How is anyone a monarchist in the year 2017? I'm pretty curious.
How are monarchists still around?
Other urls found in this thread:
the black nobility will go to any means to maintain power
For whatever reason a LARGE segment of the population loves to be told what to do. They argue FOR it. Just look at all the commie/nat soc fags around these parts.
I wouldn't officially classify myself as such, though I tend to lean more in favor of it, when all things are considered.
Corporations tend to do better when management is aligned with the company's interests, i.e., when they have a stake in it.
Nations are the same way. If you rotate a series of random poorfags in and out of the executive branch, it's only a matter of time before the whole thing goes belly up.
Everyone in the anglosphere has been drafting behind the English monarchy the whole time.
>tfw its the only thing you agree with the bolsheviks on
Inept blue blood inbreds get out.
That's telling. You pick their fundamental error to agree with, that ideology, and not blood, are what make civilizations.
I guess if we give bix noods mo money fo dem pograms, it's just a matter of time before utopia is achieved.
When a nation is your own personal property you won't do anything to ruin it.
I think this is their way of thinking.
Not at all. Just the monarchy has had a horrible showing in recent history. They never did much for my forefathers either. All of them died as they lived. Poor as shit slavic farmers who could barely read.
Slavs did better under the Hapbsburgs and Romanovs than they did under the Bolsheviks.
>wanting to be told what to do
More like wanting a safe, happy, and proud country to live in comfortably while still having economical freedom
In wartime I want to be told what to do so I can protect my loved ones as best as effectively as possible
Well some argue it's the only way to ensure one's loyalty to the state, because crown is the state. As opposed to current leaders who can fuck shit up, escape and still enjoy a cushy job as a leader of european council.
Although no one seems to be able to define safety mechanisms in case the ruler is a retard for example.
>continuous war against your neighbors
>b-b-but guys, we have such low civilian crime rates
Yeah because the ENTIRE FUCKING POLULATION is now considered a combatant because you just opened up multiple fronts along your borders. Fucking Christ.
Depends on the definition of better. I suppose being illiterate, indentured servant is better than toiling to death in gulag.
>safety mechanisms in case the ruler is a retard for example.
The country revolting and making the world a worse place, ie the Soviet Union. You could argue about parliamentary powers, but they eventually either cuck the king or the king cucks them.
I'm certainly anti-democracy
But I'd prefer atheistic fascism over monarchism until the church cleans itself up
Keeps the country together across our people. The Faroese, bornholmians and Greenlandic don't give 2 shits about our statsminister, but they love our queen and her post colonist French husband.
Yes, cucking kings was unfortunately exactly what happened here. To the point of denying crown money for actual military to protect borders.
Are you implying that I think every military action taken by the germans was justified because I'm natsoc?
Are you implying that I think every military action taken by the germans was justified because I'm natsoc?
Because that shit was pretty dumb but obviously went beyond Hitler's control
>indentured servants in 1917
There were significant agrarian reforms long before Yakov (((Yurovsky))) whacked Tsar Nicholas and his family. You are either cherrypicking data or showing your ignorance. In either case, you should lurk moar. Don't bother replying to this comment, because I'm done with you and this thread.
Before European monarchies degenerated in the 18th century inept heirs to the throne could be skipped through a vote among aristocrats and a court ruling.
Monarchy is a remnant of a much more civilized age.
Political systems are living beings that change, grow up and become old. While ideologies like national socialism look great in the begining, because it's predicated on errant enlightenment principles - not all of them, but enough - it can be thrown into the trash along with liberalism. It wouldn't conserve long term. It would just decay a bit slower into a different perversion.
More civilized, more stable, more united, etc. than your shitty nu-governments.
Uncucked countries still have pointless wars because of nationalism, which is in big part a synthetic and not natural formation. Only countries who stopped fighting are those who's all good men were already processed by the grinder.
Nationalism has a function of being content instead of striving upwards and it's the first stage of land, gaia worship.
>C U R R E N T Y E A R
There are monarchists still today because they don't want to be cool and dude movement to change the world lmao
Monarchists guard tradition and they know that after civilization falls, monarchy will naturally come from successful warlords who'll be granted right to rule by God. This is how the next cycle begins.
How can someone still believe in ((((Democracy))))) is beyond me
Monarchies we're the most prosperous times for the majority of nations
Whereas, democracy hit , and whoooppps all nations adopting it end up under Jew control and their native population won't exist in 100years
Everything what's told by ((((education)))) about monarchies is a giant lie most of the time
>You will never fight under the banner of your king to massacre muzzies
you have a problem with instruction?
There are monarchies around still. And they're doing relatively well.
One day you'll understand.
Enjoy being stuck in a perpetual state of disunity and corruption all because you think your voice matters and voting somehow makes you free.
Monarchism is the final redpill
This is a joke. I'm not strongly arguing for feudalism, but the idea that life today is much better because "we have more stuff" is ridiculous. Especially because we have more stuff due to aristocrats and monarchies who started scientific revolutions (Newton, for example) and technological revolutions (before French revolution).
Monarchy isn't incompatible with technology and science.
It's Kingdom of Heaven, not democratic republic. Democracy rulles in hell.
Monarchy is inherently good for the soul as it conforms to natural law.
Yeah, Anarcho-capitalism will bring my dream of free market monarchies
Revolutions are cancer and enlightenment was a mistake. Even anime girls understand.
It's about as valid as any other system of governance.
If you have to pick between democracy and monarchy, I'd rather the decisions were being made by an king who's been raised from birth to lead the nation than by some random guy who got 51% of the vote from a populace largely ignorant of international relations and economics.
Monarchy has a good case against libertarianism, too.
>The median farmer had 1/4ths of the year off due to religious holidays, fasting and national festivities , working only 8 hours a day
>The average wagecuck in merica' has 0 days holday vacation and has to do overtime i.hopes of not being fired by his ((((,boss)))
It was amazing btfoing all the democrashits in scool when arguing about monarchy.
I just took out present day realities and contrasted them of "the suffering and evils oand oppression of autocratcies"
Evola was a bit too weird and heretical for me, but he outlined problem with anything but monarchy or aristocratic republic well.
That's all from me.
ps. this is how you'll recognize me in public
a monarchy relies on one person to be wise for the good of a nation, democracy relies on many people to be wise for the good of the nation, I'd rather have one person who will always do whats best for the country than trying to rely on an amalgamation of people who are only after their own self-interest.
even the greeks shitted on democracy, voting is a skill done by well informed educated people, not a right to be handed to every idiot, a good and honest 70% of this nation does not have the intellectual capacity to vote.
This. There is no façade anymore.
Republics are literally oligarchies you vote in.
>Yeah, take that authority!
Can we not use the word cuck where it has no place
im a republican but the queen wouldve made a better leader than our last 4 prime ministers
Monarchy really doesn't matter when your entire society is degenerate as fuck
Worry about transforming and reshaping society first
Monarchy is the natural solution to ochlochracy which is what we have now.
And a large segment of the population also seems to be uneducated and on welfare and don't provide anything for society. This is why they need someone to tell them what to do.
Glad to see so many fellow Monarchists and Neo-Reactionaries
desu I'd love a good king.
I can walk down the street with my kid and say look son there is our mother fucking KING right there
This is interesting to me. Cycles within cycles. Repeating due to human nature. Inescapable because we cannot escape ourselves.
For the 'monarchists' ITT:
What is the point of really caring about monarchy? Nations like Sweden, the UK, etc. are all monarchies and they are totally degenerate and fucked up.
For a traditional monarchy to take power, society would need to be transformed from the degenerate pile it is now, but that transformation would have nothing to do with monarchy at all, as a traditional monarchy would only take place after this societal transformation. "Monarchism" would really have nothing to do with the transformation, it would just be a possible end-product of such transformation
TLDR Simply calling yourself a monarchist is stupid because it says nothing of your actual worldview, and a principled worldview would not necessarily need a monarchy to undergo transformation
i'm a fascist monarchist
It's also why sometimes the libs and dems are (temporarily) correct. The revolution of 1776 was a good thing, but the problems they faced are different from the problems we have now. When the new monarchy we empower degenerates in a couple hundred years the Sup Forumsacks of that time will be edgy republicans.
>believing in Democracy
there are no real monarchies in the west, they're all ceremonial
VERY GOOD POST
That pic is pretty interesting and I was feeling in quite similar way about wars.
If there was no nationalism, there would be no gigantic meat grinders like WW I and WW II, but that would require a strong ruler, who wouldn't have to bribe people with cheap words and degeneracy.
Looks like everything goes to shit once state tries to "help" the people.
i wish there were more monarchies, and that they had the political power over democracy. i liked it when people fought in the name of their king. like some knight shit, that's what we need these days. goddamn gun toting knights.
no one fights for "trump" "merkel" "trudeau". they fight for murrica, germany, canada.
bring back kings n shiet. i feel like the only people who actual fight for anything worth shit are the brits for the queen, and she doesn't have power worth shit anymore compared to (((them)))
>a monarchy relies on one person to be wise for the good of a nation, democracy relies on many people to be wise for the good of the nation
not only that, but in a hereditary monarchy, the heir can be educated to be a good and wise ruler
in a democracy it's not about merit, it's about tricking people into voting for you
I see a major flaw with monarchy.
I like the idea of it though. The idea of someone groomed to rule their whole life. Say you get a great king. He's well loved and guides the country to prosperous times.
But he's only mortal and so he dies. Somewhere along the line, you get someone cruel or disastrous or just plain retarded. What then? Keep them and watch things get shitty and just hope for a better king next time around after maybe 40 years or so? Or depose them and violate monarchy itself?
The problems of monarchy arise in the long term.
>Nations like Sweden, the UK, etc. are all monarchies
Stopped reading after that.
Sucks to be born with a single braincell faggot
>Nations like Sweden, the UK, etc. are all monarchies and they are totally degenerate and fucked up.
they're ceremonial you fucking idiot
>Nations like Sweden, the UK, etc. are all monarchies
Austro-Hungary was the last monarchy that can be considered such. The rest were just dying remnants of an old age that didn't rule a monarchy (nor did they really rule at all and were more pupets than not)
>For a traditional monarchy to take power, society would need to be transformed from the degenerate pile it is now
Monarchies arise from total anarchy and apathetic societies. West is not ready, though. It needs dictators first to run the civilizational project completely into the ground.
Central and easterm Europe, maybe.
>transformation would have nothing to do with monarchy at all
Untrue. Monarchy teaches the value of inequality and segregation. It's also authoritarian, which leads the people to be better.
>calling yourself a monarchist is stupid because it says nothing of your actual worldview
It says everything. Traditional, Christian, Holy.
the biggest problem these days would be muh patriarchy feminism making it impossible to ever bring back any kind of monarchy in a western nation unless there were some kind of extreme christian resurgence or some shit.
A strong and smart monarch with good council is better than a democracy any day. There's no bureaucratic cancer to slow down progress and there's also no degeneracy like feminism.
Read what I posted earlier. EVERY system works in the short-term but fails long-term.
Hereditary monarchies are fucking stupid. There's literally the reason the roman empire fell. It promotes inbreeding and therefore retardation results. It also promotes the genocide of family members and means that the best person for the country won't necessarily get in just because they're not a family member.
God save the Queen
>Read what I posted earlier. EVERY system works in the short-term but fails long-term
That's just wrong. Eastern Roman Empire was a monarchy for a thousand years. Habsburgs were my monarchs for 500 years. Hungarian house ruled over Croatia for 400 years.
Monarchies have much longer lifespans than any other system because they're real and follow nature instead of ideology.
It's only stupid when entropy takes hold and it degenerates. This is cyclical, not absolute. The time is ripe for a mighty king to rise
Just because they have longer life-spans doesn't mean they don't ultimately degenerate over time.
No the marriage of nobility.
Also the most charismatic sociopath ends up as the prime minister of a country so take your best person shit out of here.
One of the most well known things about the world is that it's fallen and we will fuck up everything. But the closer to Truth we are, the more chance we'll last longer.
What are you talking about you nigger. I didn't say anything about prime ministers. The best person for the country in a monarchy would be chosen by the king himself.
I agree with you that monarchy is inherently superior to democracy, but sometimes democracy needs to appear in order to BTFO of a decayed and tyrannically system. As I said before, its cyclical.
You have a mean, an apolitical person, who doesn't give a shit. Liberal-leaning, because of indoctrination from early age in most of the U.S. or Europe. In the deep South, white guys will be conservative leaning, etc.
1. Generic _________.
This guy realizes something about society doesn't sit well with him, whether it be morals or perceived injustices. But he can't argue his viewpoint outside of the context he's raised in, and accepts certain "axioms" of said context. Whether it be argue conservatism in a liberal context, or argue leftism in a conservative context.
2. Libertarian, or socialist.
This guy establishes a philosophical foundation for his viewpoint that differs from the context of those he spend most of his time around. This lands him farther from the pale of acceptability. Put that together with the fact that this foundation allows him to go to the nth degree with his viewpoint, and he's a wacko. Unless, of course, you're IN a libertarian or socialist context. In most cases this can still fit inside society's "normal" context.
A small minority of people will go here. Right-wingers will object to libertarianism's refusal to stand against depravity. Left-wingers will object to socialism's refusal to enforce equality by state or by society. Both will advocate ideologies like Fascism, authoritarian communism, or anarcho-communism to get what they want. They can articulate opposition to society's principles but at the cost of them sounding like a nut.
There's no telling if the hysteria of the third stage ever dies down. If it does, you'll end up in one of two places.
Traditionalism, real conservatism, of the 18th century:
You'll become a social outcast
Nobody will support you, nobody will listen to you, you might be right but you'll never know
So you hate the world for not picking up on an ideology that kept a continent relatively stable for about a thousand years (867-1914)
Nihilism (can be reachable from #2 as well)
You give up
You learn, either through trial/error or some other way, that your ideology is flawed: but nothing is better.
So you keep moving along, but there's no point to life, plus you hate the world for being so screwed up that it can't ever work properly.
This is why some people won't move past stage two. Because they know that once you reach an end stage, or even 3, life becomes a downward spiral. And shitty as hell.
Anything can btfo a good or bad monarchy. It doesn't have to be democracy. In Russia it was communism.
Communism was the poison pill that the Jews introduced in an attempt to break the cycle of anacyclosis. Natsoc was a similar attempt to create an unbreakable system free of cyclical destroyuction due to self-correcting feedback mechanisms, except it was genuine and not a Jew lie. I think natsoc can work but if society isn't ready to handle it yet then I'll support monarchy as a preliminary.
I can't agree.
Natsoc puts state as the metaphysical first. Religion is an afterthought "compatible with the people"
Monarchy put monarch only as an Earthly ruler under God.
One is utopian; perfect race will create a perfect society.
The other is real; we must endure as long as we can because of virtue for its own self.
Natsoc goes to the same modernist trashcan with liberalism, socialism, communism and all the other -isms.
Starship troopers > Best possible republic > best possible monarchy >>> democracy and gobbudism :DD
Because when my country was a monarchy people were proud of being bulgarians. They volunteered to fight in wars, even students abroad came home as volunteers. One such student wrote our current national anthem. They donated land and money to the country so we can build schools, hospitals and universities. People were christians. People wrote great literature. People respected the army. People loved the Tzar and he loved them. You could manipulate "poorly educated" voters by saying a particular party wanted to remove him.
Now nobody goes to church, everyone hates eachother, nobody is having kids and if they do - 2 kids max and the parents try as hard as possible to have their children to leave the country. Politics are absurd(socialist party enacting a flat income tax). Corruption everywhere. People just need a strong, well-defined hierarchy of power that enforces law and order, and protects tradition. And you can't get that with democracy because politicians are shit. They do whatever their sponsors tell them to and this is how your culture degenerates in the name of profits. This is how you get massive migration to keep wages down. This is how you get a welfare state that promotes hedonism. This is how you get "abortion is a right". This is how OP regularly has the great option of dying in a war for israel.
>It promotes inbreeding