MONARCHISM THREAD

What's your excuse for not taking the monarchist pill yet user? Now's your chance to get in here and discuss the best ideology that stands the test of time.

>But monarchy is literally cuckolding!
Wrong. Corona Chan has proven that republics can take your rights away when it's convenient, they only do so with the false pretense of people having a say in the government.

>Monarchies are oppressive!
More often than not leaders voted in who obtain new power who don't know how to use it are the biggest cunts. It's the same reason why people who win the lottery almost always end up poor again. Monarchs are put into a high position from birth and so they are good leaders.

>One monarch can literally just ruin everything!
That's a pretty big what if and a rare one at that. Surely a system where the son of the leader being trained from his birth by his father and his loyal advisors to be king is far more stable than the poorly informed voters deciding who to rule through a popularity contest? Here there is an important distinction between monarchies and dictatorships, as dictators seize power after the next dictator, like Stalin seizing power at Lenin's death despite the fact that Trotsky was supposed to rule.

>But my vote counts!
Except it doesn't. Suppose that you are a well read intellectual. Now watch as Tyrone and his gang's vote are just as equal as yours. NOW watch as the wealthy oligarchs who rule you hardly care for shit that doesn't benefit them.

>Monarchs are kikes!
Most expulsions of jews were under monarchies. Meanwhile the U.S loves daddy Israel, because republics are open to foreign intervention from people like glowniggers as a result of being unstable.

1/2

Attached: Monarchy.png (1513x904, 192.1K)

Monarchy can exist only if you have a religious society. Otherwise monarchy is just technocracy.

You fool, there will be no need to achieve such ideology, especially when we have this beautiful pandemic going on!
We need Bio-Accelerationism in order to destroy the societal fabric that keeps fellow man prisoners, condemned to perpetual segregation and humiliation by the left; collapse the global economic hegemony of the (((undesirables))) and purge the weak from this woke hell we call earth. Only then we can rebuild society and establish the New World Order.

>Alright republics are bad but I'm fascist/like a simple dictator so why should I care?
Dictatorships have no reliable line of secession, just look at the Soviet union and you'll see the problems that causes.

Democratic leaders spend the first part of their term adjusting to their new position, and then later getting cucked by Congress until they spend all their time campaigning again. The leaders of a republic are not accountable to their actions as a single man is and they do not care for the long term health and prosperity of the nation, while monarchies must. Take Napoleon III as an example, he remodeled Paris into a modern city and fostered tons of long term projects such as railroads and parks that benefited France tremendously. There is no way this could have happened under a republic, as politicians stuffed into office by the mobs through a popularity contest would be too indecisive and their final term would be the end of any vision they had for France even if their work was approved by the congressional body, as the newly elected head of state could simply decide to do a complete 180 in policy.

Monarchies are extremely stable since there are no 180s every 4-8 years and the people will always know who is next in line to become king. And speaking of Kings, they are trained from birth from their father and his loyal advisors to ensure greatness for the nation. The monarchy is entwined with the history and culture of the nation in many countries, and they can inspire nationalism and a sense of unity between the people of a country, and thus to take monarchies away is like destroying a country's culture, and like taking the father away from a family.

Vive le roi!

Attached: 800px-Grand_Royal_Coat_of_Arms_of_France.svg.png (800x1130, 918.49K)

Monarchy is an outdated relic of feudalism. I agree that autocracy is better than democracy, but absolute monarchy is tied with military dictatorship as the worst type of autocracy.

>be ottoman padisah in 1914
>want to gain back land from infidels
>bomb russian ports
>realise they have competent army
>realise they have competent airforce
>realise they have competent navy
>realise they have competent government
>fuck
>they capture istanbul because daddy germany cant hold frenchies in the trenches
>they divide your country to 5
>all of the sandniggers are free
>you just made a 700 years old empire collapse

Shitty kings/tsars/kaisers/padisahs can make bad decisions that can fuck country for more than 5 years. But in a democracy if your country has a decent 3iq+ ppl they will not vote on the same guy that told them degenerate and made 1E = 7TL.

Attached: download.jpg (224x224, 10.1K)

>What's your excuse for not taking the monarchist pill
I'm literate in political philosophy

Attached: JohnLocke.png (984x1138, 1.37M)

Now here's some quotes, although admittedly a lot of them are more so anti democracy than actually pro monarchy.
“The best reason why Monarchy is a strong government is, that it is an intelligible government. The mass of mankind understand it, and they hardly anywhere in the world understand any other. ” - Walter Bagehot

"Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes, or film-stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison." - C.S. Lewis

"The president of a republic is as though you pick a player from one of two teams and make him umpire." - Czar Simeon II of Bulgaria

"Democracy is the counting of heads, not what’s in them!" - Padraig Deignan

"Democracy… while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide." - John Adams

"Democracy is more vindictive than Cabinets. The wars of peoples will be more terrible than those of kings." - Winston Churchill

"When America set out to destroy Kings and Lords and Masters, and the whole paraphernalia of European superiority, it pushed a pin right through its own body, and on that pin it still flaps and buzzes and twists in misery. The pin of democratic equality. Freedom. There’ll never be any life in America till you pull the pin out and admit natural inequality. Natural superiority, natural inferiority. Till such time, Americans just buzz round like various sorts of propellers, pinned down by their freedom and equality." - D.H. Lawrence

3/3

>be democratically elected Maduro
>ruin the country
Also the ottomans were going to collapse anyway, might as well take the gamble of joining a big war.

Attached: Monarchy_Quote1.png (1853x846, 556.23K)

Monarchs aren't just trained from birth. True monarchs are bred for the role from time immemorial.

>be american
>diplomaticly isolate venezuela
>"maduro ruined venezuela"

Maybe if you yankees can get your nose out of South american countries politics they will not collapse?

Spain, the UK, and others are monarchies so it's not outdated, even if they're unfortunately just constitutional. I'm not an absolutist, but absolute monarchs still follow tradition and religion.

Maybe it wasn't just diplomatically isolating Venezuela that caused things to go to shit?

Attached: Final Pill.png (1141x1493, 1.44M)

And by Monarchy we mean feudal style monarchy.
Medieval Spain is the best type of Monarchy, with political and economical independent cities and corporations and guilds as the economic system.
Of course the society is strongly Christian.

Attached: 1586908907006.jpg (960x480, 220.98K)

>americans ruining south america with muh monroe doctrine and ziomasonry
>south american leaders are 90iq communist spics who are either owned by the banks or by russian kikes
The 2 things are possible at the same time.

absolute monarchy is modern masonic bullshit.
Feudalism and corporatism with a king on top is a way to go.

hail tsar nicholas II

How exactly does that work? I assume you'd have to insure that an average person wouldn't be wagslaving for all of life as a serf.

VIVE LE ROI

Attached: 582A8E70-D7FE-40C6-B971-3B2E43B80772.jpg (933x1509, 406.99K)

In feudal europe the serf owned the land and was obliged to give the lord food. In return the lord with his men would defend the serf from assaults and other lords/kings armies.

When the lord made excessive taxes on the serfs they just rebelled against him and went to his castle (that was near the peasants houses, not some gated communities) to kill him.
This is basically the 13th century Germany and England resumed in a post.

Dieu sauve le Roi!

Makes sense, but in modern times there would have to be a greater justification than the lord defending the serf since the national armies and police of the state are what defend people now.

Monarchy is cringe af
If you want a truly traditional but also sensical society we need fascism

Why not monarcho-fascism?

Attached: Carlist.png (601x875, 300.07K)

You know carlists and fascists in Spain hated each other, right?
But forgetting that thing, fascism and monarchy can co-exist, and even cooperate, this depends on the monarch, though. Italy had a compromise between fascism and monarchism, and they were compatible for 21 years.

Attached: king-victor-emmanuel-iii-of-italy-in-a-propaganda-poster-next-to-benito-BXTKJD.jpg (1222x1390, 322.25K)

Attached: 1544998939337.jpg (2190x1990, 3.02M)

What is an election other than allowing liars the divine right of kings?

>you know carlists and fascists in Spain hated each other
They still fought together, but yeah, I know. I just like having an excuse to post carlists.
>fascism and monarchy can co-exist, and even cooperate
When I meant monarcho-fascism I meant that the head of state is a monarch under a hereditary system, not compromising with a dictator. It makes perfect sense to me that a monarch who knows and trains his own son of his own blood makes a system far more stable than a dictatorship.

Attached: Carlos.png (698x901, 855.81K)

Consider a monarchy, America. An absolute one, to be more specific.

Attached: an_american_monarchy___coat_of_arms_by_regicollis-d6o0vbx.png (812x983, 875.17K)

IMO the only right choices are either a monarchy or a government that defends only negative rights with life-long or very long positions so that these people get experience to do their work.

What's funny is that there's no consensus on who the monarch would be. We have the Kennedys and Washingtons, but the people would never accept the establishment seizing power. The two best options are thus an American Caesar or the Windsors.

Attached: Monarchy_Quote2.png (1864x850, 418.43K)

>>One monarch can literally just ruin everything!
>That's a pretty big what if and a rare one at that.
It seems to me that Republics can have poor leaders, even a string of poor leaders and survive. Yet Monarchies in the modern world are dependent upon always having an unbroken line of great leaders.
France is a great example of this. Louis XVI wasn't actually that bad a leader. He was not stupid and somewhat pragmatic considering he once talked down an angry mob that burst into his palace. Maybe not super intelligent in the way that Hitler or Stalin was, but not an idiot like he is portrayed.
But he suffered from the flaw of a vacillating personality. A trait that he did not pick up from his father who was an arrogant but confident king.
And this one major flaw doomed France to one of the worst orgies of senseless violence on earth.

Tsar Nicolas II wasn't a tyrant or an idiot. But, like Louis XVI, he was not as confident as his father and he allowed himself to be swayed by advisors and doomed his nation and his family.
Keizer Wilhelm II doomed his monarchy by getting his nation in a pointless war.
Infact. wars in general are TERRIBLE for monarchies. Monarchs who start large wars tend to lose power.

Another problem with monarchism as it existed in the 18th century is that it was not nationalistic. I'm sorry, but claiming that it was is ignorant of the facts. Almost all monarchs of the 18th & 19th centuries were strong proponents of multi-ethnic imperialism. And in 1848, nationalists emerged as one of the leading opponents of the monarchies.

Anyone who's read Hoppe knows that the transition from monarchy to democracy was a mistake, and actually led to less freedom overall

Monarchy is based

Attached: princesa-leonor-efe.gif (1000x600, 332.99K)

And OP you should emphasize more that under most monarchies power was actually really distributed where most people were only concerned with their locality. It was hardly rule by an iron first

I'm sympathetic to it, but some reading material would be nice. Anyone?

>implying
What do you think 'we wuz kangs' means?

>>One monarch can literally just ruin everything!
This isn't really the case though. In ww1 none of the monarchs wanted war. They were all literally cousins. But in Britain, real power came from the parliament, who wanted war; in Germany power was with the Generals, who wanted war; in Russia power was with the nobles, who wanted war.

Monarchs, even absolute monarchs, still have a balance of power that prevents them from doing anything they want carte blanche.

>But republics have a balance of power
Yeah, a balance where all politicians are bought and paid for by banks. A bank balance.

Monarchist here. I want an absolute monarch but he must be ultra-nationalist or fascist.

Attached: FDC6BED3-B079-4D1D-813B-B1E461711F03.jpg (640x1136, 123.79K)

Try Plato "Statesman", "Sophist"
Try Hoppe's "Democracy the god that failed"
Try Hobbe's "Leviathan"
Try Machiavelli's "The Prince"

"Liberalism was a mistake"
-Locke's ghost, on seeing modern western society

I read Aristotle's Politics a couple years ago. As I remember, he praised monarchy as the superior form of government.

machiavelli is garbage desu.

He did, as he followed Plato's teachings and elaborated on them. It's basically "The Statesman" with more content,

No thanks, I'd rather have a Hitler-like man of the people.

>be maduro
>be socialist
>blame america
Yep it's starvation time.

>Take Napoleon III as an example, he remodeled Paris into a modern city and fostered tons of long term projects such as railroads and parks that benefited France tremendously.
All this is true. However, Napoleon III, though a good leader, suffered just one major flaw and this one flaw doomed his entire royal house. That flaw was that he was a warmonger.
Once again, another example of why monarchies and war do not mix in the modern world. You would think that they would figure this out, but monarchs tend to be stupid this way. War kills monarchies.

Doesn't Plato's Republic point to a collective body of sages to lead society instead of a monarch?
In fact, as I remember, Aristotle's Politics was a rebuttal to that.