Court of /monarchy/
Welcome to /monarchy/. I'm editing this top post in order to condense things. This is now the only sticky and a general meta thread. There has been no change in BO, I'm just trying to clean things up a bit more. I may delete out posts in this thread just because I would like keeping the >>1 post for tradition's sake.
Rules: https://8ch.net/monarchy/charter.html
About/Links: https://8ch.net/monarchy/about.html
More specifically, if there is a new BO or volunteer of /monarchy/, it's announced here. If there is a change to the rules, it is promulgated here. This is also a thread I'll use to be a little less aloof and talk about minor and meta stuff: general feedback, complaining about troll threads, accepting submissions for flags, banners, moderation, and rules, etc.. A court, if you will.
State Police IQ Test (135, Age 6)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qprAfvN4bos
We could get Obama re-elected, with niggernometry.
Current-day monarchist movements
Are there any legit and active monarchist movements who want to establish absolute/feudal monarchies?
Preferably intending to replace the current cuck royal families, as they have bent their knees to the Jew, which is the absolute opposite of a strong monarch appointed by God.
is real
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYkmEaKTgLY
(not iranian tried to find this catchy hezbollah song don't know language)
Monarchy has officially moved
Come over to https://redchannit.org/monarchy/ to discuss all things Monarchism!
Why my wife serbian
hello gays
toda i found my wife was filthy serbian, but i is based bosnian. i cannot return her. what method shoud i utilise to dispatch her corpse?
thank
mojenjo daro
chief scamming officer at nigerian prince llc
p.s.
i may have contracted autism from me wife
Exhaustion Theory
Do so many monarchs end up endorsing liberalism (European meaning of the word, not American) and liberty to the point of cucking themselves because they get exhausted? I mean exhausted in the sense of, "I HATE this job, is there any way I can reduce my workload in any way possible?"
Pedro II is the ideal example that I'm sure a lot of you might be thinking of by this point in the post, but I also mean something much more subtle than that. It seems to be what happened to the British monarchy. They kept delegating more and more of their job not because of some ideological political stance, but because they already had so many other things to do and would just rather not be bothered with them–especially if they're just going to get criticized for any little thing. Until now it got to the point where they just do the ceremonial, and even that's fucking exhausting because even that is under a goddam microscope of analysis and you end up getting someone like Prince William. The Spanish monarchy seems to have undergone this process incredibly quickly.
Did this process not happen as vigorously in the past or in poorer countries today because media, the economy, and society as a whole was/is so much simpler?
Why are so many modern monarchs cucks?
Map of monarchist Europe
How would the political map of the monarchist Europe look like? Would it remain the same? Would the borders be based the de jure claims of past kingdoms/principalities/empires or would they be drawn between the religious divisions? How would the ethnic makeup of the continent come into the picture? Post your concepts and maybe explain it if you want to.
Do any of you actually believe in God?
Monarchs are basically dictators who believe their power comes from God; I find most kings and queens quite hypocritical because they usually have the best security force protecting them 24/7. I don't think monarchs actually believe their own bullshit because if they did they would trust Gods to protect them.
Monarchist Aristocracy Sucks
One of the main problems on this earth are European and the other shitty countries with their ass kissing title holders and assaristocracy. like Lord Buttfuck-a-Lot or Countess Rimmin Asses. Go back 1000 years in Europe and find one lifespan where some country was not attacking another. It those fucking people– pedophiles the whole lot of them
We moved to hoppe-sama
If anyone is wondering where everyone went.
https://hoppe-sama.xyz/monarchy/catalog.html
This is our promised land, and a royal haven for all the king's people. A paradisr under the leadership of Hoppe.
/monarchy/, /liberty/, /fascist/, a grand triumvirate.
Technology and Monarchy
As technology advances at a faster and faster rate, and the "singularity" approaches, as genetic engineering becomes more common, how will /monarchy/ make due with these rapid changes, how would a monarch prevent the coming tide of accelerationsim nd suppress the capitalistic cyber-dystopias like in bladerunner etc?
171 Year Old German Shitpost
Wenn die Leute fragen, wenn die Leute fragen,
wenn die Leute fragen: "Lebt der Hecker noch?"
Könnt ihr ihnen sagen, könnt ihr ihnen sagen
Könnt ihr Ihnen sagen: "Ja er lebet noch."
Er hängt an keinem Baum, und er hängt an keinem Strick
Er hängt an seinem Traum Von der freien Republik
Er hängt an keinem Baum, und er hängt an keinem Strick
Er hängt an seinem Traum Von der freien Republik
An den Darm der Pfaffen, An den Darm der Pfaffen
An den Darm der Pfaffen hängt den Edelmann
Laßt ihn dran erschlaffen, Laßt ihn dran erschlaffen
Laßt ihn dran erschlaffen, hängt ihn drauf und dran
Ja 33 Jahre währt die Sauerei
Wir sind keine Knechte, wir sind alle frei
Ja 33 Jahre währt die Sauerei
Wir sind keine Knechte, wir sind alle frei
Schmiert die Guillotine, Schmiert die Guillotine
Schmiert die Guillotine mit Tyrannenfett!
Reisst die Konkubine, Reisst die Konkubine
Reisst die Konkubine aus dem Pfaffenbett !
Ja 33 Jahre währt die Sauerei
Wir sind keine Knechte, wir sind alle frei
Ja 33 Jahre währt die Sauerei
Wir sind keine Knechte, wir sind alle frei
Fürstenblut muss fließen, Fürstenblut muss fließen
Fürstenblut muss fließen fließen stiefeldick !
Und daraus ersprießen, Und daraus ersprießen
Und daraus ersprieß'n die freie Republik
Ja hunderttausend Jahre währt die Knechtschaft schon
Nieder mit den Hunden von der Reaktion
Ja hunderttausend Jahre währt die Knechtschaft schon
Nieder mit den Hunden von der Reaktion
New Banners! + /monarchy/ emblem?
We need all hands on deck!
This board is in dire need of creative talent. Let's make new banners.
There must be a cultural renewal. A new age of /monarchy/.
For I also say that /monarchy/ should create an emblem for itself. A board emblem to spread as an icon for /monarchy/. I'm guessing a crown would be the first symbol to consider, but I reckon there might be a plethora of symbols/colors to represent the monarchist way.
Also, a banner has to be 300 x 100, I'm sure. I recommend using
http://www.simpleimageresizer.com/
to achieve this.
All-Purpose Anti-Roman thread.
The Romans were multicultural degenerates. They inflicted the blight of universalism on the White Man. They like other multiculturalists depended on gibsmedats and weaponry to keep the compliance of their foreign hordes, and once the gibs ran out with weapons dulling their time ran out for good.
Economics for Monarchy
Economics datamining thread.
>Which school of economic thought do you feel you adhere to the closest? Austrian, Chicago, Neoclassical, Classical, Keynes, Marx?
>Which theory of value? Labor, subjective, cost, utils?
>Which theory of interest? Colorless, productivity, abstinence (PTPT), liquidity, renumeration, or exploitation?
>Which theory of the business cycle? Government control of the money supply? Animal spirits? Poorly regulated financial sector? Capitalism itself?
>Which theory of the entrepreneur? Knight's risk, Schumpeter's innovation, or Kirzner's alertness?
>Which theory of economic equilibrium? Mainstream "Consider a collection of demand curves that are monotonic…," the Austrian ERE, Hulsmann's counterfactuals, or Lachmann's notion that equilibrium does not exist?
>Which monetary standard? Gold standard, greenback, Bitcoin, labor-backed, fiat, or denationalized money?
>Which trade policy? Mercantilism, 'managed' trade, or free trade?
>Would you agree more with Say or Keynes?
>Are copyrights and patents a good idea?
>Are occupational licenses a good idea?
>Are minimum wage controls a good idea?
>Are other price controls (e.g., rent control) a good idea?
>Are worker unions a good idea?
>Are guilds a good idea?
>Are monopolies created by or destroyed by capitalism? Should the government have a role w.r.t monopolies?
>Which should or shouldn't be paid for by the government, or to what extent? Education, healthcare, housing, science, military, food, water, internet, telephone, roads, airports, ports, courts, pensions, weights/measures, post office?
>Which industries need regulation, and to what extent? Doctors, dentists, telecoms, finance?
NO MORE THINKING LIKE REPUBLICANS
Remember that the political animals are all breeds of ideological charlatan. If they subscribe to an ideology, they are a political animal; a political animal is somebody who chooses to be other than man; he chooses to become an partisan or idealist. They see everything through the lenses of their -ism and think highly of plain things. Political animals destroy each other, lavishing to take any mantle of authority. They are dogs in the mud, trampling over each other.
Don't become a political animal. Think of authority, not anarchism. Think of people for who they actually are, not what they "should" be or what party. Be loyal to someone and not an ideal. Don't aspire for power and control, but become somebody of action and authority. Find strength, not slander of opponents. Think of honor, not false chants of liberty; because liberty is honorable and before people are truly free they must become responsible first. Before anybody has any liberty, they must find duty, or else they seek to have liberty without any responsibility – that is a demagogue's tyranny.
From /fascist/
I've been on /fascist/ for a few months now, and I've slowly come to understand that monarchy is the best form of government by far.
I read the about page and 'liberty or equality' and I agree with most, if not all, of it.
I'm Catholic and I'm 90+% French; born in America.
I'd like to return to France someday.
God - Race - Fatherland - Family
I'm occasionally berated by civil liberty fags, people who think meritocratic dictatorship is a good idea, and 'b.b..but tyranny' tards on fascist so I intend to visit this board more often.
The only things that should limit a king's power are the words of God and angry mobs.
I'd call myself a Monarchist that wants to see the first king implement a lot of national socialist policies.
The only misgivings I have about this board are race and restoration.
I don't think people that aren't part of the fatherland's native ethnic group should be in the country.
The way I see it, the king is the will of God and the nation combined and personified.
Therefore he must be of the same race.
This leads into my problem with the only two French flags on this board.
Legitimists wanted some pan-euro inbreeding cult member on the throne
and the bonapartists wanted a fucking Italian.
I think the royal family of a country should maintain the racial purity of their bloodline by marrying high ranking members of the aristocracy within their own country.
I want to see new dynasties, not restorations.
I'm not sure I fit squarely in either board.
/v/idya thread: /monarchy/ edition
I know you peasants play video games. Let us share our favorite games and monarchy-related fantasies.
<what possible games could interest a monarchist?
Peasant, let me tell you. There are a variety of mods and historical themes for all games. Paradox games usually take the cake. For this audience, I am recommending Mount and Blade: With Fire and Sword's mod called "English Civil War".
https://www.moddb.com/mods/english-civil-war
It is a fun mod and a hidden gem.
<how is this thread pertinent to /monarchy/
Because gamers are lurking and sometimes it is best to kickback and relax. We are peasants and aristocrats. There are many video games related to this subject matter across all genres. This is a possible frontier to have fun.
You are free to discuss /monarchy/-related games and usual stuff here.
Left-wing monarchism
/leftypol/ crashing in, sorry for crossposting hopefully I don't get banned
How do I reconcile being a far-leftist with my monarchist tendencies, I like the aesthetics of it but being a socialist is quite antithetical to it.
are there any readings on monarchism from a leftist perspective, a monarch that upholds the revolution, something similar to Napoleon and the french revolution
French Monarchy: Bourbon, Legitimist or Napoleon?
Huzzah! The demise of the 5th French republic is upon us and the the republican politicians and on trial. Who do we elect to the throne of France? The House of Napoleon, the House of Bourbon or the House of Orléans? Which of the handsome men is the true King of France?
Down with the vulgar plebian dialectic
We have to stop thinking about monarchy in terms of "is it more socialist or libertarian" like some political compass soyboy NPC animal. The great royal houses who built the nations we know today were neither socialists nor libertarian liberals. The spectrum of acceptable ideologies in mainstream political discourse is incredibly small because the course of democratic society is determined by demagogues and their ideas. Materialism has corrupted the human brain to a degree that the NPC believes all that matters in politics is this stupid dialectic of two slightly different - equally decadent - types of cosmopolitanism.
I stumble across this thread and i have a question.
How does a country that does not have a royal family go about establishing a monarchy? And how would people follow a man that is proclaimed king in this secular liberal society we live in?
I’m very interested in your thoughts.
I Proclaim Myself King
I proclaim myself King of /monarchy/ by Right of Might, I'm really good at that videogame. I'm 6.4" tall, can deadlift 620lb (taking into account my 600lb girth), and have a 8x6.5" paper that I like to do drawings on. Let all true Anons declare their loyalty.
BEGONE PRETENDER
Is Monarchy cucked
*drinks wine mixed with water*
Is having a Monarch the ultimate cuckoldry?
I cannot think or comprehend of anything more cucked than having a Monarch. Honestly, think about it rationally. You are building, managing and improving a society so that it can be enjoyed by another man. All the hard work you put into your beautiful Polis, toiling the fields, building ports for trade, recruiting men for war, training daily in the Gymnasium to be fit for war.. All of it has one simple result: the society can serve a man who uses it for his own pleasure
Created the perfect society? Great. Who benefits? If you're lucky, a random man, who had nothing to do with the way it was build He gets to enjoy the fruits of a civilization .He gets the benefits of a Polis that he had no part in building yet will use it for his own purpose.
As a man who has a Monarch, you are LITERALLY dedicating at least your life simply to raise a society for another man to enjoy. It is the ULTIMATE AND FINAL cuck. Think about it logically.
Thomas I
Hello /monarchy/, lolberg from /liberty/ here. How would history change if, at the end of the Revolutionary War, Thomas Jefferson was declared the first monarch of the United States? With my admittedly limited knowledge, these are the immediate implications I can see:
>French Revolution can't use it as a historical precedent, or ideological motivation. Revolution might still happen but won't be nearly as popular or widespread.
>Without FR, Marx and his shitty ideas have far less influence, assuming Marx even tries to peddle his nonsense at all.
>Without American democracy and/or FR as inspiration, no pressure for other European nations to become democratic
>Without the European divide between monarchies and democracies, and without democratic warmongering and nationalism, world stage no longer set for WWI
>Even if Marx managed to influence some people, without WWI Germany never smuggles Lenin back into Russia
>Without Lenin Communist Revolution never happens and Marxism (again, assuming it even survived this far in history) never becomes widespread
>Without Treaty of Versailles and economic clusterfuck of WWI, WWII never happens
>Without WWII, and without commies in Russia, Cold War never happens
>Without Cold War fucking hippies never happen
>Modern world is far less war-torn, far less cucked, far more prosperous
And that's not even taking into account the internal changes in the US:
>No more incentive to continue increasing gov't size by appealing to demographics
>Progressive Era, even if it happens, need not have influence over policy
>No Prohibition
>No Central Bank and no fiat currency
>No Keynesian fantasies
>Great Depression much less 'great', assuming it happens at all
>No welfare state
>no Department of Labor and similar anti-market bullshit
Thoughts? Is this accurate? Will OP continue to be the eternal faggot?
The Homestead
Hear yee, hear yee, the Homestead belongs to Peasants. Post banter and do whatever you want in the Homestead. It is the place for peasant dialogues, peasant banter, and peasant media. The Homestead is the place of free reign and unbridled peasantry.
Aristocrats are welcome to sit and laugh at peasant LARPing. Even talk with peasants, but this is the peasants' turf.
Symbols of Monarchical Authority Thread
What is your favorite symbol of monarchical authority? I'm a fan of the daṇḍa – which was just a staff, or scepter, of punishment wielded by kings in ancient India. The Sanskrit term just means stick but apparently it also, due to this association with kingship, acquired a sense of the administration of justice and punishment, both of which were considered duties of the king. Interestingly, the daṇḍa was also associated with the sage. Even today you can see police officers in India caring around daṇḍas to whack people with.
Monarchy in the Animal Kingdom
Bees are the monarchist insect, but ants are communist pests.
<as Joseph d'M*istre states:
>“If sovereignty is not anterior to the people, at least these two ideas are collateral, since a sovereign is necessary to make a people. It is as impossible to imagine a human society, a people, without a sovereign as a hive and bees without a queen: for, by virtue of the eternal laws of nature, a swarm of bees exists in this way or it does not exist at all. Society and sovereignty are thus born together; it is impossible to separate these two ideas. Imagine an isolated man: there is no question of laws or government, since he is not a whole man and society does not yet exist. Put this man in contact with his fellowmen: from this moment you suppose a sovereign. The first man was king over his children; each isolated family was governed in the same way. But once these families joined, a sovereign was needed, and this sovereign made a people of them by giving them laws, since society exists only through the sovereign.
>Everyone knows the famous line,
>“The first king was a fortunate soldier.
>This is perhaps one of the falsest claims that has ever been made. Quite the opposite could be said, that
>The first soldier was paid by a king.
>There was a people, some sort of civilization, and a sovereign as soon as men came into contact. The word people is a relative term that has no meaning divorced from the idea of sovereignty: for the idea of a people involves that of an aggregation around a common center, and without sovereignty there can be no political unity or cohesion….”
What are your animals, /monarchy/?
Anti-Imperialism
The ultimate affront to all ideologies is being an imperialist.
They all hate the legacy of empires.
This is not the imperialism of colonial empire, but the long-spanning imperial domain of ancient civilizations and the imperial domain of holy ranks and great emperors. Emperors were once a strong symbol.
Monarchies are not only afraid of going extinct. Empires are. True empires. I am not referencing "pseudo-empire" and those who point to Zionist hegemony or the current state of the Commonwealth. What the nationalists refer to "globalism" is not the imperialism I love. The glory of imperialism could be as national and local as it is powerful. Emperor is the rank above king. It is the ultimate status.
Before anyone whines about colonialism, I'm going to point out that an anti-imperialist is basically an anti-monarchist. Look no further the 20th century and the most prestigious monarchies were empires. The British Empire. The Austro-Hungarian Empire. The German Empire. The Russian Empire. The Brazilian Empire & 2nd Mexican Empire. The whole basket of great imperial regimes. The only Emperor left in this world is in Japan.
Absolutism is shit-tier
Absolutism only appeals to aesthetics-fags and semi-reformed fascists. It is better than democracy, but worse than the monarchies of the middle ages. It has created a worthless class of nominal aristocrats in France, and forever tarnished the name of aristocracy. It has directly spawned democracy; you couldn't reform a society in the middle ages to be democratic, as the sovereignty wasn't vested in a single entity to begin with.
Absolutism appeals to authoritarians and totalitarians, and to esotericists who imbue the state with spiritual forces. Their views are historically unjustifiable, as absolutist governments were still very liberal for modern standards, but they are still hard to get rid off, as these kinds of people don't care for facts so much as for narratives and aesthetics. We will have a hard time getting rid of people who think that absolutism is just upgraded fascism as long as we fawn over every guy with a silly beard wearing a 19th century military uniform. Let's face it: Monarchs can be mediocre, too. They can be progressive, and they can be heretical. Kaiser Wilhelm II was a zionist and esotericist tool, and to drool over him for the sake of aesthetics is ridiculous. I'd take him over Merkel any day, but "better than Merkel" is not a sign of great quality. And don't get me started on Frederick II, who was most likely gay, and who was definitely influenced by Voltaire.
Society is supposed to be symbiotic and organic, and it was during the middle ages. Not so much during the era of absolutism. Again, absolutist government, in the grand scheme of things, was still a fine form of government. It is also most exemplary of monarchy. However, we should be very careful about advertising it too much. It might be effective for attracting people, but that won't be of much use if half of them end up as buffoons who talk of "liberal ontology" like it means something and cannot think of people as anything other than subjects to a king.
Burger /monarchy/
>TFW you live in the most corrupt republic on the planet specifically created out of a peasant revolt against the british crown, which no claimants over the entirety of the modern country's territory whatsoever, and who's only claimants over certain parts of it are a ceremonial british hag and a deposed Hawaiian cheiftain
Fellow burgers of /monarchy/, how do you cope with your beliefs in such a society where monarchism is completely alien? Is the Mad Monarchist correct in the assertion that we all should just give up hope or move back to the Old World?
I myself am a Russian descendent from White Immigrants (grandfather was a minor noble who fought for Monarchists in the Russian Civil War)- and considering the fact that I can't seem to find any legitimate American Monarchist organizations- should I just get the hell out of dodge and join the Monarchist Party of Russia?
The Burgerland Question
What should be done with America? In an ideal world.
Would you have a Kingdom of America? What religion or culture would the monarch be from? Would it be a centralized realm or very decentralized like the HRE? Elective monarchy or hereditary? Would it have to be cut into multiple kingdoms? (Say Kingdom of Dixie, Kingdom of California, Kingdom of Texas… some ideas maybe).
How do you deal with the clusterfuck of religions, races, and ethnicities on this continent basically? Or do you just nuke it from orbit? Have fun with this thought experiment.
Nepali Monarchy Thread
Hey guys, I've always been interested in Hinduism and therefore had an interest in Nepal. It was the last Hindu kingdom, before the commies took over.
pic related, Prithvi Narayan Shah, the first king of Nepal. I'll give you guys a back history, Muslims and British were coming into India and so Prithvi saw this as a young man and did not want his people to be terrorised too. He managed to conquer all of the smaller principalities, and then unify it as Nepal.
He then shut off the border and prevented Nepal from being Muslimified or colonised by the British. Mission accomplished eh?
International Monarchy?
Would it still be possible for loyalty to a monarch to unite vertically those who will not, or should not, be united horizontally? The British Commonwealth, for instance; could that still move toward greater unity (in terms of foreign policy, money transfers, international trade deals…) or are people too nationalistic now, and resent any international sovereignty?
Looking at history, monarchs used to be an international force, speaking French and maintaining difference from the local culture, but nationalism collapsed most of the international Empires, and those that were left assimilated, to take advantage of the protection nationalism gave them. Unfortunately this assimilation sets a limit on the scope of the kingdom and abolishes what seems to me a unique method of international governance ideally balancing autonomy with central government…
Russian Empire & Industrialization
I'm looking for a few good source materials and apologists for the Russian Empire. I want material on industrialization and sources to make counter-arguments against the average attribution of industrialization only to Soviets. I also want evidence of Russian advances in technology and facts. This isn't only for industrialization, but pro-imperial stances on life there in general and an anti-Soviet hub.
>often overlooked, the Russian Imperial Air Service
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Russian_Air_Service
Also, a few positive outlooks on the recent Tsars of Russia.
This thread will also be open to argumentation and refutation from opponents, but the primary goal is uncovering information and sources.
It isn't too common for the average pro-Soviet to make Imperial Russia seem like the Flintstones and cavemen. They often tout Russia as backwards, reactionary, and stagnant. Half the problem with this and industrialization is with all the land and wealth, the Russian terrain and infrastructure was still in development. My pov is that industrialization was partially forestalled because infrastructure and rough terrain made access to wealth difficult and infrastructure was more important for the Russian Empire. This is why the construction of railroads and other accomplishments matter and were progressing around the 1900s. Improvements were inevitably coming.
Monarchy and the slave race
Monarchy is the ultimate final victory for a batch of genes, representing a family's domination of an entire national region after centuries of struggle. By celebrating a monarch you celebrate the fact that their genes beat your genes. It's the ultimate cuckoldry.
First these superior genes dominated the local village and the family who had them got to become landlords. They extracted tithes from the peasants who did all the work, turning them into slaves. Then they dominated neighbouring landlords. Finally they dominated all the other lords and became the ruling family.
Climbing to the top, the genes showed they were better than everyone. If your landlord is weaker than a bigger lord who submits to the monarch, you are proven to be weaker than the king. It's a badge of shame to be ruled over by a monarch, not something to celebrate.
I admire monarchs, but only a thoughtless peasant could ever submit to one. You are showing yourself to be part of the slave race. Happily in your place. Just the traits that allowed you to be dominated in the first place.
Seriously, how could you be happy in kneeling before a (genetic) master? Are you a cuckold?
Monarchy is the celebration of your genetic cuckoldry.
Trooping the Colour 2019
Live from Horse Guards Parade in London, Huw Edwards introduces one of the world’s most esteemed military displays, to celebrate the official birthday of Her Majesty the Queen.
This year the 1st Battalion Grenadier Guards are providing the Escort and their Regimental Colonel, HRH the Duke of York, has spoken exclusively to Huw Edwards. Huw will be joined by military and royal experts to guide us through the meticulous parade, a balcony appearance by the Queen and the royal family, and the traditional RAF flypast.
Breaking Bad G#d
A Sad Instant message Received for CA and Dad's Girls
Multiple MSM outlets in Multiple Cities received Calls Calls and more Calls from Anonymous Sources disclosing GES, our Holograms, Staged Events etc. Multiple Glitches occurred during MP speech in "VA" as well and I Guess a bunch of audience members saw.
Most of all that F'in Scares me, our Interior Innermost Bunkbed access #s, locations are Known Somehow.
Dan J. Truman Better Do Something F'in Fast bc ITS HAPPENING, and Many More are Picking and Piecing Together.
The Piers Morgan Vault I'view, entire Family/Children Photo was the worst F'in Idea. We Will Never Ever Ever F'in See the Sun again if we [4,10,20] don't make something happen.
Boring Bunkmate Getting scared. dc
Blackpill Hours
Here we morn the absolute insanity of this world we live in where a death cult took over the entire world and re-built it in its God forsaken image.
>No liberty, no responsibility, no accountability
>No soul
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LArdrbBUIU
I used to rule the world
Seas would rise when I gave the word
Now in the morning I sleep alone
Sweep the streets I used to own
I used to roll the dice
Feel the fear in my enemy's eyes
Listened as the crowd would sing
Now the old king is dead! Long live the king!
One minute I held the key
Next the walls were closed on me
And I discovered that my castles stand
Upon pillars of salt and pillars of sand
I hear Jerusalem bells are ringing
Roman Cavalry choirs are singing
Be my mirror, my sword and shield
My missionaries in a foreign field
For some reason I can't explain
Once you'd gone there was never
Never an honest word
That was when I ruled the world
It was the wicked and wild wind
Blew down the doors to let me in
Shattered windows and the sound of drums
People couldn't believe what I'd become
Revolutionaries wait
For my head on a silver plate
Just a puppet on a lonely string
Oh who would ever want to be king?
I hear Jerusalem bells are ringing
Roman Cavalry choirs are singing
Be my mirror, my sword and shield
My missionaries in a foreign field
For some reason I can't explain
I know Saint Peter won't call my name
Never an honest word
But that was when I ruled the world
Hear Jerusalem bells are ringing
Roman Cavalry choirs are singing
Be my mirror, my sword and shield
My missionaries in a foreign field
For some reason I can't explain
I know Saint Peter won't call my name
Never an honest word
But that was when I ruled the world
Reminder
Remember that women aren't fit to rule since by their very natures they are not truly members of any tribe. They are heavily selected by nature to smoothly transition from one tribe to another by marriage or warfare. White knighting them by allowing them to lead is foolish since women have no nation. They do not care where higher status men come from and they'll absorb the language and customs of wherever they happen to end up.
>muh blonde goddess
That blond-haired, blue eyed goddess who can do no wrong just will fuck the swarthy Mongol who burnt her village and slew all her Darwininan loser brothers.
tfw regicide isn't a social taboo on /monarchy/
rescue me from this /liberty/ 2.0 hell. thought this place was for being 'above politics' and for the restoration of monarchies. more and more the peasants bother about the best way and how and when to start killing kings. it should be sacrilege to toy with traditional authority and the idea of regicide. it should be as non-conformist and unwelcome as being statist on /liberty/; but on /monarchy' there is a strong inclination towards regicide rather than restoration.
Joseph de Maistre
Someone needs to honor this man for being the reactionary arch-nemesis of Rousseau. Academics call him the proto-fascist Isaiah Berlin. Others call him a shadow of the Dark Ages. Maistre and Counter-Enlightenment figures deserve a place somewhere in our hearts for stepping in the light of Progress and stomping it out.
I recommend reading Maistre's Against Rousseau. The place of origin for this PDF fell apart. I am keeping it here because it is an important piece and deserves a read. I am also recommending http://maistre.uni.cx/sovereignty.html this read.
>Against Rousseau
Deals with the leftist 'noble savage' and the Left's consistent belief that human nature is benevolent and happy in the state of nature. Deals with institutional belief and property. It is a remarkable relevant read for monarchists/reactionaries alike.
pretenders
post'em
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Count_Geoffrey_Potocki_de_Montalk
Monarchy vs other non-democracy states
Why is monarchy better than other non-democratic alternatives- for example, rule by the church or rule by secular bureaucrats?
If we share the tragic view of human nature, the tendency among monarchs and aristocrats will be to descend into profligacy over time, and that is what happened.
Of course institutions can also become corrupted but at least there, there is the chance of reform. Monarchs and aristocrats cannot be removed except by death.
When to change dynasties?
If your here you've probably already figured out why we need a monarch. Writings like Seraphim Rose have done an excellent job explaining why the French Revolution was a mistake.
Have we considered what happens when a monarch needs to be replaced? For instance Queen Victoria did a bangup job, but Queen Elizabeth was a shitshow who has done nothing but import fresh peasants to replace the angry natives as the empire curmbles.
Confucius (and Mencius) had a concept for this that is entirely compatible with Christianity. In a Christian monarchy, Christ is eternal King and monarchs merely act as defacto regent until he returns. Sometimes this regent needs replaced, how do you tell when? Can you kill a monarch without ruining the whole monarchy and devolving into anarchy? We used to do it all the time in Europe.
What would you do to guard against incompetent monarchs?
Ballet Royal de la Nuit
This clown world has gone too far, /monarchy/. Hear me out.
>The Ballet Royal de la Nuit (Royal Ballet of the Night), Ballet Royal de la Nuict in its original spelling and often referred to simply as the Ballet de la Nuit, is a ballet de cour with a libretto by Isaac de Benserade and music by Jean de Cambefort, Jean-Baptiste Boësset, Michel Lambert and possibly others, which premiered on February 23, 1653, at the Salle du Petit-Bourbon in Paris. It took 13 hours to perform and debuted fifteen year old Louis XIV as Apollo, the Sun King (Le Roi Soleil).
>It was in part due to the Ballet Royal de la Nuit that Louis XIV came to be known as the Roi Soleil (The Sun King). With the collective civil wars known as the Fronde still fresh in the collective memory, the cardinal Mazarin commissioned a ballet with the aim of displaying the young king's true power, then only 15 years old. For this, he would therefore take on the role of Apollo.
>The work was never again performed after its first performance in 1653. Director of the Ensemble Correspondances, Sébastien Daucé therefore decided to recreate the ballet after being seduced upon hearing its first air. There remained, however, only the first violin score, the other orchestral voices having been completely lost. The idea was therefore to "respect" the score, to "complete" it and not "transform" it. The current stage production is somewhat different from the original version, highlighting the text's fairytale and enchanting aspects.
>The work was never again performed after its first performance in 1653. Director of the Ensemble Correspondances, Sébastien Daucé therefore decided to recreate the ballet after being seduced upon hearing its first air. There remained, however, only the first violin score, the other orchestral voices having been completely lost. The idea was therefore to "respect" the score, to "complete" it and not "transform" it. The current stage production is somewhat different from the original version, highlighting the text's fairytale and enchanting aspects.
8chanmania Invite/Nomination
WE'VE BEEN NOMINATED FOR 8CHANMANIA'S SITE WIDE EVENT!
What is it?
/v/ Nominates 32 fighters to fight for the Champion's Belt and a chance to fight in the 33rd Mania and win the season championship
This week we're having a site wide event and we want YOU to nominate a fighter, so please pick who you think represents the board the most, and then come join us at https://cytu.be/r/8chanmania on Sunday May 12th at 2pm EST to watch your fighters win (or job horribly)!
Now it's time to argue as to which swole sovereign is most suited for the ring
Pagan Monarchy
Do you think a pagan monarchy could possibly arise in Europe's future (or any other part of the world)?
Me personally, I think that if people were to go back to their roots in terms of political ideology, they should also go back to the spiritual/religious traditions of their ancestors. Since christianity is a semitic religion with exclusively semitic prophets it has no connection to Europe whatsoever. It would not make sense for an non-Hebrew king to claim that he rules by divine right if the god he worships is one created by Hebrews.
The only modern monarchy I know of that could be considered a pagan monarchy is that of Japan whose ruling family claims to be descended from the Shintoist sun goddess Amaterasu (Shintoism being the native religion of Japan). Before the end of WWII the emperor was considered to be a god-like being himself and was actually worshipped by some.
A monarch that is actually an important aspect of his people's religion would be hard to be overthrown and indeed, the Japanese royal family has ruled for thousands of years.
Has /monarchy/ noticed that certain religions have a better track record of continuing the institution of monarchy than others?
Take Islam, for example. Today, Muslim countries are more like to be monarchies than non-Muslim ones, and most of the remaining absolute monarchies are Muslim. In fact, virtually all of the Ummah was run by monarchs, but many of them were overthrown by Western-influenced revolutionaries in the last century.
That's why I'm thinking of converting to Islam, to help strengthen the moral fiber of my life and to further the cause of monarchism. Anyone else thinking the same?
American Monarchist Society
Discovered this new (month old) American monarchist site.
https://americanmonarchistsociety.com/
Has a polished, professional look, although many features are still incomplete. (I take the donation function being absent, instead of the only working thing, as a good sign it’s in earnest). Seems to be run by two devoted young men, a Steven Bachmann and a J. Benjamin. Open to all but with a Traditionalist, Roman Catholic ethos.
The American Monarchist Society hopes to be able to organize the First Monarchist Congress of the United States by 2021. Any takers? I think it’s a welcome replacement for the International Monarchist League - US site which no longer exists.
Are you royalty?
I'm a descendant of King Brian Boru of Ireland. I'm certain that half of Ireland would have to die before I was anywhere near a legitimate heir to the now defunct throne, but it's something I find fascinating about my ancestry. Are you guys descended from/related to any monarchs or royalty?
Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman
Howdy /monarchy/, what's your honest opinion on the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia? Do you think he is competent and will able to replace his father, King Salman? Do you think it was right of the King to change succession law to get his son on the throne? Do you like the reforms or "reforms" he has been implementing in his father's kingdom before he even ascends? Do you think the Kashoggi circus will hurt him in the long run?
and terribly sorry if y'all have covered him already, I couldn't find it in the catalog
Is the KJV Monarchist?
What ideology is represented best by the KJV? I've heard absolutely absurd claims like that it's "proto-marxism" but I believe it's monarchism.
Here's some parts I found over a day of reading around searching for anything indicative of a political ideology in the KJV:
John 18:36
Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
https://biblehub.com/kjv/john/18.htm
>Submission to Authorities
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.
https://biblehub.com/kjv/romans/13.htm
>A Righteous King
Behold, a king shall reign in righteousness, and princes shall rule in judgment.
And a man shall be as an hiding place from the wind, and a covert from the tempest; as rivers of water in a dry place, as the shadow of a great rock in a weary land.
And the eyes of them that see shall not be dim, and the ears of them that hear shall hearken.
The heart also of the rash shall understand knowledge, and the tongue of the stammerers shall be ready to speak plainly.
The vile person shall be no more called liberal, nor the churl said to be bountiful.
For the vile person will speak villany, and his heart will work iniquity, to practise hypocrisy, and to utter error against the LORD, to make empty the soul of the hungry, and he will cause the drink of the thirsty to fail.
The instruments also of the churl are evil: he deviseth wicked devices to destroy the poor with lying words, even when the needy speaketh right.
But the liberal deviseth liberal things; and by liberal things shall he stand.
Absolute Monarchy Best Vid Ever
This is my go to video for making the case for Absolute Monarchy.
The Last Bastille Podcast, Monarchism, featuring John Alan Martinson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhoYbdVMg9M
Btw this board needs a Queen Elizabeth the First flag she's the greatest monarch to ever live.
/monarchy/ review from a consequentialist libertarian
Alright, i've been recommended the board and have lurked for a while and although i probably won't stay i thought i might share my thoughts on the subject. Do whatever you want with them.
Monarchy's success is not universal but is often enough not due to some chivalry, religion or other imaginary pretentious sophistry to cover up and justify the monopoly on force but simply from the fact that monarchs follow the order that requires less reinforcement from them, leading to less politicaly active reign, therefore allowing greater economic freedom from politically motivated intervention. When it's not the case and either the ruler or some other influential institutions intervene problems quickly follow, though as long as the inheritance of authority is in place the system still has the ability to recover with the next, less leftist ruler.
The monarchies' structure is good because it relies on a more apolitical model(i.e. the order is in place regardless, it's stable and doesn't create political climate as it exists almost without actual involvement of most people, even monarch is required to just live an offspring, basically), something that demoracies or other popular rule systems lack, succumbing to populism. If the situation changed like it might have been during modern times in the field of modern politics then monarchies would likely lose their traits and fall apart, as it's not the absolte potential power that held them together but lack of questioning and testing it. With modern abilities and communications it would also be easier to ruin the country in one generation,rendering another feature of monarchy nearly useless. Still i do like minarchist monarchies for what they are, as spontaneous and unintentional protectors of freedom and predecessors of other systems that attempted to solidify what is most important to progress, knowledge, prosperity and self-realization, possibly being better at that then many earlier attempts. Adding democracy because of the spread of egalitarian populism was a mistake, it should have been constitutional civic monarchy instead
Anyway, here it is, probably gay or something but forgive me as i'm probably not doing it again.
ABSOLUTISM
Alright, let's talk about the word that scares off all the little kiddos, babbies first board-outside-/pol/, and LARPers from monarchism. What does /monarchy/ think about absolute monarchism? What is it? Would your life really be absolute shit under it? Are more 'limited' forms of monarchism preferable?
Achieving monarchy in Burgerland
Greetings courtiers and commoners of /monarchy/ from Burgerland. Hail to the King for he is good.
I come to you all today because i've been brainstorming an idea to get monarchy in the United States, or at least a more pragmatic way than trying to push a Bill through the greedy, selfish, slothful, "do nothing" Congress.
Following the tradition of Emperor Joshua Norton (pic related), someone with good moral character (and some money) ought to go around their county and proclaim themselves as the "Count of [your county here]". Doing good deeds and spreading the good word of Monarchy. Eventually convincing enough people to want a referendum (or special election) to disband the County Board (or however your county is organized) and install the Count as the Monarch of that county. Making that position inheritable.
All it would take is one county in the US to do this to inspire more Counts to rise up from the ashes of our (((Democratic - Republic))), or the success of that Count should attract other counties to vote him in as their count (until he owns enough land to be considered a Duke)
A great way to legitimize the Count's claim would be to have a Bishop (Catholic or Orthodox) bless him as the appointed monarch of the county. This formality should be enough to put the Bishop's congregation in the Count's pocket.
In the long run, I envision America becoming a new HRE (because Americans are, unfortunately, culturally Republican). Where the landed Nobles vote on legislation and who gets to become the new Kaiser.
The reasons why I think it can work
1. More and more people are becoming disillusioned with our current Democratic process.
2. The youth are becoming more Conservative and religious everyday.
3. The people loved Emperor Norton.
4. Crypto currency technology can be used to circumvent the need and dependency on the (((Federal Reserve Notes))) and solidify the Count's economy.
Why it wont work
1. Unfair media coverage
2. Assassinations
3. Not producing a male heir
4. Possibly no recognition from foreign Monarchs
The only other practical way the US could become a Monarchy (that I can think of) would be to go the route of Rome.
What do y'all think?
Am I crazy? Too idealistic?
How could it work? Will it ever work? Is Rome our Destiny?
Scripture
Are democratically elected leaders still considered to be anointed by God? Rendering monarchism obsolete in the religion department?
Romans 13:1 - "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God."
And are we not within our right to fight democracy?
Proverbs 24:21 - "Fear the LORD and the king, my son, and do not join with rebellious officials"
Democracy + Progress
Could Europe have industrialised as quickly under the continued reign of Absolutism or did progress depend on the stronger individual rights achieved (directly and indirectly) by the forces of liberalism?
Britain did very well and shed itself of Absolutism fairly quickly– Northern Europe in general has done better than the South, and been relatively more free– however the issue is probably more nuanced than that. How do you think we find out the truth?
The Good, the Bad, & the Ugly; /monarchy/ on Guns & Gun Control
Gun ownership in the past monarchies was not uncommon and much more relaxed than monarchies are today. It is about time /monarchy/ discuss the gun control and gun laws in various monarchs from the past and present, and what your stance is on guns.
>the Good
Gun ownership in Imp. Russia was easier like the Wild West. Accordingly, no problems with gun ownership and very relaxed. Meanwhile, most of Europe back then was relaxed on gun control, as well as under the Qing for a while. This is a stark contrast to the steep rise in regulations and gun control you today. Nowadays you gotta have a loicense. However, Serbia has a high approval rate for a monarchical restoration and they are also a very gun-loving culture.
>The Bad
Japan has a long history of being strict on weapons. The Meji Era is a period that prohibited it strictly.
>The Ugly
It looks like gun control is going to get worse after the shooting in NZ.
<OP, why do you bring this up?
Because I know many monarchists are interested in this topic and likewise care about gun ownership and compulsory military service.
>on military compulsory service
Look up the Assize of Arms of 1181 and other statutes.
Riots in France; Rollin' for the Demise of the 5th French Republic
Thoughts?
>Macon & 5th Republic struggle to recuperate in France
>increasing taxation, foreign invaders, and lower social standing
>even members of the police force are coalescing
>for now seems non-partisan
>working class members of society entering Paris, rural folk too
<but muh Global Warmining; French media portrays them ultimately as far-right, increasing taxation justified to deal with 'global warming'
<muh storefronts and cars being flipped
Unfortunately, the media and others keep saying 'wait until the election' to resolve this problem. The roots of the Revolution and republicanism has sowed its own perpetual cycle of destruction. This time around I cannot blame them. Wishful thinking. Let Counter-Revolution return to the France. Expunge those poisonous roots of the Revolution.
Resource Link Enquiry
Hello there,
My name is George, and I was wondering if you would like to have your website tor.onl promoted as a resource on my blog georgemartjr.com ?
We are updating our broken link resources to include up to date resources for our readers. Our resource links are manually approved as a do follow link.
If you are interested in having your site included as a resource on our blog, please let me know.
Thanks for your consideration,
George
NRx Discord
The Leviathan is a Neoreactionary/Tradtionalist server built around the discussion of far right philosophy and theory. We hope to stimulate discussion between members of the far right and to promote Reactionary and Traditionalist ideas.
1. Opposition will be monitered more closely than any other members as to ensure that this server gets the best members it possibly can.
2. Members ought to respect staff and follow orders when given.
3. Posting of pornography will result in a ban.
4. In addition to the former rule, if CP (with the inclusion of loli) or cubporn is posted then you will be banned and your account reported.
5. No furries.
6. No posting of gore.
7. Post in the correct channels.
-No shitposting outside of shitposting, unless in context. Shitposting is meant as a containment zone.
Public Link: https://discord.gg/FrWNwqg
When the King Enjoys His Own Again
Absolute Monarchy is not tyranny
>“I must tell you that the liberty and freedom [of the people] consists in having of Government, those laws by which their life and their goods may be most their own. It is not for having share in Government, Sir, that is nothing pertaining to them. A subject and a sovereign are clean different things. If I would have given way to an arbitrary way, for to have all laws changed according to the Power of the Sword, I needed not to have come here, and therefore I tell you…that I am the martyr of the people”
<The true monarch, like many who have gone to their martyrdom for this principle, fight for their absolute power (or divine right if you like) not out of personal ambition but because in so doing they are fighting for the absolute right of every one of their people to all that is justly their own.
<It could, perhaps, more simply stated this way: in such a system everyone has absolute power over all that is legitimately their own. Just as the monarch cannot simply take life, limb or property from his nobles or people at his whim, because they have absolute right to it, neither can the people, at their whim take the Crown or royal authority from the monarch.
Monarchy starts with a good premise for liberty and laws and fairness. It is unequal; the monarch inherits his authority and status as a king and it represents the highest reproduction of these values. A crown has no words, no articles, and no doctrine; but the crown represents something stronger. In Bossuet's properties of royalty, monarchs are subject to reason and will have consequences for their actions. A monarch could shoot himself and have consequences for it. There is no business making up hypothetical horror stories of a monarch becoming a tyrant at whim. This is a republican myth that asserts all monarchies are tyrannical and all republics are libertarian.The political reality wouldn't allow for it for monarchies, and the structure and legitimacy of monarchy is necessary. The absolute power of kings is necessary for their organic capacities.
TL;DR: Monarchy and authority aren't necessarily tyrannical.
In Defense of Hereditary Monarchy
There are many electoral monarchists showing their vices and making communists blush with their talk of guillotines and beheading monarchs. This is a shameful state for a monarchist to be in, electoral or hereditary, but that won't be the topic of this thread. Rather than discuss people with a vendetta against monarchy (whether it is absolute or plain hereditary; mostly narrows to hereditary), I'll have to be an apologist for hereditary monarchy. This is because these people basically come down to a hatred of primogeniture succession. For the reason of centralizing land and favoring the eldest son unequally over the other sons.
>centralization
Monarchists who favor hereditary principle and yet still like primogeniture have to wrestle with two extremes. There is the aristocrat-lover, ultra-individualist who hates nations and nationalism in favor of micro-states and divided up counties/prince-electors, and then there is the nationalist who wants the big national state with democratic anti-primogeniture sentiments. This comes down to the age-old struggle between monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. The monarchies of the WW1 period in Central Europe reached a middle ground between nationalism and royalty. There were two German states, but an encompassing pride for nation regardless. This might upset nationalists who favor complete unification while seeing multi-ethnic peoples together in hereditary empires. Hereditary empires unified people thanks to primogeniture (without electoral succession) thanks to gavelkind succession becoming less practical. Centralization organically grew as land became more indivisible because the eldest son inherited land and the land remained tied and incorporated more and more people on said land rather than constantly unifying and splitting it up again.
The electoral monarchies were strongly hereditary monarchies and those that weren't would later become hereditary with the rise of primogeniture. I don't think the electoral process of aristocrats would avoid centralization, despite primogeniture bringing people under a fold. Usually centralization and decentralization are a rising tide and happen regardless, especially when empires grow larger and larger; but this doesn't mean they have to be overbearing on liberty. An anon pointed out that the Russian Empire, despite centralizing with the Romanov dynasty, still was fairly better off in the later centuries despite abolishing serfdom.
>how about hereditary roots?
While electoral monarchists can boast about being older in a sense with Germanic states favoring electoral bodies, there are a few exceptions (especially outside of Europe). Some electoral processes among those were incredibly superficial and strongly hereditary like the Byzantine Empire (despite laws) and other cases. There are also those monarchies that didn't establish themselves by right of vote, but by conquest in certain niche cases with the monarch winning a battle and declaring himself king. As for other monarchies, this could involve the Kingdom of Wessex with its tales of kings and its strongly hereditary monarchy, the things surrounding the strongly hereditary realm of Norway, and so on with the Rugii Kingdom and other exceptions to the rule.
>the evolution of monarchies
In France, the Merovingian dynasty started electoral but later became strongly dynastic and hereditary. Those kings played roles such as being judges and ruling idly. Until the electoral office of the Mayor of Paris and the kingship merged together with Pepin the Short's takeover and the establishment of the Holy Roman Empire. After that, the House of Capet started the longest succession of primogeniture in France and the electoral process vanished in 1,223 AD.
Between 1,223 AD and 1,670 AD, most monarchies in Europe became hereditary. In most of England, the Norman Conquest (offically in early1200s) . In Scotland, primogeniture started to exert itself in 1,371, Portugal, and Sweden later in 1537. Outside of Europe, there were plenty of civilizations with strong dynasties like Zhou Dynasty in China and Egypt's dynastic rulers. Imperial Japan was also the longest hereditary dynasty to boast.
>how did it become necessary and how did kingdoms/nations develop?
Primogeniture became necessary with growing military conquests and the need for indivisible lands. The development of many nations owe gratitude to this process and these monarchies. I think nationalists should recognize this. While aristocrat electoral monarchists should also recognize that the electoral process even in decentralized states can evolve to become federal (like the United States in its development).
Monarchy and Federal Imperialism
As an Ameritard, I live in a Federation of sovereign states United by a federal government. However, like it is supposed to be, I hold my state to be more important than the Feds. Other Monarchists here say that decentralization is inherently against monarchist principles. I support the loyalty and respect towards authority that it is due, I just give it to my state.
On Brutality
Of all critique out there, monarchy is singled out for brutality. If /monarchy/ could come together for a moment to spare a few views on republican atrocities. Post things that make the likes of Nero, Caligula, Vlad the Impaler, and Attila the Hun look like angels.
oman
What do you think about oman? Their people are not disgusting, perverts are like gulf Arabs. Economically they are not doing well but atleast they are stable and the current Sultan seems like have enlightening monarch tendencies, he has a big boner to classic musics but he is striving towards modernism without losing their Arab identity, as a person who is not fond of arabs that's something I can respect.
Who knows maybe 50 years later UAE shrinks and Oman prospers with Arabian Nights themed tourism and cultural activities.
bad english I know
Misconceptions on Absolutism
For a reason unknown to me, the concept of a king alone aggros people on the board. Or, at least, it had brought about aggro in the past. What is absolute? A monarchy where the king is solely king and this authority is inviolable and typically unfettered and the top of temporal hierarchy. That is the easiest way I would clarify it. The rule of the monarch, at the top of the hierarchy, with the other members of the hierarchy. As Maistre defined it, 'a centralized aristocracy'. It isn't limited to Western civilization. Absolute monarchy comes in different forms. It has manifested itself throughout the ages. The sole role of monarchs as sovereigns is nothing new.
>absolutism is all about 'arbitrary' power, 'totalitarianism', 'big gubmit', 'the modern state', 'social contract theory'.
This is a big misconception. People tend to throw around a word salad without really defining their terms. Throwing words like 'authoritarian' and 'totalitarian' as if they were one and the same annoys me to death. Is monarchy an 'authoritarian' structure? Indefinitely, I think, because the institution relies on authority of great spiritual foundation, culture, justice, and the family. To despise all authority is to deprive all people of rights, actions as fathers, and their own self-autonomy. Authority is spread across the board, not limited to only the government, but the entire state of sovereignty. Parents have authority. People have authority over their property. Teachers have authority over students. People have authority in the things they produce and create. Authority is in initiative and intuitiveness. Authority is nothing limited to the state, but it does consist with hierarchy and control. Sovereignty extends to the entire state of living in a particular realm, not limited or separated to the government. It is propriety and authority across the board, vertical within a hierarchy and the dominion of monarchy, church, and people. It is right and wrong because the character of monarchies is so unrestricted to ideologies, even absolutism itself, that it really depends on the character of the monarch.
>absolutism is modernism/Enlightenment
This is right and wrong. It depends on how you view what is 'modern' and what is 'absolutism'. It doesn't begin in the 'Age of Absolutism'. It doesn't begin with social contract theory and Thomas Hobbes. That is another way of viewing absolutism and the modern state. Yes, Thomas Hobbes innovated social contract theory (which was a thing before Hobbes and something Hobbes reversed on Whigs who used it; it didn't come from nowhere). Most critiques of absolutism are pertinent of Hobbesianism/social contract theory and the concept of the modern state through social contract theory. This is just another fashion, so-to-speak, of the absolute. King Louis XIV is said to be the quintessential absolute monarch, but is a far cry from being the 'first absolute monarch'. And not to forget that in Christian hierarchy and understanding of monarchy, it goes back way before King Louis XIV and Bossuet (who didn't even espouse social contract theory). The Divine Right of Kings goes back to the Biblical Times, King James I, and then Bossuet. But even before King James I, it was formalized and understood in coronation ceremonies and the rudiments of Christendom with Emperors and the Church Fathers. Outside of Western civilization, the oldest of monarchies still had strident similarities to the absolute and the spiritual bedrock of wielding divine authority.
>absolute monarchy is tyranny
This is another matter of debate and how you view monarchies. Most people suggest that monarchy in general is just tyranny. I could say that democracy is anarchy, aristocracy is oligarchy, and monarchy is tyranny. It is counter-productive. If a king cannot have what is absolutely his own, where do ordinary people stand in having their own? And propriety no longer inviolable. It isn't 'arbitrary' or 'totalitarian'. There is always the potential for what is evil no matter what you draft. Because what is arbitrary is so far from absolute, it is impossible for it to enslave everyone arbitrarily, especially without repercussions not to mitigate the sacred characteristic of monarchy, but it is subject to reason and regicide should be avoided
>absolute monarchy is throne and altar only
Maybe ideal for some. Maybe not for those who want more government. Like how presidents have cabinets, monarchs have their choice of advisors, aristocrats, churchmen, prime ministers, chancellors, and even representatives. Absolute monarchy is not 'all doing', but simply 'all powerful' as an authority built on hierarchy and temporal power and spirituality. It is more of a status as being a 'king'.
>absolute monarchy cannot be constitutional
This is untrue. Absolute monarchies can have constitutions. Meji Era Japan is a good example.
The Fate of Rebels
/monarchy/, what is the best way to deal with rebels? is it right to be civil and compromise as pragmatically as possible… or do all rebels deserves the noose? in other words, what to make of dissent, insurgents, and violent rebels? these require different responses. censorship? maybe. should there be lèse-majesté to respect the esteem and cultural significance of a monarch? let's discuss.
Rights and Duties of a Monarch
The liberal view is that there is no objective good; a person can base his behaviour on nothing but his own desires. The liberal approves of my decision to become a Buddhist as much as he would my decision to become a rock star, a drug addict, or a woman. Therefore the liberal's political principle is that the government should not meddle in our individual choices. He tolerates immigration; cultural diversity does not bother him.
The conservative view is that there is an objective good; we have responsibilities which restrict the range of our moral behaviour. Therefore the conservative disapproves of my becoming a drug addict, as this is irresponsible; or promoting rock music which promotes more irresponsibility. He questions transgenderism because the subjective identification with a particular gender is less important to him than the objective reality. He questions immigration because the social regulation which is important to his system is threatened by cultural diversity. A huge, alien city does not regulate behaviour so well as a closed, conformist village.
Monarchy and nobility reinforce the view of objective good; their claim is to be the 'betters' of any society, entitled to a higher place by their superior breeding and behaviour. They have to listen to the best music, have the strongest marriages, and the prettiest daughters. A monarch or noble must really behave better than the rest of the population or the whole system fails.
Sometimes this World NEEDS Tyranny
This world has grown SOFT and WEAK. With its suited politicians and political animalism, the republican animals move to their fodder to chew up the mash called 'politics'. They gobble it up. They are comfortable like lemmings, consuming the mash without knowing its poison. These political carnivores eat each other up; they have no discipline. What's the matter with the world and immigration being rampant and the rise of ideologies? The matter is democracy feeds off how bankrupt civilization has become. They have even been content to be called 'one of the animals' and 'on par with animals' without understanding the implications of these terms.
Suit-wearing parliamentarians. Their worship of 'economics' while having an economic union that regulates increasingly, their political fanaticism with being so-called 'socialists', 'social democrats', 'conservatives', 'green partisans', 'communists'; aka the will of NOTHING aka the will of ideology. They choose to be something else rather than human. How is it our fault they do this to themselves? They have destroyed communities and destroyed the identity of nation. They have profaned the sacred and virtuous office of kingship, that of monarchy, with their pandering as the political class.
<"You're wild, absolutely CRAZY; how could you say that, OP?"
It might seem wild, but nature is a cruel beast.
>REGICIDE & TYRANNY
This is the go-to complaint for the political class. How about it? We have all learned the names of tyranny and justification for regicide. We have the name of tyranny so in-grained in our mind, that monarchy becomes the evil government and the virtues of aristocracy and democracy triumph in comparison. As monarchists, we all recognize that monarchy is the best of governments, and tyranny has the potential worst, as we tend to balance the good with the bad. However, these political animals are utopians. They want the best all the time. I would argue we have forgotten the 'tyranny' of republicanism in this day and age. We only memorized the name of 'tyranny', but we forgot the so-called 'tyranny' of republicans.
>OLIGARCHY & PLUTOCRACY
Oligarchy is the extended 'naughty word' for aristocracy. We might be surprised to know that oligarchs and aristocrats can become 'like tyrants'. This is the most prominent abuse in the world today. With social contract theory and economic ideals above spiritual reality, there is the abuse of immigrants as justified members of "The People" and people question the ethnicity of monarchs; in the world today, there is a Muslim mayor of London. How could this be excusable? Social contract theory, and the idea of 'choosing leaders', has evolved into 'leaders choosing their people'. We need the check and balance of a tyrant to whip these parliamentarians into shape. They talk about regicide lightly, but the whip will inflict a LASH. It doesn't merely kill as much as it punishes evil-doers. We need a bit of tyranny to whip the world back into shape with the parliamentarians postponing Brexit with their insufferable arrogance. These are aristocrats who LOVE hierarchy until it comes to them being subordinate to a higher authority aka a king, and their solution to this is political mechanism over monarchy with OLIGARCHY.
>ANARCHY & COMMUNISM
These unruly animals want a despotism of turning everyone into manual labors. GIVE THEM THE COSSACK'S WHIP!
>WE HAVE FANCIED OLIGARCHY AND ANARCHY
Anarchy and oligarchy have proven worse for being subversive nuisances on society. Everyone knows what tyranny looks like, but we have forgotten the appearance of oligarchy and anarchy. We have forgotten what their abuses look like. The 'aristocrats' and the political class love hierarchy and love their economic tyranny and regulations to benefit them over the lower classes and other businesses, forgoing the name of competition. While the anarchist and communist wants to turn the world into a collectivized worker ant hivemind of the Proletariat. We believe that 'voting will resolve this', but that is a LIE.
Consider this: Voting and what constitutes these 'representative governments' constitute 'THE PEOPLE'. However, not all of the PEOPLE are equal. How much of the vote constitutes the Rich? How much of the vote constitutes the Poor? In aristocracy, it is the Rich over the Poor. In democracy, it is the Poor over the Rich. In oligarchy, it is the Rich without hierarchy above them, without responsibilities, and without good principles and abuse. In anarchy, it is the rule of the poor without responsibilities, without hierarchy, and without good principles.
Political Realism & Intrigue
There's a deep interest in political realism and violence, powerplay, and the dynamics of holding power with the polity. There's the Machiavellian & Hobbesian outlook on power. Nobody is content with the ideal and moral answer of "Kings being there because it is his right" and want to know the opposite answer to how kings obtain power through politics alone.
>but how is that done?
Through tactics like punishment and reward. You either use fear to intimidate people. The most obvious present example of fear being a way of control is through war-time propaganda. War propaganda has always been the most effective way to get people to cough up taxes and tributes really fast. When their livelihood is at stake and their property is threatened to be destroyed, they are eager to cough up dimes and levies. This happens today constantly to motivate people.
>other methods?
Punishments and cruelty. Torture.
>the rewards
Lower taxes or exemptions for political support. Gifts from the big guy. Bread and circuses displays. War-time favorites being promoted along with nepotism. Partisanship status enabling bonus rights. Land and wealth through conquest.
Personally I would do the worst landgrabbing if I ever had power. Outright powergrabs. Intimidation tactics. What people call tyranny. I would take my dirty hands and grab a crown and laugh, snatching it.
tfw you realize most people who fear tyrants are whiny political combatants
I will show them real tyranny.
And slay all those who glorify oligarchy and anarchy and cry 'tyrant'.
Remember this: all those who fling and namecall what they fear, those are the people who should be afraid.
Democratic Optimism
Is it me or is the dogmatic belief in the 'People' to resolve is taken for granted? It is a ubiquitous cancer. The People, the Majority, and the multitudes and mobs are not your friend to begin with. What people to begin with? Who? This term is applied so often, when taken outside of the pessimistic view, it is applied universally regardless of distinction. The People reign and nobody can imagine or speak well enough to criticize this. You might as well blame the Gods, but never the People, for what problems we have.
Democracy and anything democratic, the worship and exultation of democracy as ideal government, confirmed in the "representative" republic, loads up the narrative that somewhere "The People" are going to save you. Does anyone ever blame "The People" when things go wrong? Does anyone look at "The People" for presenting terrible leaders? In this world, the People can do no wrong.
Everyone knows how cliques are terrible and anti-social. They never liked the social atmosphere that aristocracy sometimes breeds. This is understandable seeing as how a clique or a group of people sometimes creates a nasty atmosphere (contrasted with the idea of an individual monarch; but not to scare the people who have fetishized aristocracy). – Nobody is skeptical about the social atmosphere a mob creates. Destruction and anarchy suit the appetite of people generally these days as the common good.
.
Monarchists & Taxation
A troubling discussion for monarchists is dealing with the generalization that monarchies are the worst governments for dealing with taxes. This is mixed with half-truths and also inconsistencies on the side of opponents. As a member of the board, I am pretty relieved to find that monarchies are seen as fairer on taxation. With apologists like Hans-Herman Hoppe and others, monarchy and the reputation of being ruthless tax-mongrels lies down.
An ultimate symbol of authority, undeniably, is who is getting the levies and raising the armies, who is doing the taxing, and who is being taxed; this is a terrible mistake and grievance in the English Civil War. Ultimately, despite taxation, I would argue ultimately a power struggle between Parliament's right to tax and the Crown's right to taxation. The advent of other revolutionary battles and difficulties show that Parliament would later become the tax collectors and gather the reputation for it. Although the English were some of the less taxed in Europe around the time of King Charles I. It was a real issue of what members of society they levied in war-time dues to protect the country.
Monarchies back then used levies periodically and taxed counties, found other measures, and historically saw them as signs of loyalty and tribute.
Today it's terribly shocking with the attitude towards taxation. Despite what is said about monarchies, which used levies and didn't directly do it all during peace-time, the world today is a far-cry from what was considered outright tyranny today compared to tomorrow. People think that because the 'People' are in charge, democracy would never resolve to tax itself to death. Yet we still find the peril of it and even worse than the monarchies of old, even to the point where the idea ends.
My opinion is that monarchy is a mixed bag on terms of taxation. There have been low-tax monarchies and high-tax monarchies. The moral monarchies with strong foundations of moral code fair better because it was immoral to burden people. Time and time again, the spiritual foundation is the true discipline of monarchs.
I'm looking for the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly; and a historical discussion on taxes and apologists for why monarchy doesn't tax as hard as republics despite the claim that these representative bodies wouldn't dare harshly tax. Not an ideological or economic talk as much (although partially).
Fascist vs. Libertarian Debate Forum
ORDER IN THE COURT
Let the fascists and libertarians debate.
Coordinating this forum, on behalf of the peace and harmony of /monarchy/, to bring civil discussion on what is political, economic, and historical for debate. This board has always been a sympathetic to /liberty/ and also has had origins on /pol/. To prevent this discourse from spilling into other threads, this forum is established.
<what if I am neither libertarian or fascist leaning?
Crash the party and come out from your point of view.
>hey now, why is this thread necessary?
Because it's been a continuous piece of debate, but a slightly different one. The libertarian model for a privatized society and the fascist model need to compete for our love.
All are welcome to join in.
Prince William new Crown Prince?
So rumor on the interwebs and tabloids is that Prince William confronted the Queen with evidence that Charles killed Diana. This has led the Queen to make William the new Crown Prince. Can anyone confirm this? There is alot of conflicting news out there.
What going on out there UK?
ALL MEN ARE NOT CREATED EQUAL
Some are born swifter afoot, some with greater beauty, some are born into poverty and others born sick and feeble. Both in birth and upbringing, in sheer scope of ability every human is inherently different; Yes that is why people discriminate against one another, which is why there is struggle, competition and the unfaltering march of progress. Inequality is not wrong, equality is. What of the E.U. which made equality a right? Rabble politics by a popularity contest. The Chinese Federation with its equal distribution of wealth? A nation of lazy dullards. But not our beloved Britannia, we fight, we compete, evolution is continuous. Britannia alone moves forward, advancing steadily into the future. Even the death of my son, Clovis, demonstrates Britannia's unswerving commitment to progress. We will fight on, we shall struggle, compete, plunder and dominate, and in the end, the future shall be ours.
ALL HAIL BRITANNIA
Thread on egalitarianism
Clueless Peasant
May I ask you a question?
What exactly are your reason for wanting the return of a ruling, monarchic class, outside of a purely aesthetic/patriotic one? Genuinely curious, as I'm inclined to say that monarchic rule IS better in the sense that there's much more honesty in receiving orders from an enlightened despot, but I just wanna know.
Spreading the Support for the Return of the Monarchies
We must work together to restore our once great monarchs to their stolen thrones. What once was shall be again in the ruins of a Europe that has been raped by liberal and republican thought for centuries. Ideas on how to spread support for the restoration of the monarchs are most sincerely welcomed.
National Socialism with a Monarch?
I've been pondering on this idea for a while now. While I am an avid monarchist, and have zero respect for democracy, I am concerned that the purely libertarian 'possession'-based idea of monarchy is a bit too easy to subvert by (((them))). After all, royal marriages of Kings, Dukes etc. in the olden days were ones of political power, with little regard for the nationality of the spouse or her family's lineage, and sometimes with no regard for the nationality of the King (e.g. Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth comes to mind straight away). This means that powerful investors, bankers and speculators who, despite coming form an aristocratic family with powerful connections, would in no way benefit the volk of the nation as they would ultimately be driven by their own greed and end goals of subversion. Society would be very much at risk these days in particular, since most rich people with aristocratic backgrounds have come in contact with the globalist Jewry at some point, and even those who have never been heard of (for example, Emanuel Macron, supposedly a nobody entering politics yet possessing an aristocratic etiquette and approach, but in reality a businessman with a past of deals and acquaintances with the Rothschilds) have some dirty history behind them.
National Socialism seemed to have fixed this, in a sense. It held firm in authority, with a centralised chain of command where the Furher could be likened to a King or Emperor, and his advisors, the King's court. The difference is that instead of going HAM on the idea of private property, it instead cultivated the idea of a strong identity, where every man could claim Germany as his own, the nation being shared in the volk. Every man, regardless of his position in society, could celebrate his nation's culture, past, tradition, and yet still, the real power was held in a tightly-regulated chain of command. It gave people a sense of unity, and very much held up that idea through the Hitler-jugend, the League of German Girls and many social programmes that helped people build a sense of national and racial unity.
In a certain sense, you could see the Reich as an extremely centralised Empire. The Fuhrer, whose will to act came as a blessing from God, was the overseer of his Empire, the guardian of his people; a man who stood in the trenches of the western front and looked death in the eye, defying him at every turn. He earned his position of power; he fought for what he believed in, and was ready to die for it. He was worthy of being the shepherd guiding his sheep. Other great soldiers and men received prestigious powers; command of armies or became governors of lands, though they didn't own it as their own, and the Fuhrer could revoke it as he pleased, having ultimate say in the land, serving his people as best he could.
I believe that bringing back feudalism in the 21st century would be opening the doors for the jews, allowing them and (((unrelated))) offshoots, bearing millions in cash entry into royal families, but a national socialist monarchy, with a monarch who owns all, and dukes, counts etc. being no more than viceroyals, appointed and revocable by the monarch would be the perfect mix of the two systems, as it would make sure that no aristocrat with land granted by birthright lives off of his titles, but has to work or face immediate revocation and the wrath of the monarch. It would also mean that nation is more than just a concept of allegiance to lineage, but allegiance to a race, a culture, a faith and past that is written in stone.
There should be nothing more imperative than bringing empires back
It goes against the natural order.
A personal lament from a long time ago, reading an older book, and seeing the words "British Empire" when in those days there was such a thing. Today? No empires. No emperor. Only popular sovereignty. Only the People establish governments. This needs to be corrected.
Old Venice
What does this board think about the Most Serene Republic of Venice, and the golden age it ushered in that lasted for more than a thousand years? Does this board like the idea of an aristocratic republic, not a monarchy but a republic ruled by elites and powerful families?
Diarchy
Many anons like to praise 'experiment' monarchies or other forms of government. These turn out to become republicanism behind the veneer of a crown. A constitutional monarchy. Or, a direct democracy. I don't see enough forms behind the roles of monarchs. Because two is better than one, I am throwing out the concept of 'diarchy'. Two monarchs; or, a monarch and a 'leadership' rule like 2nd pic 'Duce'. This is experimental and expands the role of monarchs into two.
>what fascinates you about diarchy
I fancy the idea of two leaders rather than an assembly or clique. Outside of the autocratic and absolute form of monarchy like the Imperial Tsardom or Kingdom of France, I am impressed with the idea of a diarchy.
>inb4 this government is prone to splits
I still find it better. No political body will last forever. Of course.
Feminists to Take Down World-Famous Work of Art
Clare Gannaway, the gallery’s curator of contemporary art, said the aim of the removal was to provoke debate, not to censor. “It wasn’t about denying the existence of particular artworks.”
The work usually hangs in a room titled In Pursuit of Beauty, which contains late 19th century paintings showing lots of female flesh.
Gannaway said the title was a bad one, as it was male artists pursuing women’s bodies, and paintings that presented the female body as a passive decorative art form or a femme fatale.
“For me personally, there is a sense of embarrassment that we haven’t dealt with it sooner. Our attention has been elsewhere … we’ve collectively forgotten to look at this space and think about it properly. We want to do something about it now because we have forgotten about it for so long.”
Gannaway said the debates around Time’s Up and #MeToo had fed into the decision.
The removal itself is an artistic act and will feature in a solo show by the artist Sonia Boyce which opens in March. People can tweet their opinion using #MAGSoniaBoyce.
Sir Robert Filmer
Thread dedicated to the discussion of Sir Robert Filmer and his political writings. He is a strong proponent of absolute monarchy and Divine Right of Kings. Much like Bossuet in ways.
>John Locke refuted him in his first treatise
It doesn't mean Robert Filmer's political writings are invalid. There is still worthy concepts and points to discuss. There are things said outside the Biblical foundation of Robert Filmer's worldview. Many traditionalists still see the family as a counterweight to the individual and collective. There is no reason to not investigate for yourself and take John Locke's word for it. I know people say 'He demolished Robert Filmer'. I think it's irresponsible to not take both works into account before saying so.
Patriarcha; Or the Natural Power of Kings
https://lf-oll.s3.amazonaws.com/titles/221/0140_Bk.pdf
>'First Treatise of Government' by John Locke
https://www.nlnrac.org/earlymodern/locke/documents/first-treatise-of-government
Succession
/monarchy/, what is the ideal system of succession?
(Absolute?) Primogeniture?
Salic law?
Agnatic seniority?
Ultimogeniture?
Partible inheritance?
The Rota system?
Matrilinear?
Tanistric?
Should children under morganitic marriages be recognized for purposes of inheritance or succession?
Should children under cousin-marriages be recognized for purposes of inheritance or succession?
To /liberty/ monarchists
How do you compromise individual sovereignty with monarchy? The notion that the individual is law-maker and sovereign. Individual justice and individual choice. With monarchy, the rule of one. The rule of dynastic, hereditary rulers. It has conflicts and potential benefits for a libertarian monarchy. Where does it fall into harmony?
>individual sovereignty
I admit, I am very skeptical. I find limitless justifications for regicide with this notion. I don't think there is a government on this planet that truly observes individual sovereignty with utmost respect and absolute dignity. People? Tell that to the demagogues. Individuals? Individuals have separate notions of sovereignty and respect for other other individuals. My compromise is an individual sovereign – a monarch. This is my bias, but I am willing to listen.
Other monarchists are welcome to speak for their notion of sovereignty.
Making the World Safe from Democracy
How do you cope with it?
The democratic people who would see us reactionaries, from left and right, will deter us for being too reactionary and not radical enough. Those who worship democracy as the perfect government perceive us through their lenses as idiots. The others will boast about the decline of our civilization and gleefully admit the world is much better off without imperialism, monarchies, and leadership. The rest of us watch from a somber distance as the world collapses, waiting for the aristocratic elements to re-assert themselves; we wait for the roots to grow back, but the corrosive elements of democratic thought and radicalism threaten us everyday.
How does the monarchist feel about dealing with them? The anti-reactionary elements, the demagogue-wannabes, and the radicals who spout among the ruins, they're all dissenting against us.
Just share your feels. It's okay.
The Impossibility of Modern Monarchist's
>Its Another LARP board
Ok lets get this out of the way.
Absolutism ended on the 30th of Janurary 1649 when people realized that the divine right of Kings didnt actually mean all that much on account of the Kings Head and Body being on separate sides of the room
for the next few centuries the Monarchies of Europe chugged along slowly being whittled away by Liberal-Democracy and the rise of capitalism breaking the landed families previously almost universal grip on wealth
this coupled with advances in technology simply made Monarchy and Feudalism less efficient which over all led to its abolition throughout the entirety of the developed world (Western Monarchies are Republics in name only)
As a General rule attempts to restore monarchy after the divine right of kings was done away with has always failed
qtddtot
Official religion of /monarchy/ and why?
What do you larpers think of non-whites, inferior white ethinicies, and mutts? Why?
Views on fornication?
On a scale from 1 to 10 how pathetic do you rate the ancreeps from /liberty/? Why?
Why do you virgins like anime so much? What's your excuse for being virgin past 20?
Respect for Spiritual Customs
I'm calling Christians on /monarchy/, specifically all Christians who adore monarchy for its ceremonial value and heritage: respect the pagans, and be polite in religious discourse.
Europe's pagan heritage deserves respect. We ought to appreciate the pagan origins of the ceremonies and beliefs surrounding it. These deistic beliefs like the scepter and orb, along with the symbols and beliefs. Don't disparage the spiritual culture before and after Christianity. And Christianity does hold weight for the benefits and consequences we see in Western civilization.
Pagans have ground in criticizing the civilization in its current state. I'm not asking Christians to take criticism lightly. Just take the weight of being polite first.
This thread will remain for a mutual discussion on pagan and Christian influences on monarchy as a structure.
Pagan monarchies in Europe had a ritualistic divine right between a king and a feminine goddess. In Ireland, Celtic kings also partook in ceremonies where their kingship had a right in a ceremony with a bond between a feminine power. It isn't too patriarchal or matriarchal. It is a simple unity of the sexes. This rite of passage became a king's right. In Arthurian legend, the Lady of the Lake gives Excalibur to King Arthur, for example.
The origin of the scepter and orb ceremony also originate with pagan influences and Christian ceremony in its own right. There is a Germanic explanation that the scepter resembled a hammer and the orb was a rock, and power coming down from lightning and thunder.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globus_cruciger
To citizens of the Roman Empire, the plain round globe held by Jupiter represented the world, or the universe, as the dominion held by the emperor. A 2nd-century coin from the reign of Emperor Hadrian shows the Roman goddess Salus with her foot upon a globus, and a 4th-century coin from the reign of Emperor Constantine I shows him with a globus in hand. The orbis terrarum was central to the iconography of the Tetrarchy, representing the Tetrarchs' restoration of security to the Roman world. Constantine I claimed to have had a vision of a cross above the sun, with the words "In this sign, you shall conquer" (Latin: In hoc signo vinces), at the Battle of Milvian Bridge in 312. His soldiers painted crosses upon their shields, and then defeated their foe, Maxentius.
With the growth of Christianity in the 5th century, the orb (in Latin scriptures orbis terrarum, the 'world of the lands', hence the word "orb") was topped with a cross (hence globus cruciger), symbolising the Christian God's dominion over the world. The emperor held the world in his hand, to show that he ruled it on God's behalf.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronation
The corona radiata, the "radiant crown" known best on the Statue of Liberty, and perhaps worn by the Helios that was the Colossus of Rhodes, was worn by Roman emperors as part of the cult of Sol Invictus, part of the imperial cult as it developed during the 3rd century. The origin of the crown is thus religious, comparable to the significance of a halo, marking the sacral nature of kingship, expressing that either the king is himself divine, or ruling by divine right.
Christianity helped build monarchy we love. It adapted and helped build its own form of absolutism. It begins with the Divine Right of Kings and coronation ceremony with oil. These symbols were adapted and sometimes already consisted with the Christian tradition even back then. I'm calling for mutual respect between all spiritual cultures to not shitsling for a bit and appreciate all origins of monarchical practice.
Individualism vs Collectivism
THE GREAT PSYCH-OP
Individual and collective is a republican game.
The origin of the individual and society begins with the family. No individualists or partisans belong here. The individualist wants to take advantage of society, and the partisan seeks to dismantle the individual. These worldviews are incompatible. They are impractical. They aren't functional in the real world.
Don't you hate it, /monarchy/? Tell me you know what I mean.
WW1 Pacifism
Before I begin I need to address an incredulous issue of mine with republicans and WW1. We all know the deal with 'brother wars' and 'pointless wars' and how WW1 is related as the 'most pointless war' in 10 million people 'died in vain' to serve 'autocratic monarchies that just didn't care'. Let me be the first to say that WW1 was the worst thing that could happen. It did result in terrible industrialized machine-gun weapons, chemical weapons, and dirty trench warfare. Millions died in a brutal conflict. The nature of war, however, is nowhere near reasonable to begin with and pacifism is nowhere near reasonable either.
Republican hypocrisy is astonishing. There is a culture of pacificism around WW1 as the misguided and needless war. If there were constitutions, democracies, and representative governments, the People™ wouldn't have allowed this. The monarchs didn't care. This is the result of 'Nationalism' and 'Unscrupulous autocrats who didn't care'. These two terms 'nationalistic' and 'autocrat' undoubtedly point to the German Empire as being solely responsible for the war. WW1 propaganda often paints the Kaiser as the spooky man before Hitler who was the autocrat and the despot and generally blamed 'Prussian militarism' for the Great War.
Entangled alliances and nationalism as painted as institutions responsible for the great need to bring nations and monarchies to the great republican chopping block. Nevermind anything we see today. Nevermind NATO and other international bodies. It is all pointless.
WW2 is the propagandist war. The culture of pacifism found around WW1 was immediately snuffed out around the on-set of WW2. Pacifists were mocked. They were slipped out. The big republican governments took over and were responsible for the fate of Europe. The 'real men' were 'in charge' so to speak and they were going to 'fix Europe'. – What is this bullshit? You're telling me that the atrocities of WW1 were pointless and killed millions. How many people died in WW2? Nobody cares as much as WW1. WW2 is the propagandist war of our time and era. The virile propaganda snuffs out all pacifist ideals. This is the dogma of ideology and republicanism. The 'big boys' were in charge and the NWO committed worse atrocities than the Old Order. The heated propaganda still persists today and nobody is truly apologetic for it. We are still being feed propaganda. There is no room for pacifism in WW2. Pacifists are snuffed out. There is room for pacifists to ridicule WW1 and monarchies for democratic ideals. Just don't you dare look at the big elephant in the room.
>WW1 monarchs were all pro-war
They were for their countries. There were many pro-war people and people who believe that Germany was the big bad guy. This view of incompetent monarchs is from (((Herman Bernstein))) and the US pov. So much for pacifism in WW2 with FDR and the others. That goes out the window.
Herman Bernstein account:
https://archive.org/stream/willynickycorres00bernuoft#page/n5/mode/2up
Kaiser Wilhelm II Memoirs:
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/43522/43522-h/43522-h.htm
This rhetoric frustrates me the most. I'm just going to post and let people think for themselves. I am simply tired of it. They often boast about WW1 only to legitimize what happened with the Weimar Republic and WW2. We all know how that went. These tired arguments depicting the old regimes as incompetent and useless will go out the window. Everyone boasts to legitimize their regime in the eyes of the public – Axis and Allies. Both regimes have their share of doing this. I am giving the pro-monarchy response and pointing out this nonsense.
>Pacifism
This is an ideology of weakness. Utterly utopian. The only reason the world is anywhere near peaceful is because weapons of mass destruction maintain a stalemate. Not because it's become globalized or more republican.
/fascist/ anon here
I know monarchism and the third position has had a complicated past it is a love hate relationship between us but our goals are the same and that is to preserve and improve our nation culture and people we received a gift from one of you not so long ago it was a harmless drawing but still a gift never the less I view this gift as a sign of friendship and I hope our 2 boards remain as allies we are both nationalists after all
Do you think the british royal family secretly disapproved?
You think the Queen is thinking "Fuck, another car accident would be too obvious?".
Why aren't they going public with this? Why aren't there whisteblowers? Why are there no anonyous interviews?
Why is this race mixing only praised? Especially if people talked about how much of a scandal it was to marry a low-born woman just a few years ago?
Social-monarchy
Social-monarchy, is this idea even compatible?Feudalism is no more, but why must you succumb to capitalism? I find socialism to be a better successor.
Historical examples:
Chinese Empire under Wu Zetian
Incan Empire
In Mesopotamia the Semitic monarchies - Assyria and Babylonia. You may see the uncanny resemblance of Lenin's Mausoleum to Ziggurats.
Persian Empire under Mazdakism
Or more modern:
Napoelonic Empire, perhaps best example of it. Modern day Bonapartists are just national-social-democrats, but historically it was inherently a social-monarchic movement.
Fascist Italy, worked like diarchy. At the end King overthrown Mussolini
Japanese Empire
Argurably socialist-leading, both countries were also realising monarchist priciples. Japan could create countries like Manchukuo with Qing Emperor as head of state, or Mengukuo, Italy would give Emmanuel titles like Emperor of Ethiopia, or send Prince Tomislav II to Croatia.
Argurably
Libyan Jamahiriya - Gaddafi titled himself "King of Kings" when speaking to Saudi King.
It was a weird state. Literal democracy like Switzerland with titular head of state.
Juche (or Cuba) - hereditary rule. At least for sure in case to North Korea.
North Korea uses name Choson, linking itself to ancient Empires of Korea
Additionally Suharto was offered crown of Indonesia (he co-operated with Japanese Empire) and Pilsudski of Poland, both socialist-leading, but they refused.
Imperialism
How does /monarchy/ feel about imperialism and the legacy of colonial empires? Do we have apologists for it? For or against it?
Common arguments are the colonial empires benefit the conquered in building various institutions like hospitals, schools, and developing the economy in exchange for the resources. Christian missionaries also followed in the dominion of empires, spreading Christianity and churches along the way. From the Christian perspective, this is a very benevolent force of colonialism. Among these benefactors, the empires were not all necessarily violent in their expansion. A few of the indigenous people and local royalty chose to side with the empires. Nothing comes without price, so the subjects of imperial rule surely had to benefit the colonial rulers. It still benefited both to a degree, despite the subjugation or incorporation of those peoples. The rise and fall of empires brings glories and shame across the globe. Yet nobody would give away an empire, as the empires were a higher status among nations.
Obvious downfalls were the violence and horrors of the domain. No person easily accepted subjugation without a cost. The cost-benefit evaluation always throttles. When faced with enemies, it comes to compromises with a higher power, but it often means being taken advantage of. Still, for what colonial empires were, the name British Empire still evokes a sense of pride and glory.
If not for empires, it should be stated what better alternatives ought to exist. What we see in the world today is touted to be imperialism in disguise and a few mark the United States as an empire. Despite the US being far from the glories of an empire, there is a perceived hegemony across the globe. – Besides that, what models there instead of an empire is interesting enough. Like monarchy, I consider an empire to be most honest in how desirable it is to take the status of an empire.
Neo-Absolutism
I haven't seen a discussion thread about anything regarding The Journal of Neoabsolutism, so I'll get one started.
>What is Neoabsolutism?
I don't know what distinguishes it from regular absolutism other than this being new and absolutism being old, however there is most likely a definition on the two websites that the ideas come from. The two wordpresses where the term "neo-absolutism" comes from are The Journal of Neoabsolutism (https://thejournalofneoabsolutism.wordpress.com/) and the earlier wordpress which preceded it, Reactionaryfuture (https://reactionaryfuture.wordpress.com/).
This thread will be for the discussion of the ideas on these two sites, a good place to start is the "Absolutist and Anarchistic Ontology" (https://thejournalofneoabsolutism.wordpress.com/2017/05/02/absolutist-and-anarchistic-ontology/). This section of the site is a good place to start for any new monarchist and will get them to stop thinking like republicans and more like monarchists.
Republican Mediocrity
Does anyone ever get tired of this world?
>every Western world leader subscribing to republican ideology wears crass suits and ties, a small flag pin to represent their nation, and they carry an overbearing statesman look of robotic individualism.
>certain communists dress counter this appearance with their slick shirts and buttons, strikingly different and partisan, with sometimes an ideology pin and the portraits of their dear leaders (DPRK is a weird exception there with its hereditary leadership). Like the big leader giving memos to the workers.
>progressive strong independent women dress bright, unique, and colorful with their little coats, and sometimes try to match the boring individualism of their male counter-parts
<individualism, why do you use that word OP?
Because that is the impression I have. They dress as an ordinary individual and nothing more, not as anyone with great status or sovereign power, only to resemble the People that vote. It brings them to a mundane level. People think individualism as the opposite: a wonderful ideology of vibrant energy and new touch; instead, the republican robotically takes the mantle of individual and wears it with stolid statesman pride, without a hereditary achievement, sovereign status, or incentive to be something else greater than mere individualistic statesman and take royal photos with their royal family and engage in ceremonial customs and outstanding uniforms and majesty.
>republican mediocrity
I want it on all levels. Where republicans make everything plain and boring. I want to see where it siphons out a national spirit and heritage to boring, international cosmopolitanism and atomic individualistic outlooks even surpassing nations. Anything, really.
>this world
Has become very mundane and republicanism reveals the most mundane aspect of the human condition apart from the most fanciful and imaginative.
Brainwashing
The political animals like to view everything pre-1917 as primitive and despotic. Their view of our reactionary world is unpalatable. They claim their revolutionary magic "modernized" the world. Yet the history of the world is majestic. Reactionaries have a much brighter view of the past and the monarchies. We'll change their despotic view of the past. Let's de-enlighten them.
in other words, how do we brainwash /leftypol/ into serving our greater cause?
we're stealing /fascist/'s waifu until we find out
Thomas Hobbes
General thread for discussing Thomas Hobbes. He is, after all, the monarchist thinker that most people have heard of. Or rather, there are far more, but he's the one everyone thinks of when you say "monarchist philosopher".
I've always had a weird respect for Thomas Hobbes, weird because I disagree with him on almost everything, from his view on human nature, to his epistemics, to his contract theory. What impressed me in Leviathan, however, were his stringency. He carefully laid down all his premises, answered all the obvious questions he knew his reader would have, and argued with care and precision. This is why it's so easy to point out just where he went wrong. I can't say the same for many other philosophies.
What relatively few critics of Leviathan understand is that Hobbes is essentially an individualist, not a collectivist and not a totalitarian. He even acknowledged a right of resistance, said that the state should further the commonweal by protecting society from crime instead of trying to run society, and he never made any claims to the effect that individuals are merely cells of some greater whole. It would go too far to call him a classical liberal, but really, he wasn't so bad.
Why trust power?
Why should a monarch care about promoting modernisation, taking care of the poor, or staying out of futile wars?
Of course he might- but on the other hand, he may only build palaces, enrich himself and his relations, and wage war to expand the domain of his exploitation.
A Republic operated by and for the people seems more likely to create the first kind of Ruler than pure chance. You may try to argue that Republics are simply controlled by money, but in fact Continental Europe has very stringent laws about political donations.
Anarchism & Monarchism
I've always wondered if there is more common ground between the advocates of traditional monarchy and anarchists than most people think.
It feels to me like often anarchists are reacting against is the same as what monarchists who admire something more medieval or early modern feel has gone wrong since the collapse of monarchist attitudes.
Time Preference Argument
The electorate has children as well as the monarch. So why believe that monarchies will tend to care more about the future? It's an argument that fails from the beginning.
European democracies invest in education, protect the environment, and run budget surpluses. These are verifiable facts. It's only America that doesn't care about these things and that is run by money not votes.
Hereditary Monarchies / Meritocracy
How does /monarchy/ justify hereditary monarchies? I personally think a state should be lead by the best person possible for the job based on merit. Obviously being the son of a king and inheriting the throne does not make the son necessarily a good ruler. Do supporters of hereditary monarchies not care about merit at all and just want a single line of succession based solely on something as banal as muh tradition? I see no problem with elective monarchs ruling for life and elected based on merit, but I can't see the drive to have hereditary monarchies in this day and age. Explain it to me.
Pic slightly related, Otto Strasser advocated for an elective monarchy in Germany
Explain yourselves, autists
Please explain whether you support absolute or constitutional monarchy, and hereditary vs elective monarchy.
Please explain what the constitution should state, and how the monarch should be elected, OR explain why you do not want these things.
Also, just to get this out of the way: this sub is the most autistic shit I have ever found on the internet and you all should be subjected to electroshock.
I support the Singapore model as the ideal form of government. If you cannot see the parallels between this model, fascism, and "elective constitutional monarchy", you are autistic. But then again, you are on this sub, and so you are already a piece of shit.
Represent Your flag + Problems
An Ancien Regime pardon my butchery of accents anon suggested I make a thread, and I decided to do one comparing and contrasting our different viewpoints. Thus, the format will be as the following:
1) Name/Type (Your flag)
2) Description (ideally)
3) Is this a classed system? What are they and who inhabits these classes? What are the duties of the classes?
4) Benefits of your supported system
5) Problems with your supported system
Then you must optimally resolve the following issues under and according to your supported system: (Note you are not necessarily the king but can describe what the king, magistrate, governor, or constable/policeman would do in such a situation to resolve said issue.
1) (Bundle or ignore where applicable due to the existence of or lack of classes)
a) A noble has committed a crime against a commoner.
b) A commoner has committed a crime against a noble.
c) A noble has committed a crime against a noble.
d) A commoner has committed a crime against a commoner.
2) A travelling trader having a dispute with a citizen, the trader is a foreigner. The nature of the dispute is ambiguous to you at the current time.
3) The population is growing large, and a majority commute to their place of work. A system of transportation may be funded (or not).
4) The country is under threat from a foreign power or invader and the standing army is either insufficient or non-existent.
5) (in this scenario) you are king, but currently your reputation is mud. How do you resolve this?
6) The crown needs money, how is it raised?
7) Private citizens are carrying arms, and their purpose is ambiguous. What, if anything, is done?
8) The number of unemployed poor is rising due to the prevalence of either slave labor or some kind of labor reducing technology. What, if anything, is done to resolve this poverty and starvation?
9) The king has proven himself an ineffective ruler, what is done about this?
10) Your country is beautiful and many foreign people wish to come and see it as tourists. How is this handled, if at all?
11) You discover jews in the land, what is done about this?
How do we go about establishing a monarchy in today's liberal-socialist dystopia?
Shit's so fucked up bruhs. I'm not certain we'll be able to see anything like it happening in the near future unless Varg is right and some apocalypse will save us.
Me, I kinda have a small plan, we know that there are certain factors that turn people into leftists, like big cities and especially colleges where by their first year people are already turned into braindead leftists. Now what do we have that has the opposite effect on people and drastically converts them into traditionalists? I think if we can figure that out or at least start with wrestling the universities back from the leftists and educating kids the RIGHT way, we might have a chance eventually, but it will still take some time to undo the leftist damage and social engineering.
What else is there? Revolution? I think this is also a viable option since we can safely ignore the opinion of 80% of the population, but it should only be done when the right-wing is more organized and in a more favourable position, I personally don't believe in the whole -
>revolutions are bad and always make things worse
thing, this is a really lazy argument, revolutions themselves aren't necessarily bad, it depends on who wins them and what they decide to do after.
Any other ideas?
Beauty and Worth
Is it not true, that whichever man is married to the most beautiful woman, is the true alpha of the society and most worthy to be King?
Man's nature is to marry the most beautiful woman he can manage, and whichever man manages the most beautiful woman must have the most worth according to her. It may seem odd to count on this woman's appraisal so much but it is far more comprehensive than any other measure.She will have measured not only his looks, though they are important, but his wealth, his demeanor, his social ability etc.
Monarchist Arguments
What are the best arguments you've heard in favor of monarchism? Or just any/all arguments/quotes you've heard in favor of monarchism?
For me, it's Hoppe's "Monarch have longer time preferences than elected leaders" argument.
I've also heard the argument in favor of ceremonial monarchs that they make sure to take care of all the 'busy work' (ceremonies, accepting foreign dignatories, etc.) that would take up other officials' times). I'm not sure how much I like this argument, though.
Monarchists, Antifa is not a new thing.
You see, Commies label everything on the right as "fascist." (Even though we're farther right than fascists) It's all they can think of in their indoctrinated minds. Of course, us monarchists know that communists trying to destroy a country isn't surprising at all. They are simply radicalized like the Bolsheviks to a point where their sense of reality is warped.
Crown or Constitution; Constitutional Monarchists on Sovereignty of the Crown verse Constitution
A flaring controversy among us monarchists is the ideal of a sovereignty, the power and authority behind a nation, and the ideal of a people, ancestors of a nation and subjects; both of whom, it is said consist together as a nation. The sovereign is the rightful inheritor of the state, the head of a family, and commander-in-chief.
Then popular sovereignty verse the idea of a popular sovereign, being the "Will of the People" verse "the German Emperor" or the ethnic ruler rather than the collective whim of a partisanship. Which office rules supreme, the partisanship or the sovereignty of monarchy? The fundamental question is whether the Constitution is of the monarchy, or the monarchy is of the Constitution; whether the Crown is of the Constitution, or the Constitution is of the Crown.
Which reigns supreme, the Constitution of the Crown? Does the Crown and Constitution consist together as a single unit? If so, how does this correlate? Could the Constitution and the Crown co-exist as a single sovereignty?
To constitutional monarchists, what is your perspective on this issue? How much should the authority of the monarchy be undermined?
Japan is a unique example. The Constitution takes a very powerful role.
STOP PROVING COMMUNISTS RIGHT
MONARCHY DOESN'T ONLY EXIST TO PROTECT PROPERTY RIGHTS, lolbergs.
All governments have an arbitrary motive to respect their subjects. By the grace of God, they don't exist for a singular purpose. Monarchy is different from other governments. A parliament can also claim to represent a shared interest in protecting private property rights. A totalitarian communist regime can claim to share the economic interests of the proletariat. These economic interests are all based on the ideals of a social contract. While social contract theory isn't inherently anti-monarchy, it has been the will of radicals to denounce the purpose of monarchy through social contract theory; in short, they are political animals who only care about their self-conceit and economic gain.
Monarchy is a shared heritage. A shared national identity. History defines a people. Monarchy is a government of authority, based on hereditary rights, the foundational model being the family. The monarchy is just a royal family. This is simple, yet it means everything: monarchy is the government of the people, because it uplifts the true bond of the people. Every proletariat works for his family. Every property right is meaningful under the prospect of future gain, often the prospect of having a marriage or future children. Every household stands for their honor, which corresponds to the AUTHORITY of the father.
Too many monarchists see monarchy through the lenses of a political animal. They don't understand the nature of monarchy. How does monarchy inevitably fix itself? Through hereditary succession, or the authority of the crown, known as sovereignty. This transgression represents not only the honorable succession of ordinary households, and the father's right, but also the world's destiny.
Think of it like the classical Troy and the tale of the Aeneid. It was their destiny that moved them. All governments, under a Divine Will, are taken through their destines, and monarchy is the only government that understands this concept. The Divine Right of Kings is a similar notion, often misunderstood: every government exists under heavenly grace, even the worst of governments, but monarchy recognizes their destiny.
Joseph de Maistre made the point that the state exists under God's Creation, but also the consent of men. The truth is men only consent to obey, and most partisan governments exist like a dictatorship – that is, consenting to obey, and listening to a dictator's directions/speeches. A social contract works on consent, but nobody truly consents to a government. The only social contract that applies to the nature of government is the kind that pivots on the idea of authority.
The state exists for the family. Each life begins with the conception of man and woman. The two stable roles for man and woman are father and mother, both of which are formalized under the name of monarchy. Each social interest begins at the rudimentary model of the family. The natural model for leadership is first known by the actions of fathers. Fatherhood is the destiny of the male sex. Despite being an individual, who isn't a father, the ideal mode of leadership within the sexes is fatherhood. Motherhood is the destiny of the female sex. Despite being an individual who isn't a mother, the ideal mode of leadership within the sexes is motherhood.
The King's Court
This is a thread I'll use to be a little less aloof and talk about minor and meta stuff: general feedback, accepting submissions for flags, banners, moderation, and rules, etc.. A court, if you will.
It seems like the board got reset a day somehow for a small time. It appears to have been another board glitch now that they're back.
The flags are still not enabled on the board. I have had a support thread up for about a week now. I'll get a response every few days telling me to alphabetize the flags or something, and then it dies again. I've tried every permutation possible to me under the board options. Still no go.
In fact, the reason that the posts have now re-appeared is because I tried setting the board flags check again and…that appears to have restored the other posts.
In short, like a second lieutenant I have no idea what's going on. So, I'm opening this up here because I'm betting you all will have better help on what to do. Until the funniness is resolved, I'll leave this thread here.
But how ?!
Alright lads,
first of all: Great new board. It's awesome and the extraordinarily high quality is lit.
Now here comes the question: How would we bring about a monarchy today ? Like, given the absolutely degenerated and un-dignified state of society, what do you think would it take to instate a monarchy ?
For this Gedankenexperiment we're open for everything, but I ask you to stay civil and not play the "genocide"-card. [just in case]
So, what're the monarchist stances on the Middle East to North Africa's issues (ISIS)?
For example I read that contrary to the claims of the Ayatollah's regime and its apologist that the ones made against the Shah have been overstated. If so, then should Iran have stayed a monarchy?
Should the Middle East have gotten one big Caliph decades ago?
MAGA a shit
Remind me, why does the alt-right trust him so much? Last I checked, the consensus among them was that his constant concessions to Israel don't make a lot of sense, but that Trump works in mysterious ways. I don't see how anyone can hold that up after he has acknowledged Jerusalem as the capital city of Israel and moved the US embassy there.
Jerusalem is holy to all three abrahamic religions, and it's also one of the most culturally important cities in the world. Trump has not just strengthened Israel, a Jewish nationalist state and the single most bellicose state in the Middle East, he also took a giant shit on every single Christian in that region, as if they needed that after being outnumbered twenty to one by Muslims who literally overran them.
Medieval Europe
How bad were the Middle Ages in Europe really, /monarchy/? The consensus seems to be that they were pretty brutal, but how much compared to muh peaceful Muslims and muh noble savages is not so clear, or even compared to modern times. Of course, democide numbers were far lower, but so was total population, so that doesn't tell us all that much.
Philosophy General
I'll start this with a personal recommendation:
>Solved the mind-body-problem before Descartes was even born
>Hylemorphic Dualism is the most impressive word you'll ever say
>Delivers juicy teleological metaphysics and btfo's reddit atheists that didn't even exist back in the day
>Exposed the is-ought-fallacy so bad, Hume would've lived in a dumpster had people realized this
>Five proofs that your pagan völkisch larping is fucking retarded
Worst of Political Philosophy
I hereby declare that John Rawls is the culmination and the pinnacle of everything that's bad in modern political philosophy:
>Creates a huge, incredibly complex system of ethics without ever backing up his central premise
>Blatant apologist for social democracy, even went back and declared time-preference to be irrational (lol wut) to accomodate the environmentalists
>Created a bastard child of utilitarianism and egalitarianism and thought it was a good idea
>Couldn't cut to the damn chase
>Incompetent in economics
>Somehow redefined justice as fairness and got away with it
absolutely problematic
Monarchy is a form of discrimination, like racism and sexism; it creates the idea that some people are better than others because of how they were born. Intersectionality teaches us that different forms of prejudice are related: victories in one sphere soon lead to another.
The collapse of most of the monarchies was what ushered in a rising tide of social victories in all spheres of life.
Why would you want to reverse tihs trend? I'm talking to the people on this board who are not racist / sexist /e tc
Monarchs and Religion
Should monarchs maintain or put themselves more into a religious role?
Historically, the Emperor of Japan being linked with Shintoism.
The reigning monarch of England still maintains heavy connections with the Anglican church.
The Grand Duke of Luxembourg renounced some of his functions for essentially religious beliefs regarding euthanasia.
Is the separation of church and state anathema to monarchism?
Post ITT whenever there are no new posts!
We are going to make this board active from now on. Whenever you browse this board and there are no new posts outside of here, make a post to revive this board! Everything from general banter, smaller monarchist thoughts or just what happens to be on your mind. We will create a community if everything goes right.
To get this started: How did you become a monarchist? For long have you been one? Do you live in a monarchy currently? Or anything else you want to talk about?
Thoughts?
Please Note: I'm a Monarchist who posts on >>>/liberty/, because I didn't know about this board. I am copy n' pasting a thread >>>/liberty/65239 that was posted there, because I want this place to get traffic. Please don't ban me if I broke the rules.
I'm not sure where there is a larger aggregation of monarchists so I might as well ask here. What legitimizes a monarch? "Bloodline" is not an argument, by the way.
But even if it were, what about countries that are historically without a monarch or their only monarch is imposed by foreign powers. Assuming most monarchists are edgy burgers, how would you bring about your style of monarchy to the USA or whatever state after a presumed balkanization?
I realize that Europe has been in decline ever since the French Revolution, and the subsequent deconstruction and subversion of its values and institutions, among which monarchy was one of the most important
I have doubts however on what can be done about it, especially after the industrial revolution i see a restoration of the Ancien Régime and its virtues more and more unlikely
Is there anything that can realistically be done about it or should we just swallow the black pill and acknowledge that western civilization is just going down the shitter and nobody can stop this?
mrchy how2?
How would you turn a modern western republic into a monarchy? How would you establish a new aristocracy? Should you take a legitimiste pov when reinstating monarchies (bourbons to France, Habsburs to Austria etc) or not? If not, what do?
How deal with nations that have never been monarchies like USA or many Latin American ones? Should they be annexed by European monarchies? Is this realistic? Go!
Fuck Yeah, Monarchy!
I'm an absolute monarchist who wants a divine illuminated king to rule his nation and keep it white and right.
I like that video John Alan Martinson did about monarchy. It was like over an hour long but gave the perfect case for why we should have monarchy in great detail and was worth listening through the whole thing.
Unfortunately the channel that hosted it, HumansOpposingJewz, has been wiped out from youtube completely without a trace of it having ever even existed before (not "channel was shutdown for violating rules blah blah") and pretty much every single video by John Alan Martinson that was up on youtube has been purged.
Anyone have that vid?
All hail the king!
Hello, /monarchy/. I just wanted to let you know that I'm the new board owner of >>>/kind/, and I'd appreciate it if you'd take the time to drop in and say hello. It's not really devoted to the discussion of topics pertaining to politics, but I think kindness is or should be a virtue valued by all, irrespective of political affiliation!
Check out our politics thread: >>>/kind/221
Modern Monarchy
I would like to start a thread about how monarchy would work in a modern age. For instance how would this shift take place? Where would it take place?What if there was a rich motherfucker who bought a lot of land (A good size maybe two or three towns)and built shops and homes and contracted people to fill them and work under his command?