Thread for the discussion of monarchism, feudalism, heredity, royal families, state religion, tradition, absolutism, nobility and history of monarchies.
> what is monarchism
We want kings to rule over the world. Europe and America have fallen apart under constitutionalism, republicanism and democracy and it's time to return to the old ways.
Constitutionalists, republicans, fags, theocrats, communists, socialists, national socialists, liberals, and anti-monarchist fascists ARE NOT ALLOWED.
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
youtube.com
twitter.com
I guess it depends on the Monarchy. Under kings, mighty kingdoms have risen.
...
we want KANGZ to rule over the world
because you know :DDD
it's so smart when KANG's son becomes new KANG just because they are relatives :DDDd
KANG's son may be complete fucking dumbass :DD but he's KANG's SON after all...
Society abandoned God,there is no way monarchy will work
Stop larping
I wonder if this is what republicans sounded like in monarchy times?
>had good king
>ended up killing him and his family
>30 year gap with the west becomes 50 year gap
>Stolypins reforms set to make Russia an agricultural power are reversed
>lose all rights
>two of your worst famines in just over a decade
>can't religion
>can't free speech
>can't own a home for almost a century
>but none of it matters because all you heard was anti-Tsar propaganda the entire time
Really makes you think.
>good king
>Nicholas II
simbly ebic
Explain how he wasn't, because so far I'm using evidence. How is he worse than any single point in the next century that came after?
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
Nicholas II was pile of fucking trash who spent his time writing in diary like a little girl while Russia was fucked in WW1
He did NOTHING to prevent revolution
I disagree with execution of entire family but Nicholas deserved death
By the way in modern day Russia he's often called Tsar-rug(in Russian language rug can mean wimp)
I've heard Brazil and Serbia have strong monarchist movements.
It might be good for the morale of those countries.
Cuck nat-soc manlet bows before superior monarchist
Also: who, statistically, would be a better ruler? Someone groomed from birth to rule, or someone who decided to run for office in their 40s? The choice is obvious
just die
Nicholas was a limp-wrist cuck that allowed a charlatan like Rasputin to seduce his wife and just looked on while his people were dying for him in droves in a useless war, and then refused to do anything about the widespread poverty and famine in the country. He was useless, more useless than modern politicians and that's saying a lot.
...
Monarchism is the ultimate redpill
LOTR is a thesis on the defense of monarchism
>King is gone, everything is shit
>King is back, everything is fine
Bump
How could America have a monarchist movement? How would we legistically decide who would be the new line?
Lol sounds like he's actually cultured unlike you retarded slav cunts who act like niggers. You are seriously insulting him for writing in a diary, instead of drinking vodka and getting into fights.
Options:
1.) Let God decide
2.) Return to the British line (pah)
3.) Trial by combat (God decides)
4.) Let it become apparent during the movement (God decides)
Bottom line is, only a king can lead us into the light and evict the Jew. A monarchy would protect currency, media, law, etc. everything the Jew currently controls. They only took power once we (the men of the west) gave up the monarchy
What about the Trump family? I think Baron has potential
I am generally sympathetic to the idea, but it is too far away from our current political standpoint to directly implement.
The old aristocracies are scattered in the wind.
Monarchism is just advanced form of cuckery/LARPing.
This
>no faith
>no loyalty
>no cause
>no identity
Sad
...
>screenshotting a picture
>not downloading instead
>not cropping
Anyways, monarchy is the best because it is modeled from heavens whereby hierarchy is enforced.
You can have all those without being a slave to inbred retards.
try to actually read his pussy ass diaries, dumbass abo
I feel that we would need a massive religious revival or a totally new religion to take root for the movement to take off. How could that happen? Where? When? I just feel hopeless for the west unless a new king comes
I think a lot of people have a very negative view of monarchy because of what they are taught in school. Life in the middle ages was not very bad, and most of the problems were not due to monarchy. The kings were raised from birth to be good rulers, and the bad rulers were usually those who did not go through this training.
>absolutism
>Constitutionalists not welcome
The English monarchy has always been constitutional. Don't get me wrong the modern monarchy is cucked but it isn't constitutional its a democratic monarchy. The English monarchs have always been restricted by the rights of Englishmen and the rule of law, the several exceptions have always been merely criminals.
Why would I want to support monarchy over a meritocratic oligarchy?
My asshole serves daddy Hitler only, the true alpha male
GOD IS KING.
HIS SON'S NAME IS JESUS CHRIST.youtube.com
MERRY CHRISTMAS
the answer is:
the mighty down-to-earth warrior who was willing to lay his own life on the line for the people he strives to protect, managing to take out enemies numbering in the hundreds while leading his fellow warriors to victory in battle - earning the title of King in the process
5) Trial by chess
That depends. What is the end goal? I often wonder why, in nations like Japan with a declining population, it is often taught in schools as if this were a bad thing. Why is the end goal always growth, expansion, consumption. Why is advancement always, without exception, viewed as "good"? We have things like global warming, but obviously we must grow, etc. Why can we not, for simplicity's sake, simply exist, in harmony, and regulate ourselves. Monarchy, more specifically feudalism, would mitigate much of the effects of greed on our society. Simply work, and enjoy your friends and family, and God. Simple. Meritocracy serves the purpose of advancement, if that is all you care for. It is just a matter of perspective.
key, bad idea
*kek, fuck
Dynastic circlejerks are kind of a bad idea. Isn't most of the even modern European royalty also suffering from hereditary diseases and danger of repeated cousinfucking that pretty much forces them to marry outside their noble status?
You can argue that bad kings are always short term planners
>Someone groomed from birth to rule
Does not prevent complete fuckups. Take the Roman emperor Commodus, for example. Complete disaster who pretty much set the Roman empire on a steady road of ruin, even though his father was the philosopher emperor Marcus Aurelius who even took his son to war with him to keep him educated and enlightened.
But no, Commodus abandoned the ideas of progress and long term Roman security through military supremacy over barbarians (his father died before finishing the job of completely subjugating barbarian tribes bordering the empire), and was more interested in hedonism and gladiators.
Those who refuse to advance will be consumed by those that do.
Having Habsburgs was a mistake.
Having Bourbons was a mistake.
Being a Republic was a mistake.
Letting the Trastámara dinasty was the ultimate mistake
>Spain will never have a second Alfonso X
So the king protects the people. That's the whole point. Say for example, if America just stopped competing with China, what would happen? They would grow...but for how long? Then what? As I see, competitiveness just begets competitiveness. What's the point?
Historically stronger nations have always subjugated weaker ones. You don’t want to be subjugated do you?
What's that from?
Define "strong". The norks have a bigger army than your nation, for example, and are you subjugated? The USA has a bigger economy than you, and are you subjugated? I could go on
...
Finland belongs to the western sphere which prevents us from being subjugated by some nations. Our economy and culture are however very much US led.
You are all out of your minds.
>not subjugated
>belongs
so what protects you?
guess who's not invited to the feasts anymore
Why?
It's not about whether advancement is viewed as "good" but a democratic idea of advancement is a very short term one. 9 people out of 10 just want to accumulate wealth so they can have an easy carefree life and get fat. All that democracy can ever accomplish is to take challenge and responsibility out of people's lives, which in turn gradually weakens a population to a breaking point. Democracies always gradually shift to the left, and towards hedonism and personal irresponsibility, and there's nothing that can be done about it. It's like a natural law, if life becomes too easy people get self destructive, look at the whole "white guilt" bullshit, it's peak ridiculousness. It's not that Monarchism would cure all this, but at least the process is somewhat slowed down (compare an average monarch's reign to an election cycle), and instead of providing theatrics to blind manipulable masses full of primal greed you have political incentive that is educated, well brought up, and actually interested in considering these things.
Well said
Borrow from another I would have said in the past but many are cucked, I guess maybe Luxembourg's royals might be alright.
So would we just phone them up and ask them to be in charge? Basically I'm wondering how this could be a political movement when you kind of can't have a "grassroots" monarchist movement until you decide who the line is, and you can't have someone who's best be in charge when the movement is small
...
Bump
monarchism is the final red pill
bump, and proposal for regular monarchy generals
Anarchists-monarchism. It combines the best of fascism, Marxism, anarchy, libertarianism, etc and btfo the (((democracy))). Truly the ultimate redpill
>anarcho-monarchism