POLITICAL JOURNEY THREAD??

...

GoOutside

Think OUTSIDE the box.

Shut up pizza face

...

Kek

bumping with some compass memes

...

This is probably one of the more accurate ones

...

was my reaction to it as well

...

13yo Social Democrat Liberal Who Liked Guns, hated Muslims and Fags-14yo Marxist-15yo Völkisch Anarchist-17yo civic nationalist, free marketer-18yo libertarian white nationalist-19yo traditionalist christian monarchist

Yeah that's seem about right

Hmm very interesting

monarchism has a special place in my heart

Ive seen alot of monarchists on this board but never really got the appeal

care to explain what makes it so enticing?

A man whose birthright is to defend his country and his only source of power is his people.

the hoppeian argument is that because in a monarchy the government/country is privatly owned it creates an incentive for the ruler to maximize profits, which come from taxation so he will take steps towards growth, bear in mind his son will inherit the country
in democracy a politician makes use of the gov for a while, likely that no one he cares about will inherit, and will promise populist crap that kill the economy to get elected

>
A common defense from people who like democracies would be that if one man/family has that much power it would eventually be corrupted and that power should be connected directly or indirectly through the people.

What would you say to them?

Thats very interesting, ive never heard the whole private property argument before.

Typical.

I think it's superior to democracy because the only people who ever win an election do so by mass appeal, and the masses (the peasants and merchants) lack the spiritual and genetic qualities to decide allost anything. When someone with the right heritage has been groomed to rule, to love God and his nation, he will be a greater leader than any man of the masses. Monarchy worked so long for a reason.
I prefer it to military dictatorships because their leaders are not of the noble caste they are of the warrior type and their rule should ideally lead to a return to monarchy and theocracy.

...

...

I like the enlightenment era monarchies which had parliament / constitution to protect the rights of the people but the monarch still had absolute authority to overstep any law that could get in the way of dealing with a threat. At the same time these monarchs didn't collect tax revenue directly and got rich off of their business ventures instead

These are very good reasons, I may have to reconsider my political affiliations.

short but sweet

Also I prefer not having a constitution. The rights of the people and the king's power should be regulated by God's church and other noble families who could usurp his throne should he become weak or tyrannical.

Literally can confirm this almost exactly, except put the final phase more centre since I'm a fashy.

I was a poor NEET when on the left side

But now I have a job and real life has taught me that "no one gives it to you, you have to take it"

Exactly my type of thinking

What would you call that brand of monarchism?

Worth noting that even if monarchy was better than democracy, many monarchies would be better than few. Greentext from Goethe to illustrate the point

>I do not fear that Germany will not be united; … she is united, because the German Taler and Groschen have the same value throughout the entire Empire, and because my suitcase can pass through all thirty-six states without being opened. … Germany is united in the areas of weights and measures, trade and migration, and a hundred similar things … One is mistaken, however, if one thinks that Germany’s unity should be expressed in the form of one large capital city, and that this great city might benefit the masses in the same way that it might benefit the development of a few outstanding individuals. … A thoughtful Frenchman, I believe Daupin, has drawn up a map regarding the state of culture in France, indicating the higher or lower level of enlightenment of its various Departments by lighter or darker colors. There we find, especially in the southern provinces, far away from the capital, some Departments painted entirely in black, indicating a complete cultural darkness. Would this be the case if the beautiful France had ten centers, instead of just one, from which light and life emanated?

I think some fascists are too concerned with the material and are too grounded in modernity. To find truth we need to look above and within. Not criticizing you just a thought on fascism.

>What makes Germany great is her admirable popular culture, which has penetrated all parts of the Empire evenly. And is it not the many different princely residences from whence this culture springs and which are its bearer and curators? Just assume that for centuries only the two capitals of Vienna and Berlin had existed in Germany, or even only a single one. Then, I am wondering, what would have happened to the German culture and the widespread prosperity that goes hand in hand with culture. — Germany has twenty universities strewn out across the entire Empire, more than one hundred public libraries, and a similar number of art collections and natural museums; for every prince wanted to attract such beauty and good. Gymnasia, and technical and industrial schools exist in abundance; indeed, there is hardly a German village without its own school. How is it in this regard in France! — Furthermore, look at the number of German theaters, which exceeds seventy … The appreciation of music and song and their performance is nowhere as prevalent as in Germany … Then think about cities such as Dresden, Munich, Stuttgart, Kassel, Braunschweig, Hannover, and similar ones; think about the energy that these cities represent; think about the effects they have on neighboring provinces, and ask yourself, if all of this would exist, if such cities had not been the residences of princes for a long time. — Frankfurt, Bremen, Hamburg, Lübeck are large and brilliant, and their impact on the prosperity of Germany is incalculabe. Yet, would they remain what they are if they were to lose their independence and be incorporated as provincial cities into one great German Empire? I have reason to doubt this.

Fascism is inherently retrospective because it looks to the people to see the future within themselves which is what makes an autocracy work. Fascism encourages individuals to cleanse themselves of impurity for the sake of posterity.

Am I the only anti-technologist on this board?

So let me get this straight

Are you for a sort of United States situation that the states are ruled by Monarchs/Nobles?

don't have old charts but it was basically

first getting into politics (12 or 13) - basic conservative, realized it was a meme

after that I went libertarian, then from there ancap. Realized it was an even bigger meme

At around 15 or so I started growing to left wing economics. started liking the social democrat label, but always had a problem with the liberal social politics that came with it

Beginning at around 2015 i became more and more nationalistic. as late as mid 2016 or so I was very high up, but slightly to the right economically.

pic related is me now. I've grown more authoritarian and socially conservative while at the same time more anticapitalist.

I guess maybe absolute monarchy or feudalism. The king should rule, say Spain, but some duke would rule Catalonia and another would rule Galicia, and his brothers and cousins could also gather support and seize the throne which has happened often in history. The king receives his authority from God and the church so one who disobeys God and the religious authorities is seen as an immoral excommunicated heretic, and the church may stop giving him any legitimacy.

You're a fascist. Fascists generally lean towards commie-red square but it's pretty disingenuous since Fascism can't be placed on the traditional spectrum since it is a third position.

National Socialist Technocrat here

So in this situation a check and balance would be the negative effects on the smaller rulers by the action of the king therefore the smaller rulers would overthrow the king to keep things in check

You're a dirty commie.

If you don't mind me asking

How is it even possible to be an anti-technologist?

Yes, just imagine, the mexican and negro lover states would opt for welfare policies and colapse fast while the trump states would promote trumpish policies and prevail, with much less social conflict than today

Yes, to a large extent. If you've ever watched Game of Thrones you know the structure of king-high lord-lord-mayor or something similar, and how alliances under the king could topple him if he angered the wrong people, or the church.

That sounds based and has potential to have great checks and balances on the kings power

It's not something I think I should discuss online because I'm ex army EOD and that would definitely elevate my rating in (((their))) threat matrix.

We just need to stop letting corporations hold back their ingenuity to release it in stages to maximize profits. The government should do the R&D and sell the patents to industry

Something few liberals seem to realize is that a king, who doesn't need to satisfy donors or bankers, and who isn't fighting some ideological crusade, is far less controlling than modern day rulers. The monarchical societies of medieval Europe had a large amount of regional rule, and they were economically and socially a lot less restrained than we are today.

Well its simple, you simply support the idea of destroying all modern technology. That is it really.

Too bad humans, including myself are extremely addicted to technology for a revolt to be possible.

But in theory I hate technology and wish for humans to revert back to primitive societies.

This sounds amazing, my only hold up on monarchism was how to check the king's power but you're arguments were very persuasive

your*

Sep 19th is when I found Sup Forums
And after taking it again I'm still at Dec 10

...

You don't believe hard enough yet.

Even if a king did manage to usurp absolute power with no dukes or lords under him, his sons who were not his direct heirs would beg their king and brother for land, and he would give them land to control so they would not scheme against him, and so that he would not be seen as a tyrant by the people certain regions. The dukes would have descendants who formed new noble families, and the old system would be back.

...

Pol pot pls go...

Monarchy really is a complex web of checks and balances and that's why every country, with few exceptions, up until the 19th century, have been monarchies.

I like you greatest ally in training

I like they way you think my fellow syrup slurper

even if im arguing that monarchy could be a better form of government than democracy it doesnt mean i think it to be feasible, since small monarchies evolve into big ones and these bring about democracy.
Hoppe blames the USA intervention on WWI on expanding democracy worldwide, i'm not sure, realistically we have to wait for the crash and death of democracies to even begin to contemplate what comes next, and I dont feel it involves a going back to the past i.e. monarchies

don't be discouraged by leafposters, we're 70% and falling, besides that I think a lot of them are roleplaying the "typical leaf"

...

why couldn't you have journeyed around the catalog?

I don't have my journey, but it hasn't moved much over the years since finding Sup Forums

gr8 b8 m8 i r8 8/8

It's legit

...

>be anti-technology
>shitpost on Sup Forums anyway

Ride the tiger, Ted Jr.

...

16 to 20 super lib though Communism was a valid option. though white privilege has real as a white person then i realized "its not my fault" then had this huge weight lifted off my shoulders. they are so guilt ridden thats why they will let there own life/nation be destoryed

Green is the only reasonable one.