/monarchy/ - STOP THINKING LIKE REPUBLICANS

Aristocracy is pretty much a fact of human life; what we need is an agrarian or royal aristocracy, rather than the bourgeois “””aristocracy””” we have now.

Aristocracy feel such relevant roles as local government, a national legislature (where necessary, never against the prerogative of the king), a military elite, an advisory council, and, if absolutely necessary, a group of highly qualified individuals who can remove an incompetent monarch.

>>1792

>what we need is an agrarian or royal aristocracy,

What about a military one?

>>1791

At first I thought this was Justin Trudeau. And wanted to puke.

>>1793

>What about a military one?

That would work too.

>>1792

>>1793

>>1794

So how are the aristocracy chosen and why should they be hereditary?

>>1792

How would you argue for putting military officers in local government positions rather than having elections?

>>1795

They are self evident at first. After that they should be hereditary depending on what kind of aristocracy they are. If they own the land then they should rule it, and since it is kept in their family by inheritence so should the title and offices. If they defend the land they should rule it, and it is best when the interest of the families of the people who rule the land, and the interest of the land coallign. A politician on the other hand has no interest whatsoever in the well being of the nation beyond his term, meaning that the longest time frame he calculates in is his own life, if he is elected for life.

General elections on the other hand are a worthless instrument. The fact that you can rally vote does neither mean that you should nor can rule the land. Elections attract good for nothings, criminals and other ambitious people that need to be kept from government. But if elections do neither put in place the people that should rule the land, nor the people that are best at doing it, then what are they good for? Do they do anything but sow division? The only force that wins in this system are the outside forces trying to control our nation. That's the jews

>Did anybody write about the role of the aristocracy very much?

>>330

>>1798

Would Hoppe argue that the transition from aristocratic pluralism to absolute monarchy was a decline?

>>1798

Oh yeah he did mention it. From what I remember he said they were natural judges and the profession became hereditary.

Nowadays though (automatically) hereditary professions would be looked at as dumb. And legislation is probably much more important.

>>1799

Certainly so, he's a sucker about decentralization. He wants to see the return of a natural aristocracy, as leaders of mankind.

>>1801

>Nowadays though (automatically) hereditary professions would be looked at as dumb.

Which is really a weird development. Someone who was preparing to do his job since he was a child will probably do it better than an elected official. You can also mix it with competition, to root out the hereditary aristocrats who are just sitting on the laurels of their ancestors. [Spoiler]Side thought: The heir would have a competitive advantage by being in his position by default, but that's not a problem. Stability is desirable in an aristocracy.[/spoiler]

>>1802

what about this argument- even if he was trained from life to be a good aristocrat, the best an aristocrat can do is guess reasonably well what the people want, but if there were democracy, the people could just vote on what they want every few years.

>>1804

that is, the advantage an elected politician holds is that we know the people like his policies.

>>1802

I’m not so sure about that. I like subsidiarity as much as the next Catholic, but the addition of a central authority, derived from God, doesn’t seem like a step in the wrong direction to me.

>>1804

A good government does not do what the people want it does what is right.

>>1809

if what is right is what makes people happy, and people want the things that make them happy, then the two are the same.

>>1811

Neither are the things that make people happy right, nor do people know what would make them happy. There is literally no more reason to let common folk decide over government than there is to letting them decide over military strategy in war, or over right and wrong.

Let's say we are playing a game of chess. You have 1000 co players, common folks with an average share of chess players. You all decide democratically about your moves. My only co player is Magnus Carlsen and he calls the shots. Good luck.

Don't believe me? Take a look at South Africa. It used to be an excellent and rich nation in comparison to the rest of Africa. It was said to be a rising nation with a promising future. In comes democracy. And now people don't have electricity, get AIDS and kill the farmers providing for them. 10/10

>>1812

>Neither are the things that make people happy right, nor do people know what would make them happy.

if something makes people happy then how could it not be right? what is it that should take precedence?

>nor do people know what would make them happy

i wouldn't say they have a perfect knowledge but i think they know to a high degree. the desire to, for example, reduce immigration comes from a real preference toward homogeneity which you can't just dismiss as people being stupid.

>There is literally no more reason to let common folk decide over government than there is to letting them decide over military strategy in war, or over right and wrong.

the public don't know military strategy, but i'd say that's just an abstruse policy concern; the public are still aware of their preferences, which allows an agenda to be set, and it's the job of politicians to carry it out.

>Don't believe me? Take a look at South Africa. It used to be an excellent and rich nation in comparison to the rest of Africa. It was said to be a rising nation with a promising future. In comes democracy. And now people don't have electricity, get AIDS and kill the farmers providing for them. 10/10

without judging you, you've been fed a far-right narrative; they're actually richer and there's less crime overall.

>if something makes people happy then how could it not be right? what is it that should take precedence?

i don't mean makes *some* people happy by the way i mean increases happiness in a general sense.

>>1813

>if something makes people happy then how could it not be right?

Fiddling children makes homos happy.

> what is it that should take precedence?

The eternal right of God.

>the public are still aware of their preferences

Their preferences just shouldn't matter. There is a clear preference among Germans and Swedes to get foreigners in to their country and let them kill and rape Europeans and destroy a whole civilization. They shouldn't have this choice.

>they're actually richer and there's less crime overall.

I don't think so. Could you prove that? The same is the case for Rhodesia btw. It used to be rich and produced enough food to export. Now that negroid marxists rule there they're starving. Venezuela used to be one of the richest nations in Latin America. Then the people democratically elected socialists and now toilet paper is a rare good there. Just a couple of hate facts that are coming to mind.

>>1814

Importing and legalizing opium would increase the general happiness for sure.

>>1815

>Fiddling children makes homos happy.

Way to signal your reactionary, misinformed opinions. Men who are attracted to men are no more likely to be pedophiles than straight people. The reason there is so much male-male abuse is that pedophiles aren't very discriminating.

And no, pedophilic abuse doesn't make people happy in the sense that I mean. It reduces total happiness.

>The eternal right of God.

You can't use your *personal* religion to control policy for everybody.

>Their preferences just shouldn't matter.

People's preferences quite obviously matter in determining what will make them happy, if that is the goal.

>There is a clear preference among Germans and Swedes to get foreigners in to their country and let them kill and rape Europeans and destroy a whole civilization. They shouldn't have this choice.

And a leftist could say, there is a clear preference among altists to keep out thousands of refugees based on a tiny percentage who commit crimes. They shouldn't have this choice.

>I don't think so. Could you prove that? The same is the case for Rhodesia btw.

So you go from 'I don't think so' to, it was the case and it was also the case in Rhodesia too, without providing evidence of either.

>>1817

Couple of things. As you can see the rate is higher than in the 70s while officially not as high as it used to be in the 80s when communists were literally having a civil war with support of the westerners. Just look at it. Next the current number is of course complete bs for two main reasons: First the ANC forges this stuff to cover up things (like Cuba does btw). Second less crimes get reported because less people trust the police. The fact that unlike in the past you cannot walk freely in Johannesburg on the other hand is very real.

Is your first pic the BNP per capita? You should compare that to other nation's tbh and take inflation into account. Considering that and the massive increase of raw output/work hour my point still stands. Or better said: 3000USD was a lot of money in 1980. 5000USD is nothing today. It is amazing really how they managed to crush a rising economy like that in 20-30 years.

>>1818

This picture is the reason why ISIS is right when it attacks the west.

Let's not forget that the afrocentrist marxists do not record the farm murders as murders for example because the white devils are not real people. There are literally forming self defence militias among whites down there and the government is trying to stop the whites from slowing down their genocide. Whites are the demographic that is most likely to be murdered and their data is just thrown into the gutter. And yet they still manage to do worse than before the communist terror attacks.

>>1821

Why would you ask me to prove something if you're going to then insist without evidence that the data is forged?

What is your reason to think that people would report a higher proportion of crimes to the apartheid government which they hated and eventually destroyed?

Anybody is going to say that data he doesn't like has been forged. In reality murder rates are taken to be the most accurate statistics because bodies leave traces and deaths have to be reported to someone.

>Is your first pic the BNP per capita? You should compare that to other nation's tbh and take inflation into account. Considering that and the massive increase of raw output/work hour my point still stands. Or better said: 3000USD was a lot of money in 1980. 5000USD is nothing today. It is amazing really how they managed to crush a rising economy like that in 20-30 years.

It was already adjusted for inflation. They didn't go through each year and give the value in that year's USD, that would create a completely useless graph.

No sensible person would say that the graph shows a rising economy becoming stagnant; the economy is growing at about the same speed as before.

>>1822

>Let's not forget that the afrocentrist marxists do not record the farm murders as murders for example because the white devils are not real people

Citation needed.

>Whites are the demographic that is most likely to be murdered and their data is just thrown into the gutter

If the data is thrown in the gutter how do you know that they're the demographic most likely to be murdered? Is it because you watched an alt right video about the 50 or so farm murders a year and you think that matters more than thousands of blacks being murdered each year?

>>1823

>Why would you ask me to prove something if you're going to then insist without evidence that the data is forged?

The south african government is not a good source regarding south africa. The Soviet Union had 99% approval rate right to the end.

>What is your reason to think that people would report a higher proportion of crimes to the apartheid government which they hated and eventually destroyed?

Because the police solved crimes and was not corrupt. Today the police there is a criminal organization in itself. The apartheid government was not hated. It was destroyed by foreign intervention of among others the soviet union, Cuba, diverse African communists and the CIA

>In reality murder rates are taken to be the most accurate statistics because bodies leave traces and deaths have to be reported to someone.

If a white person dies it is not a murder no matter how many bodies you find.

>It was already adjusted for inflation.

Oh was it?

>If the data is thrown in the gutter how do you know that they're the demographic most likely to be murdered?

Approximation of the decline in white population and self report by the white community.

> 50 or so farm murders

Are you being serious?

> you think that matters more than thousands of blacks being murdered each year?

Are there bands of whites running about and killin blacks on sight? Because niggers do that. Once that's the case I will care the same about it. But right now niggers are nigging down there among their own and targeting the white minority. And I know that I have to care more about one of the two.

Fact of the matter is that there is a white genocide going on just like it did already happen in Rhodesia. But once you kill all of the white people all African nations turn into Haiti. If you really care about niggers you need to stop farm murders so SA doesn't turn completely into a third world shit hole.

>>1804

>what about this argument- even if he was trained from life to be a good aristocrat, the best an aristocrat can do is guess reasonably well what the people want, but if there were democracy, the people could just vote on what they want every few years.

There's many reasons why it doesn't work that way. For example, voters often have no idea what would bring them the greatest utility, and they almost never know this when your government is big and concerned with highly technical questions. How many citizens could cast an informed vote on whether the central bank should engage in quantitative easing? There's also the fact that it's entirely compatible with the ideal of democracy if 51% of the population enslaved the other 49% for a very petty gain in utility for themselves. Generally, voters can act like selfish assholes and collectively ruin everything for petty egoistic reasons. Consider the incentives at work when a group of a thousand cronyists wants to tax the population at large with just 0,1% for their own gain. They can absolutely do that, because the incentive for them to do so is very strong, while no citizen will do more than be mad for a week about losing 0,1% of his income. It's the tragedy of the commons applied to the national economy: Everyone's better off robbing everyone else.

Now, if you apply your argument to the market, or even to freedom of choice more generally, then it works perfectly. But not with democracy.

>>1816

>You can't use your *personal* religion to control policy for everybody.

That religion cannot be objectively true is a modern opinion, and a pretty shitty one at that. You can make a strong case for toleration (including by quoting scripture), but just saying that religion is personal, or anything to that effect, is just lazy.

>>1823

>Why would you ask me to prove something if you're going to then insist without evidence that the data is forged?

Every criminologist worth his salt knows that the official crime statistics are one thing, and that they're hardly reliable even when they're not forged.

>In reality murder rates are taken to be the most accurate statistics because bodies leave traces and deaths have to be reported to someone.

Even then, I've heard criminologists say that only one in two homicides in the western world is detected. There's hundreds of thousands of homeless people and vagabonds that no one will go looking for if they're killed, and ways to dispose of bodies so that they are not immediately found. So no, you cannot take these statistics at face value, either. I wouldn't be surprised if some countries had a far higher homicide rate simply because of their geography, because it's easier for a dead body to go missing (even when it isn't deliberately hidden) in a jungle than in an urban environment, and so on.

>>1825

Small addition:

>Everyone's better off robbing everyone else.

In the sense that voting for extra privileges and joining the force of cronyists is better than voting for everyone else to lose his privileges. The latter will be met with far more resistance than the former.

>The typical way to mitigate the problem that so much crime goes unrecorded is to focus primarily on murder. Whereas surveys suggest that a large and variable proportion of crimes as diverse as rape and theft never make it into the official statistics, a relatively large and stable proportion of murders do. Dead bodies are hard to hide, dispute or ignore. Murder rates are thus the dominant unit of criminological comparison.

A key advantage of murder rates is that they can be corroborated by mortuary records. In South Africa, comparing these sources suggests that a relatively small and probably shrinking proportion of suspected murder is failing to make it into the police figures. There is no good reason to reject South Africa’s official murder statistics as a solid basis for comparison.

https://theconversation.com/facts-show-south-africa-has-not-become-more-violent-since-democracy-62444

>>1825

>technical issues

>>the public don't know military strategy, but i'd say that's just an abstruse policy concern; the public are still aware of their preferences, which allows an agenda to be set, and it's the job of politicians to carry it out.

>That religion cannot be objectively true is a modern opinion

the argument i'm making isn't that truth can't exist, it's that people must be free to make up their own minds about religion any attempt by religion to impose its policies will be destructive.

>>1827

>Evidence that the statistics are not correct?

ANC policy

>Evidence?

ANC policy

>Evidence?

'Hated' governments do not need to be overthrown with the support of half of the known world.

>Evidence?

Reports by Afrikaners.

>How do the white community know the murder rate in the black community?

What does that have to do with anything?

>Are you? What is the correct number?

The official number of farm murders according to the South African police is 70/year. This does not include white people being murdered if they happen to not be on their farm, it does not include white people being murdered when the police refuses to investigate, it does not include any crime that the ANC can cover up.

>Unlikely given the fact you use racial slurs and romanticise apartheid.

oy vey

>Is this really a 'fact'? What is the evidence?

Policies of global elites that have to lead to our extinction. Eg SA, Rhodesia, Mass migration, Frankfort School brainwashing, a clear push for race mixing, indoctrination in white guilt by western schools etc

>>1828

Did you know that the NYT did debunk the myth that Cuba was becoming communist in the 50s? Really makes you think.

>>1829

>it's that people must be free to make up their own minds about religion any attempt by religion to impose its policies will be destructive.

Evidence?

All I am saying is it is more obvious that democracy is a bad idea when you have a ruling white elite and a stupid nigger population. Everything should of course still hold true for any society just not to this extreme degree.

>>1829

>the public don't know military strategy, but i'd say that's just an abstruse policy concern; the public are still aware of their preferences, which allows an agenda to be set, and it's the job of politicians to carry it out.

Much of what is debated about in public boils down to these technical questions, not to abstract principles. People vote for socialism, capitalism or a mixed economy based on expectations of how well each system will perform, when very few people can even make an educated guess on that.

Besides, I made other counterarguments. Two others, I think.

>the argument i'm making isn't that truth can't exist, it's that people must be free to make up their own minds about religion any attempt by religion to impose its policies will be destructive.

Sure, they can make up their own minds, but they cannot necessarily act on it. I would allow anyone to read the old Marxist classics and even have private discussions about them, but when he goes a few steps further and creates a party dedicated to abolishing all private property, then the fun is over. Likewise, if someone intends to murder mentally handicapped people, then I will gladly act on my religious views and preemptively shoot the fucker, even before I find good secular arguments for doing so.

>>1832

>but when he goes a few steps further and creates a party dedicated to abolishing all private property, then the fun is over

Excellent argument and I couldn’t agree more. But (and I mean this with minimal snark), I can’t help but look at your flag and think that you and your anarchomonarchist brothers have a little cognitive dissonance going when it comes to the issue of whether the state has a role in enforcing peace, stability, and orthodoxy.

>>1833

>Excellent argument and I couldn’t agree more.

Thanks!

>But (and I mean this with minimal snark), I can’t help but look at your flag and think that you and your anarchomonarchist brothers have a little cognitive dissonance going when it comes to the issue of whether the state has a role in enforcing peace, stability, and orthodoxy.

No problem. It's a good question.

As we already do have a government, as long as that's the case, this government must protect the people from harm, if it is to do anything. That's its professed raison d'être. So it should punish criminals that deserve punishment, return stolen property, and thwart foreign invasions. It should also deal with internal threats. A government that does that is a better government than one that doesn't.

The best government, of course, would be one that we wouldn't apply this title to in the first place, a body with no legal privileges, but in a position of power and with the trust of the people behind it. Such a body could enfore peace, stability, and a certain amount of orthodoxy, just as well as a state could, but without harming innocents or posing a big risk on its own.

>>1843

I suppose I can get behind all that.

Then I think it becomes a semantic argument; if the state, contained wholly in the person of a trusted individual or individuals (the monarch and the aristocracy) exercises his authority, as defined by the trust of his people, for the protection of peace, freedom, prosperity, and orthodoxy, then is it really even anarchy? I mean, that’s what monarchy is. You could pretty much drop the anarcho- prefix if that’s your conception of the state.

>>1828

Why is farming the most dangerous profession in South Africa then if your data is not bs?

This is the president of the ANC singing 'Kill the Boer, kill the farmer'. This is the reason public SA statistics are crap.

This is Nelson Mandela, the man that introduced democracy to South Africa and won the peace nobel price, singing about vowing to kill all the whites.

>>1860

Evidence?

http://compareguru.co.za/news/top-5-dangerous-jobs-sa/

>>1884

>okay academics think the stats r accurate but i watched a youtube video heheh

>>1890

>academics think

You can find a disagreeing academician on anything if you look hard enough. This is no proper argumentation.

>>1890

>>okay academics think the stats r accurate but i watched a youtube video heheh

Do you deny that video evidence showing high state figures (such as the current president) singing about their approval of a genocide targeting white people leads to the conclusion that it is reasonable to assume that said state engages in covering up and supporting said white genocide?

>>okay academics think the stats r accurate

acadmics pls rspond ;_;

We are going to shoot them with the machine gun they are going to run. You are Boer we are going to hit you, you are going to run. We are going to shoot them.

t. academic source

Let's all just assume for a moment Trump sung a song about driving niggers onto the cotton fields and beating them up. Do you know why there is only an outcry in one of those two cases? It is because the jews making your media are supportive of white genocide.

>>1894

the point is that the stats are hard to fake and some faggets singing a song in a time of civil war is not evidence of anything lol

>>1900

>stats are hard to fake

NO they're not.

>and some faggets singing a song

The president of South Africa. He is the leader of the nation in question. The song is dedicated to the murder of white people.

> is not evidence of anything lol

It is evidence of the will of the South African leadership to support white genocide. They have the will and there is occcasion. South Africa is committing white genocide right now no matter how kike shills kvetch about it. And the white people are slowly waking up. Your kind will not take it lightly once we are fully awake. The age of the jew is closing in on its end.

>>1793

>military one

This. As a current/former natsoc one of the things I despise about monarchies is the potential for rich people to be important because they're rich naturally this extends to republics and democracies as well. If they have local government roles it damn well better be because they respect the nation AND serve it. It also means that they're bound by both common law and military law, leading to less potential for abuse of commoners. Always have to remember that a king may be important, but a nation without people is no nation at all, it is the people who are the most important.

I get that rich people can have a potential to blah blah blah do great things blah blah because enhanced resources and tutors and shit, but as a single example, learning about the battle of Crecy and French knights slaughtering retreating infantry out of sheer contempt of their very existence disgusted me. To me, having local government roles filled by military positions add that meritocratic element necessary for any individual, regardless of station, to rise up in society and yet still receive the proper training required to provide the demanded excellence to the nation.

>>1902

>NO they're not.

i'll believe the south african academics rather than some dumb internet altist lol

>The song is dedicated to the murder of white people

it's a civil war song, he wasn't singing about white genocide. there is no credible evidence for this meme

>>1907

>appeal to authority again

no, it really is more valid to believe academics and scientists rather than internet altists. i didnt say it's true because they say so, i'm saying it's more reasonable to believe them all else being equal

you haven't offered any reasons why they're wrong, or why it's easy to fake murder statistics. so it's just two (unequal) opinions

>So tell me what he is singing about.

it's a civil war song. so its about the civil war.

singing a song from the civil war is not a present day plea for white genocide to happen.

>What does we are going to shoot the whites in a non white genocide context even mean?

in the day it meant- we will go to war with the whites to end apartheid

nowadays it just means you are singing that song. he probably did it to evoke the civil war, i don't know why exactly

If for no other reason than to change the subject from this South African derailment, this article just went up on Thermidor that’s relevant to the topic of aristocracy.

http://thermidormag.com/the-maslowian-overman/

>>1908

>nowadays it just means you are singing that song.

Singing that you want to kill all the whites does not mean that you want to kill all the whites. Appealing to authority does not mean that you appeal to authority. Leftism is helluva drug

>>1909

It's not derailment at all. Whites were the natural aristocracy os South Africa. After they got replaced South Africa went to shit.

>>1910

>Singing that you want to kill all the whites does not mean that you want to kill all the whites

yes, that is categorically true.

>>1909

>Thermidor

Mah nigga

>>1885

What is it with civil rights activists having terrible skeletons in their closets?

http://thermidormag.com/requiem-for-a-dream-the-broken-pedestal-of-martin-luther-king-jr/

>>1909

Interesting but he doesn't really explain why self-actualized people will be better rulers.

NOBLISSE OBLIGE

>no, pleb

>>1911

In the same sense as telling your wife that you'll cut her up and bury her in the woods doesn't mean you're going to kill her, yes. Everyone with two brain cells will still think that you're a dangerous psychopath and absolutely not trustworthy.

>>1916

>In the same sense as telling your wife that you'll cut her up and bury her in the woods doesn't mean you're going to kill her, yes.

i don't know what particular 'sense' you mean. it's just an obvious fact that words aren't always meant literally. i don't see how you can get around that.

>>1917

>it's just an obvious fact that words aren't always meant literally

It's even more obvious that words mean something. You can say that "kill all whites" is not to be taken literally, but then how do we take it? If anything, it might be hyperbole for "kill some whites" or "be hostile to whites". That's conjecture, but it's plausible (not necessarily more plausible than the literal meaning). Taking it as a metaphor for living in peace together with whites would be absurd, plain and simple. Not the least because it was a political hymn, not some grand lecture by a spiritual leader. Hymns are supposed to be easily understood by the masses of the people, they miss their purpose when you need a doctorate to interpret them properly.

>>1798

Shouldn't this manuscript be what this thread is discussing?

>>1920

i already went over my interpretation in >>1908. then somebody idiotically suggested that it was ridiculous to take words non-literally.