/monarchy/ - STOP THINKING LIKE REPUBLICANS

>>792

Case in point:

>"Nothing gets me like when the first knock comes. When Parliament is in session, the doors remained closed; no one is to leave but also, perhaps most importantly, no one is to enter. When Parliament is formed, Black Rod, in the name of the Monarch, slams on the door and demands it to be opened. The Members of Parliament must immediately stop what they are doing and have the door opened, then leave for the House of Lords, where the Monarch is awaiting their arrival. There's only one human alive for whom that door would open, because there's only one human alive who would ever knock on that door. The Monarch may not step foot in the House of Commons. To do so is an act of aggression on the representative rights of the House, and the government would immediately be cast into a Constitutional Crisis. By doing so, Charles III here has committed that ancient act of aggression. However, Parliament is so taken-aback by the action that no one seems to realize it. The fact that Charles has chosen not to call his ministers to the House of Lords but instead to enter the Commons is as significant as the entire action itself; to dismiss His Majesty's Ministers in their own House has not been heard of since Charles I. In some ways, calling the Ministers to the House of Lords reminds them of their common nature, of their positions as subjects. However, by entering the House of Commons, Charles in this circumstance does not demean himself, but has, instead of lowering himself to the Commons, projected His will upon them and reminded them of their place. The commoner is so low that Black Rod, mouthpiece of the Crown, does not lower himself by addressing the peasants, but instead will only speak to the Speaker of the House. Furthermore, listen to the stark difference in education, heard purely in the words of the Prime Minister and the King; the Minister's words are quick and to the point, but the King's, as if from a play written by Shakespeare himself, are masterful in their art of conveying meaning with total understanding and justification. The House of Commons is traditionally loud, exciting, and full of the heat of "ayes" and "nays", as democracy is. But all falls silent when the Rod hits the door. You can see it in the Speaker's face, the sudden realization of all herebePost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>734

wtf are black wymin doing as representatives of England?

>>795

(((cultural enrichment)))

>>737

This is for the /liberty/ lurkers out there.

>>641

"Bloodline" is an argument for an individual monarch, just not for the system of monarchy. The arguments for monarchy have been laid out in a couple of other threads, but to clarify on why bloodline is a good argument, it comes down to constitutionalism; what defends the people's liberties is constitutionalism and a balance of powers, which is best achieved in monarchic mixed government, and within such a system the principle of heredity serves the important function of excluding the politicians and generals from taking the top spot for themselves, preventing conflict over the issue of the righteous inheritor, ensuring an upbringing essentially from birth with the goal of fulfilling the role in mind and so on.

As to who to make the monarch in previously monarchless countries with no pretenders, there are a few routes. One could, in some cases, appoint a hero of the people, as was done in the Balkan states after these people liberated said countries. One could invite foreign minor royalty, as was common for countries whose monarchies went extinct. One could, if currently living under a dictator, have their line transition into monarchic rule.

In the US, barring exceptional circumstances (Civil War 2.0 and the next General Lee becomes King of the CSA), you would have to rely on imports simply because there is nobody in the country, afaik, with the requisite nonpartisan support for a stable start to the system. A general would be your second best, given the Murrican reverence of their military, but a blank slate starting off as a figurehead monarch would be the ideal starting point given the state of the US.

>>881

>So /monarchy/, why not just elect your monarch like you elect any other representative?

There are supporters of electoral monarchies here, so I can't speak for /monarchy/, especially given the varying responses you've already received here. But the main issue I see with elections is that the people who run for elections actively want power. That is, I think demarchy would be a great improvement over democracy! And I kind of want to ask why you wouldn't want to support demarchy instead of democracy, or what advantages a demarchy really has over a democracy. At least a random individual is not guaranteed to have libido dominandi as they are with those in power in a democracy.

One system implements a kind of 'life-long demarchy' using the lottery of birth.

You might call such a system monarchism.

>>891

>And I kind of want to ask why you wouldn't want to support demarchy instead of democracy

I don't particularly care for either to be frank.

>One system implements a kind of 'life-long demarchy' using the lottery of birth.

Don't torture me with semantics. Having an appointed and groomed heir is not demarchy. I'm not sure how you managed to pervert "casting a lottery to choose a random leader" into "being born as heir into the ruling family is totally a lottery because we don't know what kind of person he'll be!!!!" You're presenting it as if people have the chance to be born in any different family.

>>892

>I don't particularly care for either to be frank.

And yet

>>881

>why not just elect

>would be more qualified than an elected official?

>elects another candidate

>You could also elect

If you really say you don't care for either, then you are the most closeted democrat I've ever seen.

>Don't torture me with semantics.

No one is forcing you to be part of this discussion.

>as if people have the chance to be born in any different family.

If the goal is to avoid powermongers, then this is a bug, not a feature.

>>859

what is your ancestry?

t. slav with german and baltic heritage

>>865

-U.S.

-Argentina {insert "You're black!" meme here}

-Luxembourg

-Italy

-Germany

-Poland? (at the time it was Prussia, now it's Poland)

-One tiny, tiny piece Huarpe? Although, I have a feeling it's a family member of mine trying to get SJW virtue signalling points as some obscure native american, because I have yet to substantiate the claim.

It's mainly Italy and Luxembourg.

>>887

wtf

so your ancestors came from america to europe?

>>893

It's confusing as fuck.

>>743

Isn't the point to be reactionary?

>>753

Nationalism has some leftist qualities, but properly regarded it would simply be the acknowledgement of a racial family, which can still have a head.

>>767

>racial family

you mean racism?

>>767

>Isn't the point to be reactionary?

Are you asking if the whole point of this is just to be edgy?

>>727

but fascism is part of modernity lol

>>767

>Isn't the point to be reactionary?

Nazis weren't reactionary either. How can you be reactionary when you don't even make the cut to being conservative?

>Nationalism has some leftist qualities, but properly regarded it would simply be the acknowledgement of a racial family, which can still have a head.

>racial family

Get lost with this bullshit. The Nazis never even took it that serious. If they had, they would've instituted a caste-system in which pureblooded aryans were higher up the ladder than other races, including most Germans. They would've demanded that Hitler prove his aryan heritage, and denied him leadership of "his" race if he couldn't. Maria Schicklgruber, his grandmother, got pregnant, then left the jewish household she worked in and received a high compensation, so I'm willing to bet that Hitler was one-quarter jewish.

Instead, the Nazis didn't care about heritage at all unless it was politically convenient. As long as you made the cut to "not worthless", you were just as good as all of your comrades. They had no problems allying themselves with Magyars and Slavs so long as they were fascist, and they didn't even have a problem with the Japanese, when the Asians in general have been regarded as "mongoloid" by many racists of the day. The Russians, too, were alright during the invasion of Poland, but afterwards, they magically became subhumans. Where was the consistency?

Not to mention that the entire notion of a racial consciousness is absurd, and that such a consciousness would necessarily lead to a "racial family" is a non sequitur. And even if you belonged to a racial family worthy of the name, it doesn't follow that your racial family takes precedence over your actual family. The opposite would be more plausible, that your mother and father had a stronger claim to your allegiance than whatever leader your race as a whole had.

>>162

Where we are closer to traditionalists and/or libertarians, neo-reactionaries are closer to nationalists and fascists.

>>583

nRX is Libertarian and Nationalist

We are Traditionalist and Nationalist

>>588

I'm pretty sure the neo-reactionaries feel that libertarianism proper still upholds the "theology" of the "cathedral" of the left-wing establishment. For many neo-reactionaries, the sovereign individual doesn't play that big of a role. Libertarianism is only useful to them I think in its criticisms of leftism.

>>588

What about traditionalist and libertarian?

>>561

Well, it always was intended to be. All the Founding Fathers, with the exception of Thomas Paine, rejected democracy and advocated the country being run by the colonial elites. It was only over time that the American republic degenerated into something that is a bit more populist like it is today.

>>567

No. The monarchy in my opinion should be separate from the bourgeois business class of which the Bushes and Clintons are more a part of, it should come from the established nobility who stands above the bourgeoisie and proletariat masses because only a class that owes its position to privilege can arbitrate disputes between these two factions. The trouble is in the United States, there is no aristocracy proper. What aristocracy there was was eventually absorbed into the bourgeois class as American industry expanded OR it was destroyed in the case of many native American chieftains. Unless of course you can establish a link between a certain individual and an aristocratic family of some repute and justify a claim to supreme authority, American can never have a monarchy without the complete destruction of the current system which prevents a monarchy from naturally forming. Europe can make the shift back to monarchy because much of the old aristocracy and even many of the princely families ar still there and is still a fairly independent class unto themselves, so can the middle east and many parts of east asia where "tradition" is still preserved to some extent, but the Americas would probably need a whole nother revolution in order to create a new culture favorable to monarchism.

>>568

>the established nobility who stands above the bourgeoisie and proletariat masses because only a class that owes its position to privilege can arbitrate disputes between these two factions

This is the best explanation of the difference between plutocracy and aristocracy that I've ever heard.

>>577

Thanks. Many people assume the aristocrats' position comes from wealth and so they are lumped up with the bourgeois, but the truth is that the nobles constituted an independent hierarchy unto themselves, with rich and poor nobles divided further between one another based on titles and lineage. Many nobles could in fact be poorer or as poor as many of the peasants under their rule. The rich nobles were usually those who owned a lot of land and who had many talented servants who had sworn loyalty to them living on that land and offered them tribute. And rather than tribute being a payment for any particular service as is the case in normative capitalism, the tributary system and the complimentary system of patronage on the part of the aristocrats was more comparable to a system of alms which the noble is entitled to based on his standing by birth or character, which places him above the normal competitive market mechanisms.

>>116

I think I'm probably more of an anarchist at heart and the reason I support monarchy is more pragmatic because historically I think monarchies tended to be, on average at least less tyrannical and oppressive compared to modern governments based on state socialism and democracy. That and I respect the elements of high culture and spirituality that seemed more palpable in monarchical societies. I wouldn't mind a ceremonial monarch in an otherwise anarchist society who helps to preserve those elements so things don't feel bland and mundane. And I would probably support absolute monarchy over democratic tyranny

The recent revisions of history to make monarchy and aristocracy in general into a reasonable form of government are based on little more than nationalistic fascination with tradition and xenophobia.

The basic arguments levelled here in support of monarchy are: the provide continuity, they are "interested" in the peoples well being, they are impartial, and some sort of god king religious worship?

The fundamental problem of this debate is simply that the abject of failure of monarchy in the 19th and 20th century that resulted in 2 world wars and the very forms of government compared to "happy" monarchies (communism/fascism were clearly a direct result of the inability of these countries to adapt to the end of monarchy as a useful form of government in the period). Monarchy oversaw government through most of the worlds worst atrocities, fundamentally failed to promote any innovation or advancement of society and caused tremendous havoc as they were dismantled - so whats the upside to this form of government again?

Yes, a constitutional monarchy can be a successful form of government - but that is entirely due to how irrelevant the monarchy is to that government - the monarchy does nothing other than waste government resources and create tourism and misguided nationalism. In fact what are the practical differences between a republic and a CM - the cost of maintaining the royal family.

The problem today is that we are on the juxtaposition between capitalism and the post capitalist world, where the vestiges of monarchy will finally be removed - central banks, corporations, dynastic wealth - as the fundamental cause of humanities woes. kings or not are frankly irrelevant.

>>426

> the provide continuity, they are "interested" in the peoples well being, they are impartial, and some sort of god king religious worship?

C.f. >>416 for some newer arguments. IMO, the best arguments are:

- They are an inherent component of the government to think in the very, very long term.

- They serve as a natural _de_centralizing force (splitting lands between children, providing a natural incentive to check and balance the King wherever possible).

- Providing a natural cultural countercurrent to the notion that men are equal.

>The fundamental problem of this debate is simply that the abject of failure of monarchy in the 19th and 20th century that resulted in 2 world wars

Between the Congress of Vienna and WWI was unprecedented in peace, especially considering human history to that point. If anything, the two world wars were a natural result of democracy (e.g., the old "Hitler was democratically elected" canard/Woodrow Wilson screaming "Let's make the world safe for democracy."/the unprecendented number of years the U.S. itself (the prototypical "exemplary democratic state") has spent in wartime throughout its entire history (>90%)). I would argue what peace the modern world has at all has more to do with the Dell theory of conflict prevention than anything else.

>In fact what are the practical differences between a republic and a CM - the cost of maintaining the royal family.

C.f., the first answer, I think it is more than that.

Also, it is odd that you should say this, because historically Republic meant something more of a 'mixed government." Since per Plato's theory of Anocyclosis, each function of governmPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>428

They also neglect the fact that presidential families, at least for the US, are also costly. I can even recall reading somewhere that the Obamas are more costly than the British Royal Family. Granted, it was an unsourced offhand remark, so take that with a grain of salt.

>>426

well said, you identified monarchies problem. It is so successful and creates so much wealth that it leads to degeneracy like democracy. Even this most stable form of government is not infallible.

>Monarchy oversaw government through most of the worlds worst atrocities, fundamentally failed to promote any innovation or advancement of society and caused tremendous havoc as they were dismantled - so whats the upside to this form of government again?

could you name a few? I will name a few from communism and democracy. American Civil War, French Revolution, North Korea, Vietnam, China, Russian gulags and the Russian front in World War II.

I suspect that you will try to compare a king harassing a few hundred aristocrats to millions and millions of dead people.

>>4

No but it is the result of the mechanism that triggered in people due to the failure of democracy/monarchy. People realized the failure, Monarchy was dogmatically not presented as an option so they created Juche, Socialism and Marxism-Leninism while looking for a replacement.

>>387

Failure of democracy/republic* sorry.

>>60

Unfortunately, you don't need to be a Freemason to be a republicuck.

President Washington only ever went to two meetings and, later in life, disavowed the organisation.

>>255

Filth, T.B.H.

>>113

I agree.

It's also worth mentioning that the United States wasn't even a "democracy" for a long time after the revolution. They based their country on the English system, Magna Carta, Habeas Corpus, and the House of Lords. In this way it was distinctly different from the French Revolution.

Rather than being allies, they chose to be enemies. They still are Britain's enemy to this day.

>>49

English Civil War part two. Whigs were butthurt that Cromwell sucked, and they wanted a republic back. That's why you hear the Loyalists called Tories but never the rebels called Whigs (because it would have been really bad for the Whigs in London). Interesting to note that a lot of the Brit generals were Whigs, and maybe that's why they fought like shit. As far as the taxes and such, The 13 colonies had some of the most lax colonial laws in the entire empire. If I remember right, there were even a couple colonies who didn't have to send their laws to Britain to be approved. They were basically sovereign. The whole revolution was a huge mistake, essentially.

>>233

STABBED IN THE BACK!!!!!

>lead by a woman

>financed by a jew

No wonder it fell.

>>241

>financed by a jew

And who was that, anon?

>>241

It is under the reign of queen victoria that the sun never set

>>235

Yes, that is called propaganda

It would be most effective if guided from here, /pol/ does propaganda all the time and it's everywhere

If i do a image search for communism i will find atleast a dozen infographics

>>140

>>160

Why do you think than the king would want to keep the nation white? He is not forced to have the same opinions than you and may want more people under his rule.

If he is some kind of free border freak, will you still support him or are you going to fight back?

You can be sure of something: if a king does not want his country to be economically and technologically weak against the jew corporatists countries like ours, he will have to keep most aspects of the modern economy, especially usury.

And you can also be sure that a king will have to deal with politics, unless some kind of stalinist purges are at work all the time. He simply won't have the opportunity to "kill all niggers", even if, and it is unlikely, he wanted to.

>>202

Rise and shine my girl.

>>215

The cool thing about free borders is that you can see the effects in a single lifetime. The monarch would also find his expenses growing ludicrously if he maintained open borders with all the appropriate attractors (welfare, legal representation, public infrastructure).

I'm also not seeing how usury is needed to generate economic wealth. Usury as it functions now provides literally zero economic benefit to anyone, unless they are a central banker. Money being merely a measure of value means that ceteris perebus, one nation printing and charging interest and another nation printing and charging no interest would see no difference overall economic value. In fact, the nation that does not charge interest will not see bubbles forming everywhere like some kind of sick economic abomination, meaning that overall they will see more correctly allocated resources.

In terms of raw cash, they will be poorer, but in terms of raw value, they would be better off.

>>160

you mean… fascism.

>>108

What's our battle plan, boys?

I'm ready to roll when you are.

you should cross post at 8lounge, too. maybe meadhall & pen as well.

>>55

>What about freedom of free speech and the press? Are they inherently incompatible with monarchy where the head of state has power instead of being a figurehead?

Good question. I would say that if a monarchy came about in America, those would be values held by the leadership. If monarchy came about in, say, China no way 1st amendment principles would be a thing. So it really depends on the region.

>>3

>Monarchy, when viewed from a, medieval Christian perspective, was based on divine right

No, it wasn't. That's a modern Protestant idea.

>>89

Explain please. Perhaps my definition of divine right is wacky.

>>91

http://walkinginthedesert.com/2015/03/23/did-the-catholic-church-really-support-the-divine-right-of-kings/

Medieval Catholic political theory is closer to aristocratic liberalism minus the modernist elements.

>>95

This article makes a number of errors and has quite a few self-contradictory statements. It's also just plain wrong.

I recommend you have a read of the comments on it, though, as they're quite good.