/monarchy/ - STOP THINKING LIKE REPUBLICANS

OP, every day I find myself becoming more and more fatalistic. I kind of think that Western Civilization has to work itself through the Anacyclosis until it eventually finds itself back in an Ancien Régime kind of state. There is no royal road to royalty.

>>645

That's the thing though, how do we know the Anacyclosis will come in a circle eventually?

I may be pessimistic, but i only see western civilization degenerating more and more as we bounce from hedonistic nihilism to ideological madness again and again

And the increasing technological capabilities of today are also making it more and more easy to fall prey to the ills of modernity and more and more difficult to return to the previous order

What if we will end up in some sort of a perfect technocratic dystopia from which there is no escape?

It's quite frustrating you know, after much wondering i find myself an ideal that pretty much addresses most of if not all of my concerns, only to then understand it's nearly impracticable

Still, this is a nice board, i'll keep an eye on it

>>643

in many current european states there is monarchy (netherlands, japan, etc)

>>652

>What if we will end up in some sort of a perfect technocratic dystopia from which there is no escape?

…I sort of wonder if we're in that state already.

>>660

I think there's still digging to do down the rabbit hole, but we're definitely sleepwalking towards it

>>654

I thought it was clear from my OP that i was talking about proper pre-revolutionary monarchy, those that you're talking about are just modern republics under every aspect, except for a symbolic "king" figure that is not even relevant anyway

>>661

What are your thoughts on this exchange of posts:

>>572

>>573

>>574

>>575

>>576

>>577

>>578

>>579

>>580

>>581

?

>>663

I think the guy is getting heated up over nothing, really

It's obvious that when we speak of "monarchy" we don't just refer to the sole monarchic figure, even if that figure still holds some form of executive power like in the belgian example, but more broadly to the whole societal order prior to the revolutionary frenzy inspired by the enlightenment and its egalitarian world view

Weirdly enough that order could theoretically also be brought on by a republic, the only example that comes to my mind would be Switzerland, which being one of the few examples of pre-revolutionary republic was saved from some of the most destructive forces of the rampant revolutionary fervor and so was able to mantain some aspects of the previous system, such as the administrative decentralization of the cantons, but ultimately they too had to surrender to the modern paradigm of equality and democracy

But in the end those were rare cases and i would trust a monarchy more

As for the Magna Carta i don't really know, i don't think some sort of an agreement between the king and the aristocracy for the regulation of tax demand is bad in and of itself, but i'd be afraid of the slippery slope into constitutionalism and then parliamentarianism

>>665

>slippery slope into constitutionalism

I think there are two different things going on here, I don't see constitutionalism as a slope into parliamentarianism. The change to constitutionalism is, I think, much more of a religious one, and the slope into parliamentarianism is much more of political one. The key thing to discuss here, I think, is what is the difference between a monarch and a despot? I would argue that the monarch has some sort of law above his head where the despot rules completely by his own capriciousness. In the ancien regime, the law was the Church. Therefore, the slope into constitutionalism is a natural reaction to increasing Godlessness or religious heterogeneity. Without some sort of intervention into religious homogeneity, constitutionalism is necessary, and I would doubt to call it a 'slip' in the first place. However, parliamentarianism is indeed much more of a slip.

>>643

Our best chance? Look to Spain. We have an established path from fascism to monarchism, and fascism also helps clear out a lot of the problems of modernity. The only issues are of scale and permanence; if we can flip a handful of countries and then message well about it, we can finally break the progressive paradigm by which monarchies are in the past and republics in the present and future.

The areas which seem easiest to do this in are the Baltics and other Orthodox countries such as Greece and Georgia. There is a virtuous cycle between the rise in right-wing thought and traditionalism in such areas which we can latch on to, and clear inheritors to the throne compared to in many other areas.

Fascists are friends, not foes. We side with the emergent right, and we can bring them on to our side just as we build numbers for them. Get involved with them, integrate into their groups, fight for our common goals and integrate with them.

The only caveat is to keep the public messaging safe and separate. One has to allow people to think that when the country transitions to a monarchy, this is a stabilising and moderate change, just as they did with Spain. One can work with Golden Dawn, and can espouse the merits of monarchy to them, but espousing the merits of monarchy at a Golden Dawn rally would be disastrous.

Two final notes;

The most powerful single move we could make now would be to get the Orthodox patriarchs to explicitly agree to work towards furthering monarchism. This should not be difficult if we achieve any kind of organisational presence of our own or become a major part of any organisation such as Generation Identitaire.

The Middle East also has the possibility of seeing a few monarchies emerge, with the right influences. The return of the Shah after Khomeini's death and a transition towards a constitutional monarchy for the Assads would be quite possible, but harder for us to cause.

A greater level of public support and a few restorations within a few years of each other is all we need to win. It sounds like a lot, but it's very possible if we work for it and if we organise.

Worst case, we fail and we'll be living in a Caliphate within a few decades anyway. The natural order reasserts itself, I'd just rather we be on the top rather than the bottom when it does.

>>681

Even under the ancien regime in France, there was a significant degree of constitutionalism. Constitutionalism in itself is not necessarily a negative thing, it can help immensely, but parliamentarianism is. The one does not necessarily lead to the other, it is merely historical happenstance that makes it appear as if it does. The slide towards parliamentarianism is a result of the modern Weltanschauung which has been in place since the French revolution and strengthened by the Russian, not a result of constitutionalism.

>>727

Speaking of Spain, out of curiosity, do you think Juan Carlos made a mistake backtracking and not maintaining the monarchy that Franco gave him? (vid related)

>>728

I find nothing disagreeable in this.

>>736

I'm afraid I lack the detailed knowledge of the case, and youtube is playing silly buggers and wants to translate to every language other than the Queen's English. My semi-informed understanding, however, is that he inherited one hell of a hostile position on the world stage and a potentially very unstable one at home, and managed to turn it into a very stable monarchy and acquitted himself very well in the eyes of the Western populace at large. It wasn't a perfect outcome to get to, but it was a damn good one given the circumstances.

Not to say that I'd like currently sitting monarchs with more power than the Spanish rulers to surrender theirs, but if we have a few more republics go the Juan Carlos route within a few decades then we'll have broken the back of our current problems.

>>727

Correct, imagine if the Nazi regime really had lasted for a thousand years and Hitler had managed to pass on power to his descendants.

It would be really cool

>>743

>basic bitch conservatives

We ain't going to get anywhere off the back of a movement which loses on every front pretty much by definition.

>>752

Then call it something else, that's unimportant. Fact is, if you're a monarchist, you follow conservative values, while national socialism is leftist. It's opposed to monarchism in just about every way imaginable, the only difference is that both had a central leader, but everything else - how he got his mandate, what his function is, his relation to his subjects - is different. If you think Hitler compares to any true monarch, you haven't gotten it.

>>753

Not disagreeing with you about Hitler, but monarchism isn't a "conservative" ideology in the vast majority of places. Conservatism is wanting to maintain the politics of the country, wanting to prevent change; sometimes that can be pro-monarchy, sometimes it's against, but either way it is never effective in the long term as a lack of active goals means they lose by a thousand cuts. I have links to the Communist Party in China, and their conservatives are their most hard-core Marxists.

>>743

Isn't the point to be reactionary?

>>753

Nationalism has some leftist qualities, but properly regarded it would simply be the acknowledgement of a racial family, which can still have a head.

>>767

>racial family

you mean racism?

>>767

>Isn't the point to be reactionary?

Are you asking if the whole point of this is just to be edgy?

>>727

but fascism is part of modernity lol

>>767

>Isn't the point to be reactionary?

Nazis weren't reactionary either. How can you be reactionary when you don't even make the cut to being conservative?

>Nationalism has some leftist qualities, but properly regarded it would simply be the acknowledgement of a racial family, which can still have a head.

>racial family

Get lost with this bullshit. The Nazis never even took it that serious. If they had, they would've instituted a caste-system in which pureblooded aryans were higher up the ladder than other races, including most Germans. They would've demanded that Hitler prove his aryan heritage, and denied him leadership of "his" race if he couldn't. Maria Schicklgruber, his grandmother, got pregnant, then left the jewish household she worked in and received a high compensation, so I'm willing to bet that Hitler was one-quarter jewish.

Instead, the Nazis didn't care about heritage at all unless it was politically convenient. As long as you made the cut to "not worthless", you were just as good as all of your comrades. They had no problems allying themselves with Magyars and Slavs so long as they were fascist, and they didn't even have a problem with the Japanese, when the Asians in general have been regarded as "mongoloid" by many racists of the day. The Russians, too, were alright during the invasion of Poland, but afterwards, they magically became subhumans. Where was the consistency?

Not to mention that the entire notion of a racial consciousness is absurd, and that such a consciousness would necessarily lead to a "racial family" is a non sequitur. And even if you belonged to a racial family worthy of the name, it doesn't follow that your racial family takes precedence over your actual family. The opposite would be more plausible, that your mother and father had a stronger claim to your allegiance than whatever leader your race as a whole had.