Monarchist General: St. Nicholas Edition

Monarchist General

Edition: St. Nicholas the Passion-Bearer

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: No, this often varies from individual to individual but nations exist such a Lichtenstein in which the monarch and people have relatively equal power and great freedoms.

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

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=5zgkySBTUIw
youtube.com/watch?v=k12teOokSqM
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycrates
youtu.be/YgGzAKP_HuM
twitter.com/AnonBabble

God bless you for shining the light onto monarchy in such a dark time my friend.

Thank you. We've been steadily growing and are nearing 90 members on the discord. Many have already been swayed from republicanism and we hope to continue the good fight.

The only true monarchism is absolutism.

Heil Nicky!

But wasn't this guy completely retarded ?

we also accept nazbol

>mfw Monarchy general makes a comeback

Monarchy is an abomination

Hello there citizens

For my country, absolutely. National conservative monarchist under the ancient laws of England. The Magna Carta (1215), the Provisions of Oxford (1258), the Provisions of Westminister (1259), the Statue of Marlborough (1267), the Welsh Acts of 1535 & 1542, the Petition of Right (1628), Instrument of government (1653), Humble Petition & Advice (1657), Habeas Corpus Act (1679), the Bill of Rights (1689), the Act of Settlement (1701), and the Act of Union (1706) and Acts of Union (1800).

Not really sure about other countries. The difference is in England the monarch and its relationship with public assemblies and the people evolved here over many centuries of peasant revolts, civil wars, execution of monarchs, tyrannical assemblies, tyrannical monarchs, etc, and (arguably) somewhere after the Glorious Revolution to the reign of George V, created the absolute perfect system of monarchism where the will of the people was enforced through parliament, with the monarch holding Royal Prerogative, Assent and dismissal powers which still exist today in theory, but could never used.

I don't think that sort of system can just come to life over the course of 10 years in a nation, thrown in with an entrenched constitution or just bestowing absolute power in full to one blood line. Plus the whole divine right thing doesn't come into play.

ur mum is an abomination

The English Monarchy is run by pedophile faggots

>the North Koreans have replaced with a mindless cult.

Monarchy is a mindless cult too, fuckin idiot.

So is parliament and the aristocratic class its self is riddled with it. I don't give my opinions on the current monarch, though the monarchy (the Crown) is a seperate institution to the sovereign. And this system I'm talking about died in practice somewhere around the 1850s, at the absolute latest. I still like Liz.

Was there ever a more handsome man?

what a clever argument. Let me take a quick note...

Reinstate the Kalmar Union!

youtube.com/watch?v=5zgkySBTUIw

It's not just the current monarch either, it's always been that way. Same with all other world powers

hhnnngggggg
Also, what do you guys think about all royal dynasties in Europe gradually becoming relatives through diplomatic marriages? isnt that a bad thing? we had a German king in Greece for many years. (Glixburg) Isnt this a trap for just one family controlling all of europe?

Yes. I don't like that international marriage shit. Shit like that gave us a Spanish king for 60 years. The so called Iberian union.

...

What kind of Monarchy do you propose? Should there be a constitution? What role should the monarch play? What benefits do you expect from a monarchy both in general terms and in the context of your personal views on how it should be implemented?

Once again, I refer to Romans because they had it all figured out

A senate or a council like the roundtable is fine during peace times because obvously one king can't cover all of society, but in terms of wars, the sole reign leader (like Ceasar) should have the right to basically become the emperor and control everything as he wills

Thoughts?

Supposedly connecting all the dynasties through marriage, thus creating one big family was supposed to bring peace to Europe. Sounds great when you think about it, but didn't work out so well in reality.

Personally, prefer the Shogunal system when it comes to dynasties. 1 ruling family with several small branches from which the future monarch will be elected. No one is born thinking "omggggg I'll be the next shogun" but try to polish themselves the best they can to make a good candidate.

Following European monarch lines is difficult. Queen Victoria descends from a German line, yet during her lifetime becomes known as "The Grandmother of Europe." Not sure what I think about it. It gave us a German-English-French Royal House which is bad, but then 200 years later, made the German monarch English through Kaiser being Victoria's grandson. It's strange. I think national identity was a different concept to most aristocrats in the past.

its a good plot for the strong kingdoms to control the weaker kingdoms, but at the same time the weaker kingdoms are protected with military alliances
. so short term good, long term bad. we should propably be against it (?)

my mum lik nikolai pic related is she

I feel sorry for the last spanish habsburgs.
What I don't understand is why it never occurred to them that maybe marrying your niece wasn't a good idea.

Only that's already happened, it was called the Roman Republic and the procedure you're describing is "senatus consultum ultimum." Why, if the Romans reverted back to a monarch, would you follow the example of the system that failed most internally?

Your leaders authority is the tissue paper I use to wipe my ass. I'm telling you right now that every leader you choose to submit to is powerless, I'll continue shattering your illusions of being protected by a strong powerful daddy. The only king I serve is the God of creation and his law.

In your analogy Europe is the shogunate and the kingdoms within are the clans? additionaly, I like the shogun system as much as the next goy, but history has showed us that it is subject to assasinations and extortions deciding who sits on the chair

This.

More about that third question in your Q/A section. So you really support someone ruling a nation, millions of people, just because he was born to the position? Educating them from brith surely wouldn't prevent them not becoming some spoiled little brats who would make stupid decisions out of pride, which would affect millions of lives.

This guy and Wilhelm II were utterly retarded when it came to home rule and ruined what their predecessors had built

well neither does being elected by a crow of autists prevent then from being brats. At least with monarchy it's easier to depose of a monarch: it only takes a group of nobles really.

who's your favorite absolute monarch?

Monarchies currently exist, one can look at them and see how they progress. Saudi Arabia and Thailand are a couple to mention, note the place of women in existing monarchies.
Hopefully OP is not an American Citizen, if you are you should leave, go to England and be with your kind. Humans have sloshed about under monarchic rule for much of written history; life spans, technology, education, workforces, militaries, etc. have all displayed huge advances forward through modern nation states. To regress in such a manner is quite compatible with conservative thinking but would produce the same kind of dark age as happened to the Europeans by criminalizing classic Roman and Greek material because they were pagan.

Serving an invisible daddy written down in an old book is better than a real human one?

Is modern advancement *because* of democracy, or *despite* of democracy?

I do wonder.

youtube.com/watch?v=k12teOokSqM

>A senate or a council like the roundtable is fine during peace times because obvously one king can't cover all of society, but in terms of wars, the sole reign leader (like Ceasar) should have the right to basically become the emperor and control everything as he wills
The whole point of monarchy is providing legitimacy to autocracy by means of tradition. So Caesar is a pretty bad example. Having the monarch assume full authority over all matters of state could lead to all manners of shenanigans.

An incompetent monarch could either do alot of damage to the state by meddling in affairs he doesn't comprehend or could become a puppet of those that do (pic related).

A competent monarch could try to use the war to boost his own prestige and popularity to subvert the status quo make the state of autocracy a permanent one (Augustus).

Likewise a senat or council might try to delay an inevitable war and thus shift the balance of power in favor of the enemy in order to cling on to power.

I didn't mention democracy, please read with both eyes and at least two braincells.

So then why did we advance so much? I just assumed you were attributing all progress to democracy, but maybe you can make it clearer to me what you mean

Modern nation states, democratic or socialist, are largely based on the premise of dividing up the positions of lawmaker, executer of law, and finance. A monarchy returns all those functions back to one entity, such as a dictatorship like North Korea. Modern advancements are partly due to other people, than the monarch, accessing resource and capitol to produce an advancement. Dark age Europe, the church or a monarch decided what was worthy of advancement, tulips in the case of some countries.

Is Liechenstein a failed monarchy?

Monarchy is not a based cult of mindless peasants, monarchy is a governing tool used to keep order in the most simplistic ways of a king, queen experience.
Monarchy doesn't need to follow the rules...just keep the general idea and modify it from the people's perspectives and choices.
To be a king you need people to lead and a queen to help you with the decision's that are tough to make, also to provide you with an hier.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycrates Polycrates the tyrant (tyrant merely means monarch in ancient Greece)
>made Samos a power equal to Athens out of thin air
>contributed to Greece's technological ,cultural, philoshopical and religious advances
>won several wars
>brought prosperity and wealth to the people
>most importantly he was loved by those he ruled
he is truly a man to admire and one of the best arguments why monarchies can be so successful

>King is importing millions of Mudskins so he can engage in power plays in the EU
Yes, it is. Being a Monarchists is basically handing your country over to George Soros. Hell, why not cut the middleman and just suck his cock? Detached, powerful, wealthy, bloodline based psychopaths are the people whose asses you're kissing. The Bushes, their Cadet Branch the Clintons, the Rothschilds, and Soros are the exact types you lot want. Just give them crowns and you're all set!

What is failed? They seem to be successful as far as monarchies go. The country is small and landlocked in the middle of Europe so they have other European nations to protect them against invasion. The ruling family is likely very rich, no problem for them there. Also it's size, I don't know anything about its industries or services, its small population probably make unemployment negligible.
Monarchies themselves are a vestige of a bygone era, humans can't progress as a whole untill we are governing ourselves and not by landed gentry that gained their power by force in a distant past.

Who said anything about worshiping a book?

Liechenstein is importing millions of mudskins? Source on that? lmao

Also I laugh at the thought of democracy being will of the people, it's still just an oligarcy except behind closed doors and run by jews most of the time. There are no special interests within monarchies, the king cant be bribed

They could be invaded by said nations, and the fact that they are prospering etc despite being under executive law by a king debunks his earlier statement

Not me, I said serving an invisible daddy.

the whole idea behind modern monarchism is that the king is so powerful that he doesnt need the (((help))) of the juden

See, this is the biggest problem monarchists have today. Have you noticed how all autocrats end up with their head on a pike and yet still I a Canadian have a German Queen on all of my currency?

In the ebb and flow of partisan politics a King who is on the unfashionable side will sooner or later have his head put on a pike. There is nothing stable about it. Are the Bourbons and Romanovs the pinnacle of stability?

In modern times the Monarchy in it's dignity must remain above the partisan lines and act as a mother or father for the entire nation. Something that unites the progressives and conservatives.

The Monarch should lead the social life, ie, how HRH Elizabeth II is the head of the Church of England. The Royalty set an example of politeness so that celebrities can be degenerate as much as they want as the mores of high society will be protected by the gentry.

Patriarchal societies need a patriarchy and the monarch is at the top. Look at what Macron and Putin say. Killing the King is killing the soul of the nation. In Russia there was the cult of Stalin, and in France there was the the cult of Bonaparte - each nation trying to fill the void that was left by their respective regicides.

Even Germany needed WW2 to quell their fighting spirit and it took the world to the brink. Winston Churchill, a good King's man, was of the opinion the monarchy in Germany should be maintained after WW1. He thought that the youngest impressionable heir should be crowned and kept in a regency with an adopted Westminister style parliament. In his own words he blames the progression obsession with republicanism which "left a void in the soul of the German people to which Hitler strode into unabated."

Any idiot who advocates for autocratic monarchism does not understand monarchism and is an unwitting agent of the progressive marxist zeitgeist.

Is the discord an actual Monarchist discussion or is it just haven for "Constitutional Monarchy" cucks who believe that a king that exerts authority is a bad thing?

God is self evident, I'm sorry you have a redditors understanding of reality and God

Also
>Best Monarch
Prove me wrong
Protip
>You can't
Fite me!

Monarchy wouldn't work in the 21st century, it didn't work in the 20th so what makes you think it would work now? The only type of monarchy which would do well would be a constitutional monarchy anyway.

This whole jew thing popping up in this thread is perfect for my question to the jew haters. I thought the Nazi hate of jews revolved around the practice in Europe of money lending. Christians were forbidden to lend money with interest while the jews had no problem with it, so they got rich and pissed all the Christians off. So now in Europe the Christians allow money lending (ooh, sinners!) so why still paranoid that the jews have all the money? The wealthiest man in the world is a Christian Mexican.

>Is modern advancement *because* of democracy, or *despite* of democracy?
guy in video specifically talks about wealth mate
>18th century state theorist couldn't imagine democracy working in but a small environment would therefore automatically consider it idiotic if encountering it now
>monarchies are more economicly successful because monarchs consider their countries private property
As do third world dictators.
>elected officials leech the country's wealth
Only in meme-countries that don't inspire patriotism and a sense of belonging in their citizens and don't provide checks and balances to prevent/discourage this kind of behaviour.
>monarchs are more adept at responsibly handling government debt then elected officials are
you mean like the Bourbon Monarchs whole who supported the US-war of indepence just to stick it to the english? Worked pretty well for them and their country didn't it?

monarchists who put down constitutional monarchys are larping faggots fyi

Prove yourself right first.

Well, put, maple syrup merchant.
I have been leaning towards the idea of a constitutional monarchy. While I would still like to learn more about it before I become self-avowed, you have rationalized my train of thought.

Constitutions came about as the alternative to monarchic rule, Brits and some others on this planet ruse themselves with a 'constitutional monarchy' idea. An actual constitution has no mention of monarchy. The Brits, and their vassal states such as Canada, are still under monarchies, you are still 'subjects' of your German queen. You are still owned by a rich family, a surf or slave, whichever you prefer.

> the digits
heil!

I'd rather be ruled by Germans than by Jews.

Not sustainable.

Nice try inbred shitstains

Awesome propaganda poster!! Well hey, you got your hereditary German ruling family and I got my Russian president. Nothings perfect.

and how. The Germanic descent means nothing. There is nobody more English than HRH Elizabeth II. If you think she's "not English enough" you clearly need to re-evaluate how you read identities.

> he thinks democracy is working now

something i made for today

Monarchies and nobility in general are a bad idea.
Rich people shouldn't be protected from failure on the expense of the common folk.
Let's not mention the lack of competence in governing land.

The only Russian historical figure i'd bring back to life is RA-RA-RASPUTIN!

youtu.be/YgGzAKP_HuM

Was Mussolini's Italy perfect example of constitutional monarchy?