Fascism is too left wing

Fascism is too left wing.

Republicanism just deteriorates into mob rule or plutocracy.

Other urls found in this thread:

alternative-right.blogspot.com/2015/10/the-whole-of-law.html
theguardian.com/science/2017/jan/16/natural-selection-making-education-genes-rarer-says-icelandic-study
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

monarchism is dysgenic. enjoy being ruled by inbreds who don't even have to prove their worth and haven't had to ever prove themselves in order to attain the right to rule the affairs of the nation

Monarchies in Europe:
>UK
>Holland
>Sweden
>Belgium
>Norway
All cucked.

Monarchism is eugenic. Idiocracy never happened under thousands of years of monarchy.

Spain is uncucked, and France is the most cucked. Ceremonial monarchs don't count.

>Fascism is too left wing
Wait what?

>monarcucks
If you want to see one of the last monarchies, then go visit Saudi Arabia.

National Conservatism is the final redpill, not backdated inbreds.

The country should be run by the best and the brightest.
Not the guy with the hat and his daddy.

>Fascism is too left wing.
Is it though? I mean, yeah there are some leftish parts about it, but unless monarchism is basically Pinochet style capitalism then chances are it's not going to be much more right wing then fascism.

None of those are monarchies. Just ceremonial memes.

Most people mix fascism with nazism.
You appear to be mixing it with something else.

The Arab monarchies are better than any of the Arab republics.

Okay. Then the best and brightest will take 4 year turns looting the country, unable to think beyond the next quarter.

So you're a future seer huh? That's nifty and must come in handy when you lose your keys.

Who said anything about 4 years if we're talking monarchies and NatSoc.?
Sounds to me like you're under the assumption that we are going to keep the system we already have.

I don't think anyone would consider our current democracy a meritocracy.

It's the present, fuckhead. Trump is looting you right now.

It's more of a meritocracy than democracy you cuck. Enjoy your Affirmative Action.

>le 55%

Iraq, Syria and Libya were ok for Muslim countries until NATO fucked em up.

Are you a retard
Fascism was majorly influenced by national syndicalism and Sorel which was a monarchist

They were shitholes run by murderous tyrants.

Fascism isn't monarchism.

Arab monarchies are salafi hellholes
Baathist secular republics were the only hope ever of redeeming that region

A constitutional aristocracy is the way of the future

>Fascism isn't monarchism.
Mussolini literally ruled under a monarchy

>It's more of a meritocracy than democracy
I just said that, did you even read what I said?

Bathism is basically Leninism for sand niggers. The only rich Arab countries are monarchies.

That was before he became dictator and overthrew the king.

That's the way of the past. You just described America in 1776.

I meant to say monarchy.

Social policies aren't that bad. A lot of people perform better overall when they have a certainty that someone is looking out for them and they only have to do their tasks than if they live under the constant impression that everyone else is trying to take away as much of their money as possible while giving them the least in return. The new deal worked, even if it was a shitty economic policy objectively speaking, precisely because the vast majority was sure everything would work out ok.

Leftism isn't necessairly bad. However, the left we know today is a corrupt and hypocrit part of society.

Wrong
see: Spain

>Bathism is basically Leninism for sand niggers
More like fascism really
There were even former nazis assisting baathist goverments
>That was before he became dictator and overthrew the king.
Wtf that never happened
The king had him locked up, he was rescued by SS special forces and then got to "rule" a pathetic puppet state in northern Italy
He didn't even want it but Hitler threatened to bomb german held northern Italian if he didn't

>wanting to be forced to obey someone just because he was born into a certain family

Actually, a country should be run by someone who has it all and isn't persuaded by wealth and power. Monarchy solves the issue of elitist maniacs clawing for power, and also keeps things relatively in balance instead of far right or far leftism

The monarchies care about themselves first.

Why should we obey someone just because he was born Into a certain family and thinks he's better than us?

The Founding Fathers never took their place as our class of nobility. Had they become a true aristocracy our country would still be great

Why Are you okay with people telling you what to do for no other reason than that they are from a certain family?

What if they are evil? Greedy? Warmongering? Weak? Crazy?

What is there arose someone who was a great leader and loved by everyone, would he not be allowed to lead?

Look at Ireland.

It's economy is booming, it's known as the digital hub of europe.

Social welfare is around €200 a week without accounting for fuel allowance, rent allowance, dependants etc.

The country is still over 90% white and sharia free.

Everyone who can't afford healthcare gets a medical card which reduces all costs of any medicines or treatments to €0.50.

Students receive grants not loans for higher education and there is a lot of free financial and technical support/grants for starting a business.

Also they just legalised medical marijuana and irish doctors can prescribe it for headaches, sleep disorders, appetite issues etc.

Ireland functions on a progressive state model with the majority of the country being conservative christians.

Fucking perfect country.

jordan is a monarchy and perhaps one of the best middle eastern countries

I'm not saying a Monarch would be perfect, but neither is any leader. High level leadership should be chosen by God, it shouldn't be open for just anyone to claw their way towards power.

Maintaining a free and open society with a system of self governance e.g. a republic is a constant struggle; it is a process that must be engaged in rigorously and with vigilance much like finding truth. Self rule and liberty demands people to be strong. Go ahead and cuck yourself with a king you fucking leaf shitposter. 4/10 cuz you triggered my autism enough to reply.

What if I don't believe in God. What if the majority of the gpu try doesn't believe in God. Like said, a progressive democracy is the best.

>The family who founded the country has no rights to rule it
>There are no such things as constitutional monarchies for checks and balances
Republicucks everyone

When people say monarchy are they advocating the warrior-king type monarchy of early feudalism Ca. 700-1000 AD with its layers upon layers of aristocratic and manoral organization or do they mean the post-enlightenment absolute monarchy of 1700-1900?

And raised from birth with the skills and traits to be a leader

Are you okay with people telling you what to do because a bunch of niggers and spics voted for them?

It's one of the PIIGS. Try again.

Republics always devolve into oligarchies where the rich replace the aristocracy
Only you have no king as central authority to unite the nation with some corrupt cuck in his place

>What is there arose someone who was a great leader and loved by everyone,

Those qualities intersect only rarely.

The fundamental problem of democracy, and particulary universal suffrage democracy, is that it naturally selects demagogues and promisers of gibs, over responsible leaders.

>Letting people have a say in running the country just because they happen to live there
>Letting these losers elect leaders who will be in power for a set term and if they lose any messes will become the responsibility of people who they lost to and dislike

Government is fucked up because the people making the decisions have no personal investment in the success of the endeavor they're undertaking. A king cares about his decisions because he cares about his children and grandchildren. An elected politician doesn't give a fuck because the state will not belong to his children.

Dude I lived in your country back in 2009-2010 and honestly...what the fuck happened.

Back then everything looked cool, people were nice, everybody was smoking weed, economy was strong and it was a proud christian nation with a picture of the english queen on your money to buy bags of milk.

Since ireland pulled itself out of near greecian ruin, canada has seemed to bend over and take a hard raping from social justice brigades.

In ireland I could call a lesbian a dyke on the street and get a high five

In canada i could call a lesbian a lesbian in a comedy club and get sued for 50,000

First off. Them who should be the king of the USA then? Should we go on the search for George Washington's descendant and crown him king? What if he's a crash head?

A constitutional monarchy wouldn't even be a true monarchy then. Basically just a permanent president.

At least I can voice my opinion and if he did something wrong then we can vote him out of power. What if our king was a nigger? What if he is an sjw? Then we would have no way of removing him from power unless by glorious revolution

What if he becomes evil? What if he becomes an sjw?

Better a democracy than a monarchy. At least we can criticize our leaders, vote them out of power if they are bad, and we wouldn't have to love with a bad leader for decades

>Republics always devolve into oligarchies where the rich replace the aristocracy
Not only do they devolve into that. They start as that. A republic is just some rich fucks saying "Why should the King make decisions when we could make the decisions by claiming that we have a right to govern?"

>High level leadership should be chosen by God
That's not really how that works. The Bible does say that the ruler is given authority from God, but not that he is chosen by God. A monarch is chosen because the designated man put his sperm inside the designated woman. If it was a democratically elected leader, or a meritocratically chosen fascist leader, they would still have the same God-given authority as any monarch.

Harper lost an election.

You are describing any leader. A monarch however isn't just ensuring his own rule by doing a good job but also future generations; his children will inherit the work he has done.

As for strong natural leaders born outside the monarchy: marriage into the family is always an option along with military service. Or do their part as strong business leaders.

A constitutional monarchy/aristocracy is a stronger government than the failed experiments of the 20th century.

>First off. Them who should be the king of the USA then? Should we go on the search for George Washington's descendant and crown him king? What if he's a crash head?

Grant all land owners sovereignty over their land and let the process of vassalage work itself out.

Monarchism itself doesn't address the idea of race, nor does a monarchical society strictly have to be a right wing ideology, it can also be left wing. As such, I can't find myself supporting monarchism itself.

...

>At least I can voice my opinion and if he did something wrong

You can't though. Government backed SJW antifa will beat your ass for speaking out against niggers or cunts in the Democratic party. They'll burn down your uni too.

The Monarch can't be unjust, because the country is their own property. Do you shit in your bed on purpose?

>They were shitholes run by murderous tyrants.
And you think the Saudi Monarchy is any better?

Fuck, at least those Nationalist Dictators in Iraq, Syria and Libya had EVEN A LITTLE form of human rights, plus some social healthcare.

Saudi Arabia is backwards, just like monarchy times.

>And you think the Saudi Monarchy is any better?

It is. Only criminals and degenerates get killed. Sadam tortured children.

Fucking redditor go back to /r/atheism.

We can vote to not have them be our leader you know.

That wouldn't be fair for us? I grew up poor and luckily I have a decent life now? How can I ever hope to own land and property if only a select few people can own land just because of their families.

A monarch can rule for decades. A few decades can ruin an entire country for a long time. What if I grew up wanting to help my fellow people, what if i give the king advice but all he cares about us money. Do you really think I can actually gain power and help my people?

That's why Trump won. Also, if the monarch is am sjw then? What if all he cares about is money to fund his lifestyle and war machine, what can we peasants who own no land like said.
What could we do to change?

>nor does a monarchical society strictly have to be a right wing ideology, it can also be left wing

>mfw

republicanism > monarchism > fascism > democracy > socialism

Authority is derived from the will of the people. Kings ultimately are each warlords; enforcing their will over the society they dominate with coercion and violence. Concentrating all authority under the dominion of a single man creates slaves of each of a hypothetical king's "subjects." Wish you fags would quit larping, youre as bad as fucking commies who go on about "muh real gommunism has never been tried," you imagine yourself in a position of power directly benifitting from the new power structure. The truth is people with that sort of thinking who entertain such fantasies do so because they lack the strength to flourish in a free and opem society, so they seek to subvert the will of their fellow man and place themselves above their fellows. Even ceasar augustus, perhaps the greatest man to ever live, beloved by the roman people, was ultimately a ruthless thug. Even as great as he was he lacked the strength to enact his will democratically and his failure destroyed the roman republic and his best intentions set the roman society down the path to ruin. Can you or anyone else really believe that you would be more worthy of such power? How arrogant to believe anyone has the right to dominate their fellow man.

If you don't own land, why should you be trusted to have a say in running the country? Get your own shit together first before trying to influence public policy!

>Also, if the monarch is am sjw then?

Monarchs can't be SJWs. Monarchy is inherently reactionary.

Hoppe hates republicanism.

>How arrogant to believe anyone has the right to dominate their fellow man.

SJWism in one sentence.

A huge population electing a leader is not the same as someone being born a leader. Anyone with charisma can manipulate the population. All systems that have tried to replace Monarchy have been failures and paved the way for being undermined by (((secret societies)))

That the problem though. I can't own land. All land is taken by the elite few, how could I possibly own land?

What if I don't agree with the monarchy? I guess I'm off to the firing squad

This applies to everyone in this thread.
All of you guys assume you will be the king or be a noble but most likely all of us will be peasants who own no land, can't speak out, can't run for office, can't make changes unless by revolution, and you'd all regret the day you supported the monarchy

I realize that damn near every monarchy in the past has been right wing, but it is only a system of governing, and no other ideas go along with it other than the way to govern. There's nothing to go along with it to prevent any society that follows it from possibly becoming leftist, unlike, say, National Socialism or the many forms of Fascism which have set components to go along with the way things are governed.

Wouldn't he prefer early American republicanism over European monarchism though?
t. never read Hoppe

>What if I don't agree with the monarchy? I guess I'm off to the firing squad

you have a seriously fucked up view of the world

>That wouldn't be fair for us?
It's not fair to the descendants of the ancient kings who created order and kept our ancestors from being murdered by barbarians that their birthright is stolen from them because muh democracy.

>Poorfag 500 AD: King, King! Do not leave me outside the wall to perish at the hands of the invaders! Let me into the castle.
>14 centuries later: We should kill the king and vote on shit.

People comparing a King to a President or any elected official miss the divine beauty of a monarch. No longer is the country divided into parties, and no longer must you concern yourself with the decisions being made by the government. The government is dedicated to you, the people; a king not loved will be throwing his children to hungry wolves.

The King furthermore is not a 'god given' position, but rather the position of God.

Left, right, these are meaningless arguments for petty democracies ruled by fickle masses easily swayed by propaganda and demagogues. The King acts for the benefits of all. A country united rather than one divided by the illusion of choice.

Long live the King.

>t. never read Hoppe

Filtered.

>What if I don't agree with the monarchy? I guess I'm off to the firing squad

You're such a propagandized retard. Monarchy isn't tyranny.

>monarchism is dysgenic. enjoy being ruled by inbreds who don't even have to prove their worth and haven't had to ever prove themselves in order to attain the right to rule the affairs of the nation
So, like democracy?

Monarchs really don't have a lot of reason to terrorize their people

Monarchism is like Anarcho Capitalism, only the King/Queen literally owns the country and has a monopoly on anything he wants to. The Monarchy is just the result of completely free and unrestricted markets markets.

It's awesome.

>That the problem though. I can't own land. All land is taken by the elite few, how could I possibly own land?

That's your problem, not a problem. Can you be useful to those who own land? Maybe if you weren't such a crybaby pussy you could be a knight.

long live the King!

>eugenic as fuck

>Want to be ruled by THIS

Yes, this inbred freak is appointed by god to rule over us.

>Why should we obey someone just because he was born Into a certain family and thinks he's better than us?
Because he is, in fact, better than you.

...

>look at me! i posted charles II! i'm witty and clever!

Thelemic Aristocracy
alternative-right.blogspot.com/2015/10/the-whole-of-law.html

>He believed that the duties of government itself should be conducted by a non-elected Senate.
>The Senate would be chosen by an Electoral College appointed by the King.
>Crowley’s idea of the Electoral College was a conceptually interesting institution that was essentially a kind of political monastery.
>Members of the Electoral College would commit themselves to a vow of poverty, and be selected from the ranks of volunteers who had previously exhibited excellence in fields of scholarship, the arts, or athletics.

Cant dictators technically being monarchs? Look at Napoleon?

I agree with you though Democracy is weak, corrupt and ineffective we need enlightened despotism

Everything for the people, nothing by the people

>What if they are evil? Greedy? Warmongering? Weak? Crazy?
Then it's just like democracy today.

So we have nothing to lose but everything to gain.

You, on the other hand... lmao.

You're retarded. Idiocracy is about the population, not its rulers. theguardian.com/science/2017/jan/16/natural-selection-making-education-genes-rarer-says-icelandic-study

History has proven again and again that if you don't agree with the monarchy you'd be punished.

Dude, we don't have castles today. Monarchies made sense back then but not anymore.

Alright, I guess the king wont do anything to a group of people openly protesting his laws right? I mean he has all the power of the government, military, and all the land, what could he possibly do to us?

Long live who?

>knights

What the fuck, we are arguing modern monarchies, there is no knight. You would own no land either. We'd just be forced to work.

Oh yes they would, they'd do anything to stay in power. Wouldn't they?

Why would you accept someone is better than you just because of his family?

We can vote them out. Monarchies we can't.

>satanist oligarchy
So... communism.

anyone who advocates for monarchy is worse than a leftist. the english monarchy caused irreparable damage to yurop and the world. the english monarchy is the sole reason why the jews gained a stranglehold on yurop

There isn't any check to make sure the Monarch is looking out for the people's interests. Representative Republics aren't perfect, but at least the elected have to give somewhat of a fuck around election time.

>It is. Only criminals and degenerates get killed. Sadam tortured children.
Although I agree with punishments for degeneracy. Chopping peoples hands off for stealing a little bit of chewing gum, and stoning men and women to death, isn't good.

Also, there's too many poor people in SA, and the class barrier is ridiculous, not to mention that there's no safety for workers. Unless your part of the elite, then your life as a Saudi, is pretty much at odds, and it isn't going to go good for you.

>Fucking redditor go back to /r/atheism.
Not an argument, and also too aggressive. I'm a Catholic who's now agnostic.

This

And
>Authority is derived from the will of the people.
That is the big lie. Once they get you to believe that lie, then you're ok with ignoring the legitimate government being usurped by charlatans

>My family founded this country and I don't intend on handing it over to the rabble.
>But muh consent of the governed
>We liberal democracy now
>Ownership is an inalienable right. This property is mine!
>But muh will of the people
>We communists now

>look at me, i dont think inbreeding leads to people being as fucked up as charles II, even though i know enough about him to know who he is and how he's so fucked up

>njoy being ruled by inbreds who don't even have to prove their worth
Thats a good thing. So much of politics is people trying to prove their worth, so much to the point where they don't do anything but try to prove their worth artificially.
Imagine if our leader didn't have to spend all this time posturing and defaming and could instead show their competence through actions because their actions can't affect their career or power.

>Authority is derived from the will of the people.
Most people is ignorant and politically illiterate, besides we all know the rich have always more influence and form interest groups which effectively use politicians to do their bidding
At least in monarchy you'll have the king who hasn't rose to politics for personal gain nor attached to any party but to the country and will always decide the best for the nation (if it's really the best or not is another matter). Parliamentarism is a joke and nothing more than a struggle for politicians interests over the "will of the people"
>Augustus
He never intended to restore the Roman Republic, Julius Caesar was already underway to become an emperor, Augustus merely finished his job

>Why would you accept someone is better than you just because of his family?
Because he is better than me. He comes from a line of great statesman and is educated in all matters of the state. I'm not. Neither are you, the way you post.

>We can vote them out.
Are you even serious? Lmao. Americans.

>Monarchies we can't.
Regicide.

>every monarch was inbred

>There isn't any check to make sure the Monarch is looking out for the people's interests
There doesn't need to be. If he isn't looking out for his country, he is cutting his own flesh, as we say in Germany.