/MG/ - Monarchism General

Old thread

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_Norton
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Autocratic Meritocracy is objectively superior to Monarchy.

New worlders gtfo

Queen Wilhelmina

You can stop responding because after this post I'll just ignore you, you're either trolling or you're retarded.

you're not contributing anything to the thread anyway, we will never convince you with out arguments and you will never convince us with your shitflinging, best to just go back to whatever circlejerk you come from

Fuck off with all your generals shills

We only believe in organic generals, not your fabricated slide shit.

The monarchy isn't relevant and they're certainly not gonna help any of us since we pay for their millions dollar welfare industry that supports them and their offspring

>slide shit
oh im sorry, let me make a thread about glorous epic kekistan instead!!!

Because you don't give any arguments.
You're just imagining your ideal world and making general statements with no substance. You're claiming inferior bygone system will somehow magically work better today.
You're kinda like Nazis here, you love aesthetics and mythical ideal form that never existed in history, but substance is your enemy.

>butthurt troll accuses others of trolling
Oh no, we'll lose so much quality discourse if you go cry elsewhere.

>Because you don't give any arguments
you were BTFO to oblivion and back in the last thread and you kept moving the goalposts and creating strawman arguments

you're not worth my time little brainlet, move along, adults are talking here

Elective Monarchy = Best Monarchy
get all the good sides of monarchy without all the bad sides
>continuity of government over longer streches of time than allowed by democracy allows for stability and long-term planning
>insane or inbred children can't inherit because they'll never get elected
>only the best of the king's offspring becomes the next king
>in the event of no children, instead of a succession civil war, a new king and dynasty are chosen
Of course, steps should be taken to insure that electors can't be influenced by outside forces as was the case in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

You could even have all the subject of the king vote on the new king, thus ensuring that the new king will have to care about all his subjects, not just those closest to him.

Real Monarch of the Netherlands coming through

symbolic monarchy is best monarchy. Part of the reason the US is so fucked up and divided is cuz every year you are ruled by someone only representing half the country. Just get a king in there to fulfill all the symbolic duties of the President, let the President be more of an administrator... That way people will stop voting for whoever is the most charismatic and instead will vote for whoever is the best.

No I wasn't, and you're not an adult.
Elective monarchy is not a real monarchy. And rulers will always aim to make it hereditary. As it practically became in HRE.
Both HRE and Poland were a mess at that period.

gib link to that discord server

As i said in the last thread in my opinion it should be a strong hereditary monarch + an elected parliament representing the people and governing the state, a 19th century style constitutional monarchy basically

of course inbred retards need to be skipped over by law

and of course the monarch who starts the dynasty must be worthy of it, not any random politician or whatever, not even "blue blood", but someone great who distinguishes himself, like napoleon bonaparte did and made himself emperor(im just using him as an example, not saying he was right to take the bourbons throne)

How is it not a real monarchy? And I stated that the first choice is the king's blood - you can't pick someone not of the king's blood as long as one such person lives. (under the assumption they aren't disqualified via insanity or crippling incompetence and stupidity, as defined by the rules of election).

There has to be continuity of government over a longer period of time that monarchy provides, but there also has to be a check on the king's power to insure the realm isn't ruined by morons or lunatics sitting the throne.

>strong hereditary monarch
>elected parliament
How the fuck does that work?
Either monarch is strong and parliament is just an advisory body, or monarch is limited and parliament will assume more and more power. As it happened virtually everywhere where parliament was acknowledged as a body that can't just be dismissed at monarch's whim. Duality doesn't work for long time.
>must be worthy
And who is worthy?
Since I suspect you're a Serb, how about you read the history of Byzantine Empire. You have so many examples where incompetents seized power simply because they were brutal and cunning. But that doesn't translate automatically into a good ruler.

DIVINE
RIGHT
TO
RULE

Starting this thread off with my response utterly BTFOing the faggot from Mount Nigger in the other thread, who I refuse to give (You's), in order for any other republicucks to get learned:
>you have entire fucking history of retarded sons inheriting great fathers and ruining the state
No, you don't. You have the selection of a minority of circumstances that favour your tired, corny argument, several despots among thousands that have reigned, whose names you have had impressed upon you by the liberal globalist elite at school, versus thousands of years of virtually uninterrupted sovereign rule everywhere on Earth, and thousands of gracious rulers.

>majority of monarchies historically didn't have anything close to longevity of US government
Every country in Europe that abolished their monarchy (except Portugal and France) did so only after being utterly devastated in two World Wars - I repeat, it took tens of millions of casualties to take down Europe's monarchies. I can think of no greater testament to its longevity - the second of which, by the way, was started by two republican dictators, and would not have materialised had their respective monarchies been intact. There, two examples of the vacuum left by faggy republicanism leading directly to the most genocidal regimes to have walked the Earth, almost as many examples as you can find faults with monarchy. What's that about "transfer of power not being smooth" again? What's the "Reign of Terror"? There are just as many shitty succession stories as there are instances of republicanism being met with even greater turmoil than what preceded it, the latter of course being far, far more likely, given how short the time span of your gay system's predominance has been, and how destructive it has been relatively that it managed to spring up both Hitler and Stalin in that short window.

Honestly, I think it's just down to cognitive dissonance. You elect a sociopath who has his own material gain at heart, who serves only to extend his own influence, who almost always represents a foreign backer's financial interests, and yet you are spineless enough to believe that the population at large are in control. Drop the fucking pretence already, democracy is a literal fallacy, every democratic country's true government is a financial government loyal only to the highest bidder, and it will be that way until you do the safest thing you can do, which is centralise power in a sovereign rather than maintain a stifling bureaucracy of insidious, unscrupulous kikeslaves, who offer vague promises forever but only ever seem to make good on things that no one ever seemed to ask for, like filling the country up with shitskins. Suck my fucking cock.

It actually died in 1848 and was about to be reestablished after Napoleon III downfall. It failed because the pretender to the throne was an autist bickering about some flag aesthetic, time passed and the opportunity went away.

One could also argue that the Vth republic is also a kind of monarchy, that is at least how De Gaulle thought of it

@139719972
>How the fuck does that work?
im not here to hold your hand little brainlet, go read how 19th century monarchies worked

>You have so many examples where incompetents seized power simply because they were brutal and cunning.
Are we talking ERE or USA?

don't give it (you)s, it is not here for a serious discussion, it is here to troll

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_Norton
best emperor coming trough lads.
Whats your favourite king/queen, emperor/empress btw?

>Implying I ever been interested in Kekistan
Though it's a nice shill technique come to think about it, same as occupy wallstreet, they tried to make anonymous look like a bunch of idiots, not that worked since Donald Trump got elected POTUS in the not so current year and is still not impeached

Suck on it kike shill race traitor, choke on it.

I think the montenegro lad is confusing absolute monarchy with monarchy

>versus thousands of years of virtually uninterrupted sovereign rule everywhere on Earth, and thousands of gracious rulers.
Then you won't have problems naming those dynasties that had several successions and all were good rulers and successions were smooth.
And don't use Roman Empire as an example. They used adoption or just appointed successors, who often weren't their kids.
>liberal globalist elite
No such thing, at least not in that sense. Society and technology changed and old regimes either adapted and slowly perished or were disposed of.
>Every country in Europe that abolished their monarchy (except Portugal and France) did so only after being utterly devastated in two World Wars
Spain?
Besides, those monarchies were either becoming constitutional, were constitutional, or were suffering severe issues (Russia).
>What's the "Reign of Terror"?
Was there a reign of terror every time French government changed? No, it was a one-time event after monarchy was deposed. Same monarch invited foreign troops to put him back on throne and kill his alleged subjects. You don't find that problematic?
>instances of republicanism being met with even greater turmoil than what preceded it
We have to restrict ourselves geographically here, and remember that states don't exist in a vacuum.
>how destructive
Do you have any idea how much life has improved for global population as whole since 19th century?
>You elect a sociopath
You can also breed a sociopath. It's same shit.
>who serves only to extend his own influence
He serves for a limited period of time. Monarchs aimed same. To extend their and power of their family.

he's just strawmanning

first he comes up with his own definition of what a REAL monarchy is(what you support is not a REAL monarchy, only he knows what a REAL monarchy is) and then he argues against it(not even real arguments against it, just really vague arguments like "ah plenty of bad things happened in the past, when there was monarchy, therefore it's bad")

really just ignore the brainlet, his thoughts are all over the place, his brain is scrambled

Spain is still a monarchy, genius. Technically, the King of Spain also is the King of France.
>To extend their and power of their family
Except that's beneficial to their nation.

Spain is still a monarchy

And did those incompetents totally ruin the lives of Americans?
Depends on who you ask, but not really. They keep chugging on and live nice lives compared to majority of global population.
And everything decays, it's normal.
Besides, I hate that I was dragged into this discussion, because I'm not an idiot who finds all those kings and nobles evil. They lived in a different time under different conditions, in a system that made sense for that period.
It doesn't make any sense today. It would improve nothing.
People are far more literate now, technology changed things enormously, monarchies of past are simply history, you can't recreate it.

>Technically, the King of Spain also is the King of France.
no , this is not true the king of spain give up all claims to the french throne in 1714

God Empress Maria Theresa

>And did those incompetents totally ruin the lives of Americans?
First off, it was a joke, but otherwise yes. Never heard of what Clinton did with Sally Mae? Whole generation utterly fucked.
>People are far more literate now, technology changed things enormously,
All the more reason to return to monarchy. It'd be even more effective.

Different king.

Lmao and who will enforce that do you think? If he is asked to he will get it, unless the Perfidious Albion decides to get involved again

I meant that Spaniards removed monarchy, without millions of dead after or during two world wars.
>Except that's beneficial to their nation.
It's also beneficial to an elected ruler. He lives in that nation and his wealth, however he acquired it, is in his nation.
Now problems are appearing but that's because of globalism, and monarchy isn't really a cure for that.
I simply said that states like Norway and so on are not monarchies in functional sense, since their monarchs don't really rule.

>the King of Spain also is the King of France.
i don't think so

Felipe IV is king of Spain, Louis XX should be king of France

>First off, it was a joke, but otherwise yes. Never heard of what Clinton did with Sally Mae? Whole generation utterly fucked.
You're exaggerating and heavily exaggerating.
>All the more reason to return to monarchy. It'd be even more effective.
But why?
Why would I surrender my rights to one fucking family?
Besides, if you wanna know Montenegro is practically a monarchy, our guy is ruling for 27 years or so, now from the shadows. It's not really that great.

>Why would I surrender my rights to one fucking family?
what rights are you surrendering ?

And also not only is there no one to enforce it, it's legally void anyway according to the fundamental laws of the kingdom. The crown is not atthe disposal of the king, that's why Louis XIV's will was thrown to the trash by the Parliement, he couldn't choose his heir

Plus you do the same thing with democracy, >why do I have to surrender all my rights to a government?

>I meant that Spaniards removed monarchy
They didn't, though. Felipe VI is currently the Spanish head of state.
>It's also beneficial to an elected ruler.
Not so much. An elected leader can leave, and has no long term investment in their chosen nation. So they can stripmine for themselves and their (((benefactors))), then leave after the next election, and be replaced with their clone to do the same thing.

To elect and be elected, for start.

Social contract and nationalism.

The Bloodline Kingship comes from the Archons.

Archon means Lord, Master or Ruler.

They are the Anunna gods who came down from "heaven"

The Anunnaki.

The Bloodline Kingship of Anu who came to Ki.

Ki is an old name for Earth

These gods brought down Kingship to Earth.

They ruled as Godkings. The Archons.

The Illuminati are the 13 human families that claim to have the most direct Bloodline Connection to the gods / Archons.

So they claim they have the Divine Right to Rule because of this.

>tfw we lost WW1

your morals are different from ours

we are christian and nationalist, you are a commie

we will never come to an agreement

They did in past dude, that's my point. And current Spanish monarchy is same as that in Norway or Sweden. Their monarch doesn't rule.
>can leave
So can monarch. Have you really never heard of cases when monarchs escaped, historically?

>You're exaggerating and heavily exaggerating.
You're either naive or economically and politically illiterate. Probably both.
The deregulations to the banking and finance industry have also fucked everyone, and fucked people in other nations, no less.
>But why?
Because we have less to worry about in terms of foreign powers or even local dissent from the aristos.
>Why would I surrender my rights to one fucking family?
No one said anything about surrendering rights. And you're going to have a government one way or another, why wouldn't you want a good one?

From what I gather from Hoppe. Monarchy has advantages against fully democratic societies in the sense that the ruler 'owns his property' i.e. the country and thus invests (usually with his own wealth) to improve it. Is this right?

>To elect and be elected, for start.
you said that in montenegro a guy is rulling for 27 years so you dont really have the right to be elected + you can still become a prime minister in a monarchy

idk why I quoted you

I'm a commie because I believe that I have a right to elect the person ruling over me, and the right to be elected by other people into office?
>nationalist
Are you aware that nationalism and monarchism were historically opposing ideologies?
Probably not, fuck history right.

>tfw everyone lost WW1

>iktfb

You can still be elected as a mayor of a town or a minister or a member of parliament you fool, you just cant elected as head of state.

Exactly, so it's functionally a monarchy, and I fucking hate it. In fact it's a sort of neo-feudalism.

This is a good point, as said in the last thread, the monarch is born and raised for the position, he didn't promise anything to anyone, he wasn't promoted by a party, he wasn't financed by a company, he is born to rule, simply put

>Their monarch doesn't rule.
They can, but "choose" not to.
>So can monarch. Have you really never heard of cases when monarchs escaped, historically?
You're missing the point. Right now, Trump could work towards changing enough legislature to truly rape and pillage the USA for himself and his corporate allies, then just piss of to Zurich and enjoy the spoils. In fact, he has no reason not to.
A monarch who tries that is condemning his own nation (an extension of himself), and robbing his descendants. Essentially, he isn't a monarch if he does that, the same way that you're not playing monopoly anymore if you rob the bank and throw away the board.

What's the point of electing anyone when monarch can just override his decisions and dismiss him whenever he wants?

>Probably not, fuck history right.
That's certainly how you think

in the heyday of nationalism, europe was ruled by kings, any nationalist would cut your tongue off for insulting his king, my commie friend

>Then you won't have problems naming those dynasties that had several successions and all were good rulers and successions were smooth.
Here's a map of monarchies that lasted so long that it took the Jews orchestrating millions of casualties in a period of three decades to get rid of.

>No such thing
whoissoros.mp4

>Was there a reign of terror every time French government changed
Yes, hey seem to have this strange habit of flipping cars, torching buildings and chimping out at every provocation/minor civil disruption that persists to this very day.

>Same monarch invited foreign troops to put him back on throne and kill his alleged subjects. You don't find that problematic?
No? Fuck those proto-communist plebeian faggots.

>We have to restrict ourselves geographically here, and remember that states don't exist in a vacuum.
First, you'd have to explain why.

>Do you have any idea how much life has improved for global population as whole since 19th century?
Yes, in spite of many attempts by disruptive, republican socialist trash to reverse it.

>You can also breed a sociopath. It's same shit.
But unlike in a democracy, at least non-sociopaths aren't barred from entry.

>Monarchs aimed same. To extend their and power of their family.
And how do they do it? What asset is it that they have a rational incentive to maintain in order that they can hand down and retain the power of their family? Who is to a country as a homeowner is to his property?

>I believe that I have a right to elect the person ruling over me
>right
Hilarious.
Anyway, political illiterates like yourself are exactly why democracy is a ridiculous notion.
> nationalism and monarchism were historically opposing ideologies?
And yet another retarded statement. The monarch IS the nation. You might be thinking of tribalism.

No they can't, and if they tried they would be deposed.
And Trump is robbing his descendants too. His property is in USA.
>then just piss off to Zurich
And you have never heard of monarchs who were deposed and did exactly the same?

The point is, the guy you elected has his power in check, he can't just start importing rapefugees, when the king tells him to fuck off

he cant start forcing the church to marry faggots when the king tells him to fuck off

etc.

whats the point of doing anything when you can just die whenever?

>I have a right to elect the person ruling over me, and the right to be elected by other people into office?
LMAO. No, you don't.
>every democratic country's true government is a financial government loyal only to the highest bidder
every democratic country's true government is a financial government loyal only to the highest bidder
>every democratic country's true government is a financial government loyal only to the highest bidder
every democratic country's true government is a financial government loyal only to the highest bidder

Whats the point of laws then, when the president can pardon anyone?

Who else wants King Charles' first act as King to dissolve parliament?

Seriously, reading this shit gave me a mini-stroke, I'll just exclude myself from conversation, you won, keep larping, it's really not worth it.

>No they can't, and if they tried they would be deposed.
Hasn't happened so far. They only kicked Clinton out for perjury.
>And Trump is robbing his descendants too. His property is in USA.
No, he's setting them up for further success, because he has no position for them to inherit within the country he leads.
>And you have never heard of monarchs who were deposed and did exactly the same?
And are they still monarchs of their nations?
If no, then it looks like i'm right and you aren't.

They only were opposed because it was France vs Europe, they became nationalists pretty much after. Unless you want to feny the German Empire and Austria-Hungary weren't full of fanatics.
Hell, even Prussia with Friedrick the Great had some kind of nationalism, though it was mostly centered around his persona
You would even find some instance of nationalism centuries too like after the battle of Bouvines

>you won
Duh. You had no arguments.

yes the monarch owns the country and he can pass it to his children so if the country gets richer he gets richer and since his children can inherit it and he dosent have to worry about getting relected he can play the long game
in a democracy you elect a ruler who only cares about getting reelected and he dosent care about the long game since we will not be in power in the next 20 years

But I would agree with you that the traditional nationalists fight for the Fatherland while the nationalists in monarchy fight for the King but at some point king and country started to mean the same

come back when you have a better understanding of how governments work

Our future King.

...

>Exactly, so it's functionally a monarchy, and I fucking hate it.
but is not really a monarchy beacuse the guy kids wont inherit the country so he dosent have to care what happens to montenegro bacuse he can just take his money and leave
a monarch cannot do this beacuse his country is his wealth if the country is rich he and his chldren will be rich

but it must be constitutional and the people represented, we can't have a king with absolute power to abuse his people, the peoples interests must be represented and the kings power checked

as i said, like most monarchies of the 19th century/early 20th century

Prince Alexander I Battenberg

Tsar Ferdinand and Kaiser Wilhelm II

...

Australia is new world and we're monarchs.

Tsar Boris III

Monarchy for Europe and laws against muslim jews seeping into power !

>HE LITERALLY SURRENDERS

>disgusting Authoritarian monarchs ITT
The only form of monarchy worth respecting is a constitutional monarchy that is limited to enforcing law/natural rights and defense. Thats the system that worked the best of all systems we've tried. Took us from the middle ages to the modern world. Authoritarian divine right bullshit stagnates you to middle age-tier nonsense.
The true red pill is that monarchy is necessary to rule of a small government, any small government with democracy will grow over time.

there should be laws against ANY non-christians getting any position of power

Tsar Simeon II

And this is the heir of Simeon II - Prince Boris, we have to make him Tsar Boris IV

I agree

every christian adult male of the kingdom must have rights and privileges, we need a switzerland like system, but with a strong monarch and exclusive for Christians and preferably men only(head of the family) if it's not too radical

>tfw you're so insecure autist that you have to revive every possible dead ideology and think it's better than others on a japanese anime imageboard thinking anyone gives a fuck about your larp
C R I N G E

Are you retarded? You do know that monarchies exist right? Sorry to burst your kike bubble

How many gallons of cum is your faggot brain lapped up on right now?

God damn guys, mountain nigger is a troll, just ignore him.

Speak for yourself m8, not all of us are slaves to the Spiritual Jew, pic related.
You're right on the nationalist not though.

*nationalist thought though. Don't do drugs kids, even if you need them to sleep.

Go to bed Paul, you had everything correct but Muh Jebus