieval monarchies and how since the time of Rome, the centralized state has always endorsed relativism in religion and why that is. And how these and other philosophies effect politics and culture. Its kind of a big section you might want to read before posting.


Wow that is allot of blue pill you have taken.

"Evolution is a product of scientific research, grounded in countless data and, despite many cases where creationists try special pleading, it is proven, tested and applied. Just like any other scientific advancement, it does not exist in vacuum. Archaeological evidence is grounded in physics, chemistry and biology that provide means of dating the records, biological mechanisms of it are intertwined with molecular biology, and use of it already provided new medicines and ways to combat diseases. Compared to that, creationism is grounded in a single myth. It's not an equal alternative. For that, it would have to fulfill same standards of evidence as evolution. Good luck with that."

Thanks and good luck to you. I will allow you to chose the debate topic. I would love best to have you try and defend the above claims but we both know you wont do that. So pick you favorite one subject, lets debate.

https://www.debate.org/


Or a general creation vs evolution would do well. I love showing how blue the pill we swallow is. And really these are tied in as my op said. They need in secular states us to be relativist and atheist and evolutionist. Interesting fact. When the communist took over east eruope first thing they did was teach evolution even before democracy/communism. Why? it provided the justification for it.


You keep spouting how the democracies killed milions of christians and monarchists for their belief (acting with malicious intent against other people based on your belief, that's different thing). But short of one quote that's been proven to be torn out of context and in fact, is part of the book that came to the opposite conclusion, you've been unable to properly substantiate that

Not sure what you read but the quote was not at all taken out of context, was not even claimed by the other poster. In his desperation he tried to argue against other sections of the article i did not quote, and said that unless i referenced as he did [i almost always did he found 2 i did not] a quote could be taken out of context. That is where he has been, I challenged him to find one out of context, he did not do so. He even admitted to the quote being true. But you think it out of context go ahead and show me.

“R.J. Rummel has studied the phenomenon of the state killing peoplewithin its jurisdiction. He calculates that nearly fourtimes asmany people have been killed by their own governments as have beenkilled in all the wars, domestic and foreign, fought around the globein the twentieth century. Killing on this scale would not be possiblewithout the subversion of independent social authorities caused bymassive centralization. If so, thegreatest threat to human life in the twentieth century has not beenwar but the massive centralization of power in modern states.Rummel says, its as if nuclear war occurred, and no one noticed.”
-DonaldLivingston TheSouthern Critique of Centralization

here is the article

https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/b...entralization/


The only objection was that Rummel though democracy a safeguard against state killing its people. The author of this article professor Donald Livingston is also for democracy of a kind, a constitutional decentralized republic like the U.S was before the civil war. I did not quote him or rummel as monarchist, but as to admitting the state governments of democracies have killed more people than anything in history including wars. I like this quote much much better anyways.

“Therecently ended twentieth century was characterized by a level ofhuman rights violations unparalleled in all of human history. Inthe book death by government, Rudolph Rummel estimates some 170million government-caused deaths in the twentieth century. Thehistorical evidence appears to indicate that, rather than protectinglife, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of their citizens,governments must be considered the greatest threat to humansecurity.... it is states that are responsible for the deaths ofhundreds of millions of people and immeasurable destruction of the20th century alone. Compared to that, victims of privatecrimes are almost negligible.”
-Hans- HermannHoppe Professor Emeritus ofEconomics at UNLV, Distinguished Senior Fellow with the MisesInstitute

What is important is not their opinion on monarchy, but on facts related to the state killing non conformists. This is all made clear if one reads my op. But you and the other poster refuse to. Instead you are trying to take shots blind in the dark. You disagree, you dont like my post but are not sure why because you dont read it. You than make desperate attempts at nothing related to my op in the first place. So here is what I ask of you.

1- support democracy. Tell me why it is the best system.

2- defend democracy. Defend it against my objections.

3- tell me why a feudal monarchy is wort than democracy. This is what should be happening.

And now you try ad hominems and accusing me of being braiwashed. But truth is...you are. You're a fanatic, because you are incapable of considering the topic from other point than your own, your own conviction that your religion is right.

Let me demonstrate. There are hundreds of religions, most of them having their own creation myth that's incompatible with others. Can you give me a reason, beyond your conviction that it's chritianity that is right, that it should be the christinic creationism taught, and not, say, Daoyuan or Tao Te Ching (Chinese Taoistic), Indian Ajativada (sorry for bastardized spelling, but I had no idea whether the special Indian diacritics would be displayed properly), or Creek or Cherokee myths?

Nevertheless, I'll poke a few holes into your perpetuated myth that it's democracies that caused the terror of modern wars.
First, the population of Europe and North America, and shortly after most of the rest of the world, rose at incredible rate in early modern and then modern era, due to several factors. For that reason, comparing the raw number of deaths is meaningless from the start. Bigger populations mean bigger wars.
The technology improved, and with it, killing over distance. You can yield in close combat, but getting shot before you even see the enemy significantly reduces your chance of being taken alive.
The treatment of civilian population and commoners taken prisoner has, however, improved. Improved supply lines reduced dependence of armies on living off the land. International treaties were established to protect prisoners and civilian population. In medieval wars, however, chivalry was poor protection for commoners. While nobles were usually taken as captives for ransom, most commoners were enslaved or executed. The fate of captives was usually at whim of the victors, for example at Agincourt, most prisoners were slaughtered.
Civilian population likewise had no real protection, and it was mostly left at whim of victors. Butchering the cities resisting forced conversion were common feature of crusades. You've been given an example of Béziers earlier.

[18611096]

You're apparently incapable of understanding the term forced conversion.
But here's something very specific. All the information is sourced from either previously linked books or others. You can find plenty of materials about it.
The military phase of Reconquista ended in 1491 with treaty of Granada. The treaty, among other things, stipulated the freedom of muslims to continue practicing their religion in Granada.
In 1499, Archdeacon of Toledo, Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros, arrived in Granada and, unsatisfied with efforts to peacefully convert the muslims of Granada, ordered seizure and burning of all arabic manuscripts in the city, as well as imprisonment and torture of muslim noblemen that resisted conversion, to be released only after converting.
Or maybe you'd like to hear about the Alhambra decree, that gave jews within territories of kingdoms of Castille and Aragon one month to either convert or leave the kingdoms, on penalty of death, or similar decree in 1502 concerning muslims.

And you are having great difficulty showing anyone example of Catholicism forcing conversion [its against cannon law] or it happening in feudal Europe. and have no defense for democracies doing it to millions. The example you cite is of a absolute monarchist during the renaissance going against papal orders. Had you read my first op you would have read.

Feudal Monarchy or Absolute Monarchy?

“The feudal order, in fact, was very different from the monarchial order that replaced it [absolute monarchy] and to witch succeeded, in a still more centralized form, the order of state control that is found today.”
-Regine Pernoud Those Terrible Middle Ages Debunking the Myths Ignatius press San Francisco

“However In the course of many centuries these originally stateless societies [Feudal ] had gradually transformed into absolute – statist- monarchies.”
--Hans- Hermann Hoppe Democracy the God that Failed The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy and Natural Order Routledge 2001

“Patriarchal monarchy unfortunately gave sway at a later period to absolute monarchy, which became entangled in nationalist etatistic movements, a process which finally led to a suicide of the monarchical form of government.”
-Erik von Kuehnelt- Leddihn The Menace of the Herd or Procrustes at Large Bruce Publishing Company Milwaukee 1943

As an important clarification I am here going to compare the christian feudal monarchies of the medieval time period to modern democracy- rather than the later Renaissance time period of absolute monarchies witch were a turn towards centralization. It was during the Renaissance and the reemergence of ancient Roman/Greek law that transformed the medieval feudal system to a system of centralized power of either absolute monarchies or later democracies and republics. Urban merchants, power hungry Kings, and Reformationist studying Roman law and needing or looking to justify centralization of power left the middle ages Feudal political system behind and moved into the Renaissance of centralized power.

“If an unjust government is carried on by one man alone, who seeks his own benefit from his rule and not the good of the multitude subject to him, such a ruler is called a tyrant—a word derived from strength—because he oppresses by might instead of ruling by justice. Thus among the ancients all powerful men were called tyrants.”
-Thomas Aquinas On Kingship to the king of Cyrus 1225-1274

“[Roman law] it was the law par excellence of those who wanted to affirm a central state authority”
-Regine Pernoud Those Terrible Middle Ages Debunking the Myths Ignatius press San Francisco



But even so context matters. This is a great example of the evils of the power of government. It went against church law [pope condemned it], feudal law, and was all about power for the King. To sum up

“Not controlled by the Popes at all....highly centralized at the crown”
-Thomas Madden The Modern Scholar: Heaven or Heresy: A History of the Inquisition

“Really politics, the crown of Spain wanted to consolidate power in the south were the people were a threat to Spain's power.”
-Steve Weidenkopf The real story of the inquisitions teacher of church history at the notre dame graduate school of Christendom collage
Spanish Inquisitions


For a more honest look at the context see here post 2

https://www.christianforums.com/thre...tions.8136588/

And now you try ad hominems and accusing me of being braiwashed. But truth is...you are. You're a fanatic, because you are incapable of considering the topic from other point than your own, your own conviction that your religion is right.

Hmmmm, who does this best apply to? one only needs to look back and reread our posts. I have asked for you to support and begged you to support either atheism, evolution, democracy, to attack feudalism or any number of your claims. I have offered debate 1v1 on these topics. I have asked you to make your case here. I of course have considered democracy/evolution/atheism I was raised and brainwashed same as you. I was you. But than I took the red pill and wish others [you] will consider doing the same. You on the other hand always come from your point of view witch you have called humanism but is really all the philosophies that I wrote of in my op that democratic nations use to brainwash the people. You of course are certain you are correct and a perfect example of

"You're a fanatic, because you are incapable of considering the topic from other point than your own, your own conviction that your religion is right"

You just simply have the religion of the state witch is atheism/evolution/relativism etc and all the other philosophies that democracy uses [in every country were it is dominate] to indoctrinate its people to mold them into subservient children of the state. It just amazes me how people dont even realize it when they are deep in it. It is unquestioned assumptions believed to be true. But with some i am concerned this is all to true.


“Peopledont believe lies because they have to, but because they want to”
-MalcolmMuggeridge

Let me demonstrate. There are hundreds of religions, most of them having their own creation myth that's incompatible with others. Can you give me a reason, beyond your conviction that it's chritianity that is right, that it should be the christinic creationism taught, and not, say, Daoyuan or Tao Te Ching (Chinese Taoistic), Indian Ajativada (sorry for bastardized spelling, but I had no idea whether the special Indian diacritics would be displayed properly), or Creek or Cherokee myths?

Yet you are sure of your creation myth of evolution or rather nothing exploding and creating everything. But as i said 1 plus 1 is always 2 no matter who says it is 3,4 or 5. Its like a lawyer in court saying my client cant be guilty, there are millions in this city anyone could have killed the victim, so it cant be my client. Want to know why the bible differs from all other creation accounts and why it is true [and evolution false]? join me.

https://www.debate.org/

Or are you "You're a fanatic, because you are incapable of considering the topic from other point than your own, your own conviction that your religion is right."

Nevertheless, I'll poke a few holes into your perpetuated myth that it's democracies that caused the terror of modern wars.
First, the population of Europe and North America, and shortly after most of the rest of the world, rose at incredible rate in early modern and then modern era, due to several factors. For that reason, comparing the raw number of deaths is meaningless from the start. Bigger populations mean bigger wars.
The technology improved, and with it, killing over distance. You can yield in close combat, but getting shot before you even see the enemy significantly reduces your chance of being taken alive.
The treatment of civilian population and commoners taken prisoner has, however, improved. Improved supply lines reduced dependence of armies on living off the land. International treaties were established to protect prisoners and civilian population. In medieval wars, however, chivalry was poor protection for commoners. While nobles were usually taken as captives for ransom, most commoners were enslaved or executed. The fate of captives was usually at whim of the victors, for example at Agincourt, most prisoners were slaughtered.
Civilian population likewise had no real protection, and it was mostly left at whim of victors. Butchering the cities resisting forced conversion were common feature of crusades. You've been given an example of Béziers earlier.

“It is so easy, in fact, to manipulate history... for a public that is not knowledgeable about it. We have nearly daily evidence of this on television”
-Regine Pernoud Those Terrible Middle Ages Debunking the Myths Ignatius press San Francisco

“Official” history is always written by its victors I.e from the perspective of the proponents of democracy.”
-Hans- Hermann Hoppe Democracy the God that Failed The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy and Natural Order Routledge 2001


While what you say is mostly [not everything see below] true it ignores the main aspects does it not? Ok I kept reading we got some more democratic brainwashing of monarchy dogma on the crusades. So just real quick to dispose that myth [of many] see here

https://www.christianforums.com/thre...sades.8136591/


And for warfare here is from my op you wont read. Is it because "You're a fanatic, because you are incapable of considering the topic from other point than your own, your own conviction that your religion is right" ?


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Warfare itself was far different than modern wars. The Medieval Knight had its origins in Catholic Europe during the feudal time period. Anyone could become a Knight, it was not only for the nobility. Along with the nobels, the knight was the celberty of the day leading people to christian lifestyels. They would join voluntarily and were free to leave whenever they wanted. The medival Knight was a christian soilder who followed the 10 comandmnets of knighthood as outlined in Leon Gautier book Chivalry the Everyday Life of the medieval Knight.

“Chivalry is the christian form of the military profession. The knight is the christian soldier...nor are the religion and the profession at all separate from each other....no one could become a knight without first becoming a christian, without having been baptized ”
-Leon Gautier Chivalry the Everyday Life of the medieval Knight Tumblar House 2015

Among them was to obey the church, defend the church, defend the weak such as orpahns, widows, monks, preists, hospitals, charity organizations, to have love the country of their birth, no retreat, perform feudal duties if not contray to the laws of God, never lie, be genrous and donate, and be the chapion of the right aginst injustice and evil. A knights life consited of prayer in the mornings, daily mass, fasting, swearing an oath to the church. Knight were the guardians of the church and those who could not defend themselves. His model knight to imiate were king David, Joshua, Judas Maccabess, Charlemagne, Micheal the archangel, Godfrey of Bouillon and Richrad the Lionherted. John of Salasbury summerized as “The armed soldier is by necessity bound to religion.”

“Wherever the church was, there the knight also was to be found to accompany and to protect...the knights mission was to defend all weaknesses”
-Leon Gautier Chivalry the Everyday Life of the medieval Knight Tumblar House 2015

“Feudal wars which in no way resembled modern wars....previously war was above all a matter of taking prisoners, now it was an attempt to kill the adversary””
-Regine Pernoud Those Terrible Middle Ages Debunking the Myths Ignatius press San Francisc

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

Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God

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

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

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


Warfare - Total war or Chivalry?

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sar1n]

And you are having great difficulty showing anyone example of Catholicism forcing conversion [its against cannon law] or it happening in feudal Europe. and have no defense for democracies doing it to millions. The example you cite is of a absolute monarchist during the renaissance going against papal orders. Had you read my first op you would have read.

Contrast to:

Can you give any one example of forced conversion under catholic law? or from the bible?

You are moving goalposts. Sure indication that you're losing debate.

Hmmmm, who does this best apply to? one only needs to look back and reread our posts. I have asked for you to support and begged you to support either atheism, evolution, democracy, to attack feudalism or any number of your claims. I have offered debate 1v1 on these topics. I have asked you to make your case here. I of course have considered democracy/evolution/atheism I was raised and brainwashed same as you. I was you. But than I took the red pill and wish others [you] will consider doing the same. You on the other hand always come from your point of view witch you have called humanism but is really all the philosophies that I wrote of in my op that democratic nations use to brainwash the people. You of course are certain you are correct and a perfect example of

"You're a fanatic, because you are incapable of considering the topic from other point than your own, your own conviction that your religion is right"

You just simply have the religion of the state witch is atheism/evolution/relativism etc and all the other philosophies that democracy uses [in every country were it is dominate] to indoctrinate its people to mold them into subservient children of the state. It just amazes me how people dont even realize it when they are deep in it. It is unquestioned assumptions believed to be true. But with some i am concerned this is all to true.

Yet you are sure of your creation myth of evolution or rather nothing exploding and creating everything. But as i said 1 plus 1 is always 2 no matter who says it is 3,4 or 5. Its like a lawyer in court saying my client cant be guilty, there are millions in this city anyone could have killed the victim, so it cant be my client. Want to know why the bible differs from all other creation accounts and why it is true [and evolution false]? join me.

https://www.debate.org/

Or are you "You're a fanatic, because you are incapable of considering the topic from other point than your own, your own conviction that your religion is right."

You've been provided ample reasoning, and you tried to dismiss it as brainwashing instead of attempting to refute it, hilariously unaware that what you do, posting walls of quotes in order to gain semblance of legitimacy, is sure sign that you're incapable of reasoning on such level and you're running back to what your, or any other religion, is based. Argument from authority. You've provided no reasoning, even after asked.

This debate started here, and now it ended here. Because you're not worth the time. You're not interested in debating, but on proselytizing, and you're really not good at that.

[18611096]

Contrast to:



You are moving goalposts. Sure indication that you're losing debate.

I could see how you might take that as moving the goalpost as you have yet to read my op. My goal post were clarified in my op as being in feudal catholic monarchies. Yes maybe i was mistaken in assuming someone who made so many posts objecting, had taken the time to read them.

You've been provided ample reasoning, and you tried to dismiss it as brainwashing instead of attempting to refute it, hilariously unaware that what you do, posting walls of quotes in order to gain semblance of legitimacy, is sure sign that you're incapable of reasoning on such level and you're running back to what your, or any other religion, is based. Argument from authority. You've provided no reasoning, even after asked.

This debate started here, and now it ended here. Because you're not worth the time. You're not interested in debating, but on proselytizing, and you're really not good at that.

In other words you refuse to debate. You make claims but can never back them up, you are refuted and claim "walls of text" and ignore the content and run. I think your above post is trying to leave pretending on a high note maybe? I still would like you to join the discussion.

make the case for democracy
answer my objections
argue against feudal monarchy and why democracy is better