ITT: I'm a monarchist. AMA

Evening, Sup Forums. Ask me anything.

Other urls found in this thread:

m.youtube.com/watch?v=k12teOokSqM
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

What's the point of aligning yourself with an ideology that has zero chance of ever being implemented ever again?

What a great start. How shall I begin?

Oh yeah

Nod an argumend :DD - t. Steben Bolynex

absolute and constitutional monarchy are both enlightenment concepts.

The term may have been coined, but it doesnt mean the system was.

Why do you think inbred child fucking kikes should be head of a country and given tax money to launder as well as excerpt massive influence on media and politics?

>plays eu4 once
well, i know everything there is to know about monarchy

It is an argument tho

Why is the European Union filled with retarded faggots?

How can you say that when by 2100 Europe will be like 80% KANGZ

what do you think about how all those grandchildren of Queen Victoria fucked up so badly?

monarchy is the natural state of humans. democracy is a FAILED experiment. It's unnatural and the house of cards will eventually collapse.

I am a monarchist as well, wanna fuck?

Loaded question.

An absolute monarch owns absolutely. The only way for a ruler of that kind to make himself richer is by having his country prosper.

I don't play any strategy games of that sort. I've read extensively on monarchism, and have determined that it's the most suitable system for me.

Because that is how all such internationalistic systems end up eventually.

There is no guarantee that a monarch will be perfect or successful. Name me a system that is uncorruptable and non-degenerate and I will switch over my belief.

Considering you're most likely Catholic, I'll refrain. But good on you

What is your opinion on inbreeding?

Quads man has it spot on.

It is not up to monarchists to prove to others why monarchism is good, as it is the natural state of human functioning.

It is up to those other people to prove why their unnatural systems are suitable alternatives.

I am obviously against inbreeding, and am against monarchs who have inbred in the past. Inbreeding is not an inherent concept of monarchism, if you are attempting to trap me in a corner.

No I was genuinely curious, enjoy the rest of your evening.

We must return to reactionary monarchy

exactly. Democracy has only been popular for roughly 100yrs and the negative effects are already starting to completely destroy the system. No politicians are held accountable for their actions. They just resign and go do something else in the government if they are accused of wrong doing. A king is held accountable and if he fucks up, he doesnt just resign. He dies.

Quads of truth.

Absolutely
In a democracy politicians are not intertwined with the people. I.e. the benefit of a monarch, who owns the land, is that the land flourishes. The benefit of a democratically elected represenative is that he can obtain as much money as possible during his stay in office.

How do you think tyrannical or incompetant monarchs should be dealt with by the people?

Define "tyrannical"

>How do you think tyrannical or incompetant monarchs should be dealt with by the people?

Tyrannical and incompetent people never become monarchs in the first place.

forced abdication of the crown voted on by the house of lords.

This

>voted by the House of Lords
>absolute Monarchy
>having a parliament
Get that shit out of here

Okay, then the noble men rally the people and kill the king putting a better one on the throne.

Essentially what has happened throughout history with incompetent rulers.

I am also in favour of a clerical council, that makes sure that the monarch is abiding by the Rule of God that put him in power in the first place

You could say the exact same thing to republicucks and constitutional monarcucks

>Tyrannical and incompetent people never become monarchs in the first place.

And yet there are still millions of communist wandering about.

How can the US turn into a monarchy?

I have not witnessed outism this strong in a long time

autism*****

*blocks your path*

How would a king get in power today? Most societies don't have kangz

>tfw no charles 5th

*digs up your rotting corpse just to cut your head off and put it on a stake*

it can't. The US is a lost cause
thanks for the input Sven
the same ways they have always obtained power throughout history. Either revolution, uprising or social reform.

>Either revolution, uprising or social reform.
It would be something like Soros taking power, because he has the most money to create his own private militia and take control of a country.

You seem to be completely ignorant of how Jews perform their actions. Jews run shadow governments, they don't directly have the roles of law makers. If they did, they would be found out too quickly and immediately disposed of.

Absolutism is not the best form of Monarchy. It was better during Feudalism where there were contracts and established duties for all participants.

Pure absolutism just leads to revolution as we saw in France in 1789

Same way old non kings did.
Conquer a foreign land, claim to be a king, win, you're a king now.

>Pure absolutism just leads to revolution as we saw in France in 1789
Meh, you could argue the opposite.

The Parlement de Paris was the body that formally passed bills into law in 18th century France, and it was heavily influenced by wealthy nobles. When Turgot, and later Calonne, tried to reform the French tax code to address imminent state bankruptcy by revoking the nobles tax privileges, the Parlement de Paris blocked it. Of course, this was because it was controlled by nobles who didn't want to see their privileges taken away. Calonne tried to get around this by calling the Estates General, which is where the tennis court oath was sworn, and where Revolution started.

hmm and I wonder (((who))) funded the French Revolution?

How do you choose who'll be the absolute monarch?

(((Habsburg)))

Fabulous shoes

I don't choose, God does.

So the only way this would happen is through an outright miracle?

Absolutism never existed in Europe, despite what enlightenment propaganda would have you believe.

Divine intervention, lad.

All of the God inspired monarchs that have been given to us have been miraculous.

People seem to associate miraculousness with rarity.

Is that why the spanish armada failed?

Give some examples, please?

Yaroslav the Wise, for one

>I don't choose, God does.

Ahahahahahahaha holy shit, I can't believe there are still Europoors still this cucked. Yeah, letting God "choose" your monarchs is how you end up with dumb faggots like Æthelred the Unready, Wenceslaus IV, Ivan the Terrible, Henry VIII, Nicholas II, Richard II, etc. etc. etc. The list goes on and on and fucking on.

I can't even begin to imagine the cucked peasant mentality to think that God appoints people who are better than you to take the throne, often through court intrigue like marrying your cousins and murdering your brothers. Yeah, that sounds really Godly.

and here we see the famous "my daughter may be getting railed by niggers but at least I still have my guns" poster

Who do you expect to lead the UK as an absolutist country anyway?
Is there some kind of forgotten british house that you think would be better in power and lead alone or just the same thing as nowadays but with no parliament? You know, with (((Elizabeth)))

Read Frederick Adams Woods's "Influence of Monarchs" and Aristotle's politics/ethics, and then get back to me about not being pro-monarchy.
Also, watch m.youtube.com/watch?v=k12teOokSqM
Monarchy is the best system of government by far. It is by no means perfect, but it is the best we have.

Your ideology is outdated as fuck and doesn't work.

Just read his wikipedia article. Clearly a badass, competent ruler - but where's the divine miracle?

I agree completely. This democracy is an unstable incoherent and incapable mess of a government. Down with the president, down with the parliament, long live the Monarch.

the divine miracle was that he was born and given to his people as a ruler.

outdated is not an argument and it clearly does.

That's not an answer. Every birth is a miracle. What makes his special? Is this some post-facto Calvinist reasoning?

Nice to see how you didn't at all refute what my point was. You claim absolute monarchs rule by Divine Right. In that case, you must agree, that God also appoints the terrible monarchs that lead their nations into war, famine, and ruin, correct? You agree that God appointed Nicholas II, who led his country into a devastating war that resulted in the collapse of his dynasty and the subjugation of his countrymen to decades of communism? You agree that God appointed Henry VIII, who spent the majority of his reign whoring and drinking rather than attending to matters of state? Who agree that God appointed Emperor Theodosius I, who divided the Roman Empire between his two incompetent sons and ensured the Fall of Rome? You agree with all of this, correct? You must, unless you are making the claim that God only appoints the monarchs that end up doing well.

And of course, again because you claim God ordains monarchs to rule, that he condones the murder of family members and friends in order to secure their ascension to the throne?

not again jesus f

yes, every birth is a miracle. I am not suggesting that the miracle of a monarch is a stage above the "miracle scale" to that of a regular person.

This

Also a Bugman pasta
""small-souled bugman" implies that the person has been cut off from their cultural roots, and totally subsumed into consumerist neoliberal hive. they are totally lack any sort of sympathy for their ancestors folkways, higher spirituality, or passion. if they do engage in activities that are somewhat human, they still are heavily tinged by global capitalism. if they are a sportsfan, they will participate heavily in fantasy sports(which is obsessed with statistics, 'scientific' analysis of performance). if they exercise, it will be all cardio, and tracked by fitbit and then uploaded to faceberg. tastes in food, art, music, movies are predetermined by review aggregator sites like yelp, metacritic or rotten tomatoes. political views only appeal to them if they seem 'rational,' and derived from the sort of conventional wisdom, economics influenced worldview seen in works like 'moneyball', nate silver's 538 blog, and 'freakonomics.'"

Second war of Spanish succession when?(Pic unrelated)

Under King Louis XIV the French Revolution would've NEVER occurred. It was a matter of France having a relatively weak but we'll meaning king who found himself overwhelmed by the shitty circumstances. What followed was the Reign of Terror which inspired the entire Bolshevik movement creating more tyranny, death and misery than any monarch could ever be capable of bring down on his subjects.

But what are you suggesting? Is your idea that if someone does rise above the masses, take control, and becomes an absolute monarch, then that is a divine sign that they're chosen by god to be ruler?

>burger education
There are republics older than most monarchies. The "natural state" of humans is to live in families and tribes of no more than a few dozen people. Most ancient monarchies were not hereditary ones, they were formed simply by a conqueror and his lands were divided among his children when he died. There are also many ancient examples of elective monarchies. But again, there are many more examples of ancient constitutional monarchies or flat-out republics.

Rome, Carthage, virtually every Greek city state. Ancient Western Civilization was characterized by republican values. They viewed absolutism as a foreign, Eastern concept of the Persian Empire, a government form designed to rule over slaves, not free men.

I think the easiest way to define tyrannical would be sacrificing the will of the many for the will of the few. Your stereotypical tyrant is going around doing everything he can to enrich himself and his cronies (the few) to the detriment of their country (the many).

Legitimacy doesn't come from a sacre nor by the blood, but from the capacity of a particularly gifted and "timely" person to protect the Common Good.

It doesn't necessary means that it comes from a bloodline or by a miracle, even if it can.

Hereditary monarchy at all costs is but a Jewish mindset.
Without any means to renew the aristocracy will lead to degeneration.

Clearly you know fuck all about what you're talking about, dipshit. Read up on Neoplatonism and Constantine the Great and then you may begin to understand divine right to rule at least slightly. And you implying that Ivan the Terrible was a bad monarch only shows your ignorance, because if you had even a shred of knowledge that is higher than whatever you learned in your retarded school, you'd know that Ivan the Terrible was a very strong and capable monarch. You're a dumb duck peasant that has no clue what he's talking about.

Why not theocratic fascism at this point? Would the clerics not essentially end up running the monarch?

No one asked, Mohammed.

Would monarchy be possible anywhere in the US (part of whole)

It's not an ideology. It's a form of government. Ideologies destroyed monarchies, historically.

Someone hasn't read Aristotle republics always collapse and are replaced by authoritarian states happens after french revolution happened in Wiemar Germany will happen again. Best to make the change consciously and implement the one system that works long term.

see
Also, the irony in you calling me a peasant, while literally worshiping incompetent monarchs as "divine rulers," is fucking palpable. You agree then that God wants you to murder your brothers and nephews so long as it gets you on the throne? You agree that God intervened to ensure that monarchs who spent their reign ruining their countries made it to the throne? You agree that God ordained that Ivan the Terrible murder his son and end the 800-year-old Rurikid Dynasty?

Unless the US were to be conquered by a monarchy, no, not really. The best bet for the US is to become an authoritarian republic and go back into isolation. Not to mention kicking out all the non whites.

I am an absolute monarchist as well how do you think we should go about choosing the first king?

Also
>Constantine the Great
>Christian
Ahahahahaha, must be a Catholic to be this fucking dumb. Constantine the Great literally continued to enforce the Imperial Cult after his """conversion""" to Christianity. He still called himself "Sol Invicta" on his coinage ("The Unconquerable Sun," i.e. a living god. Sounds a little blasphemous, doesn't it?)

Constantine, like many other monarchs in history, converted to Christianity only to strengthen his rule and give him a causus belli to expand his powers.

The most cucked chad I’ve ever seen

Nice strawman.
You're assuming I said that every monarch has God's mandate. This is clearly not the fact, when you look at the VAST contrast between the most capable and the most incapable monarchs. The rule of a Good monarch is simply the Platonic reflection of God's rule over the earth. Nobody ever said that all monarchs have been perfect, nor that God has not allowed Evil to happen in order to fulfill a greater Good in the end. Your arguments are two centuries old, and have been debunked time and time again since then.

Not op but I think the king should have multiple wives and a successor should be chosen via some sort of competition between his descendants with the king having veto power of coarse.

It's not blasphemous if he has the Pope's blessing, at least not according to Christian doctrine at the time. Nobody considered it a blasphemous thing at the time. I am not Christian myself, so no, I'm not a catholic.

You are not alone, monarchy is the purest form of government

Nope, our Constitution is absolute. Its cherry picked for too many agendas. We could have multiple civil war and still end up in a republican system that'll slowly become oligarchy. Again and again. Our culture is so against being a collective, we have to have our individual rights. So that a lone we could never accept a king. We all think we are better than god himself.

Greece got conquered by the Macedonian Kings.
Rome became an Empire.
Rome got conquered by the Germanic peoples.
The Germanic people got conquered by Frankish Feudalists.
Republican France turned into a Monarchy.
Francist Spain was made a Monarchy.
Independent Greece became Monarchist in the 19th century.
Parlamentarian England turned Imperialist.
Tribal Mongolia turned into an Empire.
The 1848 revolution failed.
In 2007, Bulgaria elected it's former Tsar as President.
Monarchy will always return.

Republicanism in the new world was a literal freemason meme.

Looks more like a question to me.

You forgot
>Kaiser Germany lost to what most of Europe regarded as a literally bumfuck who backward republic from across the Atlantic. Doesn't matter if they were exhausted.
>Totalitarian German empire gets ass whooped by coalition of Totalitarian Russian, free Brits and even freer Burgers.

This forgot to say
>Burger republic causes said brutal totalitarian Russians to then collapse in on themselves and ended a cold war resource allocation oriented war by out-resource-allocating the enemy.

Absolute monarchist reporting for duty

The Entente started the fucking war, Gavrilo Princip was trained by terrorists connected to the Serbian government. The Central Powers were provoked into the fucking war. They did nothing but defend their own interests, meanwhile the French and British crushed the remaining European monarchies, even the one on their side, to truly start going through with their globalist plans for Europe, and they got the Germans on board by doing this. Isn't it an interesting coincidence that most monarchies were wiped out in WW1?