/monarchy/ - STOP THINKING LIKE REPUBLICANS

I believe a king should rise to rulership through proving that he could handle the task of political leadership just fine. Hereditary system only gets you so far before a weak and inept heir gets to the throne just because his father was good at being a king.

>>6239

Thing is, even a genetically "average" heir is still being schooled from birth on etiquette, negotiations, and the intricacies of sovereignty. And the problem with a selection process, any selection process, is that it encourages sociopaths and sycophants to rise to the top, as all the candidates jockey with each other for the approval of whomever it is that chooses the heir, whether it's "the people" or the current ruler. Rome had an appointment system for the emperors, and look at how that turned out. If someone is the heir by the accident of birth, by contrast, they have no incentive to develop sociopathic and sycophantic tendencies.

>>6239

Meritocracy is easily exploitable by talented sociopaths

>>6240

>Would you rather be ruled by someone who maybe wants power, or who definitely wants power?

To me, this is a short argument, but the one I find the most convincing. In fact, it puts me on the borderline between admiring demarchy or monarchy.

>>7411

>That's talking about laying the ground work for the actual nationalist uprisings. The idea that the state exists to serve the nation is fundamentally necessary to the idea that nations should govern themselves.

"Nations" don't govern. Select men do.

>Alright, you're honestly beyond help. Go back to school, holy shit.

>Not knowing how much Marx took from earlier writers

>Not knowing Mussolini's past

>If we don't have monarchs then society has been leveled

>Being in denial this hard.

You can't even regulate who your children can interact with reliably (hence Stacy getting AIDs from a dindu). Modernity is seriously about rejecting past order and restriction.

>That came about over time, as the entire system of nobility degenerated.

>Pretending past civilizations like the Old Egyptians, Han, Mycenaean, didn't have such behavior

>The nobility ruled because they fought, and a proper military force at the time REQUIRED them to rule. There's a level of meritocracy in that, even if it's not the way we'd normally think of meritocracy now.

You might as well praise Africa for how any two-bit warlord can chimpout and get a following.

>>7419

>"Nations" don't govern. Select men do.

Wordplay. You understand full well that what I mean is the idea that nations should be governed by their own people rather than foreigners.

>Twisting ideas around a new set of values means you're in bed with the thing you broke off of

>You can't even regulate who your children can interact with reliably

What the fuck does that have to do with leveling? At most you could say it's lessening the authority of the parent, but that's literally one example, and in so far as leveling is occurring their, that's the byproduct of the actual goal, which is liberty.

>>Pretending past civilizations like the Old Egyptians, Han, Mycenaean, didn't have such behavior

They degenerated too. Chinese history is/was literally based around the idea that dynasties/the old rule eventually degenerates and must be restored. History is not some single line moving in one direction.

>You might as well praise Africa for how any two-bit warlord can chimpout and get a following.

Compared to the age of degenerate absolutism that Europe had a few hundred years ago, that's pretty praiseworthy, yes.

You're not arguing against meritocracy, you're arguing that blood is merit. It's not. Merit is proven. Passing crowns and titles down from father to son was part of a method of cultivating merit. That system degenerated. The idea that blood is in and of itself merit is propaganda that was spread to prop up a disease.

Why the fuck do you think Napoleon had so much support despite taking a monarchical title without having any blood claim? He demonstrated merit through his actions. He brought the idea of being a monarch as close as he possibly could have to it's military root, and lead France to victory again and again, even if he lost in the end.

>>7422

very cucked opinion tbh

>>7422

>Wordplay. You understand full well that what I mean is the idea that nations should be governed by their own people rather than foreigners.

Irrelevant to actual history (where the likes of savages were ruled over by others).

>>Twisting ideas around a new set of values means you're in bed with the thing you broke off of

Marx simply took the tenants of liberalism much farther than his earlier writers since he had more awareness. Mussolini was a Modernist Leveler through and through.

>What the fuck does that have to do with leveling? At most you could say it's lessening the authority of the parent, but that's literally one example, and in so far as leveling is occurring their, that's the byproduct of the actual goal, which is liberty.

Next you'll be defending racemixing.

>They degenerated too. Chinese history is/was literally based around the idea that dynasties/the old rule eventually degenerates and must be restored. History is not some single line moving in one direction.

They never denied the importance of heritage and once the dynasties were in place they regulated as much of society as they can.

Tell us where the bulk of actual contributions to civilization happened by the way: Africa with its warlords or China with its emperors.

>Compared to the age of degenerate absolutism that Europe had a few hundred years ago, that's pretty praiseworthy, yes.

Tell us more on how the Congo is a better land to live in than Singapore.

>You're not arguing against meritocracy, you're arguing that blood is merit. It's not. Merit is proven. Passing crowns and titles down from father to son was part of a method of cultivating merit. That system degenerated. The idea that blood is in and of itself merit is propaganda that was spread to prop up a disease.

>>7184

The average anti-monarchist, to be fair, is not interested in defending Stalin.

>>7369

Stalin in many ways was the fruit of Liberalism/Enlightenment/Modernity. Also goes for Hitler.

>>7381

They were the fruit of the enlightenment undermining itself. Marxism and Fascism are both anti-enlightenment ideologies. Liberalism is the only one that can actually be properly compatible a monarchy. Marxism outright hates the idea of monarchs, and Fascism has shown repeatedly that they'll dump the monarch at the first moment the monarch disagrees with the fascists, because fascism is a totalitarian ideology. That's not to say that there haven't been instances of liberal monarchies where the monarch was forced out, but it isn't a literal inevitability.

>>7402

>Gee, it's not like anyone else ever does this…

>>7399

>That's not to say that there haven't been instances of liberal monarchies where the monarch was forced out, but it isn't a literal inevitability.

>Codreanu got along with King Carol II

Are you fucking high?

>Franco restored the monarchy

He restored the position, declared himself regent for life, and left the throne vacant until the 70's.

>All parties are totalitarian

A: Big tent parties are by definition not totalitarian

B: You're talking about the inside of the party. I'm not.

>>6398

Hey yes borther

>>5180

Serfs unironically had more freedom than today's laborers tho

>>5196

40% of people in western countries not called America are Atheists so if you live in a city the commoner is a fedora

>>5180

Not all monarchies had serfs.

>>5182

So every man a king?

>>5411

I agree in principle, but in practice certain types of monarchies can work.

>>5424

>Fascists are just race-aware commies

They're self-aware commies, yeah. The Nazis were somewhat weird for their obsession with race, most of the fascist movements didn't care as long as you were dedicated to the state.

>>6466

>What would you do to guard against incompetent monarchs?

I trust myself to be of little significance on their minds and carry on my life. We already have incompetent leaders and rulers, population and values.

>>6466

Don't give the monarch so much power that society functioning hinges on him not being shit.

>Don't give the monarch so much power that society functioning hinges on him not being shit.

Who said it did? Honestly, I've never heard this one before.

>>6037

What's the context here?

>>6035

Thanks for that anon, didn't know about the Sanfedisti till now. Good times killing Jacobins and other filth.

I find it continually funny that every forward-thinking and progressive gentleman is always on the side of the people, except for the fact that the people absolutely hate his champagne swilling, drunken ass, and would indeed tear him like dirty rags for dictating liberality to people that he assumes are beneath him.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galician_slaughter

tl;dr Polish nobility organize a revolt against the emperor and try to get the Polish peasantry to help them on nationalist grounds. Promise things like universal sufferage and abolition of serfdom. It turns out the peasants actually love the emperor and dont care about nationalism. Proceed to BTFO the rebels out of nowhere.

>>7283

The nobility's power was predicated on them acting as a trained military class. Metal was expensive. Horses were expensive. Food was expensive (relative to now). You needed to have money to be able to afford to spend the majority of your time improving your ability to fight. That was a massive part of why the system made sense.

The transition from military class to something akin to bureaucrats is part of what spurred on absolute monarchy, which is the worst form of monarchy. The classic criticisms are monarchy are directly concerned with it. Monarchy as a general system essentially strawmanned itself.

>>7288

>Transition into bureaucrats spurred on absolute monarchy

You have this backwards. But if you're correct it gives the lie to the idea that the aristocracy in France was so uncontrollable and macho before the Fronde.

Really Louis XIV did not make a mistake with absolutism other than the punitive way in which he imposed peace by effectively imprisoning his nobility at Versailles. It damaged the economy because the nobles were in fact already bureaucrats and economic managers, and had been for ages, and it turned Versailles into the kind of snake pit of competing interests that ended the monarchy within 2 generations.

Classic criticisms would have remained with any system, but Louis XIV built his kingdom so that it could only be well-ruled with his characteristic iron will. The very fact that one had to "go to Versailles" to get anything done, effectively meant that one day someone would "go to Versailles" to commit regicide.

The way things worked out in the end have very little to do with philosophy or ideology, as always. The idea that ideology and philosophy precedes political action is just thinking like a republican.

>>7301

>Criticism goes all around each form of government.

Yes, but when most people criticize monarchy, they criticize absolutism specifically. Comparatively, there isn't anyone criticizing contractual feudalism, and it's much more difficult to create a criticism due to the inherent stability of contractual monarchies. Yes, nothing is completely immune to criticism, but absolute monarchy is much easier to criticize. If absolute monarchy becomes what most people think of when they think of monarchy, monarchy as a whole becomes much more ridiculed and much easier to criticize by association. >>7288 has a point by calling absolute monarchy a self-strawman. I know we have a few absolutists on the board, and I'm almost certain that none of us care overmuch about criticism by the normies. However, even if you are an absolutist, I don't think you can deny that absolutism leaves itself much more open to criticism than other forms of monarcy.

>>7309

>Comparatively, there isn't anyone criticizing contractual feudalism, and it's much more difficult to create a criticism due to the inherent stability of contractual monarchies. Yes, nothing is completely immune to criticism, but absolute monarchy is much easier to criticize.

I wouldn't know about this one. Feudalism has its critics just the same, and it's most often what people whine about – do you want feudalism, they say – whereas the complaints for absolutism usually come with caricatures of the pomp and ceremony. Usually people think you're a slave under feudalism. Does that not receive criticism? Surely, an ancap knows what it's like to be called for wanting feudalism. My opinion is that the criticism depends on who you ask.

>>7128

>>7138

I'm not clicking on that shit negro.

>This clown world has gone too far

It's really just begun, we have the whole of the 2020's to watch as NATO countries descend into irrational contortions at the thought of a world in which China and Chinese illiberal mercantilism dominates.

In terms of the stages of grief, we are firmly rooted on the point of denial. It is impossible, and unacceptable that an illiberal country could outpace western democracies in critical infrastructure and defense technology at exactly the same time. You are therefore a bigot if you don't think tranny softcore pornography proves that the west is best and greatest, and you are definitely a Russian troll if you think that the western ego is more fragile than a bone china cup ironically made in China and also ironically of opium war vintage.

>>7265

It just goes to prove once again that it's not liberalism or democracy that makes first-world countries so great and wealthy, contrary to what redditors and centrists would have you believe, it has always been free markets. It's so fucking ironic, but in this timeline even "communist" China is a lot more free than all these moralizing western democracies.

>>7266

Politics always claims to be of first importance. The fact that people believe this claim is the tent-pole in the middle of the circus, but I was myself deceived about it in the past too.

This is the final honkpill

>>7268

Trying to be normal is definitionally weird.

The deadline's tomorrow. Vote here:

http://poal.me/j9dods

>>7162

Looks like the Baron won with an overwhelming majority. Who's putting him in?

>>7171

I am.

Sternberg jobbed to Hitler's Rotom in the preliminaries.

>>6960

>Even if someone designs a mascot, I don't think many people there will give a shit about it

Half the monarchist community hates anime, yet here we are.

>Yeah, /liberty/ doesn't have a waifu.

It looks like they had something going. They had the ideas of taking the sunglasses and everything else.

>tfw even /monarchy/ cares more about /liberty/'s waifu than /liberty/

Only because I want to get the whole family together. /pol/ has erika, /leftypol/ has alunya, /fascist/ has integralist chan, and /monarchy/ has grace.

>>6967

>ancapistan

kind of fucking lame

it was never ever germane

it's a problem-filled philosophy

>ancapistan

>>6971

>Half the monarchist community hates anime, yet here we are.

FFS, we even have a goddam anime OP now ( >>6848 ). Give us another decade and we might end up making a cringy-as-fuck anime episode.

New Grace Chan inc

>>5638

>Portraying God the father

>>406

I've noticed this as well, but after looking into /islam/, I don't see a consistent moral fiber in this religion.

>>7118

I like it, pretty ambitious to have a Congress by 2021 but more power to 'em. God bless 'em and I hope they are successful.

But, its catholic and disgusting

Anyone in the Topeka area? Rare chance for irl sympathetic discussion. On May 18 Commissioner of Rules and Procedures Steven Bachmann is holding a meet and dinner at The Wheel Barrow in Topeka, KS. https://americanmonarchistsociety.com/kansas-meet-and-dinner/

There's Aussie patriotic music in the monarchist music thread.

I don't know if that's what you're looking for, OP.

>>7103

Norwegian Baron must lurk /monarchy/, he posted this just today.

Please see >>950.