/monarchy/ - STOP THINKING LIKE REPUBLICANS

No, I don't take a strong view of meritocracy for what it is.

Hereditary leadership is endearing to me on an idealistic level as a kind of "Son of the Nation" or "Father". A king has a title and a heritage to uphold, a people with their own households and their own fathers and sons to bring forth new generations. From my point of view, from the top of monarchy, to the very basic household, I admire the traits of being a kind of social "father", a heroic leader that was born to fulfill a role. This is almost like the vision of fantasy you see in movies.

Elective monarchies also had hereditary councils and nobles who elected a monarch. I think ancient Rome had patricians and so forth. They wouldn't be "elective" in the same sense with what we see today in mass politics. What I think ought to stay for mass politics is a kind of intimacy at a local level with local hereditary leadership too.

On leadership, I have to say that the moment you accept authority, the sooner you'll the best and worst consequences of leadership. There are good leaders and bad leaders, you simply need hope that destiny will lay us on the right track. Although I would still argue for decisive leadership and more than hope, hope is a good foundation to begin with. You simply cannot have the perfect government, seeing as all have their drawbacks. The solution to meritocracy is having a good ministry and advisory group like we see with presidential cabinets, patience with the monarch, and hoping the circumstances will lead to better decisions on behalf of the leadership.

Meritocracy seems like a fiction to me. You could have the most learned men of academia come forward and take roles of leadership, but you'll find the obvious drawbacks. The best leadership comes when the times are right and leadership is necessary.

Hereditary monarchy has a unique social dynamic. I remember reading through a few books and picking up hereditary monarchs who looked to their ancestors and wanted to follow their footsteps. This mentality is fanciful for those who think this will lead to accomplishments. Looking back at the legacy of your father or grandfather is an inspiration for better leadership, allowing merit and conduct from the past monarchs.

The cultural impact of having a hereditary monarch also signifies what ordinary people go through in their lives. It brings a humble pride to a nation to see their offspring achieve resounding success, a strong sensation of love for country. What it signifies for the people as a whole appears meaningful for its sovereignty and constitution. And speaking of a constitution, the "muh tradition" part of monarchy has always naturally been their constitution of rulership. Looking to the tradition of ancestors is what ought to constitute the actions and conduct of a monarchy. This is how the Crown becomes a like a constitution.

My final comment is we're seeing the worst of hereditary leadership in the present day. I don't think monarchies could get any worse than some are now, and that's not to bash all the modern royals. There are decent royals these days, but the royals of the past certainly shine in brighter glory.

It was always patriotic for countrymen to assist or push their monarchs in the right direction and bring them away from a mistake, but not attacking the character of kings.

>>2671

>but I can't see the drive to have hereditary monarchies in this day and age. Explain it to me.

You can look up some of the arguments in the about page. Here's one nearly completely copied and pasted from there:

>In a [elected government], those who are in power necessarily had to have wanted power, and are inflicted by a libido dominandi. At least in a hereditary monarchy there is a chance of a leader recognizing their own hubris, as opposed to the literally 0% chance in a [elected government]. In short: would you rather be ruled by someone who maybe wants power, or who definitely wants power?

I should back up here and ask, when you say elective monarchy do you mean something like, "Elect from the royal stock," or "President for life?"

—

>>2672

>I admire the traits of being a kind of social "father"

>>2676

>I remember reading through a few books and picking up hereditary monarchs who looked to their ancestors and wanted to follow their footsteps

The ceremonial power of a monarch is almost always severely underestimated. I feel like detractors of monarchy don't give it the due attention it deserves. I can definitely see elective monarchies diminishing this aspect.

—

>>2674

>What I think ought to stay for mass politics is a kind of intimacy at a local level with local hereditary leadership too.

>[HANS ADAM II INTENSIFIES]

—

>>2674

>Meritocracy seems like a fiction to me. You could have the most learned men of academia come forward and take roles of leadership, but you'll find the obvious drawbacks. The best leadership comes when the times are right and leadership is necessary.

>>2676

>Looking to the tradition of ancestors is what ought to constitute the actions and conduct of a monarchy. This is how the Crown becomes a like a constitution.

Both of these thoughts are very interesting to me. I'd like to see them expanded a bit more…

The first true Guti ruler who could be called "king" was Inkishush. He was the one to establish a system where each ruler was followed by another shortly after, with the previous one remaining in power behind the scenes. The Guti term for a ruler is شواسك (šwasək), literally "self-rule" but not necessarily with an autocratic implication but that of being free to decide what one wants and to do it. The ancient system allowed anybody to become "king" if they proved themselves fit but there was also a hereditary succession in case the "elected" ruler failed the people. This system was somewhat similar to the Chinese concept of "heavenly mandate". It was the most functional system in history until Tirigan the cuck betrayed his people and destroyed the Guti spirit for independence. Even after thousands of years we have not recovered. It makes me sad that we can never return to the greatest system. It was a working combination of hereditary monarchy, meritocracy and anarchy. It was perfect but we will never have it again.

Let me make a few points.

#1. The monarchy seeks to foster the roles of leadership. When an heir succeeds the throne and wears the crown, there are many influences calling out for the heir to be responsible. From the start, the heir had loyalty and honorable ceremonies promoting the ascending throne. Imagine a shape of a triangle and a fluid falling into shape: likewise, the monarchy seeks to set up every reason for good leadership. The monarch has to master all roles of proper leadership as the monarch gains authority. Responsibility is the chief concern for a monarchist to look after, because authority is the monarch's responsibility. It was always true that with great power comes great responsibility.

#2. (This point depends on the state of a society, considering this factor may become good or bad). – The monarch is well educated and prepared throughout a life, following the household legacy of the predecessors of the throne. This argument used to be very valid with good private tutors, but nowadays the modern monarchs are being forced into normal (((education))) that separates the heir from being an outsider and mysterious force of reverence. There is some good reason for a monarchy to maintain a respect distance from its people, being that the media will try to make them into celebrities or this could potentially cause the public to lose respect. The chief issue with this education is institutions no longer provide adequate education, and since private tutors are being made a taboo for monarchies… it does no service.

#3. Monarchy is inherently a system of proper leadership. It depends on the monarch becoming a father and taking up ceremonies. Despite how much modernism seeks to distort what the modern family is and what people should value, the structure of monarchy itself prevents this misconduct with its own integrity. It will not prevent bad monarchs, but it surely gives a boost.

My last word on this is meritocracy and hereditary leadership aren't contradictory terms. These two things can work. Aristocracy doesn't contradict meritocracy either because aristocracy is often born out of it.

Aristocracy is meritocracy with a lower time-preference.

With a meritocracy, you, an individual must be great.

With an aristocracy, you, your son, and his son must all be great, ad infinitum.

It is absolutely the case that families, even royalty lose the mandate of heavene, though this is usually manifested by conquest.

>>3196

>Aristocracy is meritocracy with a lower time-preference.

This is going in my quote book.

>>2671

>I personally think a state should be lead by the best person possible for the job based on merit

the person with so much 'merit' will just have overconfidence, ignore his ancestors and those around him, propose shitty schemes to try to make everything better, probably fuck things up.

tradition is better and a monarchy leads to tradition. first, all power in a monarchy derives from the past, inspiring a respect for tradition and ancestors. second a leader not chosen on merit will be less likely to believe he can fix everything, nor will people listen to him, leading to further preservation of tradition. third, monarchy acts as a visual metaphor for tradition as the tradition of ruling is passed down from father to son (rather than each generation of ruler trying to work it out for himself)