/monarchy/ - STOP THINKING LIKE REPUBLICANS

MM article related:

https://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2017/07/monarchy-and-morale.html

>One of the most horrific but telling things I have ever read about the difference between a monarchy and a republic was written by Robert Katz in the last chapter of his book, “The Fall of the House of Savoy” on the subject of the end of the late Kingdom of Italy. In a paragraph praising the republic for what I would call listlessness and lack of ambition, Mr. Katz wrote, “Italy has fared well without the monarchy and its recurrent, restless dreams. The country no longer pretends to great powerhood. A president sits now in the Quirinal. Few people abroad know his name. The republic has no plan to march for glory.” I suppose one could easily cite this as a sort of test. If you can read lines like that and think, as Katz does, that this is a good thing, you must be a republican. If you think they are horribly tragic, you are probably a monarchist. This could be “Exhibit A” in making the case that liberal republicanism saps the morale of a great people. Personally, one of the things that I find most despicable, damnable and insidious about, in this case, the Italian republic, is that it has made people comfortable with mediocrity.

>Simply consider the context. Italy, a land with almost nothing in the way of natural resources besides mineral water, once conquered the entire Mediterranean basin, ruled the known world and in many ways created western civilization as we know it. The cultural legacy of Italy alone was fought over by the great powers that rose up after the fall of Rome for centuries. Italian religious spread Christianity to distant shores and Italian navigators discovered new continents. Even after centuries of being divided and ruled by foreign powers, the Italians reunited, won their independence and, despite being the last out of the gate, set out again and built an empire that reached from the Alps to the Horn of Africa. When the Kingdom of Italy was brought down in World War II and this modest, most recent of the European colonial empires was demolished, we see the result in the waves of “refugees” from Eritrea and Somalia of what becomes of such places when the benefits of Roman civilization were withdrawn. Yet, led by a corrupt, top-heavy, talking shop that dispenses social welfare, people are dulled into passive acceptance with their elite always assuring them that this is the best they can expect.

>I take a different view. I say that those, “recurrent, restless dreams” which Katz faults the House of Savoy for, are essential for the health and morale of any people. The liberal elites do not want this though, they simply want listless, passive consumers. They want fuel for their machine and nothing more. They do not want people to think, to dream or to aspire to greatness. Italy is only one example of this but it is a stark one. The republican ruling class has taken a population who are the sons and daughters of the Caesars and taught them to be content with being second-rate, even third or fourth-rate. If this were being done by parents, in a family, people would surely call it child abuse. Forget Augustus and Trajan, forget Legnano, forget Venice and Genoa, forget the Medici, Farnese and all the great houses of the Renaissance, forget the great strides, from Turin to Naples, forget the “fourth shore” and all those who sacrificed there, from those led by Scipio to those led by Graziani, forget the model plantations of Somaliland, forget the great art, the great buildings, the great music and literature. Just watch football on TV, wait for your check and buy yourself something nice. Something “Made in China”. Whatever you do, just don’t show any ambition.

>Not every nation, of course, has the origins of the Roman Empire in their background, but most do have some period, long or short, of greatness that they once achieved. Lithuania, for example, regarded today as a minor Baltic state, overlooked by most, was a force to be reckoned with in the Middle Ages. Lithuania dominated Eastern Europe, controlling an area that stretched all the way from the Baltic to the Black Sea. Bulgaria, after the fall of the Byzantines, was the Bulgarian Empire, dominating the Balkans. They certainly had spirit, they certainly had high morale as when that empire was destroyed, the Bulgars did not lapse into apathetic acceptance. They strapped on their armor, fought back and built the Second Bulgarian Empire which again dominated the Balkans. They had what it takes to do great things and the blood in their veins was no different than that which flows in the veins of Bulgarians today. I look at most of the nations of the western world today and I want to shake them by their collective collars and shout, “YOU’RE BETTER THAN THIS!” What would your ancestors think of you if they could see you now?

>One of the many southern European countries known for being in particularly bad shape economically is Portugal. Some take a fatalistic view of the situation but I do not. A cousin of mine is of Portuguese ancestry and she has a work ethic that would put the Puritans to shame. Portugal, yes, is a relatively small country but consider how it started. It had to fight for its liberation from Moorish rule and then, despite having relatively little land, a small population and few resources, Portugal still had ambition, still had a vision. They took risks, they tried new things and they became the leader in exploration, cartography, navigation and global trade. They built an empire that stretched from Brazil, all around Africa, the Middle East, India, Southeast Asia and East Asia. They controlled virtually every major trade route and became the wealthiest country in Europe. The Kingdom of Portugal did all of that and the Kingdom of Portugal started with far less than what the Portuguese Republic has today. We know what great things were possible because they actually did them. There can be no excuse for settling for mediocrity with so many great achievements in your past.

>Unfortunately, the fact that a few countries have allowed their kings to still live in their palaces and still call them kings, does not make them immune from this republican mentality, this socialist dependency and consumerist apathy. Monarchies in which the monarchs have been virtually taken prisoner by the ruling class often have the same affliction and none seems worse off than the nominal Kingdom of Sweden. The Swedes, at this rate, may well go down in history as the first nation to actually die from political correctness. It doesn’t have to be this way. Sweden does not have to be the way it is now. The Kingdom of Sweden, the Christian heirs of the Vikings, once dominated northern Europe. In fact, for a brief time, the King of Sweden dominated most of eastern as well as northern Europe. The Swedes once had the audacity to fight Russia and more than once the Swedes won wars against mighty Russia. They made the Baltic Sea a Swedish lake and played a decisive role in European, even world affairs. And what did they have to begin with? Again, they were a country with little useful land, a small population, few to no resources and had much more powerful neighbors like the Germans and the Russians, yet they still proved capable of great things. We know what Swedes can do and as long as the Swedes are Swedes, there is no reason they cannot be great again.

>I will not go on at length like this but it is all the more frustrating because I easily could. Russia, Poland, Hungary, Austria, Germany, Denmark, The Netherlands, Belgium, Great Britain, France, Spain and so on. Each has a similar story in this regard. Each one has been far, far greater than what they are now. Each one is capable of so much more than what they have been coddled into accepting in this present year. In the past, the liberals and even the socialists claimed that under each of their systems, the people would be delivered from poverty and they would then be free to pursue greater things. It was a lie. Credit capitalism or socialism as you please, hardly any country these days is not a combination of the two, the result of freedom from poverty has not been the freedom to pursue greatness but a dull, sullen, sickeningly contented apathy. Which is not to say that there are none who struggle in our modern world, far from it, but generally speaking more people today live on some sort of government assistance than at any time previously and as long as they have their bread and circuses, their government cheese and their cable TV, their only concern is not losing that rather than trying to gain something more.

>This is not surprising given who is in control of what people are taught, what they see and hear on a daily basis. In the past, people took great risks, tried new things, struck out into unknown seas, for the chance of fortune and glory and to bring salvation to the heathens. Today, however, those who did this are shamed, vilified and their motivations have been stripped from the modern populace. The desire for profit is terrible, we are told (though the ones doing the telling seem to profit a great deal), very out of step with our egalitarian ideals. To convert the heathen is likewise a monstrous notion, we are told, for the only ones who do not defame Christianity among our current elite are the ones who say that St Paul got it all wrong and that Christianity is not about converting others to save their souls but accepting the heathens as they are and not doing anything to change them or make them feel in the least bit challenged or uncomfortable. The republican mentality has drained the morale of people everywhere, created an infantile society more servile than any that bowed, kneeled or kowtowed to a prince. The republic has drained away the motivation and the inspiration of once great peoples. Is it any wonder they are now dying off in record numbers?

Credit to fascists for trying to dress interesting enough. Sometimes I believe fascists attempt to take the vigor of monarchical dress code and reproduce it into a national design.

In other words, most people I talk with are afraid. They dislike any striking or aggressive dress that resembles anyone. When it comes to the concept of a monarchy, it is always the fear of having a hypothetical, aggressive monarch and any potential for national regrowth and spirit. It supplants this custom with republican mediocrity.

>>3972

EU isn't a republic, it's a cabal oligarchy.

'Murrica is plutocratic degenerated republic.

>>4011

No, it is a republic. It is the epitome of why we hate republicanism. The EU is an oligarchic, usurping republic that seeks authority over nations. It is seeking a pan-European state. It is a monstrosity, I agree. However, pal, this is what MM warns with republicanism. The moment the ideal of choosing leaders becomes viable and legitimate through social contract, the moment the leaders begin to determine choosing their people as a mandate of totalitarian control. It is when civic pride and civic idealism breaks over the traditional and legitimate authority of monarchy – that was of blood, paternal authority, and familial heritage. Yes, it isn't a government for a nation, power over nations. Speaking of which, we really need an anti-EU/EU hate thread going. This is something we can all embrace.

>>3972

>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.

I can't say the same for other nations, but that is ENTIRELY the point of the president of the US. Even the title was chosen specifically to be humbling, as it was the least important sounding name for the presiding official that they could think of at the time. The position was never meant to have as much power as it does now. Since it has gained such power, it's very likely that it created copycats who associate the name and look with what a powerful individual should look like. I agree with you, it's incredibly dull.

>>4027

Republicanism as a foreign ideology. Not legitimate in the sense of Romanbooism. Not legitimate for classical republics. The republican ideal composed of the Enlightenment and rationalist period. The foreign republicanism based off ideals and anthropology testimonies of the noble savage and starting a clean slate for society. It holds contempt for all traditional authority and all legitimacy. Christian/Pagan, destructive across the entire board, republicanism of sheer ideological temptation. It emancipates itself through the destruction of all spiritual hierarchy and culture. It writhes in its pool of consummation and breeds utopia.

>>4046

>how does your response actually answer the question?

It is a clarification.

>I am sorry I'm being so harsh, but it might behoove you to learn how to speak to a wider audience. Your ideas might be important, but the standard person out there only has so much patience for trying to "parse through your genius," and the standard channer even less so.

Just because you don't understand me, doesn't mean it isn't understood somewhere else. Personally, I find a lot of people on this board coming from different ideological backgrounds. Whether it be from /fascist/ or /liberty/ and I mostly try to reconcile both with /monarchy/ as independent from these two. I have a sense of my audience. I only disagree and don't stand for tit-for-tat argumentation.

>>3972

> with sometimes an ideology pin and the portraits of their dear leaders

>>4022

… No it isn't. The EU parliament has no real power, the EU commission rules. It's similar to the FED in the US in terms of structure, because the same global cabal rules after having removed the Monarchs in WW1, and defeated the 'reactionaries' in WW2.

Now we have an global oligarchy organised around control of the issuance of currency rather than emergent from the family structure like the old Monarchical and Feudal systems. Although perhaps the Redsheild plan of a Zionist world Empire is nearing completion, they just need the future King in the UK to be born from one of their own. Clearly though such an Empire would not be in the name of protecting the British people though, and so according to monarchical law, would be null and void.

But I agree that even a true republic like the USA in the years before the Civil War can only last so long before destroying itself. The monarchies of Europe however had the choice not to engage in fratricidal war. Indeed, ties of marriage could have eventually unified Europe peacefully.

>>4191

>it's not real republicanism, anon

I wouldn't be happy if they became 'true republics'.

>defeated the 'reactionaries' in WW2

It's actually the Armies of Mordor. Learn your history, anon. Love > Hate.

>issuance of currency rather than familial structure

It's not about a global cabal. It is about liberty, fraternity, and equality. It is about ideologies. It is about international human rights evolving from human rights. It is about representation. These republican ideals have been used against you to the fullest extent. Rulers rule – you are correct.

>they just need the future King in the UK

Makes no sense. They already removed other kings. Zionists could subvert bloodlines. They are more concerned about mongrelizing it rather than infiltrating it.

>The monarchies of Europe however had the choice not to engage in fratricidal war

WW1 was a tragedy and Tsar Nicholas II and Kaiser Wilhelm II had testimonies not happy about entering the war themselves and sought to avoid it. It's not the (((Herman Bernstein))) story, as you cut it, that the monarchs were just incompetent and emotional.

>fratricidal war

WW2 was a fratricidal war. What happened to the pacifists from WW1 who wanted peace in WW2? In the US, they were told to be quiet and support the war.

>unified Europe peacefully

Utopian pacificism and fear is the smokescreen they use. The EU as a whole, commission and parliament – it's republican and part of the destruction. There is nothing valuable being subverted here.