No.4103
What does /monarchy/ think about local democracy? The kings would still make laws for the whole country, but the local autonomy would be exercised by the people of the town/region. Is it a good idea, or is democracy at any level unacceptable?
____________________________
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.4104
It sounds like a good compromise for a monarchy to have regal authority at the highest office and for municipalities/gubernatorial bodies to form. A federation that distributes autonomy between kingdoms within an empire, like the Deutsches Kaiserrech, sounds ideal. This could divide between popular and aristocratic grounds. This aristocracy is best of virtue and mannerism towards the state to benefit the monarchy, and the local autonomy to the benefit of different peoples around. It is a good idea as long as it doesn't become partisan, and that the localities stay regional rather than nation-wide pursuits. If democratic whims are contained to smaller regions, it is less destructive to pull apart a nation. And with the benefit of an aristocracy, there is a hierarchy to unify them around the monarchy for their local culture and also their entire sovereignty.
Charles Maurras repeats a phrase, "Authority above, and liberty below." I paraphrase… It sounds consistent with this. If there is a way to give people a spirit for local government, it might benefit a people more than if they had national elections. It leaves localities to sort themselves without others infringing. Then you have the traditional authority of monarchy to answer as sovereigns. If civic interests remain there and the familial interest of monarchy becomes an anchor for national unity, it might be most beneficial of all. It's win-win.
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.4105
>>4104
On second note, this isn't my case for mixed government. I think the states should all be monarchies and overall a monarchy. It's just a way to balance aristocracy and democracy somewhere along the line.
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.4106
>>4103
Democracy has the potential to work in extremely homogeneous settings where people have very similar outlooks and levels of intelligence. That's why it persists even in some areas of the private sector, such as the executive boards of large companies. So long as the residents of a town are homogeneous in this way, and thanks to people's tendency to self-segregate they usually are, making community decisions through democratic means isn't the worst thing in the world, and I can see why some small towns would adopt it. I don't think "local democracy" would see anything like universal adoption, however.
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.4107
>>4103
I'm all for local communities like towns and villages having a Burgomaster/headman. Local leaders are necessary, and an election of some sort is a fairly good way to ensure these are actually respected by the people, unless you want to have a country overrun with low-level knights sitting in every village.
Regions though should be governed by an aristocrat, be a it a baron, count or what have you. Otherwise you run the danger of making the king de-facto dependent on some elected officials, in which case you'd have a parliamentary monarchy in a mask.
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.4126
>>4105
i see it differently
every group of people should have right to voluntarily subject themselves to any king they want
monarchy should not be coercive
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.4156
You mean…how the Dutch Republic used to work?
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.4420
Found an indirect source on the Russian Empire.
https://www.sott.net/article/291745-Book-review-A-History-of-Central-Banking-and-the-Enslavement-of-Mankind
>Russian economic prosperity and growth commenced at the liberation of the serfs by Alexander II in 1861. Serfs under state control had been freed earlier by Tsar Nicholas I. As is quite often the case, the most autocratic of monarchs were the only ones confident enough to pass legislation in the interests of the peasants. Unlike the liberation of Austrian serfs or the freeing of American slaves, Russian serfs were emancipated with land. The state compensated the eternally indebted nobility and, over time, the peasant was to repay the state. The payments were very low and Tsar Alexander III canceled them altogether. This was just one more nail in the nobility's coffin.
>Russian serfs had never been slaves. Serfdom, a reaction to the Swedish and Polish invasions of the 17th century, affected only southern peasants in the black earth regions. It never existed in the north nor in Siberia. In central Russia, it affected only serfs required to perform labor dues, but by the 1840s, most peasants paid money rent, which meant they were tenants rather than serfs. Serfdom in Russia really meant the guarantee of peasant land ownership and, at the same time, the assurance of noble incomes as they served the state, usually in a military capacity. Since everyone served someone, the system was balanced. Under Tsar Paul and his mother Catherine II, the nobles were liberated from state service and, as a result, became politically sterile.
>Peasants had full self-government in the commune, where all posts were elected. The volost, or county government was also wholly elected, with equal representation for all classes. The court system both at the volost and commune level was supported on pure peasant democracy. Communal judges were exclusively peasants, and volost courts had two noble and two peasant representatives. For the most part, Russian nobles were fiscally worse off than the peasantry, drowning in debt and long released from any useful work. They had little to do but buy expensive western luxuries they could not afford. The peasant commune had the right to nullify federal law, and was generally self-sufficient in economics and social life. If anything, tsarist Russia suffered from excess democracy.
>In 1861, the volost was replaced by the zemstvo, a county administration with a lower house of peasants and an upper house of nobles, usually poor to middling in wealth. The zemstvo was in charge of education, infrastructure, church life, tax collection and police. There was no part of peasant life that was not based on local democracy. A "land captain," usually a poor noble, was elected to mediate conflicts between peasants and nobles, and sometimes, peasants would go to the captain if he had a beef with the commune or the zemstvo authorities.
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.4421
>Hence, the freedom of the serfs and the creation of a free press, the zemstvo and an endless array of educational improvements put a bullet in the revolutionary movement, almost entirely financed from Britain. Seeing this as intolerable, Alexander II was assassinated for his trouble in 1881. His son, Alexander III, continued his father's reform programs but, being a man of immense size and strength, smashed the revolutionaries, rendering them ineffective until his premature death in 1894.
>Tsar Alexander III established the Peasant Land Bank in the early 1880s, which gave interest-free loans to peasants and sought to channel investment money into agricultural improvement. Tsar Alexander and his finance minister, Nikolai Bunge, drafted and passed the most comprehensive labor regulations in European history. His son, Nicholas II, continually added to them until the outbreak of World War I.
>In labor relations the Russians were pioneers. Child labor was abolished over 100 years before it was abolished in Great Britain in 1867. Russia was the first industrialized country to pass laws limiting the hours of work in factories and mines. Strikes, which were forbidden in the Soviet Union, were permitted and minimal in Czarist times. Trade union rights were recognized in 1906, while an Inspectorate of Labor strictly controlled working conditions in factories. In 1912 social insurance was introduced. Labor laws were so advanced and humane that President William Taft of the United States was moved to say that "the Emperor of Russia has passed workers' legislation which was nearer to perfection than that of any democratic country." The people of all races in the Russian Empire had an equality of status and opportunity, which was unparalleled in the modern world. His Imperial Majesty Czar Nicholas II (1894-1917) and his state bank had created a worker's paradise that was unrivaled in the history of mankind.
>There is no mystery here. The equally autocratic German emperor passed similar legislation a bit later. In both cases, economic growth in both agriculture and industry averaged 15% yearly. Population growth boomed, and, in the Russian case, peasants were given free land and tools in lush, southern Siberia (not the frozen north) for the sake of colonizing this vast empty location about twice the size of the US. By 1905, 90% of Russian arable land was in the hands of peasants. No other industrialized society could match this. Peasants were buying noble land in massive quantities as Russia, at the same time, was almost completely self-sufficient in her production and resources. Her domestic market accounted for almost 99% of her production, and she needed nothing from abroad. All she received from the west was ideology.
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.4422
>The Rothschild alliance was created in retaliation for Russian success. It was based on financing Turkey, the Turkish tribes of the Russian south, Persia, and, most menacing of all, Japan. The colonial Turkish occupation of the Balkans was given the Rothschild's seal of approval since, without Turkey, pro-Russian states like Serbia and Bulgaria would fill the vacuum. The British press praised the Turks as liberators from "Orthodox superstition" and held the Russians to be "Mongols" whose "fangs" must be kept out of the Balkans.
>Russia helped finance Bulgaria and Serbia, and sought to unify China once the Manchu state fell. With an indirect protectorate over Tibet and the addition of the literate and urbanized Georgian state, an unstable balance of power between the banker's paradise and the worker's paradise was reached. Unfortunately, Japan was a much better bet than China. Russia supported Afghanistan against England in the Anglo-Afghan war of 1879-1880, but this was not as significant as the recreation of Japan under the auspices of the Royal Navy.
>Had Russia not been a party to World War I, what might the world look like as a result? A realistic scenario could look like this: The exploding Russian population would have inhabited all Siberia and parts of Central Asia. She would have taken the Balkans and Constantinople, quite possibly with Germany's approval. This would have permitted Russia's domination of most of the Middle East, or at least her position as chief guardian of the Orthodox Greeks and Arabs.
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.4423
I used to have good sources detailing the Russian Empire as innovative. I don't have them anymore, unfortunately, peasant anons.
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.4426
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.4430
>>4103
I think democracy can only be acceptable within the family or extended family. The family is the basis of 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.4431
>>4430
So, perhaps the people of a feudal territory could elect their lord's successor from among his/her children, or if none exist, siblings.
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.4449
>>4422
>Had Russia not been a party to World War I, what might the world look like as a result? A realistic scenario could look like this: The exploding Russian population would have inhabited all Siberia and parts of Central Asia. She would have taken the Balkans and Constantinople, quite possibly with Germany's approval. This would have permitted Russia's domination of most of the Middle East, or at least her position as chief guardian of the Orthodox Greeks and Arabs.
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.4453
>>4449
That's what you lose out on when you support Bolshevism.
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.4460
>>4453
I don't support Bolshevism, peasant.
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.4472
>>4460
Didn't imply that, smh.
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.4473
The Bolsheviks miss out on many things. Their heroic ideals for leadership? They support this sniveling rat, pic related. They would rather worship their academic toads and mediocre leaders with their worker memo speeches.
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.4514
>>4423
Don't have sources, but here's some factoids:
>for 17 of the 25 years before WWI Russian economy was the fastest growing in the world
>By WWI's beginning Russia had surpassed France as the 4th largest industrial power
>If it were around today the Russian monarchy would have scored in the top 20 in the Economic Freedom Index and would have been one of the best countries in the world to live.
https://mises.org/wire/how-communism-survived-thanks-capitalist-technology
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.4515
>>4514
I also need to get my facts together, I read in some book that the country was industrializing fast, that it had the most number of horses per person at the time, and also produced enough ammunition for WWI, the Civil War, and some leftover for WWII. Not to mention advances in science and the rocket research later used by the commies.
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.4520
>>4515
>also produced enough ammunition for WWI, the Civil War, and some leftover for WWII
Then in WWII, the Bolsheviks had so thoroughly wrecked the country's productive capacity that the US was supplying the Soviets with 40% of their lead and 25% of their foodstuff. And that's for the whole country, not just the Red Army. Every second shot that the commies fired, in other words, was supplied by the burgers.
>Not to mention advances in science and the rocket research later used by the commies.
Oh yeah, this is a big one. You look at technical specs of anything relating to rocketry, and all of the specialist parts have either Russian or German names.
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.4524
>>4514
I'll go read into it. Unfortunately, I knew a site with a bunch of good statistics and data relating to coal production and general information on industrialization. The biggest folly people presume with the Imperial Russia is that it was reactionary backwater and nothing was happening there. They ignore a wide array of innovations and Russian achievements made in the past for their Progressivism.
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.5101
>>4106
this tbh.
what people call "democracy" is extremely dangerous in multi-racial settings. People forget about the "racial vote".
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.5105
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.5116
>>5105
It's not hard. Men are loyal to their kin over non-kin. A race is just a large family.
You can get a White man to provide for his kids, his sister's kids, and his cousins. You won't get a White man to provide for Jamal Jabongo and his hordes of bastards (at least without the proper propaganda).
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.5118
>>5116
yes you are right
however i dont want to support both cumskins and shitskins
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.5123
>>5118
Doesn't matter. The mongrelized societies in the modern world are at war with nature. Deny the importance of blood.
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.5127
>>5123
so if a cumskin wants to fuck a shitskin it is against nature? xD
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.5129
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.5139
>>5127
Consider how widespread hostility towards miscegenation is and lack of it among high-quality Whites (it's not the high-status males who fixate on Jap porn and not the best, most thin, non-dysfunctional who get into porn to fuck Jabongo).
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.5148
>>5129
bestiality occurs in nature so is natural
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.