/monarchy/ - STOP THINKING LIKE REPUBLICANS

>>3919

Pretty much, anon.

>>1917

>it's just an obvious fact that words aren't always meant literally

It's even more obvious that words mean something. You can say that "kill all whites" is not to be taken literally, but then how do we take it? If anything, it might be hyperbole for "kill some whites" or "be hostile to whites". That's conjecture, but it's plausible (not necessarily more plausible than the literal meaning). Taking it as a metaphor for living in peace together with whites would be absurd, plain and simple. Not the least because it was a political hymn, not some grand lecture by a spiritual leader. Hymns are supposed to be easily understood by the masses of the people, they miss their purpose when you need a doctorate to interpret them properly.

>>1798

Shouldn't this manuscript be what this thread is discussing?

>>1920

i already went over my interpretation in >>1908. then somebody idiotically suggested that it was ridiculous to take words non-literally.

Someone will bring up Mr. House soon or later.

>>3803

I think you just did.

>>3173

It sounds like the logical conclusion of monarchy to me. The prime advantage of a monarch over other forms of rule is that a monarch has lower time preference, and is more willing to forego gaining wealth now in favor of getting even more wealth in the future. Removing mortality from the equation will bring time preference asymptotically close to zero, allowing the monarch to think on a scale of decades or even centuries.

>>2578

What is the ->Kingdom<- of David?

>>2579

The exception to a rule.

And Israel split in half after that, for all I know. They demanded a king and got a king.

You see, Jews needed the Kingdom of God and the SPIRIT, as they could not survive on behalf of the LAW.

>>332

>economic growth

Can't have indefinite economic growth.

>>3650

You're half right. Presuming you have sound monetary policy, and not Keynesian fiat shit, indefinite economic growth is not necessary for a functional economy. However, insofar as the economic growth is legitimate, it's certainly desirable, as it's driven by technological growth and will only increase the standard of living of your subjects. In answer to OP, this guy >>710 gets it right, comparative advantage is best.

>>3760

>The Chinese hasn't reached anywhere near the level of domination the British and Americans had achieved prior to the revolution (establishing economic spheres of influence and overthrowing Iran's government at a whim).

>Letting foreigners meddle is okay when they're not Whitey

>You're lettings shekels cloud your skull, that's for sure.

>muh kikes

Did past Muslim rulers include Jews in their domain Y/N

>>finding faults with an individual monarch makes you a demotist

Combined with your strongman fetishization and yapping about demotist notions of "charisma" and "merit" yes it does.

>>2396

There's Imperial Iran, pro-Pahlavi videos in the music thread, tbh.

>>3631

Still assblasted you didn't get a husbando?

>>3327

>in other words, how do we brainwash /leftypol/ into serving our greater cause?

Most people stopped believing in Communism once the actual communists took over and they realized they were used like a wet condom

>see: 90% of Eastern Europe, Nork escapees, Venezuelans

>>3327

Bumping

>>1273

Germany is a jewish puppet that does not want good things for Germany. Silesia used to be completely German before the jews took it from us and gave it to Poland, all the while stealing eastern Poland and giving it to themselves.

>>1299

There is no treason to an illegitimate government. All of eastern Germany is rightfully German, Silesia being part of it. The Poles living there being illegitimate occupants.

>>1076

Catalonia is a rightful part of the kingdom of Spain. As are Castille, Leon and Portugal. If the Catalans want to secede part of a nation and reestablish a monarchy they'd have to pick Both Sicilies.

>>1081

And that's why your kind gets the same bullet as your socialist friends. Enjoy your helicopter ride.

>>3572

Agreed. Fuck separatist cucks.

>>1160

>This is probably a "no homo" aside, but the King looks fucking amazing. He looks like how I imagined El Cid to look like.

And now please be glad that Otto von Habsburg didn't accept the crown when Franco offered it to him

>>3079

The only language they understand is violence. It applies to every government. The thing they leave out is that violence is met with violence.

I'd like to know how someone could leave a system. If you know where in the book, tell me. I think the best you can do is emigrate or socially isolate yourself. If you commit the worst crimes in the realm, even if you didn't consent to the laws, it is sensible that someone would subject you. I don't think what Hobbes presents is too far-fetched than it's received.

>>995

Hobbes is also an individualist in the sense that he also calls for loyalty to an individual, a leviathan, rather than ideals and morality and some kind of NAP. In ways, Hobbes separates from the classical knowledge and reforms it. Hobbes expanded on the ideal of chivalry and vassalship so well. He understood that authority must come between a ruler and a subject, and that it requires leadership to have this kind of hierarchy. And all leadership is faulty and all justice in this world requires a leader to sovereign to determine the laws and bridge it down through their authority.

And anarchists, republicans, and other idealists? They don't understand the concept of being loyal to an individual to begin with. They are the worst political animals. They construct constitutions and try to check and balance everything, believing that these laws are necessary. The problem is a government isn't about liberty and no authority – even a constitution – allows for the best liberty FROM other people! All liberty ceases to be true liberty when other people are involved and take away the atomized individual that the anarcho-kiddos worship. And for liberty to truly mandate itself in a civil society, there must be an authority. The consequence is people have a right to all things and each others' bodies.

What is authoritarian isn't bad at all, and it brings civil liberty between people and reconciles their conflicts to help promote harmony and love between an authority and people's liberty. The danger is totalitarian government that believes in the general will of Rousseau and popular mandates and the will of the mob. People take Hobbes for an atheist and part of that is rhetoric spawned from his enemies. Hobbes believed in social contract through consent to obey, divine mandate as portrayed in the Bible of social consent – AS God presenting a people with a king – and Hobbes puts this loyalty to justice central to his political theory as long as a sovereign provides protection in a Commonwealth.

While I appreciate most of Hobbes' political theory as "our social contract theorist" for monarchists, I don't agree with the ideaPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Sir Robert Filmer deserves credit for conceptualizing monarchy in the most fairest sense that forms a nation from family, to tribe, to nation. A monarchy is quintessentially a family and a dynasty that rules over. What libertarians don't understand about this authority is it is the most benevolent authority. It starts with a paternal incentive to take care of offspring, and the virtues of this role; it also means that property is taken care of and safeguarded fundamentally as the monarch prescribes order and justice from the threshold of a household… by means of inheritance and natural hereditary practice.

They laugh at a monarch's inheritance as rulership, yet they don't understand how this form of government secures the rights of manhood and teaches us obedience. Before obedience and honor, rights have no fundamental place in society. Never lose sight of loyalty to someone.

Despite everything anarchists say about social contract theory and how they dislike it, I don't believe them. Modern politics is based on social contract theory. These anarchists all talk through these modern political means and think like republicans. They don't conceptualize the Divine Right of Kings or any contrarian ideals. They simply want "their state" instead of the dominant state.

The political hacks online and their political compasses need to screw off with their ideologies.

>>3477

A crown is akin to a constitution in that it is another authority that is about sovereign justice. You focus on the king, but not the monarchy. While the king is the monarchy, the monarchy itself is present as an authority.

>>3473

Money is spent to be used. Money is circulated throughout the whole economy. To pander with politics and promises, I say, the politician leads people astray. You mentioned Hobbes >>3471 and it meant multiplied pandering to a BIGGER mass. A democracy operates on pandering for votes and public support, and to gain such public support it means to pander and sell other people out in favor of your people – your multitude.

Harmony is also compliance and love of government enough. I'm going back to your central question because I'm growing bored. If you truly want to know the motives of a monarch, I will being with >>3442 your prompt again. You ask, "why?"

>why should a monarch care

Because the monarch is the successor of his ancestors. The monarch inherits the legacy of his household. This paternal authority is the same paternal authority that men hold as fathers. This ancestral wisdom is a source of inspiration and influence on the monarch. Great monarchs look back to their ancestors to guide them. Their tradition is following the actions their hereditary parents took and their achievements.

The monarch also owns the country as its sovereign. It is the monarch's estate to visit and take care of. It is his life office.

As sovereign of a people, the title bears that the monarch is theirs and since the monarch is responsible for them, the monarch has this to remember that the sovereignty of a land changes and goes between the men in history.

The discipline of monarchs is their God and Divine Right to this office. Their authority and right is sanctified from a divine mandate and this proceeds to resemble all rights by a crown. This is an office of virtue for them.

Monarchs are akin to paternal authority. When I say harmony, it is their love and responsibility to stay with a people.

>>1246

>You're all appealing to Anarcho-Capitalism

You say this like it's a bad thing.

>>1248

No I don't. I say that like it is a narrow way of appealing to all anarchists. I say that like if you need different tactics to appeal to different sects of anarchism.

>>618

>This thread is incredibly disappointing but I should not be surprised, people here doesn't seem to know what anarchism even is.

I'm also disappointed but for different reasons. >>545 is literally the only post I've seen in this thread that actually explains the similarities between anarchy and monarchy. >>467 is a neat resource but they didn't explain anything themselves. Otherwise, every post before yours has been explaining how Monarchists can subvert anarchist language/movements to further their goals, or their respective histories. We've diverted far beyond the thread's initial topic anyway though, so it isn't like it even matters anymore.

adafs

>>826

And more thanks!

It seems like new threads will have flags.

>>3226

>You do not seem to be woke on the jews I assume?

I am aware that atheist Jews are slightly more liberal than regular atheists, but that's about it.

>Are you retarded?

Verifiable facts.

>>3227

The vast majority of people have at least one child.

>>3228

> I'm not saying the general populace doesn't have an incentive to take care of their own, but democracies easily push that narrative aside with whatever pandering they bring to the public to receive those votes.

I don't think that's how it works. Parties could in theory try to skew people to think in the short term but they would then lose against parties that appeal to how people already think. Changing people's minds is very hard.

Accusing the other party of being irresponsible, unconcerned with debt they're leaving to grandkids, etc. is quite a common approach.

>the democratic system doesn't consist of families

No, but voters exist in families. I think you're exaggerating the importance of the distinction.

>>3232

>I am aware that atheist Jews are slightly more liberal

You really are retarded, right?

>Verifiable facts.

My sides

>The vast majority of people have at least one child.

*if they're not white

I would rather have an autocratic government than a democracy because I don't appreciate the effects on the populace to become voters. Becoming a voter depreciates a person, imo. Voting for minor issues like weed and whether this should be legal seems to gravitate towards the minds of the public – the issues that matter the least. Not to mention the hatred and tension it broils within the populace and what it makes two bipartisan members, sometimes a father and a son – feel when they were both members of a different political party.

The first true Guti ruler who could be called "king" was Inkishush. He was the one to establish a system where each ruler was followed by another shortly after, with the previous one remaining in power behind the scenes. The Guti term for a ruler is شواسك (šwasək), literally "self-rule" but not necessarily with an autocratic implication but that of being free to decide what one wants and to do it. The ancient system allowed anybody to become "king" if they proved themselves fit but there was also a hereditary succession in case the "elected" ruler failed the people. This system was somewhat similar to the Chinese concept of "heavenly mandate". It was the most functional system in history until Tirigan the cuck betrayed his people and destroyed the Guti spirit for independence. Even after thousands of years we have not recovered. It makes me sad that we can never return to the greatest system. It was a working combination of hereditary monarchy, meritocracy and anarchy. It was perfect but we will never have it again.

Let me make a few points.

#1. The monarchy seeks to foster the roles of leadership. When an heir succeeds the throne and wears the crown, there are many influences calling out for the heir to be responsible. From the start, the heir had loyalty and honorable ceremonies promoting the ascending throne. Imagine a shape of a triangle and a fluid falling into shape: likewise, the monarchy seeks to set up every reason for good leadership. The monarch has to master all roles of proper leadership as the monarch gains authority. Responsibility is the chief concern for a monarchist to look after, because authority is the monarch's responsibility. It was always true that with great power comes great responsibility.

#2. (This point depends on the state of a society, considering this factor may become good or bad). – The monarch is well educated and prepared throughout a life, following the household legacy of the predecessors of the throne. This argument used to be very valid with good private tutors, but nowadays the modern monarchs are being forced into normal (((education))) that separates the heir from being an outsider and mysterious force of reverence. There is some good reason for a monarchy to maintain a respect distance from its people, being that the media will try to make them into celebrities or this could potentially cause the public to lose respect. The chief issue with this education is institutions no longer provide adequate education, and since private tutors are being made a taboo for monarchies… it does no service.

#3. Monarchy is inherently a system of proper leadership. It depends on the monarch becoming a father and taking up ceremonies. Despite how much modernism seeks to distort what the modern family is and what people should value, the structure of monarchy itself prevents this misconduct with its own integrity. It will not prevent bad monarchs, but it surely gives a boost.

My last word on this is meritocracy and hereditary leadership aren't contradictory terms. These two things can work. Aristocracy doesn't contradict meritocracy either because aristocracy is often born out of it.

Aristocracy is meritocracy with a lower time-preference.

With a meritocracy, you, an individual must be great.

With an aristocracy, you, your son, and his son must all be great, ad infinitum.

It is absolutely the case that families, even royalty lose the mandate of heavene, though this is usually manifested by conquest.

>>3196

>Aristocracy is meritocracy with a lower time-preference.

This is going in my quote book.

>>2671

>I personally think a state should be lead by the best person possible for the job based on merit

the person with so much 'merit' will just have overconfidence, ignore his ancestors and those around him, propose shitty schemes to try to make everything better, probably fuck things up.

tradition is better and a monarchy leads to tradition. first, all power in a monarchy derives from the past, inspiring a respect for tradition and ancestors. second a leader not chosen on merit will be less likely to believe he can fix everything, nor will people listen to him, leading to further preservation of tradition. third, monarchy acts as a visual metaphor for tradition as the tradition of ruling is passed down from father to son (rather than each generation of ruler trying to work it out for himself)

>>2115

That's hebrew, right?

>this sub

>>>/reddit/

Kindly refer yourself to the gallows.

Reddit thread