Questions for monarchists

how do you install a monarchy in a land that's never had kings? how do you find the "noblest" bloodline? in a highly militarized world, would a modern monarchy more resemble fascist jingoism?

or is a good monarchy pure fantasy?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=TYwcgQfh49k
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ourique
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afonso_I_of_Portugal
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

bump my question you plebs

And how was monarchy installed in the first place you moron? It was war aristocracy and moral aristocracy, aristocracy isn't about tradition or history

good question OP

Nice pic, check this out

Are you retarded? All you need to become a king is the strength to make yourself one. The concept of noble blood exists to tie titles to the families that hold them. It isn't an indicator of some inherent ability to govern.

I would let pink Aoi rule over me any day.

>or is a good monarchy pure fantasy?
a good monarchy is pure history.

keyword pure, no nogs allowed that means you america.

you would pick them how they used to pick kings. with military leaders. in fact, a highly militarized world is the best instance to start a monarchy, the only real issue is consumerism and jew banks.

just look how often monarchies had to kick out jews!

as for how noble bloodlines start, you just track from the first king and his children, then go down from there. it takes a few hundred years and a bunch of second cousins fucking, as well as importing other noble bloodlines etc.but it's possible.

Monarchy can only be legitimised through greatness and providence, and can only be maintained through bloodlines, and can only be checked through council or assembly.

How it can be instated? Through bouleversement and through a crisis. Either people want to be ruled, or a monarch takes power and maintains it longterm

trump is king material

pretty much that m8,or washington

washington lead a rebellion against the worlds most powerful nation and turned a untouched contintent into a new trading power

he would of made a great king

King George I

And if he was king,his brothers sons descendant sat in the chair would be the king of the united states of america

>And how was monarchy installed in the first place you moron?

well, Aragorn was the last (or one of the last) of an unbroken line of pure Numenorean, and he was the last royal Numenorean blood, being descended from the kings of a petty kingdom of Anor. When he was crowned king of Gondor (being the last royal blooded Numenorean), he reuinted the two kingdoms of Eriador (which included Anor) and Gondor

>Are you retarded? All you need to become a king is the strength to make yourself one

so, modern monarchists are actually crypto-fascists that advocate inherited rule? The system of feudal agrarianism is done, so what would replace it? Wouldn't it be like more like a dictator but with all the incredible powers of the state instead of being a distant overseer?

see

>have infinite money
>buy country
>make yourself king of that country

>The system of feudal agrarianism is done, so what would replace it?
Feudal Cybernism

Dna testing moron

The kingship is a meritocracy-position with the king's line being forbidden from participation for 2 generations
Things tested include control under pressure, ability to cut to the heart of a matter though it be jumbled in excess information, athleticism, interpersonal skills, the ability to see cause-and-effect, history, ability to pick the purest waifu
How it's all weighted is up in the air

What do the monarchists here think of the idea of being ruled by an artificial superintelligence?

that's a shittier idea than King Hitler

You guys would be looking at a military coup. You'd have to have a supreme arse kicker with the military behind him who's also fair minded, and have a weak government who refuse to do something that the people want.

Basically if Mattis was 30 years younger and married you'd be wanting to encourage him to start the race wars.

An ASI like the machine? Sure. ASI like Samaritan, FUCK NO

Well back in the day (1800s) newly created nations like Belguim, Greece and Romania basically sat down and decided between going on as a Republic or a Monarchy. Having a Monarchy back then was good for prestige and national defence, since obviously the foreign Prince they would invite would be related to one of the Great Powers. For example the Belgian Monarchy is the same family as the British and Romania invited the German Hohenzollern to assume the role of their king. Funnily enough Romania would oppose the German Empire anyway since the Habsburgs had ethnic Romanians in their lands. Honestly it's not as much useful these days and serve more to be a symbol of the nation and to serve as an executive government to step in when the legislative government goes crazy.

TL;DR if a land that never had a King or Emperor wanted one, they'd hit up one of the existing dynastys.

>Wouldn't it be like more like a dictator but with all the incredible powers of the state instead of being a distant overseer?
Only if it were an absolute monarchy. Given the world we live in a more likely outcome would be a constitutional monarch, who has the powers the appoint ministers, introduce laws to an elected body of representatives along with the power of veto but without the ability to pass any on their own.

Also if you were to go the old fashioned way of Monarchies, since the way the US is set up, with each "State" being a (possible) independent nation, it'd be like having a Kingdom within the US. As a result, the head of the United States would be worthy of the title Emperor back then. These days it'd be worthy just by sheer size alone now.

Monarchy is a reaction to corrupt oligopolies. It's a cycle of decay and rise, from an aristocratic society, decays into oligopolies, and from that rises a monarchy.

Fascism is a more modernized monarchy. It's about the strongest and most capable coming to power to give hierarchy, purpose, and power to what is ruled. A Monarchy should work to serve it's people, and it's people to serve it's monarch. Failing to raise your people and provide for them, you're a tyrant, the decay of monarchy.

Fascism, and monarchies, stem from decay by reactionary means. They offer protection, unity, purpose, and assurance of the ability to become greater. When the marauders (Be it barbarians invading, or communists rioting) destroy the roads, threaten the businesses, and start taking bread off the table, people look to a powerful leader who can control a group to protect and create roads, make sure they can go to work and live off their work, and put food on their table for their family,. If someone promises that, security, food, purpose, and family, you've got yourself someone who then must make good on it. Greece with Golden Dawn is pushing on those fronts already, protecting businesses, keeping streets safe, handing out food. They're in the running for a Monarch, or fascist.

So, to install a monarchy, you'd need a crisis to fix. Then you'd need to make good on your promises and be strong enough to fix it, providing for the people as they provide for you, and for each other. As for how succession would work, your child would be trained from birth to take your place, studying, learning, experiencing what the people are, what they need, what they want, and how best to give them what they deserve. If you do a well enough job you give them some powers, people will like the duty done, and be warm to the idea of succession.

I wouldn't like it. Too many books and games spooked me about AI. Too logical and without compromise.

Though if it were an adviser, I'd certainly go for it.

>So, to install a monarchy, you'd need a crisis to fix. Then you'd need to make good on your promises and be strong enough to fix it, providing for the people as they provide for you, and for each other. As for how succession would work, your child would be trained from birth to take your place, studying, learning, experiencing what the people are, what they need, what they want, and how best to give them what they deserve. If you do a well enough job you give them some powers, people will like the duty done, and be warm to the idea of succession.


In an absolute monarchy, it's an eventuality that the ruler becomes so powerful that they will not need to take the people's wellbeing into consideration. Look at North Korea.

>crypto-fascists
Entirely the wrong approach if that's the conclusion you're coming to. No, fascism is a modernist attempt to restore the lost monarchies of the past. Where the line is extinct or iredeemably corrupted, populist strong-men fill the void by styling themselves on, if not the actual kings of history, then a folk-ideal of what they should be like. There's nothing crypto about it. Fascism is monarchy-lite.

kys

>how do you find the "noblest" bloodline?
You don't. The noblest bloodline is the one that founds itself.
SIEG KAISER REINHARDO!

>Entirely the wrong approach if that's the conclusion you're coming to.

"monarchists" are crypto-fascists in a sense because fascism would be the outcome of starting a monarchy in the usa. you're making no different point than me, just nitpicking my "approach".

how's King Putin?

How is that crypto though? Nobody is hiding anything. Fascism would be the outcome because fascism is not so much an ideology as an immune-response to the cancer of "progress." When there is a concerted attempt to sever a people from their history (which is almost always monarchist) they inevitably fight back in defense of their traditions. They then try to restore their past to whatever degree is possible - Franco was able to restore the Spanish monarchy, Hitler was not so lucky. Often the larpier elements are recognised as redundant, but the actually meaningful aspects are kept. And if you really want the whole crowns and knights thing there's nothing to stop you doing that as well.

Or the ruler's council becomes so powerful that the ruler becomes a mere figurehead.

I think the first monarch for a country should be a man that is simply a superior man in the game of power, and ascends to the throne by himself. This will likely only be possible during bad times, when people seek for true leaders.

I'm still mixed on if the monarchy should be genetically heritable or if the monarch should find a non-related madly intelligent and alpha youngster to train him to be king. The modern world is so damn complex and it takes raw intelligence to simply survive the psychological games a king would have to endure. A unintelligent king would be constantly paranoid, take the wrong measures (too harsh or weak) and at the wrong time, he would become a puppet. Intelligence can't be teached.

>Or the ruler's council becomes so powerful that the ruler becomes a mere figurehead.

either way, the wellbeing of the people suffer when rulers are given absolute power over them.

Fascism and traditional monarchy have a fundamental distinction: under monarchy there is a clear divide between ruler and ruled, each having their duty to the other but in some sense remaining opposed. Fascism unites the people behind a leader who symbolises their national spirit, making it far more dangerous as the people are willing to do and accept all sorts of things they normally wouldn't as they're "all in it together". The same can be said of democracy to a different extent.

Washington was way too humble of a man to become king plus he would have betrayed the revolution as well.

Why not do what Rome did?

Have a military dictator who later has his nephew or whatever become the line of the monarchy?

Here's a great video on monarchism.

youtube.com/watch?v=TYwcgQfh49k

Didn't he betray it with the way he handled the Whiskey Rebellion?

>a land that's never had kings
doesn't exist. Every single piece of land on Earth, except some deserted islands, has, at one point, been ruled by some sort of monarchy.

The only dynasty that's still around are the British and Japanese as far as I know

>Literally sent by god himself

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ourique

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afonso_I_of_Portugal

>In 1143, he wrote to Pope Innocent II to declare himself and the kingdom servants of the church, swearing to pursue driving the Moors out of the Iberian Peninsula.

>Literally having god himself telling you moments before the battle that you will win in an outnumbered battle against moors.

>Your own soldiers unanimously declare you their king.

>tfw portugal bro was /ourguy/ kicking the snackbars out of Europe.

I suppose but it would have been seen as more of a betrayal since they were literally fighting against a monarch and him making himself a monarch would be seen as ridiculous.

>semantics
Man you are a fucking retard

The man with the strongest Will shall be the king

red : absolute monarchies
orange : semi const monarchies
darkgreen : const monarchies
lightgreen :commonwealth realms
pink : subnational monarchies.

To answer your question i suggest looking at the history of the AL saud monarchy who was placed the brit.

the biggest redpill on Sup Forums that many have yet to see,is that the sauds are a worst threat to the white mankind than the jews.

I was just asking which system /pol thought should be instated to rule the humans on another threat.

>hit up one of those Japanese princesses that become Japanese commoners when they marry
>start weeb kingdom with technically not royal but who gives a fuck it's close enough royal blood

>are you crypto-fascists
Politically yes. There's nothing wrong with that either. It doesn't mean no one is free. Imagine if political libertarianism worked, minus the susceptibility to crony capitalism.
>hurr durr can't have hereditary rule
Kings are born, bred, and groomed for one thing in life one sole purpose that places such demands upon them they can not stop at anything short of a king.
>logistics va techno-overlording
Balkanization with an elected high king.

I prefer Anglo-Saxon monarchism.

somebody takes it over and declares himself king