No.8311 [Last50 Posts]
I've been on /fascist/ for a few months now, and I've slowly come to understand that monarchy is the best form of government by far.
I read the about page and 'liberty or equality' and I agree with most, if not all, of it.
I'm Catholic and I'm 90+% French; born in America.
I'd like to return to France someday.
God - Race - Fatherland - Family
I'm occasionally berated by civil liberty fags, people who think meritocratic dictatorship is a good idea, and 'b.b..but tyranny' tards on fascist so I intend to visit this board more often.
The only things that should limit a king's power are the words of God and angry mobs.
I'd call myself a Monarchist that wants to see the first king implement a lot of national socialist policies.
The only misgivings I have about this board are race and restoration.
I don't think people that aren't part of the fatherland's native ethnic group should be in the country.
The way I see it, the king is the will of God and the nation combined and personified.
Therefore he must be of the same race.
This leads into my problem with the only two French flags on this board.
Legitimists wanted some pan-euro inbreeding cult member on the throne
and the bonapartists wanted a fucking Italian.
I think the royal family of a country should maintain the racial purity of their bloodline by marrying high ranking members of the aristocracy within their own country.
I want to see new dynasties, not restorations.
I'm not sure I fit squarely in either board.
____________________________
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.8313
>>8311
>The only things that should limit a king's power are the words of God and angry mobs.
The limited monarchists on this board must be having a heart attack lately.
>Legitimists wanted some pan-euro inbreeding cult member on the throne
>and the bonapartists wanted a fucking Italian.
Maybe Orléanist is the second best thing?
>Therefore he must be of the same race.
Yeah, that's okay and all. I sharply agree, but I don't mind different nationalities.
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.8319
>>8311
Although the Imperial House of Bonaparte is not 100% full blooded French that does not make them any less legitimate. Remember that Napoleon was never the King of France but the Emperor of the French. And his love for France goes beyond many actual full blooded Frenchmen. Considering that Napoleon was Corsican he did more great things for France than many of the past Bourbons so I think he has proven himself in that sense. The present heir, Jean-Christophe, Prince Napoléon, was born in France, speaks French, and has four generations of French ancestors which makes him just as French as you if not more. Considering the Duke of Anjou is part Spanish and the Orléanist have never been to successful or popular with only one liberalized king. I would suggest the Bonapartist as the most legitimate to the throne.
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.8321
I'm another person from Fascist, I just post here sometimes. I'm one of the Pol Pot posters.
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.8323
>>8321
Good to see some friends from /fascist/ here.
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.8337
>>8321
>>8323
It seems like there are many /fascist/ users here. Hello brothers
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.8345
Welcome to /monarchy/, but don't get too /comfy/ on monarchist soil.
Outsiders who shun the ways of /monarchy/ will be persecuted.
Foreigners will be watched closely.
I think /monarchy/ is a board that largely disliked /fascist/ presence in the past, so I hope the foreign anons behave and get along with the likes of other posters. There will also be crossboarders from /liberty/. Both will have to be assimilated into thinking like monarchists.
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.8346
>>8319
Napoleon tbh permitted a lot of French Revolution ideas to permeate and his dynasty did not last. An interesting character and brilliant military commander to be sure though. But almost like a proto-Hitler.
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.8368
What does the fash think of Franco passing his power on to Juan Carlos?
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.8371
>>8368
Franco should have established his own dynasty.
Juan Carlos was a disaster.
Restoration is not always the best solution.
The blood lines aren't magical.
You will get a bad egg eventually and the dynasty should be replaced.
I'm not saying that the old traditions should be replaced with the new.
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.
Like if Louis XX was king, and he started ranting maniacally about communism and women's rights.
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.8393
Didn't know there are so many fellow - monarchical fascist? - anons here. Welcome brothers, I'm the guy with the Arrow Cross flag on /fascist/.
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.8423
>>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.
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.8440
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
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.8443
>>8423
If the king and his aristocracy become seriously corrupt, appointing someone related to him by blood and very adjacent to him by class won't be much better.
I don't agree with the idea that we should protect this one bloodline at all costs for eternity.
When it makes more sense to end it, it should be ended.
When a regime change needs to take place, there will be leaders of the movement that's pushing the regime change. Those leaders will likely end up being king. Its gotta be someone with a strong vision. Like Hitler, Mussolini, etc. An ideologue.
My ideal government is a man with a plan for the future similar to Hitler's, someone with a knack for regality/theatre like Napoleon, and someone with the respect for the religious side of things like the ancien regime.
I think we should do everything we can to transition from democracy to fascism right now.
Its much easier to transition from fascism to monarchism, than it is to transition from democracy to monarchism.
I'm a Nazi at heart. I'm just also a Catholic that sees all of the benefits to monarchy, and doesn't want the aristocracy to become a bloodbath every time the fuhrer dies.
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.8446
>>8440
this board has certainly become a bit more active
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.8455
>>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.
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.8464
>>8455
>German fascism was rooted in the might makes right will to power pagan idea which is revolutionary.
No, it wasn't. Hitler had no "might". He just got up to a podium and spoke the truth eloquently.
>(the Germans claimed they had eliminated class)
No, they didn't. That wasn't even a goal. The goal was to break down the animosity between the classes. They hated the idea of a class struggle, and they wanted the classes to cooperate in order to improve the reich.
>subjugating the church to the state are disturbingly similar to French Revolution
I agree. I don't like that. I don't like Hitler's religious ambiguity, and I don't like the paganism that existed within his ranks.
>The idea of the romantic revolutionary ubermensch taking power is opposed to our idea of hereditary succession.
Yeah, that's why I'm here. I'm a monarchist. Hereditary succession is better.
>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
You only have to do it when there's a revolution because there's a democracy or the king is awful.
All you have to do is give Hitler power once.
Then again when Hitler VI is a gay bitch.
You're never gonna go from democracy to monarchy.
We've gotta go through fascism first.
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.8466
>>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.
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.8467
>>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.
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.8479
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>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.
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.8480
>>8467
>>8466
>rich history of royal houses
Yeah, and not a damn one of them had the balls to lead a revolt against the disgusting state of republican Germany.
A fucking failed artist did more than any of them.
He earned his place in a higher class.
The aristocracy would have had it coming, should Hitler have taken their status and riches.
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.
They've degenerated along with everything else.
>You’re afraid of putting a normalfag on the throne
Yes.
And because of that, I don't want an aristocrat or a man of royal blood to be the first to sit the throne.
I want an extremist to set a precedent, and pave the way for a Catholic monarchy with the same values.
His blood will be made royal.
>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.
If we were ideologues, charismatic, and we had experience in state craft and national policy, then we would be suitable candidates in my eyes.
I will never support the restoration of a mixed breed interchangeable ruling class.
I'd rather put a crown on the next Hitler and have him learn the ropes.
I like the way Matteo Salvini is looking lately. Far-right and proudly Catholic.
I want that in every country in Europe. Those are the people I want to see in power.
>It’s been done before.
I'd support a direct transition to monarchy, but I doubt that could garner enough support in our day and age.
>seeking to restore the monarchy
Yeah I don't want to restore those monarchs. How many generations has it been?
Do you really think those men learned how to rule from their fathers?
How about that heir to the English throne that married a nigger?
You really think that fag can run country better than a Hitler?
You really think he'll raise his heir better than Hitler would raise his?
I don't.
>monarchy is about the ruler having actual ancient roots to the country
Plenty of French commoners have ancient roots in the country too.
Ancient roots or not, there are plenty of French people a lot more French than the kings.
I think that's more of a problem.
The king should be French.
90+%
Honestly I think everyone should have ancient roots to the country.
That's what makes us a nation.
Shared ancestry.
>The NSDAP wanted to do away with class “animosity” which resulted in them attacking class distinctions.
>wanted society to become more equal opportunity for Germans of all social classes
>social class existed for a reason
There were elites in Hitler's regime. We remember their names. They may not have been Catholic role models but they were good at what they did.
I'm for equal opportunity because social classes are naturally occurring.
You don't have to enforce it.
Some people are better than others.
If a commoner is better suited to a state office than any aristocrat then he should have the job.
And if a middle class family man meets all the prerequisites then he should be capable of class mobility.
I'm for the oppression of foreign-blooded groups, but I think we should do everything we can to improve the lives of the lower class members of our own race..
and we should let the ones who exceed expectations rise to the top and join the aristocracy.
It creates an incentive to perform well.
>The National Socialist ideology appeals to the past but it falls short
I agree, I think its missing Catholicism and monarchy.
When I say I'm a National Socialist, I don't mean I want to create a perfect replicate of it.
That's why I'm Catholic, a monarchist, and a Nazi.
>Fascism, like the revolution of 1776, is fundamentally secular.
Yeah, I don't like that
I agree completely that the church is essential.
>Faith has always been as important as ethnicity to human society
ehhhhh
Faith doesn't change your IQ.
Though it probably does impact your temperament.
I'll agree that its pretty high on the list, but race will always be my peak concern.
I can call a pagan white man a friend, but I'd be hesitant about a Catholic Abo.
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.8488
>>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.
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.8499
>>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.
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.8500
>>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.
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.8501
>>8443
>If the king and his aristocracy become seriously corrupt, appointing someone related to him by blood and very adjacent to him by class won't be much better.
Absolutely monarchomachist.
>I don't agree with the idea that we should protect this one bloodline at all costs for eternity
I keep this is an ideal. Obviously, it doesn't happen and I'm okay that sometimes other dynasties come and go. What I dislike is monarchomachist thought. The crucible of ideology that must be destroyed; if only expunged from the existence, that the servile republican screams for wanting to idolize treason, whoremongering ideals, and bloody revolution. The republican ideals were never cool since Cicero or even in the Medieval era. The republicans can die in a mongrel put, African-style with poking sticks and stones hurled at them with them being doused in fire.
>When a regime change needs to take place
Ain't happenin' on my watch.
>Yeah, that's why I'm here. I'm a monarchist. Hereditary succession is better.
I partially sympathize with you, Hitlerist, because many aristolarps talk down about a homegrown peasant emperor. I have nothing against this ideal of a common folk restoring the monarchy and rising to the top, especially when it is successful and is grand, as an authentic monarchy to inspire.
But I also have nothing against the established dynasties; you might seem to think they are all corrupt and wicked, but I suppose there is some thing of worth to them. I just don't think we should neglect either of them.
>>8500
>The king is the top aristocrat
And also a Monarch. I don't like the aristolarp view of monarchy as extended aristocracy. There are unique facets to Monarchical government that are superior. The Monarch does just that: an exemplary virtue above the aristocracy's virtue for the unity of ALL; neither for the few and many themselves, but for the entire whole. A Monarch is capable of understanding both virtues of the vulgar and the aristocratic. I don't hold aristocracy in contempt, but it seems aristocratics view this in notoriety.
>But imagine if we restored an ancient or medieval dynasty in a Western country
We need another restoration in France, I agree.
>>8499
>Regicide should be taboo. I'd much rather have a "shitty king" than constant revolutionary political instability.
Agreed. This passion of revolutionary activity and love of regicide disgusts me to the core. Revolutionary love fills the modern bone with delight of the guillotine. I hate them with a livid passion and they're everywhere. I find them in every political spectrum and in every political group.
<this whole discourse
>revolutionary, revolutionary, revolutionary
I say, counter-revolution, counter-revolution, and counter-revolution. /monarchy/ is a reactionary board. Fascists won't get a hero's' welcome with this revolutionary stuff.
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.8502
A fascist sees a monarchist stuck in the past.
A monarchist sees a fascist amiss in the futurist thought.
What is misunderstood is that any decent monarchist doesn't actually value the past for the sake of the past, but really what is eternal. That means what is true for past, present, and future.
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.8548
>>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.
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.8550
>>8548
That's awfully forthcoming of you to say.
I feel bad from the monarchist pov because it seems that we always let the fascists down/or it does become a betrayal.
>but Mussolini was still pretty republican in his private talks.
Mussolini is a mixed bag. In his Doctrine of Fascism, he said this:
>“The democratic regime may be defined as from time to time giving the people the illusion of sovereignty, while the real, effective sovereignty lives in the hands of other, concealed and irresponsible forces. Democracy is a regime nominally without a king, but it is ruled by many kings, more absolute, tyrannical, and ruinous than one sole king, even though a tyrant.”
>“This explains why Fascism having first in 1922 (for reasons of expediency) assumed an attitude tending toward republicanism, renounced this point of view before the March to Rome, being convinced that the question of political form is not to-day of prime importance; and, after having studied the examples of monarchies and republics past and present, reached the conclusion that monarchism and republicanism are not to be judged as it were, by an absolute standard, but that they represent forms in which the evolution—political, historical, traditional, or psychological—of a particular country has expressed itself. Fascism supersedes the antithesis, monarchism or republicanism, while democracy still tarries beneath the domination of this idea, forever pointing out the insufficiency of the first and forever praising the second as the perfect regime. Today, it can be seen that there are republics innately reactionary and absolutist, and also monarchies that incorporate the most ardent social and political hopes of the future.”
>“But the Fascist negation of Socialism, Democracy, and Liberalism must not be taken to mean that Fascism desires to lead the world back to the state of affairs before 1789, the date which seems to be indicated as the opening years of the succeeding semi-Liberal century. We do not desire to turn back; Fascism has not chosen De maistre (yeah yeah, but maistre-poster, what do you think about Burke?) for its high priest.”
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.8551
>>8550
>M*istre
The eternal filter strikes again.
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.8552
>>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.
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.8556
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>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.
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.8557
>The ability to sway the masses is not exactly a virtuous or admirable trait.
Yes it is. Generals, kings, priests, etc all desire this trait.
Its the mark of a good leader.
Being a good leader isn't a bad thing.
A king leading an army relying on only blind faith to the concept of monarchy is a terrible leader.
A king who can make them feel the gravity of what their fighting for is a good leader.
Hitler made an entire nation love their country, tradition, race, culture, and families again.
That's a desirable trait.
>You mean the Karlings? Could you be more specific?
I mean before France even existed as its own state.
>Regicide should be taboo.
I agree.
>I'd much rather have a "shitty king" than constant revolutionary political instability.
Say that again when the king's policies put your wife and kids on the brink of starvation.
But I do think coups should should come to a swift end.
They should have a man they want to sit the throne.
And these coups should almost never happen.
Its more than likely that you'll see hundreds of years of prosperity between them.
>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).
As a leader, the bearing is not on the people to accept you and your ideas.
The bearing is on you to convince and/or force them onto the people.
Wilhelm failed.
Hitler Succeeded.
> It has to do with one's social class which has to do with one's qualities of virtue.
I understand what the point of an aristocracy is,
but are you really going to tell me that the elite in Weimar Berlin were virtuous?
>imagine if we restored an ancient or medieval dynasty in a Western country.
They would do the exact same thing our liberal democratic republics are doing.
They wouldn't dare rock the boat.
>And is fascism any closer to garnering mass support? No.
Every other far-right circle is bigger than monarchy and not only that,
but fascism has better name recognition. There's no ANTIMON.
No, leftist is out there shaking their fists about the rise of monarchy.
Until I see monarchists having any impact on society at all, I'm not going to pledge allegiance to a movement like that. Its hardly even a movement.
>prefer it to be an aristocratic family
My problem is that my extreme political views are not held by any of those people.
These views are looked down up by society.
Immediate action needs to be taken to secure the existence of my people.
That's why I think its preferable that we have something like Hitler first, to set the precedent.
I hold my race above their bloodline, and I always will.
Unless, of course, you can show me a based aristocrat capable of running a country.
>Are royalists to be held accountable for every single decadent royal house around the world?
The point is that these dynasties have fallen from grace, and that restoring them is no better than anointing a great commoner.
>Hitler didn't have a heir
I think the best outcome would have been Hitler taking a child from the kaiser's aristocracy under his wing.
>Did they literally build up France from nothing? Did their families oversee the rise of France?
If the royalty have degenerated to the point where they behave like commoners, then the difference is no longer as great as it once was.
And whether you built France or not, lots of french monarchs weren't even completely French.
That's absolutely unacceptable to me. I will never support that.
and should that ever happen, I'd join the any group that wants them dead.
>We are wary of the middle class way of life being held up to the masses as the pinnacle of existence.
I think the upper class needs to be rebranded.
Its current image is one of effortlessness, reckless abandon, apathy, usury, resting on ancient laurels, etc.
That's what made the commoner hate the aristocracy.
The aristocracy need to be viewed as apex commoners in order to get rid of this disconnect.
Their bloodlines should be in check, their religion never in question, no scandalous activity, entire family in important positions, honest, disciplined, philanthropic.
>If the king and his aristocracy become seriously corrupt, appointing someone related to him by blood and very adjacent to him by class won't be much better.
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.8558
>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.
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.8560
>>8558
>You will obey the word of God, and you will keep the mandate of heaven.
I don't want to put up with the disobedient types anymore, and neither do I want to bugger about why you should comply with authority and stop being a rebel brat.
Yes, if a king commands you to become ungodly, it is void, but your allegiance to a monarch is simply not cast aside like a petty penny for something as common as sin within all people. And disobedience for the sake of disobedience is silly thing.
>If the king had a brother who despised the king for being such a failure, then I think he should step forward.
Usurper.
>But when the entire country hates the kings guts because he's starving their kids
Muh starving kids. Muh DPRK. Muh North Korea-style internment camps. Will SOMEONE think of the CHILDREN?!
…
A distasteful turn for this thread. I'm outta here.
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.8570
>socialist
>of any stripe
I don't think you really want this. It's begging for inefficiency, corruption, and financial shell games a jew would be envious of, to say nothing of unnecessary murder as the system fails.
>bad rulers outweigh the good
>risk is too much
At least under a monarchy, things are stable. Even a bad ruler can't undo much of the institutions and infrastructure his forebears set down. It's the confused work of revolutionaries that can destroy things permanently as they fool the masses into siding with them.
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.8581
>>8560
I'm in favor of a monarchy, and I'm in favor of the catholic church playing a huge role in the government.
But that's not all I am. I never claimed to be the same political philosophy as any of you.
If fact I said at the top of the thread, that I didn't fit in either camp.
Most Fascists and Nazis aren't in favor of a monarchy,
And most monarchists think I'm a revolutionary savage.
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.8593
>>8581
>Most Fascists and Nazis aren't in favor of a monarchy,
>And most monarchists think I'm a revolutionary savage.
Kid, that's just the way it is around here.
We all have an intense love-hate relationship with everyone on /monarchy/. Monarchists are some of the most contentious people you'll meet in this life. A day doesn't go by without a feud broiling over. Yet at the end of the day, /monarchy/ has a kindred spell for a board full of LARPers. It's something else. A board where escapists find their kin from this reprobate world.
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.8597
>>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.
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.8600
>>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.
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.8603
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.8616
>>8581
>I'm in favor of a monarchy, and I'm in favor of the catholic church playing a huge role in the government.
This I can agree with
What I can't agree with is your love for fascism. I will admit, years ago I used to be an unironic blackshirt even so much as to join the Black Shirt party of America but over time I have come to realize that it is not the way to success.l or paradise.
Eventually I started taking my faith more seriously and that is where I realize my mistakes.
Here are some good links to help you on your way:
NON ABBIAMO BISOGNO
An Encyclical from Pope Pius XI condeming Italian Fascism and the worship of the State (Statolraty)
http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_29061931_non-abbiamo-bisogno.html
MIT BRENNENDER SORGE
An Encyclical from Pope Pius XI condeming German Neo-paganism (aka raceolatry)
http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_14031937_mit-brennender-sorge.html
As a Catholic, you have to remember we are not of this world, we are just living here on out way to the next. Does this mean we just give up and not participate or try to make the world better? Of course not. We are definitely called to make the world a better place, but we ought to make the world a better place according to the will of God and not the will of men. Monarchs of past knew this as they first and foremost had God on their minds or at least most did, kings and queens are still human after all
When you give up being a Political Animal, you will realize that tradition is the only way to go. Tradition that is as old as time, not a tradition started by men.
In the meantime, fashpeasant, assuming you already are continue to pray the Rosary of our Holy Queen everyday and continue to grow deeper in your faith, for greater glory to our Holy King.
God love you.
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.8620
>>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.
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.8624
>>8620
And yet it is still a far better system than having secularists accountable to no one. Remember, there are far more royal saints then there are saintly presidents or dictators, and for a good reason.
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.8626
>>8620
No revolutionary has ever become a saint. Change my mind.
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.8627
>>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.
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.8630
>>8600
You know what, you're probably right that Louis XVI was smeared in the history books by the revolutionaries.
My opinion of him is probably impacted by that.
Still he musn't have been as skilled as his peers and predecessors, considering that his country fell to revolutionaries.
>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.
I agree.
>You cannot answer a "what" question with a yes or no.
He asked "in being overthrown?", and I said yes.
If you let revolution grow from nothing to millions and conquer the country, then you have failed.
The same way you would be a failure if you let foreign invaders sack your country.
I'm not saying it was easy.
I'm stating that fact that he failed.
>lebenslarp
>This lost Germany the war.
No, him trying to conquer it all in 10 minutes with no resources cost him the war.
>Germans don't have to wipe out the world to preserve their own race.
They didn't want that, your grade school teacher taught you this.
>What happened to Christian charity and mercy?
What happens when races can't govern themselves and it leads to endless suffering?
What if because of their biological disadvantages, they struggle to make anything for themselves?
I see non-whites/arabs/asians as units of human being that are doomed to suffer for eternity.
Africa for example produces literally billions of people that are doomed to starve and die from disease and violence.
Stopping them from endlessly producing people that are biologically hopeless, is the best thing we can do.
We should make the world entirely white, asian, and arab because these are the races that can function at a civilizational level
>Hitler Succeeded
>your entire argument is grounded in "Hitler did this, Hitler did that"
He lost the war, he plunged the world into this PC hellhole, etc.
But he did popularize a lot my ideas about how a country should run.
And should they rise again, they'll built on what he started.
So I'm thankful for that at least.
>"The people" is a tired revolutionary abstraction
In my view, the race is like an organism.
The monarch is the head.
The church is the conscience.
The people are the body.
If you're not taking care of your body, then it won't be able to perform when you need it.
You're not a brain in a jar.
>Monarchy has a far longer track record that goes back to the Bible itself.
Yeah I agree, that's why I think we should have a monarchy lol.
>That erodes the legitimacy
This is honestly my biggest problem with classical monarchy.
Legitimacy to me if you are the same race, and if you meet all of the qualifications for the aristocracy that I listed.
If we, for any reason, needed to appoint a new king-
His ancestors are none of my concern, so long as they're the country's race.
>Especially random commoners being appointed to high titles.
If a commoner can stand out that much then he should be rewarded, and taught the ways of the upper class.
If someone's father was a peasant and the son was a brilliant military strategist, then the son has brought honor to his family.
There are very little genetic differences between classes within a race.
We shouldn't act like they're savages that are physically incapable of learning.
They're kin.
>Every other far-right circle is bigger than monarchy
>Says who? That just seems like an arbitrary feel you pulled out of nowhere.
"hold on let me just check the census statistics for far-right sub-categories"
Are you really out here arguing that there's no way to know if monarchy is more popular than other far-right ideologies?
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.
>What they call fascism is literally just Trump-tier stuff.
Touché
>The notion that you could have an 1000 year reich with no succession system even elaborated is just naïve.
That's exactly why I'm here.
>>8616
Worshiping the state clearly sin.
Paganism is obviously something I condemn as well.
I vehemently disavow both of these Nazi positions.
I'm obviously no cleric, but I've been practicing my faith more.
God be with you as well.
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.8631
>>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.
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.8633
>>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.
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.8634
>>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…
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.8645
>>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.
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.8648
>>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.
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.8649
>>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?
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.8651
>>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.
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.8652
>>8634
>They are less civilized than us, but it is not mercy to wipe out the suffering.
They're not just less civilized. They're nigh incapable of civilizing.
They're human, but we should do everything we can to non-violently replace them with the apex races.
Whites are superior to all but Asians, Arabs, and Slavs can create civilizations and coexist peacefully with us if we can make them Catholic.
Native Americans, Inuits, Aboriginals, Modern Indians, and Pacific Islanders are 99% of the suffering in the world and they contribute very little.
If we can conquer these peoples and breed them out of existence, the world will be a better place-
and we'll have more land and resources to further develop whatever New Holy Roman Empire we create for ourselves.
>If they wish to clarify
The Germans didn't want to wipe out the world.
That was never the objective.
Germany's foreign policy was centered around the idea that Germany would never be free from foreign influence until it could produce everything it needed for itself.
Germany as its borders were drawn before WWII, was not capable of this level of self-sufficiency.
Germany was industrialized and they struggled with food production, they also didn't have enough oil to fuel their motorized weapons of war.
So the goal was to seize any land within striking distance that met their criteria. Pic related.
Some of the land they seized was also germanic blood.
They removed and/or enslaved the slavs, and jews. They intended to Germanize the Poles of German blood.
They started killing people on an industrial scale because they didn't have the resources to feed that many dependents.
>King would be right in suppressing them. He is answerable to God first.
He's right until the people are protesting for liveable wages and food.
If you're violently suppressing them instead of presenting solutions, then you're just asking for revolution.
The people are just retarded and you can't expect them to not riot when conditions are horrible.
Your job as a monarch is to prevent situations where they might riot at all costs, and should it ever happen you need to quell the populace with charisma, subtle displays of great force, and leadership.
>Monarchy is actually not as irrelevant as you may think.
It may have more normie appeal if you asked them, because people aren't programmed to hate monarchy like they are to hate fascism.
But there's no one to even start the discussion. There aren't really any monarchist voices. There isn't really a zealous monarchist political group.
At least fascism had the whole "alt-right" situation. As cringe as it may have been, its more than has been mustered by monarchists in the last century.
>>8649
>>8651
I think a monarch would be significantly better at handling something like AI.
I would never want to leave that up to a republic or the free markets.
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.8659
>>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.
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.8661
>>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.
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.8664
>>8661
>>6973 for the genetic engineering thread.
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.8682
>>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.
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.8686
>>8682
>If you want empire, you better be prepared to stop being an ideologue otherwise it’s gonna collapse in about five seconds.
>If you want to be successful, you're going to have to cuck to my position.
>You had the perfect boogeyman
Yeah
>Himmler and Koch managed to damage Ukrainian-German relations so much that ardent allies of Germany became hostile
Yeah I agree, how many times do have to disavow these incompetent secular/pagan retards.
I would like to do the WWII era over again with all the parts that those movements were missing.
I'd also like to see the sentiment that the Nazis fostered slowly grow in every European country, rather than exploding in two or three.
>It’s a terrible idea to piss the locals off when you barely have enough men and arms to occupy them.
How many fucking times do I have to say that Nazi Germany made terrible decisions with regard to the war and occupation.
>The idea that mass extermination is merciful or somehow saves resources is… I am going to pray for you.
The current situation is untenable.
We can't just isolate ourselves while India and African quadruple in population every year.
The Earth can't handle that many environmentally irresponsible people, especially when there's nothing of value that they're contributing.
Something has to be done.
We've tried civilizing these areas.
We gave them medicine, we gave them law and order, we gave them technology, we taught them what we know, and they're just genetically incapable of rising to our level on a large scale.
The only alternative to the superior races gentrifying the Earth, is that we benevolently genetically modify them in a couple hundred years when we have the technology.
and even if we could genetically uplift them, by the time we have that tech their population will have doubled five times.
It probably won't be feasible at that point.
Or we could use the classical colonialism solution where we just keep them under foreign martial law for eternity-
Where our able-bodied God-fearing men with families endless die at the hands of these savages.
Breeding them out existence with as little violence as possible is just the best solution for everyone.
Less of them die/suffer
Less of our people die/suffer
Their kids get to be better than they were, and they get converted to Catholicism
>fascism and monarchy are equally on the fringe.
I just disagree.
>Even of the “red pilled” “racist” crowd, how many of them do you think understand fascism?
They really don't need to. They won't be the ones running the state.
>Jared Taylor who talk about IQ and Spencer who talks about white people, but that isn’t fascism.
Taylor's entire career is exclusively white identity, and Spencer is an absolute clown that's so bad at what he does that the establishment probably pays him to keep going.
I see some statist nationalist politicians starting to rise around the world, and I see them as proto-fascists.
I'm not talking about completely unrelated Ecelebrities
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.8692
>>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?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.