Monarchism or Fascism?

Monarchism or Fascism?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=mfHrMnl1uLo
youtu.be/6L0a9KubnW8
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Italy_under_fascism
youtube.com/watch?v=fuoiC38N0wE&app=desktop
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Royal absolutism

techno-strasserism

as long as we can oust and behead them if they fuck us over, monarchism ftw

its good for a society to have people to look up to

Monarchism, any day.
>tfw no monarchist flag

Depends. If you mean actual fascism, I'm down. If you mean Nazism, no way, I don't want to get gassed homie.

checked

Monarchism, 100%. In a fascist dictatorship, the death squads and secret police won't only come for degenerates but anyone who speaks out against the government, for any raeson at all. Any and all dissent will be quashed

Monarchism

Monarcho-fascism, which bears all the hallmarks of a traditional fascist state but with the added bonus of a hereditary, absolutist leader (the "monarch-dictator") along with monarchic customs and ceremony. Basically a richer form of fascism.

At least you fukkin know whos in charge with a king or queen, and can hold them accountable. Plus they probably at least have the best interest of the country at heart.

Only the backstabbers gain power in a fascist society

Fascism is inherently nationalistic. If the secret police were arresting someone, it would be for good reason.

An authoritarian regime which arrests dissenters isn't automatically fascist.

changing my vote to this

>actual fascism
this person probably thinks that communism hasnt been done before

Actually I'm just pretty ignorant of history and shitposting. Plus even though I don't want to die, I do kind of want a jackboot on my throat. Just...gently.

What of a Monarchy whose prime minster is of the Fascist party?

monarchism and fascism aren't mutually exclusive.

Monarchism, because fascism is merely an attempt to replicate monarchy after the divine right of kings was destroyed with the rise of liberalism and the death of the Church's moral power
youtube.com/watch?v=mfHrMnl1uLo

Global capitalism with empowerment of all classes.

>global capitalism

>If the secret police were arresting someone, it would be for good reason.
Wait. Wait just a moment. Look at what you've just posted and come to the realization that this is the exact same thing Commies post. They say "You're grandpa deserved to be sent to the gulags, I'm sure he was [doing something to betray the Communist dream}." Just wait a minute and reflect upon your thoughts before you reply.
>An authoritarian regime which arrests dissenters isn't automatically fascist.
I understand that, I'm not arguing that fascist = authoritarian, I'm saying that that the pinnacle of fascism is the state. Fascist regimes put the state above the individual and that is exactly what is intended in fascism. The problem with this is that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. If the peak of fascism is the gov always being right, no matter what, and the gov is also corrupt, then even if the gov deviates from the fascist dream for selfish, greedy, either capitalist or socialist reasons, you can't do anything about it. The state suddenly has massive power and if you don't like how that power is being used then you will wake up in the middle of the night to men telling you that they've come to pick you up, so get in the car.

i mean A+ for the effortpost but nobody is going to read this shit. People who think fascism is a good idea think they'll at the top, and not first against the wall. same goes for commies.

bless you my leafy brother

both are fine but monarchism would be superior for Europe

Like Fascist Italy? That would just be fascism within the context of a constitutional monarchy (a symbolic monarchy with few real powers). Monarcho-fascism requires an absolutist monarch with a dominant, active role in matters of the state.

Monarchy of course. Fascism is a very narrow democracy.

This is why moderate conservatism > fascism. Keep your traditions, preserve your values, no one gets gasses or murdered, and you still get a little bit of bootlicking too.

Wvy is German Empire such a great country?

>Monarchists, not edgy nat(((soc)))
>Strong emperors (Kaiser Wilhelm II etc) and leaders such as Bismarck
>Prussian military tradition and dicipline
>Common anti-semitism, even before Hitler fucked it all up
>Lots of scientists, engineers, philosophers
>Helped Finland gain independence

Then they fucked up WW1 and later Hitler fucked them into oblivion and beyond any saving. Truly the best empire in the past century. Better than
>Ottoroach empire
>Australia-Hungary
>R*ssia
>Brittish """""empire""""""
youtu.be/6L0a9KubnW8

so basically Italy before ww2, they were a kingdom and had fascism at the same time

Fuck you and your leftist garbage, shill.
I choose constitutional Republic; the ideology we currently have

Monarchism

Fascism is leftism. Go read erik von kuehnelt-leddihn.

wow BASED LE magaPEDE XD

...

gay, enjy your 56% white shithole

>it's a "left-wing means central planning" episode
No dummy. Left-wing = chaos, equality. Right wing = order, hierarchy. Fascism is third position (ie, mixed) economics but right-wing.

>I choose constitutional Republic
>(((You)))

I was thinking like what the British Empire might have had under the BUF.
The way I was thinking on it, the Monarch would represent the Nation (People), and the Fascist PM would represent the State, and the Monarch would, on behalf of the people bless the PM with many powers for running the State on behalf of the people.

As opposed to perhaps what you might have been thinking, in that the leader should be one of a Nation-State, where they are the master of both elements of the combined entity.

Habsburgs did nothing wrong.

>Fascism is leftism.
Its leftist in its rhetoric, yes, with its talk about the masses and the people and what not. However it still inherrently right-wing from its intense desire to preserve tradition. Like I said with , fascism is rudimentary monarchism with democracy

>Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn
Oh shit my nigga

What a Constitutional Republic has over Monarchy and Fascism is a clear delineation of where a sovereign crosses into tyranny, that is, when they refuse to abdicate. A Monarch or fascist dictator could act against the interest of the people for many, many years before the people finally decide enough is enough.

Monarchism.

>Wait. Wait just a moment. Look at what you've just posted and come to the realization that this is the exact same thing Commies post. They say "You're grandpa deserved to be sent to the gulags, I'm sure he was [doing something to betray the Communist dream}." Just wait a minute and reflect upon your thoughts before you reply.
And? Of course a regime whose aim is to secure long-term, real change is going to quash those who threaten it. This is something common throughout history in all systems of government, not just fascist or communist ones. Punishing dissenters is the hallmark of a strong leader dedicated to his goals.

> Fascist regimes put the state above the individual
Not the state so much, but definitely the collective. The state is more of a vessel through which the will of the collective is expressed.

>If the peak of fascism is the gov always being right
It isn't. Strong leadership is definitely a very important aspect (however this doesn't translate to "the government is always right").

>gov deviates from the fascist dream for selfish, greedy, either capitalist or socialist reasons, you can't do anything about it.
Then it would no longer be fascist. Your concerns with fascism seem to stem from the belief that "too much power always corrupts". In most fascist states in history, there's still been an elected body to represent the concerns of the wider population. It isn't like the leader/government is totally unaccountable.

No, that was fascism within the context of a more or less powerless constitutional monarchy.

Constitutional Monarchy is the best form of government
they have black nationalist flag but no monarchist feelsbadman

Perhaps in theory, but not in reality. Do I really need to go over how much the current constitutional republic tramples over our rights and fucks us over every which way? We're getting fucked in the ass and I don't see everyone taking up arms and spilling the blood of tyrants because all three branches are massively overstepping their boundaries.

Democracy is a fucking joke because it makes people think that they have a say when they don't. I'd much rather do away with it and have a monarch, which has been tried and true for millennia, and when they fuck up, you know who to point to. Monarchy also traditionally had the least trampling of your personal liberty.

of all the fascist regimes that have existed literally none of them actually played out in reality the way you are describing your version of a fascist utopia.

>monarchy has the least trampling of your rights
>the sovereign can have you executed for no reason bypassing judicial systems at a whim
kekovic

As opposed to the current system where extra-judicial goons will kill you and fake a mugging or suicide?

Face the fact that power exists and those in power and idealistic notions of constitutional limitations don't mean jack shit. There will always be a boot on the neck. The question is whether your side gets to be the one wearing the boot or the one underneath it.

No fascist state has been allowed to exist for more than 20 years.

Italy, Spain and Germany, when they were under fascist control, progressed at very high speeds compared to how they were pre-fascism.

Spain de facto abandoned fascism after WWII btw, so that doesn't count as a 20+ year fascist country.

I'd prefer to stab the sole of the boot and risk death nigger

When is the last time a European monarch executed someone for no reason?
Now, when is the last time a European/New World Liberal Democracy trampled over their subjects, including killing them for no reason?

>it wasn't real fascism
everytime lmao

Then have fun in your naivety and be swallowed up by your idealism and is-ought fallacy.

princess Dianna is a recent example

Clerical Fascism with a crowning of someone that is worthy to be a king. Sort of like the King Arthur's knights or the Waffen SS.

Your system seems pretty idealistic too in this current political climate. Enjoy your civil wars trying to create something that's been done and failed in the past psuedo commie.

Ah but that would be a fault of the Constitution, not the system of government itself. As much as I appreciate it, it was hijacked by the Federalists and written in a way as to specifically NOT limit government power. The exception being the Bill of Rights.

Fucking delusional retards. Life must impossible for you!

You are an idiot. Founder Fathers Republic or bust faggot. No women, niggers, or poor people voting.

>pseudo-commie
Oh boy, we have a dinesh d'souza fag over here.

Why? What do you think is the ideal form of government?

>decades' old, unproven allegations
Nice example, Aussie.

Italy's economy under Fascism was rather weak.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Italy_under_fascism

Go stab the boot then, retard. There's one on you right now. If you're comfortable with it on you, then all you're doing is blowing hot air. If you're not, and haven't dedicated your life to liberating Australia from tyranny then all you're doing is blowing hot air.

I'm off boys gotta get back to reality, picking up my kid from school soon and me n the wife are having dinner later. I hope you guys grow up out of extreme authoritarianism because remember if you attempt to force these poisonous failed ideologies on me or my family I will die resisting :)

Ah yes, we just haven't yet discovered that platonic form of the one true bullet-proof constitution that will make absolutely sure that those in power face the same justice as normalfags and that will actually self-check itself without the whole thing turning into a corrupt circlejerk of backroom deals and talmudic judicial activism with a docile population that still thinks it has these ""inalienable rights"".

Democracy is an aberration. Throughout history, it's only ever lasted for a few centuries max at a time before collapsing or turning into some sort of monarchy. Monarchy is the natural way of things.

He asked "for no reason." Unlikely she was snuffed, but there were certainly good reasons.

Are you saying the Constitution couldn't have been written any other way?

>when you deviate from the path of fascism and you use the overwhelming force of the government to torture and kill truly committed fascists but that's okay because your illegitimate fascism will rein for 1,000 years

>Not the state so much, but definitely the collective. The state is more of a vessel through which the will of the collective is expressed.
Literally garbage, what happened to "Fascism is inherently nationalistic"? Communism puts the collective above the individual too but it's fascism that puts the will of the nation, of the state, above the individual.

>however this doesn't translate to "the government is always right"
Who's going to say otherwise, brainlet? You? Thanks, we'll send a car to pick you up shortly.

I'm not going to argue your last point because tbqh I don't know much about the internal workings of historically fascist countries.

Monarchism any day. I support a constitutional republic, but a monarchy is still closer to my views and to traditional European order.

Also, be sure to keep the King away from those Jewish bankers when he is in need of coin.

No, I'm saying you're naive in thinking the overall problems I'm alluding too would be solved within ANY for of constitution.

the point I'm making is that the constitution is ultimately a piece of paper. It only has meaning if everyone agrees to act as if it has meaning. There's nothing actually stopping ANY GOVERNMENT from ultimately ignoring the constitution and finding ways to bypass it. You will never achieve equal protection under the law. You will never prevent abuse of power. You will never prevent judicial activism.

Constitutional Republic.

It's been more effective at protecting our freedom of speech and gun ownership, then, let's say, the rest of the first world democracies. Why is that? Because of how the Bill of Rights was written. Language is key in any good contract.

>effective at protecting our freedom of speech and gun ownership
Are you taking the piss?

>Republican Canadian
Disgusting.

Thoughts on North Korea? They have what is essentially a monarcho-fascist-communist fusion.

Does America ban violent video games and guns? Why not?

Literally anyone advocating for anything else is a liberal, all the other ideologies would be new to america because a constitutional republic is the only one we have ever known.

GTFO CRYPTO COMMIES,
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>Does America ban violent video games and guns?
Vidya, no. But guns, yes.

>But guns, yes.
Some guns. But have we been effectively disarmed as a citizenry? Clearly not.

>Some guns.
So yes. USA does ban the right to own firearms in some capacity.
> But have we been effectively disarmed as a citizenry?
Not yet.

I'm just gonna come out and say this is the most implicitly Anglo thread to have ever graced Sup Forums's catalog. Bravo gentlemen.

>CRYPTO COMMIES
I'd really hope that no one was actually this fucking retarded

>Shall not be infringed
>is clearly infringed upon
>the average right to due process has been utterly removed in the name of homeland security (by democratically-elected officials)
>states' rights are a literal joke

>Have we been effectively disarmed as citizenry?
Considering that the Founders clearly envisioned all citizens being able to legally purchase any form of weaponry of any kind as they were (i.e. ships, artillery), where as we cannot go out and buy fighter planes and tanks for personal use, and the only way a nu-Civil War would work is entirely through guerilla warfare, yes, you have been effectively disarmed

>where as we cannot go out and buy fighter planes and tanks for personal use
Can you not? Or you mean how they have to have deactivated guns?

Because of one word, "regulated." Again, the power of language.
>Not yet.
Will never happen, I guarantee it. But they will try. It's the last step they need before the complete NWO takeover. American guns are the only thing keeping the rest of the Western countries from descending into complete tyranny.

Search "The Beauty of White culture" on Youtube.
youtube.com/watch?v=fuoiC38N0wE&app=desktop

Its funny how many of the Graphs and pictures posted here on Sup Forums look really good with simple little things off... posted so Liberally... all over the place after Trumps victory.

You're damn right it is.

Precisely
In the days of the Revolution and the Wild West, you buy any military equipment or its equivalent as weapons for personal use
Nowadays you have to have any form of military component stripped from it in order for it to be used for civilians

U.S. military personnel, active and reserves - 2 million.

Fit for service - 60 million men. 60 million women.

>Because of one word, "regulated."
And blimey that could have oodles of interpretation.
>American guns are the only thing keeping the rest of the Western countries from descending into complete tyranny.
Adorable.

It's pretty heartbreaking seeing warbirds stripped of all the cool stuff. Don't even functioning guns, but when all the targeting kid has been removed, it sucks.

>American guns are the only thing keeping the rest of the Western countries from descending into complete tyranny.

It's true, they won't blow their loads before that because they know Americans will never give them up if they see what happens to counties without them.

countries*

>Fit for service - 60 million men. 60 million women.
>implying you are going to have anywhere even near that join in a revolution
>women should be on the front lines, or that 'fit for combat' for women actually means anything
Being immensely generous, that'd be 10% of the male population and 5%, so thats 9 million, and I suppose there'd be some defection from the military as well
Its still entirely as guerilla warfare with technicals and handfuls of deserted army gear, while the armed forces still have plenty of artillery, air support, and armor to back them up
More apt to say you'd have an American-style Syrian Civil War, only the rebels dont have international support and the government forces are likely going to get support from the rest of the world from the get go, and in which the warring rebels are likely to get subverted by foreign agents

Why not both?

Yep, that's definitely a possible scenario. All depends on how many would fight. American Revolution had about 1/3 Patriots. The government forces would probably get support from the NATO countries but from Russia and China? I'm not so sure.

If you think support from Russia or China is any way a good thing for the values of 'freedom, rights, republicanism, etc' I really dont know what youre expecting
Itd be selling your soul to the devils on which youve now made yourself a puppet state, and nothing more

How about none

You are literally controlled by banks, and think you're free because they let you have a pea shooter comfort blanket, Linus.

True, but I just meant they wouldn't necessarily be aiding either side. They might actually try to take advantage of the situation and invade.