/monarchy/ - STOP THINKING LIKE REPUBLICANS

>>8371

>I'm saying that should the bloodline ever deviate heavily from tradition in ways that are clearly bad for the nation, it should be replaced.

But anon, this is what cadet branches are for. You can still have your traditionalism and not completely throw away the bloodline.

Also, fwiw, wasn't Juan Carlos a snake? Franco didn't know he was a POLITICAL ANIMAL.

Is it me or has there been a steady growth in monarchists? I just started drifting towards monarchism last month, and I've noticed even more started flooding in too

>>8440

this board has certainly become a bit more active

>>8443

German fascism was rooted in the might makes right will to power pagan idea which is revolutionary. The ideas of the mass movement, doing away with social hierarchy (the Germans claimed they had eliminated class), subjugating the church to the state are disturbingly similar to French Revolution tier rhetoric. The idea of the romantic revolutionary ubermensch taking power is opposed to our idea of hereditary succession. Did fascism do some good? Yes definitely. It performed a miracle in Germany. Hitler called himself a revolutionary against the revolution, which is true. So definitely better than a Marxist revolutionary, but still a revolutionary. The idea of handing off power to whoever is the most visionary sounds like your country is just going to spin out of control as ideologues do crazier and crazier things to remain in power. Just wanted to give you guys some pushback to chew on.

>>8464

The NSDAP took power in a very might makes right fashion. I mean the party could have installed a noble as king and shared power with him at least, but they didn’t. Perhaps a Hohenzollern king might have acted as a much needed check on the SS, seeing that the crimes committed against the Slavs particularly by Erich Koch and Himmler would really backfire and lose them the war. The SS really became the deep state of the Third Reich, but that’s another issue. Since a monarch is not just sovereign for subjects of his own nationality but for all his subjects, he can see beyond party ideology. There was no way Germany was going to defeat the Western powers and the Soviets without the assistance of non-German peoples.

>dynasties

Of course dynasties change but they do during very tumultuous times. In terms of king and emperor-tier dynasties, you almost never would see a commoner become ruler of a country. Why would you do that when there is a rich history of royal houses especially in a nation like Germany?

You’re afraid of putting a normalfag on the throne, okay. But how would we restore monarchy anyway without converting the nation to this worldview? Don’t tell me there weren’t German royals in Hitlers day who weren’t cucks, that just isn’t true. We all can be ideologues about ethnic nationalism and the Jews if we like, but that doesn’t make us suitable candidates to be King. It’s easy to be an ideologue, monarchy is about the ruler having actual ancient roots to the country that is to be ruled. Like the Habsburgs or Hohenzollern.

>you’re never going to go from democracy to monarchy

It’s been done before. Many of the “fascist” leaders like Horthy and Franco considered themselves regents seeking to restore the monarchy to their respective countries.

>class

The NSDAP wanted to do away with class “animosity” which resulted in them attacking class distinctions. They wanted society to become more equal opportunity for Germans of all social classes. I’m no aristocrat, but social class existed for a reason in the past. Particularly because back then the upper royal class were supposed to be a role model for everyone on how to behave. I’m sorry, but a King of Germany who kept a secret mistress and only married before he died would have been considered scandalous.The National Socialist ideology appeals to the past but it falls short in emulating it. I had my phase as a natsoc though so I’m not saying there isn’t truth to the ideology.

>>8464

Is like to add one more point to my critique of fascism. Fascism, like the revolution of 1776, is fundamentally secular. It seeks to establish a secular national identity. There was a reason why an Austrian Catholic empire existed separate to a Prussian Protestant empire. Hitler writes about this in Mein Kampf, but like any secular leader he fails to understand why there were two German empires in Europe up to his time. Like the American founding fathers, he assumes an atheist and a Catholic and a Protestant and a pagan and an enlightenment deist can come together and form a functional governing apparatus. Faith has always been as important as ethnicity to human society. Since human beings are fundamentally religious we cannot ignore this reality.

>>8466

>>8467

Lol you guys have post size limits here.

On fash we just type essays at each other.

I'll split this up.

Every king or leader is in power because of his might. That's what power means. He's the sovereign because he has armies that obey him.

>shared power

>check on the SS

The SS were like the king's right hand.

Hitler was effectively king

Why would Hitler give someone else power?

Why would he restore a failed monarch?

>a monarch is not just sovereign for subjects of his own nationality but for all his subjects.

No, you're either his nationality or you don't belong in his country.

"German" is not a boyscout badge.

Its your birth.

Germany is your birthright.

If you're born an Italian in Germany, you are not a German.

You should be placed on the doormat of Italy like an abandoned child.

>There was no way Germany was going to defeat the Western powers and the Soviets without the assistance of non-German peoples.

I agree, he should have been less of an isolationist in the build-up to Germany being self-sufficient.

His unwillingness to make political sacrifices lost him the war.

>you almost never would see a commoner become ruler of a country.

If a man forms his own world view, has the ability to convince half the population he's right, and then leads that half to return to authoritarian ultranationalism then his bloodline will be plenty good enough.

The first french kings were likely descendants of people who worked their way up the social hierarchy.

to the point where they owned enough land to rally and command troops.

Then with those troops conquered land.

You're right, it should almost never happens.

But sometimes it does, and dynasties get replaced.

I don't think we should resist it because new blood on the throne can be a good thing for the nation.

Hitlers, Napoleons, Mussolinis, etc are a good things and they have every right to seize power from shitty kings and the best republicans.

If they exist at the same time as a great king then they won't seize power.

They'll serve his majesty.

>>8479

>Lol you guys have post size limits here.

>On fash we just type essays at each other.

The only setting that I see that I have control over is the maximum number of new lines, which I have set to unlimited. Unless I'm missing something here.

>>8479

>Every king or leader is in power because of his might.

No, a king is in power because he was the heir to the throne and then succeeded to said throne. Before succession, he might not have had any power at all.

>That's what power means.

Correct, but power is only half the story. Power in itself isn't good or evil, it's a tool that can be wielded for good or evil - but it in itself has no moral character.

>He's the sovereign because he has armies that obey him.

But why do they obey him if they themselves are his base of power? It's because they believe he has legitimacy as a ruler, also known as the right to rule. Power has no moral character, but authority does have that quality. Ever hear the expression moral authority? Exactly.

>The SS were like the king's right hand.

The SS were becoming a deep state. They answered to Himmler and existed outside the Wehrmacht command structure.

>Why would Hitler give someone else power?

>Why would he restore a failed monarch?

For the good of the country. Also in what sense did the monarchy "fail"? In being overthrown? Need I remind you monarchy has existed in Germany since before the Karlings?

>No, you're either his nationality or you don't belong in his country.

NS Germany had imperial ambitions - which I have nothing against in principle. Imperialism is how mankind has operated for millenia. When a kingdom becomes an empire though the emperor must rule all his subjects, not the ones he shares a common ancestry with.

>"German" is not a boyscout badge.

Never said it was.

>If you're born an Italian in Germany, you are not a German.

I agree.

>You should be placed on the doormat of Italy like an abandoned child.

When you pursue an imperial policy, this position is untenable.

>If a man forms his own world view

There are many aspects to Hitler's worldview that were not his own. His party synthesized many older ideas into a party programme, but he did not invent the ideas. NatSocs themselves advertised their system as a revival of the past.

>has the ability to convince half the population he's right

The ability to sway the masses is not exactly a virtuous or admirable trait.

>The first french kings were likely descendants of people who worked their way up the social hierarchy.

You mean the Karlings? Could you be more specific?

>Hitlers, Napoleons, Mussolinis, etc are a good things and they have every right to seize power from shitty kings and the best republicans.

Regicide should be taboo. I'd much rather have a "shitty king" than constant revolutionary political instability. Napoleon came to power because of the French Revolution, and that interregnum period was not a fun time for anyone in France.

>>8480

>Yeah, and not a damn one of them had the balls to lead a revolt against the disgusting state of republican Germany.

The Putsch attempts were common in the Weimar Republic and most of them failed. Kaiser Wilhelm II was exiled to the Netherlands and was unpopular in Germany (which is not a bearing on his character, but rather on the public).

>The aristocracy would have had it coming, should Hitler have taken their status and riches.

Status is more than just a title or a fortune. It has to do with one's social class which has to do with one's qualities of virtue. The king is the top aristocrat; he sets the standards of what is acceptable behavior. He acts as a role model, an exemplar of piety, a patriarch for all his subjects.

>We're at a point in history where most of these facets of monarchical society are going to have to be rebuilt from the ground up.

In certain parts of the world, this is the case. But imagine if we restored an ancient or medieval dynasty in a Western country. It would be a shocking and devastating blow against the modern world, especially if the church was involved. It would shake the Western world to its core.

>I'd support a direct transition to monarchy, but I doubt that could garner enough support in our day and age.

Okay but that's not an argument. And is fascism any closer to garnering mass support? No.

>How many generations has it been?

It doesn't have to be the Hohenzollern or the Habsburgs although I'd prefer it to be an aristocratic family like that. I would be fine if a general from the army like Franco was crowned. Aristocrats became aristocrats from military service traditionally, so a high ranking military man would be a suitable monarch in the absence of a pre-existing royal house.

>How about that heir to the English throne that married a nigger?

Are royalists to be held accountable for every single decadent royal house around the world?

>You really think he'll raise his heir better than Hitler would raise his?

I'm no fan of the Windsors, but Hitler didn't have a heir. See my post >>8466

>Plenty of French commoners have ancient roots in the country too.

Did they literally build up France from nothing? Did their families oversee the rise of France?

>I think we should do everything we can to improve the lives of the lower class members of our own race.

I agree.

The class issue is a tough one but it basically boils down to this: we are not against class mobility, but we are for the class system that has always existed in traditional societies. We are wary of the middle class way of life being held up to the masses as the pinnacle of existence.

>Faith doesn't change your IQ.

That's not the point I was making. See my post again >>8467

>There was a reason why an Austrian Catholic empire existed separate to a Prussian Protestant empire.

Secularism is a freemasonic ideal.

>>8311

American guy from /fascist/ i post with the Silver Legion flag. I come here occasionally and i am kinda surprised. This thread shows that we do have fascists with monarchist sympathies, but of course we still have a lot of things to settle before getting anywhere. I'll start with an unpopular opinion. Mussolini fucked up a lot during WW2, and him getting arrested shouldn't come as a surprise or betrayal to anyone. I like the guy but the war was a lost cause. The King always showed trust in Mussolini, but Mussolini was still pretty republican in his private talks.

>>8550

>M*istre

The eternal filter strikes again.

>>8550

Yeah, i think he was trying to appeal to the Republican Fascists like Italo Balbo, and the ones who liked monarchy as well, like Cesare Maria De Vecchi. I have read the Mad Monarchist Article on it, and i feel that Fascists blaming Emmanuel is kind of a cheap way to ignore Mussolini's shortcomings. It's why i don't hate the Savoy house. It's kind of the same story with King Michael of Romania, although his father is a different story.

>>8499

I'm not spellchecking this. Excuse any grammatical errors.

>No, a king is in power because he was the heir to the throne and then succeeded to said throne.

>But why do they obey him if they themselves are his base of power? It's because they believe he has legitimacy as a ruler

That was poorly phrased. What I meant was that the only reason a king has power over others is that the military and common folk obey him.

They obey him because they believe that the hereditary succession of totalitarian rule is what's best for society.

If you think about it, the "mandate of heaven" is an esoteric dog-whistle for public support.

If a king sinks below the bar of performance required to maintain public support, then he loses the mandate of heaven and is replaced.

If a king is so awful that its going to lead to a holodomor-like event, you're going to see a revolt and that revolt is justified.

I don't believe in anything that the French revolutionaries believed about how we should run a country or lead a revolt,

But I do believe that Louis XVI lost the mandate of heaven.

I know that the typical response to this is probably that they should have just stuck with it because after Louis XVI everything would just go back to normal,

but if you were a father in France in 1780 and your kids were starving, you would have wanted a different king too.

>Power has no moral character, but authority does have that quality. Ever hear the expression moral authority?

Yeah, I know.

The moral authority should be the church.

A king should have the authority to decide what's best for the race and the state.

Hitler wasn't perfect, and I'd like for us to learn from our mistakes.

>in what sense did the monarchy "fail"? In being overthrown?

Yes.

>Need I remind you monarchy has existed in Germany since before the Karlings?

And then it failed.

>When you pursue an imperial policy, this position is untenable.

When land is conquered, its inhabitants should be exiled.

>When a kingdom becomes an empire though the emperor must rule all his subjects, not the ones he shares a common ancestry with.

No, the conquered land is lebensraum.

Foreigners can't become countrymen.

They should be removed and replaced.

Having one race rule over another is never stable, and should be avoided at all costs.

>There are many aspects to Hitler's worldview that were not his own.

He put it all together in a unique way, added his own touch, branded it, and sold it.

>Absolutely monarchomachist.

I should say that its 'likely' that it won't be much better. If the king had a brother who despised the king for being such a failure, then I think he should step forward.

>wanting to idolize treason

I'm an absolute monarchist with two conditions.

You will obey the word of God, and you will keep the mandate of heaven.

Tyrannicide should be locked in a locket in a lock-box in a safe in a vault in a bigger vault.

It should be taboo. It should be looked down upon as the highest treason.

But when the entire country hates the kings guts because he's starving their kids,

then and only then should they remember that they have the keys.

>you might seem to think they are all corrupt and wicked, but I suppose there is some thing of worth to them.

I see the ancient dynasties as fallen from grace in every way.

Their only redeeming quality would be their bloodline's history, but I can't even feel any kinship to these men because they're not entirely my race.

That disconnect probably had something to do with the fact that they all fell to the wave of liberalism and republicanism.

Perhaps they should be kept alive because they're innocent and they have historical significance,

But I don't think they should be ruling anyone.

>>8501

I did not intend to aristolarp. We are all God’s children, all royal houses have had humble origins. Family however did mean a lot more in the pre-modern world than it does mean today.

>>8556

No dynasty lasts forever, but the advantage of having a dynasty is that political power is not transferred arbitrarily and relentlessly between ambitious power players. Desire for power is actually a character flaw not a virtue. Those most desperate for power will stop at nothing to cling onto it like vipers. They will act like madmen and true tyrants. Those who only mildly want it will fare mildly, and those who did not want it at all tend to be the most judicious and wise rulers. The hereditary heir has no say in the matter at all so it’s far more likely he’s of the third category. The hereditary principle is not a utopian solution because the royalist understands there is no utopian solution to the issue of who will govern and lead. Every modern system claims to produce wonderful leadership but they are all liars.

Hitler was an extraordinary man and foolish is he who will deny it. Who would have been his successor though according to the fascist worldview? Goebbels? Goering? Himmler? Who after them? That sounds nice recipe for civil war and total political animalism. We cannot just trust that a political party, even in a one party state, will magically produce quality leadership. In truth, it’s largely up to God how diligent and competent our leaders will be. I’d rather leave the issue up to hereditary succession than in the hands of elections or civil war. Yes, there have been pretenders in history, but a hereditary heir is a lot more clear cut solution than “we must follow the strongest man” aka who has more political power.

The Divine Right of Kings and Mandate of Heaven ideas are very anti-democratic and anti-populist. These ideas can be summarized with the assertion that monarchy is likely to please God most as we know in the Old and New Testament democracy or the “will of the people” demagoguery is almost always wrongheaded.

>>8556

>But I do believe that Louis XVI lost the mandate of heaven.

Absolutely revolutionary.

Louis XVI was not a bad monarch as the revolutionaries would have us believe. Revolutionaries are never held accountable in the way a monarch is. They don't have to bear the tremendous burden of responsibility that he has to. It's easy for demagogue psychopaths of 1789 to criticize but improve nothing - in fact wreck everything.

>muh starving children

It was pre-modern Europe. Gimme a break dude. Stop buying into French Revolution leftist propaganda.

>The moral authority should be the church.

And the royal family. They lead by example. Hitler's attempt to subjugate the church to the NSDAP was… ugly. A true cooperation between church and state is needed, not French Revolution-tier subjugations of the church.

>Yes (answering in what sense did monarch fail).

You cannot answer a "what" question with a yes or no.

>And then it failed.

Failed how? Monarchy is God ordained, it is the oldest political system in the world. Its virtues persevere and the fraud of republicanism remains a fraud.

>lebenslarp

This lost Germany the war. It's another utopian fraud justified by all-or-nothing logic. Germans don't have to wipe out the world to preserve their own race. What happened to Christian charity and mercy?

>>8557

Like power, the quality of persuasiveness is instrumental and not of any moral character. Sure, it can be used for good, but it can also be used for evil.

>Hitler Succeeded

When your entire argument is grounded in "Hitler did this, Hitler did that", that is a testament to the abilities of one man, not of a worldview and system of governance. Monarchy has a far longer track record that goes back to the Bible itself.

The truth is the truth. Persuasiveness and popularity can never usurp truth.

"The people" is a tired revolutionary abstraction anyways.

>They should have a man they want to sit the throne.

That erodes the legitimacy of the system and brings us closer and closer to the abyss of anarchy. Especially random commoners being appointed to high titles. The Western world has become infatuated with the ethos of individualism and equality of opportunity is yet another aspect of it. But when a man knows that his descendants will rule a country, he rules the country for the better.

>Weimar Berlin

I never defended a plutocratic elite.

>They wouldn't dare rock the boat.

This is literally just confirmation bias.

>Every other far-right circle is bigger than monarchy

Says who? That just seems like an arbitrary feel you pulled out of nowhere.

>No, leftist is out there shaking their fists about the rise of monarchy.

Leftists have very vivid imaginations. What they call fascism is literally just Trump-tier stuff. They have very weak grip on reality.

>Their bloodlines should be in check, their religion never in question, no scandalous activity, entire family in important positions, honest, disciplined, philanthropic.

Alexander III of Russia made this a core issue of his reign. I agree.

>I'd join the any group that wants them dead.

Don't be a revolutionary. Be a bastion of tradition against revolutionary liars.

>>8581

We are simply presenting the issues with fascism. Fascists often present their system as a bandage - a "here and now" fix to our day, but like a previous anon said: monarchy is eternal.

>>8570

>It's the confused work of revolutionaries that can destroy things permanently as they fool the masses into siding with them.

Based.

Also beware utopian fantasies that advertise the false guarantee of stellar leadership. We have to take bad leadership with the good like in any system. I'd rather have a bad leader than a ==DEVIOUS== one. A lackluster father may produce a great son, but a revolutionary system of power-seeking political animals (the one party state) will only produce more and more political animalism. The notion that you could have an 1000 year reich with no succession system even elaborated is just naïve. Christian monarchies on the other hand have produced 1000 year kingdoms.

>>8393

hey goys and girls

>>8600

>Louis XVI was not a bad monarch as the revolutionaries would have us believe.

He was a horribly weak king, which makes him a bad king.

>Revolutionaries are never held accountable in the way a monarch is. They don't have to bear the tremendous burden of responsibility that he has to.

I'm certainly no fan of the likes of Robespierre and Marat, but you understand that both were killed, right?

>>8616

>Monarchs of past

were, as you said, human. The idea that Monarchs as a whole were particularly devoted to God is laughable. There were good kings, and bad kings. Pretending like almost all of them were good is nothing bot revisionism.

>>8620

No revolutionary has ever become a saint. Change my mind.

>>8620

>muh weak king

I’d love to see you in his shoes.

Even if that is true, civil war and revolution should never be entertained. Just like divorce. Don’t think it. Don’t say it. 99.999999 percent of the time it just ends in bloodshed.

>>8624

>secularists

Separation of church and state is about protecting the church from the state.

>accountable to no one.

Other than their constituents, you mean?

>Remember, there are far more royal saints then there are saintly presidents or dictators, and for a good reason.

The world is not like it once was, and the most prominent republics in the world aren't predominantly catholic, so naturally you don't see a lot of saints coming from them.

>>8627

>I’d love to see you in his shoes.

I never said I'd be a good king. That's beside the point.

>Even if that is true, civil war and revolution should never be entertained.

It really doesn't matter how strongly you think that. Recourse must exist, and if it is not given, it will be taken. That's simply a fact of mankind.

>>8631

>Separation of church and state is about protecting the church from the state.

doublethink.jpg

Shill harder, modernists.

>Recourse must exist, and if it is not given, it will be taken.

Revolutionaries do not offer recourse. They will behead the king today, and will behead the "cis bigot homophobes" tommorow. The king will die today and you tommorow under a revolutionary government.

>>8630

Lebenslarping did lose Hitler the war. When you make everyone who has common cause with you your sworn enemies, you are doomed.

>Africa for example produces literally billions of people that are doomed to starve and die from disease and violence.

They are less civilized than us, but it is not mercy to wipe out the suffering. Also, lebenslarping targeted the Slavs who had common cause with Germany against the Soviet Union.

>your grade school teacher taught you this

No, I base it on statements from lebenslarpers. If they wish to clarify, I will allow them to.

>He lost the war, he plunged the world into this PC hellhole, etc.

No, not at all. The problems began far before 1945. Hitler was trying to remedy the revolutionary Marxist and democratic sickness of his day. Spengler who fascists like to read wrote at the end of WW1 about "Faustian" civilization being a type of cancer.

>The people are the body.

The commoners are the body, yes, but they are not one homogenous entity.

Revolutionaries often brag they have the support of "the people" but this is an empty platitude as they do not. Most people genuinely want to be left alone. But even if all the people called for revolutionary demonic causes, the King would be right in suppressing them. He is answerable to God first.

"hold on let me just check the census statistics for far-right sub-categories"

Exactly my point; there is no way to know. There may be more commoners since the election of 2016 expressing 'racist' ideas, but that doesn't necessarily make them fascists.

>You guys have this board and maybe some 90 year olds who have a picture of the monarch in their den. That's about it.

Monarchy is actually not as irrelevant as you may think. It has become the subject of many telivision dramas and movies as of late, and while this is certainly no profound awakening or anything, it may yield more interest from young men and women in royalist ideas. I'm pessimistic but not completely…

>>8633

>doublethink.jpg

Nope.

>Revolutionaries do not offer recourse

They offer BAD recourse, but it is recourse, and people will eventually take bad recourse over no recourse.

>>8645

A monarch actually offers more recourse than a modern political party. Monarchists in history weren’t these elitists in ivory towers, they answered petitions from the common folk all the time. We can judge democracy and monarchy by their fruits. The past may not have had all our fancy modern technology but monarchy was far less oppressive than the modern capital / state complex.

>>8648

random new anon here.

Have you ever noticed the progressive lie that Technology has any real impact on the human condition? Despite all the technology we have progressed since then we are still the same humanity as we were 3000+ years ago, but now we're blessed with the millennia of passed down knowledge and technology that makes our lives easier (not necessarily better).

I'm actually curious, how should a monarch deal with modern technology? How WOULD a monarch deal with the cultural and technological changes of the past many years?

>>8649

>How should a Monarch deal with new technology?

Like how monarchs have always delt with new technology:

Study

Adapt

Excell

You gotta remember that monarchs adapted from exclusively melee weapons to the advent of the bow and arrow, and than they adapted to the advent of gunpowder.

The same can be said of the information/nuclear age.

>>8649

i wish we would have a thread about this. with technological change becoming swifter every day, it should be one of the foremost duties of the monarch to guide it, temper it, and control it more responsibly than liberal capitalism has been.

democracies are too slow now to keep up with capital. hopefully one advantage of having a monarch who can make decisions quickly and unchecked is that they can bring it to heel and put an end to the accelerationism meme.

>>8659

>i wish we would have a thread about this.

Take everything after this sentence, copy it, go back to the main board, paste it in the big white box at the top beside the word "Comment," in the white box next to "Subject" type in something like "Monarchy and Technology," and then hit the "New Thread" button.

The only other thread I can think of similar to this is the one we had about genetically engineering monarchs to make them awesome and avoid Philip of Spains.

>>8661

>>6973 for the genetic engineering thread.

>>8652

If you want empire, you better be prepared to stop being an ideologue otherwise it’s gonna collapse in about five seconds. The Axis were plagued by partisans. You had the perfect boogeyman, the Soviet Union, threatening all of Europe. However, Himmler and Koch managed to damage Ukrainian-German relations so much that ardent allies of Germany became hostile because there were no adults in the room. The German occupation forces were told to be on their best behavior in France as the Japanese were told to be on their best behavior in China. It’s a terrible idea to piss the locals off when you barely have enough men and arms to occupy them.

The idea that mass extermination is merciful or somehow saves resources is… I am going to pray for you.

>monarchist voices

We don’t believe a worldview to be true because it’s popular or if there are prominent voices or any normalfag reasons. I would remind you fascism and monarchy are equally on the fringe. Even of the “red pilled” “racist” crowd, how many of them do you think understand fascism? You have a lot of race realists like Jared Taylor who talk about IQ and Spencer who talks about white people, but that isn’t fascism. I have enough respect for fascism to know these “prominent figures” aren’t it.

>>8686

>If you want to be successful, you're going to have to cuck to my position.

It's not "cucking", its a better worldview in my humble opinion. Fascism shares too many commonalities with French Revolutionary ideology.

>Globo-eugenics

I have no idea how you reconcile this with Christianity. Man, being made in the image of God, has dignity. Does that mean we have to let infinity negrod into our nations? No, obviously not. But as Christians we could never support eugenics like abortion. Eugenics always get turned against larger and larger "out" groups so it will end up in some technocratic mass murder nightmare.

>They really don't need to. They won't be the ones running the state.

The "prominent voices" "alternate media" you are talking about are not even fascists, they are liberals with some racialist tendencies.

Perhaps fascism is more popular to normalfags than traditional monarchy. I doubt it but hey… How does that make it truer than traditional monarchy them? Shouldn't we be concerned with eternal truth?

>proto-fascists rising around the world

You mean populists and civic nationalists? Trump-tier shit?