Europe under Monarchy

Europe under Monarchy
>global spanning Empires
>height of European culture
>tradition and family values
>multiple wars fought to defend Europa from muslim invaders (Reconquista, the Holy League, the wars against the Golden Horde, etc...)

Europe under (((republicanism)))
>weak and pathetic
>culture & tradition shunned in favour of muticulturalist anti-European trash
>degenerate and anti-masculine
>muslim invaders invited into Europa, resistance to invaders branded "racist and islamophobic" and actively suppressed by the government


why haven't you taken the Monarchist pill yet Sup Forums?

...

>multiple wars fought to defend Europa from muslim invaders (Reconquista, the Holy League, the wars against the Golden Horde, etc...)
You are forgetting the wars that were fought between European powers far far more often than these glorious coalitions against outside invaders. Also most of the wars of the reconquista and against the Mongols didn't involve coalitions

good thing all your globalism, diversity communism shit is doing is uniting European nations and people as one cohesion united on culture and race. Helping people take the race redpill. The waves are already turning.

>mfw """trad""" alt-rightlets support socialist dictatorship rather than the truly traditional european political structure of dynasty monarchism

Monarchism is the main reason Europe is shit
>Have colonies abroad
>Colonies turn out to be a net loss because the local population hates you
>Abandon colonies and install weak, unstable colonies
>Tons of refugees pour in from colonies

At least it isn't causing a war between all of Europe every ten years.

refugees are pouring in not because of monarchism, but because of stupid white guilt lie

>Republicans start WW2, killing millions of Europeans and shattering European world hegemony
>i-i-i-it's the monarchists' fault!
kys cucklord


fighting amongst ourselves was a mistake, we need a European Monarchist alliance 2bh

A war between all of Europe's better for the European people than what's currently going on. At least the people that survive the wars would be European.

The roman empire was a republic, the greek city states were everything but monarchs, literally what created "evropa", every country not conquered by rome is not rome and is only larping as it.

Monarchs created weak leaders, therefore it sucked, the ottoman leaders were all strong until they adopted european monarchism with hiers

And the population only hates you because traitorous scum go there and install into their heads ideas of "freedom" and "independence" Africa was objectivity better back when whites ruled it.

The reason their countries are so unstable is because of the effects of monarchism.
>Republicans start WW2
WW2 was a direct conequence of WW1 which was caused almost entirely by monarchies, with a strong focus on absolutist or near absolutist monarchies like Austria, Germany, and Russia.

>I'm okay being a peasant who is drafted to fight in a horrible war every decade as long as I'm white
Better to die with dignity than live in shame.

>Better to die with dignity than live in shame.
Exactly.

It really wasn't, the idea of benevolent colonialism is just an attempt for imperialists to justify their actions. Africa would be best off if Europeans never bothered Africa in the first place. Just set up trade posts and otherwise fuck off from anything south of Egypt, Africans can slowly adopt modern technology and naturally develop a culture where said technology is used more appropriately. You know as opposed to giving tribes with no history of large scale governments or multi ethnic empires access to modern technology and wondering why there is mass over population, STD epidemics, and and near constant civil war.

>He considers being a peasant with no rights, power, or influence dignified

the NSDP only came to power because of the weimar REPUBLIC you fucking retard
republics are literally the stupidest most disgusting things in existence

Eh your probably right, we should just kill them all instead, trying to help them was a waste of time "as you said" and their obviously too stupid to fit into modern society "even the ones that we embrace and bring into our cities"

Certainly more dignified than having to watch everything my ancestors have built being sold out to foreign hordes by spineless cucks and degenerate whores, yes.

This is the end of the Masonic Jew bloodline
They've been fucking things up for over six thousand years and all of these kings and queens are obsolete in the new epoch.
Please stop supporting them, it's embarrassing to see someone care about people who lust for the destruction of Europeans

Monarchy is stupid. having 1 man decicde everything is bad. Its much better when you have multiple people deciding. Its WW1 that ruined Europe

that’s imperialism, not monarchism

They didn't rise to power because Germany was a Republic they rose to power over German humiliation over WW1.

Works well enough, but European monarchs would rather use the negros as more bodies for their armies, they had no reason to support outright genocide.

My ancestors were peasant dirt farmers, they didn't build anything.

it was also a serfdom that you'd rather kill yourself than live under since it involved men having to actually do work

>Meanwhile in reality during the good old traditional days

Because being born to a certain family does not mean you are fit to lead a country.

Imperialism is largely tied to monarchism as monarchs tend to desire personal wealth and power which is acquired most easily through colonial holdings. After all the only Republic with a major colonial empire was France and that empire was primarily made up of uninhabited deserts.

E o D. Duarte é um fag de primeira. Queres esse paneleiro como teu rei? .-.

So says the dude with the ancap flag that has never read shit. Do you have that flag for the memes? Because ancaps don't like monarchy but they hate republics with the most burning passion

>My ancestors were peasant dirt farmers, they didn't build anything.
Why am I not surprised that a leftist hates farmers and his ancestors? Because fuck nourishing your people.

I would be down for a monarchist Muttland. Even better if it's a really white and conservative king who can purge all the niggers and spics.

Peasant did have rights, for example during the middle ages the Lord of a village was expected to provide protection, holidays, and monthly feasts for his peasants "out of his own pocket" in return for some taxes "not really different then what we have now, replace Lords with Cops, but subtract the feasts and paid holidays" Peasants we're also not conscripted, you didn't want to use up all of your peasants in war when you need them farming so you don't all starve to death. No most soldiers were either citizens "upper middle class of a city" mercenary volunteers, or part of a warrior caste "Like Knights" all gave military service for increased prestige in society, and if they didn't like it they could always become a farmer or tradesmen.

Ah yes I forgot how farming potatoes was the cornerstone of European civilization. When people look at European history and culture the most distinctive thing is potatoes.

>Imperialism is largely tied to monarchism
>You wot mate?

>Me jerking off to anime porn and shitposting online is so much more important and dignified then growing potatoes.

>You can't hold your own land
>You can't leave your village
>But hey at least you get to eat a lot one day every season
Wow, such amazing rights and political influence. Also European armies varied massively over time and places regarding who was conscripted, the Russians for example regularly conscripted the peasantry up until WW1. Likewise the more absolutist monarchies with fewer rights for the lower classes were always the more backwards and less developed countries, this can be easily observed in Europe where Russia was one of the most politically backwards countries and before the reformed of Peter the Great was completely irrelevant. Even after Peter the Great it was still considered a poor, backwards country. Meanwhile Great Britain, a Constitutional Monarchy was far more developed and advanced than any of the major monarchies throughout Europe.

I'm an army officer, a position that would have been literally impossible for any of my ancestors before the modern era. That is many orders of magnitudes more dignified than being a poor farmer with no power, influence, or rights.

Anything that happened in Europe was made possible by Europeans who consumed a produce that wouldn't have existed without farmers like your ancestors.

Fuck being the very foundation of civilization, my ADHD riddled leftist brain can't handle subtely, I need shiny statues n sheeeiit!

>You were the foundation of civilization
>Despite this you were given no rights, political influence, and had horrible standards of living relative to the rest of society
>Why don't you want to be like them?

>ancap working for the state
>fuck war, btw im an army officer
So this is the state of shitposters

I'm using an ancap for the memes.
>fuck war, btw im an army officer
I see no issue with this. An army should be used to protect the people not to be a tool of the state or monarch to increase their personal wealth. That being said I am only in the army because I enjoy being in the army, not because of some high and mighty sense of "I'm fighting for your rights."

> this guy is a sperg. look at how many responses he has posted. ignore

>You can't hold your own land
Depends on where and what time, sure in some of worse off ones you couldn't. While in others the land you lived on was in your family for generations, and was undoubtedly yours.
>You can't leave your village
You could if you saved up the funds to become a tradesmen, or wanted to join the clergy. But no you couldn't leave the village without reason, and that's because most people who did that turned to banditry.
>But hey at least you get to eat a lot one day every season
Most of human history that was good enough
>They conscripted people! that's like so mean and against human rights and...
Because liberal democracies never conscript people, mass conscription only really began with "Enlightenment" values anyway.

Imagine this guy's peasant ancestors.
>struggling
>striving
>eventually succeed over generations in building themselves a little cottage and local business
>carve out a humble but happy life
Then this fag comes along a hundred years later saying "my ancestors never built anything, why should I care if the things they valued get wiped away?"

I’ve been looking into a sort of techno-monarchy, in which the sultan/imperator/king acts as a balance against the technocracy. But what’s the point of hereditary monarch if one can have a elected one?

>Depends on where and what time, sure in some of worse off ones you couldn't. While in others the land you lived on was in your family for generations, and was undoubtedly yours.
And if you happened to be born in one of those places where you didn't you were shit out of luck, no way to improve your station
>You could if you saved up the funds to become a tradesmen, or wanted to join the clergy. But no you couldn't leave the village without reason, and that's because most people who did that turned to banditry.
You also needed the lord's permission so good fucking luck with that, not to mention being able to save up money to become a tradesman with no source of monetary income.
>Most of human history that was good enough
Not for the upper classes.
>Because liberal democracies never conscript people, mass conscription only really began with "Enlightenment" values anyway.
Mass conscription began with enlightenment values, you could still be pressed into service, they simply wouldn't mobilize armies of hundreds of thousands. Even then the reason mass conscription became feasible was less because "le evil republics" and more because modern technology allowed you to conscript more of the population without causing famine

>eventually succeed over generations in building themselves a little cottage and local business
They didn't succeed in carving out anything, my ancestors were given rights by aristocrats who took pity on them. But yes god forbid a peasant have envy on an aristocrat for having a better job, standards of living, and more rights not based on his capabilities and actions but based only on the fact that he was born to a more important person than you.

It’s a bit amusing that nationalists idolize frederick who was a homosexual who disliked german culture.

>But what’s the point of hereditary monarch if one can have a elected one?
Politics allow corruption. Honestly the whole idea of a benevolent autocrat is pretty retarded as there is no way to ensure his successor will be as competent or be as dedicated to the same benevolent ideas as the predecessor.

under monarchism
>internationalism aka imperialism aka colonialism
>racemixing
>inbred royals
>inbred royals abducting virgins from villages for blood to bathe in
>feudalism aka socialism
>inbred royals playing tennis while entire fleet is sunk off coast of japan
>christianity aka kike on a stick religion
>villagers not only taxed 90% for royal tax but have to give extra 9% for catholic tax so that monks could have anal with young boys and live scot free in some monastery
>meaningless wars over buckets
>australia
>building castles and palaces while regular folk lives in some ghetto in paris which is ironically as same as living in a commie block
>inquisition and witch burning which means you get tortured by white hot pincers because your neighbour has better connection with local sheriff and wants your land
>abdicating when shit hits the fan
>trying to appease commies
>social welfare to compete with socialists (bismarck)
>supporting hitler until he loses the war then backtracking
>sucking jew cock (fuck H7 and norway)
>creating colonies and then 500 years later those niggers have right to immigrate to mother country (fuck france, great britain)
>cutting hands off children for not picking enough cotton or rubber
>welcoming somalian refugees into your home who then steal royal jewels and sell them for crack (fuck sweden in particular)

under anything else
>everything under monarchism is illegal and shunned upon or forbidden

There. Fuck Monarchism.

You may want to look into authoritarian capitalism. The idea is that leaders are accountable and welfare is present but not in the dumb leftist liberal version. After that, it's the most rosy picture

So second reich? I am generally against capitalism as ultimately subversive force.

>you will never be in the King's court

>>christianity aka kike on a stick religion
Found the supreme gentleman, m'faggot.

...

>you will never put the peasants in their place

A big argument against monarchism is that it’s inherently materialistic. Why should you bow to your king just because they inherit a ton of stuff?

Not necessarily, Singapore could be an example as well. As much as I dislike government itself, authcap would be the best version
>I am generally against capitalism
I have yet to hear a good argument, except externalities

>Bulgarian king present
Servs BTFO

Capitalism advocates for consumerism. Therefore any cultural or national values which oppose this will be destroyed by capitalists. Furthermore capitalism is incredibly wastefull by producing tons of useless trash.

Unfortunately the European aristocracy abandoned their nations in favour of international ideals and/or the allure of its promised, and often delivered, wealth.

>you will never be crowned by a heathen murdering Pope

There's nothing inherently wrong with war or conflict; there is however something when there's a lack of it.

>the roman empire was a republic

Don't forget that under Monarchy we also had top tier architecture and the pursuit of aristocratic values and excellence in all kind of fields.

This is lost now, it's all absolutely shit tier, it's depressing to walk around any modern city, they are all gray, dirty, ugly shitholes.

>Capitalism advocates for consumerism
Not true, consumerism is driven by a lack of morals, so people consider immediate consumption and small satisfactions to be more important than deferred consumption and greater satisfactions later. That's the main reason why youngs take bullshit degrees, or an astounding amount of people takes loans to buy cars or holidays
>capitalism is incredibly wastefull by producing tons of useless trash.
Capitalism has no interest in producing what has no demand. Industries and service providers will look at what demand conditions are and try and find a way to supply that.

>having 1 man decicde everything is bad
Almost no monarchy has ever actually been that way. It's a caricature. Most was left to lords and landowners much as any parliament delegates the day to day running of government go a civil service.

What you are not understanding is that capitalism creates the conditions for consumerism. If morals get in their way, why wouldn’t the capitalist erase them?

It wouldn't happen if the public didn't make it happen. See italy for example. Ignore all the other bullshit and focus on this: it's the first-world country with the lowest amount of private debt. Nobody takes loans unless you need a mortgage to buy a house. Nobody overspends, and problems such as excessive private consumption spending or gambling are way lower than everywhere else. Same was in newfounded protestant US. Capitalism is a way of production that finds some soil and works on it. I agree that it is a problem when corporations, industries, media, banking, politics are intertwined, but that's obvious and there are means to solve that. It's not a natural byproduct

Monarchism wasn't able to defend against the income inequality between people of the same nation. It was unable to protect its ppl from Marxist infiltration and Global banks. Only by putting the interests of the Nation (and ppl of that Nation) first and the economic needs of those people second are the only stable government. Never forget it took three empires six years to defeat a small Nat Soc state smaller than the size of Texas

Having an elected monarchy would just lead the technocrats to unduly influence said election to ensure a favourable monarch under their thumb. Like our monarchy which has had almost all meaningful political function subsumed by parliament, but far easier and quicker to achieve.

>Only by putting the interests of the Nation (and ppl of that Nation) first and the economic needs of those people second are the only stable government
Oh I certainly trust a government to run society and the economy and dictate public morals

>Monarchism materialist
Then so is it's criticisms though. It's all "why does he get more than me?" Where does that leave us?

>Not true, consumerism is driven by a lack of morals, so people consider immediate consumption and small satisfactions to be more important than deferred consumption
Do you not see that capitalism leads to the encouragement of that immediate consumption?

What people like you think is that there's a handful of guys called The Capitalists that go around telling people "ehi I know you don't have income, but do you want a new car?". People would not fall for it if the morals of society didn't allow that. If corporations control the media to shape the culture that's a completely unrelated problem

I don’t think it’s fare to say that italy has avoided consumerism, as it has many of its elements. Can you please detail your methods of avoiding capitalist subversion?

How is that an unrelated problem? Or are you going to allow private ownership other than media?

I mean the difference is that in most other systems the persons worth is measured in skills but in monarchy it’s measured in how much one has.

>The roman empire was a republic

Literally a monarchy , but also invalidates the argument that monarchs are unchecked.

Roman Republic ?

Avoided the dark part of consumerism, which is having no savings and a large part of the future income bound to pay interest on debt
>Can you please detail your methods of avoiding capitalist subversion?
Capitalists' job is to be suppliers
People demand goods and services
Capitalists supply said goods and services
It is really straightforward. If a country didn't explicitly ask for subversion, it wouldn't happen. Again, see the US when they were just found and based on protestant work ethic
That is something that can happen and is currently the greatest threat we face. But, you don't throw capitalism away because it happened. You fix the holes and keep the ship, especially because the other ships you can jump to have more holes than wood

Just look at where that style of capitalism has led. The reason why we didn’t have these problems before is that supercapitalists didn’t exists yet. I’d much rather have a ship that doesn’t constantly leak than one which requires patching constantly.

>feudalism is bad because it's socialist, says the national socialist
okay

Monarchy or Death baby!

It's precisely the opposite of what you're saying. Pre-capitalist societies (maybe greek poleis as the only exception) had royal families and the clergy with boots over the neck of everybody else. The beginning of capitalism, usually considered after the middle age in southern europe, brought prosperity and didn't subvert the morals. If your product as a supercapitalist tried to subvert the morals, chances are you'd be necked in the town square very soon. A large part of what we call degeneracy started after the world wars, but it's not capitalism that brought it forth.
If we want to oversimplify the matter, I'd say
>daughter has a cold
>I better kill her

How is it unrelated? How do you avoid the slipping of moral standards when they're at odds with the people with the most power to subvert them?

Is it? Could've fooled me.

Feodalism is inferior to capitalism, but that’s not a large achievement. The reason why post wwii is the most degenerate period in history is that the world wars allowed american capitalists to get to the position they are in now. In effect many governments can’t touch these capitalists which gives them free hands to subvert culture.

Why would you respect the king, they inherited their position with no work.

Pure Meritocracy is idealistic nonsense.

Like we've been doing for 500 years, or do you think there were moral standards subverted in the Italy or France in 1600? The problem is the interlock between corporations, media, banking and politics, that is the current problem as I said already but it's by no means a reason to throw away and start from scratch
Again, it's the opposite. Governments gained massive power during wars (= war capitalism) so they could extract even more public money and direct it to their friends, the arms dealers especially

That’s a false dichtomy. You can have something between pure meritocracy and monarchy.

If the problem is with government, then how come more totalitarian states are without exception more traditionalist and conservative?

Monarchy isn't really its antithesis. Moreso there's value in having someone born to fulfil a very niche role and nurtured in that regard. It's hard to find someone who has happened to acquire successful traits for such a position or who wouldn't have competing interests.

I've never doubted that, that's why I suggested you read into authcap at the beginning. Western democracies are shit right now, there are no conditions to have a functioning welfare state, and the whole system is so full of shit economists even devised something Median voter theorem to describe how parties only go for gibs. I'm no nazi in the slightest tho, that would include great powers submitted by the people to the state

Lol what? You bow to your king because his kingship is a divine mandate and because he inherits the blood of his father not because of the wealth he inherits. If you think monarchism is materialistic then what is post-French Revolution Europe not to mention America?

You’re trying to change the goalpost. We’re merely arguing what gives the king his authority.

Aristocracy when they don't marry into shitskin bloodlines (ahem) practices self-eugenics if you think about it.

Totalitarian governments barely ever are capitalist though. Usually they’re atleast state capitalists, so your solution to capitalism is not to have capitalism?

>what gives the king his authority

The materialism is different. Monarchy what items you have, meritocracy what skills. You’re not gonna get far with a divine mandate.