/monarchy/ - STOP THINKING LIKE REPUBLICANS★

In other words, succession laws are important!

>>671

>>1004

what is a demagarchy?

>>1023

Rule by demagogues.

>>14 (OP)

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!

>>1456

>muh shekels

>>1452

>There are two kinds of ancaps on this board.

>>1402

do it

>>2069

Not until I move to Britain…

>>1633

As if you ever met one.

>>1429

Holy shit, there are Liechtenstein lurkers in here. Give me a fuckin' job mate.

>>2010

This forum is chock full of hidden agent monarchists. It gives me hope that in every country with a monarchy, there's a very sullen, silent majority willing and waiting to follow.

>>2021

Psst… there are.

Soon actions will be taken.

>>2075

Joining the hidden agent monarchist club.

>>1760

I mean, while the nazis invaded other countries, their civilians were raped and kidnapped? From fucking Serbia or what? Partisans raped German women in Serbia?

>>1761

>their civilians were raped and kidnapped?

Yes

>From fucking Serbia or what?

Among others, yes

>Partisans raped German women in Serbia?

Yes. Most Serbian partisans raped German women in Slovenia in particular though.

>>1759

>Looks at that mess of a picture.

…

Looks like you're the reason why oekaki is not enabled.

>>1774

It's meant to be a mess. It's a persiflage of the OP image

>>1775

Kek, now that's actually kinda witty.

>>1676

Who would be the king of the Kingdom of Jerusalem?

>>1677

JEB!

>>1678

Shit taste, he's not even a descendant of David.

The thing with Shia Islam is that it is kind of like a monarchy of its own type. It states that the Caliph (supreme leader of the Muslims) must be descended from Mohammad. Iran, with its parliaments, assemblies, and Shura councils, is more of a Republic than a Monarchy. But technically one could consider Shiism a monarchy with a massive royal family. As for his regime and how it suits the Persian peculiarities, that is tough to say. It is certainly more befitting to them than the Shah's regime was; however, it seems to flirt too much with revolutionary-proletarian rhetoric.

>>1676

>Pretending Assyrians aren't more indigenous to Iraq.

>>1677

Better let some Samaritians rule then.

>>1712

You do not seem to fully understand this. You being a possible boomer means that you are more susceptible to common boomer diseases such as being a complete cuck, an arrogant prick and being unthankful for the civilization your ancestors handed you that you didn't even bother to preserve. Being a boomer is a bad thing. If you are a boomer you need to explain your boomerness away in order to remain a valid person in any kind of conversation. It's like when someone is caught next to the border in your freemasonic union, and he's wearing a sombrero and speaking Spanish then you should check for his papers. This is more urgent with him than with the white American next to him. The same principle applies to boomers.

>explain

k

> Fascism recognizes the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade unionism

Classical Liberalism destroyed the foundations of society post French Revolution and replaced it with something that's not sustainable, that is Liberalism. Socialism tries to deal with the problems that arose out of it. Which is correct.

> giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which divergent interests are coordinated and harmonized in the unity of the State.

Fascism tries to solve those problems differently. And since Fascists are Fascists they argue of course that they did it better.

So you really are a boomer that probably thinks the values of the French Revolution and classical Liberalism are a good thing and not the root of the problem?

>>1714

>Explain to me how state management of the economy, which is what Mussolini defended in the quote I gave you, is not socialism.

It does not fit the definition of socialism. Clearly boomer school taught you lots of wrong things.

>Judging by the diatribe you wrote above on boomers, you clearly have the time to do so.

Making that post did take me maybe 5 minutes tops kek. I can type fast, I don't have your old boomer hooks for fingers like you gramps

>>1617 (OP)

Habitual liars are still continuously denouncing him, and that'll have to do. Enemy of my enemy and all that.

>>1436

>>1461

The video "communism vs. national socialism" was extremely Kosher

>Well it's okay because (((Russians))) never said sorry for it (^:

>communism was never tried in (((international courts)))

>If you murder over a hundred million of people because of malice, negligence and mismanagement it's worse than three hundred thousand jews dying as a result of supply lines being bombed

>everyone who died because of communism belonged to the same nation as the communism

<well except everyone killed in Katyń, but poles are terrible jew-eaters and frankly Soviets did the world a favor, (^: it's not as if (((Berman))) orchestrated Kielce Pogrom (dawn to dusk non-stop slaughter of jews, police was too scared to intervene) in '46 because soviets failed to pin the blame for Katyń on Germans

Sage for not medieval

>>1519

not an argument

>>1555

not an argument

>>1556

Oh, oh! I know this one! Fallacy fallacy!

What are you two doing? Can I join in on the fun?

>>1338

i dont like aristotle anyway

>>1341

Have you read anything by him?

>>1342

yes

>>1317 (OP)

Are you talking about aquinas?

>>1371

Yes, him.

>>1283

>>1285

>In the kingdom of God on earth, God finds it very easy to make sure NASCAR drivers are paid less than truck drivers. No one can disobey God. He assigns us to our roles, he directs our every movement. If God tells you to turn left at the next light, you don't hang a right.

>The question is: what relevance does this have for the actual problem of government? The answer is: none. As Madison put it, if men were angels, we would need no government at all. In Rawls' kingdom, we are not angels, but we are governed by angels. The great engineering problem of designing a system in which fallible humans can govern each other and get along simply does not exist in Rawls' philosophy.

>Of course Rawls does not actually say this. He just encourages it. By setting up an ideal of righteousness that only divine rule can achieve, Rawls supplies the perfect distraction to help his readers forget that in reality, men are governed only by men, and history knows only two kinds of government: those based on law, and those based on violence.

>For example, in the NASCAR-teamster example, what sort of law would ensure a Rawlsian result? Do we have wage and price controls, Nixon style? The odor of medieval Christianity is unmistakable. You can almost taste the sumptuary laws.

The atheist and statist faggotry aside, he is pointing at the right direction here. The kind of philosophy Rawls came up with is the equivalent of a kid drawing his perfect magical castle. It doesn't inform us at all how we should deal with the world we actually live in. We don't know what individual conduct is moral or immoral, at all.

And from the comment section:

>I think Rawls' importance is over-rated. It is really mostly libertarians who talk about him, and then only because of Nozick's critique of him (and Nozick doesn't even seem to be that popular among libertarians).

He's right on all counts. Yes, Rawls is overrated, in fact he'll probably be forgotten in aPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>1286

I may be wrong, but it sounds to me like you're severely underestimating the importance of academia and the impact it has had on plunging us into on the mess we're in. The primary reason Westerners are so hostile to personal sovereignty today and so open to collectivist ideas is their education and its life-long, prole-friendly extension, the media. Rawls is a symptom rather than the cause of the rot, but it is worth noting that the people who end up "punching Nazis" (and to whom a monarchist is just a Nazi in a funny hat) are taught explicitly rawlsian morality at their universities.

>>1292

Didn't want to make this impression. Of course, academia is very important, but not necessarily as it presents itself. Rawls is mostly important for being there, I think. Through him, social democrats and so-called liberals can claim that their theories are rational. The actual content of his theories, on the other hand, is relatively unimportant.

Nozick, likewise, is important for being there. He wrote some good critiques of mainstream political philosophy but by and large, he's non-threatening and cozy. It's like controlled opposition, except it arose naturally. Nozick, like Milton Friedman, is incapable of dealing a serious blow to the prevailing political climate because he never pulled their values out from under them.

The people who really had an impact, who are the cause and not the symptom, are others. The Frankfurt School, for example, and before them the Fabians. Rawls codified the moral code and the worldview that others before him came up with.

>>1292

>rawlsian morality

what do you mean by that?

>>1293

>Rawls codified the moral code and the worldview that others before him came up with.

Right. Moldbug summarized his role rather pithily with something like (not an exact quote)

>Rawls wrote a book in the 1970s to excuse a coup that happened in the 1930s.

The coup was, of course, the New Deal.

>>1152 (OP)

I wouldn't sum it up like this, no

At least for Europe i believe like many here that the downfall happened with the enlightenment and its progressive insertion and radicalization in our societal fabric

So, if we really want someone to blame i would look for the nation that embodies such ideas and more than anybody else worked to propagate and impose them on us, and that is, the United States of America

We are used to think of Europe and America as colsed friends, but that is far from historical truth, Ever since the first settlements the colonists grew a profound resentment for the monarchy and everything else that reminded them that old continent they hated so much they so desperately wanted to escape it

As such, the American Revolution was notoriously heavily drenched in the ideas of the enlightenment, and the newly formed american republic served as an example to imitate to all those who shared these sentiments back here in Europe, as well as a sign that a similar thing was possible in our countries too

It's not a secret either that the French Revolution was also heavily influenced by what the Americans did a few years earlier, some people like La Fayette even fought in both occasions

I think it's not too farfetched to say that the French Revolution was the first step to the americanization of Europe

And so, the propagation of the revolutionary principles and the perception of America as a model republic easily spread through all Europe, as we started murdering our kings, desecrating our churches and spitting on our ancestors in an attempt to resemble more and more that shiny new ideal country overseas, until eventually the americans themselves stepped in, starting with Woodrow Wilson, and began actively meddling in our affairs and push their way of life unto us

In fact, they went on meddling in our affairs so much that in WW2 they placed their bases in our countries and never left, making us de facto militarily occupied dominions

And i don't think i need to explain how damaging this dominion has been in the last 70 years, making degenerate hedonisPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>1188

Wikipedia isn't the actual source. It summarises academic sources. Opposition to wikipedia is often the last refuge of a beaten man who doesn't want to acknowledge how fringe and unsupportable his view is

>>1228

this

>>1228

Wikipedia is notoriously a questionable source especially when it comes down to controversial articles due to unqualified editors, the sources used and how they are reported are entirely up to the editor's bias

Secondly, i don't see how that description of a "beaten man" applies to me in this thread, where was i "beaten" and in regards to what? we didn't even have an argument, i simply pointed out to you a more deep source if you truly are interested in what you were talking about

You're of course completely free to ignore that source and label it as "fringe and unsupportable" without having even read it, however one may point out the irony in the fact that in modern society many people would have the same reaction when you talk to them about monarchy

>>1228

wikipedia can also be actual source at its own

>>1041

I does not address it because one can accept that definition of egalitarianism, and still apply the argument from >>1033.

Although, I would argue that there really is no functional difference between the two definitions, and that trying to achieve 'equality of opportunity' (whatever that even means) results in a program of 'equality of outcome,' and vice versa. Moreover, I still don't even agree that 'equality of opportunity' is ipso facto a good thing. Egalitarianism in any form is an intellectual poison, and a false siren to prosperity.

>>1043 Says the commoner.

>>1045

I didn't say equal opportunity either. I'm talking about equality under the law and equal treatment by society.

You could say that's also impossible and will create endless disturbances which make society worse, but I see the goods as outweighing the bads

It's not based on race or such, it's "individual" "racism" if you want to call it that, not at the scale of groups. We're not all born equally, treating us differently makes sense.

Go to back to /feminism/

>>1146

>>>/leftypol/

>>1147

im not a leftist

>>1133

Return of HRE when?

>>1127

> but with the invention of the ideals of equality and public government

I'm not sure that the French Revolution was necessarily the start of those ideals…

>>1131

>the city environment isn't good for me.

It isn't good for ANYONE. Mouse utopia, etc., etc..

>>1161

>I'm not sure that the French Revolution was necessarily the start of those ideals…

Well, true. Culmination would be a better

word.

>>1096

Protestantism surely is a disgrace, but it's far from being the end of European Civilization

As this gentleman here said >>1127 that came with the revolutions fostered by the enlightenment

>>1090

What were you trying to do?

>>1065

r u a pole?

>>1105

Only ancestrally. I'm yet another burger.

>>1065

Here's the uber-patriotic version.

>>1108

now i understand why you idealize polacks

>>746

What? I don't see how what you said is relevant to my post. Re-phrase it please.

>>773

?? whats the fallacy? I just said I would be committing treason to not support my Queen.

>>798

treason relates to laws doesnt it?

>>774

what is hoppean nonsense?

>>1030

Given the context, I believe he's referring to argumentation ethics.

Incidentally, that response is a good response to what I assume is your post in >>1025 .

Also, why are you being a commoner?

>>1032

testing my aristocracy