Monarchism

I'd think it would be harder to propagate cultural values through a Monarchy. With a Democracy there aren't hard-stop points where values can just instantly shift.

If it were resistant, it would still be with us.

I believe the biggest problem with monarchies is that they didn't do a good job of breeding future monarchs. Also, the nepotism of aristocrats may overlook superior choices in classes outside of themselves, not to mention they grow so attached to their status that they will more than likely betray their own people just to retain some semblance of it. "Class struggle" is how the dirty Liberals and Marxists overthrew their royals.

An authoritarian society then must create an equitable environment devoid of distinct classes; a ladder that anyone can climb if they try hard enough. So Monarchy has to evolve, which it has: Fascism/National Socialism.

Here's another related book. 'The Third Rome' by Matthew Raphael Johnson. It's a defense of tsarist Russia.
barnesreview.org/product/the-third-rome-holy-russia-tsarism-and-orthodoxy/

How do you guys feel about the British royal family? Prince Charles wrote a book about sacred geometry and even has a school named after him teaching it which I think is pretty cool. He's also against modern architecture and opposes GM foods.

Of course since the British monarchy are just figureheads now, sometimes they just act to promote whatever the democratic government tells them to.

JEWISH

Care to expand on that?

Nah m8. Harry's going to lead a coup and overthrow Rothschild and the rest of his cuck royal family.

They're good, but surrounded by republics, they aren't going to be very monarchichal. The culture is decidedly demotist in the west and their "subjects" are imbibing it which nullifies their authority.

REDSHIELD

you have devolved centuries of philosophy if you really advocate for an absolute monarchy.

Doesn't that make you a progressive? Since you think the changes in political systems has been an 'evolution' and going back to what we used to do would be a 'devolution'? You think things are getting better all the time?

Also absolute monarchy is not the only kind, you could also have a constitutional monarchy.

Enjoy living as a second class citizen ,and living under the rule of a six year old shithead or even worse a women.

None of my ancestors were ever serfs :^)

confound monarchism

on this earth

pro-consulism

multiple consuls

WE

WUZ

KANGZ

WE

WUZ

KANGZ

Aren't the governed always 'second class citizens' when compared to their government under any system though? I mean I know we have this meme about government serving the people but ultimately when you give leaders the power to govern, they are placed above you.

-Hans-Hermann Hoppe

riosmauricio.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Hoppe_Democracy_The_God_That_Failed.pdf

Required reading attached

The police(government big guys), politicians, and media figure heads are above you in every way, shape, and form.
They carry guns to places where you can't. They break laws and receive no punishment while you will.

yeah and what are we now mr smart guy

This is the only reason for a king that makes sense. The concept isn't just that you have a stable ruler for whatever practical reason, it is that God has ordered society in such a way that everybody has their particular station under God, and the king happens to be at the top. Hence duty, loyalty, respect, for the entire structure of society.

But bad kings need to be removable and succession planning needs to be more intelligently decided than waiting for the old guy to die and his eldest son to take over. There needs to be a panel of nobles and high church officials who can police the king.

Hmm.. Even in modern democracies the idea that anyone can become a leader if they work hard and pull themselves up by their bootstraps is a myth. Most politicians are lawyers, well-connected to power brokers by an accident of birth, millionaires, celebrities, inheritors of a political or financial dynasty, etc. We have the Clinton dynasty in the US, Trump got financial help from his dad, Dubya and Jeb inherited George HW's dynasty, Reagan was a famous actor, Joseph Kennedy was a powerful businessman who set up JFK to be president and the other Kennedys followed suit, in Canada there's the Trudeau dynasty, etc. Most of us never had a chance. If anything I would imagine this would be even more true under fascism. Monarchies are at least honest about the fact that you're never gonna be president.

A lot of monarchies had a system like this.

Yeah I forgot how Trump's dad gave him 10 billion dollars on his 18 birthday.

Kings fill a power vacuum and maintain that power.

The last king in the US was David Koresh.

hyper tribalism now

nobody is going to help you

If you want to get a picture of what a modern day Monarchy would look like, imagine George H.W. Bush ruling the country until he died, being succeeded by Dubya, then Jeb!, and then Jeb's cokehead spic son. The elite families aren't people you would want in power forever. They're invariably centre right cucks or Jews.

The current situation with Democracy isn't ideal by any stretch, but at least we get a chance to elect a genuinely great man now and then.

Nobody said that. I wasn't bashing Trump but it would be a lie to say he had the exact same opportunities as the rest of us do. Even if you want to claim he did it all through his own intelligence that would still be an advantage that he had since we all have varying degrees of intelligence. Besides he was just one example. My point is most people will never have a chance of attaining political power, and the people who do are usually people who grew up in the right circumstances and had were fortunate in various ways. I'm not complaining about it, just acknowledging it.

Under democracy i have a chance to become part of the government even if a slim chance it counts hitler and soon trump rose to power through democracy
Under meritocracy fascism if i am qualified for a position i am awarded that position.
Under monarchy i'm a pleb no matter how worthy i am and the king probably a congenital idiot.

jeb raised 162 millions and trump 51 millions
jeb got guac'd and trump is leading
money doesn't equal power

I think you're overestimating your odds at becoming powerful within democracy. I mean normally candidates need lots of connections with special interest groups, they need to know people already just to get their foot in the door. Trump is the one recent exception in that the Republican elite hated him, but he needed to be a MULTI-BILLIONAIRE and master hypnotist just to bypass that hurdle, and your chances of attaining that are pretty slim. So you could become 'part of the government', like a dogcatcher, but there are very low odds you would attain any meaningful power or influence.

I'm not sure how it would work in fascism but I assume those in power would promote people they trusted from within their own cliques so it would still be hard for the average person to exert any influence.

Yeah I wanted to point out that saying Trump was "handed" wealth is an over statement. He was given a million dollar loan, and paid the good goy interest back (good goy interest being good credit rating, considering his dad is a millionaire).
Would you take a million dollar loan of 3% interest after a year? Doubt many would.
easier said than done.
If that is the case then they are superior stock.
Best them or complain. Most do the latter.

Honestly "real" monarchy is who ever had the bigger army and won. How could a Frenchman be the king of England? Simple. He won.
Today it's whoever can trick the masses to funnel their supplies to support. If I can convince enough they'll gladly send their men to die for me, bleed profusely in taxes, and support social banter.
Who ever is the flavour of the month.
Who ever is Kosher in the establishment eyes.
Who ever has the biggest military.

Ok, take a look at bush's family and the kennedys, aren't they kinda a aristocratic family anyway?

Besides, in a monarchy, you can be prime minister, like in Britain or Japan.

Take a look a those ghetto niggas, spics, rednecks. They vote is declared as equal as of a redpilled man.

Like said, closed system with power group tend to form, democracy or not.

The only reason we even know who Jeb is in the first place is because of his family, which supports my point. Why are we even talking about this milquetoast? Because he's a Bush.

peanuts + propaganda = power

You won't get your propaganda, unless you eat your peanuts!!!!

I wouldn't mind Bush being King. Nobody complained about liberals when he was president, sure he was bad but not nearly as bad as now.

Don't see why you default to seniority succession. I'd expect primogeniture with Bush's son going first. Jeb is such a retard that they would never give him the throne, even his present campaign was reluctantly agreed on out of necessity.

And why Bush, anyhow? It would be a Lincoln, or a Washington, or someone like Rockwell if you're proposing a newly established monarchy. Bushes at best might be some kind of county or duchy.

No, it's not. It's really not, I thought this for a while. But it's not the case. I am definitely not opposed to a modern Monarchy, but don't muddy the waters by calling Fascism anything related to Monarchy.

What about that Norton guy?

I not that fine in asian history, but wasnt WW2 Japan a fascist monarchy?

NatSoc is pretty much Republican absolutism or i am wrong in it?

Whoever God decides should be king.

Thought he was a meme pretender.

How could the US possibly turn monarchic anyhow? IMO the likeliest is what happened in Rome: Caesar takes emergency powers, never gives them up, expands own power and appoints relative as successor. Through the personality cult tradition is established and centuries later you get "my family are royals because we have always been royals".

I've got Romanov blood in me. Where do I sign up?

No, it wasn't fascist, and it's arguable it wasn't really a monarchy during the War. It was simply a Military Junta.

But if there was a monarchy, by definition whoever was in power (whether it was 'alternate universe Jeb' or someone else) would be a different person than they are now and rule differently than they would now. Since a) they would be groomed and educated to rule from birth b) they would not be subject to the pressures of the masses or of lobby groups since they don't need to worry about getting re-elected and they have a long term view of not just ruling for their entire lives but also their entire future lineage ruling after them.

gas yourself

a monarch is always one crisis away from absolute power and you better hope he is altruistic because you will suffer before things get bad enough for a revolt. only to suffer the same eventuality again. that is why the founding fathers chose a republic, more difficult for subversive elements to gain total control.

Well, i mean that power families are pretty much aristocratic groups arent they?

I remember that Obama signed some laws that give him extra autorithy on new years eve or something.

Oh, ok then.

Why? I'm not saying I'd like it, but it doesn't sound that bad. Bush wouldn't live forever, who's to say his son would be shit?

Not legally.

When you're on the kike side of the force, laws do not matter.

wew, top retard

How the hell is it in 3D? This is 2spoopy4me
Please tell me I'm not the only one seeing this

In past times one type of king got hired by people who felt insecure and needed a leader. Such a king is weak because he's out when the people change their mind.

Another type of king made himself king over the people by conquest. This king is strong because he owns everything as spoil of war, and gives it out to his nobles and soldiers in return for pledges of loyalty. The entire government is hired by the king out of his personal wealth - so everybody works for the king and pays the king - and the king delegates these functions to his ministers.

A monarchy is more than just a guy wearing a crown.

sorry m8 it turns out you're a schizo

AYO HOL UP, YOO TELLIN ME MUH ANSESTAZ WERE KANGZ?

Monarchy is a fucking failure, see: court jews.

Generally speaking a monarchy only works when its in competition with other elements of the nations government.

Here in the UK we had the crown, parliament and the house of lords all at each others throats for public approval and support.
And it worked until the monarch became weak and inactive.

For instance our monarchs authority was initially rooted in the crown courts. Impartial courts of law they provided that were massively preferred over the local lords courts which were typically biased in favour of the lord that ran them.

As for the USA.
A monarch could have worked. As guardian of the constitution and bill of rights.
Make them the only one able to call for modification and empower them to enforce it when its violated.
Shit would be good.

… the kings of England went from strong to weak over time as first the nobles leached power so that taxes weren't paid unless the king called them in for discussion. This became 'parliament' and as rich common people became more and more the payers of taxes they demanded seats in the parliament. Eventually the commons pushed for voting reforms that eventually gave everybody a vote, even people don't pay any taxes at all. Today it is madness where poor people have majority vote to plunder the rich through taxes to pay for their social programs.

monarchy is the eschaton of shit/edgelordism

King's courts were equity courts, the others were law courts. The king's courts worked on the principal that the king's job was to make sure there was fairness and common sense in his realm that could veto the rigid results of the law courts if needed.

Good points made here.

This is a good example of the point-and-sputter technique.

Exactly.
Hence why the crown was often regarded as the font of justice here in the UK

Russia.

Monarchists are just a flaky faction of the Alt Right now, but their involvement is probably understated. Poland's Janusz Korwin-Mikke of the KORWiN party is a monarchist. In France monarchy has long been tied up with the Right, and during the anti-faggot marriage protests a few years ago some royalist groups took to the streets alongside Identitarians. In Russia a new Monarchist party is slated to run in parliamentary elections later this year. For the most part though, setting up a throne in any given country will be more a capstone to our victory than a means to it; only when all a country's institutions are purged of leftists and liberals will it be time to install a king.

Then you get a regent. That's what Cardinal Richelieu was, and he was one of the ablest statesmen in French history.

If the Bush family ruled by hereditary descent rather than by keeping on good terms with Zionist-right Jews and the banks, in time they would likely identify their interests less and less with the money power or Israel since their rule would depend on neither.

The actual modern-day monarchies of the Persian Gulf are likely more representative of monarchy in general.

Hitler said the first time he cried after the death of his mother was when he learned the Kaiser was abdicating.

I think it might be pretty fun.

I'll take a based monarchy over a liberal democracy any day. The problem with them though is that everyone thinks he should be king.

Someone like Caesar, who can take upon himself the burden of being a ruler and inspire men to give their all in his name.
The problem inherent in the system is that you are not guaranteed strong worthy men will always be rulers, and that sometimes you may have to entertain fools and those drunk on their own undeserved power.

Unfortunately jolly old England believes in democracy, though the moral foundations in the west are so weak that if we can destroy them in a generation than we can possibly reshape a land more receptive to a monarch. The people love strong personalities. If bongs have a civil war to bring about Harry's rule I'd gladly travel to help that happen.

Progress is not necessarily good user, you should know that if you browse this board. A few good men in power could reverse moral decay if they were so inclined.

That situation was like the Shogunate, fairly common in Japan in the past. Doesn't seem that far from the 'divine right of kings' in the west except that the divine was a living man. The Shogunate (or military government of WW2) was sanctioned by the God Emperor of Japan and so what the Shogun and his officials want is the divine will of your God Emperor. If the state religion and governing apparatus are intertwined than you can get some crazy displays loyalty from your people. The Romans had the right idea when they instituted Emperor worship into the state cult.

Now is not the time for fear user.
That comes later

What's your ideal system little lad?

I hear Jordan's king is pretty based, and the old Shah may have been as well. The current Queen of England's consort is also pretty fucking great.

Some contrarian articles on the American Revolution:
lewrockwell.com/2011/07/gary-north/the-american-revolution-was-a-mistake/
lewrockwell.com/2010/02/jonathan-m-kolkey/did-king-george-iii-deserve-to-be-overthrown/

Monarchy as a fix is just a band-aid. What is necessary is a body of citizens who understand, respect and defend their identity and principles. Autocratic rule can help instil some norms, but it is not going to provide longevity or defence against degeneracy if natural, ethnic identity is not built on healthy principles.
Cosmopolitanism is the cancer, Imperialism was a good attempt to overcome this with national identities writ large. All of it collapsed with end of the true monarchies in 1918.

The only way forward is if a Caesar-like figure topples the democratic order and re-establish autocracy as a legitimate, popular and effective form of rule, instead of quasi-democracies and the endless charades played by the elites.

Tribalism is somewhat outdated (if I am wrong then please feel free to correct me) however it is useful especially during the collapsed civilizations. It is better than anarchy.

Please let me post.

How do you know that you have Romanov blood in your vein?

In a monarchy an absolute ruler must be guided and is by necessity of the crown dependent almost like a crippled child on a cadre of ambitious family members and advisors.

The only true shield a king has against the thousand blades in his back is the good graces and adoration of "the people" who, in numbers, vastly outnumber said cadre of the ambitious. These people have no direct angle from which to seize the crown and so will guard it's stability with the envious vigor of amorous young lovers.

For this reason a monarchy, somewhat counterintuitively, is the ideal polity for maintaining the happiness, stability and equity amongst members of society at large.

There's more to be said, but this is it in a nutshell.

But there is no god

Monarchs have no incentive to do anything other than cover their own ass because their position is guaranteed for life.

Enjoy your succession crises.

←—–

They have nothing better to do than help their people when they have everything.

A lot of what governments do tends to be bad so I don't mind if they start doing less. As it is now they act to pander to different demographics rather than do what they objectively calculate is in the country's best long term interests.

No, yeomen

I'm British and I'm in favour of getting rid of democracy and giving the monarchy more power (whether they should have absolute power, or shared power with some sort of nobility/meritocracy, I'm not sure) - but have doubts as to how our current monarchy would be up to the task.

As they are already established as the monarchy, I think they would be the only people who the British people would accept as King/Queen.

The problem is that the #1 advantage of a hereditary monarchy over a standard dictatorship is that every heir has been raised by the reigning monarch's personal experience, knowing all their life their duty, and preparing for it exclusively.

There may be a chance that in Elizabeth's day she was still raised to lead people, with that strong sense of duty, respect for traditions, her inheritance, ect - but I really doubt Charles was, never mind William. I suspect the majority of what the present monarchy is taught is just how to present themselves, rather than how to rule - as modern monarchs have no need for that skill-set.

Even if they were taught it, they wouldn't appreciate it or take it as seriously as monarchs of the past, because in their hearts they must know that they've can't use their power any more anyway.

I agree with David Starkey when he says that the power of modern monarchs is like a bee-sting in that it can only be used once. This is because whilst the British public generally favour monarchy, they only favour it as a shallow, ceremonial thing.

Like a bee-sting, exercising their power will kill the user (either literally or metephorically), because most of the British public are still in the mindset of "it's >current year!", "muh democracy!", etc. They would revolt against any real power - and that's without accounting for other powers such as the elected government and the EU bureaucrats.

The current "bee-sting" condition can pass given enough time, as people lose faith in democracy and their elected politicians - but I reckon it will take many generations, with monarchy slowly regaining power, rather than a sudden revolution.

The shogunate treated the emperor only as puppet and lost legitimacy when it made unpopular decision to open up trade with the west. The Meiji restoration brought the emperor back to power and established the nutty emperor worship cult and centralized authority. Ironically the meiji leadership opened up the country even more to the west in a policy of modernization. The emperior cult made modernization seem more acceptable "japanese" than when shogunate attempted it. In reality the emperor was still a puppet. The example shows how the monarchy can be used to mask regime change. That's what Cortes and Pizzaro did - marching with a small band right into the royal courts and audaciously kidnapping the supreme ruler and making him their puppet.

Better to be ruled by a woman with royal blood than by a nigger from Kenya.

What's very interesting is that with the coming advent of genetic engineering, these problems with monarchy will all disappear. Monarchs would be able to breed Aryan Supermen, free of the incest and congenital illness that plagued the great royal lines of the past. Kings would be strong, intelligent, and trained to rule from the moment they were born. Doesn't sound half bad to me.

The real problem with adapting monarchy to the modern world lies in deciding which flavor of monarchy makes more sense. Absolute monarchy is a high risk, high reward proposition. A skillful absolute monarch can make a country truly great, but a crappy one can very easily ruin it. There's also the fact that governance is absolutely impossible for one person to handle. An absolute monarch would be forced to delegate a great deal of his power to bureaucrats, and there is a threat that they may end up becoming more powerful than the king himself, which is probably a bad state of affairs, considering that bureaucrats tend to be incompetent, and have likely not received the same education in ruling that a king would.

A constitutional monarchy, complete with a Parliament-style lower house and some constitutional checks on the king's power, would be the most palatable to normies and therefore the most likely to actually be implemented. However, history and human nature dictate that a hereditary king and an elected assembly cannot rule together in peace. Both sides will be constantly maneuvering to try and gain power over the other. The end result, borne out over many generations, is that a constitutional monarchy will almost certainly either end up with a victorious king seizing power as an absolute monarch, or with elected officials seizing power from the king and instituting either a dictatorship or a democracy.

sage
sage all Papist-Zionist threads

sage all Papist-Zionist threads

sage all Papist-Zionist threads

That's a neat analogy.

However in principle a very important duty of a king is to make alliances and balance power in his realm, so that no one group can rebel against him lest those subjects who hate them also join, as loyalists. The king's true de facto power comes not from God, or law, or even military strength - but from his unique position as a power broker and alliance maker. The de jure pretext of his kinghood serves only to facilitate this process, by encouraging powerful subjects to pledge to abide by this arrangement and not unduly overthrow a good (in the sense of having made good alliances, not necessarily good governance) king.

It can be said that the recent British monarchs failed in this duty and allowed themselves be isolated. Of course they did this because they presumably intended for the monarchy to weaken.

Into the trash. They're degenerate jewish shit.
Habsburgs and Romanovs are the only ones I know that have a chance of ever being relevant by the virtue of retaining some kind of culture, even if the current heirs are disasters. Anyway, even if we can't have monarchy, that's because of our dark age and failure. There's no doubt it's the perfect form of government. After all, it's the Kingdom of God.

Because voting a bad ruler in rather than out is so much better.

Aristocratic authoritarian republics can be good, but if I wanted America to have a king I would have had it be George Washington. He had no sons, but he adopted his nephew George Washington Parke Custis, who had bloodlines from both Stuart and Hanover. Parke Custis was the ancestor to Robert E. Lee. So, I assume if America wants to install a king then find the direct descendant of Robert E. Lee.

Also these are good points too.

daily reminder

Mr "Sage", the groundwork for the United States was laid in non-papist, non-Zionist, yet monarchist colonies.

4 has its place, but its problem is that it has no praxis

Bump

Monarchy definately comes in second place right after fascist on what kind of government/leadership i would support. Pretty neat that monarchist movements are now flourishing in former communist russia and some communist shit hole country (i honestly cant remember the name but its somewhere in Asia i think). Hell there is even a monarchy of texas.

Monarchy comes from God and is the natural way for human society to be ruled.

All that is required is a good saintly King. Everything else falls into order.

It is not that there is no representation, but the King is the final authority.

Monarchy protects the people from dangerous elements like the eternal Jew. If the monarch puts the concerns of his people first.

Why do you think the Jews had the Tsar and his family massacred?

I totally agree. Agrarian village life is the most natural and wholesome life for human beings.

The magic number 777 agrees.

I keep stating the Bob Problem:
“It doesn’t WORK.”
I am afraid this can be misinterpreted into making me a Practical Man.
No way.
The Practical Manis a fool. He is a fool because he forgets the word YET.
The Practical Man in 1800 could have given you an endless number of reasons why the idea of sending pictures through the air with electricity would be an absurd idea, all based on his careful reading of The Latest News From Science.
First of all, he’d say, you would need several billion leyden jars, even the new improved ones..
The Practical Man, like the social science professor, is not not only wrong, he is incurably wrong.
If a social scientist didn’t have a PhD he would be committed to a mental institution. But with a PhD he can say things that are less rational than casual conversation in the ding-a-ling ward and get paid for it.
In history and science, the Practical Man is ALWAYS wrong. But he has a reputation as a Practical man, so everybody knows that the practical Manis always wrong — just as the social science professor is, and everybody reveres him more than they do a Holy Professor.
In the ding-a-ling ward, some people get better.
No professor will ever get better.
No Practical Man will ever get better.

I agree with most of that pic, but what's wrong with NatSoc? In its highest forms it is precisley a resurgence of traditionalist forms in a modern context.

I once dealt with someone who denounced that entire image because "redpill" was written with a hyphen. Can you believe that shit?

Oh I am laffin

pre-hitler natsoc had actually no issues, but after him the whole ideology turned into "poisoning the well" fallacy.

Your image is for ants.

No fam, you just need glasses.
This is an image for ants

(dubs confirm faggot)
*also, it says "fuck you" :^)

Monarchism works in the sense that the king has direct control over the success of his kingdom; he is tied to the land, to his people, to the kingdom's wealth. If his rule works and he is just and fair, the kingdom will prosper and so will he. if it fails, then he has failed his people, failed his kingdom.

why do you add this buzzword?
natsoc is not traditional, it is egalitarian.

Well this is too complicated to discuss on Holla Forums as the subject of monarchy is already too complicated to discuss here, but there is more than two "flavors". There are infinite "flavors", all depending on the period, the nation and the monarch. He can change it gradually or immediately.

I think that's the only weakness of Monarchy and of good or truth. It is so vulnerable to misinformation, lies, slander, assassination. While democracy you have a cabal in the shadows behind people LARPing for 100k a year + bribes. One politician LARPing becomes unpopular? Just get a new one. Nothing changes.

The problem inherent in the system is that you are not guaranteed strong worthy men will always be rulers, and that sometimes you may have to entertain fools and those drunk on their own undeserved power.

No you are not always going to have the perfect king, just like your wife isn't going to be perfect, your children aren't going to be perfect, everyone you meet won't be perfect, everyone with authority over you isn't going to be perfect. I don't see your argument. Do you also complain about marriages, having children and leadership? are you a communist?

that's just after 300 years of individualism being shoved down our throats. TBH being king must be ass.

I think the perfect analogy (and they go hand in hand) is protestants are to catholics what democracyfags (what do I call these guys they go by over 40,000 names) are to monarchists. For examples, for 400 years protestants have spread lies and bile against the catholic church to justify their own insane ideas. Ever heard of these myths (I mean the insane biased slant they teach)? Dark ages, Inquisistion, Catholic church torturing everyone and then killing them, Crusades, Jesuits, Catholic Church being Pagan? Who do you think spread these? Protestants. Why do you think they're so common? American and English protestants teach them to their children in school and in church (they also teach monarchist lies like muh inbred, muh ruler that is mediocre, and other nonsensical lies you see here) Just listen to this madman.
youtube.com/watch?v=_oRdLXksZMg&feature=youtu.be&t=48m50s

That's what they are, madmen. They value liberty above duty, family, honor, religion, nation.

If there was a monarchy in the united states, they would rather live in liberia than there. The funny thing, it's like that guy said (paraphrasing here, these ideologues love equality so much that they would rather all be slaves in a democracy than be inequal), you have more freedom in a monarchy. Heck, if things happened in the USA today happened in a monarchy, the monarch would be automatically killed. Not only is monarchy more stable than democracy, there is more liberty.

Please reply with your examples of crazy monarchs who persecuted like 5 people in their courts while everything went merrily along in the kingdom and I'll point out that is 1 monarch for that time period that was 1 monarch out of hundreds.

The enlightenment and protestant ideologues must be exposed for bringing about the current state of things.

You, you I like.

Are you unfamiliar with the Just War doctrine? what an absolute pleb.

You needed actual claims and couldn't just fabricate shit. If you didn't play fair then the pope intervened and the other european monarchs booted your ass out.

Best them or complain. Most do the latter.

Jesus, uneducated AND edgy.

This is why Ivan, the Eternal Mongol, is never wanted around.

I guess Evola is a good way to start reading about defenses of the aristocracy and monarchy. Though that is the only author I know that dive into this subject.

I like Monarchism, however, the huge problem with monarchy is that it isn't nessearly nationalistic in nature. Feudal states were often mutlicultral, that is why the Monarchy is a prime unifer for different peoples and cultures in Sweden :^)

The reason many favor Monarchism is because of its decentrialized nature. That give more freedom to the provinces, even if it is an Absolute Monarchy. Therefore regional cultural identities is keept safe from the horrors of hegemony that happened during the French Revolutions were many regional indetites were wiped out to create the new French. The same happened in China, with much less success and they still try to make one Chinaman, which is going poorly mind you.
However, not every Monarchy is decentralized, Imperial China was one example of a heavly centrilized Empire. This of course dependend on which Dynasty ruled and what philosophy was dominat at the Emperor's court.
Basically Monarchies are the guardians of traditions, this is also seen by Monarchies divine right to rule.

You are talking about Feudal Monarchy user, do not think that all forms of monarchy have a strict form of hiarchy caste system.
Though to be fair, even during Absolute Monarchy you still got a privilged aristocracy, however, not all Monarchies have a strict hiarchy of castes.
There were even feudal monarchies in Europe that let peasants actually climb the rank, Sweden, Norway and Switzerland. Though there wasn't any rank to climp really. In Norway you only had 3 classes. The King - Everyone else - trash.

There have also been several metocratic monarchies in existance, espeisally Empires. Imperial China and Napoleonic France being the most well known because of its lack of aristorcary they got genocided during the Han.

Because of rising advances and wellfare, education is not only avalable for the rich and powerful, but also for the plebs.

...

Of course it is. Muh German people are all equal. Muh socialism for Germans. It tries to create a perfect Aryan ideal out of any man. Real right wingers and traditionalists will say to you that's dumb because there is no transcendent nation by itself, only better and worse people. In every nation. Yes, average is higher in some than in others, but in the end, you need to segregate even in your "muh white homeland". That's why aristocracy and various castes exist.

Not exactly the time preference that you were referring to, however I think I can add onto this discussion.

Monarchies are simultaneously better and worse than democracies because of how quickly a monarch can make large changes in infrastructure, finances, etc…

Monarchies have the speed to respond to crisis incredibly quickly (faster than even smaller democracies), and under a good monarch, the nation will prosper faster, longer, etc…

The flip side to this coin, is that if you get a BAD Monarch, shit can go to hell in a hand-basket in a fucking HURRY.

Whereas the inherent incompitancies of democracy will limit the overall speed of the slide into tyranny, monarchy has no such restrictions on speed, if so inclined to take a downward course.