/monarchy/ - STOP THINKING LIKE REPUBLICANS

>>3075

>Bringing authority is an accomplishment.

Maybe so, but this doesn't mean accomplishments automatically generate authority. It seems to me you have made a category error.

>>3077

>The anglo would rather some random whore choose

The woman isn't choosing the monarch directly, we are counting on her choice of mate to be a reflection of who we ought to choose for King.

>instead of God

And how would you get God to choose? I thought the thing about God was, He doesn't interfere directly in world affairs like that (some would say, conveniently).

>>3081

You need to lurk more until you understand divine right and get the big gay out of your head

>>3085

>where are you going with your natural selection idea if accomplishments, deeds, and virtues don't matter?

I never said they didn't matter, I just made the point that achievements don't result in a monarch. Nobody makes aspersions towards power on the back of achievements and neither would modern society allow them to take it.

>mating process isn't traditionally who chooses.

I know, I just came upon it as a natural, external way to choose a monarch. It doesn't involve any politics. And it makes sense to the primate brain, if we're being reactionary anyway and all that

Daily reminder that Anglos are worse than jews

>>3068

i just realized how old those posts i replied to are, but whatever

>>3068

>how are you gonna ensure every new monarch is "morally sound"

You cannot ensure anything. But a monarchy does a better job than most secular governments and dropping it to the masses to decide what is moral.

>reals > feels

Not an argument.

Equality is contrarian to liberty. Liberty comes at the expense of other people, and people cannot be equally free because freedom is known to those who are alone rather than those who are among other people. It is people who exploit other people and it is people who demand the state.

>muh empirical/biological evidence

A monarchy is a biological and concrete structure. It is a relationship of blood and the descendants of a leadership. It exercises power based on the honor the institution receives and also the authority of the office. The authority is wholesome and the public consents to obey it, otherwise it is pure violence. The source of authority is varying, but it comes to the power to exercise authority and legitimacy is that the -right- to authority UNDER the justice of the SOVEREIGNTY enables the monarch to exercise it. Any commoner who praises the monarchy or consents to its system of justice is automatically subjecting himself to a higher power.

>Naturalistic fallacy

>primitive communism

Okay.

The monarchy is a patriarchal institution naturally – if you even believe that ideal of primitive communism which I doubt was a thing – and the inheritance behind the system is what all parents desire, that being the fruition of an individual; if a system is based on inheritance, it is rightfully the system that reinforces this demand.

>monarchy was ultimately replaced by another form of government at some point

So were other governments replaced with monarchies.

>why pick this one temporary stage out of all the stages of human history

It is most temperate and the natural element is good for its paternaPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

also

>muh social construct fallacy

That doesn't mean it's bad. If you're going to argue on a basis of muh naturalistic fallacy, don't just call it a spook and say it's bad.

Also, if primitive communism existed, I'm going to assert that primitive capitalism existed. Otherwise, wtf, where did capitalism come from?

I don't buy into the primitive argument about communism. Maistre asserts that man wasn't made for the "state of nature" and developed out of it. So, if communism is primitive other than part of the savage, people weren't created for communism. I'm not asserting to focus our ideas on monarchy because it was natural, but because monarchy was a brilliant concept to begin with and that's why it continued for centuries. It established inheritance and allowed generations to succeed with ease. It passed government and always came and went when a republican system failed.

If we're going to be primitives, I'm going to tell you that if primitive communism existed, there would be a form of capitalism that was primitive besides the obvious appearance capitalism today. Man always exploited man and labor was always an oppression to man. Therefore, capitalism in its earlier form, if it through this means of labor, would have been an escape from manual labor. The escape from manual labor lead to the creation of an aristocracy.

They always presume society is the problem except for man himself. What man creates he uses to oppress others if capitalism came out of that. Man would be naturally exploitative rather than a happy-go-lucky primitive aka a man from the clouds.

>>2985

Are you saying that we should choose monarchy because it endows the public with a sense of purpose and meaning?

>>3008

I didn't mean for that to come out all Cathy Newman "So you're saying that lobsters…"

>>3008

I didn't say we should choose anything. I don't see monarchy as something people simply choose like they do at an ice cream shop, but they can certainly strive for it at their own risk…

This is what I believe is a beneficial aspect of a monarchy. It certainly does instill a sense of purpose in a world that is only concerned with the mediocre. Nobody really fancies anything epic or grand, neither is anyone content with what they have. It is an eternal problem, but I think a monarchy brings in a better atmosphere compared to the political idealism we have in the world with its ideological tenets and so on. It sets aside political games and galvanizing people and lets people become people rather than some political body of voter drones.

>>2985

Why does it represent a 'mastery of relationships' better than democracy? In democracy the relationship between ruler and ruled is based on the consent of the governed, which represents the taming of the relationship until government is of the people, by the people, and for the people, rather than an unwanted extractive institution.

>>3041

It doesn't work like that. "The People" aka political parties and their representatives constantly vie and conspire for a place of rulership. I'm not saying monarchy is perfect either, but it doesn't confront the multitude with politics rather it rules over them like any authority. The drive to isolate People into political bodies attempts to isolate them from each other.

At the heart of anarchism is a lunatic worldview with blind trust in a pristine human behavior. It undermines everything that could be evil or barbaric.

[bold]England[/bold]

[bold]Is my city[/bold]

>>2885

>and deportation.

Only if the destination is The Sun

>>2720

I'd actually like to hear stronger non-theological arguments. I understand the desire for more arguments besides "It is God's will".

If you want to lean in the direction of the Divine Right of Kings aspect of monarchies, Sir Robert Filmer's Patriarcha and Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet's Politics drawn from the Very Words of Holy Scripture. Despite what criticism Patriarcha receives, the book provides invaluable insights on the institution of monarchy. It's worth a read and is very short. I have not read the latter yet. I'm introducing these for newfags who might lurk and need to understand a few insights.

PDFs are available in the reading list thread. I will post here.

Politics drawn from the Very Words of Holy Scripture

http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/books/Bossuet--Politics.pdf

Patriarcha, or the Natural Power of Kings

http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/filmer-patriarcha-or-the-natural-power-of-kings

>>2977

There is a few in the FAQ, but fwiw, me as well.

>>2793

I'm not a distributist, but like you said I appreciate the spirit. He has interesting social commentary.

>>2765

>stop thinking like republicans.

This should be the board's tagline.

>>2767

>>2769

>Maistre

>But Maistre said

>According to the words of Maistre

We get it. You have a huge raging hardon for Joseph de Maistre.

>>2770

>I wouldn't describe monarchy as a "collective" or "individualistic" goal. It is a fair middleground between the individual and society

I'd describe it as a third way.

>>2793

>my point still stands that every monarchist wants a specific form of monarchy

It's almost as if monarchism comes in many different forms or something.

>>2765

>stop thinking like republicans.

This should be the board's tagline.

>>2767

>>2769

>Maistre

>But Maistre said

>According to the words of Maistre

We get it. You have a huge raging hardon for Joseph de Maistre.

>>2770

>I wouldn't describe monarchy as a "collective" or "individualistic" goal. It is a fair middleground between the individual and society

I'd describe it as a third way.

>>2793

>my point still stands that every monarchist wants a specific form of monarchy

It's almost as if monarchism comes in many different forms or something.

>>2822

>We get it. You have a huge raging hardon for Joseph de Maistre

Okay, we get it. You have a huge hardon for HansAdamII.

I can't help it if Maistre is so correct in bashing Rousseau. How could you blame a monarchist for liking this man? Don't bully, Liechtenstein-poster.

Please see >>950 , this thread has been bumplocked.

>>2740

[[[peasant's war intensifies]]]

Look at you lot of louts, admiring your peasantry. Know your place.

*upturned sneer*

>>>/bog/ >>2716

Also, not even in another plataform because normacucks are plebs who wouldn't even genocide the niggers let alone exterminate the normalfags.

>>2580

Monarchism is inbreeding prove me wrong, like an actual argument.

>>2590

*monarchy is inbreeding is actually a claim and not an argument;

>>2592

Yours wasn't much of an argument to begin with. Just wild banter.

Inbreeding happened in the past.

What do I say?

Meh. It's not what it was seen today, given royals are so often marrying people of a lesser status. If it becomes a problem, there will be measures against it. It becomes a risk over time. I really don't know what to say other than it has happened but not so often as you will think.

>>2327

>unironically being a monarchist

>"doesn't gravitate towards any spook"

Constanza.png

Above all, the country should strive to be filled by small bussinesses rather than large megacorps

>develops the countryside rather than necessiating urbanisation (getting a job in the countryside is difficult nowadays, as all the companies are in or around the big cities)

>prevents the emergence of the super-rich and super-influential class that would try to control the official government (this can be seen especially in the USA)

>prevents the formation of monopolies

>lessens the amount of marketing (you don't need to have an ad on TV to make people have people come to you about their plumbing. They come to you because you're the local plumber. If you're a shit plumber, they will ask the one in the next town, but will obviously come to you by default)

>fosters relationships between people, makes producers accountable for the quality of their craft

and more. At that point, you can easily implement universal tax. You do not need to pander to the big corps and the super rich, as your economy doesn't depend on them. The wealthy class in your country will be one that has enough money to live in luxury, but not so much as to become an international power that influences governments, nor one that could afford to throw billions about. Better yet, it will be tied to the land, as it possessed no international branches where it could just move away to the moment it decided it dislikes your taxes.

>>2121

Taxation should not leave people bitter nor starving.

Tax actual luxury items and fastfood.

>Poll tax

>"Failure tax" for unmarried and childless men over 30 and women over 25 (unless they get sterilized then they get a one-time eugenics reward)

>No income tax and any attempt at introduction of such should be met with same penalty as treason or larceny

>Tax businesses that reach certain size that'd give them too much power to prevent shit going on in america.

That's simple: the taxes should be proportional on possession.

The goal is simply to limit hoarding, and to push for a ideology that describe money only as a mean of exchange and living.

So the rate have to be fix. Someone that don't have anything will not have to pay, someone have hoarded a lot of money will have to pay a lot.

That's exactly how things should be. Trade and business should be encourage. But debt, insurance or anything close to speculation should be punished very hardly.

Money is sacred by the way. The autority that rules money is the spiritual autority (according to what tradition you're attached to). The King can't touch it.

>socialism is bad, fuck socialists!

>but taxes can be ok…

This is why I'm a libertarian and not a monarchist.

>>2226

>You actually think this is proving your point instead of the opposite. Huh.

If the jewish IQ is sooo high then the only jewish state in the world shouldn't have an Arab tier IQ. Jewish IQ is incredibly high is a meme.

>I don't even need to do anything. You just out yourself.

That's your argument? 'I can claim the things that are true for jews about other groups of people so it is not true'. This is kindergarten tier. The white man has been a blessing upon Africa, unlike the jew who keeps to destroy.

Why is it so important that EVERY nation on earth becomes a multicultural shithole with a small jewish elite enjoying special privileges? Do you kikes even understand that the goyim are not nearly as stupid as you make them out to be? I say the jews stole palestine, so let's deport all our kikes to Israel, throw an embargo on it and watch the Arabs tearing it apart. The age of the jew is closing its end.

>>2188

http://madmonarchist.blogspot.no/2018/03/france-jews-and-monarchy.html

Read this, it is the best monarchistic answer for this issue.

I support Zionism, but oppose globalism. Kingdom of Israel when?

>>2425

>when

When you'll get a bullet in your head.

You're literaly supporting genocide, colonisation and apartheid.

It's written in your damn book that you can't return to the land of Israel before the return of your messiah. And that's why a lot of jews are totaly against Israel, calling it "an act of rebellion against god". You'll pay for that. Maybe not on this earth, but you'll die one day.

By the way, you're saying that you're against globalism, but you still support Israel. You seem to not understand anything about what is happening. Israel is the center of globalism. Every globalist are trying to build a global world, with one world government, which is gonna be in Jerusalem. The primary reason of the war in middle east is to make place for Israel to rule on the region, and to extend itself to the "historical" border, and so to be powerful enough to rule on the world. The goal of the next world war is to make the world weak enough, so Israel will be strong enough to rule on it.

So you can't be for Israel, and be against globalism. That's either pure ignorance, or schizophrenia.

If you did your military service in Israel, then you'll have to pay for you crime. This military service for Tsahal is actually good, because it forces every Israeli citizen to be a part of crime. And so you're all targets. Childrens and old men apart obviously, we're not monster like you. We would never crack the bones of a 10 years old kid just because he looked wrong at a Tsahal patrol.

>>936

>I get to choose who will lead

>being this naive

You don't choose shit. Your leaders are chosen for you by lobby and interest groups who manipulate the masses through the media to vote for one candidate or another. More often than not, they don't even need to do that, as they make sure all of the candidates offered are their puppets – they might have some differing things in their program, such as whether to have a bajillion genders or just two and similar shit, but all that is just acting for the masses to think their "choice" has some manner of meaning. The actually important things, such as the size of the military budget, big tenders, etc. are pre-determined and will occur regardless of which party is in power. At most, you might achieve getting the candidate of one interest group over another's, if there happens to be a conflict between them, but in the end, your "elected leaders" are not working for your benefit and couldn't give less of a shit about the country. They care about pleasing their masters who got them into office in the first place, and their masters usually only care about sucking out as much taxpayer money from state coffers as possible. All the while none of them have any accountability for any of this whatsoever. Democracy is a government system with a near infinite amount of potential scapegoats to push the blame on. If your king used all the nation's funds to build himself a massive palace, you could be angry at him, but while the exact same thing happens in democracy, who will you be angry at? The politician? His masters will laugh and place another puppet in his stead, and your ire will be placated, since you are too dim to realise any of this.

>>928

>What benefit is there for me?

You damn jew.

>>2309

cuck detected

>>944

>what if the king is a tyrant?

Saying "what if" is speculation. The worst tyrants cannot compare with the bloodshed wrought from the hands of revolutionary republicans. There is tyranny and there is the most arbitrary forms of government from the republican camp.

>what if the king is a psychopath

Regents exist in the monarchy to take the place of monarchs who cannot take the responsibility. If a monarch is crazy, so be it. There is only so much damage a monarch can bring. It doesn't compare to the crazy behavior of a mob, or an all-controlling totalitarian regime that must seep into the everyday facet of ordinary life.

>how am I supposed to rely on the power of an individual

There is only so much you can hope for with power. Meritocracy is typically a falsehood, perpetrated with those who think the best governments come from a democracy. Democracy is farthest from meritocracy because it is more about popularity than skill. There is no such thing as a government based on skill anyways.

Power only means so much in this world. A monarch doesn't run a command economy, and it always comes down to an executive seat of government.

>>2304

To quote a brilliant champion for democracy:

>In democracy, it's important to arrange options for the populace so that every time democracy is the winner.

Joseph Stalin

For any believer in a democracy, here's a hypothetical

Countries A and B both have nuclear weapons capable of completely annihilating of one another.

50% of the population + 1 (one) man from Country A believe that launching a nuclear first strike against against neutral at the time Country B which is 100% capable of retaliation is the correct path to take;

Should the launch commence?

If not, why is the will of the majority not being respected, why are there aspects the majority isn't allowed to decide?

if yes >>>/suicide/

>>2337

people who believe in meritocracy meme forget, or aren't aware that someone who's highly successful might not be morally good.

>>2151

>I have been to Liechtenstein.

> The Vatican is a pretty neat monarchy.

Do tell.

>>2166

Please tell about your experiences later.

>western european monarchies are not monarchies

At least explain why, phonefag.

>>2151

tell us about liechtenstein

>>2178

>>2192

Liechtenstein is very small.You could easily manage to go from one and to the other and be back for lunch. There's not much to say about it though, it just looks as majestic as any region in the alps. Above all there is the castle at the summit of a hill, waking over the lands. That's it. As far as policies go it is incredibly rich and the prince is based. Like opposed to parliamentarism if this means abortion based.

>>2186

Not him but obviously because they don't have a ruling monarch

>>2107

>as soon as we leave the border's closed to your sort

Good thing superior black and paki seed will still be able to rape your kids while the police beat you for protesting the politicians who allow it.

Also, get a life m8, bin that knife.

>>2197

poles are the biggest ethnic minority in british prisons

>>2198

Because jailing up niggers is racist you twat

>>2198

Figures, since rotterham perpetrators go unpunished, but at least police managed to disperse the rioters bigoted racists who don't want their kids raped; and guy who put ham on mosque's door got death penalty by proxy.

Keep arresting journalists though (^:

>>1389

It would be interesting to have a website that could do these quizzes with an app and use it to do demographic analyses.

In other words, succession laws are important!

>>671

>>1004

what is a demagarchy?

>>1023

Rule by demagogues.

>>14

Usually, it's the dude who managed to assemble an army to topple the current regime and crown himself the king. That's the first monarch the country gets, in any case. The subsequent monarchs are then determined by the successions laws.

>>1943

You should make a thread to discuss constitutional monarchism and engage with some of the absolute monarchists and supporters of the Ancien Regime here.

>>1945

Perhaps tomorrow, I might enjoy that. It would be good to exchange ideas and viewpoints.

I don't want users to scroll a third of the way down to see if this board has any activity. I'm thinking of condensing up these stickies by doing the following:

- A board page for the FAQ/rules to replace the >>1 post contents.

- A board page for all the common links/references I can find to replace >>13.

- I'll delete this thread and see if >>1 can become the court thread instead with a lead-in containing all the links to the board pages.

I made a sample board page for the FAQ/board rules here:

https://8ch.net/monarchy/charter.html

I'm thinking of making the following pages:

- Board rules

- About page to contain the links/references

- Quotes pages to archive particularly funny/memorable quotes from the board

>>2098

Seems good to me, although I didn't get to read all of it yet. How you represented my views was fine.

You killed my son, though, you bastard!