How can you justify being a monarchist?

Why do you support nepotistic globalists ruling over you? Plus this Queen threw away our empire and betrayed Rhodesians. Cromwell did nothing wrong.

Why do you prefer the masses ruling over you, to whatever degree their ideas are not controlled by another (unelected) elite? The queen did not throw anything anyway, she was defeated.

Cromwell literally let the jews back in, dipshit. He doomed your nation. Puritanism is the father of progressivism.

Also, democracy is fucking stupid. It doesn't lead to good governance.

Greetings and salutations comrade.
Watched anything good on RT today?

Thiiiiiis.

Yeah, let's go back to monarchical societies so royalty gets into major autism fights like WW1.

Monarchies only exist with the consent of the people. If a Monarchy is unpopular the people can vote them out by the sword.

Government only works when there is a healthy fear of uprising. Democracy seeks to eliminate the role of armed revolution in nation building. They believe that if you have a vote every so many years people will not bother to revolt and instead wait out the next election cycle.

Democracy castrates a nation. It makes people believe they don't need arms for use against their government

WW1 was literally fought to destroy those monarchies and nobility across Europe (focusing on russia). They weren't the aggressors ,it's your precious progressive liberalism that has picked a fight with every trace of traditionalism the west had.

>i just want to be ruled senpaaiii
>monarchists, fascists

>i just want to be ((((free)))) senpaiii
>commies, libertarians. capitalists

>i just want to be free but still be a part of a crew
>syndicalists

>i just want to be free of it all
>isolationist anarchists, suicide

better than the democratic autism fight that was WW2

That was specifically German butthurt

So the USA has always been some progressive nation with no traditionalist ideologies? Our nation was founded on the idea that some inbred family and feudalism is a retarded idea as the landowning and educated class can make their own decisions. The original setup was a solid idea.

Yes your country was founded on progressive liberalism and democracy, even though the constitutional republic side tried its best to curb democratic power. You were also christian, but this tradition was not solidified in the constitution enough to be safe from Progress. I get that you believe in your founding and dislike european tradition, but you are only turning the clock back a few hundred years. During your and the french revolution the nobility was already engaged in a civil war. It's very burger of you to dismiss all our previous philosophy of law and governments as inbred families and feudalism. Classical liberalism isn't very traditional.

the nazis were not the aggressors, read churchill.

Yes. The first Whig was the devil.

>feudalism
Feudalism was long-dead by then. If the original setup was such a solid idea, why did it become what it is today?

Note that prior to WW2, anti-Americanism was mostly from the right.

Parliament is a sham. Absolute monarchy is for real change.

Tíocfaidh ár lá, mo namhaid donn.....

yeah we should throw away a thousand years of tradition in favour of a mcpresident or a mcsenate

mr. language teacher moldbug over here. Do you like his plan of electing a monarch like a CEO after establishing ownership of stocks in a country? I think his economics does not mesh well with his ideas about royalty because a country's (cultural) capital can't be reduced to property, and his libertarianism does not allow for anything non-economic.

I don’t speak potato nogish (and neither does most of Ireland because they got ANGLO’D lmao)

I don't believe in blood rule

I believe in a mertiocracy, where only the best people rule

How do you build a meritocracy for governance fren? This problem is thousands of years old.

Nah, I think Moldbug is better in his diagnosis than his solutions. I think a hereditary absolute monarchy would be just fine.

(((best)))

I'm not, fuck them leeches.
They are the ultimate fuck you to democracy, the working class and an insult to this country.
Not to mention the rife paedophilia that they are involved in.
Britain needs to be an armed republic.

I'm a monarchist. Democracy causes division and stagnation in terms of politics. A society who accepts their ruler, who is taught and trained for all their youth for the role, is better off. Due to the rising consciousness of the populace, they believe they aren't free because they can't vote, which is absurd. You could have every freedom, such as the right to speak freely and do whatever you want with your life, but simply because you aren't able to vote for who rules over you makes you akin to a prisoner? That's insane.

So many fucking Cavalier shills in this thread.
Hang the King.
Long Parliament forever.
Beat the Irish so hard half of em will love you forever.
All you non-Puritan boy loving papists who can't into Empire can fuck right off.
If you only spread across the globe as cheap refugee labour then you're really just a nigger ain't you.

Fair enough, but then we're back to the problem of establishing such a thing. I think he wanted to take a shot at designing a realistic coup built on an economic model like the east-indian trading company. Monarchies were inseparable from nobility and the culture that supports them, but mencius would settle for something like how india was ruled by western elites to secure profits. It seems to me that this would fail because it does not cover the relationship between governers and governed. He fills the hole with his formalism of force, and assumes culture can flourish under minimal rule. I'm not sure that's really how things work.

But how do you get society to accept such a ruler and not start french/commie revolutions all the time? If it requires everyone to believe in monarchy as per some democratic fiction, then is it really a monarchy?

>>>Britain needs to be an armed republic.
Yes, true,
But the british republic would not last long.
The whole isles will balkanize ( without the violence that would follow)
Republic of wales
Republic of cornwall
Republic of england
Republic of (if there is strong enough nationalist sentiment such that they do not want to reunify with the irish republic) Ulster. Aka northern. Ireland
Republic of orkney
Republic of the shetland isles.
And lastly, republic of Scotland.

But there are labour MPs in westminister who are republicans. But they are the type of shitheads who are also for mass immigration to the uk from islamic hellholes.

Best to call for a republic, when the liberal disease plaguing the western world disappears.

The problem came about due to the decreasing religiousness of the people. When they believe someone is ordained by GOD they're reluctant to rebel. Most if not all rebellions prior to Cromwell by the lower classes were against men who made his council because it was an affront to God and treason to blame the king directly. Don't forget, one of the most prominent revolutions of the 20th century, the October revolution, would not have been possible if Kerensky were not an idiot and armed the Bolsheviks in the first place to fight Kornilov as well as freeing all the Bolshevik prisoners. Although in the modern era to prevent revolutions, you'd have to have some sort of autonomy, perhaps - as contradictory as it sounds - a libertarian monarchy. Instead of allowing aristocrats to rule over swathes of land, have local elections for ducal positions who are then directly controlled by the monarch. For people to be content under a monarch in the modern era you'd have to make the people content. The easiest way to do that is lower taxes, but you could make up for it in other ways I suppose.

The queen is a figurehead she cannot interfere in government. The bastards responsible for some of that shit that happened was the friggin labour party.

To reiterate, the October revolution would not have been possible if Kerensky has not armed them. According to the election of the 1921 constituent assembly, the majority of people were not even behind the Bolsheviks.

>The problem came about due to the decreasing religiousness of the people.
I couldn't agree more. The history of the fall of European nobility is full of religious wars after the reformation. I'm not sure I understand your point about the Bolshevik revolution though, since the fact that they were armed by outsiders is something all revolutions since the French have had in common. I mean it's even a meme here that the Russian revolution was basically started by jews and supported by some westerners.
>For people to be content under a monarch in the modern era you'd have to make the people content.
True, but I think if you look at how monarchies kept power you also need to include some sort of anti-revolutionary suppression. This might be both force and an official church, but somehow you have to account for this "decreasing religiousness" that enabled such revolutionary violence. I don't doubt that a modern monarchy would not have high taxes, but this seems insufficient to deal with why people start revolutions.

Monarchies create a more stable political system, with a clear head of state that does not get replaced every few years, and is a homage to tradition, national pride and loyalty. If a monarch has powers to dissolve the parliament, he or she can block any attempt by elitist politicians to push through legislation which would be harmful to either the nation or the people. Having a monarch and a royal house is also a way of unifying the country across political positions and for the people to come together under a ceremonial figure.

The problem with suppression is that motivates anti-monarchist sentiment, unfortunately, but again, not doing so does as well. Tsar Alexander the 2nd was assassinated by the very people he helped free from serfdom. So you'd have to strike a balance I suppose. I mention the Bolshevik because the Jew armament is partially just a meme. They received a lot of financial backing from Jews, yes, but I place more of the blame on Kerensky for arming them in the first place over paranoia of Kornilov. To get back to the point, whilst I'm not particularly religious myself, it's a shame that it degraded so. I believe that one of the major boons to preventing revolution is simply the absolute authority of the monarch. If the king were to learn foreign forces were actively trying to cause his downfall, he could simply ban them entirely. Goldman Sachs, Rothschilds, minority groups. To bring up Russia again, in order arrest dissidence without causing a stir, the Okhrana would fabricate evidence or prompt the suspect into getting arrested. Slower, yes, but less likely to cause outrage. In theory, though, it should be possible to decrease taxes. Fewer government agencies and workers mean fewer wages being paid. I'm not one of the people who believe in violent suppression, its short-sighted, and most of the turbo-fascists on here don't realise it's a perfect cause for getting you outed or killed by the very people who got you into power in the first place.

But if you don't believe in violent suppression, what does this "absolute authority" of the monarch mean? In reactionary and materialistic terms it is absolutely the monopoly on force, possibly to the point where revolutions are pre-empted by being impossible. But the separation of church and state is a decidedly modern liberal invention, and none of the old monarchies had that problem. If the decreasing religiousness is an instigating factor, then which came first? And why would we able to do without this time around? I don't understand what you mean with your aversion to violent suppression, since the alternative is violent revolution by definition. Either that or "mind control" (since you're atheistic).

To wit: why does it matter that Kerensky armed the Bolsheviks? What would the king have done in such a case? If you say "prevent it in the first place" then you might have a hard time describing how that's done without using either "violence" or "suppression". I think we're having a communication issue where I'm not sure how you picture the king's absolute authority. Ideally you don't want to suppress anything, but without at least the threat of violence, what's stopping revolutionaries? Suppressing revolutions has worked countless times in the past.

The matter of the fact is in a modern society the monarch will always be questioned. If we examine the presidency of Trump thus far, people scrutinize every little thing he does to motivate people to oppose him. If a monarch does things don't incur opposition to arise, then sentiment to overthrow him will be minuscule. It's about keeping those who oppose him in the minority. When I say I'm aversed to violent suppression, I mean arresting every single dissident. If someone's intention is violent, then I do believe they should be arrested. As for the separation of Church and state, therefore not giving the monarch religious authority, it'd be incredibly easy to manipulate the idea. For instance, it sounds better to the ear that the Monarch's authority comes from the people. It sounds more humbling that way. Besides, I'd rather people than the modern Church of England giving the monarch authority, as the Anglican church in its current state is an abomination. I'm not religious, but I believe the Christianity and its beliefs should be respected. Condoning homosexuality and female Bishops is hypocrisy to the beliefs of Christianity, hence why I dislike the current Pope as well.

To respond to your other question, Nicholas the 2nd's abdication was his solution to prevent revolution. He inevitably would have come back as a constitutional monarch, as much of the current cabinet were monarchists themselves. In this instance, it would have been preferable to use violence to suppress the Bolsheviks, however, there was a war going on. To tell the soldiers they were coming home to kill Russians who wanted to free them from the tyranny of the tsar would've have done more harm than good. It was a lose-lose situation, unfortunately. Russia mistake was joining the war in the first place, the second was Nicholas going to the front lines (which might've risen Tsarist sentiment if he subsequently won the war, but that was impossible. )

Monarchy is better than democracy when you have a good king

Monarchy is better than democracy full stop. Democracy, even if the voted leader is a good, is a hub for corruption and selfishness. A man would vote against a good policy if his party were not responsible for it, or vote against it if he disliked the person who proposed it. A king is so wealthy he wouldn't be swayed by corporation backers, and would only want for the betterment of his country. In fact, the benefit of having a billionaire as president is that he can't be swayed by money.