Argument for Monarchy, Part 3 – Issue of Centralization

Centralization of government has led to greatest evils in history. Going by demicides, it is exactly strong governments which caused greatest mass murders in history. Communism killed 107 million people, Nazism 21 million and right-wing militarism 22 million. As R.J.Rummel stated, four times as many people were killed by their own governments as had been killed in all the wars ever fought. Greatest threat to human life were not wars, but massive centralization of power. This means that the exact systems promoted to increase safety by reducing chance of war – that is, supranational institutions (e.g. EU) – are far greater threat to human life than the wars they are ostensibly trying to prevent. Among forms of centralized power, democracy is the least lethal, because – compared to Nazism/Communism/etc. – democracy is least centralized. However, democracy merely decentralizes political process; what is also necessary is decentralization of power, and this can only be achieved by moving decision-making power to the lowest level possible (which, again, is the exact opposite of what EU is trying to achieve).

Democracy has also had impact on war. War, ever since French Revolution (and even earlier: Thirty Years War), was no longer a war between rulers: rather, it was a war between nations, between peoples. And thus peoples became a legitimate target, something that was rare outside the Ottoman front. Combined with greater centralization and cohesion of democratic states, wars became more frequent as well as more destructive as military became stronger and more effective. Rulers also, having an excuse that they are executors of public will, could fight more freely. In contrast, monarchical wars are wars between monarchs themselves, which significantly reduced their impact on the populace. Combined with more stable foreign policy, this made wars much less destructive. Further, in a feudal society, lords and kings were expected to lead armies themselves – there was thus a personal cost to war, unlike modern democratic warfare where politicians oftentimes even benefit from war. While wars were more frequent, this was a consequence of political fragmentation, and said wars were less destructive than civil disturbances so frequent in modern Western multicultural democracies.


Greatest decentralization was achieved under medieval feudalism, when Europe consisted of thousands of de-facto independent political entities. Nearly everything was done by local (city, village) government, with central government only demanding taxes – if that. Customs and traditions were above the laws and could not be altered by rulers, thus preventing the government (king, lord) from sliding into tyranny, as modern-day political entities are prone to do. And said customs were local, not even national and let alone supranational. Medieval kings did not create laws or legislate; laws were traditional and local, given and fixed by tradition and custom. Thus King could easily be tried for violating the laws – this was the case even in Byzantine Empire. But in feudal monarchy, unlike Byzantine Empire, vast majority of people lived beyond the reach of royal influence or power. Kings depended on their vassals, even in war, and said vassals depended on their own vassals – all the way down to knight and his peasants. As a result, any ruler who wanted to remain in power could not be tyrannical, as that would mean risking swift removal from either above or below. “Divine right of kings” was never accepted by the Catholic Church; in fact, rebellion against tyrannical ruler was considered a duty. “Right of kings” was only proclaimed by James I of England, a Protestant. Thus, despite often-repeated opinion, removing a king in a feudal monarchy was both legal and legitimate – resistance to tyranny was a duty. As Thomas Aquinas writes: “If to provide itself with a king belongs to the right of a given multitude, it is not unjust that the king be deposed or have his power restricted by that same multitude if, becoming a tyrant, he abuses the royal power. It must not be thought that such a multitude is acting unfaithfully in deposing the tyrant, even though it had previously subjected itself to him in perpetuity, because he himself has deserved that the covenant with his subjects should not be kept, since, in ruling the multitude, he did not act faithfully as the office of a king demands.”.

Local government is closer to the people and more accountable. Rule by a local lord is in essence more democratic than that of a supranational (or even national) parliament. Decentralization avoids tyranny by offering a diversity in government which centralized society cannot achieve. This is highly beneficial, as there would be no need to subject entire society to experiments: rather, a single province could live out, say, “progressive paradise” – or any other novelty – and those who do not want it would be able to see how said experiment turns out. And people who do not like politics in one province could easily move to another province within the state. Result would be a much more efficient and effective system, better able to experiment and adapt to new circumstances. It would also stop much of infighting as there would be no need for various groups to force themselves on each other, as modern centralized democracy mandates.

Hundreds of Medieval England (1086)

In contrast, power structure of a centralized country – especially a democracy – cannot be removed easily. Democratic power structure is especially dangerous as power is spread out to many people, and thus becomes systematic. Consequently, once criminals and psychopaths establish themselves in a democracy removing them becomes almost impossible, whereas a psychopathic local lord – or even a psychopathic king – can be removed fairly easily. This again can be illustrated by various “democratic” duopols: Republicans and Democrats in USA or HDZ and SDP (that is, KOS and UDBA) in Croatia. In both cases, there is no appreciable difference between two parties and people suffer under them, yet same two parties are always being elected. A single ruler is easily removed, whereas removal of ruling structures of democratic (or even pseudo-democratic: e.g. Communist) society would cause massive social disruption. And democratic government oftentimes has much more extensive systems of oppression than a feudal (or even Byzantine) ruler would have, thus making it much more dangerous to remove violently. Elections are no answer to these issues, as they are easily “tweaked”: in last Croatian parliamentary elections (July 2020.) 352 voting papers were declared invalid. Željko Glasnović required only 8 votes for a seat in Parliament, yet he lost 11 votes just in Livno. Of course, HDZ refused to repeat the elections despite significant irregularities noticed at various voting places. Dead are also regular voters. Even without such tweaking, voters are typically uninformed and even outright idiotic: Croatian Communist Party (HDZ – SDP (Restart) – Pametno – Narodna – Reformisti – HNS) in the end received 119 seats out of 151, or 79%, proving that people love the most those who do them evil. And elections themselves were placed into middle of Corona epidemic for two reasons: 1) to limit willingness of voters to go to elections (HDZ’s clients were certainly going to vote) and 2) to exploit tendency of people to avoid “rocking the boat” during a crisis.

The Voting Dead

Overall, centralization of power means that formal democracy is, in practice, less democratic than a monarchy (of feudal or Middle Byzantine style – absolutist monarchy of 17th and 18th century is another matter, though still debatable). Central government forces people to accept changes it wants to make, whether people want those changes or not. Tax in absolute monarchies never rose above 5-8%, there was no property tax (nobody thought their private property was on rent from state), and medieval peasants had right to defend their property even against the kings.

Modern democratic government places itself above the law – no law is higher than the lawmaker – and is thus not accountable to the very laws it holds average person to, whereas a king in a feudal monarchy was still subject to the law which was derived from custom and tradition. Precisely this subordination to law was difference between a king and a tyrant: a tyrant refused to be subordinated to the law. A king subordinated himself to the law, and administers republic under guidance of the law. Thus modern democratic government can call for legalization of gay marriage, pedophilia, necrophilia and drug usage. People who disagree with politically correct beliefs are forcibly removed. In democratic Germany, dr. Heinrich Flechtner was ejected from Stuttgart Germany’s state parliament after he accused Communist parties running Germany of having “blood on their hands”. At the same time, globalist corporations use centralized government to dictate politics.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s