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 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
How would a country choose a monarch to begin with?
Angel Thompson
This. Always wondered that. I would imagine they'd have to be introduced at the forming of a new nation (e.g. after a secession)?
Camden Kelly
there are multiple ways.
one way would be to elect them.
another way would be to bring back an existing monarch from the royal line of that country (if it had one).
you could also just put a leader of the current army (say there was a revolt).
Jack Harris
read
Brandon Parker
it's the ultimate cuck ideology
while most democrats are stupid and delusional they at least believe themselves to be free
monarchists literally voluntarily decide to suck up to some despot, ultimate cuckery
the only acceptable monarchies would be those that naturally develop but to go promote the ideology itself is utter faggotry, you're just an edgy 16 year old contrarian cuckold faggot
Asher Brown
>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. read a history book you fucking faggot
Samuel Cooper
>while most democrats Man, you just can't escape the bipartisan politics, even on an alternative thread.
Cameron Nelson
> oh yeah democracy lets shit presidents be in power for 8 years (like Obama) while these shit kings get deposed within a matter of 4 years max (usually)
Adam Young
>the word has only one meaning american education, kys you stupid nigger, if you cant figure out what i meant youre subhuman
Xavier Robinson
Fuck Constantine!
Paganism is superior!
Kevin Cruz
> implying freedom to do whatever you want is good > implying most people like it -> it's the right thing to do > implying most people aren't primitive sheeple who's most sophisticated desires are a couch to watch their (((baseball))) games and a hole to stick their dick in.
Kevin Walker
>american education, kys you stupid nigger, if you cant figure out what i meant youre subhuman Wew, Lad. You're trying too hard. Take my (You)'s and get out of here.
Dominic Bailey
How sane would it be to instal a constitutional monarchy in Mexico, where the monarch would take the ejecutive seat and other responsibilities, while mantaining a parlament to keep the legislative and ejecutive powers separated? I have this idea very developed elsewhere, maybe I will post the complete plan once I get home, I need to know What could go wrong
Levi Bell
I would think that with Mexico it would be pretty interesting, cause I don't know how the Mexican people and the mexican elites would respond to this. Because if the elites aren't fullly against it, it might actually work.
Sebastian Russell
>the only acceptable monarchies would be those that naturally develop >but to go promote the ideology itself is utter faggotry How do you think monarchies formed in the first place without people promoting an ideology centered on it? This is literally how people decide to do things, someone goes around promoting an idea, and people talk about it to decide how they feel about it. This thread is itself a natural product.
Daniel Peterson
>Ivan the Terrible >Henry VIII >Queen Isabella
Kill yourself you uneducated cuck
Nolan Hill
I implied none of those things, you're literally retarded.
Joshua Parker
>What could go wrong The problem of the Parliament. They could get even more socialized and usurp the King of his throne, should the people support the Parliament. >Great Brititan
Ryan Taylor
>The problem of the Parliament. They could get even more socialized and usurp the King of his throne, should the people support the Parliament. >>Great Brititan You cannot do that in Britain you dumb faggot, not without her consent. She can literally shut down the parliament in a moments notice.
Asher Thompson
> believing sources that literally hated Ivan the Terrible to be objective about Ivan the Terrible
Kayden Johnson
>Revolution
Jackson Young
Alright, the is the complete ver
The separation of power between executive, legislative and judicial is important as it limits the power that a single individual can have and is thus a protection against a tyrant. However, when parties are allowed to be on both the senate and presidential office than you have something similar; a party dictatorship. Not allowing individuals from a party take office may not solve the problems as most likely they will be, officially, ex-party members that still hold ties and debts to people in the senate. Thus the Executive must be taken from a completely different system than the rest, a monarchy. The Senate may remain (after a huge purge and restructuration) since it guarantees representation for all states and divides the load of work on manny. The King would have the responsability of an executive, but also being the moral and ideological centrepiece of the nation. He would act as a leader who would be able to instal (via example) moral laws that conventional law would not be able to mimic. He would be the head of the church, maintaining the interest of the people up in the government. However, outside of his executive situation he would have little real power, but would still be able to use his cheer presence within the people to counteract any unjust opposition
Oh, and he would make Mexico A E S T H E T I C again
Sebastian Robinson
>Peter the Great >Catherine the Great >Alexander the Blessed >Edward the Confessor >Victoria >George VI I can cherry pick too. Also, libertarians shouldn't throw stones about ideology.
Ryan Baker
youre a child
Aaron Anderson
This user knows what's up
Wyatt Cruz
Bump. We need more real reactionaries on Sup Forums. Europe (and most of the old world) would be easy, either just strengthen the existing royal family,or restore a deposed royal family, which would be easy in places like France, Italy, Russia ETC. where they have existing pretenders. It would be trickier in places where no pretenders exist, in which one could either have another existing dynasty take their throne, or have a descendant of aristocracy take their place. If all else fails the role could be filled by a powerful, influential, and cultured family of good breeding.
Countries like the USA would be very difficult. Frankly, monarchism can't really work well in a place born out of liberalism.
Jaxon Bennett
France has the rather unique problem of having more than one family with a legitimate claim however.
As far as Russia, there's no way a Romanov will ever be allowed the throne. If there is a new Russian Emperor, and I think it's a good possibility in our lifetime, it will either be Putin or someone under Putin's control.
Christian Nelson
Does anyone else get deeply saddened at the spread of liberalism? A century ago most European nations were monarchies, society was based on tradition, and nationalism was the norm. Two world wars later and countless royal families have been deposed, destroyed by communism or liberalism, high culture has all but died, and nations are essentially abstract, meaningless concepts. The amount of damage done to Europe, our cultures and societies over the course of a lifetime is astounding. It's distinctly possible someone could be born in the German empire, fight in Third Reich and then die in the DDR.
Luke Barnes
Most monarchs today are traitors anyway, so..
Jaxson Ramirez
Traitors? How so? They're all powerless here any way.
Justin Johnson
Any love for Tolkien style limited government Monarchism?
Not familiar with it, interesting concept though, can you elaborate?
Jack Murphy
Basically the Shire irl
Joshua Rivera
Its often called Anarcho-Monarchism but thats a bit of an exaggeration, there's still a government
Jace Wright
I do not read fiction, even if I know it is good pls explain
Austin Cooper
So we all walk around barefoot, wear velvet waistcoats and smoke pipes? Sounds pretty comfy desu
Cooper Gray
Government is very local, probably less than 1,000 and its a very homogenous community. There is a monarch that functions as a figurehead(a thain). The government stays out of peoples business and there are very few services provided.
Wyatt Foster
Exactly. I have a dream that the growing presence of the internet will allow a ruralization back into small communities. However the comforable lives they live will allow the government to spend less money and offer less services. The central government will weaken to allow local governments decide laws. The local governments stay out of peoples business.
Austin Harris
youtube.com/watch?v=PXzvMF7Dx6g Here's an interesting video- the singing of the Kaiserhymne at Otto von Habsburg's funeral. While I disagree with many of the things the man did, it's an interesting example of the rapid transition in Europe. Born an heir to an empire, died legally a common man in a republic.
Nolan Robinson
And if you dont like reading I reccomend watching the movie. 3 of the best movies of all time
Dominic Price
That sounds amazingly comfy, join the discord, you'll find some like minded people.
