No.294
>you would never be a monarch because of your bloodline
>your ruler would be anyone who was lucky enough to be born into the monarchy, regardless of how fit they are to rule
How does this make you feel, /monarchy/?
____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.295
>fit to rule
Hitler definitely applies.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.296
A weak king attracts strong men around him. In a parallel universe, Hitler was Wilhelm II's new Bismarck.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.297
>>294
Two words
Philosopher
King
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.299
>>297
One name, CommodusJohn Cena.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.315
File: 1447237470534.png (955.07 KB,1109x1169,1109:1169,I told you man, I told you….png)
>"wahh wahh I can never be a King"
>placing your own ambition above the good of your country
Behold! A selfish, jumped-up child throwing his toys out of the pram. Be gone, Reddit!
>fit they are to rule
Ability to rule never means the right to rule. In a democracy it is often those who are least able to rule that are given legitimacy to rule by the electorate.
A King does not "run" the country. The people run the country, we "run" the country. A King normally surrounds himself with the most learned and informed people because he is protected from a shallow and capricious selection by democracy.
>lucky
>"Wahh wahh I can nevr b a King"
>"IT'S NOT FAIRRR!!"
>mfw
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.323
but what of the tyranny and arbitrary rule?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.324
>democucks actually project this hard
It's hilarious that the prospect of not being a powerless nano-king frightens you democucks this hard.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.463
>>294
>you would never be a monarch because of your bloodline
Who cares? Think for a second. Who the hell wants to actually be the leader of their respective country? Most people who actually crave the power of a king are egomaniacs and narcissists who really only want power to satisfy their twisted desires that they know no one else would agree to unless they had all the guns to make them or they are looking to satisfy some psychological need to feel important or like they're the saviors of the world. At least with a hereditary ruler some poor guy who isn't you and will never be you is being saddled with all the responsibility regardless of whether he wants it or not and is expected to at least try to rule well unless he wants to lose his head to an angry mob or some rival claimant among his teeny tiny privileged class of royals.
>your ruler would be anyone who was lucky enough to be born into the monarchy, regardless of how fit they are to rule
The notion of "fitness to rule" is so arbitrary and subjective though that it's much easier for each ruler to simply rule according to their own self-interest as more or less private landholders whose property values are tied to the general satisfaction of the "tenants" they have allowed by their own grace to live on that property. That's really all monarchs are, private land lords who are expected to just keep the property at an optimum level of quality that people want to move and live there and who compete with one another in cultivating the best properties on the block. When you introduce the idea of "fit to rule", you introduce a very abstract and singular notion of what a "good" ruler is that is so often divorced from the actual needs and wants of people.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.464
>>463
This is of course not to say that kings shouldn't strive to be "good" rulers, but this good should be primarily in that moral or religious sense of the word that is expressed in things like the Ten Commandments, not in that mechanical utilitarian sense of the word that is used today in politics, that always seems to end in many innocent people having their lives, property and hopes destroyed in the name of progress.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.468
>>463
>Most people who actually crave the power of a king are egomaniacs
From the "Arguments for monarchism thread":
>>419
>There's a similar argument that goes something like, "Would [you] rather be ruled by someone who maybe wants power, or [someone] who definitely wants power?"
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.473
>>468
"The mediaevals were only too right in taking nolo episcopari ('I don't want to be a bishop') as the best reason a man could give to others for making him a bishop." –JRR Tolkien
Monarchy is not a dictatorship for the record. The difference being that dictators are usually low class plebs jealous of the power granted to their "natural" aristocratic superiors and crave the power that was previously the exclusive privilege of kings and nobles to satisfy some kind of emotional need to be in charge and feel important. What happens when you give these people the power to rule is that they end up transgressing all the limits of power that would normally be imposed on the king or ruler by other institutions and in many cases where the dictator has achieved power by riding the wave of popular approval, totalitarian actions that would normally be opposed were they done by any hereditary ruler are accepted as manifestations of the people or the nation's will.
When the competition for power is limited to a certain class of people who have absolutely no choice but to lead because it is a responsibility expected of them by society or God, you actually end up with a system where things like greed and ambition are far less explicitly rewarded because this class of people have no choice but to lead and will be forced to lead regardless of whether they want to and so are more likely to appoint others to guard and lead in their name so that they can relieve themselves of as much of this forced responsibility as possible or they will be competent rulers who were taught nothing since birth but how to lead effectively and never had a chance to cultivate that deep seated and resentful ambition to rule that is usually caused by a life-time feeling of powerlessness, this is because this class' right to rule was always a given. Within a democracy, everyone in the society is competing for power and privilege, regardless of class,. and so those with the greatest ambition, the greatest wealth, the greatest military influence and/or the greatest charisma are those who ultimately seize power, and in order to maintain their power in such an environment, they will often use various subversive and even outright totalitarian tactics to make sure no one can ever do what they did to take power away from them, further monopolizing said power, eliminating intermediate institutions between the ruler and the ruled and destroying any further competition.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.529
>you would never be a monarch because of your bloodline
>>315
This.
Also, you'll never be president in a "demo"cracy. The only people that rise to that position are narcissistic sycophants that are willing to suck 13 kilometers of dick just for a paycheck and some power. Power, I might add, is severely limited and is pretty much illusory because you may only do what the ruling party wants: Nothing more and nothing less. Otherwise you'll be impeached or shot.
Needless to say, you'll never be fuhrer in a hitlerist national socialist state either.
>your ruler would be anyone who was lucky enough to be born into the monarchy, regardless of how fit they are to rule
And I suppose the farmer's son is not fit to run a farm? A prince is actually far more fit to rule than a politician because a prince has been taught exactly what he needs to know his entire life, while most of a politician's qualifications revolve around the finer points of arse-kissing and lying which doesn't leave much time for doing a good job.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.531
>>529
>most of a politician's qualifications revolve around the finer points of arse-kissing and lying which doesn't leave much time for doing a good job.
Huh. This sounds very similar for the arguments of keeping the tradition of providing professors tenure.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.1013
The thing with monarchy, is it has much less power than you think. Media companies have far more power than any monarch ever had. It's much more about responsibility for the wellbeing of the nation, or nations of the empire. It is more of a religious and spiritual position than any secular office, in fact monarchy doesn't make sense unless its grounded in tradition, and faith. It all goes back to Rome, so the first qualification is to be a Roman: a civilized, law abiding, contributing person. Following in the new Rome of Constantinople, there became another requirement, to be an Orthodox Christian. Pretty much anyone could be the emperor, a farmer, a butcher, soldier, etc. The emperor position was not simply given to family of the last ruler, but maybe to the one who killed the previous one, it was a risky position. It was seen that if one was deposed, it was because God willed it, or else the usurpers would have been foiled. The goal of the monarch is to have the kingdom be predominantly autonomous peasant farming communes, which is far closer to utopia than modern city living of find a job, pay bills, buy days-to-weeks-old food at a store, etc. Modern city living would inherently be against any monarchy, so for us to come into the kingdom, we would have to divest from the conveniences of city life, establish bases in the small towns and countryside, and take down the supply lines to the city, so it would destroy itself from within. We all would need to learn proper farming and gardening skills, especially no-till methods.
Imagine that, a gardener king, teaching the people how to feed themselves.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5043
Not too bad.
It's not like being a monarch is easy anyways.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5047
>>294
>you would never be a monarch because of your bloodline
Wow, NEETSocs are just LARPers who think when the ethnostate happens they'll be le antidegenerate Fuhrer. Who would have guessed?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5076
>>1013
The notion that monarchs absent of any parliament or democracy are abusive is just modernist narrative. You'd be hard-pressed to name a proper king who slew as many of his subjects as Stalin did. Or the king who invented the Patriot Act.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5081
>>294
>you would never be a monarch because of your bloodline
Asctutally my family is decedent from a bastard of one of the Danish kings. I could start a Pretender's rebellion, but I haven't much interest in the Danish throne.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5718
>>315
>"wahh wahh I can never be a King"
>placing your own ambition above the good of your country
>implying kings never place their own ambitions first
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5719
>>5718
>never heard the term 'King and Country'
Hobbes argued against this.
Even a king looking out for his own self-interest could still benefit his people. The greedy and ambitious who come close to kings are the first to suffer for their impotence.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5720
It is foolish to think you'll ever become leader in a republican system either. What kind of stupid fantasy is it that you'll be the leader rather than dutifully serving and taking command through other offices. There is no reason to cry over not becoming a leader of nations. I would rather have someone born into it.
>>529
Pay attention to what this anon said. Chances are probably the same you will never have any power with this attitude. Power-hungry people don't let obstacles like this stop them from having power. This is laughable.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5721
>>294
The only thing more retarded than monarchism is nazi-ism
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5722
>>5721
>wanting to keep company with a bunch of monarchists like us
you are too kind, anon.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5765
>>294
With the advent of modernism, really Monarchism as we knew it in the middle ages won't happen. Most of the monarchial families are sold out and support the liberal elite. I myself am christian, but at this point I would see myself ideally more of a theocratic fascist with some distributist elements thrown in.
I like Raphael Johnson's view on monarchy as distinct from the divine absolutism that started to fuck up when Hobbes misinterpreted the meaning of it.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5767
>>5765
This, any new monarchy would probably only arise after a generation or two of ancapistan to wipe out the modernist filth in society.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5797
>>5767
ancapistan will be transhuman
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5802
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5803
>>5765
Hobbes is not a proponent of divine right absolutism. Hobbes is a social contract absolutist.
>really Monarchism as we knew it in the middle ages won't happen
There needs to be a restoration of this traditional government, not a revival of a certain period. Monarchy has been the government before and after the Medieval period.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5804
People are too harsh on Hobbes around here.
Thomas Hobbes was aware of the republicans of his time taking classical political theory and bringing a revival of their own brand of social contract theory. Hobbes warned that they would take the classical political doctrines to justify their own democratic ideals. To counteract these motives, Thomas Hobbes wrote his political philosophy to turn the tables on the proto-Whigs. He was a proponent of government of 'The People', but in its own unique way.
Monarchists are never critical of Hobbes for the right reasons. They usually think in the same terms hypocritically.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5806
>>5765
>distinct from the divine absolutism that started to fuck up
Tsar Nicholas II had a coronation about 100 years ago. 100 years is not a long time. These things don't become extinct. Likewise, you could say the same thing about fascism not coming back. When was the last time we had a Blackshirt March on Rome that was legit fascist and not interpreted as such?.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5812
>>5802
dont you like diversity?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5814
>>294
Hitler often spoke of a "1000 Year Kingdom" Do you ever wonder what he was referencing there? He was referencing the Byzantine Empire which was a monarchy.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5819
>>5814
No one gives a fuck about Cuckler.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5835
>>5814
nope
he was refering to roman empire
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5839
>>5835
Thats what that anon said
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5840
>>5839
The Byzantines are generally considered distinct from the old Roman Empire.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5841
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.5846
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.