Monarchism General

Monarchism General

Edition: The Comeback Kid

This is a thread for the discussion of Monarchism, Culture and Traditionalism.

Resources:

pastebin.com/LyfpyJPt

Q/A:
Q: Why do you support a dead ideology?
A: Ideologies do not die, they are merely abandoned by the ignorant masses.

Q: So you support North Korea then?
A: No, North Korea is a Communist Dictatorship - and goes against many values of Monarchism such as the strong connections to Tradition and Culture which the North Koreans have replaced with a mindless cult.

Q: Wouldn't Hereditary Succession allow madmen to get in power simply by birth?
A: No, the Rightful heir would by default be tutored and educated from birth to rule as a proper and efficient leader. In this way a Monarchy allows a much more smoother transition of power and long-term stability than democracy or a dictatorship.

Q: So you support tyranny and the loss of people's rights?
A: Monarchies still exist today, such as the United Kingdom and Lichtenstein with as many Freedoms and Rights as the United States.

Social Media:
Curious about being a Monarchist or our Beliefs?
Join our discord.
Discord code: dKXSSxF

"Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes, or film-stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison."
- C.S. Lewis

"Democracy… while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide."
- John Adams

...

"When America set out to destroy Kings and Lords and Masters, and the whole paraphernalia of European superiority, it pushed a pin right through its own body, and on that pin it still flaps and buzzes and twists in misery. The pin of democratic equality. Freedom. There’ll never be any life in America till you pull the pin out and admit natural inequality. Natural superiority, natural inferiority. Till such time, Americans just buzz round like various sorts of propellers, pinned down by their freedom and equality."
- D.H. Lawrence

Constitutional monarchy seems to be the way to go. I hate authoritarian cucks. There needs to be a mutual moral understanding between the king and the common folk. I would rather die than worship a fool

You might want to look into the government of Lichtenstein, both the monarch and the people have power without one cucking the other.

...

OP is right, and this is exactly what I advocate for; an enlightened monarch along the lines of Emperor Meiji of Japan and Frederick the Great of Prussia.

Who /anarcho-monarchist/ here?

Not a monarchist, but I'll bump anyway.

I'm for a Liechtenstein style monarchy but anarcho-monarchists are still monarchists, and therefore friends.

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance."
-H. L. Mencken

I would probably classify myself as a fascist but a monarchy could work as well, i think it's safe to say the democracies of today have dropped a lot of the balls they should be juggling to ensure the continuation of the existence of nation states of today.

thanks

I have felt for a long time that monarchism is the right way. But with stuff like the Internet people will always meme and shit on the monarch.

Freedom of Speech is important m8.

Who /empire/ here?

United Kingdom has as many rights and freedoms as US.
Lmaoooo

I use to be a 14/88 gas the kikes natsoc, but I ALWAYS held Monarchist tendencies and now I'm a monarchist. If you'd like to discuss your beliefs with us feel free to drop in the discord, most of us are crypto-fashies anyways.

bit of an overstatement, we'll change in next OP

ay boi, /empire/ for life

>But with stuff like the Internet people will always meme and shit on the monarch.
So?

“In French politics, this absence is the presence of a King, a King whom, fundamentally, I don’t think the French people wanted dead,” said Macron. “The Revolution dug a deep emotional abyss, one that was imaginary and shared: the King is no more!” According to Macron, since the Revolution France has tried to fill this void, most notably with Napoleon and then Charles de Gaulle, which was only partially successful. “The rest of the time,” said Macron, “French democracy does not manage to fill this void.”

Emperor Macaroni soon

Speaking of Macron, anyone get the feeling he's going to pull a nappy III and go from President to Emperor?

That's the mindset!

Monarchy is shit. You're a retard if you support it. And if you're Amerucan you're also a traitor.

>Q: So you support tyranny and the loss of people's rights?
>A: Monarchies still exist today, such as the United Kingdom and Lichtenstein with as many Freedoms and Rights as the United States.
This is a cucked answer. Both of those are embarrasing. Last monarchy were Austro-Hungary and Russia.

We don't need a general. It's populism.

>And if you're Amerucan you're also a traitor.
Yea, but they can make up for it by being a monarchist.

Quuoting a jnown dumbass makes your position worse.

Are you drunk or something?

Yee haw I'd sure love it if we had a good old fashion feudal kingdom in these parts

Are there any countries that might go full absolute monarchy again? Last I heard Romania or some such place was making headway

No an American monarchist is a traitor. If one wants to worship a monarch there's no shortage of shithole one could go to and do so.
Really anyone supporting monarchy us a traitor to his people, betraying them to insteas hold up those who would set themselves as his betters for no reason but they say so

Russia's head that way in my opinion, Putin certainly thinks himself the Emperor.

Also, nice Icon.

No. Lewis is widely regarded by anyone with any sense as a retard. Only someone as stupid as a monarchist or Christian would quote him seriously.

Checked, The irony of someone with that flag calling others traitors tho

Doesn't Dugin push for some sort of Eurasian Empire? It would be really interesting if that happens

How would you ensure that you keep having good monarchs instead of bad ones that has always been the most vexatious matter with monarchies. As much as i enjoy the thought of being a nobleman myself how would land ownership go about in your version of a monarchy. What of freedoms and rights, would law apply to everyone equally what about private businesses?

He's pretty well respected by everyone, you jnow.

>No an American monarchist is a traitor.
People who want the best for their nation are traitors? You must be snookered.

The Russian Empire was always a Eurasian Empire, albeit one exclusively lead by Europeans.

>As much as i enjoy the thought of being a nobleman myself
You're not a nobleman. We don't need more enlightned "future noblemen" in monarch circles.

>He's pretty well respected by everyone
No, he isnt. He's a joke.
>People who want the best for their nation
Aren't monarchists. Theres nothing good about monarchy. All you retards have been saying "it just is good, isn't it obvious".

The traditionalist pill is the finial red pill. We need to have these generals on Sup Forums more often, so as to establish ourselves as a major presence and to spread our influence a bit more. I wish the mods had included a monarchist flag, it would make it a hell of a lot easier

Such a quality ideology it makes people only fuck their cousins

>No, he isnt. He's a joke.
To the butthurt drunkard, perhaps.
>Theres nothing good about monarchy.
Except that it cuts out (((politicians))). Gives the most power to the person who has the most invested in the well running of the nation. That person is also trained from birth purely for that job. And it unifies the nation since you don't have to be split for elections to serve corporations.

I was just thinking about this a few days ago, since I hadn't seen a monarchy thread in a good while. I'd be willing to post regularly if there's a daily thread

>if there's a daily thread
Try weekly.

QUALITY

I doubt it'll be daily, but probably more than once a week.

Monarchies serve best as a balance to parliament I think. Limited formal power, but rather than power, they hold influence.

The same general thinking being the separation of powers in the US. The monarchy is aloof and elitist yet incorruptible. The parliament is susceptible to corruption but also must concern itself with the will of the people.

Constitutional Monarchist here.

I think there might finally be enough technology for it to work, if we use blockchains for government financial records and have enough nobility to keep the monarch family in line, and retain armaments for common folk.

Lefties get the noose

gee, these posts sure roasted my almonds, and got the soup simmering. they fluctuated the neurons. really made me think.

here's your (You)

I seriously hope you guys are active in your local monarchist circles.

If i chose to do so i could buy a legally recognized noble title right now for a relatively reasonable sum of money, it is not as big of a deal as you might think. Of course i would only ever support a fascistic or a monarchic system of government with the condition that i was a part of that decision making class after all how could i ever trust someone besides myself to oversee something of that importance.

If you'd like to contribute to our activism joining the discord is heavily appreciated.

Member of the national monarchist league and the constitutional monarchist league. So somewhat active.

>Monarchies serve best as a balance to parliament
But then we still have the infection of politicians?

I made a poll which got over 2000 votes about 4 months or so ago and it showed that there were 11% monarchists on Sup Forums. It'd be interesting to see how many there are at this point. Basically if there's a progression towards monarchism it's a trend and it portends the right's political line of the future - at least in this or other alt right circles.

It's not a progression. Two years ago there was also a sizable population according to polls. Moarchists just aren't vocal, probably because they don't cast pearls before swines and because it's not a contest. Better have less more educated people than a mass of ironic nazis ala "alt kike" movement.

This user understands it, but we're looking to find non-autists and turn them to monarchist philosophy

>monarchist
>fascist flag
Carol II had Codreanu assassinated
Wilhelm II had huge problems with Adolf Hitler
If you unironically believe giving huge amounts of power to imbreds you're going to get utter faliures like Wilhelm II and other shit monarchs

I'll be more than happy to change it when we get a monarchist flag m8.

>Wilhelm II had huge problems with Adolf Hitler
The guy who lost WW2 for Germany? Oh no!

Not sure how beneficial that will be. Monarchists should generally act locally and let actual nobles to cooridnate with other countries. In Croatia we've had a 1000% increase in numbers the last ten-ish years. It's still a small number, since that's what a hundred years of communism, fascism and liberalism does. First real organizations are being set up in the last two years.

>The guy who lost WW2 for Germany
Mussolini lost WW2 for Germany by invading Greece which delayed the invasion of Russia by an entire year.

Monarchies alone have their own problems. Lack of broad public influence over the nation's decision making can lead to the monarchy growing dangerously out of touch. We can't pretend that the French revolution was without cause. I believe that a constitutional monarchy, properly done, balances out the worst excesses of parliament and palace.

bump

But all constitutional monarchies were cucked as shit. Absolutist monarchies were too prideful, on the other hand. Obviously a mix between an absolutist and feudal systems would work best to curtail the power of the monarch while still making him an active agent. Not that I'm for returning to feudalism, but it had merits in some ways.

Genetically engineered nobles monarchist checking in
Name one reason why a Genetically engineered perfect king wouldn't be the perfect government.

You mean saved Germany for another year. War on two fronts was just the worst idea possible.

>Lack of broad public influence over the nation's decision making can lead to the monarchy growing dangerously out of touch.
Agreed. But that just means the monarch needs to be more involved. Obviously they can't do everything, but certainly be a part of running the nation
>We can't pretend that the French revolution was without cause.
Yea, but i disagree that it was the (then) monarchies problem. Like, The Sun King fucked things up, but XVI did his damndest to get his hands dirty to try and fix it. Just wasn't enough.
>I believe that a constitutional monarchy, properly done, balances out the worst excesses of parliament and palace.
I'm all for constitutional, but parliamentary will just give us what we have now.

By a year? I thought it was just a few weeks, even then those few weeks would have probably been enough to win the war for the good guys,

Because natural law dictates that the more you play with genes, the more will nature have its revenge. Also, where did that genetical experiment acquire his Divine Right of Kings?

The lady of the lake

>You mean saved Germany for another year. War on two fronts was just the worst idea possible
the invasion of France was done when Hitler was ready to invade the USSR by the summer of 1940 but due to Italy invading Greece and not being able to protect their colonies cause they are incompetent, Hitler had to suspend the invasion to the summer of 1941.

>the invasion of France was done
UK was still there, bro. Japan was more detrimental than Italy in that regard.
He never should have invaded Russia, period.

>UK was still there
England lost almost half of it's army in the invasion of France.
If Hitler was to invade the USSR by the time he was done with France he could've easily taken down the soviet union.
>He never should have invaded Russia, period
>russians gather soldiers en masse on german border
>german intelligence officers find out about russia having plans to invade Germany and break the moltov ribbentorp pact
>yeah lets not invade them and wait for them to build up their army and industry, what could go wrong?

oh come on people

symphony of church and state anyone?

Yes, but under the old absolute monarchies there was limited incentive to heed the will of the poor. *Everything* in life boils down to incentives, carrots and sticks.

A mixture of parliament and monarchy I really think is the best answer. The parliament is incentivised by its nature to heed the masses, but alone can sabotage the long term prospects of a nation in the name of electoral wins. The monarchy is incentivised to protect the integrity and independence of the nation as a whole into the future to preserve their blood line. Balanced together this is a very effective system I think.

It's certainly one of the most stable forms of government, as evidenced by Britain's history.

That depends entirely on the State Religion in question, but in general, the church should have no legal power, but moral power.

i am a proud Monarchist and vocal about it, although people dont take it seriously cause it is " already dead ideology" I cant find any monarchist groups in Greece but my father has met with the former king of Greece several times due to his work. I wish I had a chance to meet him as well. i truly believe that even in the worst case senario a corrupt king will do less harm to his country than a series of corrupt goverments.
Also more monarchism generals pls

They'll be more frequent from here on out, as I said earlier, likely not every day but more than once a week.

>England lost almost half of it's army in the invasion of France.
But they weren't out for the count.
>german intelligence officers find out about russia having plans to invade Germany and break the moltov ribbentorp pact
Pretty spurious, bro.
Besides, the trump card here is one word: Stalingrad.

>A mixture of parliament and monarchy I really think is the best answer.
I get where you're coming from, i just think there has to be a better solution than (((elected officials))).
>The parliament is incentivised by its nature to heed the masses
Disagree. They can only ever be puppets of the media/corporations. This means that they have a vested interest in populism and gerrymandering to the detriment of the people, with no need to have long term planning.

>I cant find any monarchist groups in Greece
Make one? Check out how nearby nations do it, and try to emulate them. Georgia and Serbia are riding high on monarchist support lately.

Parliament would ideally be split between elected officials and nobles raised in the same manner as the Monarch, with the nobles the superior house.

Hasn't worked too well for the UK thus far.

So voting based on land owned? The more land -> the more of a vote?

The Lords haven't been the superior House of Parliament for a long time. Also, the Monarch of the UK has too little power with the Commons ruling all.

Exactly. You can bet that they didn't expect it to turn out that way.

Not as such, no. If it helps, Nobles = Senate, Elected = House. Nobles basically exist to keep the Elected from going full retard and act as a sort of middle ground between Parliament and the Monarch.

i agree that a parliement is propably a good idea to keep the king in check in case he goes mad in power, just as a procautionary measure , however the parliament itself is liable to corruption. Another idea would be having an institution thar forbids the king to take big decisions (i.e. declaring war ) without a referendum

I agree, but the church should be in symphony with the state. Not separate.

for the US in particular, I think we need a king that's catholic (cause protestantism is heretical cancer) and an edict of tolerance towards other based christian faiths.

so long as filthy peasants don't get a vote I'm happy

Catholicism is decent, certainly only it and the Orthodox can legitimately claim to be Christian. We've a wide range of religious beliefs represented in the Discord though.

Traitors have been running this country for 100 years now my friend

I honestly dont believe that USA is suited to being ruled by a monarch , considering the differences between each state and its people.

Tfw btfo'ing republicucks daily in debates when they try to argue for replacing our constitutional monarchy
>1. If the people got to vote for the head of the state our buffoon prime minister would be president instead of our well spoken and respectable king and after him equally great crown princess.
>2. The monarch is drilled since birth and molded into a respectable head of state
>3. The royal house brings in shitloads of money in tourism

>What is the name of the danish monarch?
(they know)
>The norweigan? (they know)
>The finnish president? (no one has a clue)
Presidents are forgettable as fuck unless your country is a major player.

I see where you're coming from also, but I have to say I think you've taken a real problem to an illogical extreme. Corporatist influence will work its way into all forms of government. Parliament takes heed of the needs of the poor more than just about any other form of governance, elections demand it. Potential problems aren't reason enough to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

And of course one should not argue that x potical idea is wrong because it can be easily corrupted when his own potical system is corrupted by the same reasons. Unless he suggests one that cant be corrupted by capitalism. These arguments are really weak desu

Republicans seem to just shut their minds off when you bring these facts.

People pushing for abolishment of constitutional monarchies are the ultimate traitors. They've been given all the freedom and democracy possible yet they still want to go that extra mile just to shit on their own heritage and culture. Bonus points if it's some shitskin immigrant.

>Corporatist influence will work its way into all forms of government.
Elected ones most of all. A monarch has no need to be bought. A politician has that as a goal, since they might only last until their next election on the whim of the people, or the influence of the media [against them].
>Parliament takes heed of the needs of the poor more than just about any other form of governance, elections demand it.
If that were true, we'd never seen (American) Republican victories, or LNP. But also, the needs of the poor oft get overstated, and cowed too in excess. Like with Democrats and Labor.
>Potential problems aren't reason enough to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
But they are reason to be prepared for them.

a swede who isn't cucked, I love it.

checked and keked

Bump, Sup Forums needs more proper reactionaries and traditionalists.

Any good literature for our kind? I've heard that Julius Evola is good.