What does Sup Forums think of Monarchism? How many Monarchists are on Sup Forums?

What does Sup Forums think of Monarchism? How many Monarchists are on Sup Forums?

Other urls found in this thread:

greengarageblog.org/19-foremost-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-monarchy
google.com/search?q=divine rights of kings theory
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_French_monarchs
biblehub.com/psalms/2-1.htm
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

DOOOOOOOOOOOOOWN WITH THE MONARCHY

NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION

Constitutional Monarchies are pretty based - they allow the heads of government to function as such, and not be bothered with the functions that mire down heads of state. Absolute monarchies are absolute cancer.

The ((((mods)))) delete almost all thread about monarchy.
See this link please↓
greengarageblog.org/19-foremost-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-monarchy

republics are fucking up the west big time, look at all of europe, Trump is just a temporary thing

Lol. notice gay leafs and americans screeching.

Yes, I am an absolute monarchist

Asbolute cuckold more like

>absolute monarchies are absolute cancer
nigga plz

taxation is theft

no feminism and multiculturalism are fucking the west.

a king should be willing to die for his people

Nice to have, in a traditional sense

Yuropoors, like third worlders, should use monarchies and dictatorships because it's the only way they can function.

The US and Canada are better off as paleoconservative republics, as the founding fathers intended

I support the monarchy because I really like the idea of being ruled by a guy whose only qualification is that his dad used to boss around my dad

What does pol think of Dark Enlightenment/Neo-Reaction?

It's basically white nationalism/human biodiversity + Free market capitalism + Monarchism.

feminism (equality between man and woman) and multiculturalism (equality between ethnicities, no distinction between them) are the fruit of egalitarianism, which is the fruit of secular values upon which the republics are based upon.

Under divine rights to rule, kings rule over a nation that share a single ethnicity, for example a king may be the king of the anglo saxons, or the king of the french. The values which stem from divine rights monarchies are biblically derived, which means a correct view of men and women in societal and personal relationships.

>It's basically white nationalism/human biodiversity + Free market capitalism + Monarchism.

Literally Hoppean "Libertarianism"

egalitarianism is only bad if you take it out of context.

the founding fathers owned slaves, restricted the vote to whites, and didn't allow women's suffrage. so obviously, they don't mean "all people".

you don't undertand. Liberals are taking it for what it is, this madness we are witnessing is exactly the call for egalitarianism, it's the same in the americas and europe. It would be the same in the middle east if they had secular republics too.

The founding fathers owning slaves is not egalitarian, because egalitarianism says all races are equal, same with voting restricted to only whites or men. The society secularised itself gradually until the point it is today: more secular. And it's not done secularising yet. The liberal calls for egalitarianism in government jobs for representation is another fruit of this.

Monarchy is shit.

not an argument

thats what i said. we need to take back the country and restore it to the founder's true vision

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

not become a monarchy

I'm a Monarchist if I get to be the Monarch

Name a present day constitutional monarchy that works well and where the monarch actually carries out a significant portion of the functions of state instead of simply being a state sanctioned celebrity.

constitutional monarchies are cool, because they give the people a figure to unite behind apart from just a president, which is temporary.

how's that going to happen exactly? the general liberal levels of the left they will push for the same liberalism as they had if you restore it. They aren't going anywhere and they are to varying degrees half the population of the USA as shown by the previous election.

There's nothing magical about a monarchy but all that happened after the french revolution was that the power vacuum was filled by capitalists. I would prefer a monarchy to capitalism.

Republics are cancer. The only claim is that they are 'free', but free to do what? Freedom isn't always a good thing.

There is no argument in favor of monarchy.

Why would you want to have such a figure if it will only be a figure and not a governing ruler?

>constitutional monarchy
>constitutional
There's your problem.

history shows otherwise.

Societies under republics open to liberalising; societies under monarchies are conservatised.

to unite the people? I literally said in my message

revolution

Why would you want your leader chosen by birth? Why not choose him by lottery? It's basically the same.

there's more to a king than be a figure to unite the people. If that were the only thing they might as well not exist.

because he's the heir to rule - chosen by God. This is the divine rights of kings to rule.

not really with current constitutional monarchs. they don't do much, except they give the people someone to look up to as a figure, which sometimes people need in times of tragedy

monarchists are faggots

>swear your fealty and undying love to another man
>when you're a man

might as well suck their dick and let them cum in your asshole too

>chosen by God

why would you want only that? it's like saying you want only the spices of a meal to consume not the whole thing.

google.com/search?q=divine rights of kings theory

I don't want that, I said it was cool in a way, you fucking leaf. I'm not a monarchist and I don't agree with an absolute monarch. I'm just saying there are benefits to it

This is not proofs.

>he's the heir to rule - chosen by God. This is the divine rights of kings to rule.
Oh, you're retarded.
I'd bow down to the Princesa Leonor and worship at her feet whike she callsme a worthless peasant.

you're fucking retarded, you said they are cool but you don't want one. What the fuck are you arguing for? I literally replied to you saying "why would you want only that"

>Oh, you're retarded.
oh, the irony

No it's not.
The pros of a dynasty is that kings are born to be kings and inherit the ability of ruling the kingdom thanks to the education they get from their parents, who have experience in the matter.
A commoner has no ability to rule anything - not even himself, that's why he needs a king for that.

Also, your lack of admiration for a pure bloodline disgusts me.

Homosex is punishable by death.

>pure bloodline

god you're stupid. thinking something is interesting =/= wanting it.

Then your problem is with parliament, not the monarchy itself.

>flag
>pic

Hi Quebec

>god you're stupid
holy shit you're dumb

i literally just said that i had answered "why would you want that if that's all you want in him"

Do I have to go fetch the post for you, here

you replied to that saying "to unite the people"

ergo you're the retardo kiddo

Are there any other Royal Houses of Republic knocking around in Europe?

Could France ever be a monarchy again?

Yes, we should have one king.
Someone like Gustav Vasa or Gustav II Adolf

An unfortunate consequence of Renaissance's aristocracy, yes. However, his bloodline was still pure, so pure that he was the product of an incest.

i don't believe it is a birth right to rule over a country

>kings are born to be kings and inherit the ability of ruling the kingdom thanks to the education they get from their parents, who have experience in the matter.
You could pick a random baby as the heir and have him raised up by the king and it would make no difference. The point is it's stupid to have a random dumbass as your leader, even if he was raised for it. But this argument is stupid because there should be no single absolute ruler. Communities should be semi-autonomous with a very limited national government run by educated men already successful in other fields. Monarchy isn't just unethical but unnecessary.

it is a cuck ideology just like facism, what makes prince better than you? having more money? ok than why dont u simply make more money and be better than the prince? oh thats right because you have to give half of what you make to a faggot king to sit on his ass and do nothing

dear lord leaf, uniting the people is A BENEFIT to a constitutional monarchy AS I SEE IT. you may disagree, and that's fine

reaaaall nice spelling my man, keep it up.

If you keep taxes at constant 10%, I'm moving there.

it's a God given right that's passed down to the first male descendant.

all of this is correct.

what if your monarch is a raging faggot?

what if justin trudeau was your monarch?

"Lets be Kangz n shit because the non-existent sky wizard says I have royal blood n shit"

No. It's a horrible ideology.

Monarchism would work if the leaders were strong fighters and generals like they used to be, now they're just decoration.

Republics have never been anything more than a stepping stone to Autocracy, always have, always will.

I'd support a semipresidential-style monarchial system, like France but with a king instead of president serving as head of the executive, but sharing power with the prime minister.

That way, both the people exert political will through electing parliament, but the monarch exerts a stabilizing influence on the political system.

Nobility/aristocracy however is absolute dogshit that just breeds corruption, collusion and oppression. Perhaps a more appropriate name for the monarch would be prince (in the old Roman meaning - first among equals), not king.

Honestly? If the Monarch has the people's interests at heart, I'd say its the best system. However, Eventually, that monarch will die, and the next probably isnt going to be as for the people. And the next, and the next, untill the loved king is now a tyrant.

Also, Bloodline-worship creates inbred failures like pic related, so...

Potentially, an elected monarch could work. Maybe. The checks and balances would have to be perfect, in that they could screen out tyrants and idiots, whilst not limiting the monarch's power, because if they did that, the ruler wouldnt be a monarch, would they?

And, even if the monarch is a good ruler when he gets into power, Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The odds of them being a good king by the end would be slim.

I dunno, If you had an immortal, all knowing being that was immune to corruption a monarchy would be perfect.

HOLY SHIT
>try for a fifth
my sides are in orbit

Why do some fucked up Madonna shit instead of just raising the child that was intended to be king ? What the fuck Randy ?

Also, why would the ruler be a "random dumbass" and not a clever man, while the plebe is always completely stupid, because they have no education mainly...

Also why would monarchy be "unethical ?

And last but not least, thinking that "communities should be semi-autonomous" is so optimist and leftist : listen up, the commoners, the plebes, cannot govern themselves, they're dumb as fuck.

strong, conquering monarchy, yes. weak liberal feminist modern shit monarchy, fuck no.

>what if your monarch is a raging faggot?
Regicide.

>scurrying faggot trying to play it off like he didnt just get told

you added nothing that we didn't already discuss with the rest of your post

>immortal, all knowing being that was immune to corruption a monarchy would be perfect.
So basically, Equestria?

We /monarchist/ nao

Seriously, if you are a conservative or libertarian you cannot make an argument against monarchy. Read Liberty or Equality.

monarchies would only work if men were immortal.

Monarchy is a politcal system not an ideology

In France most monarchists are nationalists,but it's not the cae everywhere.

>weak liberal feminist modern shit monarchy
if modern monarchies are liberal sometimes it's to try to remain appealing to the masses of the people that they govern and want to govern more.

If you speak french at all go read up the heir to the throne of France, he's very conservative and this is discernable in his writings / interviews.

National Socialism will fit with Monarchism.
> Monarchists are middle ages larpers

No, God. God is the ideal ruler, and that's what humans tried to replicate, with a bit of success, and eventually a lot of failures.
It's still the best system imho, and the best potential system as based John said.

What would be the difference between an elected monarch and a president?

you cannot not be a nationalist if you're a monarchist.

A monarch is literally the ruler of a nation. A nation being the multitude of people who share an ethnicity.

look at the olden titles the kings of the french had
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_French_monarchs

They started off as kings of the Franks, then became kings of france (a realm).

probably term length
as in the monarch is "president for life"

Nationalism is actually incompatible with monarchism since monarchism (at least historically) ties the legitimacy of the monarch to the "divine right to rule", whereas nationalism ties legitimacy of rule to "popular sovereignty"

i think we might be getting caught up in the definition of terms.

Nationalism, historically meant the multitude of people who share an ethnicity, and the king is literally the ruler of an ethnic group. So monarchism is fundamentally ethnic (ergo nationalistic)

Kill all kangz and kweenz. Sic semper tyrannis.

...

>governor = tyrants
literally couldn't be more wrong.

Well, as an Englishman. The last true king of England was Richard III. And the last king of the English was Harold II..... But to answer the question, Strong Monarchy is the true form of governance and every thing else is a failed social Experiment. Sorry it's a bit long :)

You're projecting modernist ideas formed by modernist education on premodern history.

The concept of "nations" didn't exist before the 19th cenutry, when nationalism was invented. Kingdoms in premodern times weren't even states strictly speaking, a more accurate name for the political organizations of premodern times is "dynastic rulership order" (translating from the Croatian terminology used in my college materials - dinastijski vladavinski poredak). Only with the process of centralization and the expropriation of nobles that started in the 14th and 15th centuries, further facilitated by the growth of bueurocracy and ultimately led to the monarchial states of the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries. Statehood as it is understood today only developed with the Treaty of Westphalia (1648) creating set and unbreachable borders between seperate kingdoms. And finally culminated with the French revolution in 1789 marking the beginning of political modernity, which in turn led to the formation of nationalist ideology and subsequently formation of nations.

Also, kings weren't rulers of ethnic groups, they were rulers (or rather owners) of "parcels of land" along with lesser nobles swearing allegiance for protection. The ironic part of this is of course that the "class system" touted by Marxists as present in modern society is actually a syndrome of the previous, feudal society, when people identified primarily by social class and not nation (A French noble and a German noble had more in common than a French noble and a French peasant).

You mean like trump and every other Company you've worked for?

The fuck are you talking about? The user I replied to was the one talking about constitutional monarchies.

The hier to the throne inherits the best education and the best genes. There is no one better qualified for the job

Monarchist here.

7 out of 10 most developed countries are monarchies.

Hopefully you'll see a return to monarchy soon, Brazil-bro. More and more people seem to be jack of your corrupt politicians. But I probably only see biased news.

no i'm not, the word nation is an old one, much older than the 19th century as you stated. For instance you can read of nations in the 1611 king james transliteration of the bible.

biblehub.com/psalms/2-1.htm

>political modernity, which in turn led to the formation of nationalist ideology and subsequently formation of nations.

this is false. They merely invented a different definition of nation from their secular foundation of the republics: merely a people who have citizenship under said republic.

>kings weren't rulers of ethnic groups, they were rulers (or rather owners) of "parcels of land"
no, they were both. The first french kings were known as kings of the franks (ethnic group) then that title in the 1200s changed to kings of france (realm)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_French_monarchs

but despite the title change, they conserved (obviously) the claim to rule over the ethnic group over the territory. If foreigners were in their realm causing trouble they could remove them to defend their subjects or because they invaded the realm (land).

I hate green and yellow colour schemes but that flag looks nice, a lot better than your current one