/monarchy/ - STOP THINKING LIKE REPUBLICANS

>>6085

Sure, but I'd have to kill a lot of people including my older brothers to claim the throne.

>>6915

do it for the keks

I'm southern european and therefore roman nobility. I wish the romans had genocided you snowniggers

>>7038

Honestly, it's not that I dislike Bertrand de Jouvenel as much as half the people who reference him are either (A. retarded NRx readers who misinterpret him or (B. the neofeudalists who read him along with other niche authors.

NRx is cancer. I hate NRx, and I don't know why anyone would associate with a movement with a guy called 'Moldbug'. Mad Monarchist is the only decent blogger, while NRx bloggers are terrible. Neoabsolutists alone are terrible for associating with Bertrand de Jouvenel because as an author he never supported absolutist stance and actually condemned it. I could rave on and on. As far as NRx is concerned, I use the prefix -neo as an insult these days. It serves them right because NRx shills are usually the ones who buzz "muh modernism" and "muh Enlightenment" inexplicably.

>>7040

*Not all neoabsolutist folk are terrible, with given exceptions to a select number and Truediltom

>>6250

He was a Marxist-Leninist yes but a very odd one, part of the structuralist school. Ideas from unlikely sources can be used to one's advantages.

>>7040

Moldbug has ok ideas but isn't fully someone is support considering him and Nick Land (I admire both, but hold them at caution) tend to be more on the Transhumanist side than Agrarian side.

>Saudi Arabia

Traitor to the arabs, I do not expect him to change that

>>7016

Please go on, I'm curious as to why you think that.

>>7020

It is well-known that Saudis have being conspiring, practically selling the middle east to the US and Israel. The royal family is knee-dep into this and I do not expect the new king to be different. The fact that the current king changes the law in order to get him in power is already suspicious

>>7021

Tbh, the House of Saud got a pretty good deal out of the petro-dollar trade Pappy Salman made with Nixon. If I were a king I probably would have made the same deal.

>promise to sell oil only in dollars and invest some profits in US debt.

>in return, the US empire guarantees my family's sovereignty, sells us weapons, and promises prosperity for my people. It's not ideal but better than the alternative of having my people suffer or my family no longer in power.

Personally, I like MbS. He knocked out alot of the Muslim Brotherhood glow-niggers out of power, sized alot of the wealth from his corrupt brothers and uncles, and is trying to ween off his nation from the oil heroin.

I have a good feeling about MbS. If the (((rats in the media))) hate him, surely there is some good in him.

There is nothing you can do, OP.

It can only get better from this point.

I think questions like this tend to circumvent a lot of things that are critical to government. Governments are made to be institutions, entities which last longer than any one member of them. The strength of a government is often judged on the length of time which it endures past the original founder. The ultimate implication of this is that governments are judged not by their best rulers, but by their worst–to what degree is the institution able to survive the inevitable imbeciles and sadists which pass through it? Any kingdom and can be a "good" kingdom if the king is a "good" king, not even the republicans deny this fact. Some would even be willing to admit that a monarchy would be preferable to democracy if the monarch was guaranteed to be competent and kind-hearted. This is superficially true of any form of government–even the most brutal of totalitarian regimes would be relatively painless if the dictator chose to be benevolent one day. But institutions never have the benefit of exclusively competent members. The throne will inevitably fall occasional prey to to flatterers and fools, and it must be able to deal with them if it is to survive. Good leaders are incredibly easy to deal with; how do mitigate the worst ones?

Because of this fact, I don't think genetic engineering would make monarchy (or any other institution) a better or worse institution. It would undoubtedly create better monarchs, but that's not the same as a more robust monarchy.

i dont know. while there are obvious benefits to having an attractove, strong, smart monarch, the most important aspects of a capable monarch lie in their character. are they kind, just, etc.

i believe dogmatically that its inherently impossible to engineer a human's character, so i dont think genetically engineered monarchs will be more or less competent.

>>6981

>i believe dogmatically that its inherently impossible to engineer a human's character,

Would you care to share your reasoning on that? Why intelligence but not character, for instance? Making a man smarter would generally give him a lower time-preference, which would tend to make him more patient, which is arguably an aspect of his character.

>Submission to Authorities

Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. or so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God. Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.

Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward. For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully. For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God.

https://biblehub.com/kjv/1_peter/2.htm

>Turn from Evil

Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous: Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing.

10r he that will love life, and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips that they speak no guile:

Let him eschew evil, and do good; let him seek peace, and ensue it.

For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil.

And who is he that will harm you, if ye be followers of that which is good?

>Suffering for Righteousness

1ut and if ye suffer for rPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Build your house with precious things, not of wood and straw.

No government system on this Earth will be perfect until Christ should come again and lead it himself. Not even a monarchy is incorruptible, the Scriptures are clear on this.

The official government system of the Bible is the church. - a decentralized minarchy where the Holy Spirit and the Word of God leads each and every individual Christian.

Christ said "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's," because there is nothing that Rome could do that matters to Him! Caesar himself could not strip God's grace from a man, anymore than he could give it!

Its irrelevant once youre living in the kingdom of Christ, what earthly laws there are, or who is President/King/Emperor.

Plato says a Philosopher King is the very best we can get and I agree. This decentralized minarchy concept you mention doesn't sound like it has the same potential at all.

I feel this will be relevant to the discussion.

https://twitter.com/TipsyPianoBar/status/1118693461664755712

Footage of a man on the cathedral's roof after workers had already left, darkly dressed and with nothing identifying him as a worker.

https://twitter.com/TipsyPianoBar/status/1118884771289939968

Notre Dame Architect in Chief remarked during an interview that the old growth oak beams are very difficult to ignite, and that an accident is unlikely.

I'm also trying to find a link but I recall a report stating that renovation work hadn't even properly started yet. All electrical equipment had been depowered (confirmed by the police during their investigation) and no fire hazardous equipment was in use at the time.

It's beginning to look more and more like arson.

Side note: earlier footage of a guy in a yellow vest in the building during the fire was discovered to be a guy working with the fire department. That footage is entirely separate.

>>6935

https://twitter.com/AmyMek/status/1118664191064399872

Found a better version of the second video with audio.

Here's what I was looking for (sort of)

https://twitter.com/ChrisW57821647/status/1118611434156503050

https://twitter.com/DanielOConnel18/status/1118562230520381440

Courtesy of the paddies.

About a thousand churches a year burn down in France due to people setting them on fire. I think. It's a LOT.

Only now people pay attention.

They are literally burning all their churches down.

>>6939

They are burning all our churches down. "They" are not us.

>>6942

Frog purge when?

>>6877

>Kikepedia

There you go, you little faggot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchism#Safeguard_for_liberty

>H. L. Mencken

>he was an outspoken opponent of religion, populism and representative democracy, the latter of which he viewed as systems in which inferior men dominated their superiors

>Albert Jay Nock

>Nock published a two-part essay in The Atlantic Monthly titled "The Jewish Problem in America"

<translation: libertarianism is sargon of akkad tier classical liberalism

Imagine being this retarded. Can you not project your idiotic position of a political clown on other movements and non-homosexual monarchists?

>not a single libertarian party in the entire world opposes letting gays molest children

<Who is Hoppe or Ron Paul

Keep nitpicking

>>6879

>British-American libertarian writer Matthew Feeney

Did you even read your own link before you posted it?

<Who is Hoppe or Ron Paul

a couple of absoulutely based and redpilled boomer MAGApedes.

>>6923

>>4780

Libertarianism would totally work if it wasn't for:

>Non-Whites

>Non-Libertarian states

>Everyone who isn't either a lily white bugman autist or an Amerimutt LARPer

>>6914

Sorry on reflection it might seem that I barged in with too heavy handed an opinion, but my intent was to say something like what you're saying.

On some level, I think we must admit that the only real check on the power of the state remains nature herself. Even in a supposed democracy with all our imaginary freedoms, we shouldn't suspect that such freedoms will do important stuff like protect freedom of the press. Instead when the going gets tough, its all lip service and they still arrest Julian Assange for the grand crime of going against the state. Really such happenings are a testament to the fact that we already live with absolutism, that absolutism is inevitable and a constant, and that the morality of the ruler(s) is the only thing that fluctuates – right now we're in a bit of a moral descent on that front.

Really absolute monarchy is just simply the less wasteful alternative

>>6896

>I don't know. What do you call totalitarian?

Not being able to view 8chan. Getting thrown in jail for having a knife without the proper loicense. Having to go through three years of bureaucracy to start a lemonade stand. Having to deal with the TSA. Not being able to use cash. Having every telephone call get routed and sifted through Five Eyes. Having a 'social credit score.' Dealing with high inflation and the only available job prospects being with the government or essentially for the government through a handful of megacorps.

…

E.g., civil rights-wise the current state of affairs in the U.K. or China.

Economically, just avoiding being like Venezuela or Cuba would be nice.

The main difference seems to be how the religions interact with the monarchy. But beyond that, are they really that different?

>>6694

He puts it a lot better than I did.

You have to bring back a true Christianity back to America in order for it to stop being what it is now. Before any political solution.

Turning Burgerland into a monarchy is nigh impossibru. But, perhaps a monarchy *within* Burgerland is attainable. It might even be legal.

>Guy starts a movement to found a city that usnt globohomo

>supporters buy up land and begin building

>land owners become the lords and a king is elected sort of like a Witegamnot

>technically they aren't establishing their own govt since they own the land their subjects live on and they can choose to leave.

>>6792

That sounds like a great way to get Ruby Ridge'd.

Please see >>824 , this thread has been bumplocked.

>>6632

If that's George Washington in pic rel. he was a publicly avowed mason, like 99.9% of the "founding fathers". They only made mottos and stuff like that to win the support of the colonist Christians.

>>6615

>And are we not within our right to fight democracy?

No, if they have undisputed authority, we are not in our right to disturb the peace. Ends do not justify means. However, in disputed authority, the most righteous power should be given support, which in the case of a revolution has been the reigning monarchy every time.

Democracy is the rule of the Jews through the power of the people. The vast, vast majority of people are apolitical easy-manipulable sheep so through the means of control of the press and education they rule as with an (((invisible hand))). It's not God-anointed at all, it's Satanic

>>5936

Bureaucracy, it is unstoppable

>>5944

Monarchies are less susceptible since it is much easier to fool the leaders of a republic due to their highly temporary nature. Fooling a king about the state of his realm is much harder since it'd need to be carried on for an entire lifetime.

It's not impossible for a deep state to develop, but it's less likely, and easier combated.

England's Charles 1st was a right asshole, wasn't he? Sure they cut his head off, but yeah… what a selfish prick.

>>6476

Habsburg, obviously. Bourbon brought enlig*nement to spain

>>6476

>Do I pick the house that fought the Mohammedans for centuries to keep them out of Europe as best they could

>Or the guys that allied with the Mohemmedans that were actively slave-raiding their coast at the time, endangering the entirety of western civilization

Hard question.

I'm still gonna go with Hohenstaufen though. The Habsburgs accepted Papal authority over the throne, but only God stands above the Emperor.

Habsburg because of the inbreeding

Death to all anglokikes