Thoughts on russian monarchy and monarchy in general?

thoughts on russian monarchy and monarchy in general?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=emNUP3EMu98
www2.dsu.nodak.edu/users/dmeier/Reflections of a Russian statesman (1898) -- Konstantin Pobedonostev.pdf
youtube.com/watch?v=3qUFErfzIMc
twitter.com/AnonBabble

underage edgelord babby's first steps into politics/10

nah mate first time on here and i'm not trying to be edgy at all

The secrets that hide in your country user.

We must know them

Bring back Tsar

KEK

Turns out they were better than the alternative after all.

Is it opposite day today?

monarchism can't be brought back, but the monarchist ideas can, and should.

I feel like a monarchy granted under a divine right is pretty good in general. Although it would be chaotic to transition to such a system, so would not recommend.

Taar Vladimir should select his own successor from among the best and most capable of Russians to succeed him.

Big shoes to fill.

>divine right
There is no such thing. The right to rule is earned by deeds.

If I were a monarch, and my heir was incompetent, I would disband the entire system.

Monarchism gets you guys like that English king which thought he was a Wolf and ran on all four...naked...

Republican dictatorship is where the fun is at.
>cult of personality
Check
>life long solid rule
Check
>strong leaderfigure
Check
>inherited by a moron
Nope

Russia under the tsars
>illiterate
>famines are super common
>least developed European power after the Ottomans

The five good Emperors, though, remember?

And then Commodus.

got btfo by gommie bayonets

that just proves hereditary monarchy is shit
all of those great emperors were adopted because they were seen as competent people
and commodus was direct marcus aurelius son who happened to be shit

Yes, that was my point. A momarchy of careful grooming and selection from a broad pool can be very successful, but nepotism and regression to the mean are a bitch and can strike at any time in that succession.

Russian monarchy was objectively awesome, 10/10 would Save The Tsar

youtube.com/watch?v=emNUP3EMu98

Monarchy is good if the monarch has a vested interest in the progress and health of their nation and country.
They are bad because power is heavily centralised and one weak link can cause huge problems.

I'm not in favour of monarchy, but one thing is for sure: A monarch doesn't have the incentive to steal as much as possible and as quickly as possible, as he passes on his country to his children, which is a direct incentive to act in a way that increases the value of his country.

A publicly elected person has only a very limited timeframe in which he can enrich himself, because he might not be re-elected next time.

This basically explains why democracies with a very powerful government are inherently unstable systems. The only way to have a stable democracy is to severely restrict government power and to constantly fight against any attempts by government to increase its influence

Weren't they almost all adoptive sons of their predecessors? IIRC, Commodus was a son by birth, not adoption unlike the 5.

Bingo. Hence why they were the Five "Good" Emperors and Commode means "Shitter."

A monarch has by default a vested interest to increase the value of his country, as he passes it on to his children.

A simple thought experiment, who do you think will try harder to increase the value of a company? A person who owns the company or a person who is hired to act as a manager for a limited time?

It's obvious to me that the manager will tend to favour short term profit for himself over the multi generational long term.

cuckarchy

I fucking love the Romanov flag.

I wholeheartedly believe the monarchy is evil.

...

Unfortunately, due to the centralization of all power around monarch, the stability of the entire system depends entirely of monarch's sanity. If you elect a retard, at least he won't be in control for long, but of your king is a nutjob then your country is fucked

Agreed. That's why I'm in favour of a limited government and having instead most powers reside in the hands of private citizens who will pass that power on to their own offspring.

This obviously can only work if you don't have a large tribal group within your society that constantly tries to fuck everyone over.

They are cute.

Russians murdered this...

>This qt was murdered by a vile inbred jewish bolshevist

Yeah I am mad

It was jews who murdered them in a brutal fashion and jews who ordered the murder.

you can only rule russia with a dictatorship
doesn't matter the system, stalin and putin are basically monarchs

wow what a qt
fucking jews

I did my thesis on Konstantin Pobedonostsev, who was essentially Tsar Alexander III's Steve Bannon.

Check out his 'Reflections of a Russian Statesman', published in 1895, for an overview of the political philosophy of absolute monarchism in a modern and rapidly modernising world:
www2.dsu.nodak.edu/users/dmeier/Reflections of a Russian statesman (1898) -- Konstantin Pobedonostev.pdf

He actually continued to work as a top bureaucrat at the start of Nicholas II's reign, and only resigned in 1905 when the tsar agreed to establish a constitution, as his conscience would not allow him to serve such a Westernised and 'fundamentally flawed' system.

Obviously you will require strong central power to sustain a very strong military if your country is as large as Russia and borders on China, North Korea, Japan, Iran and the Middle East, the Central Asian sandnigger -stan countries, Turkey and the West, all of whom invaded countless times, often even ganging up with each other.

You Spaniards have mountains to the north and the sea around you to block off invasions, so it's easy for you to point the finger. But imagine your country was situated between China, the West and the Middle east. I bet you lazy bastards wouldn't even exist anymore if that were the case.

If you want to understand the fall of European monarchies and the atrocities of the (((Revolution of 1917))) in Russia, first read the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. Then as supplementary material read Men Among the Ruins by Evola. Most view the "democratic revolutions" of 1789 and 1848 as spontaneous and "grass-roots." The reality is that they were just as artificial as the Arab Spring revolutions. 1917 in particular has the stamp of organized Jewry on it, while now even mainstream historians accept the role of (((Bavarian Freemasonry))) in the French Revolution of 1789. I probably don't need to mention the role of masonry in our own American revolution.

Plus half o'hundred of bastards.
Fucking rabbits.

implying we wouldnt' have muh dicked all of them and they wouldn't all be rapebabies speaking spanish like america

So tell me, in order survive in such an environment, how would your government have looked like in your estimation?

A liberal democracy with all kinds of freedoms or a government that relies on a very strong military for survival and strict control over resources in order to guarantee military strength?

Rather live in Russian Tsardom which does pogroms against juden routinely then (((Soviet))) shithole.

They perished for their sins.
The last tsar was buried in an umarked grave.
The first red chief now lays in a glass carcopaghus, mummified, in the very center of the country he has worked so hard to ruin. He will never be granted peace; he will for centuires lay there, always looked upon by the people he betrayed, never rotting.

God's chosen was gifted eternal rest.
God's forsaken was gifted eternal wake.

youtube.com/watch?v=3qUFErfzIMc
God, save the Tsar!

Monarchies are cool but the Romanovs after Peter I were all retards.

What a meme.

Vive Henri IV, fuck the (((republic)))

Russian monarchs did wonders to finland though. Our own currency, finnish language promoted to equal standing withs swedish, our own senate, first railroad in finland and we even could control our own trade to russia and elsewhere in europe. Alexander I was litterally the best ruler finland ever had. Thanks venemaa bros

>They perished for their sins.
The sin of not wiping out the uppity nigger bolsheviks?

It was mostly to prevent Sweden from ever retaking Finland, which worked out as a gambit.

Still that move likely saved the finnish people from being totally integrated by our swedish ouverlords.

Who is supposed to be the first in line of succession to the Romanov throne, should it be reinstated?

It's dead, Jim. There has to be a new royal family, if hereditary monarchy is ever to be reinstated at all.

The surviving """Romanovs""" are just Jews wearing the skin of the deceased.