Monarchism

Is there any legitimacy what so ever to this ideology?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=yLwCseFU2gY
youtube.com/watch?v=tgpfswDHA_Y
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Theoretically, yes. I like the idea of monarchy. But the problem is most modern European monarchies are symbolic and have done zilch to call attention to white dispossession.

About as much as religion.

They who hold thr gold make the rules... yes if they power and might are held by a few that want to use a single divine right ideology then they will do so. They have come and gone in the past. Democracy is a farce and it lease to oligarchy. Such a plurist state would need a single source to direct their minions hate. I think monarchy will rise up. It's depends on the the phase the people are in during their cycle of political awakening. Post Stalinist peons yearn for a Strong man, ie: a Putin( quasi king). Post failed democratic socialism yearn for a dictator, i.e.; Chavez y maduro. Post developmental capitalism yerns for a god-king, i.e.; Trump.

...

The legitimacy behind the monarchy comes from God. As soon as you question God's existence then the monarchy loses all legitimacy. In reality it is just a dictatorship, cleverly disguised as God's will, but actually backed up by the army.

Yes but only if I am the Monarch.

You have a system where a Monarch is raised from birth to lead their people. If they do a bad job they can be removed from power fairly easilly. Most Monarchy had a decentralized military madenup of regional militias managed by regional aristocracy. It was far more Minarchist than our curret system.

Monarchs are:
>trained from birth in the art of leadership and governance, using millennia of tradition and wisdom to rule well. In a democracy a leader only serves a short time in office (4-8 years) and has no incentive to look to preserve is nation beyond that term limit.

> The physical manifestation of the heart, soul and heritage of a nation - a king is the father of the nation, not just a ruler. He embodies the race, nation, culture, history and spirituality of his people. He therefore devotes his entire life, from birth to death, to safeguarding them. He has an ulterior motive other than power or money, and that is to advance the state of his people, culture and civilisation.

>The most powerful person in the land. This means they cannot be bought out and corrupted by bankers, corporations and Jews, because they already have all the wealth they need. This is unlike in a democracy, where politicians are always striving for more power and wealth because there is always more they can achieve due to the nature of such a political system.

>better than a military dictatorship, because unlike them, monarchs have been trained to govern well in all aspects of civilisation, not just in military or political skills. Monarchies also provide a stable succession, something which other authoritarian regimes don't usually have.

It is a harsh fact of nature that most people are fit to follow, not to lead. People want to be led by an influential, powerful leader, someone who sees himself not only as ruler but as a father to the nation. Monarchies are just those leaders; leadership has been in their genetics, history and education. Democracy was only ever meant to work in small, ethnically, culturally homogenous communities - not on the massive national scale we see today. Entrusting the natural followers (the masses) with the power to lead has been met with nothing but disaster and instability. No, leadership belongs to natural leaders.

Monarchies have withstood the test of time. Unlike other modern ideologies, such as anarchism or socialism, monarchism has evolved naturally for tens of millennia, adapting and changing as new social or economic circumstances arise. Because human nature is inherently irrational, illogical and sinful, ideologies that are crated purely from human thought alone are always doomed become irrational, illogical and sinful when put into practise. Monarchism has always been the natural state of man.

To summarise, monarchies are better because they have withstood the test of time, they are the natural result of human society, they are highly trained, influential leaders whose only goal from birth to death is to lead and guide the nation, they act as a protector and father for their civilsation, race and culture and they have no insentive to become corrupt.

I wholeheartedly think we should reinstate absolute monarchy in Europe and the rest of the old world, but because of the relatively short history of the American nations I don't know how feasible or effective they would be over there.

The traditionalist pill is the final redpill.

Of course. The masses everywhere are ignorant and don't know what's good for them. Would you rather be led by some corporate backed empty suit or a dignified aristocratic king who was born and raised to rule, who was steeped in the history and traditions of his nation, who is part of the same regal bloodline that spans over the centuries.

Monarchism is same thing as Fascism really, but with predefined rules for succession of power (by inheritance)

>Modern "President"
>Makes a tweet and embarrasses his nation causing division and riots

>Modern Monarch
>Fights in modern battles and saves the common folk ensuring love and patriotism for ones country

Really tough decision.

The only one that was kind of convincing for me was Thomas Hobbes maintaining they had a long term interest in keeping the people wealthy as

>wealthy subjects
>wealthy monarchs

Where as your garden variety politician will take the money and run somewhere else.

The king of Denmark rides through the streets with no security (circa 1940s):

youtube.com/watch?v=yLwCseFU2gY

Tell me this isn't beautiful. Imagine living in a high-trust, homogeneous society where the ruler can walk freely amongst his subjects, exchanging greetings.

>embarrasses his nation
oh no!

>Elect an african
>takes on his penstroke 70% of the national debt in the country's 300 year odd history

youtube.com/watch?v=tgpfswDHA_Y

That ginger bullet magnet is probably a bastard considering diana was a bit of a slag

Absolutely.

Your problem is that you have been educated in a post-enlightenment society, so you are conditioned to accept the principles of classical liberalism that make monarchy seem ridiculous. Classical liberalism is all about the rising bourgeoisie trying to come up with a justification to place themselves at the head of the state and society so they create the fiction of "natural rights" and human nature (see Hobbes vs Rousseau). After centuries of feudalism creating a civilized and stable area, suddenly the bourgeoisie wanted to pretend that they were entitled to the benefits of law and order through some kind of natural rights rather than through the grace of the ruling class that had created law and order. What's funny is that they do not apply the same logic to their own property.

>My ancestors established this kingdom and it is now mine to administer as I see fit.
>Muh rights!

But when they're back at the office jewing it up.
>My grandfather started this company and if the employees don't like what I'm doing they can fuck off.

No, Monarchism is much more like capitalism, but with a focus on the family/dynasty rather than the company.

>some people are less stupid than others and deserve to rule
No shit sherlock

Bump, I like the increased interest in monarchism and traditionalism as of late.

>trusting heredity more than the opinion of 50% +1 of the population to pick a ruler
>being ruled by someone who has prepared his whole life to rule rather than being ruled by someone who has prepared his whole life to seize power
Hmmmm. None that I can think of. But honestly, the problem is that monarchy used to be way better when a ruler had on average 15 to 20 years of power behind him because of shit medicine and having to wage wars. In current year, a king would be like the Popes, old as fuck people succeeding senile old fuck.

Does monarchy require nobility to function?

I've always been partial to a system to how the Holy Roman Emperor/ Pope was/ is selected.

Monarchies biggest drawback is when you get fuckwit heirs who by their incompetence, cruelty or naivety bring down not only their own rule but the institution as well.

A monarch chosen from and by a college of theoretically equal men is the ideal system. The ideal of blend of meritorcracy, aristocracy and monarchy.

Well, in PLC there was an elective monarchy, where entirety of nobility voting for king. Imo pretty good idea, but PLC isn't really a good example (even if only?).

Only when the monarch is elected by the aristocracy. Hereditary monarchies can get eff'd in the b by the genetic weenie.

double gets and God save the Queen.

Absolute monarchical rule doesn't work. Nations are too complex and too easy to fuck up under absolutism which is why today most powers of monarchies are symbolic. They do, however make a nice distraction for the Jews.

There is the issue of the nobles electing someone they know is unfit so they can expand their own personal power. Keeping succession to the dynasty choosing related heirs might prevent this.

yes there is.
the plebs need an example to look up to.

>ideology
>legitimacy

It's just a vocabulary like any other user. Just choose one you like and go for it, doubts and all.

Anything can be made to sound good if you re-describe it properly.

Yes. More than most.
>The legitimacy behind the monarchy comes from God
Nah. It can, but it doesn't need to. All political legitimacy comes from the people in one way or another.

True, but immaterial. The purpose is to rule the masses, the monarchy is essentially the beacon of light they look up to. Whether the power is truly held by one or a small group isn't important as long as the masses continue to believe in the institution. Hereditary monarchies have the problem of inbreeding to keep the line pure leading to leaders progressively becoming more retarded.

>Only when the monarch is elected by the aristocracy.
Elections get rigged. That's what they're there for.

No.

>Hereditary monarchies have the problem of inbreeding to keep the line pure leading to leaders progressively becoming more retarded.
Only a couple. Most were fine.

Hmm ,so basically we could try either to create absolute hereditary monarchy (without nobility) or go with nobility-elected king for life (though as non-hereditary position). It depends whether we believe democracy would work with nobility (nominally born to rule, well educated and informed, engaged in politics) or not.

>It depends whether we believe democracy would work with nobility
Doesn't matter how many people it involves. Democracy will always = plutocracy. Don't give them any more chance to game the system.

If Monarchism has worked the past decades and millinias, it will also do if we could bring it back.
The German Empire of Wilhelm the II would be the wet dream of every AnCap and NatSoc on Sup Forums.
The greatest inventions were made in monarchies, modern degeneracy is due to "Democracy" aka faked rightiousness as a Republic ruled by an representative elite filled with and reigning through olligarchs.
It is time to destroy Europe and build up monarchies again after that.

Just one question to prove this, if you could bring back the German or British Empire, would you do it?

Wish George Washington would of taken the crown. :\

/thread

I would support the German Imperial revival in a heartbeat. Furthermore I would immediately leave the united states to move to Germany.

People here constantly talk about Hitler and how he should have won and all that, but he would not have even needed to rise had the more honorable and graceful 2nd Reich not been ruthlessly crushed by the degenerate democratist and communist populist movements.

You end up with the problems of elected monarchy even without it. You can't have monarchy without aristocracy and they will always jostle for power eg depose one king for his more favourable brother. Nobility is generally intertwined by marriage except for the rare gifted commoner who rose to highest ranks by sheer brilliance in some required field.

The other reality is in a hereditary monarchy the actual king is rarely ever truly in charge even if it is an absolute monarchy. There's always some puppet master unless they're a true alpha.

With warrior kings yes... with their children who inherit-- not so much.

I would dispute that philosopher kings (with a bit of the warrior king included obviously) are much better suited.

I would not argue that being worldly is a bad trait of kings... but the ability to inspire your legions to follow you barefoot into hell is without a doubt a requisite of kings.

>You can't have monarchy without aristocracy
That's where you're wrong, kiddo.
Just need rock solid constitutional rules.
>There's always some puppet master unless they're a true alpha.
Sometimes the risk is worth the payoff.

Agreed. Such a charismatic moxy can at least partially be instilled in the heir during the grooming years, while they are taught the ways of the great philosophers and their ideals in the affaris of state and such. Clausewitz's 'Vom Krieg' and Sun Tzu's 'The Art of War' would be required reading.

This genuinety and thinking shall be rewarded with a rare Justinian the Great Pepe.
Thank you for supporting old ideas with fresh bravery.

The idea of monarchism, from my perspective, diverged with the enlightenment, originally the royalty and gentry were the educated and informed ones who made all the decisions, learned and were crafted (theoretically) to be the best thinkers and leaders.

Like most political structures it works great in theory. Problem is most royals / gentry were so divorced from the common man their decisions were ineffective if not outright damaging to the masses.

Lets be real though, most people are fucking retarded and democratizing every facet of life, for every individual really isn't the best way to manage things, as the decline of modern western society has shown us. That being said, i doubt monarchism could ever truly work again, you could hit all the good parts while avoiding the inherent problems by simply going with a fascist / imperial model and not have to risk the great great grandson of a once great and noble leader being a complete fuckwit who decides to chum the water with the infants of the poor or some retarded shit.

>rock solid constitutional rules
Give it 5+ generations and a natural aristocracy would form just form the kings extended family.

When Monarchism was replaced by democracy the aristocracy was eventually replaced by the merchants. We still have an elite but instead of them being bred and trained from birth to rule and noblesse oblige instilled in them, we instead have a merchant class who have all the power and influence but without any of the responsibility because the method to reach the top of the merchant class is by ruthlessness where honour plays no part. We're a poorer society for it.

Hi Venice.

I agree, but i think there needs to be something more to instill the ideals of 'rule and noblesse' in the aristocrats than just the idea of 'divine providence' or whatever backing most monarchism has had in the past.

The reason monarchism diminished so far in the first place was because they spent so long at the top they forgot the difference between ruling over and ruling together.

Constitutional Monarchy is the way to go. Absolutism is doomed to fail.

bump, not letting this one die

Sure, but only if the monarch is guaranteed power and not just some figurehead.

Also firearms because thats still pretty important. Plus it would be neat to have a monarch that hunted/shot stuff for fun.