No.457
Yo, in your ideal monarchy, who would you want as king?
Me? I'd pick this guy.
____________________________
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.458
>>457
>who would you want as king
>who would you want
doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose?
Kings who are chosen by the people based on their simplest desires are nothing more than dictators who just go on to manifest the lowest traits of the general population and toss all nobility to the wind.
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.486
>>457
I want a king capable of earning the crown
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.530
>>458
Nonsense.
Or rather, that would be a really shitty monarchy.
For me, point of Monarchy isn't that it doesn't give the people a choice but rather "demo"cracy doesn't give people a choice. Monarchy lets the mighty and brave choose the king, while the lazy stay irrelevant. Would you want Mao to be king? How far would you be willing to go to dethrone such a king?
You choose the king by helping him and recognizing his authority. You choose an alternative by revolution or assasination.
If you cannot win the revolution, and the king's death is not worth your life then maybe you don't deserve your will to be done.
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.536
>>530
I think you're missing the point. The question is does the king have his rights regardless of whether the people "want" him or not. The right answer is yes, the king has the right to kingship even if he has a 98% disapproval and the people's obligation is to humble themselves and respect his right. If a king needs to have the overwhelmingly approval of the people, rather than simply their passive acceptance, prior to assuming his authority as king, and must be someone the general population "likes", then that's not really 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.538
>>536
I disagree. Monarchy is the hereditary rule of a single person. But authority is a spook. People should only hold it up as long as it brings mutual benefit. If the monarch is a tyrant then the people have no obligation to acknowledge his authority or any "rights".
Why should people meekly accept the authority of a tyrant? Would you want to be stomped on by some parasite and have your country run into the ground just because of semantics and tradition? If a king has a 98% disapproval rate then he should pull his head in. Otherwise he better hope that he and his 2% can go toe-to-toe against the other 98%.
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.540
>>538
>Why should people meekly accept the authority of a tyrant? Would you want to be stomped on by some parasite and have your country run into the ground just because of semantics and tradition? If a king has a 98% disapproval rate then he should pull his head in. Otherwise he better hope that he and his 2% can go toe-to-toe against the other 98%.
If you actually believe this, then you aren't really a monarchist at all. The right monarchist response is that the people are to accept the king's right regardless of whether he is a just ruler or a tyrant out of respect for his right which has been given to him usually in some sense by God. The common folk are not to rebel and create disorder and chaos in the land just because their king is incompetent or tyrannical, but should pray for the king to be guided on the right path and not be a burden on him and those of high rank but noble character should attempt to advise and convince him to do what is right and just. Only in the case where the monarch's claim to kingship itself can be questioned on the basis of the principles of lawful inheritance and divine appointment should the people be allowed to rebel and that only at the request of someone who is a lawful heir.
The monarchist ultimately believes that the tyranny of the masses that results from allowing them to choose their own leaders according to their own lower needs and wants or by allowing them to just rebel whenever something or someone happens to displease them is far worse.
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.543
>>540
I don't give a shit about your definitions. Or your nameless god.
Monarchy, as I define it, does not conflict with my ideal system or worldview. If, by your definitions, I am not a monarchist then so be it, but that doesn't matter: You don't get to tell me, as a monarchist, what I believe.
To me, what you describe sounds like a soft theocracy. Or rather a constitutional theocracy as by law power belongs to your nameless god who elects and dethrones rulers himself. Your system is really just one step away from the theocracies of Egypt and China.
But words and definitions are not what's important here. Semantics aside, your system is shit and its premise is incorrect. What you propose is to reduce humanity to cattle: You strip them of their independance, their ambitions, their freedom to live as they wish and even their self-preservation on both the individual and social level! You seek to completely deny the individual and literally transform the entire population into slaves for the ruling class. To placate them, you would have them mutter into the ground and hope for a deus ex machina every time things get bad. This is nothing more than a religious version of what "demo"cracy does, where every time things get bad, the people are expected to just dump a piece of paper into a box and hope that this jackbooted zionist degenerate is different somehow, and he's not part of the machine. They accomplish nothing while their country burns down.
And there is simply no evidence that people having a say in how they are ruled will results in worse tyranny than an unopposed dictator.
Athens failed because people submitted to the idiotic rulings of the poorfags.
No communist nation won due to popularity: They all succeeded due to betrayal, weak existing leaders and/or external funding.
Modern "demo"cracies have nothing to do with the will of the masses.
USA was a lovely place for most of its history and grew fast partly due to its freedom.
Switzerland is still excellent.
But when the people are totally obedient slaves that cannot resist, all sorts of horrors happen.
Japanese lords abused the shit out of their civilians, especially when one lord got into a squabble with another.
Bokassa destroyed his country out of pride.
How would things be if Count Elizabeth Barothy was Queen Elizabeth Barothy?
Every communist dictatorship ruled unopposed, the way you suggest.
Monarchism, the way I propose it, gives the people the power to change things where democracy does not, since it reduces the formless ruling class into a single tangible person and strips away all pacifying delusions, so the people are left to ask themselves: "Is this reform I want really worth the risk?". Nobody is going to risk their lives to make the king accept gay marriages. Plenty will take up arms against a serial killer queen. The monarch knows this, so he will always listen and usually try to be reasonable, benevolent and competant.
Also, its a bit audaceous to call the people a burdon toward the theft-funded king, don't you think?
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.625
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.657
>>457
me because im not a cuck
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.687
>>543
>I don't give a shit about your definitions.
You cannot communicate effectively if you do not understand what the words mean. If you cannot communicate effectively, you aren't really a part of your society. So why should anyone listen to your angry, pathological rantings?
>Monarchism, the way I propose it
You never stated what you actually propose. You only stated the advantages of what you proposed. That is a tactic of someone who wants to be able to change their stance without others noticing.
>…it reduces the formless ruling class into a single tangible person and strips away all pacifying delusions, so the people are left to ask themselves: "Is this reform I want really worth the risk?". Nobody is going to risk their lives to make the king accept gay marriages. Plenty will take up arms against a serial killer queen. The monarch knows this, so he will always listen and usually try to be reasonable, benevolent and competant.
You are assuming the monarch does not have a competent army of good size. A quick look at 20c history should demonstrate that a government with enough soldiers can be absolutely evil for a considerable length of time. Best Korea and Cuba are good examples. Those governments outlived the men who founded them.
Incidentally the rulers who followed were closely related to the ones who preceded. Monarchocommunisms?
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.975
>>687
>You cannot communicate effectively if you do not understand what the words mean. If you cannot communicate effectively, you aren't really a part of your society.
Alright, let me rephrase:
Playing the "yOu'rE nOT a REal MOnaRcHiSt!1!!!" game is nothing more than pedantry and accomplishes nothing. Instead of bickering about the proper definitions of "Monarchism" and "Monarchist", we should instead be discussing the merits of our respective ideas of what we call "Monarchism".
>You never stated what you actually propose. You only stated the advantages of what you proposed.
You are correct that I did not write a big manifesto, but what I did mention was differences in our opinions on Monarchism such as:
>the current systems that call themselves "Democracy" give people less choice about how they as individuals live their lives, and make the ruling class less accountable than was the case in monarchist countries, thus making it redundant as these were the points on which Democracy was proposed over Monarchism
>authority is nothing objective; you yourself are your only rightful master and you choose who you consider to be your leader
>as such, there is no reason beyond your own opinions and the right of might that you should recognize the authority of any person or organization claiming authority over you
>thus, if you consider a self-titled authority to be illegitimate then you may resist by any means you consider reasonable meaning that if the harm caused is great you will take great risks and do big actions while if it really doesn't matter then you won't really do anything
The original picture I posted was of one of my favorite historical figures, Otoya Yamaguchi. He represents what I'm saying here perfectly: The risks that the Communist Party brought to Japan were absolutely intolerable. So Yamaguchi assassinated him on live television by driving a wakazashi through his chest. This would have inevitably cost Yamaguchi his life as if he did not commit suicide in his cell as he did then he would have been killed for the murder or worse. But his action literally killed Communism in Japan so in his eyes that was absolutely worth it. Monarchism means that people can choose how their country is run, but the extremeness and thus effectiveness of their actions will always be directly proportional to how important the issue is, meaning that only important actions will be taken.
So all in all, what I "proposed" is Monarchism, but less delusional, dehumanizing and pedantic than the tradcuck "DEHVEIN REIGHT TUH ROOL" idea. Perhaps I chose the wrong word and for that I apologize.
>That is a tactic of someone who wants to be able to change their stance without others noticing.
Or somebody who thinks that reality is more important than ideals so he doesn't waste his time with additional hamfisted nonsense.
>You are assuming the monarch does not have a competent army of good size. A quick look at 20c history should demonstrate that a government with enough soldiers can be absolutely evil for a considerable length of time. Best Korea and Cuba are good examples. Those governments outlived the men who founded them.
An army cannot stop a bullet. Or even a wakazashi.
Besides, that army needs to eat. The horrors of the 20th Century were caused by none other than gun control. If every civilian is armed and ready to fight, then a tyrant is going to have a hard time oppressing them especially when the soldiers are underfed, underfunded and uncomfortable with the idea of killing their own 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.1198
>>458
>doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose?
I interpret it as
>Who, in your opinion shows the traits most suitable for an absolute ruler
In such case, either the first one getting back from the dead, or Grzegorz Braun.
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.1199
>>1198
>Piłsudski
>nie Dmowski
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.1251
>>1199
>d*mocrat
>in a country where third of the people are "minorities"
>Ruined talks in Japan because why bother making exotic alliances for independence
>y'all cowards don't even eat live fish
>Political program isn't about beating whores and thieves
>Doesn't BTFO human rights serfs by saying "raz się skurwisz kurwą pozostaniesz" which debunks the presumption as if human dignity is inviolable
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.1270
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.1291
>>1251
>>1270
t. Schlomo Goldberg
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.1295
>>1291
ozjasz goldber should be poland's 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.1298
>>1291
>If we kicked off all the jews the nobility wouldn't be irredemable retards, fuck jews and fuck Hitler,
>partitions weren't caused by democracy, but the Jews!
>we'll have democracy in a country where a quarter of population doesn't speak Polish and a third isn't ethnically Polish!
>we'll have democracy when our neighbor is Weimar and Soviet Union!
>Russia dindu nuffins, they took least valuable land in partitions anyways
>>1295
>1%?
>Your odds of survival, punk.
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.1305
>>1298
>king
>elected democratically
kys
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.1308
>>1305
What?
I was quoting National Democrats' ideas, maybe i should've used
<fagposting
instead.
I hate democracy.
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.1310
>>538
>the right monarchist response is that the people are to accept the king's right regardless of whether he is a just ruler or a tyrant
So long as the king accepts other people's rights regardless of his fee-feels and pedigree and pomp.
Like, you know, the right of property. Or right to live.
Absolute monarchs are usurpers who had the guillotine coming for them. Same as a commoner couldn't commit treason against the king because he never saw the king, much less agreed to a contract with him. Now if the aristocracy rented king's lands and forsake their obligation in pay for rent, that's another question entirely.
But picking a random dude with/out a pedigree and giving him some privileges because reasons, with no property to back it up, is backwards thinking.
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.1348
Nigel Farage would be a great King of England
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.1350
>>1348
Not a chance. He would fail to unite all of Western German Europe under Saxon rule on principle of it being a union of sorts.
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.1440
>>457
Who is he in your picture?
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.1442
The man with the noblest blood and the strongest will.
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.1468
>>1442
And are former special force veteran.
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.1865
Me. I have all the good ideas and I see too many idiots around me. In all seriousness though, with a decent group of advisers I believe I could do quite a good job plus a dynasty/legacy would be cool to have.
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.3898
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>457
Incredibly militaristic, charismatic and ruthless like Mael Radec.
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.3907
>>1310
>>975
>>538
This unabated liberal nonsense. Such insufferable faggots were on this board. Not even social contract theorists think this way.
>percentages of popularity
>monarchISM
>muh property and muh ideology
>right to live
What autism.
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.3908
>>1310
Anarchists who think that the medieval era belongs to them are insane. They spite divine right and absolutism. Medieval mentality propagated this mentality and didn't believe in anarchism and rootless ideologies.
>social contract theory
>agree
>monarchy
That isn't even social contract theory according to absolutist social contract theorists. This isn't divine right. This is nonsense.
>king accepts other people's rights
<implying the king doesn't have a right and isn't a sovereign
<implying those rights don't fulfill the same premise and correlate with the justice of divine right
<implying this nonsense doesn't persist on the same ground
Lastly, social contract theory is about total consent, from Hobbes' doctrine, not a percentage. Whether a peasant is ignorant of that justice or knowledgeable doesn't matter in his chapter on Commonwealth.
<but muh property
<we can kill the king because of his right to defend our right
Authority is a mandate of justice. And justice is imposed. Rights don't matter without justice. And without any notion of honor, nobody is going to respect rights. The Medieval period was an age of chivalry and honor. It wasn't the crybaby era of liberty, international human rights and migrants, and rootless liberalism and republican ideology.
>>540
I respect this anon. These idiots think like republicans and don't comprehend even social contract from the absolutist perspective or the ideal of ruling by the Grace of God from the divine right perspective. They think they are entitled to everything without being responsible for it. They think everything is popular mandate and what they think.
>picking monarchs
These NEETs think they have power to pick monarchs.
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.3909
STOP THINKING LIKE REPUBLICANS
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.3910
A portion of it isn't cancer. >>975 Fending off communism isn't the same as dealing with authority. This is through the lenses of republican ideology and popular mandate – where partisanship and votes are the only source of power. A worthy deed, but not an anti-authoritarian deed, only anti-totalitarian.
>people can pick how their country is run
People don't pick as a whole. People don't pick sovereigns. They receive and they choose whether to consent or not consent. End of story. You can't even get a small group of people to cordially agree so easily.
>authority
Authority is when you receive a system of justice and sovereignty. It brings laws and order and you consent if you recognize it, abide with it, and receive. It comes at the verdict of chance.
>consent
Is whether you choose vigilante justice or not and whether anyone does anything about it with the authority. In the social contract state of nature, everyone has a right to everything and does whatever they want without authority and this is a very liberal state of being without much liberty to live easily. You are in a frenzied box with rabbits jumping around in disorder and infringing on your liberty for their liberty's sake.
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.3917
In that assassin scenario, only the law is being violated. It isn't against the communist's authority (because they don't have it). It is frankly just killing the communists. I have a narrow agreement with that anon. He would be surprised to know his notion of monarchism isn't so far from Divine Right and the providential view. It also involves big risks, people killing and sacrificing their lives, and a divine will. Sometimes people are sent to kill, or sent to punishment either to punish a people or themselves (through their actions). It didn't overall change the authority. That would probably remain. It did scatter the communists, though. The communists are merely a multitude.
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.3919
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.3920
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.