Q/A: Q: Why do you support a dead ideology? A: Ideologies do not die, they are merely abandoned by the ignorant masses. If Monarchism is dead, then National Socialism has been dead for seventy years, and Communism the last two decades.
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. The characterization of North Korea has a Monarchy is a stupid and loose connection based entirely on one facet of Monarchism, Hereditary inheritance, which is not even a universal - but extremely common - belief among monarchists.
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: This is a huge characterization of monarchism and history in General. Various different forms of Monarchy can occur from Absolutism to Constitutionalism and everything in between; the existance of a Monarch does not automatically mandate that the various rights and freedoms of the people should then be culled. Take a look at states such as Liechtenstein for a modern example of this, or one can point to the historic example of the 1848 German Confederation / Empire in which revolutionaries attempted to install a Constitutional Monarchy.
Social Media: Curious about being a Monarchist or our Beliefs? Join our discord. Discord code: dKXSSxF
I'd expect her majesty to flee to Canada if the UK did collapse - usually this is what happens in alternate history scenarios, after all.
Nathaniel Green
Interesting idea. However, I think if it got that bad, that means they would've acknowledged how bad the situation with their parliament had gotten, and the royal family would either be ousted, or take back a significant amount of power to save Britain.
Nathan Reed
Francoist monarchism is the only way. Fight me
Logan Roberts
bump
Leo Diaz
Francoist monarchist is proof that fascism and monarchism aren't that far apart and can coexist. Also see Mosley's support for the Queen.
Adrian Clark
user, I.... Franco hardly supported monarchism and is a disgrace to Monarchism in General. I certainly support him over the Republic, but, to say he was Monarchist in any way is laughable..
James Allen
>Monarchism is indeed the best system for the modern world, as it was for all the rest of human history.
exactly but it's not with out it's problems.
Tyler Perez
Fascism is a stepping stone to Monarchy, I've found.
John Barnes
Francoist monarchism put in Franco as the regent, with authority to appoint the successor to the throne. That's not too bad, in theory. Although we know the heir turned out to be a wimp who gave his power away.
Michael Allen
No, if anything it shows a trend of Fashies using Monarchs as tools to stay in power when their reigns are long overdue. Fascism has had a magnificent track record of nearly destroying every monarchy within miles - be it the Natsocs crushing the chances of a Hohenzollern Restoration and their actions leading to multiple monarchies in Eastern Europe being abolished, or the failure of Mussolini's rule causing the Republicans to win in the post-war referendums of Italy, Fashies have a terrible track record with Monarchism.
Jonathan Lee
Monarchism for life, let's bring it back!
Asher Gutierrez
Franco didn't really use it as a tool to stay in power. He just declared his successor to be the legitimate successor of the throne, which was the right thing to do. That's why I like Franco over all the other fascists. The others did indeed fuck monarchs over during the early 20th century.
Jordan Powell
Mussolini was terrible in general, no question about it. But blaming the destruction of monarchy in Eastern Europe on natsoc, really? Most of them were either absorbed by the Soviet Union or got in the way of Germany during the war. What you're doing is more or less blaming the war that was forced on Hitler, on Hitler. But I will admit that the repercussions, intentional or not, were horrible.
Blake Miller
Not really sure how it played out in Eastern Europe, so I won't comment on it. Although we know they were absorbed into the Soviet Union in the end, so I'd say they're at fault in the very end.
Cameron Roberts
Actually, to be fair, the situation then was bad on both sides. These monarchies were set between the Soviets to their immediate East, and the Natsocs who wanted a "greater germany" to their immediate West. So I don't think they would've survived anyway, even if Hitler didn't push into Eastern Europe.
Leo Brooks
I am not referring to Ukraine, Belarus, etc. I am referring to Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, and Yugoslavia. All of these nations had a monarchy (although Hungary was in a regency) prior to the second world war, and afterwards they were communist nations of various colors. Although the national socialists did not directly destroy them they certainly played a role in the collapse of these nations and their subsequent absorption into the Communist Bloc.
I don't dislike or hate Hitler but I would not say he was a friend of Monarchism either.
Carter Reed
I disagree. The Communists were just as expansionist, if not more than Hitler was. They would've been absorbed into the communist bloc with or without Hitler. And, to be fair, most of these nations probably would've done better under Hitler than communism.
Christopher Richardson
Stalin had plans to expand into Europe with or without Hitler. Barbarossa is considered by many to be preemptive for a reason.
Nolan Parker
I'm not arguing Hitler was a friend of monarchism in the slightest, either. I'm simply saying that Fascists, like Franco aren't necessarily the enemies of monarchism either, especially coming out of a republic, like Spain.
Charles Robinson
I feel like many of the arguments for monarchy are actually arguments against democracy, and that for example a meritocractic oligarchy would be superior in all regards. As such assuming for example that I support the latter try sell monachy to me.
Liam Rivera
I might even venture to suggest that historically, a strong leader in the form of a dictator has paved the way for monarchies, like in Rome.
Franco was a more direct instance of this, with him bridging the gap between the Republic, and the restoration of the monarchy.
Ryan Morales
Monarchism was the ideal system for most of human history because it was necessary for military reasons. Not only do we no longer need to structure our military that way, there are in fact better ways to structure it.
Matthew Martinez
Oligarchy tends to always be "rule by the rich."
In fact, I once heard a priest talking about how there's really only two systems of government, monarchy, and oligarchy; rule by one, or rule by the rich.
There can't really be an oligarchy composed of anything but the rich, because money=power, and unless you have a single legitimate ruler, power moves to those who naturally possess it, the rich.
And when people get into power purely because of wealth, and they have to share it with other wealthy people, the state tends to devolve into a vehicle purely for making more money.
Brandon Hughes
Monarchy actually shines in the domestic and social areas more than military.
We rarely discuss the military when talking about the benefits of monarchy. Hell, you could have a militarily successful Republic, like Rome, and have it totally devolve at home, just as Rome did before Caesar.
Anthony Ross
The fact is, virtually all arguments for monarchy focus on an era where monarchies had degenerated to the point that they had little semblance to the ways monarchies had historically worked throughout history. The term monarchy isn't even a good term for the system when it's functioning properly, because the actual point of it is to have the aristocracy rule, because they formed a dedicated military class, having enough money to afford the best arms and armor, horses, and the time needed to train with them. The monarch was the leader of the state because he was the leader of the aristocracy.
Jason Moore
That's not necessarily true. I'd say most monarchist don't see a need for aristocratic rule, like under feudalism. Monarchism in general is purely a system with a single, hereditary ruler. You can delve into specifics, but not all monarchists believe in that kind of a military class.
Brayden Watson
And I'm telling you, this is propaganda from a few (in relative terms) centuries ago, after monarchies clearly didn't offer any kind of distinct military advantage.
Adam Brooks
I mean, most monarchists would support a class that carried aristocratic titles and such, but the world has evolved into such a position that we now need standing armies, and so that can directly managed by the crown in most cases.
Jeremiah Phillips
>a meritocractic oligarchy would be superior in all regards We basically live in an oligarchy today. Great society huh? >b-but it's meritocratic You get that oligarchies are by definition pretty much not meritocratic at all right? You seriously think the richest guys at the top won't build in measures to ensure that only their buddies and whatnot get anywhere near their level? You're naive.
Tyler Thomas
...
Nathan Baker
>I'd say most monarchist don't see a need for aristocratic rule, like under feudalism. Then what you're advocating for is literally a degenerated form of monarchy that existed purely due to monarchs attempting to hold on to their power in the face of drastic change that no longer necessitated the existence of their position. Using the example of Japan, since it's in the OP, there's a reason the shogunate took over in the first place.
Josiah Gonzalez
>dude let's start Larping as white people fuck our culture lmao
John Wright
The purpose of monarchy isn't simply a military advantage lol. You've somehow assumed that and gotten it into your head, and it's not true.
Angel Gomez
>but the world has evolved into such a position that we now need standing armies, and so that can directly managed by the crown in most cases. That's exactly my point though. The whole reason monarchs existed was because it was the best way to do things militarily. Even before feudalism, outside of what were essentially massive bureaucratic empires, the monarch was heavily involved in military affairs and would lead troops in battle.
We live in a republic in danger of becoming an oligarchy. We're not there yet. Actual historic oligarchies were far worse.
Dylan Wilson
>Then what you're advocating for is literally a degenerated form of monarchy that existed purely due to monarchs attempting to hold on to their power in the face of drastic change that no longer necessitated the existence of their position.
False. It's not degenerated at all. There's a difference between a feudal monarchy, absolute monarchy, constitutional monarchy, etc.
If you believe there's no need for a strong, rightful leader in today's world because of some shitty military argument, you're just wrong. Monarchy's benefit is mostly at home, in the home country's society and government.
Anthony Peterson
How would this work for countries who have never had a monarchy? Just say "Guys I'm the king now follow me"?
Hunter Diaz
There's a number of ways. Julius Caesar took over the Roman Republic, proclaimed himself dictator, and then the emperors kept up an act of being republican until about 300 AD or so, when they just started wearing crowns and acting like what they actually were, until 1453.
It mostly involves some variation of a strong leader taking charge for whatever reason you can think of, and then usually establishing an institution for his heirs to continue the strong rule.
Parker Murphy
>We live in a republic in danger of becoming an oligarchy. HAH, oh how I wish. You seriously think your government isn't run by the same cabals and cliques of jews constantly infighting over stupid shit? You seriously think you have a choice over who your next president is and who decides your fate? You seriously think that you live in a country where the best get the job and you can work your way to the top if you go at it hard enough/ Absolutely hilarious.
Logan Price
Feudalism was just a way of structuring it. As I pointed out here:, the nobility was still very clearly the military class, and the monarch absolutely is the leader of the nobility.
Jose Richardson
Win: Japan vs China in 1895 Win: Japan vs Russia in 1905 Win: Japan vs Germany in the Asian side of WW1 Lose: Japan vs America in WW2
OK
Levi Hernandez
What tradition has North Korea abandoned?
Brandon Collins
The monarch wasn't just simply in place for military benefit. The reason the nobility were the military class was because it came out of feudalism, which itself grew out of the European tribal systems from before Rome.
The local nobility would raise their own men from their lands, and lend them to the man they themselves swore fealty to, who would do the same if anyone was above him, etc.
The system wasn't just about military.
David Brown
>meme flag faggot I live in a monarchy and its fucking great. You are really missing out my meme flag nigger mutt but oh FUCK OFF WE ARE FULL! U C K
O F F
t. Danefag inspecting the commie block
Carter Ward
The Senate made him Dictator which mainly concerned military matters.
William Campbell
>You seriously think you have a choice over who your next president is and who decides your fate? >two candidates run >Virtually every oligarchic power in the nation backs one of them >Other candidate wins anyway
Yes Trump was backed by the Koch brothers, but he very obviously was not favored by the establishment.
>You seriously think that you live in a country where the best get the job and you can work your way to the top if you go at it hard enough. The data very clearly indicates that social mobility is higher than it ever has been. People bitch about shit like the 1%/ 1% of the 1%, but the fact is it's very common for rich people to have retarded kids who piss all their money away and fall out of the upper class.
Carson Ward
The senate made him consul way before he took dictator.
You think he gave them a choice about whether or not to declare him dictator? And yes, it very much concerned military matters. In Roman society the military consul controlled the military. It wasn't like feudal Europe.
Jackson Jenkins
>The reason the nobility were the military class was because it came out of feudalism, which itself grew out of the European tribal systems from before Rome. It was literally happening DURING the tribal system, and was happening in other parts of the world as well. Ancient China used to work the same way before they made massive bureaucratic reforms.
Dylan Martin
>tfw your country always has been and forever will be a monarchy
Bentley Lopez
>Yes Trump was backed by the Koch brothers, but he very obviously was not favored by the establishment. /ptg/ fags really are cute, still thinking that le daddy trump is totally not just a neocon kike plant. >People bitch about shit like the 1%/ 1% of the 1%, but the fact is it's very common for rich people to have retarded kids who piss all their money away and fall out of the upper class. Big deal, no one cares. The problem is getting into the 1%, not getting out of it.
Nathan Cox
Rome was much more like modern society than anything. They had a professional military, that was controlled by the Roman government, whoever that happened to be.
They still had need of a dictator to fix their crumbling republic, and then they ditched the republican act and kept their emperors as monarchs.
Nicholas Williams
If you look at it through a Christian angle, the Church has never explicitly claimed what is the best form of government. The Holy See maintains relations with republic and monarchy and other government forms alike provided that they hold legitimate power. That being said, Jesus has revealed monarchy as His form of government, with the universal domain of the Kingdom of God is ruled by Him, Christ the King. Traditionalists see monarchy as part of the picture that has been long since vandalized by modernists.
Kevin Perez
"Heaven is a kingdom. In Hell, all are equal."
Anthony Murphy
No, she will ally with the upcoming UE nation. Brexit only happened cause she wants a bigger piece of the cake.
Tyler Bennett
Being united with South Korea.
Ryder Price
oof
Alexander Moore
Japanese emperor has lost real political power since the 9th century.
Kayden Barnes
Monrarchical titles older than 1000 years should be protected.
Cooper Jackson
this is the BEST monarchist anthem with BEST lyrics. prove me wrong
