Will Monarchy ever make a comeback?

Will Monarchy ever make a comeback?

If so, when and why?

Other urls found in this thread:

telegraph.co.uk/news/1435383/How-direct-democracy-makes-Switzerland-a-better-place.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

The Amalek bloodline holds the presidency of the United States, soon Trump will be emperor hence why your coins have his face on them. "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's", right?

I'm not sure if the US will allow a monarch though

Monarchy is the greatest and most natural form of government.

There will be a great man that tears down the progressive American imperium.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a king in all but name, the first American dictator. The present ruling class is pretty much his machine outliving it's master.

It never left. We just dress it up now with the illusion of choice in "democracies"

Yes, but it won't be with the old nobility and it won't be called monarchy at first.

are fascist dictatorships really that profoundly different from monarchy? they seem to me like diet, less spiritual, less rigidly traditional monarchies - and don't get me wrong, that makes them categorically worse, but is the difference tangible in any other way than just a degree of scale?

I'd think an aristocracy is more natural

>Will Monarchy ever make a comeback?
Doubtful, except maybe in times of crisis.
>Why?
Because monarchism's is very difficult, if not impossible, to legitimize in objective terms. It opposes the very idea of popular sovereignity, which raises the question why the king rules. The closest you can get is a popular monarchy, but a popular monarch is crowned by the people... and can be ousted by the people (see: Louis XVI).

Have you ever wondered why Napoleon called himself emperor, never king? Have you ever wondered why the coins with his face on it said "French Republic"?

>Have you ever wondered why Napoleon called himself emperor, never king? Have you ever wondered why the coins with his face on it said "French Republic"?

For the same reasons as Octavian was Princeps civitatis. Sure, his supporters believed the lie or at least gave the appearance of believing in it sincerely, the inheritors of the liberatores on the other hand understood what was going on, but they couldn't do anything about it.

But then again, you are a libertarian, you don't know how to play politics and instead seek to abolish it. Read Moldbug and Spandrell.

Napoléon wasn't a king

If you have to use a very strict interpretation of Kingship, then he fails. But he was much closer to being a king than the sham-kings of the July Monarchy.

I would say that he was almost there, he likely wouldn't have gone all the way into restoring feudalism, but all things considered hoping for a tyrant is good enough considering what we have.

I'm only using the definition of kingship.
Also, his legitimate heir is a Chad

We both know who we would prefer to lead us into battle of Chad Bonaparte or Macron.

>"Dude we should let Argentina be governed by an incan king, it would be so tolerant I mean its 1816 omg "

Indeed

It will, after the collapse. If the power grid goes down you will see a kingdom.

We need to get rid of the jews/traitors in our governments first or else we would be under jewish rule no matter what system. National Socialism would be the healthiest system for the people and the world so i would stick with that.

No America wouldn’t nor would I support it. I want it back in Europe especially in France and Germany.

Thanks to him we are not Africa so shut the fuck up. Besides, the one who made the true decisions was Moreno, he wanted an industrialized country by its own means. How did that turn out for Paraguay though. Fucking imperialists

No

its done for

the last countries who have them are jokes.


But i won't say that "king people" aka democracy is better. Its worse. But still monarchy is dead.

Could still be brought back though.

>National Socialism would be the healthiest system

you suck ass so bad

dude, no.

How do monarchies get established? These things don't work anymore today.

A military dictator is the closest that ever can install intself as some sort of monarch,

Well they could get restored. I see what you mean though.

I agree, monarchies aren’t like what they used to be.
I support monarchies as a tradition passed through generations.

Now.

I totaly agree.
In italy the greatest ruler was probably Lorenzo de Medici.
An engliten dictatorahip is the best we can hope for: a king that identifies with his own people is the best enemy against degeneracy

Italian history is really interesting, messy politics and lots of betrayal.

>I support monarchies as a tradition passed through generations.

thats an immature concept Jung would call sentimental, the urge for something that is eternal and does not need testing.

we can never be sure the son of the good king isn't a dumb piece of shit.

Already is in China

True.
Maybe we need a right-wing alternative (other than natsoc)

Actually, I believe more in constitutional monarchies where there is a PM or chancellor elected while the king does have some limited powers (like in Imperial Germany).
I totally agree, some kings are dumb as shit like the last Habsburg leader of Spain. There should be some way to weed them out and place stronger leaders.

Ofcourse.

It’s not an immature concept, it’s called conservativism. This is where I diverge with some on the alt-right

One Party Constitutional Primitivism desu

Any future monarchs will be Jews, no thanks. We're going to have to rebuild the nobility with natsoc positive eugenics

>it’s called conservativism
What does a monarchy conserve other than itself? What do you even mean by conservatism? It certainly isn't "just maintain the status quo" in the sense Burke meant it, considering a modern day Burke would be wishy-washy center-left.

>other than the best form of government
makes sense.

How did monarchies originally form? All you need is a strong man that crowns himself a king. If people get along with it, he's probably an amazing man worth giving the position of a king. Sure he will have opponents, but there is no system where opposition doesn't exist.

Tradition is immature? What is more beautiful than the eternal?

If the kingly bloodline is aware of biological hereditary (preferring smartest and most beautiful wives, as they'd likely do) it's very unlikely that their children would be much dumber than their parents. A king would essentially have a kingdom to select the best wife from, and have the most resources to train and feed his children. While it's statistically unlikely that the son of any king would be the smartest man in the country, it's not likely that there would be much difference in terms of IQ.

If the kings ignore biological reality and heredity, they will breed bad rulers and they deserve to get deposed.

I don’t really like Natsoc or fascism. My ideal society would be Prussia imo

>Will Monarchy ever make a comeback?
Monarchy is a religious system and a system that is based on faith and trust

As long as there will be no collective trust in Tradition, as there used to be during Christendom or as there is in the Middle East, then there will be no monarchy, because people allow themselves to be ruled by a monarch, when they trust, that his take over of the throne wasn't accidental, but a work of Providence

No. It's shit.

no, but third position politics are rising

how is it shit? The only drawback is the same one fascism suffers one, the need for an extremely charismatic and competent leader

Natsoc Germany and Prussia are pretty similar.

>charismatic and competent leader
Which is not always found in the royal family.

Yes similar but different.
They both gave off macho powerful images which I love.
The thing is that Prussian militarism is more traditional and German (if you understand what I mean).
Prussian militarism of the first reich was all about God, Kaiser and Country while Nazism (which has some resemblances to Soviet Communism) was all about Heil Hitler

That's one hell of a flaw though. Let me put it like this:
Monarchism relies on the belief that the current king is at least decent and all of his successors will be at least decent.
Fascism relies on the belief that the Great Leader is so excellent that any limitation on his power would just limit his ability to do good, and that he's able to appoint successors (through whatever means neccessary) that are roughly equally competent.
Republicanism relies on the belief that not all leaders are excellent and therefore not only does power need to be limited, but the leader du jour needs to be dethroned if needed.

Kangz used this idea of divine providence in one way or another destining them to the throne, meaning that not only was there no better candidate but resistance to the king would be a direct affront to God. Fascist leaders just spin a certain narrative, limit all abilities for protest and the one time we've seen a fascist leader die while in power, leadership passed on to a leader who dismantled the entire system (Franco & Juan Carlos II). Republicanism has proven its merits since the days of Ancient Greece and Rome, to the point where even the Empire sought to at least maintain the illussion of republicanism (and at its best actually resembled some sort of permanent dictatorship).

The "one" drawback of monarchism is like saying "the only problem with socialism is that it doesn't work".

Arguing for monarchy is like arguing for communism, i.e something that's already failed catastrophically & repeatedly.
Look to superior pre-christian civilizations like Rome if you've got such a hard-on for antiquated political systems.

Is monarchy redpilled because it's the natural predator of mafias? or is monarchy blupilled because it's a monopolised mafia?

>Look to superior pre-christian civilizations like Rome if you've got such a hard-on for antiquated political systems.
Hell, you can even look at the societies that birthed the Renaissance: North Italian republics.

I'd say it's pretty damned bluepilled, as it's basically a desire for submission. The belief that some father figure can solve all problems if only everyone would just hand over their fundamental rights and bow.

>moldbug
>Yarvin's father is Jewish

Eventually one of your mega rich celebrity/oligarchs it's going to decide to run for president for life.

It doesn’t work?
What about England, France (until 1791), Imperial Germany?
Every state eventually collapses. By your standards, Natsoc doesn’t work. Of course Natsoc does, even if I don’t love it.

Also you can publicly glorify Prussia with your wife's boyfriend because National Socialism is a bit taboo with your cuck friends.

That, I would oppose

Lol, I’m not a cuck

Go suck a dick

And no, Natsoc isn’t taboo. I just prefer Prussia over it.

But you fucking kikes convinced us to kill all of our thousand year old royal bloodlines. We are a aimless and kingless people. The blood of royals does not simply rise to the top.

yes
reactionary revolutions will appear around 2030 because the world is degenerate garbage

Soon, my brother.
Soon.

It never went away.

>libertarian
How is a country in which everything is owned by one father figure of a people less legitimate than a country owned by thousands? That makes no sense at all. Are publicly traded companies more legitimate than privately owned companies? No? In fact, i'd say privately owned companies are 99% of the time much better than public ones.

At least I know of an asshole who tried the kingdom shit at that only worked for a few years

As I said.

The Devil has always been The Monarchy.

>popular sovereignity
Cancer. Only individuals have the right to choose their leaders, not groups. Once every individual is recognized as free, and people start organizing into free states(Which'll be very similar to ours, except people sign a contract), many of those free states will be monarchies, just like family-owned businesses.
It'll be great. And there will be so many options! Republicucks, Commies, Nazis, and all other many of nuts will get their own states, while we get our kings!

Fuck Nazis and fuck commies, your socialist marxist garbage will be in the history books.

Monarchism is the one true final red pill.

Fuck Hitler Fuck Marx Fuck Mussolini Fuck Lenin Fuck Stalin and especially fuck Trotsky

GOD SAVE THE KING!

Who exactly do you think everyone serves?

>lol not wanting to embrace fags, nigger dick and white genocide is just sentimental
>why do you care about the survival of European identity or culture lol you sentimental faggot
Why are being you retarded?

We have a monarchy.
And as expected, it has a function for trade.
It serves as a gateway for Dutch multinationals to do business.
Nobody denies the king access

Its too bad the the monarchs were in bed with the jews.

>How is a country in which everything is owned by one father figure of a people less legitimate than a country owned by thousands?
Because it's not land, it's sovereignity over people. As Rousseau told it, handing over your liberty in exchange for virtually nothing is slavery.

>Once every individual is recognized as free, and people start organizing into free states(Which'll be very similar to ours, except people sign a contract), many of those free states will be monarchies, just like family-owned businesses.
And how would these postage stamp sized free states defend themselves against larger countries that refuse to play along? It's much better to have a state with a large country that's non-interventionists and allows the citizens to live as if they were more or less running their families as 'kingdoms'. Hence popular sovereignity with limited government. This would involve devolution of power to locally regulate whatever can be locally regulated. Preferably with strong involvement of the electorate, like in Switzerland.

>Eventually one of your mega rich celebrity/oligarchs it's going to decide to run for president for life.

The north Italians didn't birth the renaissance , it was the refugees from Constantinople , so basically citizens of imperial rome.

Monarchy will return in the form of a sentient A.I.

>we can never be sure the son of the good king isn't a dumb piece of shit.
That's why he should be raised to be smart, and his father should marry someone at-least as far as a second cousin. A democratically-elected leader will only ever have a silver-tongue going for him.

I wish Kings had bigger balls. At this point they could easily gain power. Charles could build an army of right wing nationalists and take over the city of London over night with a couple of tweets if he wanted to.

>failed catastrophically & repeatedly.
Jesus Christ. The most popular form of government for thousands of years goes out of style in the last two hundred, and it's a failure? You are a retard.

WHO GETS THE GUNS?

The monarchies were betrayed by jew funded revolutionaries from both sides.

The French revolution is a classic example.

In Germany as well Jew funded and sometimes jews themselves who play both sides(Marxist or nazi) and ousted the Kaiser.

Jew funded so called intellectuals betrayed the Monarchies.

All forms of socialism are garbage.

THE OLD ORDER MUST BE RESTORD!

SMASH THE RED SOCIALIST HYDRA!

>its not lang
But it is.
>sovereignty over people
They are still a sovereign people but they have a leader. By your definition of slavery, working at a company with a ceo is slavery. A king is the land owner and grants citizens protection. That is not slavery. Its no different then a CEO granting employee's a share of money.

All princes should have to serve in the military or live as a disguised normal citizen for a period of time before becoming king.

I love it when supposed monarchists post Napoleon. (who fired cannons loaded with grapeshot at royalists)

Then again one of your kings had a "death to kings" tattoo.

>And how would these postage stamp sized free states defend themselves against larger countries that refuse to play along?
Because the people of that large, non-free, country would, ideally, not stand for anything but freedom, and other small sates would not stand for the invasion of their neighbor(Especially because it preludes their own invasion).
>It's much better to have a state with a large country that's non-interventionists and allows the citizens to live as if they were more or less running their families as 'kingdoms'.
Why? Those people are still not free, being subservient to a state they did not consent to joining.
>Hence popular sovereignity with limited government. This would involve devolution of power to locally regulate whatever can be locally regulated. Preferably with strong involvement of the electorate, like in Switzerland.
Popular sovereignty is cancer. No other people have the right to decide my political system, just because we're of the same "group," and there are more of them than there are of me.
People need true freedom. But they also need security. So they can, consensually, join state-companies.

While knowledge being brought over from the Eastern Mediterranean was important, it's a very simplistic explanation to say it was singlehandedly responsible for the Renaissance. The unprecedented urbanization in Northern Italy at the time and the rise of Italian banking and trade networks, as well as certain freedoms granted by republican governance also played a great role.

This presumes that
>Intelligence has no genetic element and is purely about childrearing
>The king will actively pursue eugenics and pay zero attention to his personal feelings, his direct interests or pleasing members of his court or other important figures with politically convenient marriages
It basically relies on the king playing IRL CK2, including how simplified it makes things look.

>A democratically-elected leader will only ever have a silver-tongue going for him.
First of all, that's down to a gullible and highly uninvolved electorate.
Secondly, republicanism does not presume the ideal leader. Hence the limitations on power.
Thirdly, while a democratically elected leader needs a silver tongue, a king doesn't even need that!

>But it is
If it's just about landownership, than anyone who owns land is free to crown himself king as he pleases. But that's not it, it's about being able to pass laws, levy taxes, command the army et cetera. It's not merely about possession of material goods. If it is, then let's have as many kings as we want. Anyone who owns over 100 acres of land can call himself king of that land.

>They are still a sovereign people
How are they sovereign then? I want you to explain that to me. Then also explain what you think sovereignity means. The closes you can get is a popular monarchy, which I presume you do not like.

>By your definition of slavery, working at a company with a ceo is slavery.
That makes zero sense. Employment is a voluntary agreement that can be ended according to the terms in a freely signed contract, in which one side obliges himself to work and the other obliges himself to pay.

>Protection
Rousseau actually discusses this argument and explains why it does not work. He explains that the king's desires more often bring wars upon the land than prevent them, wars that will ravage the property of commoners and nobles alike. This is what happens when the state becomes a mere tool of the king to achieve his ends, and there is no system in place to obligate the king to protect and punishes him for stepping out of line.

To that I'd like to add my own argument: what protection does a king grant that a sovereign people's republican regime cannot? Do republics not have armies? Not have a police? Not have laws that protect property rights? You will find that, especially in the case of the latter, in a republic these more effectively protect the property of the individual.

The only thing Washington did wrong was not crown himself king afterwards
Literally no one in the country would have opposed him doing this, and then we wouldn't have fallen into the trap of universal suffrage that Jefferson and Jackson lead us into

>Venetians
is their greed something genetic or cultural?

Funny enough republicans aren't in general monarchists.

>ideally
There's your problem.

>Those people are still not free, being subservient to a state they did not consent to joining
Rousseau also mentions that. With the rise of states, you're effectively enforced to obey. That's what he meant by "liberty lost can never be regained". Hence his solution is not to dismantle the state (as anarchists would want), but to
1. ground it in the sovereignity of the people
2. limit its ability to do ill through limited governance, checks & balances et cetera

>No other people have the right to decide my political system, just because we're of the same "group," and there are more of them than there are of me
That's the tragedy of the dictatorship of the majority, which is why a proper republic (notice that I praise republics, not democracies) should have checks in place that ensure fundamental rights cannot be violated, neither through the desires of the ruling class nor through the vote of majority.

Nice George III quote. Here's another one.

He's not wrong though.

>This presumes that
>>Intelligence has no genetic element and is purely about childrearing
I never said that. Any king likely has good DNA. And a good IQ. As long as his son inherits that, and is raised better than many monarchs of the past, it'll be fine.
>>The king will actively pursue eugenics and pay zero attention to his personal feelings, his direct interests or pleasing members of his court or other important figures with politically convenient marriages
>It basically relies on the king playing IRL CK2, including how simplified it makes things look.
I don't know what you mean by that.
>>A democratically-elected leader will only ever have a silver-tongue going for him.
>First of all, that's down to a gullible and highly uninvolved electorate.
Electorates are always uninvolved. The working Joe doesn't have the time to be learning about some guy's true policies, and his past actions, only to hear the shit he spouts about, say, new welfare or, on the other wing, getting rid of those illegal immigrants.
>Secondly, republicanism does not presume the ideal leader. Hence the limitations on power.
Nearly all elected leaders are sub-par but good talkers. When everyone in power is shit, it doesn't matter if they all have less power than they could at maximum.
>Thirdly, while a democratically elected leader needs a silver tongue, a king doesn't even need that!
I'd rather he not have that.
George was probably infertile. He got smallpox in the Caribbean as a young man, and didn't have any children.

Are we listening to this (((guy)))? Monarchy creates castes. Royalty, Warrior Caste and the overwhelmingly poor. NO...Monarchy is not superior.

lmao wtf venice.

>>ideally
>There's your problem.
You're ideas take a lot of "ideallies" to work, too.
>>Those people are still not free, being subservient to a state they did not consent to joining
>Rousseau also mentions that. With the rise of states, you're effectively enforced to obey. That's what he meant by "liberty lost can never be regained". Hence his solution is not to dismantle the state (as anarchists would want), but to
>1. ground it in the sovereignity of the people
>2. limit its ability to do ill through limited governance, checks & balances et cetera
I don't believe that people are powerless before states, though. I belive there are alternatives, which would be hard to see before modern technology. If you think there can be nothing but states, all you'd be able to support would be limiting their power, but I think that's not the only option.
>>No other people have the right to decide my political system, just because we're of the same "group," and there are more of them than there are of me
>That's the tragedy of the dictatorship of the majority, which is why a proper republic (notice that I praise republics, not democracies) should have checks in place that ensure fundamental rights cannot be violated, neither through the desires of the ruling class nor through the vote of majority.
I have nothing wrong with republics. I just don't want to live in one. And I don't want anyone to be forced into one, either. You'd be able to live in your republic, less corrupt than any today, and I in my monarchy, and we could both be happy. And we could see which, truly, was the better system.
It's the future, my friend.

Man burgers are 10x more obnoxious whenever they comment on history
No monarchy ever produced civilizations anywhere near as strong as Rome despite having like you said, thousands of years to do so.
Choosing monarchy is like choosing a horse cart over a car.

Castes are good and natural.

At least they were polite...sort of...

>Any king likely has good DNA. And a good IQ
Doubtful.
>As long as his son inherits that
DNA is very tricky in that regard, especially when mixed with 'lesser' DNA. Doubly so when you consider that intelligence is a polygenic trait, certain genetic traits can express themselves very differently under different circumstances, regression to the mean et cetera.

>Electorates are always uninvolved.
Of course they are, when they are citizens only when voting and peasants for the rest of the year
telegraph.co.uk/news/1435383/How-direct-democracy-makes-Switzerland-a-better-place.html
Compare the aforementioned Switzerland, which has some of the highest levels of political involvement precisely because of devolution and limited direct democracy.

>Nearly all elected leaders are sub-par but good talkers
>Nearly all
That's one hell of a burden or proof you have there.

>I'd rather he not have that.
A leader who cannot convince others is barely a leader. This is why Romans placed such great importance on rhetorics. Governance is to a very large degree rhetorics. Hence parliaments, where 'parler' is all they do.