Are there any other monarchists / royalists on this board?
Most people here seem to be nazis, crusaders, sane minded indiviuals (libtards would call them islamophobics), shitposters and trump supporters, so overall defenders of our western world.
But I haven't seen any monarchists on here, though it is afterall very nationalist and anti-islam by the right of divine rule, i.e. rule by "god" and his true customs.
Could it be the high amount of americans or has monarchism died out?
>someone should be given power simply because they were born into the right family
Are you an actual Kaiserreich fan?
I'm impressed, the Naziboos kind of took over.
...
2nd Reich, best Reich
I'd still try a more democratic run and see where it goes before I'd transfer all the power to a monarch, but I would sign in for a constitutional monarchy any time.
I would rather see it as a class educated to rule a nation as efficient as possible.
IIn history it has often resulted in bad things happening with degenerates become rulers - this however stopped in the later phases with the advancement of science -, but degenerates still get elected today in our precious democracy, so what has really changed in the grand sceme of things?
All the NatSoc shills don't really appreciate that the Third Reich was just trying to imitate Imperial Germany.
>p-please hitler you may have done alot, r-reinstate monarchism
>gee hitler you sure are doing well with MY army
>m-monarchism is best for germany now that you fixed everything with fascism
>monarchists will defend this communication
>or has monarchism died out?
What do the modern monarchs do that they're deserving of all power? It's not like they're speaking out against immigration or any other degeneracies. The truth is that the current monarchs on the throne care only about title and money. Plus we've seen some dumb monarchs like Charles the Mad and Charles II of Spain.
Ameritard monarchist here. I feel that as I studied more and more conservative writings and concepts instead of only thinking of myself in terms of what I oppose, that I started to lean heavily towards monarchy.
It will never come about in the age of muh democracy, but I think that a monarchy has the potential to protect the liberties of its subjects better than a democracy (obviously not always the case though.)
I would rather see it as a class educated to rule a nation as efficient as possible.
IIn history it has often resulted in bad things happening with degenerates become rulers - this however stopped in the later phases with the advancement of science -, but degenerates still get elected today in our precious democracy, so what has really changed in the grand scheme of things?
>I would rather see it as a class educated to rule a nation as efficient as possible.
Why not just have a computer do it then?
Whats wrong with that? It ensures only humans of your race control you.
Remember when Kaiser Wilhelm essentially rage-quitted after getting BTFO by the Allies and burnt Germany to ashes out of spite?
Oh wait....that was Hitler.
They may not be qualified. Do you think a drunken party boy race mixer like Prince Harry could run a country?
All Hail Brittania.
except he didn't
Reporting in.
Pic related
Great argument. Maybe monarchy is what you need considering your voters have recently demonstrated their extreme stupidity
>What is the Nero Decree?
The asshole literally didn't give a shit at how many people died needlessly in the War after he knew it was lost.
He had no shred of honor that the Kaiserreich had.
The fuck you know about my country kek
>inb4 some stupid deflecting shit
Deserve has nothing to do with it.
I see modern monarchism as a desire to see power formalized through a clearly recognizable hierarchy... At least you know where you stand.
Developing a hierarchy that correctly assigns power to those most fit to wield it is not a simple task but nevertheless humans manage to succeed at it with surprising regularity, probably because its something we've done since the first pack oriented mammalian in our genetic ancestry began selecting for packs that could successfully establish a functional hierarchy. The process involves unconcious currents and instincts in our behavior.
The process of establishing a healthy pecking order is short circuited when arbitrary regulation by officials, or artificial forms of power, or just the scale of society gets in the way. Remember, we are psychologically adapted to social circles of about 50 people at most, and any large official structure, from clans of multiple 50 person groups all the way up to nations of 500 million people, will complicate the process.
Monarchist here. There are a few of us roaming around Hoppe/Libertarian generals but, as good traditionalists, we mostly keep to ourselves.
Natural leaders exist. They do not get voted, they don't reach power out of public consensus. They are. And it stands to reason that some of the characteristics that led them to be the person they are will be passed on to their children who, in turn, will pass them on to their children and so on. Some of you faggots claim to be race realists and understand the huge role that genetics play in behaviour, yet the moment anyone raises the concept of monarchy you get triggered and cry MUH DEMOCRACY even though it's said democracy what has culturally bankrupted the West by removing the influence aristocracy had on culture.
I don't see how capitalist liberal democracy is much different...being born into wealth and power is pretty much a guarantor of continued wealth and power..the benefit of monarchy is that the crown must generally be defended by heroism and conquest from time to time..it would be more honest at least..
no one gave a shit how many died in WW2
>t. anglo with dresden
>t. yank with france who did far more damage to france than nazis ever did and were increasingly anti-american with the amount of bombing
Monarchy is the best system. All other forms of government lead to either the government killing innocent people or degeneracy.
I know your country didn't vote in the guy who wouldn't have taken shit from Muslims
>Le Americans are so stupid
>And it stands to reason that some of the characteristics that led them to be the person they are will be passed on to their children who, in turn, will pass them on to their children and so on.
And yet it's not often the case
Fascism is the answer.
burger bls
>nazis and crusaders are considered sane minded individuals
lmao this is why i love Sup Forums
I've heard the 'gold palace' argument, that monarchs might exact the price of a gold palace from their population but otherwise they have to husband their country well as the source of their wealth.
Now maybe you don't make the above argument as being the worst that a king can do, but, I say it's not the worst a king can do, historically, they've drained their countries of young men and treasure both, to fight Leviathan wars.
Do you know these arguments, do you have any counter?
That's how we end up with dynastic changes. The better bloodline wins. Furthermore, if said dynastic battle ended up leading to war those wars were fought by noble armies and not by the general populace since it was understood that crown business were crown business.
Democracy (and the modern state) was a mistake.
Are you aware the Netherlands has a monarch?
No. National Socialism is.
My nigga, stealing that meme. Nothing like a christian theocratic monarchy where power comes from God through christian oikumene.
...
who /anarcho-monarchist/ here?
Have a rare .gif
nah m8 libertarian fascism is where its at
The majority should have the rights coming with that status but it is not necessary to a government to opress peaceful minorities.
Reporting in. It's just what is.
It's a valid point. Usually most monarchists would move the goalposts and tell you that 1. those weren't monarchies but empires or 2. you're mostly addressing absolute monarchies, that is monarchies already corrupted by the pernicious nature of the modern state, and not proper monarchies like the ones Europe had in the middle ages.
But let's look closer into it: a king is not the sole owner of a country. In fact the land is owned by aristocrats and bound together by oaths of fealty to a common crown (the king). There is literally nothing stopping an aristocrat from going to war against their king either to claim the crown for himself or to support the claim from another bloodline. The aristocracy, in a feudalist (or neo-feudalist of you will) system works as a counterbalance to the court and to the king. Most monarchists (I'm thinking von Kuehnelt-Leddihn for example) don't want a strong king for the reasons you mentioned, they want a strong aristocracy and, for that, you need a monarchy.
The idea of an impartial representative of the people and the nation is important dor unifying a nation. This is why on the whole you see monarchies like England and Holland and Sweden doing economically better than most other nations. Monarchy may not be logical, but it turns out to be a practocal tool for National pride and unity.
>inbred retard put and kept in power by Rothschild kikes
How redpilled.
>Are there any other monarchists / royalists on this board?
No, I'm an American(flag because here on business). Though Princess Leonor is a hottie, I'd bow down and worship her.
>minorities
>peaceful
Only if the minority is white, otherwise you know how monkeys behave.
The King has been given his duty from the above.
We need a symbolic ambassodor and embodyment of the country. Their only goal is to represent the country. They will stray from this at their own peril: a nations uprising.
It still happens even in democracy. Most politicians come from influential families.
such as a political leader
you can't just have an e-celebrity who? outside of the celebrity status to represent the country.
>Monarchism, anyone left?
>He's a monarchist
>He literally shows a house that has been made imperial by some Otto von Bismarck
>He thinks monarchy is compatible with Protestantism
>flag because here on business
What kind of business, lad?
Qualified is subjective and they are raised from birth to be leaders.
>populism
Electrical infrastructure stuff.
>elitism
thats actually the way to go
Degenerate modern era cripple monarch
Based Richard
Tradition VS Modernism
Elitism VS Populism
Working for a major company(EVN,CEZ, etc.) or...?
I'm so monarchist I don't recognize Elizabeth of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to be the rightful Queen of England.
it's important to note that once a hierarchy get's under way, 'true aristocracy' can develop through intense discipline in the breeding and rearing of the upper class.
and that is why, no matter where you are, some families are dominant. life isn't fair, and 'should' or 'deserve' really don't fucking matter. we can aspire to ideals of fairness and egalitarianism, but life itself, even humans, and especially the struggle for power among humans, will always be savage in nature. we'll do better by working with our tendencies than against them.
you have to look at groups as organisms which are both competing and cooperating on different levels.
Yes. All the Brits who aren't kikes.
...
People raised to lead, rule and inspire the nation? A living symbol for the nation? A link between ancient past and modern present? A great tool for and expression of substantial soft power and diplomacy?
Those are good virtues and reason for monarchy. It's an organic and stable symbol of the continuation of nation and state.
you are sick! You deserve to be sodomised by the faggot of king felipe!
we should be careful to distinguish between 'elitists' who simply want to be considered elite for some bullshit reason, and the reality that there IS SUCH A THING as an 'elite'.
and it is to the true elite that power and leadership can be safely trusted... but, in democracy, the elite have to explain themselves and kowtow to their inferiors, and they are neutered. by their nature, they can see and pursue a vision that is beyond the sight of their subjects; but they can't pursue it if they're accountable to the whim of the masses.
the whim of the masses is the absolute worst thing to give power. literally anything is better than democracy, it always becomes communism, because it's very difficult for the good and brilliant to make headway against the perpetual and overwhelming stupidity. stupidity always wins in democracy, because truth and reason are a minority trait.
>Remember when Kaiser Wilhelm essentially rage-quitted after getting BTFO by the Allies and burnt Germany to ashes out of spite?
>implying Kaiser Wilhelm didn't ragequit and leave his country in a terrible position
Monarchical feudalist here senpai, if George had become king we would be living in as close to a perfect world as is possible.
A lot of uneducated retards ITT
If your argument against Monarchism resembles that of a liberal cuck you're clearly wrong.
Right...where was the allied lines at the signing of the armistice?
I think people who take themselves seriously really should start working on their bloodlines and aim for eternity. Something liberals will never care about.
so explain the best presidents in history
Argie monarchist here. The main problems is that all the right wing dudes here still believe is the will of the people, while at the same time hating it because it is the same thing that brought all the degeneracy and cuckery to the west. The truth is that many share our beliefs in an educated ruling class but are too indoctrinated by Republicanism and simplistic evaluation of monarchy to consider it.
I have no desire to be a serf lorded over by inbred, blue blooded freaks.
Is it not really the question of having a ruling class and a working class?
With the ruling class filling all administrative, diplomatic and military positions as they were raised into these roles by their families and the system. The working class was and would then be the relatively uneducated masses to fulfil all physical labour.
I think this should very much be the case, but with the option of a meritocratic advancement system which would allow anyone with enough intelligence or determination to rise in the social class. This would then be similar to the old Chinese ways in which the administrators of the state would be educated and chosen by the state because of their talent. This, however, would in a modern monarchy apply to all roles the higher class fill, i.e. even a peasant, if he was a genius, could be able to become a military leader or even a part of the higher ruling class through complex political actions.
On the other hand, this also means a noble family could through a bad education of their heirs lose their rank.
To conclude this would result in an organised system of "survival of the fittest" in which only the most talented and determined people would rule the country, these rights they gained could then be passed down to their children. If their children would not fulfil their roles sufficiently there would be a chance to lose their previously gained rank, so it would be in the best interest of the ruling class to keep this high intellectual standard up.
Monarchists should be shot.
Every citizen has a vested personal interest in the strength of the nation.
A fascist monarchy
Jacobite?
No they don't, because most people's interests do not align with that of the country as a whole.
Feudalism=/=Monarchy
>alt-right
>defenders of western world
I don't know what is more retarded, OP or his thumbnail
what even is that?
I honestly had not problem with the Nero Decree, make them pay for their own shit and not use the infrastructure built by a people (((they))) have no respect for
weak b8
you are a disgrace to anglo shitposting everywhere
National Socialism basically
this is a great picture.
it's so true; it's better to have people in power 'for the long haul' because in that case, it begins to benefit them more and more to really do an honestly good job.
with the revolving door modern democracies creates, there's nothing for anyone to do except to loot as much as possible for their brief term - that's all it is to these people - five minutes in the fucking money cyclone booth.
i wholeheartedly agree. part of the reason why so many modern first worlders feel that life has no meaning is that they are not a part of anything greater than themselves. their lives are just a story that begins without any real reason, and ends abruptly, without a sequel, and no background lore either. just a flash in the pan.
It's ironic that people today have had 'their right to individualism' amplified so much, and yet, they do so little with it that isn't just superficial bullshit... because they don't have the other side, they don't have a tribe, or a history, in which to find context for their individuality.
i'm not sure what you mean. it's not as though there won't be good presidents. sure there can be. it's just not going to be often enough.
The great catholic monarch shall purge them given time...
Thanks. It seems to be an unstable balance though, because it didn't last in Britain. Or anywhere really I guess.
Interesting though - monarchy as a search for the best king, among a few aristocratic options. Makes more sense.
...
Haha, of course, the U.S. is a meritocracy and definitely doesn't let corrupt aristocratic families run things. In fact, three members from two generations of the Bush family were the most qualified people in the entire United States of 400 million people for the office of President in a period of twenty years!
Jeb definitely proves that political families do not exist. He was a shoe-in for office and absolutely not there because of his aristocratic family's power, if Trump hadn't messed it all up.
A modern monarchist society would end up with the king in constant conflict with parliament, senate etc the moment they inevitably disagree.
That or the king is given full power, ending with him or his spawn inevitably ruining the country. Followed by red banners everywhere as the plebs, dirt farmers and undesirables reject the value of hierarchy.
Hans Herman Hoppe writes a lot about this in the first few chapters of Democracy: The God That Failed. Monarchies are objectively superior to democracies, because monarchs have far more incentive for their countries to do well than public government officials. Governments in democracies tend to spend all the money right away because they won't be able to use it when they're out of office, which leads to insane debt, but monarchies are better off when they don't spend more money than they have.
We are still suffering from chronic kinglessness. Eventually our idiot species will get around to rediscovering how good a thing a Monarchy is, but I'm not holding my breath.
Monarchies don't have to be hereditary, but even so, lets pretend they do. Its not about who "deserves" to rule: NOBODY deserves to. But somebody HAS to, and its just a question of figuring out who that person is going to be.
Do you think public opinion is a better thing to trust with that decision? Really? Have you met the public?
An aristocracy is a fine thing, but an aristocracy and a monarchy together are better.
Rule by algorithm only works when you have one hell of an algorithm. However, part of the technofuturist desire for a God AI is a subconscious recognition that absolute authority works; just instead of a human King, have an AI in its place.
On the level of art we still understand these truths. We just cant articulate them explicitly anymore, we've been propagandized too heavily.
I didn't think anyone was seriously unironically for real monarchist anymore. Can someone give me a quick gestalt on its benefits in your view?
England is ruled by Germans, Russia, Netherlands, and Balkan countries were ruled by Germans, Spain, Italy, and Hungary were ruled by French, etc..
Its true, the balance ultimately collapsed to the side of the aristocrats. Then we had sham-kings. Not good. Not obvious to me how to overcome it, either, other than extreme diligance.
It blows my mind people think universal suffrage works. It blows my mind I used to think it works.
We are nowhere near ready yet for a monarchy. It'll take generations of work. If tomorrow a king walked into the room we wouldnt know what to do with him
You've nailed it. With monarchy, the nation is ruled by people with skin in the game. With democracy, and to an extent dictatorships, you have people in charge who have no incentive to care about what happens after they leave office.
Then of course there is the issues with democracy splitting the people of a nation and dividing them among political lines. A monarchy allows for a united nation.