Monarchism is the belief, philosophy, or an ideology in which a Monarch [Duke, King, Emperor, etc] is the head of state and maintains a title. Monarchies themselves can be elective or hereditary; Constitutional/Democratic or Absolute/Despotic; Fascist/Communist or Conservative/Liberal. Monarchism is the absolute most diverse ideology in the modern world. Monarchism also fosters an immense national unity in the seemingly "apolitical" figure of the Monarch. Now more than ever we need national unity. Now more than ever we need nationalism, be it civic or ethnic. Long live the Kings & Queens of the Earth!
It's a great boon to National Identity. Even the Swedes, Brits, Danes, and Norwegians, who have lost much of their national sovereignty or sense of nationalism still stand solidly with their Kings. If you want some quick reading I suggest the Mad monarchist blog.
Austin Rivera
Bump for interest
Wyatt Ward
kill you're self
Eli Roberts
fuck you nigger
Logan Green
Monarchism is the ultimate form of cuckoldry.
Adrian Perez
>Monarchism is the belief, philosophy, or an ideology
i was leaning towards monarchism until i watched a documentary on ww1 and watching how completely retarded and ill-fitted to lead the royals of Russia and The UK were.
Dominic Sanders
Royal Retards
Caleb Sullivan
We haven't had an actual monarchy in the UK since 1688.
Luis Robinson
Jesus is our only King.
Benjamin Ramirez
Christ rules heaven as a kingdom, surely we should rule on earth as one.
Asher Evans
Degenerate pedophile monarchs larping as satanists are the reason the jews took over in the first place.
Fuck monarchy.
Liam Ross
Constitucional Monarchy is indeed a wonderful kind of government. But I don't think it will ever fit the US. You guys didn't have your own monarchy with nationals in power so I guess your best model is a Republic.
Joshua Brown
And who shall be emperor? You? Fuck off.
David Jenkins
St.Michael would like to have a word with you.
Owen Hernandez
Are AnCaps crypto-monarchists?
Landon Taylor
Monarchs should be elected by a council who are under oath to elect the strongest and most beneficial leader to the nation. The council should be composed of democratically elected regional representatives. Fuck off.
Yea instead you should give power to whatever psyco climbs the ladder game of thrones style to the top.
Caleb Taylor
>says the amazon nigger who's population still craves to be like their colonizers Get malaria and die
Matthew Turner
Monarchism rests upon the king being placed on the throne by the will of god. And god is dead.
Also this
Ethan Brooks
Monarchy can only exist in a religious society. A monarch needs to be divinely ordained or have the mandate of God. Impossible is a society where God is dead.
>(((Curch))) of England and Episcopalians >Roman Catholic Church (we will respectfully wait for Francis to pass, hopefully painlessly and quietly) >Orthodox Church
Charles Jones
Lol. Great minds think alike user.
Alexander Ward
I will post some traditionalist/royalist/catholic songs before going to sleep.
>Wilhelm II >not Wilhelm I absolutely shit taste user
Henry Thomas
Fuck Kings and Queens. They have no place here. Fuck them all to hell.
Kings and Queens serve one singular purpose;
>to have their heads separated from their bodies by their own people, when the people are ready.
Manarchy has literally done fuckall for humanity since the end of the dark ages. They gave us feudal economies. And some organisation, mostly to preserve their positions. Other than that the whole swathe of history from the 12th century to this day, have shown clearly, that all monarchs can do is to step aside.
Monarchy, and it's glorification by the plebs is the hallmark of a deeply beta character, either within the people or the follower.
Just look at ISIS. A disgraceful uprising of betas, truly the beta uprising. Must have caliph, must SUBMIT. Guaranteed fail. Guaranteed corruption, guaranteed a soft cock sheep like people who use any means to justify their toady clingy fascination with their own cucking.
OP is a BETA.
Michael Russell
give me on reason why his grandfather's better!
Eli King
His grandfather actually knew the intricacies of politics and war instead of II playing his cards ineffectively/poorly
Jacob Nelson
citation needed.
Zachary Sanchez
*abuses power* >Hey stop that! *gets captured by the state* >You can't do this! *gets executed*
Jackson Murphy
>what is Bismarck >what is finally unifying Germany >what is colonization
Kayden Turner
Every type of head of state can do this. Not an arguement.
Adrian Cruz
Only in a republic with balance of power and separation of power this won't happen. Do you see the issue here?
Matthew Thompson
SAMEFAG
>Such a dead thread has to samefag
> can't even into responding into actual responses.
>monarchy - the ultimate beta
Logan Fisher
Proto-Jew is actually quite an apt description. In many cases, the zionist brood parasitism closely resembles the foreign blooded nobility/royalty brood parasitism of the past and to some extent still the present.
Extra-national interests represented in governments turning the apparatus of state maintained primarily by a nation towards ends that are of little material and sentimental interest to said nation.
One could say that the various republican, peasant and working class revolts of history are actually primarily nationalistic in character, demanding governments that represent their interests as opposed to the interests of colonial foreigners.
Kevin Sullivan
if anything it is more pathetic that you took the time to figure that out and then type out a response. just saying.
Camden Sanchez
>hereditary government/president for life Incentivizes family ties and long-term plans, drawback is inbreeding and inability to peacefully remove a bad leader.
>elective government with term limits Makes leaders more accountable in the short term, but incentivizes buying votes and allows for recklessly bleeding the country dry then letting your successor take the fall.
A mixed government with a monarch and a parliament has the best checks and balances. Prove me wrong.
Jaxon Harris
> took the time to figure that out
mouse hover, single mouse click
>took the time
>figure it out
U are lazy, and probably regard reaching for your next 30 ounce soda as cardio.
thanks for the lucid and fearful avoidance of my well deployed logics.
Levi Cooper
Long story short - the only reasonable forms of monarchies are Constitutional Monarchies. In a modern world a combination between a Constitutional and Elective Monarchy can work.
Everything else is communist-tier shit.
Connor Hall
>Kings and Queens serve one singular purpose; >to have their heads separated from their bodies by their own people, when the people are ready. Don't discount that purpose. That actually is a good reason for monarchy. When monarchy was common people accepted that to change your nations policy, killing your leaders was an option. Now everyone seems to think that if you kill your enemies they win.
Robert James
a modern monarchy should allow other natural born citizens to kill the monarch to take the throne for themselves. then it would be ok
Brody Mitchell
constitutional monarchies are generally a good play except that you get the fucking awful habsburg jaw. and sometimes they get disconnected from their people. see french revolution, american revolution
Chase Murphy
>can work
you mean if the influence of the monarch is left to taking care of ceremonial ribbon cuttings.
you mean as long as the monarch is removed from any real influence and power.
So, tell me again - what value do they add? Why even insert them into the process. They represent a cost, an aspirational cost ( u can never be king ), and bring nothing in return.
'can work' is not the same as 'is optimal'. constitutional democracies are those in which the process of removing the louse from the head of the nation has stalled. It's best to complete the job
Nicholas Parker
>Monarchism also fosters an immense national unity in the seemingly "apolitical" figure of the Monarch.
It can also represent an affront to the nation and an attack on any concept of fairness and apolitical, real or fake, is not necessarily a good thing. In fact, it's rather infuriating when dealing with people of extreme power and influence.
>Now more than ever we need national unity. Now more than ever we need nationalism, be it civic or ethnic. Long live the Kings & Queens of the Earth!
Unity at what cost though? Division and strife are not necessarily bad things. They can be the harbingers of positive change. At the moment lots of people feel threatened and betrayed, and the hereditary heads of state aren't exactly doing much to help them.
I will say that in some form or another, monarchy, will appear. It's not so much a question of whether you want it or not, but more a question of what kind of monarchy you are prepared to tolerate.
Dylan Gonzalez
yup. and thats as far as it goes.
this is however a very different statement to the one in OP. the OP suggests that this outmoded and ultimately self destructive form of national identity (the people who lived on this one guys land) somehow has the legs to carry it into the future.
Jose Taylor
I'm not arguing it's optimal, I'm saying it's workable.
Adrian Diaz
"yeah surgically we can attach this pigs head to your shoulder...year, it's gonna need maintenance tho, and the feeding...god you don't want to hear about the feeding. It needs to be bathed separately at least once a week, better three times. Also there are the vet's fees, shots and the medication, all of which will cost you. Oh yeah, and you gonna need a animal husbandry licence, a pet license and a sty.
And you can't drink beer cause it will react badly with the medication. But yeah, we can do it and recommend this procedure to all our....
Dylan Ward
There are some advantages in ruling large numbers of people and territories versus republics. Republics can move too slowly to make effective changes on a large scale and a head of state backed by tradition can push things through using their effect on the populace.
Therefore, we are already seeing it kind of pop up again. In the U.S., the presidency was pretty much identical to a monarch until now. That's a lot of the reason they are so upset at Trump, he isn't part of the ruling family(s). Many other countries have heads of state that are effectively monarchs too, and not quite powerful enough to be called dictators.
But in general, you are correct, that a republic, representative democracy is a better form of government, and a head of state linked to powerful traditions isn't necessary.
Zachary Hughes
Well, if I have to give ONE good reason.
There are societies that are simply not ready for democracy. You can identify them easily by the fact that people (in general) are stupid enough to believe that one person can change a nation.
Until such a nation is ready for democracy a constitutional monarchy is preferred. Why constitutional? Because the monarch would be obliged - in such case - to develop the nation and it's people rather than keep them as slaves in the mines.
Grayson Sullivan
>ruling large numbers of people and territories versus republics >Republics can move too slowly to make effective changes on a large scale
the problem here is with the top down approach. You assume leadership must come from a central source. But of course that is a nonsense.
Ever heard of participative democracy. In experiments, both in the real world and in 'the lab', it has provided better results in terms of the quality of governance than it's current equivalents.
Participative democracy is the future.
Adam Fisher
there are better ways which produce very similar results in shorter periods of time.
the problem with a constitutional democracy is that it fudges things in favour of current invested interests, and thus allows for those same vested interests the opportunity to trascend governance models.
What you need to do is carefully manage change, by fostering and encouraging transformation. and you need to foster this transformation by not allowing the process of transformation to consume the beast that is being transformed.
deploying a constitutional monarch is like deploying an anchor and keeping it in the water 'for safety'. Not your safety, not the ships safety, but the safety of those passangers who might not want to embark on the journey.
A boat wishing to cross the atlantic, at some point, will have to raise and stow that anchor lest it cause the ship to flail and flounder in the storms.
Dylan Jackson
>the problem here is with the top down approach. You assume leadership must come from a central source. But of course that is a nonsense.
Where did I ever imply leadership must come from a central source? All that I said was that large-scale republics are too slow and a monarch can sometimes be more effective in that situation, because of their effect on populace. Mainly that it can give the populace's grievances the legitimacy needed to force a change on a bureaucracy, while a republic just kicks the can down the road. Or be a target for the populace to direct physical change.
>Ever heard of participative democracy Yes, I've heard of participatory democracy and I completely disagree that it can scale to the size of large nations such as the U.S. It's essentially a return to early city-states, there is nothing really new under the sun. For nations of that size, it does indeed provide the best quality of governance. It is ineffective though when participants can't effectively mingle with each other and come to understand each others concerns, which is why it can't scale.
Ian Smith
>Where did I ever imply leadership must come from a central source well lets have a look >ruling large numbers of people and territories >ruling implies ruler, implies the will of a central source, imposed and implemented by dispersal Large scale republics are probably too large. this is the obvious conclusion. humans are designed for social systems of 7 - 30 people. there is no natural aspirational identity that ties different nations or emergent nations together. Further, the limits of a kingdom or empire have always been those imposed by logistics. if rebels raid your border how long will it take you to respond. if famine strikes how long will it take a central authority to act?
the people who know what their problems are are the people. all a ruler does is insert himself as a middleman, to filter the requests for need and change. the ruler by definition then becomes the handbrake, the logistical hurdle, that prevents the expansion of his domain. the fact is that the peoples grievances should not be subject to the 'legitimisation' of the ruler. because they are the grievances of the people they are legitimised by definition. it is the only definition by which they have legitimacy.
>which is why it can't scale. of course it can scale. by the very same mechanisms by which all human iterations scale. at a local level you have participatory governance over local matters, and a representative moves one level up to make participatory governance decisions on behalf of the region. from the region a member goes forth and mingles with other members of other regions.
in today's world there is no reason the regional or national participatory representative even needs to leave his home.
the challenge is to create the infrastructure that facilitates this - the exact same mechanisms that all other governance systems have to put into place in order to function effectively.
in this day and age, the excuse of mingling and communication are simply not a factor.
Henry Wilson
I could get behind this We need A KING IN THE NORTH!
Jason Miller
Daily reminder that Kaiser Wilhelm II was the best leader of all time not because he ever won but because he showed the true aspect of a leader risking everything in the face of defeat to save his country, Germany.
Anthony Cooper
Monarchism eventually results in nothing more than having your country ruled by foreign fucks that don't give a shit about your people.
Easton Bailey
YES When a King or Queen is corrupt, its clear we need an out with democracy, and remove the onus of responsibility of picking the country's leader based on a mix of the few intelligent people, and the masses of gibbering morons.
Democracy is mob rule The mob is easily lied to and placated Appealed to, and distracted
this can happen to any country, regardless of politics, but at least a Monarchist has to have stock in their country, since the country is the Monarchy, and the Monarchy the country, The sovereign is extremely invested in the nation, unlike the skeeving sewer of politicians.
Michael Powell
And in a few years, when Elizabeth II is gone, we'll have one.
Cameron Carter
I'll admit, I would take a constitutional monarchy far ahead of any other form of government.
Jeremiah Wilson
The problem with Absolute monarchism is that you get insane coo coo monarchs often
Isaac Russell
and inbreds
David Gutierrez
Most retarded ideology ever desu
Julian Gray
Your golden age was under a monarchy, dumbass
Connor Wilson
>ruling large numbers of people and territories >ruling implies ruler, implies the will of a central source, imposed and implemented by dispersal
Ok, so it's just autistic semantics, or being triggered by using the word ruling over governing, or whatever is your favorite.
It's not like I favor a monarchy, I don't, I'm simply pointing out that it can and has been used as the more effective form of governance for the largest nations of the world. Large scale republics are definitely too large, the problem with them is they are hard as fuck to break up once getting that large.
>of course it can scale. by the very same mechanisms by which all human iterations scale. at a local level you have participatory governance over local matters, and a representative moves one level up to make participatory governance decisions on behalf of the region. from the region a member goes forth and mingles with other members of other regions.
Yeah, no, the more layers you need, the more disconnected it becomes. Eventually you will end up back where you started as a standard republic. You point out earlier how humans are designed for a limited social system which is exactly my point on why it can't scale. What makes participatory democracy an improvement over a standard republic is the increased participation which is achieved by having a more involved populace in decision making. The more hops in the network to get to the larger region and the more regional concerns to track, the less effective it is as the division between the populace and the leaders increases.
Dominic Roberts
WILL TO LOOT DECREASES
Liam Jackson
What about Plato's theory of a philosopher king?
Examples: Alexander the Great Marcus Aurelius
Monarchy does not have to be hereditary as stated here The greatest danger the way I see it is the abuse of power, but given the current state of western democracy it's quite clear that the politics of today are more concerned with maintaining the illusion of unbreakable rules, than not breaking the rules. >privacy >power >manipulation
Christian Green
Considering most (all?) of our Presidents are related to Royalty/nobility, I'd say the elite families are still in power. Even Obama (through his mother) is descendant from a Knight:
I don't feel like searching a bunch of others, but it's interesting.
Several of our Presidents also came from Puritans.
Hunter Carter
They have one or two good leaders then those kingdoms eventually disintegrate because incompetent leaders take over.
Wyatt Ross
Reminder that pic related is the best monarch in existence. >confirmed ancap >based Austrian school >overruled his own parliament to guarantee the right of secession to any townships in the country, ultimately wants individual sovereignty for everyone >probably reads Hoppe >rules an ethnically homogenous, peaceful, and wealthy nation
Carter Wood
Rather than cling to the culture of being England's baby boy, would it not be more interesting, and important to have a Lord of Canada, as social unrest climbs? Especially in a cosmopolitan society, such as ours. It prevents all the psychotic political players. SJWs and stormtroopers alike, from getting a leg up on anyone. There is no majority/minority representation in government and it nullifies the notion of institutional discrimination, as the state of the nation reflects the strength of the Sovereign and vis-versa. He/she who has dominion over this land has a greater interest in keeping social order, because it would reflect badly on them. >enter stronger societal values >enter the sense of traditionalism that conservatism is missing yet many a conservative wants >enter cultural unification instead of the restless exploitation of the population on the part of our ((((unbiased)))) news networks >enter prosperity and pride
The word of the Sovereign is law, and all shall obey.
Jose James
>Yeah, no, the more layers you need,.....
Nice try. >The more layers you need Objectively less and fewer than in any other form of governance. > you will end up back not if u do it right. by your argument democracy just leads to monarchy, when in fact it leads back to plutocracy >humans are designed for a limited social system which is exactly my point on why it can't scale yeah but even more strongly to my argument that there is a logistical limit to how large a territory a governance system should attempt to encompass. and the flow upwards of representation actually keeps the interactions between 'the rulers' within the limits of human social systems.
> The more hops in the network to get to the larger region and the more regional concerns to track, the less effective it is
this is not a critique unique to participatory systems, it is the same critique you would make against empires that overstep their natural logical bounds.
the places on earth that report the highest satisfaction are those with a low voter to representative ratio. 90: 1 i.e. 90 voters to a representative is the most progressive that has so far been achieved. In the USA and UK it's in the region 1000 to 20000 voters per representative.
your last paragraph is essentially a non argument, a double bladed knife that presses more deeply into the chest of those who argue against participative systems ( as one end of a continuum ) and favour of non participatory systems (monarchy being at the other extreme end of that same continuum).
Elijah Thompson
We don't explicitly have to return to Monarchy by heredity Would you argue that our Canadian democracy consistently produces the best political chief? I think, as of late, in the past couple decades, we await the coming of an actual decent leader
Trudeau is certainly a dead end where Canadians are concerned.
Josiah Brown
Step aside, bitches.
Xavier James
My country's golden age fell because its last king was too autistic to have children before losing his life in battle.
The Kingdom was inherited by Spanish and Spanish sucked more at ruling and we started losing our colonies.
We retook some after the restoration of independence. but it wasn't never the same.
In 19th century, the royal family fled Portugal and went to Brazil while the population was massacred by the Napoleon forces and the riches were sacked (thanks also to eternal Spanish).
How do you feel the state's fate is closed binded to the physical presence of a monarch that can affect our people'?
Joseph Moore
Kek. Tax rates under monarchies were actually mild AF, wars were foremost fought by nobility and then peasants, and only if the peasants were paid enough, and a monarch generally found that free commerce was the best way to extract wealth from the people.
Look at "Democratic Republics like the US: are they any better? Do they have greater moral authority regularly dropping fire from the sky?
If you kept loyalty to your monarch, you likely would have ameliorated your nigger problem by now.
Robert Moore
Monarchs' powers are very diluted though: they sublet their lands to counts, who in turn sublet their lands to barons, who in turn incentivize people to work on their lands.
Each barony or county is an experiment or control against another barony or county, and best practices are soon applied to other jurisdictions.
Power is and was further diffused through use of common law courts, citizen juries, and militias. The nobility, monarchy, the royal bureaucracy, the commercial interests and the church worked in tandem such that they didn't want to disrupt order, but otherwise were at odds and checks on each others' power.
Leo Perry
This. The concept of total war only came about as a result of democratization. Traditionally, when the country was at war, it was the king's war and was paid out of the king's pocket and fought by the king's soldiers, mercenaries, and nobles. The average person didn't really give a fuck because it had little to do with them, short of a modest rise in taxes (and even then, most wars were financed by the king accruing debts from other kingdoms and banks, because they knew crippling their economy through massive taxation was a great way to stay poor).
Nolan Miller
>Tax rates under monarchies were actually mild AF,
which translated into no social development, no effective improvement or advancement until the point at which monarchs stepped back and lost power to councils and representatives.
low tax rates only protect the plutocrats. without plutocracy the king would be torn to shreds by the mob. it is only a sustained plutocracy which convinces a king to expand his domain so some fat rent seeking psychopath can leech off of a population. expanding kingdoms and boundaries has never had anything to do with improved governance, it's always been about entrenching person power, croney capitalism, and the rights of the rulers and their supporters.
it is highly inefficient and achieves nothing. the more participative a countries governance system the more that society achieves. compare saudi arabia with almost any democracy and you will see fail and potential contrasted.
Adrian Barnes
Blame Juarez, mexicanon
Blake Johnson
Also >participative democracy >You and the nigger next door have equal voting power >You have 1 child, and a family of 3 >They have 7 children, and a family of 9 >Their political power is 3fold your political power >They continue to take more resources from you and your family isn't >(((Democracy))) so grand?
Hudson Bailey
and in my country, it's only the niggers that have kings and queens. we have at least 4 monarchies that have literally done fuck all for their people. even now tho they are looking for the gets demanding the state stump up for their lifestyles.
it would be better would it not if we slit their throats and let them rot
Bentley Bennett
TAR AND FEATHER TIME, BOYS
David Perry
sounds wonderful until you realise that democracies do it much better. imagine I am baron fuckheads experiment, and my outcomes in life are essentially a postcode lottery depending on how inbred the and entitled the bastard feels.
sounds like a shit arbitrary and cruel life.
Connor Robinson
>If you kept loyalty to your monarch, you likely would have ameliorated your nigger problem by now.
Only SA user can explain better than me. What would happen if SA was still a dominion of the commonwealth
ww1 was a war fought by empires. it was total war in everyway.
japan managed to keep it's absolute monarchy into the second world war, they too were in for total war.
argument fail
Asher Williams
The first half of the industrial revolution occurred when monarchs had a great deal of authority, and the second half occurred when they they had a moderate degree of authority.
Both republics and monarchies whose jurisdictions were of mainly European ancestry experienced booms durig this time.
>the more participative a countries governance system the more that society
It depends who is participating. We let sub-100 IQ people vote in this country, and it creates hundredfold the rent-seeking you abhor of lords over their fiefdoms.
