/monarchy/ - STOP THINKING LIKE REPUBLICANS

Your initial premise is incorrect. Being within a monarchy does not preclude one from succeeding to the best of one's ability, as the economy is not a zero-sum game, and one man's success does not necessitate another man's failure. Simply observe how the Industrial Revolution in England allowed upstart businessmen to rise in prestige until many of them surpassed the old nobility in importance. There's always going to be some kind of hierarchy in the world, and a hierarchy implies someone at the top. Since you seem to equate hierarchy with "cuckoldry," you're going to be "cucked" in any society you could possibly imagine. It sound like you're just envious, that or you're closeted cuckold fetishist who can't stop thinking about how he's being dominated by someone-or-other all the time, at any given moment.

>First these superior genes dominated the local village

Your understanding of history is in error. Most monarchs came to power not through brutish domination, but organically, as the trust which villagers placed onto an honored tribe elder became institutionalized into a more formal authority. The same applies for the method in which a feudal lord became the vassal of his liege–allegiance was generally bought, in a mutual transaction. The vassal swore allegiance and the lord swore to provide defense. These were mutually beneficial transactions. That's not to say they always stayed that way, but they certainly began very differently from what you suggest.

>They extracted tithes

Compared to their republican counterparts, monarchs have very consistently taxed their subjects less, and allowed a much greater degree of autonomy.

>Climbing to the top, the genes showed they were better than everyone

All they really show is division of labor. Monarchs and lords were thought to better at providing a handful of very specific goods, namely different types of security (internal and external). Others were considered better at providing other types of goods. The one place where your thesis might have some merit is in the fact that monarchs extract payment for their services through taxes, which are coercive. And if you take a very permissive definition of "cuck," I suppose you could argue that being subject to coercion or disagreeable conditions is cuckoldry. But that's a bizarre definition to use–are you a cuck every time you lose a bet? If you get mugged? If you pay marked-up prices for food in an airport? Again, this seems more like the behavior of someone who has an active desire to see sexual power dynamics everywhere he looks. And even then, compared to every other system of government besides an anarcho-capitalist society, monarchy is the most permissive of your autonomy, and therefore less "cucked" than nearly every alternative.

>>7241

I'm not criticising hierarchies, I'm criticising people who are the bottom of hierarchies, and yet don't fight against them. If you are a proletariat getting fucked by capitalism and you don't support unions, socialism, rebellion, etc. but instead worship Bill Gates- you're a classcuck.

But I don't come to make that argument.

>>7242

>the economy is not a zero-sum game, and one man's success does not necessitate another man's failure.

The questions we're talking about here are zero-sum. Land-ownership, for example. The lords' ownership of the land is exactly the opposite of the peasants' ownership. By taking control of the land and forcing you to pay fifty shekels a week I seize from you fifty shekels. I may provide protection in addition to land, but this is simply another transaction in addition to the land as part of the same arrangement. For so much as your rent is for the land (and most of it is), I simply steal from you.

It is the same with kings tithing lords. They may provide some other benefit but for the most part they were paying for land with men.

>Most monarchs came to power not through brutish domination, but organically, as the trust which villagers placed onto an honored tribe elder became institutionalized into a more formal authority.

Citation needed. Here's a different theory. The chiefs dominated the tribes by having the strongest / greatest number of relatives. As farming took hold tribes submitted to other tribes, and the chiefs became fatted lords and later kings.

>>7242

>monarchs have very consistently taxed their subjects less

What a weakling. Dominated and has his money taken from him, he thanks the ruler, worships him etc. and justifies it under 'some other people would take more'.

Slave race m8

>>7244

>I'm criticising people who are the bottom of hierarchies, and yet don't fight against them.

That's only a reasonable position if A) fighting "against" the hierarchy brings with it the possibility of upward mobility and B) if upward mobility is either desirable or beneficial. If both of these conditions are not met, fighting against the hierarchy doesn't represent strength, it represents idiocy. Take your "classcuck" example ignoring for the moment that classes as Marx defined them don't real: supporting unions and socialism will only make poor men even poorer as they destroy the economy, until they get gulagged and/or starve to death when the communist intelligentsia take over. Revolting when revolting will lower both your status and your satisfaction is retarded. If you advocate for chimping out even when it makes your situation worse, your philosophy is literally nigger-tier.

>The questions we're talking about here are zero-sum. Land-ownership, for example

Land-ownership isn't the only measure of power nor the only way to achieve it, so restricting your view to only land-ownership makes no sense. See the aforementioned Industrial Revolution in Britain, or observe countries that have next to know territory but vast amounts of wealth, such as Liechtenstein.

>I simply steal from you.

I've stated that I don't disagree with the notion that taxation is theft. Where your argument fails is "if you get stolen from you're a cuck." I fail to see the justification for that, unless your definition of a cuck is someone who doesn't constantly chimp out over everything.

>Citation needed

https://mises-media.s3.amazonaws.com/A%20Short%20History%20of%20Man%20—%20Progress%20and%20Decline.pdf

Page 103.

>>7245

>he thanks the ruler, worships him etc.

M8, stop projecting your own domination fantasies onto everyone else. No one suggested that the monarch should be thanked or worshipped. It's an acknowledgement that Situation A is less worse than Situation B, even if Situation A is imperfect. Given the choice between the two, I would take Situation A.

>>7247

This tbh.

I've seen garbage like OP a million times.

>>7239

>>7244

>cuck

>cuck

>cuck

>how do you fellow non-cucks?

Jesus, you're trying way too hard. The left can't meme, fuck off.

>>7246

You don't have to actually fight monarchy, you just dont have to be a monarchist.

>Page 103.

This doesn't remotely prove how kings got their power. Nothing empirical about it.

When you're ruler of a territory, you have both the power and the incentive to settle disputes within the territory, but that doesn't mean kings got to be kings by the act of settling disputes.

>>7376

>make empirical claim about how kings got their power

>be unable to provide evidence

>sage the thread, post smug face and pretend you won

lolspergs lmao

>>7244

>If you are a proletariat getting fucked by capitalism and you don't support unions, socialism, rebellion, etc. but instead worship Bill Gates- you're a classcuck.

Except fighting against the hierarchy isn't going to make them not poor, best case scenario, they end up in a communist dictatorship still being dirt poor and forced into starvation, worst case they get (rightfully) culled.

>>7415

>people are too stupid to manage private property alone, we need rich elites to take all the profits or we would starve

imagine believing this

>>7241

Epicureans were actually the first NEETs if you actually read

>>7415

Why not cull Bill Gates instead? He's a technophile and mass media manipulator.

>>7239

>By celebrating a monarch you celebrate the fact that their genes beat your genes. It's the ultimate cuckoldry.

Are soldier ants angry at their queens? Higher castes spread their genes across the population better than the lower ones. Mistresses, one night stands, marrying lower class women, some of your offspring not inheriting the throne… It spreads. I have plenty of monarch DNA.

Most monarchs inherit their positions. They do not represent the Darwinian struggle from an individual perspective. You're just a retard who fell for enemy propaganda.

>>7442

>people are too stupid to manage private property alone,

Obviously Bill Gates is smart enough to manage private property alone

>we need rich elites to take all the profits or we would starve

If they didn't someone else would. Aristocrats exist, you'll never change it. Cry more.

>>7453

'Their genes beat your genes' refers to the family, which isn't your family even though you might have some of their DNA.

You simply aren't part of the clan, though.

>>7458

Dude, have you seen lower class "people"?

>>7455

>Smart

Technerds get the rope

>>7463

The only reason Gates (and you) deserves the rope is because he is a leftist, aside from pushing retarded /leftypol/ ideology, he creates jobs and goods and is a productive member of society (unlike you).

>>7239

Wouldn't it only be cuckoldry if you were not allowed to reproduce and they were? You could easily have more children than the current Queen of England for example and if your children also reproduce successfully then really you have beaten her by at least one metric.

>First these superior genes dominated the local village and the family who had them got to become landlords. They extracted tithes from the peasants who did all the work, turning them into slaves. Then they dominated neighboring landlords. Finally they dominated all the other lords and became the ruling family.

Citation needed.

>Climbing to the top, the genes showed they were better than everyone. If your landlord is weaker than a bigger lord who submits to the monarch, you are proven to be weaker than the king. It's a badge of shame to be ruled over by a monarch, not something to celebrate.

Here's a good example of why that's bullshit. Robert the I, Duke of Normandy was a vassal of the King of France. He produced William the Conqueror, future king of England. If Robert had flipped out about paying taxes and submission and being a "cuck" then the King of France would have taken him out. Instead he raised a great military leader who was able to rise to the rank of king and not be a "cuck" to anyone. If you are going to have offspring and raise them to be more successful than you then why worry about being the subject of a monarch. Have you not by definition succeeded?

>>7239

Also let's follow this "cuckoldry" rabbit hole to it's very end and see where it gets us.

>1. We Are Subjects of a Monarchy

You've already explained why you think this is cuckoldry so let's have a revolution and replace the monarchy with a Republic.

>2. We Are Subjects of a Republic

Now we could theoretically become the leader of the country ourselves. In practice this is not the case. Business owners and industrialists have all of the power. They employ us, they have the resources to educate their children and they are the only ones able to actually afford to run for office. We submit to the President who likely comes from either a family of industrial elites or a family of political elites and has shown through his charisma that he is genetically superior to us. Let's have a revolution and replace the Republic with Communism.

>3. We Are Subjects of a Commune

In this example Communism has somehow actually worked and we are now living in a Commune that is part of a network of Communes. We all share the wealth equally and are not forced to work if we choose not to. Our name is Steve and we have two sons. We work long shifts at the local (worker owned) Car factory. Bill, our neighbor has five sons and he doesn't work at all. Bill is great at telling jokes so everyone loves him while we go unnoticed by the community. Let's have a revolution and instate a two child policy.

>4. We Are Subjects of a Commune with Limited Reproductive Rights

Bill's three surplus sons have been liquidated. Unfortunately, in the struggle, our sons and our wife both perished. In order to not be "cucked" by Bill we need to find a new wife but we can't. The solution is simple. Let's have a revolution to enforce state mandated wives.

>5. We Are Subjects of a Commune with Legal Rape

Now I have a wife and two sons again. Unfortunately my wife is ugly and dumb and so are our children. Bill's wife is hot and smart and so are his children. Fuck you Bill. Let's have a revolution to enforce wife sharing.

>6. We Are Subjects of a Commune with Mandatory Rape

Now every week I am can elect to have unprotected sex with every woman in the Commune exactly once and so can Bill. The notion of Fatherhood is completely gone, who knows which kids are mine (the ones born of the old way have been disposed of). The women must reproduce with every man or none at all. Now no one is a "cuck" because everyone is.