Absolute Monarchy > National Socialism

"There's a Man alone, without family, without children, without God, why should he be human? (...) He builds Legions, but he doesn't build a Nation. A Nation is created by families, a religion, traditions: it is made up out of the hearts of mothers, the wisdom of fathers, the joy and the exuberance of children... Over there (points towards the Third Reich) an all-swallowing State, disdainful of human dignities and the ancient structure of our race, sets itself up in place of everything else. And the Man who, alone, incorporates the whole State, has neither God to honor nor a dynasty to preserve nor a past to consult" - Wilhelm II, 1939

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/mfHrMnl1uLo
twitter.com/AnonBabble

eh, maybe. Both are pretty fucking good, and miles ahead of any other ideology. Regardless you'd need natsoc to ever transition back to absolute monarchy.

Not really. I'm all for authority, but that authority has to be earned. Being the Child of a good leader doesn't automatically mean you're going to be a good leader, and because Monarchies don't make that distinction; and unfortunately, the qualities that make you a good leader can also make you a bad one if taken to excesses,so even you are your father's equal, hat's still not a guarantee you'll do a good job. You end up with average and awful leaders just as often as you get good and great ones, and even the *very* best are still going to rely on a court- usually one they themselves choose.

Constitutional monarchy with federal states and a national parliament is the way

>being retarded enough to think that its about being the son of X rather than being raised to rule

"But unlike you I am born and raised to rule. I do not choose..."
youtu.be/mfHrMnl1uLo

You'd need fascism or a bloody civil war.

>Being retarded enough to think that having a child grow up knowing they are going to have absolute power over a whole nation one day is any better
Who is Commodus?
And whether or not it's about being the son of X, that's how succession is determined in most monarchies, so it's still an issue.

I agree, but I don't get the last part with the court.
Hitler also had his appointed staff.

Ew. That sounds way too (((democratic))).

Willy 2 is literally one of the worst examples of European absolutist monarchs. He had it all and throw everything away just because he was isecure about being polio cripple and wanted to show everybody he is a real deal.

As for the OP, Willy begged Hitler multiple times to recreate monarchy a put him back on the throne. When France fell he wrote to Hitler "congratulations on winning war with my army." Hitler got mad as fuck and continued to ignore him. When Willy realized he wont be ruling anything ever again, he at least prostituted himself for western media propaganda.

Funny thing is that Hitler promotes absolutist monarchy in Mein Kampf, arguing that even if the monarch is utter failure, he still has cohort of advisors and ministers at his disposal that will set him on the right path. But Willy is an example that this is a fallacy

True enough. And had the Third Reich lasted longer then it did, and a worse judge of character than Hitler taken his place, that would have been an issue as well.

I believe in a constitutional monarchy may be better than an absolute monarchy but I don't like how faggy England is with no royal power. There needs to be some power in the rulers hands. Maybe as much power as the US President has? or a bit more, but there should be some sort of check incase you get an insane madman as king.

NS was the result of the failure of monarchy.

In the absense of strong monarchy, only NS will stand.

The Monarch does have power user. They could've stepped in and disbanded any parliament in the last 20 years & there wouldn't have been any big protests. They just choose to let Parliament run this country into the ground while they manage their media image.
Giving more power to our Royal Family would just make things worse.

Democracy is best, stop being edgy backwards retards.

He was born with the gimp arm because of a botched birth.

>who is Commodus?
Who is any bad democratically elected leader? Who is any bad non royal dictator? That's one of the most common and weakest arguments against Monarchism.

The problem with your monarchy is that they're just some random Germans.
>House Windsor
>really House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.

William II wasn't an absolute monarch.

Given the absolute state of our Lords, I don't think it would matter if we replaced them with native nobility at this point. These people are far too worked into the international finance system; they & the royals are the practically the people that the government is selling out too at this point.

Well, yeah. They've been in bed with the finance system for a long time. Many of your nobles are likely secretly (or not so secretly) Jews as well.

>yes goyim giver power to the blacks and foreign minorities who have swamped your land and are now the majority.

>you are not the majority of any country? Oh well, looks like you will just have to be ruled by the inferior immigrants.

...

Ironically, the only thing that's going to pull us out of this situation is radical democracy- if we'd ever been allowed a vote on immigration, or the government had listened to the protests against the Iraq war, we'd be so much better off.
I don't think Democracy is a good system in the long term, but I don't think an inherited nobility is the way forward either.

Personally, I think there needs to be a landed aristocracy but I also think people needed to be landed or home owners. The landed aristocracy is there to keep the worst urges of people in check, but at the same time you have to protect against something like population replacement which I think direct democracy does. The poor need to act like an immune system.

In theory, thanks to the Glorious Revolution, parliament could just depose the royal family.

This. Is sad

The problem is, the landed aristocracy isn't immune to those urges either. In fact they're probably worse at controlling them. If you're raised in wealth & the belief that your just better at making decisions then everybody else, that's going to cloud your personal judgement a bit.
At the same time, rule of the mob is hardly any better.
What we really need is local democracy, so that the electorate know the people they're voting for & stand less chance of being taken in by a strong smile; & then those with a proven record can go on to earn life-long positions in a regional lords chamber.

Checks and balances but right now there are none.

Yeah. Sad thing is, because Parliament is the sovereign source of law in this country, anything they say goes (practically). it'd only take one party getting into power to burn the whole corrupt system down & start again;take ou the people who got us in this mess, set up the new system and fill it with /ourguys/. And the support is there...
Fuck, Why did Farage throw away his shot?!

Absolute monarchy isn't a worldview, but a tool. An absolute monarchy would only be effective if the monarch holds to a worldview of truth, i.e akin/identical to Fascism.

I don't think Farrage was /ourguy/ just like I don't think Trump is our /ourguy/. They're starts but we need a lot more.

...

>Absolute Monarchy > National Socialism
obviously

>>yes goyim giver power to the blacks and foreign minorities who have swamped your land and are now the majority.
Hasn't happened to Japan, maybe your country just sucks? lol

Wilhelm II is hardly one of the worst. It's only because he lost the war that he is regarded as terrible and (((historians))) ascribe motivations to him that hardly have relevance in reality. He was the focal point for some of the most blatant propaganda efforts of the past 200 years. Only recently have we been able to shake (((historians))) off and actually read letters from him to his cousin the Tsar begging him to not start the war. Russia is the one with the fucking dipshit leader. A-H was entirely in it's rights to go after Serbia for the sponsored assassination of it's heir. Nicholas is the dipshit not Wilhelm, even his "get it done quickly" memo to A-H is pretty smart diplomacy as well. If A-H had a decent military and smoked Serbia in a few days the Russians would look like total fucking warmongerers. Instead A-H got bogged down and the cascading Alliance web destroyed Europe.

>Fuck, Why did Farage throw away his shot?!
He would never have made it. Better to go out on a high note and support the cause that way.

>the belief that your just better at making decisions then everybody else
When that's your primary job and you've been trained since birth for it, then yea, they probably would be better than others.

But yes, i like your proposal.

but why did he force bismarck to retire? bismarck was certainly the only one capable of managing the minefield, that was pre-war foreign politics in europe.

Bismark created tension between himself, Wilhelm I and Wilhelm II as well as Frederick III to better rule in Germany.

It was only a minefield because Bismark was annexing fuck loads of states to become Germany and upsetting the balance of power. The fact that it was so complicated that "only Bismark could run it" shows that the system itself was a failure. Diplomacy should not be complicated at all, if it's complicated then it means it has a chance of failure during stressful situations which is exactly what happened in WW1. Italy immediately fucked off from the Triple Alliance and actually back stabbed Germany because the Alliance terms were overcomplicated and there was no underlying reason for them to be allied in the first place.
Bismark fucking DESERVED to be fired. Wilhelm was entirely in the right to fire him for the stunt he tried pulling right when Wilhelm became Emperor. He tried forcing a bill through the legislature that would allow the government to instantly and without warning seize the homes and property of "socialist agitators" and Wilhelm saw right through this bullshit that it would be used to stamp anyone who wanted to advocate for a better society. Bismark actually stated that he was going to force the bill through even if it meant a general uprising because it would allow him to massacre a bunch of socialists. Bismark had lost the fucking thread and was incapable of seeing justified demonstration against shit working conditions in mines from actual socialist plots to overthrow the government and felt it was only natural to bring troops in and massacre a bunch of laborers who are mad that mines collapse on them.
Stop reading fucking (((history))) and realize half the people you're supposed to revere are total shitheads and the ones that are terrible monsters were dealing with real issues that likely had no good solution and they drew a shit card from the deck.

k, thx for the answers. obviously i have to read up on a lot. it's been almost ten years now since i learned that stuff in school and i forgot most of it.

Also this:

>Stop reading fucking (((history))) and realize half the people you're supposed to revere are total shitheads and the ones that are terrible monsters were dealing with real issues that likely had no good solution and they drew a shit card from the deck.

What i took away from history classes about wwI and the Kaiserreich was that wilhelm fucked everything up by firing bismarck and challenging britain with his new naval fleet.


>It was only a minefield because Bismark was annexing fuck loads of states to become Germany and upsetting the balance of power.

well, on the other hand founding a German Reich in itself upset the balance of power between france and britain anyway, didn't it?

Bismark wasn't that bad in terms of making Germany. The taking of A-L was probably the single stupidest move to make there, aside from not helping to keep Napoleon III on the throne.

I think he was scared of Bismarck's rise to power, I mean fuck me he was becoming so powerful at such a high rate he would soon be able to declare himself king. It must have just been a state of panic or for the safety of the throne imo. I haven't read up on it much but it could be the whole, "WILHELM WUZ CRAZY N SHIEEET", thing that (((historians))) like to float around.

not to forget the coronation of the kaiser in versailles. he certainly pissed off the frenchies way too hard

Supposedly Bismark didn't want to take A-L but the princes insisted.

>People defending fucking Wilhelm II itt
wew lad

Good goy

>Meme flag

Willhelm was a good guy but quite the autist

national parliament completely negates the benfits of having a monarch in the first place. time preference, private state functions, accountability, class consciousness, etc

bait

Kaiser Wilhelm telegrammed Hitler after invading Poland saying "I hope under your marvelous leadership the German monarchy will be restored" to which Hitler remarked to his valet "what an idiot"

BTFO Wilhelm

torrenting now this movie looks dank

Aristocracy > Absolute Monarchy > Constitutional Monarchy > everything else

It really isn't. It's an affront to everything good. And the only virtues in that speech, i suspect are incidental, and are supposed to actually be derogatory.
But yes, do watch it and see if you can make it past the scenes with Prince Henry.

The trailer alone made me puke

>My cells and organs constitute this land
God damn, that really hit me like a truck