Monarchism General

Why not become a monarchist /pol? People are not able to rule themselves.

Other urls found in this thread:

discord.gg/uwJYav7
m.youtube.com/watch?v=cm9ftPLGZno
medievalfayre.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=84&Itemid=85
twitter.com/AnonBabble

God save the queen!

Monarchism/pol Discord:
discord.gg/uwJYav7

i think i see what your saying

If you're going to be a filthy monarchist why not fuck off to England or some other monarchist shithole?

Monarchist here. People seem to have funny ideas about monarchism, so if you have any questions I may ask a few. Go ahead, fags.

Here i'll ask just to start something. Why monarchy over democracy?

because people cant decide objectively enough

xd

1: England, shithole, it's not that bad.
2: Why don't you fuck off to Venezuela or some other socialist shithole?

If people can't decide objectively how will giving power to one of these people be any better?

Several reasons: the will of the majority does not equal to better political decisions, far from it. It's no surprise that liberal democracy always ends up devolving into socialism and hedonism.

Furthermore democracy does not concern itself with the interests of the few or the individual, preferring to address majorities and big organised political groups. Our rights as individuals, both political or concerning property, are nothing against the will of the many (or the state).

This leads us to another of the main critiques against democracy: a democratic system cares about what you think. In order to perpetuate the system you need to ensure the citizens don't vote it away, that's why we have a public school system and the media is in bed with power. This is something Moldbug referred to as The Cathedral, but I think he wasted a really cool name.

Rights under a feudal system come from tradition and law and no monarch can take them away; a monarch cares not about what you think but about what you do, and the fact that a monarch rules for a long time and wants his sons to inherit the throne ensures he always keeps the long picture in mind rather than 4-year election cycles.

Oh boy

bump

What about enlightened and constitutional monarchism?

I'd become a monarchist if I could be the King

>Why not become a monarchist /pol?
Because it implies someone, who isn't you or me, will be at the top of the food chain in perpetuity. "Divine mandate" has also worn out its welcome in the minds of most. It won't work.

You can't have pure monarchism, but a Prussian-style constitutional monarchy might be passable. Instead of a king or a president you just have a figurehead, like a Grand Duke, who gets elected from among the lords for a set term. That eliminates a number of problems with democracy being able to be subverted by foreign infiltrators, while still preventing any one person from achieving absolute power.

The main problem is titles. How does one become a 'lord'? Is it a reward for military/civic service? Are they inheritable? How long do you keep it? Who is in charge of distributing them? What benefits do they provide? Etc. etc.

You have to have an efficient way of promoting talent, as monarchies typically don't, which means people have to be promoted to the aristocracy from the lower class as a matter of course. If you don't, then power tends to be concentrated, and then the number of "new" aristocrats becomes fewer and fewer, which leads to stagnation and the State's ultimate decay.

And if the king is a tard or a communist/sjw what? His will will be God's will.

The last Prussian heir is a sniveling leftist. It's embarrassing.

>the only choices are monarchism and socialism

To become a lord you must be appointed by the next higher up : count->duke->king->emperor. This could be based on many factors that they wish.

It's fucking absurd. Such a personality cult around somebody who will most likely be imbecile after 2 generations and absolute submisson to him is stupid as fuck. What matters is ideology and the nation.

The rest of my post requires consideration as the method you just described leads to stagnation.

Also, you have a chicken or the egg scenario: Who becomes the first set of lords

Monarchism its a cucked system, I dont want to be subject of a faggot king or a dictator for that matter

Enlightened monarchism was a mistake. I personally see it as some sort of unholy mixture between the Old Regime and post-Napoleonic modern statism. Here's the thing: bad kings happen, history is full of them. But under traditional monarchy there were plenty of checks and balances to keep things more or less working.

The most important of these checks was the aristocracy: they were the actual owners of the land, not the crown. If the monarch went bad, aristocrats would revolt and try to either secede or claim the crown for themselves. The monarch was nothing without noble support, and the nobles gained legitimacy by supporting a respected crown.

Another factor was the Church. The power of the Pope was nothing to laugh at and only the most powerful kings dared to stand up against the Church. This seems funny nowadays, but back then a word from the Pope meant half your kingdom went up in flames by enraged Catholics.

A enlightened monarchy gets rid of all those checks and balances and leaves you in the hands of a despot, not a monarch.

Constitutional monarchism is a charade, a sham. A monarch under such political system is nothing but either a puppet of the state or a public figure not much different to the Reality TV celebrities that plague media. We monarchist don't just want a king, we want the feudal system back. Not out of romanticism, but out of respect to our own nature. It's no surprise fairytales have kings and dukes, but no secretaries of education.

Exactly. Which is why having a 'king' or 'emperor' is a terrible idea. You don't need someone who is bad at their job in charge of leading the nation for life.

Help me accomplish my dream Sup Forums.

That depends on where you live, here its easy, we just have to give our dukes etc their power back. America i don't know. I also don't see how it leads to stagnation people have ambition and that leads to action.

A republic is better

Feudal monarchy was fucking cancer in my opinion, absolute monarchy was the highlight of french history and it all turned to shit once Louis XVI fell for the feudal system meme allowed them to have a voice again. The other times the monarchy managed to get some order after lords chimped out but this time they got cucked to their own game by merchants

>France talking about monarchy

You killed yours an led us into an era of liberalism and social degeneracy.

Question: Where is the difference between nat-soc and monarchism?

It is absolutely necessary that this question of legal
plunder should be determined, and there are only three
solutions of it:
1. When the few plunder the many.
2. When everybody plunders everybody else.
3. When nobody plunders anybody.

Partial plunder, universal plunder, absence of plunder, amongst these we have to make our choice.
The law can only produce one of these results.

Partial plunder. This is the system that prevailed so long as the elective privilege was partial; a system that is resorted to, to avoid the invasion of socialism.

Universal plunder. We have been threatened by this system when the elective privilege has become universal; the masses having conceived the idea of making law, on the principle of legislators who had preceded them.

ABSENCE OF PLUNDER. THIS IS THE PRINCIPLE OF JUSTICE, PEACE, ORDER, STABILITY, CONCILIATION, AND OF GOOD SENSE, WHICH I SHALL PROCLAIM WITH ALL THE FORCE OF MY LUNGS TILL THE DAY OF MY DEATH.

If the nobility and the clergy weren't acting as a bunch of self serving twats like they always did, the revolution wouldn't have happened. They weakened the king and use the revolutionnaries for their own gains but it went far beyond they expected, I'm glad they got their heads chopped off the fucking traitors.
Everytime France was in close to the brink it was because of them rebelling yet again against the only legitimate authority, fuck them

What is the best form of monarchy?
absolute and hereditary or constitutional or elected.. it's clear monarchy provides the most stable long term government but which is best

Well, you certainly are French. In a previous post I address the main problems I have with absolute monarchy and its concentration of power. Of course you see nothing wrong with political centralisation, but absolute monarchy paved the way to the modern state: a leviathan out of control and without any restraint.

Fernando VII tried to enforce absolute monarchism in Spain. By far the worst king we ever had in the whole history of the country (and that's saying something considering we had good ol' retard Carlos II) and a complete political failure.

Of course France is not Spain, but you surely understand why we're not that into absolute monarchy down here.

>Because it implies someone, who isn't you or me, will be at the top of the food chain in perpetuity. "Divine mandate" has also worn out its welcome in the minds of most. It won't work.

Yes, the King at the top because God wills it. You are either born into the position or you crowned yourself with military might, wealth and political cunning. If you are the King it's because you are from a superior bloodline, nature (God) has decided this position for you. That most people don't like it today is irrelevant. Governance should not be made with only the desires of people in mind. This is essentially what the French Revolution spawned, and what all Western governments today are based on; the whims of inferior people. A society modelled in this manner always lends itself to chaos which is in turn "corrected" by a tyrannical Caesar.

when I look at the literally inbred royal families of the current year, who are basically bigger cucks than the average voter, the first thought that strikes my mind is:
fuck democracy, *these* guys ought to rule everything!

You raise valid points and your opinion is quite interesting. However I still believe that it would be best to have such a system of aristocratic power but without heredity of the power, since it is very possible for a bloodline to become fucked up, or at least to have an incompetent king (thinking about Louis XVI here, he almost didn't care about the power and was a shitty king because of it). For such a sort of feudal aristocracy that would generally be, de facto, hereditary, with people in power making their own children the fittest to rule through education, but a system that would still allow for people to be replaced if they no longer are the fittest rulers, such a system would be better in my opinion.

(First born) monarchies allow God (if He exists) to influence the politics of a country. Humans can't decide who's going to be born after all, but only God does. Birth, rule and dead are the main aspects of a monarchy.
m.youtube.com/watch?v=cm9ftPLGZno

That's not an argument, if God wants to unfluence politics, he certainly does not need a particuliar political system to do so.

>Korean calling other countries shitholes
>Country is only good because of Anglos pouring in millions of dollars so that Korea doesn't get raped by communists again.

the point of heredity is that the best among the population (cream of the crop if you will) would naturaly rise to the top of society regardless.
It makes sense that they would rule.

How do you view the stagnation of technology during the medieval eras, and how does Monarchy protect itself from corruption?

Also what incentive is there for natural rights when the power of a monarchy comes from its military presence and the products it can export rather than the services of a nation in democracy?

These incentives push democracy toward individual progress and thus national progress, and push democracy to dictatorship and slave labor?

Monarchies are like other forms of government, they can be based as fuck or bastion libturds.

Why be so obsessed about this?

>The Medieval period saw major technological advances, including the invention of vertical windmills, spectacles, mechanical clocks, greatly improved water mills, building techniques like the Gothic style and three-field crop rotation.

medievalfayre.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=84&Itemid=85

There was technological advancment in the medieval eras. It's what the industrial revolution built upon.
The industrial revolution happened under a monarch too btw.

get with the times nerd.

for this day and age we need NEO-CAMERALISM

As for the incentives, I don't understand what you're getting at. The economic incentives is clear as lower classes did indeed own land (albeit not as much as lords) & innovation came from the prospects of profits just like under democracy.

a republic is better if your state is the size of a city (at best).
anything bigger and it devolves into an absolute nightmare of mismanagement and insanity, as it has been patently obvious for any half-wit for the last century.

Dog eating savage

Also I'd like to point out that Beurue of Land Management siezed the Bundy's property & that caused that famous standoff. Plenty of simmilar cases happened because of the BLM.
So please don't mention nonsense about a king seizing people's property as some argument against, as it happens under our (((republic)))

You're right.

My view is that it depends on the state in which you're trying to monarch around in. Countries like France and Russia need higher centralization to function, due to their size and culture, while Britain and Spain are better off with powerful nobility to help prevent tyranny of their smaller and more concentrated nations

How do you keep monarchies from turning into North Korea? Monarchists always make the assumption that the monarch has the country's best interests in mind.
What about when they don't?

Isn't monarchism a mix of huge personal liberty and staunch traditionalist government protecting this liberty in its most authentic form? As opposed to pure despotism.

WE NEED KANGZ AND SHIET

>People are not able to rule themselves.
So how is a monarch supposed to rule, or is he not a person? And how are you supposed to be able to tell whether a monarch is ruling correctly, if you are not able to rule yourself?

Gas all Republican!