What's the red pill on monarchy? And how likely is it to make a comeback in the west?

L.O.L.

What's "Orthodoxy" by the way?

The problem with the West is that it only ever had one Apostolic See and power got too concentrated. Common faith in the principles of truth and order are what should unite healthy nations on the international level. Each nation should have a monarch and autocephalous church.

Orthodoxy is short for the Eastern Orthodox Church which can't be separated from a proper monarchy without destroying the whole purpose of Davidic Kingship which is only possible in the Church

Read Common Sense. Monarchy is idolatry. God is the only rightful king of man and any king who puts forth that he is a divine ruler will burn in the lowest circle of Hell. There is nothing wrong with republics.

L.O.L., sure is strange calling a foreign religion like the Eastern Church as "orthodox". That's cuckoldry, since the definition of the word means "correct" and you're saying that the foreigners are doing it right. Cuck

Well, the apostolic Church of England sucessfully settled whites around the globe. Also, I heard that Sweden have the apostolic link in some of theirs. I consider myself a Westernerer… Where are you from, user.?

Why don't you Protestants become gnostics already with your pessimistic view of the material world. A royal court on Earth is an icon of the Kingdom of Heaven. This is what happens when you miss the 7th Ecumenical Council.

every fucking time

They are doing it right. The Western church was infiltrated by Jews and cucks and it works for the NWO. That's why Holla Forums hates Christianity.

You can't possibly believe the current state of the West is "correct" or Orthodox if you will!?

Ivan, please. What are you even doing on an English-language board? Go stop the Commies from making a comeback in your Eastern bloc. Nobody is swallowing your monarchist pose, either. The Oriental Church lost every one of its monarchies and the royal houses are all dispersed to the four winds.

Monarchy -

as soon as Oliver Cromwell established a voting system, Britain was taken over by jews

I know about your Holy Russia, too. 80% of the country is supposedly loyal to the national church, but the country is not practising the religion on a regular basis and average Sunday attendance is almost non-existant.

Every country has traditional religious practise it may return to, and it should. If you want to play the evangelist, I'm happy to spoil your argument.

The White Russian diaspora contains many of the old aristocratic houses. We venerate the Tsar-Martyr and we will work for the return of the Kings.

Obviously all nations are currently occupied by Satan and his synagogue but we will resist!

Reminder that iconoclasm, especially the extreme kind, is pure Kikeism.

Kings are not divine, they rule on behalf of the divine because they are following the rules of the divine. They do not even claim perfection, they strive to be the best they can be and protect God's children as a servant of God and man.

The Protestant rejection of all religious authority beyond their own wild mental speculations is a major part of why our civilization has fallen.

Not this time. I'm right and you worship a Jew

He was the Lincoln of England.

You sound like a real pope worshipping fag

One of the best things about the monarchy and the other nobles of a country is that it defines the nation well. People know for certain who the ruling ethnicity is and it's not going to change quickly as is possible in democracies which may be easily bought.

I'm divided on this. Monarchy seems good, but some of the Church's greatest defenders of the Faith such as GK Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc admired Republicanism as the greatest form of government. I think as long as contract is replaced by status, usury, materialism and extreme competition are stomped out, and society returns to traditional living, the form of government shouldn't matter. Of course all of these things come with the social teachings of the Church.

He's a moron, to boot. Remember when Sweden beat Russia on the battlefield?

No shit m8, we're recovering from 100 years of hardcore Jewish rule under the communists.

The religious tradition of the West is Christian Orthodoxy and as for the Chinese, Lao Tzu provided the philosophical foundation for there acceptance of the Church of Christ just like Plato and the other Greek philosophers in the West.

Stop projecting.

Your version of monarchism is the ideal. The typical monarch was murdering anyone who posed a threat to his bloodline and only cared about the peasants so that his sons would continue holding the kingship.

That sounds interesting, I don't know anything about the eastern philosophers. Do you have any sauce/recommended reading about that?

This is the redpill on monarchy.

Hereditary forms of government are natural and are still symbolically around today. Even in republican governments, like the United States, that has the presidential family move into the White House.

Even if you aren't a monarchist, it's important to recognize this.

Monarchy is the truest and most natural form of governance for man.

This is true if the Monarch is a truly religious and compassionate man.

The collapse of western civilization began with the religious wars between Catholic and Protestant, leading to the Age of Reason and rejection of Monarchy.

The problem was that the monarch had married a servant of the pope, which was an illegal act. Monarchs are not infalliable, of course.

The important thing is that Monarchy creates a hierarchical chain from Heaven down to Earth. When the people vote is a revolutionary activity of supplanting God's Order.

Pic. related is you

No, most monarchs up into the late middle ages were elected, and if they did too much of what you just mentioned they would have disposed. Also fuck the peasants, nobility is what you have to watch out for.

People who believe in monarchy are mentally ill. These people actually think God chose these kings to rule over men. smh

There's a book called 'Christ the Eternal Tao' by Hieromonk Damascene which talks about the similarities between "Tao" and "Logos". Maybe watch the video of the same name on YouTube first to see if you want to get it.

Monarchy is great because it forces the leaders to think long term and grow the value of the land not just for themselves but for their posterity. It also encourages nationalism because their worth comes from the land and people itself rather than simply money, like with aristocrats. Thus, nobility is much harder to subvert.

Yeah, the George Washington too

As different parts of the body of Christ are suited to different tasks, so too are different people, at different points in time, suited to different governments in order to fulfill the divine mandate.

When you wrote:

I would essentially agree. Politics is downstream of culture, culture is a function of a people's religious life (not the other way around as many believe it to be). Systems don't solve problems men do, and they use the best system for the job to do it.

While I suspect some sort of Monarchical government would inevitably result in a Christian society, I don't believe it would be a particular form of monarchy (there are variations)

Laudate Dominum Frater

God works through His Church which is guided by the Holy Spirit. The Church crowns the Monarch and both work together to guide the people.

Filthy pleb.

"muh Vlad Dracula was a king, he was evil, kings are evil, the History Channel said so"

The Kike half of the Bible rails on an on about how evil Kings are and the Jews should not ask God for a King (Solomon/David).

That is where these Protestant nut jobs get their King hate, they worship the Kike half of the Bible. That is where Evangelical Zionism comes from, the Protestants are wannabe Jews at best and wannabe sabbath goy at their worst.

Wouldn't be a problem if Henry the 8th decided he wanted to divorce/kill 7 women and started protestantism, the madman

"Divorced, beheaded and died
Divorced, beheaded, survived
I'm Henry the Eigth, I had six sorry wives
Some might say I ruined their lives"

Washington wasn't a military dictator who gave his son his powers after he died. Washington didn't even have sons. Washington is more of a cincinnatus.

the only legitimate government is the one that derives its power from Divine Right. God has always been the one to choose the champions that would lead humanity to greatness, not the masses.

Actually, the Jesuits you associate with would make you the "filthy pleb" as your Vatican religion consistantly pulls down monarchies if it is feared that the nations could be lost. The farther away from the Vatican capital, the more of a chance that the monarchy still stands.

But please, more paintings of heretics, that will win you points with your Jesuit boyfriends.

Thanks I'll check it out

No it doesn't but I get what you meant. This is another important point. Nationalism is a liberal, post enlightenment concept that shouldn't exist in traditional societies. Medieval Europe under the Church was a supranational society, and this isn't a bad thing.

>>>/catholic/

>>>/catholic/

You gotta go back, José.

I fail to see that as a problem though. Plebs were looking for any excuse to rebel, as always.

I'm not catholic lol just history

The Stuarts are traitors.

THIS

Of course, the process can become perverted but that is no reason to kill all the kings and priests.

Protestantism first gained real power because an English King wanted to screw a bunch of women and kept murdering his wives out of hatred, madness and lust.

He was the "English Pope", the head of the Church of England, that all the anti-papist crowd try to forget.

Do you even know what Anglicans are mate?

Also charlemagne did a lot of "heathen" purging. Disgusting character

which is not to say monarchy is bad in general, but religious ones probably are for the most part. The Catholic Church has been varying degrees of subversive throughout it's history.

Anchor baby detected.

They won the War of the Roses fair and square.

See how well that works? Showed your bitch ass.

Here's a babbies history lesson for someone like you to understand

bbc.co.uk/bitesize/ks3/history/tudors_stuarts/henry_viii/revision/1/

...

The pleb doesn't even know how not to bump when he's gone off-topic.

I know, the French are as bad as the Anglos. They bear a lot responsibility for turning the Western Church into a tool for political intrigue! Did you know the Norman invasion of England in 1066 resulted in the replacement of all the native Orthodox Christian clergy with Papist heretics?

literally you

True, we should stay on topic. Monarchy is simply the best form of government

?

The murderous French plebs depicted in the picture.

How do my posts make me a revolutionary, are you autistic

As far as I can tell, patriots want their country to have strong families and thus are inclined to monarchy for their own country, but want weaker families for their rivals so would support republicanism and democracy over there. Thus the contest quickly becomes anti-monarchy since the Anglo-Saxons in this Anglosphere forums have a lot of aliens coming in and saying that monarchy is no good.

For example, there are people saying that the Anglo-Saxon monarchies are flawed for this reason or the other, while I point out how the Republicanism of the "papist" countries is fitting for them because I am an Anglo-Saxon patriot, and I am alien to the "papists". It's a very subjective process and even environment.

Bump

Frankly, I want a Christian Monarch for every country. There would be nowhere for the Jews to hide.

Restoration of Russia and Constantinople is a good hope. The prophecies of St Paisios of Mount Athos are promising. It would be good to get China out from under the commies as well so they can get their shit together and stop buying up Western countries

b-b-but muh freedom capitalst 'merican conservatism of the forefathers

This was the leftism of its day. Better than Marxism, but step one down the slippery slope.

They murdered their king and were low class animals.

Yea you are absolutely retarded. The entire church has been infested with rats and crypto rats for it's entire history. Some orders like the Jesuits are 100% cryptojews from the starts, even our pope today is a marrano jew like the jesuits.

Indeed, THIS

Holla Forums doesn't realize how long the old order has been under attack from Satan and his Jews. Fr Seraphim Rose and St Paisios new all about this. People here need to read 'Nihilism: The Root of the Revolution of the Modern Age' by Fr Seraphim to understand the theological attack of Jewish anarchists and Marxists who overthrew our beloved Tsar

Orthodox Monarchy is the only God approved government "they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the Lord. And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee"

...

Then you're very generous. In theory, it could be a good system, but it's not really a feasible topic because many aliens pile on as you've seen happen in this thread. If you really are a true-blue, monarchist, perhaps you would agree with me that Britain should have forced Canada and Australia taking functioning peerages during the 19th Century? That is a theory I have been working on recently.

Of course, the United States was going to be lost to Republicanism, because of the anarchistic system of the rapid expansion over the contintent making it too unstable. But Canada and Australia should get some kind of princes so that their leading families get more power instead of the democracy happening there.

The problem with monarchy in different countries is that they don't seem to be comfortable with the idea of a hereditary title given seemingly arbitrarily, but maybe they should just estalbish the figurehead or president, not the prime minister, into a hereditary position.

Another big thing is that estate taxes take away of the de facto nobility that would be there.

I'm Eastern Orthodox not Roman Catholic you twat. I know the Roman Church and the Protestants are subverted. The Jews and Freemasons are trying to do the same to us through the Freemason Ecumenical Patriarch but all the other Synods and Patriarchs have told him to fuck off basically

This is funny considered how badly your co-religionist forebearers were beaten by Mahometans and Bolsheviks. Rotten fruit from the rotten tree.

Your religion is not orthodox over here… It's a foreign and unwelcome stain on Christendom.

I agree with your idea of what they SHOULD have done but now the path to a proper monarchy can only be through the Church and religion and not through politics.

Persecution has only strengthened our choice where the Latins and Protestants have fallen into complacency and worldliness

*Church (not choice)

Are you new to Holla Forums brother? Its good to have a fellow Orthodox Christian here!

Odd that my Church would be considered an unwelcome stain when it has existed for almost 2,000 years without blemish and your """""church"""""" probably hasn't existed for more than 500 years, or even close to that long.

The only organized form of Christianity that was not subverted was the Cathars and they were slaughtered like pigs. Eastern orthodox is not too bad, but you're kidding yourself if you think that you can keep away Jews without an esoteric understanding of Christianity though.

I post at the other Holla Forums sometimes new to this board though.

Ah… the anti-Anglo nutbags got the thread anchored.

⚓⚓⚓⚓⚓⚓⚓⚓⚓⚓⚓⚓

I used to on 4pol but left during the cuckening

Orthodox mystical and dogmatic theology are perfectly fine. There have been many mystics in the True Church

Why do the kikes hate monarchy? I've always imagined their own culture to be fairly patriarchal in structure. It seems like they'd be happy if they could be monarchs, or at least cuck the monarch. Even they must value stability when it comes to ruling their own?

What did I miss?

user I was raised without religion but have been considering cultivating the spiritual into my life after reading some works of Montaigne.

Can you point me in the right direction? I'm fine with old texts but recommended commentaries on them would be appreciated.

They hate being out in the open like in Monarchy. That's why they lie democracy and modern economics - they can control everything from the shadows

...

Maybe try the 'Ladder of Divine Ascent' for practical Christianity and something by Fr Dumitru Staniloae or Vladimir Lossky for theology. The works of Dionysios the Areopagite if you want masterworks of theology. A good summary and intro is in the book 'Christ the Eternal Tao' though

Get that Jewish Freemason stamp out of here!

anti-freemason is codeword for anti-white

Try Sayings of the Desert Fathers and The Philokalia. Also, The Brothers Karamazov is a must read.

Ultimately a monarch, and really any nobility, is only good if they are tempered in fire and war.

And most importantly, they can't abuse their position to impose ideology. The late enlightened despots, the products of the absolute monarchy, were utter cancerous perversions of the model.

Assuming you are a simple citizen, you bow to your local lord first and foremost, because he is the only that knows you, your kin and your community best. And from there it scales up.

Like any idealized model, it is best when practiced in a decentralized fashion, but unlike other idealizations, it is our natural state. Hierarchy is not bad, and those that are to lead should earn it.

Lol

Exactly, a Monarch must defend the Truth and Orthodoxy and not impose his own ideas like those foolish petrinists. As for war, with the flaws of humanity it is almost inevitable sadly

You're making this about muh papists.

It's not. Heck, the ideal feudal society in my mind, the Anglo-Saxons of the early to mid middle ages, were Catholics.

There is so much wrong in this thread that it's ridiculous. Plebs on every side making moronic statements, mostly from the Catholic/Orthodox side but also from others.

Monarchy is the 'best' form of government in that its tried and tested and you know who to hold accountable. Monarchs have been swiftly dealt with many times when they cross boundaries, and in the Anglo-Saxon world at least the Monarch, whilst retaining an important position and lots of power; was not above the law.

Bear in mind that in our supposed democracies today many figures and businesses are 'above the law'; they are 'too big to fail' and 'too big to jail'. According to our rather moronic use of prose these figures today are more a 'monarch' than the actual monarchs ever were; unaccountable, extremely powerful and beyond the concerns of all beneath them.

Monarchy can of course fail due to nepotism, and in many nations there are 'tribal' overtones to monarchy which can lead to oppression and revolution and general instability. Look at the Rwandan genocide with the Hutu and Tutsi, or even at old Britain with the English, Irish Scottish and Welsh. The English held dominion over their lowers, and whilst (from my English perspective) they largely did not abuse their powers (though it certainly happened on occasion), the other tribes beneath the monarch would often feel little to no loyalty to them and desire a monarch from among their own people; and so we had myriad wars for 'freedom'. Point is that people want to be ruled by someone they considered to be of 'their stock', and monarchs will often not be that, and even if they once were within a few generations will likely be completely detached from the people they came from, which leads to potential violence and instability.

In my humble view the best ever system was the constitutional monarchy of Britain as of a couple centuries ago. The power is split between three groups: the Monarch (single family who are the 'face' of the nation), the Lords (business owners, landowners, essentially the economic/military/religious elite) and the Commons (all us plebs with no real power or possessions).

The Monarch is interested in maintaining long-term stability. They will naturally want a safe and prosperous life for themselves and their children, so are not likely to make any drastic decisions that could threaten their safe and easy lives. It is in their best interests to placate the masses, but also to maintain long-term vision as any short-term solution that is only disastrous for future generations, would be them damning their own children or themselves in later life. We would not have the 'see-saw' politics of today where the liberals enact one short-term solution, only to have it fail later but be replaced with a conservative short-term solution, which also fails and needs to be changed in the future; and this cycle repeats eternally with the nation never advancing and inevitably declining.

The Lords are interested in maintaining their position in society, which means they have to keep on making money. This can lead to them wanting some things which are bad for commons, like mass-immigration; thankfully they can be held in check by the commons and the monarch who want to ensure long-term prosperity. The Lords in turn will be able to veto unions and welfare that would detract from their profits. The Lords and the Commons should, if they act in their own interests, find a balance where they are profitable yet not tyrannised; the Lords opposing socialist policies whilst the Commons oppose oppressive policies.

The Commons should just act in their own best interests and stop either the Monarch going full-dictator (by supporting the Lords against the Monarch) or by stopping the Lords from destroying their future through 'quick-bux schemes' (by supporting the Monarch against them).

Its a rather brilliant balance, and yet it has already failed due to corruption by Jews. I really do feel that the Jews are the main problem and the root of why it failed. Obviously there is no perfect system, but the British Constitutional Monarch of a few centuries ago was truly the closest we have come.

Also mods are faggots for anchoring this.

Personally I also like the ideal of a Monarchy with one great leader, but where are the arguments that it wouldn't just turn out poorly like it did so many times in the past, and wouldn't this also involve things like nobles peasantry and serfs? Because that shit was terrible. There were fine Monarchs, but what do we do when the Monarch sucks, and what would stop the progression into a democracy or republic?

Thanks for the suggestions, I'll head to the library tomorrow