The only anti-degeneracy is /TDE/, The Dark Enlightement. The only way out is to roll back 250 years of Western history, no Stalin, no Hitler, no Washington, no Robespierre.
Nick Land and @wrathofgnon is the way out. Neomonarchism is the key, Dark Enlightement is the light.
...
>monarchy
Ultimate cuckoldry. "Who needs agency when we could have sime inbred tell us what to do?"
BUILD
THAT
WALL
America was birthed in leftism by violent criminals and will literally never have or understand the concept of royalty or order at all. You are destined to collapse into the sea clutching your false enlightenment nonsense.
Would you rather have a mob of inbreds tell you what to do?
How would you choose a monarch though?
>understand the concept of royalty
What's there to understand? You want to worship some retard and have him tell you what to do so you don't have to think because responsibility is hard. Its not complicated.
You just pick any dipshit off the street. No, this is seriously what they say, that the king doesnt matter, its having a king that's important.
If you "choose" a monarch, then you are the monarch. Anyone who has the power to dismiss or select a monarch is the true monarch.
yes because the best of us are just some retards deserving of no more respect than a peasant covered in shit wearing a potato sack
monarch is the embodiment of the spirit of the people.
everything else is just powerful interests playing you like a pawn, all modernity, all enlightement is just a farce.
A monarch is essentially a landlord, so you'd be choosing your monarch by writing up a contract with him (or an agent), moving onto his property, and paying rent.
>You want to worship some retard and have him tell you what to do
Kings are not dictators.
>so you don't have to think because responsibility is hard
When you have a population whose majority does not know how to properly manage land and resources, why would you put that entire population in charge of its land and resources?
>unironically supporting Aurini's bullshit
But how do you guarantee that the monarch isn't one of those "inbred retards"?
So why wouldn't it be better to restrict voting rights rather than putting all your faith in one guy who's bound to act in his own interest? Neocameralism is fine by me, but monarchies would need to be small and competitive to keep up the quality of government.
>the best of us
That's not kings.
>monarch is the embodiment of the spirit of the people.
How blindly idealistic can you get? A monarch loves the people like a rancher loves his cows. They're mildly valuable alive so he doesn't slaughter them all immediately. They don't give a shit about the citizenry. They don't have any connection with the citizenry, they have more connection with a foreign noble than a peasant.
>Kings are not dictators
Yes, they are.
>When you have a population whose majority does not know how to properly manage land and resources, why would you put that entire population in charge of its land and resources
Why do you think you and everyone else are too braindead for personal responsibility but one man won't be? What will be special about him that he'll be the one non-retatd among us?
see
That's just idealistic, self-hating bollocks.
and just who are you espousing for the "Monarchy"
Anarchy, for the enlightened, means the period of chaos between two established Orders.
Monarchy is the established Order.
Your entire post stinks of the same degenerate anarchism behind the original enlightenment.
If vomit is light.. a thousand rats vomiting down everyone's throats isn't enlightenment to anyone other than those drowning in it.
Fuck Mormons.
Read up on the guy before you move to his land.
>restricting voting rights
I'm not opposed to limited democracy. Hans-Adam II has expressed approval of it in some form. The thing is you have to be careful with it and only use it for matters on which all voters are experts. Voting on a medicine-related move without a majority doctor population would be silly, but voting on replacing the monarch would probably be fine.
>monarchies would need to be small and competitive to keep up the quality of government.
See pic related. I also recommend his full lecture, "What Must Be Done".
>Yes, they are.
Kings do not have cults of personality, and kings do not give willy-nilly self-serving orders (not if they want to prosper, at least).
>Why do you think you and everyone else are too braindead for personal responsibility but one man won't be? What will be special about him that he'll be the one non-retatd among us?
The king, being a landlord, should be somewhat knowledgeable about the management of land and resources. If he isn't, vote with your feet and move to another domain.
Contrast this with today's world, where all the idiots in a giant swath of territory can vote on issues like medicine, natural resources, and manufacturing regulations with zero expertise on any of those matters. I'm arguing for a meritocracy, or expertocracy, if you will. The king should be someone who knows about managing land, and he should appoint appropriately expert ministers to assist him on matters like finance, medicine, roads, manufacturing, agriculture, etc., rather than having publicly elected snakes who succeed by playing to the camera.
But how do you guarantee that the peasants don't vote for someone who is terrible??!?!?!? Democracy BTFO!
>>the best of us
>That's not kings.
aristocracy is defined as rule by the best. i hope you can overcome your american propaganda about democracy being in any way not shitty
you are a literal cuck. monarchists are 100% cuckolds and should be gassed along with the lefties
the usa isn't a democracy you subhuman inbred yurokike. the world is shit today exactly because it's no longer a meritocracy, but the world being controlled by a few families. we're already living in the world you so want. yuropoors were a mistake
Elective monarchy by the heads of noble houses that have remained pure in heritage and culture.
please kill yourself, cuck
>the usa isn't a democracy you subhuman inbred yurokike
this is tragically indoctrinated democracy believer speak for "the usa isn't democratic enough!" you fucking niggers live in a fantasy disney land nation constantly telling you democracy actually works and is good. the iron law of oligarchy always holds as you rightly point out, but democracy enshadows and hides them behind layers of impenetrable bureacracy whereas monarchy exalts them and GLORIFIES and DEIFIES them and fucking ELEVATES THEM TO THE HEAVENS!
>Voting on a medicine-related move without a majority doctor population would be silly
If people are actually invested in their country they'd seek to improve its value regardless so you could expect people to get informed before voting or abstaining if they don't.
>voting on replacing the monarch
That's pretty much what neocameralism is. Shareholders vote to replace a CEO. A monarch isn't really a monarch if he can be deposed with a vote.
>noble houses that have remained pure in heritage and culture.
show me one of those kek
>But how do you guarantee that the peasants don't vote for someone who is terrible??!?!?!
you don't, but at least it's the people's favourite leader, and can be cast aside after a 4-year term.
in a monarchy this terrible person rules because he's born this way, and does so for a lifetime.
>If people are actually invested in their country they'd seek to improve its value regardless so you could expect people to get informed before voting or abstaining if they don't.
I wish that was how people behaved, but sadly it's not. In any republic, where the government is a wholly public affair, the people are more likely to go with what sounds good, rather than what is good. Plenty of people are completely uneducated on gun safety, yet so many of them vote on gun control legislation. We need to restrict leading offices to experts and keep out the demagogues.
>neocameralism
Huh, that sounds interesting. I'll read up on it. Where did you learn about it?
Also, semantically speaking, a monarch's still a monarch if he's the single head of state, neocameralism just seems like an alternative to divine right or dynastic rule.
Ok, so let me explain the problem with capitalism: everything is about money/capital.
Literally every government system works if this is controlled, so that you can have parallel systems of values. If you have academia as one hierarchical, church as another, a guild system as another, unions as another, writer/artist/etc. societies as another, and so on, and they perform their proper roles in society and aren't just swayed by capital, everything runs pretty much alright for the normal average person, because there are multiple aspects of life or venues if you will where he can get some worth as a person, according to his abilities, interests, character, etc.
When you reduce everything to one single figure, you fucked up, and you need a reboot.
>yet so many of them vote on gun control
You're too used to how people vote in democracies with universal suffrage. Plebs wouldn't vote with this system or their power would be reduced.
>Where did you learn about it?
Moldbug. Wouldn't be my preferred system of government I think but it's on topic.
>neocameralism just seems like an alternative to divine right or dynastic rule
It's basically the stock market applied to government. If you think the free market is good at finding solutions you can just imitate how companies are run. So on the market the most successful are small companies with a single owner (monarchies) and big public companies with shareholders (limited democracy). That's the one argument anyway.