>Who are monarchists and why monarchy?
youtube.com
>VIDEOS:
youtube.com
youtube.com
>Thread Tunes
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
>TASKS:
>Gather lurkers
>Create usable memes
>Spell-check memes
>Spread memes
>Come up with new ideas
>Find or create a friendly guide for voting
>help improve OP text/create pastebin
Other urls found in this thread:
madmonarchist.blogspot.com
madmonarchist.blogspot.com
omantodorei.wordpress.com
theguardian.com
youtu.be
youtube.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
twitter.com
twitter.com
twitter.com
twitter.com
twitter.com
twitter.com
madmonarchist.blogspot.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
We have the very best blogs too!
Can We bring Monarchy back in these Countries?
>Brazil
madmonarchist.blogspot.com
>Portugal
omantodorei.wordpress.com
>Russia
theguardian.com
Queen Victoria:
Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland from 20 June 1837 until her death. From 1 May 1876, she adopted the additional title of Empress of India.
...
William III of England:
was sovereign Prince of Orange from birth, Stadtholder of Holland, Zeeland, Utrecht, Gelderland, and Overijssel in the Dutch Republic from 1672, and King of England, Ireland, and Scotland from 1689 until his death. It is a coincidence that his regnal number (III) was the same for both Orange and England. As King of Scotland, he is known as William II. He is informally known by sections of the population in Northern Ireland and Scotland as "King Billy".
Why the fuck are monarchists on Sup Forums always pathetic Americuck lolbertarians?
Monarchism-Syndicalism is the true path Continentals thread.
And before you meme at me, I'm in cahoots with both Action Française and Die Monarchisten (Ö), so I know what I'm talking about.
Peter the Great:
ruled the Tsardom of Russia and later the Russian Empire from 7 May (O.S. 27 April) 1682 until his death, jointly ruling before 1696 with his elder half-brother, Ivan V. Through a number of successful wars he expanded the Tsardom into a much larger empire that became a major European power. He led a cultural revolution that replaced some of the traditionalist and medieval social and political systems with ones that were modern, scientific, westernized, and based on The Enlightenment. Peter's reforms made a lasting impact on Russia and many institutions of Russian government trace their origins to his reign.
OC
...
Not a Libertarian, I beleive in absolute Monarchy, none of that constitutional monarchy shit. Though that is better then pure democracy.
Also daily reminder the mad monarchist is a class cuck ready to sell both mother and father for a couple of shekels.
So which family for the royal family? You guys really need to decide that. It's arguably the most important part of your whole political movement. The right family can make or break the whole thing.
>Inb4 the Trumps of course!
Well, I'd say a Stuart, but that line is dead, so the only logical family would be Windsor. Though I don't think Monarchy in the US is a possibility without a major disaster.
Absolute Monarchy is a stupid meme.
Republics are anarchy at the top and authoritarian at the bottom.
Maurassianism is authoritarian at the top and democratic at the bottom.
Local direct democracy and Syndical&Corporatist elections need to be uphold otherwise the regime is illegitimate.
America is a republic from it's inception, being an American monarchist is pretty pathetic as well as hopeless desu.
>Can We bring Monarchy back in these Countries?
>Portugal
I would bring the military dictatorship / New State again.
The country bankrupted twice in final 20 years of the monarchy and so many in first and third/current republic.
Monarchism/Imperialism are/is a mental illness that requires treatment when its sufferers become violent in trying to impose their delusional belief system on others. Treatment does not need to be voluntary.
And this doesn't apply to all other political ideologies because...?
>the first video
I cant tell you for any reason why monarchy is good but I support it anyways XD
This.
Brazil was always a monarchy that's why democracy and republic don't work over here.
Probably isn't compatible with (((their))) narative.
Some literature I compiled.
Quite honestly most of Maurras' writings should be on this list and I really recommend them, but many of them are hard to come by and almost none are translated.
I would only support a Catholic monarch like Louis IX
A monarch without a connection to traditional Latin Catholicism is trash
So are these monarchists in favour of ending democratic process and returning to a High Counsel to advise a Monarch? Absolute rule?
The delusional aspect is that it requires dividing people into Royalty and commoners, with Royalty inheriting the right to pass and enforce laws regulating behavior and beliefs. Commoners 'inherit' the obligation to obey these laws. It is, however, a self-evident truth that human beings are created equal, not as Royalty and Commoners. Hence the delusional nature and error of Monarchism/Imperialism. For more detail, see Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Karl Marx, etc.
Things that you could add
-Metternich
-Donso Cortes
-Louis de Bonald
-Democracy: The God that Failed
>It is, however, a self-evident truth that human beings are created equal
Hardly.
>however, a self-evident truth that human beings are created equal
In what sense? Biologically? Yes. But socio-economically absolutely not.
Democracy is the beginning of degeneracy
Monarchy can only be restored through
1. Revolution...which is likely never going to work because of current brainwashing and notions of individual liberty
2. Waiting for society to collapse and be there to pick up the pieces
Like Julius Evola states...you just have to be a flag or a rally point in modern society...because it is a fast moving stream. To fight against the current is almost pointless.
Just leave your mark and let people know you existed. Carry the torch for the day when the time is right. Forcing your hand will only end up in failure
It is self-evident because the burden of proof that people are not created equal always belongs on the person making the claim that they are not equal. It is something that is decided on evidence, and on a case by case basis. No evidence exists for dividing people into Royalty and commoners.
A person's self-worth can easily be determined by their material wealth and social class. Whilst it may not be biological, if you're born in a slum, you'll live in the slum and you'll die in a slum.
Ther are of course exceptions to the rule, but that has always been the way of the world. People just aren't born equal, as there is a disparity in opportunity based on their social class.
Crowdling, you must be talking about democracies and republics. Or have you forgotten the last 100 years?
Equality is not self-evident. Inequality is.
Sorry, I'm out on this one.
I cannot, in good faith, support a return to complete power consolidation.
the AF proposes (loosely):
>Legislative branch
tricameral parliament
House of Unions: Trade Union representatives elected by members of different unions, lower house
National Council: representatives from every social group (unions, employers, self-employed, NGOs, guilds, charters, nobles), upper house
House of Representatives: elected by proportional vote, purely advisory body
>Judiciary branch
Completely independent from the other 2 to assure fairness
>Executive branch
The Monarch works as the head of state and nominates the prime minister, who will usually, but not necessary always, be the leader of the parliamentary majority. The PM and Monarch constitute the cabinet together. The PM and his cabinet then run the day to day affairs of the state with the Monarch intervening when no solution can be found, acting as a fair judge that can be more clear-headed than politicians.
Even Kings must stoop to public opinion. No power is complete power.
Bring back the Habsburg pls
Self-worth has nothing to do with money, or even OP's post. I, for example, am not a member of Royalty or an Imperial family. I am not a commoner either. I am a human being. Any claim that I do not have the same rights as you or anyone else (which is possible) must be supported with evidence by the person making that claim. You must prove I am not equal, I do not have to prove I am. Thus it is self-evident.
Of course I am talking about Republics and Democracies. I do not understand your question.
>Even Kings must stoop to public opinion
Only when it is required.
We live in a society where they can covertly dissect nearly everything the population says.
A king in this age would not require stooping to public opinion, when shaping it is easier and more profitable.
>The PM and his cabinet then run the day to day affairs of the state with the Monarch intervening when no solution can be found, acting as a fair judge that can be more clear-headed than politicians.
So, us then? Look up the constitutional crisis in Australia in the 70s, the is exactly what Queen Elizabeth did
The reason I'm a monarchist is because they get stuff done, and if they are Christian (which they should be) the whole country is better off
Yes basically like the UK but where the monarch uses his powers a bit more often.
I never said you didn't have the same rights. I said you do not have the same opportunity as others, based on your birth. You made the assertion that humans are created equal, which is false because your social class determines your opportunity, and thus a schism is automatically created in terms of equality
if you think monarachy gets stuff done then why not just be a fascist? a monarchy is basically just a passed-down fascism between families
It's been like that in every age. Build public opinion to be bound by it. The point is, however, that you cannot openly transgress public opinion. Hence to point that no power is truly complete when it is contingent upon the masses level of satisfaction.
Wrong. Fascism is inherently revolutionary, which is the only real difference between it and reactionary conservatism.
>Portugal
No.
I would prefer a Salazarist dictatorship, only without religion.
Monarchy is shit. Absolute fucking shit. Fuck PNR.
Watch the movies Becket and A Man For All Seasons. English monarchy was not French or Chinese or Russian absolutism.
I do not see what that has to do with the subject of Monarchism but yes, people do have different opportunities in life.
Quit playing dumb.
He's refuting your bullshit about the self-evidence of equality.
Monarchy is fine as long as it has some elected officials to bring the problems of the people to the monarch.
For example a monarch has ultimate power but a council is elected to serve in 'court' where the monarchy can't micromanage (For example an elected education councillor to deal with little things like exactly how much new teachers should be paid).
The monarch should however have absolute power and be able to overrule anything and everything.
Another option is an elected emperor, the public spend 2 years picking an emperor who serves for life (or severe illness).
It has everything to do with monarchism, because it proves you are a commoner, in relative terms to an Imperial family, who are always born into wealth and prosperity. They are therefore of higher social standing, than a commoner, and we're all commoners compared to the class that always rules.
Sorry I like total Monarchy but is too dangerous and stupid.
Representative Monarchy is a lot better but I think miicharchism is better
Lichtenstein TOP TIER country political system
>The point is, however, that you cannot openly transgress public opinion
But you can, you are seeing it happening around you right now.
The overly vocal establishment, engineering change through shaming those who stand up for their beliefs.
Really, it boils down to the same shit anyway. The only difference is the degree of transparency, and what you call your rulers.
madmonarchist.blogspot.com
Include anything from mad monarchist in pastebin, OP.
>Monarchy is fine as long as it has some elected officials to bring the problems of the people to the monarch.
in France there was what was called the third estate which designated deputies to the general estates which represented certain cities, that is to say the deputies of the bourgeoisie. The deputies represented all the population of their circumscription
Sorry, you are mistaken. I am not a commoner. Your belief that I am shows the error of your ways and thinking. Perhaps some Thorazine would help.
Note that I am not saying you are a commoner or a Royal or Imperial. I do not need to do so to interact with you. all I need to know is that you are a human being. If you wish to label yourself otherwise, that is your right.
I'm a propagandist. I understand the power of those who influences the masses.
You're failing to grasp the fact that the manipulation of public opinion is due to its near omnipotence, which by default renders any power subject to it incomplete. Kings were never as powerful as they were made out to be. Nobody is. Power in this sense is only being able to placate those who can destroy you.
Do you know what a commoner is? It is someone who is not of royal blood, and has no ancestral ties to a ruling family. I am a commoner, and so are you. So are the vast majority of people on the planet. It's nothing more than a label to distinguish yourself from those who are born to rule. You have unequal opportunities to other factions of society, but a royal family always has great prosperity and the ability to rule. That is what separates us from them
>I am not a commoner
Says the crowdling parroting memes with no knowledge from where they came.
Hol up
Best monarch coming through
>Einstein's brain was larger and more dense than the common man
>tom is taller, stronger, and faster than bill. tom has also never been sick in his life, while bill is stuck in a bed half the year
>but equality cannot be physically quantified, and we're all 100% the same physically
It's all nurture, right?
Using the term commoner to understand what it means to be human is like using the term phlogiston to understand combustion. The fact that these two terms exist does not make them valid.
Believing in phlogiston, Royalty, commoners, the flat earth, etc is simply delusional, and evidence that the person holding these beliefs is delusional and probably mentally ill. These people are entitled to their delusions, provided that do not use them to harm others, or infringe on their rights. Or try to collect taxes based on their delusions.
youtube.com
Add too pastebin, this channel is great btw.
A republic is people with large wealth competing to get more power, a person must be placed above all the rich and powerful to rule for all the people and nation.
The subject is politics, and why Monarchism is based on a delusional belief system. Not personal achievement and its basis. Einstein , Tom, and Bill all have the same political rights, unless someone can prove they do not. For example, if you can prove that Bill is a felon he will lose his rights.
The person I was responding to specifically said "biologically".
I do, though, support limiting the franchise. Until that is done, of course everyone has an equal vote, whether they deserve it or not.
Unless they're a Lord, or have some other inherited position, in addition to the privileges given to the hoi polloi.
The queen technically has this, but she is unable to do anything because of public outrage. So now she only signs documents.
You haven't refuted anything posted, and reverted to posting more mindless dogma. I've set out my position, and explained it to you. You cannot just keep chanting what you believe to be true, without providing any substance or reasoning to your claim, as I have
Aye, the government took all the power, now we no longer have the balance that is so important. A literal fucking commie could be elected as PM and the Queen would allow it. The queen needs to veto a law, any law just to prove she has power, flex her muscles so to say.
Sorry, Lord is a title used by Monarchists and Imperialists and is invalid. Inheritance has no place in politics.
I have refuted everything you nave posted. Due to your mental state and illness (as manifested by your belief in Monarchism/Imperialism) you are unable to grasp this.
While you are entitled to your delusional beliefs, remember when trying to implement them to do so in a way that is peaceful and respectful of the rights of the human beings around you. Government is bout the power to pass and enforce laws regulating behavior, not belief. It is too important to be left up to inheritance, especially by the in-bred.
Is this you?
You haven't refuted anything fwiw, just repeated memes like some brainless zombie.
And yet, having an inherited position means you have more political power than a pleb. Which makes it real, and means things aren't equal, due to the station of your birth.
You sound like a Communist by dismissing these things out of hand.
Is this you?
Thoughts on Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn?
I am well aware of how things work in the real world, especially in politics. I am a precinct captain in my county, and have worked for both a State and U.S. Representative,
There are no inherited political positions in the U.S. Obviously wealth plays a huge role; how else to explain the prominence of the Bush family? None of them could be elected dike commissioner if they were middle class. This is no reason to compromise on principal, or give in to delusions. And remember, the bigger they are the harder they fall.
Just a delusional mentally ill monarchist, maybe had read a book or two in his lifetime, nothing like the highly educated and enlightened progressive elite that has been commenting in this thread.
Liberal, but not smug. While I do not belong to a Commune, you are mistaken that I dismiss them out of hand. I have given it a lot of thought.
Probably should have included Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine,John Locke and Karl Marx on his reading list.
You are a hypocrite of the highest order. I truly salute your obliviousness.
Monarchy is the only way forward for humanity.
>Russia
Yeah, because it worked so well last time. Besides, Putin basically a tsar with a different title already so it doesn't matter.
Listen to me all you delusional little retards. We are all equal. I declare this along with those who influenced me, and if you disagree it's a sign of mental illness and treatment is not voluntary.
Remember, we are all equal.
*leans into mic*
Wrong.
which type of monarchy is best in your opinions?
>116853036
>We are all equal.
back to
>>>/reddit/
Treatment only becomes involuntary when Monarchists/Imperialists become violent. Peaceful M/I's can be ignored or tolerated, like the people you see walking around downtown talking to their imaginary friends about imaginary Queens.
Well that's fucking retarded.
Insane amount of research proving we're not enqual. Still somehow thinks we're equal. Either you're a minority and you're butt hurt about facts or you're white and you're too guilty and feel bad for them to admire you're better. Either way fuck off faggot
None, as the basic concept is in error as to the human condition. And if someone is so out of it that they think they are a commoner or Royal, I sure do not want them making decisions that affect me.
Trump should be the new royal family.
No.
Glad to see a monarchist thread. Anyone here read Spengler or Yockey?
I would prefer strong central monarchies supported by,and in conflict with, a landed aristocracy.
Of course we are not equal. Prisons are full of people who have lost their political rights because of their actions (not beliefs). Mental hospitals and similar facilities are full of people who, by their actions, have proven they are not able to care for themselves or their affairs and have no more rights than children. But the burden of proof about these inequities was on the person making the claim, on a case by case basis.