Is anarcho-monarchism really a thing ?

...

Anarcho-monarchist here, it means I want to establish a personal kingdom on my private property. Is that too much to ask?

yeah it's real just like anarcho-fascism
totally not a contradiction in terms

ayyyy

Tolkien never identified as an anarcho-monarchist. He had romantic, idealist feelings towards monarchism but his few political opinions were towards anarchism.

National Anarchism is a thing it was a large movement in history

I don't even think anyone actually believes in National Anarchism, but there's nothing actually un-anarchistic about it. It's just extremely spooked, but voluntarily associating only with your ethnic group doesn't violate any principles of anarchism.

Borders need a State.

...

Down with private property. Neither anarcho-capitalism nor anarcho-monarchism (a contradiction in terms, both in roots and actual definitions) are anarchist.

"Anarchism" doesn't mean "government through voluntary associations and interactions", it means "belief in a society without rulers" (from Greek roots of an-archon-ismos). Stop taking those bullshit definitions from ancaps - their founders even acknowledged that they had nothing in common with anarchists and weren't part of anarchism.

Mods, delete this shitty thread for a special snowflake contradictory-in-terms right wing ideology.

Yes it is

Really? Granted, I've never read a full bio of him, but from everything I do know about him, he sounds like a TradCath

Brits just have a weird thing for old people with crowns

make a video about it~ (prob not really you)

so if i get old and get a crown i can get fuckmuir and mukes boipussi

It's basically feudalistic primitivism. Think of the anarcho-syndicalist commune in Monty Python and the Holy Grail that King Arthur just happened to run across randomly on the countryside.

there are multiple forms of anarchism, left, right and traditionalist

anarcho monarchism is traditionalist anarchism.

He never called himself that but when he described his ideal politics it matched up with anarcho-monarchism.

The answer is legitimately because that's not spooky enough. The only reason to do it is because you find it meaningful and if you're the sort of person who find having a symbolic king meaningful then you want to go whole hog on your symbolic king. Halfassing your symbolic king goes against the whole point.

What is with retards wanting to add anarchism onto their stupid worldview? It's not as though anarchism has mass appeal.

and some water is dry right?

Anarcho-Monarchs are basically the British version of An-caps if you think about it.

Is it because Americans pretty much worship capital/"free market" as something similar to a divine right to rule?

Well An-caps are basically feudalists, but Anarcho-monarchs are more honest about it.

...

Couldn't find an actual copy of the letter but here's a summary:

He probably liked "good" kings for idealistic reasons, but he definitely believed in abstract anarchistic principles. He wasn't very political and he was a traditional Catholic, but he wasn't much of an authoritarian.

No but monarcho-Socialism is.

...

Ten thousand hours in mspaint and a Tumblr does not an ideology make

What makes you guys think anarcho-monarchists are necessarly capitalists ? The only thing I've found about anarcho-monarchism said it was distributist.

That's quite a swing. But that's cool Tolkien was into anarchy.

this is literally the reason why the Emperor of Japan exists today

lmao. all these stupid fancy sounding words idiots duped into being classcuck rightwing "OBAMA IS MUSLIM AND TAXES ARE EVIL" tea party members call themselves to try and make it seem like they have an established ideology when really its just pushing for the status quo

[Citation fucking needed]
It's nazifag entryism

yes it does, excluding people from your commune requires borders, and borders need a state to enforce it. it's not real anarchism.

The French Monarchists of the Action Française were sincerely fond of Proudhon and his many reactionary views, which is probably what Maurras hinted at when he famously said "Monarchy is Anarchy plus one" (whatever that is supposed to truly mean). The Sorel- and Maurras-inspired Cercle Proudhon think-thank was a major proto-Fascist intellectual force in 1910s France.

Should we conclude that there is some kernel of truth to some Monarchists' claims of Anarchism? No, rather we should deduce that Proudhon was not an anarchist but rather the ideologist of reactionary craftsmen and peasants upset by the development of industrial society.

''The Cercle was named after Proudhon because from the beginning the
theoreticians of revolutionary syndicalism considered Proudhon the equal of
Marx. The more their revision of Marxism developed, the more Proudhon
eclipsed Marx, so that he appeared in Berth’s writings, for instance, as the
“father of modern socialism.” The Action française also, from its inception,
regarded the author of La Philosophie de la misère as one of its masters. He
was given a place of honor in the weekly section of the journal of the movement
entitled, precisely, “Our Masters.” Proudhon owed this place in L’Action
française to what the Maurrassians saw as his antirepublicanism; his
anti-Semitism; his loathing of Rousseau; his disdain for the French Revolution,
democracy, and parliamentarianism; and his championship of the nation,
the family, tradition, and the monarchy.
The Cahiers du Cercle Proudhon took up the same themes, found more or
less everywhere in Proudhon, but placed a special emphasis on his socialism.
Moreover, like Maurras, who admired him because, “quite apart from
his ideas, Proudhon had an instinct for French politics,” the Cahiers were
at pains to point out how worthy of respect was a man who, in addition to his
passion for order, attempted to prove the supremacy of France and demanded
for the French nation, “which has produced the finest flower of
human civilization,” the right to command the rest of Europe. Valois, in
turn, insisted on “Proudhon’s revolutionary passion,” which, instead of causing
him to launch attacks against French society and property, made him
turn against the true culprits: Jewish capitalism and the social order imposed
by foreigners. Berth, next, presented Proudhon as the representative of a
“Gallic” socialism—a peasant, warrior socialism with a deep feeling for unity
and order, a socialism drawn “from a pure French source.” Finally,
Gilbert Maire wrote: “He dared to express more openly than anyone else the
utility of direct action, the beauty of violence in the service of reason.”''
— Zeev Sternhell, The Birth of Fascist Ideology (1989)

xix century nazbols, nothing but memes devoid of theory

I might, on occasion, be described as an anarcho-monarchist. To me it means anarchism for everyone except the monarch who acts as a benevolent ruler preventing anyone else from rising to fill the power vacuum at the top. The monarch enforces some basic rules to prevent the whole system from falling apart and protect people from suffering, but other than that everyone is free to pursue their own goals.
The only way I can see it being implemented is in the far future using AI. Think of something like: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Culture