/monarchy/ - STOP THINKING LIKE REPUBLICANS

>>5283

Sparta was also a slave pit that failed to keep its women doing their duty and not acting slutty.

>>5030

Idiot.

>>4822

Yeah, don't even link us the website. Faggot.

>>5239

I should point out why political tests are usually trash because it mostly comes down to wording, as the political compass says I'm slightly authoritarian while the 8values say's I'm mostly authoritarian. Political tests are just for fun don't let a fucking graph tell you what you believe.

>>4517

This is terribly true.

>>5041

You are terribly correct.

>>5118

Doesn't matter. The mongrelized societies in the modern world are at war with nature. Deny the importance of blood.

>>5123

so if a cumskin wants to fuck a shitskin it is against nature? xD

>>5127

Beastiality.

>>5127

Consider how widespread hostility towards miscegenation is and lack of it among high-quality Whites (it's not the high-status males who fixate on Jap porn and not the best, most thin, non-dysfunctional who get into porn to fuck Jabongo).

>>5129

bestiality occurs in nature so is natural

Robert Filmer espoused authority of patria potestas belonging to the natural origin of paternal monarchy. The origin goes from family, to tribe, to nation. Robert Filmer was a strong proponent of paternal monarchy and authority beginning with clans. As seen in the line 'The first kings were fathers of families'. Whether you dispute the idea of Adam being a patriarch, it still is important to recognize the truth in this concept. The monarchy is a royal family and there is some validity in paternal authority. You are welcome to debate the sex and equality in the household between man and woman, or talk in defense of the pagan ritual. The paternal and inherited authority sounds the most benevolent and true to what a monarchy is. This is contrasted to Hobbes who denied this in Leviathan. Although Leviathan goes into great detail about the place of paternal authority in Commonwealth.

Going to recommend the Cambridge Robert Filmer collection of writings.

For that anon in the reading list.

>>4239

Expanded PLC post

Sounds like the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth, basically nobles elected a king, only nobility was inherited from the father, so by the time it ended something like 10-15% of the population could vote, which funnily enough was comparable or potentially greater than the early United States

Sounds elegant but it devolved into a clusterfuck, the nobles after a point kept electing foreign dynasties, probably the worst offender was the Liberium Veto. Basically every legislative session could be vetoed by any one representative, note the entire session not an individual law. Turns out foreign powers just started bribing legislators, nobles and electors to paralyze the kingdom and the PLC didn't recover ending up being carved up by its neighbours.

>>4026

In reality democracy and monarchy, government in general, can take many, many, forms. We are often just aware of the common forms.

>>4199

Monarcho-feminist?

>>4239

>>4243

This is a slight misconception. The Liberum Veto worked surprisingly well as long as we had a certain political culture. The idea was: no decision is made without unanimous agreement, so the people kept negotiating until, for the good of the commonwealth, an agreement was reached. Then, one nobleman by the name of Siciński left the congregation, thus breaking off the negotiations. This was a precedent that allowed for the veto. This principle was in power theoretically since 1505, Siciński left a local congregation in 1623 I think. In all that time, no one broke off the proceedings. Still, high political culture and patriotism allowed the system to continue and it is only in the XVIIIth century that no new legislation was passed due to external influence, but mostly because the average noble stopped being the multilingual educated patriot that he used to be. You also could not veto an election.

>>1512

free market is spontaneous

>>1513

Only once property rights have found widespread acceptance. Then the rest takes care of itself, but only then. At least this much ideological work is necessary.

>>1514

>Britain is not even a real monarchy bro. From Cromwell to expelling the Stuarts I'd rather call them a faggotarchy

Actually true. Beware the eternal anglo.

>>1514

IM CIA

>>5025

>absolute monarchy actually benefits from an abundance of private space and decentralization, contrary to what some think, because the less the king can control, the less risk and difficulties there in being absolute

>If a king owes his absolute power to God, how far could he go to undermine morality and order without crippling his own power?

>If the king commands you to do something so sacrilegious, nobody has to abide with it and should outright reject it as nonviolently as possible.

No arguments there, again it's one of the reasons I'm sympathetic to monarchy at all. You do seem to acknowledge that even with "divine right," the king is subject to his own laws and can be disobeyed if his orders are sacrilegious, and run contrary to ethics. You aren't really pushing for taxes so I have to assume that you'd be fine with a voluntary payment system if you thought it was functional, so I'll stop beating the coercion drum. You also implied (pardon me if I'm misreading you here) that you'd be fine with a voluntary system of verdict enforcement, if you thought it was feasible, but at present don't think it's feasible. My one point of contention, and a place where I don't think either of us could change the mind of the other, is the idea that the king's word must be obeyed as long as it's not immoral or sacrilegious.

I would prefer it if any man could say he no longer accepts the king as his king, and wishes to terminate the contract (as in a tangible, worldly contract, not some social contract BS) he has with him to provide protection services. Because of what you think on divine right I don't think I could get you to agree to this, and that's fine. However, let me go back to something you said when we were discussing the king as a monopolist–you said you were fine with the idea of multiple sovereigns, each with their own territory, right? Well, I like to consider individualism to be the logical conclusion of that: just as it's okay for there to be sovereigns of different countries, so it's okay to have sovereigns of different provinces, yes? So why not sovereign of a county? Of a village? And so on until you reach the smallest constituent unit, which you can say is either the individual and the family. I don't expePost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>5027

>>5028

offtopic, but from that pic, what's your take on Proudhon? Only real exposure I've had to him is mutualists on /liberty/ that try to tell me property is theft and squatting is a human right.

>>5029

>the king is subject to his own laws

Even with that, I'd contest the king is subject to God and the consequences of his laws, not that he -should- be subject to them. I think that's really where we split. From my pov, this is the way things should be. A king's word generally should be obeyed unless it goes against your faith with God, who is above in the hierarchy. It's not about laws, but hierarchy, more importantly. For example, an Emperor and Pope to balance Christendom. A monarchy to balance with aristocracy/democracy. At least, that's what I think.

Let me put it this way: I don't' think a monarch can step out, decide to speak for abolishing all property, and suddenly *poof* it's gone. From the absolutist perspective, arbitrary power is so far from absolute to actually work, it might as well be doubted. The imperial/royal maintains his significant place in sovereignty and discipline while still being absolute.

He's another kind of anarchist. It's not that I post that quote out of admiration for him. I just like the image/words in context with what I said. I honestly don't have a strong opinion other than I'm not well versed in thinking in terms of anarchy. Given some of the stuff I posted, like with Maistre, I doubt I would really agree with his politics.

I have a pretty generic of the term anarchism and don't really recognize it. I've definitely had my pitches with anarchists on the other side of the spectrum and there's such I could say about it.

>>5028

Honestly, if there's one thing you changed my mind on, it's whether there should be private courts

>>5031

>For example, an Emperor and Pope to balance Christendom. A monarchy to balance with aristocracy/democracy. At least, that's what I think.

I can respect that, but it only works if the two opposing groups have a vested interest in staying opposed to each other rather than colluding. We tried the checks/balances thing in the states, for instance, but once the three branches realized there was no real reason for them to oppose each other, they just acted in concert to increase each other's power, mostly through the courts–the judiciary interprets whatever arbitrary power abuse the executive or legislature has committed as "constitutional," making it legal, and in return they become more forgiving of judicial activism, allowing the judiciary to pass policy from the bench that gives the other two even more justification for their tyranny, and so the cycle repeats. I don't know enough about the relationship between kings and christendom, or between the aristocrats and the king, to judge whether those relationships fostered this kind of collusion, but from what I know of history it doesn't seem like they did, or at least not as much as our system did.

you've changed my mind on the social contract, or at least you've opened my eyes to the degree that kind of thought influenced me even though I had thought I rejected it.

>>1770

Oy vey shut it down

>>4903

a mistake

People place far too much weight in the French Revolution. The madness of this modern world is plainly traced back to no other event than the Great War

>>4591

>implying apostasy is bad

>>4856

Spiritual foundations are important for most civilizations.

>>4810

If the monarch's rule is primarily spiritual, then why does he need to be head of state at all? He could be a voluntary actor on the market, and sell his services as a monarch to those who desire his guidance and authority. To quote an overused line, good ideas don't require force to implement.

>>4812

read nietzsche or stirner

>>4816

Tell us what the Niggers in Africa accomplished compared to the racist meanies in Renaissance to Victorian Europe with their kings and segregation and lack of democracy

>>4829

aids

>>3516

>advocates multiculturalism

>doesn't value propelling his bloodline

Found the cuck.

>>3265

>Views on fornication?

idgaf

>What do you larpers think of non-whites, inferior white ethinicies, and mutts? Why?

i like all nations

>>3265

>Official religion of /monarchy/ and why?

Catholicism, but Orthodoxy, Coptic Christianity are acceptable as well.

>What do you larpers think of non-whites, inferior white ethinicies, and mutts? Why?

We are all children in the eyes of God, some groups are just more childish than others because they have yet to be civilized properly and fully. That's not a call for mass migration, as that doesn't make them any more civilized it only makes them strangers in a strange land. They are children prone to violent outbursts who should remain in their distant lands working to better themselves while secular and religious figures help to civilize them. The nation-state is a meme that is antithetical to traditionalism and proved to have devastating effects not just on the monarchies of the world, but one the globe's general populous as a whole, causing unnecessary suffering and carnage. Things were better for the disparate peoples of the Danube when the Austrian Empire governed them all, the same goes for the vast majority of decolonized states and their respective imperial overlords.

>Views on fornication?

Outside of marriage it's a sin.

>On a scale from 1 to 10 how pathetic do you rate the ancreeps from /liberty/? Why?

They remain some of the rudest most utopian people I've ever had the displeasure to have an argument with. They are as bad as communists when it comes to their delusional beliefs and just ignore most counterarguments you make while being incredibly smug about it.

>Why do you virgins like anime so much?

Not a virgin and I don't watch anime

>>148

Great show.

>>192

What else can you expect, really? By the end of the series, the remnant of the abolished Empire-in-Exile actually lost the Goldenbaum Emperor because he ran away from home. It shows a stark contrast between the Empire and the Alliance–the Empire is ruled by those with the right to rule, while the Alliance is ruled by powerhungry monsters who care about not their "republican values," but holding on to their authority. This is made evident once it turns out that Yang Wen-li cannot expose a government scandal due to the fact that the Alliance lacks a free press. It's really good for getting people into monarchism, as it basically takes a Bonapartist point of view which many republicans will more easily accept.

>>327

Never even noticed. Awful. I'm glad that I don't remember it very much.

Has anyone seen Charles II: The Power and the Passion? It gets posted time and again here.

>>3980

Never thought I would see Ozen here

>>4739

Ozen is a cutie.

>>3672

>influenced by their blood

>Blood isn't the strongest connection any man can have with another

It's not a coincedence that the most disasterous societies are the least homogenous.

What is authoritarian is benevolent for justice and peace. What is honorable and just secures rights and civil liberty.

>>4722

*not to mention what MM warned about social contract theory and choosing governments

<"People around the world but western people in particular have largely lost their sense of identity. This is the unavoidable result of the revolutionary period of history. The overthrow of monarchs, whose lives were the history of their nations, broke people away from their histories and traditions. It changed the way people viewed their countries, from a familial view to an entirely civic view. When the ruler could be anyone it was only a matter of time before the people could be anyone too." - Mad Monarchist

>"Nationalism is treason." - Emmanuel Macron

>>4720

>he's a Nigger

>>4730

im more white than you you 56% amerimutt