[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / random / 93 / biohzrd / hkacade / hkpnd / tct / utd / uy / yebalnia ]

/monarchy/ - STOP THINKING LIKE REPUBLICANS

They're just LARPing, right?...right???

Name
Email
Subject
REC
STOP
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
Archive
* = required field[▶Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Oekaki
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webp,webm, mp4, mov, pdf
Max filesize is16 MB.
Max image dimensions are15000 x15000.
You may upload4 per post.


IN CASE 8CHAN IS DOWN: http://txti.es/monarchy FOR NEWS ABOUT WHERE TO REGROUP

File: 360f20a441e0c6b⋯.jpg (8.11 KB,501x585,167:195,35973318_1768299019882683_….jpg)

 No.4564

I've been pondering on this idea for a while now. While I am an avid monarchist, and have zero respect for democracy, I am concerned that the purely libertarian 'possession'-based idea of monarchy is a bit too easy to subvert by (((them))). After all, royal marriages of Kings, Dukes etc. in the olden days were ones of political power, with little regard for the nationality of the spouse or her family's lineage, and sometimes with no regard for the nationality of the King (e.g. Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth comes to mind straight away). This means that powerful investors, bankers and speculators who, despite coming form an aristocratic family with powerful connections, would in no way benefit the volk of the nation as they would ultimately be driven by their own greed and end goals of subversion. Society would be very much at risk these days in particular, since most rich people with aristocratic backgrounds have come in contact with the globalist Jewry at some point, and even those who have never been heard of (for example, Emanuel Macron, supposedly a nobody entering politics yet possessing an aristocratic etiquette and approach, but in reality a businessman with a past of deals and acquaintances with the Rothschilds) have some dirty history behind them.

National Socialism seemed to have fixed this, in a sense. It held firm in authority, with a centralised chain of command where the Furher could be likened to a King or Emperor, and his advisors, the King's court. The difference is that instead of going HAM on the idea of private property, it instead cultivated the idea of a strong identity, where every man could claim Germany as his own, the nation being shared in the volk. Every man, regardless of his position in society, could celebrate his nation's culture, past, tradition, and yet still, the real power was held in a tightly-regulated chain of command. It gave people a sense of unity, and very much held up that idea through the Hitler-jugend, the League of German Girls and many social programmes that helped people build a sense of national and racial unity.

In a certain sense, you could see the Reich as an extremely centralised Empire. The Fuhrer, whose will to act came as a blessing from God, was the overseer of his Empire, the guardian of his people; a man who stood in the trenches of the western front and looked death in the eye, defying him at every turn. He earned his position of power; he fought for what he believed in, and was ready to die for it. He was worthy of being the shepherd guiding his sheep. Other great soldiers and men received prestigious powers; command of armies or became governors of lands, though they didn't own it as their own, and the Fuhrer could revoke it as he pleased, having ultimate say in the land, serving his people as best he could.

I believe that bringing back feudalism in the 21st century would be opening the doors for the jews, allowing them and (((unrelated))) offshoots, bearing millions in cash entry into royal families, but a national socialist monarchy, with a monarch who owns all, and dukes, counts etc. being no more than viceroyals, appointed and revocable by the monarch would be the perfect mix of the two systems, as it would make sure that no aristocrat with land granted by birthright lives off of his titles, but has to work or face immediate revocation and the wrath of the monarch. It would also mean that nation is more than just a concept of allegiance to lineage, but allegiance to a race, a culture, a faith and past that is written in stone.

____________________________
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.4571

File: 52105bba80c2742⋯.jpg (51.33 KB,472x570,236:285,29d0eefd75d9fe5c0f1571e91a….jpg)

It would sound ideal. The problem is, to put national socialism with monarchy, a few things need to be dealt with. Stance on aristocracy? National socialism is much more democratic with regard to the interests of the race. Stance on monarchy? In meritocratic terms, the monarchy is sometimes insufficient and sometimes very proficient. In the world today, I cannot imagine a national socialist monarchy. The world today is the product of WW2 and that came at the defeat of the Third Reich. There will be few monarchs already. Everything is already being subverted and even remaining monarchies have this problem. Then a monarchy has to be "thrown out" for betraying the nation. This is a problem that constantly bumps heads.

>national socialism

I can easily reconcile monarchy with fascism, libertarianism, and blah any other thing, but whether it will actually happen depends. More and more people find less use in being loyal to anyone these days. Nobody has any will to trust another person to do the right thing.

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.4572

>>4571

*Not to mention historical grievances.

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.4574

File: 25708443789c5ab⋯.jpg (16.78 KB,480x360,4:3,hqdefault.jpg)

OP, I'll leave it for you to decide. I think that maybe if the German imperial monarchy was still in place, and the national socialist movement still gained power – there would be a compromise like with Italy – and the two would both remain. It could have gone either way. With the current history, the Kaiser was proud that they took Paris, but unhappy that the national socialist regime wouldn't allow a restoration of the entire imperial regime and aristocracy. These are just grievances and I can say less for what is ideal. What is ideal is frankly not what is practical. We need courage more than anything to do the impossible. I think that while some are open to fascism, national socialism presents an array of compatibility issues due to this. Yet it doesn't break the case.

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.4575

File: 394b6811d387f83⋯.jpg (61.15 KB,611x413,611:413,maurras-academicien.jpg)

How about look into Action Française? They had those things and were equally as disliking of Jews. They had Charles Maurras and a youth wing called Camelots du Roi and a newspaper. The thing I like about them is they were about action. A political party is often devoid of any action besides voting, but a movement is something that sweeps aside the ballot box. I don't ideally like partisanship. What I admire from the National Socialist movement is their organization and structure. But I condemn partisanship lately for being an inadequate response. That's republican mentality. I think present-day national socialists cannot do much because they're also trapped into thinking that if they could just get the vote, they could win and buy into these softcore parties and don't really take any action. That's the problem with partisanship: it takes no courage to cast a vote at the ballot and makes little to none social impact.

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.4589

>>4564

>nationalism

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.4603

>>4571

While I do see your point of the divisions, and conflicts that can come between National Socialist, purely meritocratic rule, and the dynastic ways of the monarchy, (even sometimes I question my true stance on the idea of monarchy, since dynasty doesn't determine capability) I think it could be made to work. Say, for example, if Hitler was to succeed in his goals of expanding Germany, keeping a national socialist economy and society, and got the pope, or given the Germans' Lutheran leanings, some figurehead of the Lutheran church to crown him Kaiser. Say, then, that Hitler had a son with Eva Braun, but as fate would have it, he'd somehow end up being a peace-loving hippie, and succumbed to the lies of social democracy.

If such a thing were to happen in any ruling dynasty, I see a way of preventing disaster. Either, if the King/Emperor/whoever produces another possible heir to grows up to fit the vision of the fatherland (perhaps some ruler's criteria manual/guideline idk), then it is he who inherits. If that doesn't happen, for example if the ruler does not produce a suitable heir or an heir at all, for that matter, then, upon the ruler's death, the title passes down to the ruler's designated regent (yes, I am going to base this off of CK2, fuck off) and his dynasty. This way, the importance of family and dynasty is preserved, as the normal way of passing down titles would be through inheritance. However, in the case of a fuck-up, the ruler's achievements won't be passed down to some cunt who doesn't abide by the vision his forefathers set out on, and instead it will be passed to someone the ruler basically entrusts in carrying on his will if things go tits-up, as is the role of the regent during the ruler's life.

This is my view of aristocracy in general. If the members are of good stock, then they deserve their inheritance. They follow their forefathers' wishes and thus are fit to be rewarded with glory. However, if the heir, or the heir after him (multiply by however amount you want) does not fulfill the criteria, then it can be seen as them throwing away their prestige and lose their claims on said title(s). This way, alongside the idea of all positions below the main monarch being inheritable viceroyalties (revokable at any time by the monarch if deemed appropriate) all vassals are kept in check and any bad fruits are cut off from succession.

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.4605

>>4589

>implying

fuck off, shlomo

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.5350

File: e118148fb7ff580⋯.jpg (761.39 KB,2880x1800,8:5,594248.jpg)

I'm finding myself more and more at odds with the national socialists.

They have failed Germany.

They have revealed faith in only ideology like any other ideological mutt.

They have lost the war, as they proclaimed the Kaiser lost the war.

They have debased the entire people into a partisanship only.

They have failed to reconcile tradition and their new platform for Germany.

>>4564

If most national socialists weren't trying to snuff their views on monarchy, and deviously rejecting dynastic patriotism and the spiritual foundation for monarchy, I would have no problem with them. However, time and time again, the national socialist shows he has no love for 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.5357

>>5350

The Nazis were demotists.

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.5364

>>4564

National socialism is the anti-thesis of monarchy.It has its roots in democracy, and let's not forget that it is socialistic to the core, which means that it disregards hierarchies, and in this case, every racial member of a group counts as the same. That goes against monarchy, because monarchy insinuates that people are not equal, and even citizens of a country are not equal.

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.5365

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
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.5380

>>5365

>IDF

>Not mentioning 'daddy's credit card' from the US

>Not mentioning Israel came to be thanks to the same powers that created the 2nd republic

Thanks for the chuckle, it really made my day 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.5383

>>5380

2nd republic of what?

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.5389

>>5383

2nd republic of Poland (druga rzeczpospolita). I thought it was obvious from the context of the video.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.



[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Random][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / random / 93 / biohzrd / hkacade / hkpnd / tct / utd / uy / yebalnia ]