Monarchism

A while back i read a article about how the Olympics, and related woes (2016) could spark the return of the monarch of Brazil, which a majority supported, or something along those lines. Is anyone here a monarchist? What kind of a monarchy do you support?

Other urls found in this thread:

goalsys.com/books/documents/DESTRUCTION_AND_CREATION.pdf
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

AVE IMPERIO

DEUS VULT

>read an article
>and yet not POSTING the article

Hair to the Russian throne lives in Brazil, one of the daughters lived and no not that crap story going around.. She lived, married 5 children and so on!

>Is anyone here a monarchist? What kind of a monarchy do you support?
Monarchist here, tend to support a hereditary semi-absolutist monarchy. AMA.

Or you could just explain yourself and not use a Reddit phrase.

Seconded.
By semi-absolutist, do you mean a constitution?

There should be houses with seneschals that promote their own candidates and form an electorate that selects a duke to become archduke for life. Constitutional of course. Wouldn't necessarily need to remove the checks and balances most western countries employ.

>return of the monarch of Brazil,
Arent grug cartels already factual monarchy in there?
>What kind of a monarchy do you support
The monarchy is only good if I'm the king

What are some kino films that are pro monarchism?

>AMA
What's your favorite size of black dicks?

fyi AMA came from Sup Forums originally, in the old days there actually used to be some good threads made by notable people.
But I guess it got co-opted by reddit in recent years, just like every other good thing from here...

Returning the Habsburg to the Hungarian and Austrian throne thus uniting the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

Mate I had some liquor and it's pretty late here, ask a question or fuck off.
More like, if there is a constitution it should be set in stone and absolutely unchangeable. Most European monarchies have been cucked by the fact there is no constitution (which could easily transition them to a republic if they aren't being good goys) or the constitution is changeable enough or has made them weak enough that the same threat still applies.
I don't think the King should rule entirely on his own, but I sure as fuck don't want a parliament to be able to hold him hostage and fuck him up. I think something like the king having 1/3rd of the vote on any issue and the ability to propose and veto legislation could be a good idea.

>could spark the return of the monarch of Brazil
Which claimant do you support?

Why would the Austrians want that millstone now?

History, rightful clay of Austria, one of the biggest countries against refugees inside the eu, and Austria needs more monarch/fascist support that Hungary can provide. Plus get to remove kebab with Serbia.

In a sense I support Mosley's idea of a return of the importance of the king whilst maintaining a subordinate republic.

Rather than voting for a career politician, every man votes according to his occupation. Every carpenter in the nation votes for an experienced carpenter to go to Parlaiment and represent the interests of the nation's Carpenters. All bankers vote for a well respected banker to go represent the interests of the nation's banks. If we're being honest, most people who vote in today's system don't educate themselves before they vote which means we get shitty representatives all the time. If we voted based on occupation everyone would be educated on the candidates and their platforms because educating yourself on politics is optional but educating yourself on your occupation is not. Campaigns are funded by each particular occupations trade union so every man, no matter his birth, has an equal opportunity to go to Parlaiment. This also eliminates the need for career politicians who are an unproductive leach on society.

The king would act as the permanent president of Parlaiment, presiding over it for his whole reign as well as head foreign affairs.

>More like, if there is a constitution it should be set in stone and absolutely unchangeable
True. But then it shouldn't be some huge, all encompassing thing either. Just a couple of points mostly pertaining to what the monarch should do, and when it's acceptable to give them a French haircut.
>I don't think the King should rule entirely on his own
He could, though. Like, it'd be a more libertarian style of government, in which the king covers the broad strokes of the country as a whole (with perhaps a council of advisors/analysts for particular areas), and leaves the rest up to the people. Maybe have tiers of government (ie, regional dukes, down to city councils) which can be reasonably autonomous.

>History, rightful clay of Austria
Only recently. An alliance would be better for both.

>Rather than voting for a career politician
Yea, i love that idea. But only as an advisor. But i still haven't thought of a way to have it not get abused the way all elections do.

Good Old Mosley

Reminder that the old monarchs were massive faggots who killed half their young male population every 20 years in horrible wars because they didn't like the other noble's table manners

>But i still haven't thought of a way to have it not get abused the way all elections do.
So long as there are elections there will be men to rig them, that's just the way it is. A surefire fix would be to do away with elections entirely an announce an absolute monarchy but the chances of that happening are second to none. We will never achieve our ideal governments in our time, but we can reform them as to set them on the right path. Eliminating career politicians is the first step.

You seem to be thinking of the 19th and 20th century, where there were far fewer monarchs.

>So long as there are elections there will be men to rig them, that's just the way it is.
Agreed. Term limits can still be a problem due to pilfering. But having industry advisors as a title doesn't seem right either.

And democratic/fascist/communist states have done no such thing, right? Lmao.

Zulu, Lawrence of Arabia.

look at this

Term limits are a meme. They're designed to create a balance in representation but what they really do is pull good men who are doing good out of power and replace them with evil men who plan to do bad. Term limits shouldn't exist, if a representative does good, let him stay. If he does bad, let those of his industry vote to pull the plug. That's real democracy.

...

>Implying war is wrong
The battlefield is where boys become men. The battlefield is where lifelong friendships are forged never to be broken. Surviving almost certain death is what gives you drive to live. There is nothing wrong with war, it makes strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. Weak men create bad times, as we see today. Weak men all across the West because they've never even picked up a weapon.

Yea, that's what i mean. I want to eliminate career politicians, but then it's hard to get it happening in such a way that works. Unless they were life time appointments?
Or hell, like the Papacy, where the one who wanted it least would get it. Of course, that led to a Pope making abdication possible...

Capitalism > monarchism

...

I support a Jebocracy.

They aren't mutually exclusive, dude.

Why not both?

Capitalism is an economic system, monarchism is a means of governance. A country can be both capitalistic and monarchistic at the same time. The two are incomparable and attempting to do so is idiotic.

They are.
Capitalism is constitutional.
Monarchism is anarchic.

Why didn't we clap?

Capitalism is also about governance.
There are rules that dictate the concentration of ressources.
Meanwhile in monarchism, the concentration of resources is anarchical

Imperialism is totalitarian.
It's also shit.

Anarchical? Hardly. It is the King's decision as to who becomes part of the wealthy aristocracy and who does not. That's not anarchy.

Did you just hit the auto-predict button or something? Because that's gibberish.

>Capitalism is also about governance.
Well, no. It just means that business is owned by individuals, as opposed to the state. So it refers to economics as opposed to government leaders.
>Meanwhile in monarchism, the concentration of resources is anarchical
Yea see, that's flat out wrong, as well as stupid.

>french "education"

That's anarchy you nigger degenerate. The rule decide from one day to another that he wants to change who gets what he can

>American "education"

Ruler*

Are professional retard or just an aspiring amateur?

Anarchy means "without rulers." It doesn't necessarily dictate the economic style.

i'm not really a monarchist but i support an anglo monarchy for britain.
i just think their current government is such shit and needs to be overthrown by a nationalistic homegrown king. their satanic royal family should be exposed and killed and a righteous ruler should take the thrown and expose (and purge) the vipers that rule the country.

I'm a monarchist.
It's just better than democracy.
Read Hoppe, he really represents my views very well.

Just use your brain faggot. Suppose I'm a monarch, If I decide one day that your car should be given to Bob because I said so isn't it fucking anarchy?

Constitutional Monarchies can have private property laws yo.

No. No it's not anarchy because you're still a ruler. Anarchies have NO rulers. Are you seriously having a hard time understanding this? If anything, what you're describing is totality which is the opposite of anarchy.

not being a monarchist is pleb tier

No? Like, in no way is that even remotely anarchy. Especially since it's the action of a monarch.

based hungarian

>Last Anglo monarch was over 500 years ago though?

Bitches need to read Bagehot's English Constitution before they post more dumb shit.

Jesus Christ, it really picked up after the decline of monarchical power following the French Revolution, didn't it?
Also, think about which of those wars had drafts.

It's not a question of this or that governmental system. The underlying principle is the notion of Rule. In a given human society there will always be one person who has the power, who has Rule, who commands others. This person, if there are no legal restrictions, has complete and total power. He even decides who will replace him. But there could be laws in place, in that case the ruler is not supreme.

So there are really only two systems: Absolute rule (King decides over everything) or a Republic. Republic means Res publica (public thing), which means that who should rule society is a matter of public discussion.

In a proper monarchy, it is not a matter of discussion, and Rule always has a martial element.

So it dictates the only possible perameters within which a constitutional monarchy can operate?
>Sure
>Not an argument

anarchy
a state of disorder due to absence or non-recognition of authority or other controlling systems.
You're a retard.

No it merely provides one example. A lot of "debate" in this thread is a shouting match between strawmen. The choice isn't between ancapistan and an absolute monarch. Dipshit monarchs certainly exist, but the institution of the monarchy can be solid even when the monarch himself isn't.

All the disorder in a system must in the end contribute to the final order of that system. So, to propose and promote Anarchy is retarded to say the least. You are not proposing a system, but rather change for the sake of change. Not change for the better or for worse.

Take a box of different colored marbles for example. They are arranged in a certain way, this is the order of the system. If you promote Anarchy, that means you promote a moving around of the marbles, so you shake the box. But you have to eventually stop shaking the box, the marbles will then settle into a new position (the new order of the system). The end result of the disorder (shaking) was the new order (the way the marbles are arranged.)

>ancapistan and an absolute monarch
Many Ancaps are monarchists.
Anarcho-Capitalism isn't a political system, but a philosophy. Monarchism is the political system, and it's a very good one, which is why many Ancaps are monarchists.

You're preaching to the choir.

I'm ok with this, i just want to vent my autism.

>What kind of a monarchy do you support?

Disorder is inevitable, but reordering isn't. You should read this Sven. I think you would like it.

goalsys.com/books/documents/DESTRUCTION_AND_CREATION.pdf
It's 1976 paper by America's greatest military theorist on the subject.

Lmaooo that's why your sitting here on a twaniese knitting forum and not out "forging friendships"
Shut the fuck up

VIVE
LE
ROI

MORT A LA GUEUSE

This is not what anarchists propose and you’re retarded

The whole point of a monarchy in France would be to get rid of capitalistic degeneracy and to recreate the catholic social order that existed in the middle ages, to basicall get rid of individualism.

What an absolute shitpost. Complete lack of any argument. Please move to Denmark.

>recreate the catholic social order that existed in the middle ages
Which was itself very capitalistic? M8, you have an odd sense of nostalgia.

Tell me what you think anarchism is in your clearest definition and then tell me what’s wrong with it, and I’ll argue that instead of your shitty analogies

I would rather have shitty kings than the modern democratic practice.

All I see is the western world drift without a unified vision or anything, it just exists without a goal, an end or a means.

That's why people live for pathetic things like sex and drugs, there's so little meaning to everything because of the lack of goals.

A king would help unify the countries lead by them and give them a goal and a vision to work towards, to support your king and your fellow man together as one, as a whole entity. There wouldn't be much bickering of useless political parties, just a vision.

It was not capitalistic at all you fucking retard, that's why the capitalists (who led the revolution) destroyed the Church in France

People couldn't work a job if they weren't in a corporation (basically people who work in the same branch who regroup and regulate their job, and people outside of that corporation couldn't do their work)

The sale of grain was heavily regulated (it were sold on markets, the prices were controlled by the police, and the merchants were allowed last so that they couldn't buy it and sell it elsewhere)
Corporations also guaranteed retirement money, paid leaves if you were injured or sick, but also gave money to charity. Cooperation was more important than competition and advertisement was basically forbidden.

France was capitalistic during the XIXth century, in which children were sent to work in mines and women had to work at night.

a = "not, without"
arkhi = "ruler"

Anarchy means "No ruler". It's a rejection of the principle of Rule. But the principle of Rule is a metaphysical principle, there will always be one person (or more, depending on what kind of arbitrary system is in place) vested with the power of Ruling. So therefore we must draw the conclusion that Anarchy represents disorder, and persons who promote Anarchy desire disorder for its own sake.

As i said before, you can only have two "Systems" of human society, in regards to the principle of Rule, either total power (monarchism) or some form of legal distribution of the power (republic). You either have one of these two, or you Anarchy which itself leads to a new order, being one of the two systems, like i have previously explained.

Digits confirm btw

Because people with real goals and real visions vanished from the seat of power, people with money for goals money for visions seized the throne. This is what you see when people like Hillary run for president. It's all about what the donors want, money rules. This is a degenerative process.

>It was not capitalistic at all you fucking retard,
Except for all those people running businesses themselves and selling goods on their own terms.
>that's why the capitalists (who led the revolution) destroyed the Church in France
They were very specifically communists. Troll or retard?
>People couldn't work a job if they weren't in a corporation
Depends on where. Guilds were potent, but not all powerful or encompassing.
>France was capitalistic during the XIXth century
A bit, after the shit started to be sorted.

You're like an American.

This is true for leftist anarchism, which seeks to abolish all vertical hierarchy. In Anarcho-Capitalism however, a ruler in the form of a boss or father is very much accepted. We simply seek to remove the imposed ruler part, which is far more different from simply someone telling others what to do.

>french revolution of 1789
>communist

>australian education

It's like saying adam smith (which influenced the philosophers who created the revolution ideology in France) was a commie

Can you please explain to me, what is anarchic about anarcho-capitalism? What ruler is it that anarcho-capitalists reject?

Today, the ruler that would be rejected is democracy and the state, as there was no voluntary conctract between me and said state

Even actual commies in France (not mélenchon the mason) will tell you that during the French revolution the bourgeoisie took power

The only commie revolution we ever had was "la commune de paris" which got btfo in less than a year

Protestants are as greedy as jews, not Catholics.

You think hierarchy is based on a voluntary contract? Were the indo-european migratory conquests based on a voluntary contract? You are a bit deluded mate.

>Overthrow noble leaders for equality
>Not communistic
Next you'll say the Russian Revolution was capitalistic.
>It's like saying adam smith was a commie
Well, he was a Jock. And he just influenced some, anyway.

>will tell you that during the French revolution the bourgeoisie took power
Of course. They were the ones pushing equality. For everyone else.

The Vatican alone indicates otherwise. But you could just look up Catholic vs. Protestant churches.

>meme flag

GO AWAY AUSSIE CUNT

sexiest prince

No, the masonic bourgeoisie who destroyed the Church in France did so because at the time, France held some values as innately sacred, and those very same values prevented the large scale spread (and in a less important extent, marketisation) of stuff like:
>human life
>spirituality
>usury
>sexual deviances

The only thing freemasons were interested in doing when they funded and started the French Revolution was to create a united front against God, and to subjugate the affected countries to their messianistic cause. A goal that is widely known among Catholics and freemasons alike, and the very explanation of why the Synagogue of Satan is clearly described as such.

There was absolutely no economical end to the Revolution: the extreme liberalization of values (i.e. the profanation of sacracy), while indeed being inscribed in a (very precise subgroup of) capitalistic logic, serves a "greater", spiritually destructive purpose.

Freemasons were attacked and outlawed by the Revolution, retard. It stood/stands against everything the traitors caused.

You clearly have no knowledge of French history, then.

>Who is Mirabeau?
>Who is Choderlos de Laclos?
>Who is Rouget de l'Isle, writer of the French national anthem?
>Where does the motto "Freedom, Equality, Fraternity" come from?

It's more complex than it seems, i'll give you that, but some freemasonic individuals were cherrypicked for execution because they were deemed as traitors to the majority of freemasons. And for a good and well documented reason. Just go ask the GODF.

Sorry my game started.

Yes, there absolutely can be vertical voluntary hierarchy, i even gave you an example. In the workplace your boss is the leader, and you take orders, but you are there out of your own will

>You clearly have no knowledge of French history, then.
Pretty funny, since you're getting yours from a Scot who wasn't even there, and wrote about it afterwards.
>Who is Mirabeau?
>Who is Choderlos de Laclos?
Of course there were some hypocrites. But for a bit, French lodges were taken over by revolutionaries, and they pushed out the Freemasons, who then had to form other Grand Lodges to keep the traitors out.
>Where does the motto "Freedom, Equality, Fraternity" come from?
From the revolution. Duh. French Masonry certainly didn't espouse equality or liberte. In fact, i was reading records of French overseas lodges at the time owning slaves to maintain the buildings. Which was fun. Dutch did the same.
But the revolution still outlawed Freemasonry because it was a product of, and represented the Ancien Regime.
> Just go ask the GODF.
Hah, yea, they're not really Freemasons, and play up all the treachery for their own ends.

Democracy is way better. Just look at french post revolution. The longest fall ever.

Monarchy and democracy are larping.

Three kinds of authority. Traditional, legal, and charismatic. Both traditional and legal can't stand on their own without charismatic one feeding them. Look at UK for an example where legal and traditional authority is in place and its still falling apart because there is no charismatic authority around.

Mgtow is where all the charismatic authority is at (in western societies at least). And it refuses to even spit a trace of charisma on the rest of the society.

You seem to refer to authentic freemasonry when you speak of them as not espousing equality, freedom or fraternity (the latter clearly being of masonic descent) and not being freemasons; those which i designed by the term "traitors", specifically.

If such is the case, i do agree, but then we'd have to clearly determine when Freemasonry was penetrated by foreign elements willingly acting against the aims of authentic masonry. And by the time the French Revolution came around, the impostors were comprising the majority of it.

The simple fact you deem the GODF as "not real masons" while they speak of themselves as such might simply indicate me that you yourself have ties with freemasonry, yet want none of that shit. Fair enough, i guess.

@154535518
>Mgtow
>charismatic
Not even giving you any (You)'s for that one, m8.

>penetrated by foreign elements
Funny thing is, they didn't even do that. They just set up their own shop, made up their own rules, and said, "we're those other guys", even though they were completely different. Certainly an argument for copyright law.

But yea, it's a common historical misconception which was invented by John Robison in the early 1800s. You won't find any such accusations or evidence prior to that.

>Monarchy and democracy are larping.
That word gets thrown around way too much in the wrong ways.
Also,
>MGTOW
>Charismatic
Lol, beta.