Monarchy Thread

Social Autocracy is the best kind with some civil liberties like free speech and gun ownership intact

When you have a monarchy, there's no reason to restrict free speech except for spreading degeneracy because free speech can't change who rules the state and is not a threat.

Current set of elites and royal families across countries are shit-tier. They aren't worthy of the mandate of heaven, and are indistinguishable from globalist scum. Pretty much everyone in the upper-class is like the lower-class. There is more to the high-low versus middle strategy than just common interests and power. There is also cultural and cognitive vices associated with our elites and the under-class. Additionally, liberalism and Jews killed or corrupted what could be considered good contenders for rulings elites in the past few hundred years. There is no natural process for monarchy coming back, for these reasons.

You want a monarch? Go full accelerationist. Allow or accelerate the collapse of the West, which is probably going to happen anyway, and then crown the first smart, cunning European warlord to seize control and smite our enemies. That's how most chieftains turned into monarchs. They were founded on military power. That's what needs to be done. There is a reason Putin rules, he came from the deep state. If I were looking for good candidates post-collapse, that is where I'd look in the military or intelligence world among the officers. Smart, educated, individuals who value loyalty and stability/order, yet have cunning and fighting acumen.

No, the best form of government is a (restricted) citizen-elected divine mandated Autokrator

basically Kharijite Imam

reminder the conditions that caused the rebellious attitudes to ferment in america were imposed upon the colonies in an era where the king was frequently indisposed and not allowed to even attend Parliament because he suffered frequent bouts of delusional psychosis caused by porphyria

current standards of warfare wouldnt reduce us to the state required to shift our nations from the degenerate corruption of the ochlocracy we suffer under today
we need a pandemic of sorts to reset the scale, human populations too big in the entire world not just third world shitholes and asia/africa

Philosopher Kings are the way to go

Monarchy is a degenerated form of national socialism.

Bump.

Very good post.

Face it, it's very true. Good kings are very good, bad kings are very bad. And there's not much you can do about it besides assassination.

but this is pretty much what's happened in every single monarchy that has ever been created.

this nigger is 100% right

Holla Forums and the Dark Enlightenment generally speaking do not understand that absolute monarchy is just as bad as absolute democracy, as evidence of which you need only look at most of the Roman Emperors and Greek tyrants. The answer to our problems is not a fascist dictatorship, but to limit the vote, which is presently far too extended. Left-wing parties would never get into power again if you did something as simple as take away the vote from anybody claiming more from the system than they pay in - you do not even necessarily need to go so far as to set a specific property qualification, as was done in the past. It would also be a salutary measure to increase the voting age to say 25 or 30.

Multiculturalism is a perfectly fine means to accelerate societal collapse. Wishing for pandemics doesn't allow for any sort of acceleration through human influence (it relies on natural teleology rather than agent teleology), unless you have some other method in mind (like biological warfare).

The best current way to collapse what we have now is to take what the left and the Jews are pushing, and amplify it. That allows for deception (mimicking the enemy), and for taking advantage of the weaknesses of their policies. Those weaknesses include: we know from Putnam what multiculturalism does to public trust and trust networks (it isolates the nodes in the organic networks, it makes people shut down and lose trust in others and legitimacy). We know from Charles Tilly what a breakdown in trust networks entails (a breakdown of economic/financial networks, and a breakdown in political networks). We also know from human geographers like Thomas Homer-Dixon what population stresses with multiple ethnic groups and trust breakdown looks like (a breakdown in all sorts of networks outside these, both social and physical). Once you have all these conditions set, all you need is some rogue warfighting infrastructure or deep state individuals who are worthy and ready to seize power (or some outside org, maybe something like Hestia is doing; although, I disagree with some of what they are saying) to step in and make things right.

Consider how useless our elites are right now at the level of military power and internal control. We've basically got fat incompetent police running around with high tech near-authoritarian surveillance, yet they appear to be having real problems with a bunch of inbred amateurs. Once this breakdown occurs, it'll be like shooting fish in a barrel. There will probably be minimal bloodshed if played right (targeted killing and assassinations of corrupt elites and those in power, then deport everyone not European). After that, hand over power to the new chieftains in their respective countries who had the balls to do what the failed, cowardly Royal bloodlines refused to do.

Hestia society is ran by a literal cuckold. Those fat neck beard won't be taking control of anything.

The best system today, made possible through computers, would be one with weighted voting. Fulfill certain conditions that prove some desired qualities (military service as one example), and you get a weightier vote. So virtuous people may end up having 1000x the vote of normal (the particular weighting would need to be adjusted for total population).

Just make sure the weighting is based on virtue. This would effectively be a form of aristocracy.

Do you have a Holla Forums related book from Putnam? Dont know where to start with him

thanks i appreciate it

This idea is good in theory, but doubtful in practice.
What's to stop (((somebody))) from buying votes?

Nothing will be fool proof. Theoretically, since the weighting would be based on virtue, the people with weightier votes would be less susceptible to corruption.

Warg may be a cuck, but he (and others like Konkvistador) is smart, organized, and has a plan founded in actual strategy (asymmetries of our enemies). Those factors place them in a much better position than many of the retards on the far right.

If I were placing bets on any part of the far right to actually achieve something beyond LARPing (apart from deep state or military, especially groups like Project Whitehorse, who have actual ex-mil, cops, and engineers in their group), it would be them. Like I said, I have don't agree with them 100%, I disagree with parts of their strategy, but smarts and organization goes a long way (especially organization, people underestimate this part when it is everywhere in the literature on political and military success).

Also, inb4 I'm defending Hestia in toto, I don't even like some of the people in Hestia. Nick B. Steves is one of the most arrogant faggots I've ever come across.

Bowling Alone sums up his research.

Don't forget to read Tilly as well. Especially Trust and Rule and this paper: link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11186-010-9119-z

That ties up something much of the far right don't even talk about: the total breakdown of trust networks and the consequences of this for all political systems (it's much, much worse for all political ideologies than people assume. Even if you aren't ethno-nationalist you should be taking Putnam's and Tilly's findings as a serious threat to whatever political ideology you are pushing, since breakdown in trust via multiculturalism and mass immigration entails long-term breakdown in the economic and political systems, no matter what they are. That means libertarians and liberals are pushing the death of their own systems. Even Nick Land's and the tech-comm's ideas are undermined by this. See Tilly's city's paper).

Are you fucking kidding me?

Fuhrer > King

a thousand times this

In monarchy the son of the king will be the next king, however in national socialism only the very best is chosen to be führer. Isn't that better than monarchy?

thanks

Just downloaded 10 of Tillys books

I've always though of immigration and especially miscegenation as more of a problem than just a breakdown of trust. I see it as moving towards primitive societies.

Even 100% homogeneous societies are total shit if they are not ethnic european. If someone asks me why immigration is bad, I say because they are savages and cannot build nations like we can. I dont say because it breaks down the trust in society, although its a good point.

Schemer and ideological vampire. It's simple. Stalin got to the top because he was more ruthless than his predecessor and virtue signaled harder than his adversaries.
In any system, including national socialism, that is based on the people or Volk and thus has populism at its core, idiots will get to the top and ruin everything. You must not make it a matter of competition and instead guarantee important functions by birth right. It allows for freedom of speech and from idiots to meme themselves to the top.

The trouble is (I think) that it is very hard to make a test for such a thing as moral virtue in and of itself. The previous system in the West (which dates back even to Greek and Roman times) of having a property qualification was at least effective at giving more power to the virtuous in a practical though roundabout way: for people who are thrifty and industrious are more likely to be virtuous than those who are more idle and improvident (though this is not of course an absolute rule). Hence why the West was in such a better state of affairs, culturally and morally speaking, when we limited the vote to those possessed of a certain level of wealth. I don't know however that you could impose that system on society again – people simply would not accept it at this point – but we could make large steps in the right direction by at least taking the vote away from anybody who is on welfare, or who takes more from the system than they put in. That, I think, is politically viable. Mass immigration and overbearing socialism could probably never have happened to the West had we implemented that system alone. Whatever the case may be, the philosophy of one person, one vote must fall if we are to save ourselves in the long term. Though equally I do not wish to see absolute monarchies and dictatorships. That is simply jumping from the frying pan into the fire.

The best form of government is having a monarch who, when needed, appoints a dictator/duce/herzog with extraordinairy executory powers. Which can be revoked at anytime by the monarch. This way you don't give corruptive absolutist power to the monarch while not chaining him like a parliamentary democracy, and let him retain a crypto-veto power over decisions made by his right hand man.

Bismarck, Mussolini and (to a lesser extent) Karl the Hammer are examples of it working in action.

Thats sound stupid , As actual political power is not something that can be inherited , Carl Schmitt wrote extensively about the effective wielding of political power, you should read him.

Giving absolute power to the a unproven son of a monarch has been prove to be a foolish thing to do in many points of our history . No need to repeat the same mistakes.

This>>7453189

I'd be ok with this

A secular monarchy is dependent on blood and blood can be corrupted unless being watched over with tight control. Eventhough the education is cared for, a monarch is a normal human being with normal human needs and deficiences.

A dictatorship is a time bomb if not defused via republic or monarchy.

A republic just takes a monarchy and gives it 20 kings instead of 1 and acts as a shizophrenic patient. Most people got killed under republics where pig farmers got on positions of power.

A democracy….herba depr DURRRR DURRR AS A MOTHER OF 6 MILLION MY RETARDED OPINION MATTERS GUISE I'M JUST GOING TO KILL MYSELF FOR GIVING A SECOND OF THOUGHT FOR KIKEOCRACY. Rule by the media and information deprivation. Worst pick of the litter if you take it vanilla.

A normal theocracy just fuck people over in name of a sky daddy, while essentially being an elective absolute monarchy.

Enlightened(in the full meaning of the word, not just hurr durr smaert and liberal caring) theocratic GOD-EMPERORS ARE THE ONLY WAY TO RULE HUMANITY AND UNLOCK ITS TRUE POTENTIAL.
See Egypt. Their civilization lasted as long as the emperors were uncorrupted. For fucking millenia. The average lifetime of an empire is close to 250 years.
Everything else is absolute putrid-dog-shit-on-a-bench tier where the opinion of idiots are counted. From the merchant to the slave classes.

I agree.
Age, (voting age should be 30 now tbh since people live so long) property, and service to the state should be the biggest factors in the power of a vote.

These things indirectly measure the "stake" the individual has in the country. Of course it is not a perfect measurement, but for the majority of cases it would work out.

Of course people who are disenfranchised will always bitch and moan. That's why service to the state in important as an option. It needs to be something anyone can do: whether it's serving as a soldier abroad or picking up trash along the highway.

Starship Troopers is a goat book btw. Although Heinlein is only purple-pilled at best.

Maybe by the fedora federation but not the world at large.

and men only

And yet they have the best genetics.

Would you be willing to put that to a test? Old Monarchs ruled solely thanks to convincing goyim that they are "god's representatives on earth" and their degenerate offspring appeared better solely thanks to having more wealth (just like rich people today can afford plastic surgeries, designer clothes, personal trainers and stuff while goys have neither time or money for that because they are too busy surviving)

Besides, that's not how genetics work. Since god appointing people to rule has been debunked, you have zero arguments for hereditary monarchy.

No ammount of "best" genetics will make them automatically wise or competent as rulers without experience. We no longer live in primitive times, Computers will always best the human in terms of solving logical problems, but they lack the creatitive of the human spirit to cheat .

This spirit cant be developed by someone who had everything by birthright. it can only be archived trought the struggle.

It was peasants who cheated the Monarchs and Aristocrats out of power.

The hability of mankind to "game the system"
is double edged sword., denying this fact only make you foolish

[CITATION NEEDED]
Maybe if you're a euphoric fedora.

No, it was the jews who played peasants as canon fodder.

Or the peasants played the jews?

Monarchy as an idea should not be thrown out.
But anyone who seriously considers hereditary monarchy superior is nostalgic.
It's easy to look at the history books and jerk off over the handful of great and talented hereditary monarchs and forget about the hundreds of mediocre or downright incompetent ones.

(checked)
Seconded. Women ALWAYS make decision based on their feelings in order to insure the survival of their weak bodies or children. Everything else comes second.
And given their bipolar disorders and natural herd mentality they can be easily manipulated. Even into their own suicide.

No it isn't.
Monarchy is retarded when compared to fascism.

Objectively they have better genetics because they have better reproductive fitness. They got to the top, and then they took the healthiest women and could afford the most kids.

Totally agree. If I actually had a good job and could get a gf then I probably wouldn't have spent time studying conspiracy theories, politics, economics etc.

My point is that everything falls. Every system fails. If a monarchy fails it might not be the fault of one kid.

Well, god has appointed me to be the king of your country, prove me wrong.

No, they didn't get to the top, they got carried to the top. Monarchy is dysgenic because it gives genetically unfit an advantage over genetically superior. And as i said, they can always put their fitness to the test.

Until you do so and usher in prosperity and a natural order, it's on you to prove.

I dont think you understand what 'genetically unfit' actually means

I once was a libertarian, the economic and tax principles, the idea that businessmen lead the economy and jobs is what converted me from Marxist thinking. It's precisely the idea that people should work together and be communal is what makes Marxism and Communism so appealing to whites without emotional maturity beyond the age of 18 because after all, communism is the best government on paper (without it's Jewish past visible).

However, after a good dose of realism, through race realism, through IQ studies of previous men, of understanding the great lie that is 9/11, the USS liberty and particularly and most importantly, the holocaust, fascism comes into view.

I tried to become the chairman of the NFP, the nationalist federalist party. The idea that the US should be restarted but with more state rights. An agrarian view, "that we got it right", the Jews have fucked us up.

Since then, Trump has come along and much has changed and my viewpoint, was proven right over the others, that you have to just come and say things. You can't tiptoe the politically correct line and play the game of the leftists and expect to shift the overton window.

But, it has come to my realization, just even today, that Nazism or Neo-Nazism or even White Supremacy is dead. The idea that the Aryan or perhaps, Nordic race is the most superior, across a wide spectrum, and superior, in living in Western Society is true. Undoubtedly.

However, we were defeated. Not in… the 50s or 70s, but truly in the 40s and perhaps even in the 30s with the strategy for war. What happened was the greatest White Genocide ever. World War 2. Spawned by Jewish globalists, Germany in self-defense was thrust into war and following the doctrine of Fredrick the Great, Germany under Hitler struck first… as it was supposed to for survival, but in the process, was made to be bad on the surface of the history books.

Monarchy, in itself is a slow and stable process. A process that carried most of Europe for some 800 years. However, I have come to realize that it too, like theocracy, is technologically limiting and that is not something we can cope with.

The future, and the white future and what side we truly need to take, is the side of Imperialism.

Imperialism.

A one world, white Empire, with divided continents for the others, perhaps a Han Dynasty or a West African Conglomerate. But, a White Empire… stretching from perhaps the middle of Siberia and extending all the way to Alaska. The US, all of Europe with perhaps the exception of Albania, through the Caucasus, including Georgia, perhaps Armenia and maybe even the Northern tip of Iraq, with the Assyrians… But no Turks for sure.

One, massive Empire… with one Emperor. With one idea… to harvest lunar soil, and from the process of heating it up to about 600*C, a rather simple process once you get the equipment there, which is the real challenge… but to send back Helium 3, a rather very easy molecule that makes nuclear fusion possible.

And will give enough energy, for even an expanding human population for 1000 years. Including space travel. A fusion battery in a car, with a minimum amount of helium3 gas would power that car for a 100 years. With no qualms. No radiation. No chance of explosions. No need for oil. With the exception of manufacturing plastics.

so who picks the monarch?

So limiting that the industrial revolution and technological and scientific boom started during monarchies and has simply continued on its trend after that, arguably hitting a wall after the second world war?

That process started during the Enlightenment, particularly after the English Civil war. It was the process of Kings beginning to have limiting rights which began to usher in scientific knowledge.

Particularly men that fought against the Church, Galileo, Copernicus, Spinoza… that began the enlightenment.

Even earlier, the Renaissance started in Italy… where there was no King… but duchies, many many little city/town-kingdoms, with fiefs and princedoms and a profitable spice trade. Men like Leonardo Da Vinci, Raphael, Michelangelo…

The French even invaded, under their King once they saw how prosperous Italy was… and the Pope was not a central figure at that time.

Point blank, centralization… especially under one man without an efficient system… is limiting. For example, common law started in England, out of judges needing to carry their own law, based on the king's law, but entirely of their own. That decentralization is what, arguably gives us most of our law now.

And even the men of later periods, Descartes, John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, David Hume were at a period and time when the King's power began to slowly wane.

It was not the Kings who led the time forward, but the men of the scientific era who brought us to where we are now… Those men have now become men of business… although now… those men browse this board… Jerk off… are lonely… single and have no upward momentum in this broken system.

To sum up, Monarchy is a retarded and incredibly repressive system, even a white but compassionate dictator is a preferable authority.

But Imperialism, my argument, is the way forward. Ethno-nationalistic Imperialism.

good question

I suppose thats why Rome did so poorly?

Centralization can be incredibly efficient

I think you're making a mistake in connecting gradual social decay with gradual scientific discovery. As long as there is a western civilization, we'll discover and know more. And a civilization is always on a downwards spiral.

Actually yes, it was heading towards a downward spiral for quite some time until this dude named Caesar came around, conquered all of Gaul, made the Romans incredibly wealthy with slaves and then reformed the Republic to an Empire.

It's like a former American general conquering all of the Middle-East, taking all of their oil, coming home and restarting all American debt to Zero after a brief and swift civil war.

Of course. As was centralization under Napolean and the creation of civil law, but again, Napolean was an amazing general and one of the best administrators of men in all of human history.

You're mistaking a Republic, the Roman Republic and it's civilization for a monarchy. And Rome, the Rome you are referring to, was actually an Empire. The exact same system I'm supporting, so you're wrong, sorry.

ah youre triggering me you moron

No im saying Rome, the Republic AND the Empire was a centralized power, centered in Rome. Basically saying that there is nothing inherently wrong with centralization.

Decay from what? We don't have a decay if you will, but a purposeful and slow descent as puppeted by our Jewish masters.

I think this is rather hopeful. I'm not sure if you've been to the East, but China, despite it's many setbacks and squinty-eyed people with no souls, is set to win this century out through steady but slowed economic growth.

Same as with Korea and South-East Asia. At least, till the Jews inter-breed, take over their economy and media and puppet them as well. Which, to a certain extent, the Jews do have their hand in Asia as well as the rest of the world.

It's true. Get a group of white people together, to overcome a task, and they will. Get them to create a society and they will… But the men who push us forward, by leaps and bounds, the scientists, captains of industry, brave soldiers and warriors, men who study or fight for the race or crown or empire… largely always come about one way or another regardless of circumstances, and many yes, belong to the white race.

But we are falling behind. And miscegenation is the biggest crime and one that is polluting Europe and the US. Time is not on white people's side unless action is taken, let's say in the form of Trump. Make no mistake, regardless, Trump is not a catch all, he is slowing down destruction, not going to reverse it.

This is… completely erroneous, rephrase the statement to it's opposite and you'll have a hard time arguing otherwise.

So, not sure what we're arguing here.

Daily reminder to filter tripfags.

Just like power is centered in D.C. and yet we have a democratic republic.

Just as power is centered in London, in England. Sure.

Rome, was a Republic and an Empire and never really a monarchy except in the early days. And they figured out that, that shit is retarded. So they prospered.

I understand what you're saying, yes Centralization can be extremely efficient and yes you need, but to centralize inefficiently as I am arguing it would be under various white monarchs is not.

The difference between a King and an Emperor, is in the size of what he rules (an Emperor rules more), the size of a bureaucracy (the Emperor has a bigger one) and the power they have (Emperors have complete power).

Also, Emperors are not necessarily heir related or blood related as Kings or Queen MUST be. I'm not arguing against the facts of centralization and it's benefits, I'm arguing in saying that a king is CENTRALIZATION THAT IS TOO WEAK… We need a stronger form of centralization for us whites, an Empire.

Hereditary monarchy is a degenerated form of monarchy anyway. The original and ideal monarchy is not hereditary.

Rome collapsed due to centralization of power. They made everyone dependent on the state. Taxes were so high that the economy collapsed and the Romans welcomed the Goths when they marched into Rome unopposed. The Goths restored sanity and allowed the people to do what they wanted within a defined legal framework. The resulting kingdoms prospered for generations.

You can have an empire without having all power centralized in the capital of it. Local rulers are far more likely to be responsive to the needs of local people. Governments due best when they know how to delegate. Economic decisions are the most difficult, and as such should be delegated to the people most effected, ie the general public.

This guy fucking gets it. Although they didn't exactly centralize, they had a welfare state. But yes, thank you dude.

you people are fucken retarded

No you cant. Rome delegated power to local rulers but they were always under the control of a CENTRALIZED power in Rome. Thats why it was the Roman Empire.

Obviously bad leadership in Rome is not good thing. My point that centralization is not inherently bad still stands.

To argue that Rome collapsed due to centralized power is like complaining about cities centralizing electrical power in the fucking power grids.

ITS JUST EFFICIENT

That's right. You cannot.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes it does.

Let's clarify. Rome was never at any time a "Monarchy." Not the Rome you are referring to.

Monarchs, as from let's say around 1200 to 1800 preserved Europe, from Islamic invasions, Mongol invasions, the black plague, yes. But their centralization was inefficient, they had local lords but it was not as effective as the system of local governors through Rome.

Understand the difference?

Rome's centralization was successful because it was built on the idea of the Empire expanding and growth. Monarchs are built on the idea of preservation, of saving, of enduring of the world shrinking.

We need an Empire because we as whites need to grow or a Malthusian crisis will kills us all, if the Jews don't get to us and we need to expand to space. The most prosperous and ideal system for that is an Ethnic Empire.

Of course it does. Maybe my words were a poor choice.

This argument still stands. You never disproved it.

I am arguing for that exact same point.

The fact is, you're simply not smart enough or versed well enough to understand the argument. So you take one little line and blow it out of proportion.

Rome did an excellent job. It was centralized white power, the only other time that came close was Nazi Germany and look at the technological achievements it achieved in short time.

An empire is for technology.

If you're arguing a monarchy is prosperous for technology, I disproved that here…

There was no argument against this.

Back to this.

This is not a valid argument. Electricity must be centralized for an efficient system, that's technology not politics. The exact system I'm arguing for.

Furthermore, power can be generated off the grid via solar, wind and other forms which is actually ideal but not realistic and still preferable to… the grid.

Which in time is already falling apart.

You make very valid points in that poor leadership regardless of centralization or decentralization is bad.

No one is disputing you on this.

Rome or Europe would still collapse regardless of Empire or centralization or not. That's just how things are, good times create weak men.

But…

Creating a monarchy as you lacked the will, rationality or composure to argue for without yelling like a belligerent peasant is fucking retarded. Whether it's one monarch or several that rule the white race, it's dumb.

A monarchy is actually centralized power in one area but decentralized local principalities while an Empire is centralized all across the board. So you're argument stands valid as does mine, and we in fact are arguing towards the same point… the white race needs to centralize and I agree it's needs to centralize under good leadership all across the board, as in the form of an Empire, not a monarchy which is centralized at the top but completely decentralized as you go down the board.

tl:dr; you're just fucking stupid

Obama 8 years,
Bush Jr. 8 years,
Bush Sr. 8 years,
Gerald Ford 4 years,
Richard Nixon 5 years,
Lyndon B. Johnson 6 years.

Out of the last 9 presidents in the last 60 years, the last 6th were either incompetent or outright malicious. Some would also add Bill Clinton on the list.

Democracy is a popularity content and a mob rule, and it has a greater rate of failure compared to any other centralized government type.

A person who becomes a King is usually trained from a fairly young age in the matters of administration, legislature and strategy, just as every (responsible) parent train his child in the foremost manner they can afford.

He is taught from a young age the responsibility and accountability that the position of King holds, and that he is to take the best decisions for the people. He already has all the power and the influence, so such ambitions are rendered void for such a person.

Also, take into consideration that idiots rarely end up being Kings since they are ousted from any power from an early age.

Nixon was based as fuck

Monarchy is the worst form of government, except all others.

That's a really bad bet. They lack any qualities of leadership. Nobody would ever want to follow them because they are autistic neckbearded faggots.

NRx as a whole is misguided. They aren't reactionary at all, just autistics who want to make the modern paradigm as efficient as possible.

Adherents to the Dark Enlightenment need to stop propping up this false dichotomy between democracy and monarchy, as previously noted. We don't need to go back to monarchies, nor ought we to do so. We don't want a Nero or a Caligula. We don't want a repetition of the wars that plagued the 20th century. That is out of the frying pan into the fire. We need only repeal universal suffrage by restricting the vote to those who pay more into the system than they take out of it. Once the welfare class no longer has a say, you have killed leftism. We should not be agitating for the institution of monarchy but rather for the repeal of universal suffrage.

He spied on the American people and lied about it, just so it can be later proven otherwise. Because of this, the pendulum shifted yet again to the left.

NRx and Dark Enlightenment are both fucking faggots. As is democracy. Poor Monarchy to have them associated with it. Go reactionary or go home.

Do you have any better alternative? One that does not require the "vote" of the people? You know, the same people who think "gender identity" and so on are real?

In 2000 years of Western history, the worst people you could find were Nero and Caligula. Nero helped build Rome back after the great fire, and paid for the whole Domus Aurea himself.

How about people like Marcus Aurelius, Augustus, Trajan, Claudius, Hadrian, Vespasian or Justinian? How about Charlemagne, or Barbarossa, or Peter the Great?

I can keep going on and on about all the great Kings and Queens of the past, about the benefits of Monarchy or the perils of mob rule, but I'm pretty sure that none of that matters to you. I'm rather sure that nothing that I could say or show you could change your mind, since you seek confirmation rather then information.

not agreeing with it just tired of the yank narrative they rebelled 'because muh tyrant king george III' when at the time the fault lied with the current chaos in Parliament at the time since King George III was being restrained, gagged, beaten, immersed in ice water and bled by doctors because he thought God was about to send a second flood and would run to the palace rooftop collecting his infant children every night because he feared the imminent flood waters that didnt exist

noone
noble blood and the divine right of kings
all monarchies are old at this current time and can claim descendance from ancient noble houses and families
all originally created from tribal chiefdom
the first non-hellenic kings were all tribal chiefs who conquered a multitude of different tribes
the first noble houses of Rome that would eventually take the title of Imperrum Romanum were all originally the knights of Rome, the equites of the Roman Kingdom that if you believe the stories was established by the descendants of a prince of Troy but more likely the ruling chief of the multiple villages that were built in the hills of Rome

monarchies are old, stable and as long as the bloodline still exists no matter what state the nation is in it can be restored with a single child of noble blood to rally around, a single blood descendant of the kings of your nation to unite all your people of native stock together for a common cause

but if you want to create new ones we need a new dark age lad

I like alot of what you're saying user
but I think the active removal or the death of all of Europes monarchs is another part of what the kikes want
Russia and Austro-Hungary both suffered the loss of their sovereigns at the hands of kikes

Kings hold no divine right , only restoring Catholic to his former glory and a theocracy can save us.

Theocracy will always be superior to monarchy

Nero's history is tarnished by Christians and kikes because Nero liked to turn kikes into human candles and fed christians to the lions for sport
the rumour he started the fires of Rome was made up by kikes, when the fires destroyed half of Rome he opened up the imperial palaces and allowed Roman citizens to live in his palaces even supplying the populace with free food while he rebuilt their homes
one of his own palaces caught fire too and he had servants running in and out of the fires saving tapestries and vases from the inferno
he also established the first Roman games based on the Olympics

and Caligula? he was a great emperor before his own mother tried to kill him with poison 18 months into his reign
Caligula only started going mad after the poisoned chalice failed to kill him, probably suffered brain damage

This part probably isn't true either
The mass martyrdom of the Roman Empire is literally just a meme with no real historical background

Oh of course
but it is documented Nero did hate them and preferred to single those two groups out for punishment
he was a staunch supplicant of the gods of Rome and since kikes and christians were the only ones who had autism regarding offering public patronage to the Roman gods he disliked them immensely

I cannot bother myself to spare a single fuck about the Christians who allegedly died due to Roman persecution.

They, along with the Hebrews, were literally the SJWs of their era.

What I said in the post to which you replied was we just need to restrict the vote to a smaller number of people. I said that taking it away from those who take more money out of the system than they put in would be a start.

In 1884 only two-thirds of adult males in Britain had the vote. And yet Neoreactionaries insist on calling anything except monarchy "Democracy," as if having one third or two third of the population with the vote is equivalent with the universal suffrage we have today.

A case in point. His son Commodus, whom he chose to appoint, was one of the worst and wickedest emperors. If even great monarchs like Marcus Aurelius can make such a poor decisions in the choice of their successor, what hope do average monarchs have?

For every monarch you give me I will provide you with five bad ones. You provided me with the example of Augustus, and yet Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero succeeded him – four of the most despicable monsters that ever lived. I cannot conceive why you defend Nero. He was one of the most wasteful, extravagant, and degenerate rulers in the history of the world. His name is synonymous with evil government. Almost any passage taken at random from the historians would serve to prove these facts. The sole circumstance you bring forth to exonerate him is that he "helped build Rome back after the great fire." Suetonius and Dio charge him with having been the direct author of that fire.

This statement is simply ignorant. The principal accounts of his wickedness and debauchery come from Tacitus, Suetonius, and Dio, none of whom was a Christian. Tacitus called the Christians “a class hated for their abominations” and the religion of Christianity itself “a most mischievous superstition.” He also called the practices of the Jews “sinister and revolting” and “entrenched by their very wickedness.”

You blame Caligula's faults on brain damage. What are you going to say about Tiberius, his predecessor, who literally locked up and molested little children in his dungeons?

Was Nero "brain-damaged" when he castrated a young man, dressed him up as a woman, and married him? Behold the fruits of absolute power "which corrupts absolutely."

nothing and it wasnt dungeons
puer delicatus was the Roman term for a beautiful pre-pubescent boy whom a Roman citizen might keep around for sex and they documented quite well their sexual practices
the Romans were the most sexually deviant culture in the region in that regard

no Nero wasnt brain damaged Sporus was a slanderous lie and propaganda created by Cassius Dio one of Neros lifelong critics
Tacitus was a critic of the Emperors themselves and he viewed Tiberius in a mostly positive light
Suetonius was Tacitus's close friend so draw what you will from him too

christian charity took the love of the plebs away from the demagogues of Rome and gave it to backwater semitic priests and non-citizens

I'd imagine a merchant republic arrangement like Venice, it was the best of monarchy and the best of republicanism.

All we would need to change is allowing anyone who is qualified to be the doge, not just a patrician class. Some qualifications to start with:

Rules out DUDE WEED LMAO Bernie supporting college students
Rules out students, niggers, career politicians and welfare leeches
Rules out anyone who has no stake in the future
Rules out Jews
Self explanatory
Obviously rules out the morons still remaining

Not sure what else. But if you wanted to think of rules, you have to think laterally about requirements that a priori rule out kikes, traitors, leftists, etc

It's fun to LARP.

Like and Aristocracy or a Noble Republic? Also, consider that USA originally started with a very few number of people allowed to vote, and yet, it has reached the stage where even illegal immigrants can vote.

Indeed, it was a mistake. That is, however, not to say that it's a common mistake. Consider the Prussian line of Kings or the Habsburg ones, rather then a single instance of a failed succession.

Average monarchs have a better change then an average president elected by the mob rule.

You really wanna play this game?

Also, what do you define as a "bad" monarch? Is it someone incompetent or malicious, or anyone who didn't achieve greatness. Because, for better or worst, even shitty monarchs offered a better stability to their countries then the best of the presidents. It's not just about the monarch, but about the power structure.

cont.

Claudius is regarded among the better emperors of the Roman Empire. Indeed, he solidified his power by the means of political assassination, but that was common amongst senators, legates, and most everyone in the Roman Empire.

"Despite his lack of experience, Claudius proved to be an able and efficient administrator. He was also an ambitious builder, constructing many new roads, aqueducts, and canals across the Empire. During his reign the Empire began the conquest of Britain (if the earlier invasions of Britain by Caesar and Caligula's aborted attempts are not counted)."

Taken from the Wikipedia itself (unreliable, I know, but I'm too lazy to backlink the actual sources).

Is his sexual preference relevant to his administration and strategical expertise? Is he a better leader for being straight or gay? Or do bisexuals posses the greatest knowledge regarding state affairs?

Allegedly, by two sources with unknown reliability. Regardless, he did help to build Rome back.

Also, do you have any sources that support the claim that Tiberius molested little boys? (Not that it's uncommon amongst powerful people like senators, judges and so on today, but just as curiosity)

"Tiberius was one of Rome's greatest generals; his conquest of Pannonia, Dalmatia, Raetia, and temporarily, parts of Germania, laid the foundations for the northern frontier. But he came to be remembered as a dark, reclusive, and sombre ruler who never really desired to be emperor; Pliny the Elder called him tristissimus hominum, "the gloomiest of men."

Again, from Wikipedia.

I don't know who taught you about Claudius and Tiberius being bad emperors. Claudius is well regarded by historians, and Tiberius, while not a great figure, was still a decent administrator.

The best presidents and prime ministers that the Western World has in the last 100 years cannot even compare to the best Monarchs that ruled in the last 2000 years.

this tbh
Hitlers legacy is infantile in comparison the to the legacy of Caesar or Lucius Brutus

I think we derailed a bit and we ended up debating Roman emperors.

The point is that any power structure that allows the people to vote is doomed to fail. By objective standards, both Monarchy or Aristocracy provide a better power system and more stability then any form of elective republic.

Suetonius: "He castrated the boy Sporus and actually tried to make a woman of him; and he married him with all the usual ceremonies, including a dowry and a bridal veil, took him to his house attended by a great throng, and treated him as his wife. And the witty jest that someone made is still current, that it would have been well for the world if Nero's father Domitius had had that kind of wife. 2 This Sporus, decked out with the finery of the empresses and riding in a litter, he took with him to the assizes and marts of Greece, and later at Rome through the Street of the Images, fondly kissing him from time to time. That he even desired illicit relations with his own mother, and was kept from it by her enemies, who feared that such a help might give the reckless and insolent woman too great influence, was notorious, especially after he added to his concubines a courtesan who was said to look very like Agrippina. Even before that, so they say, whenever he rode in a litter with his mother, he had incestuous relations with her, which were betrayed by the stains on his clothing."

penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/Nero*.html

It is during the age of the absolute monarchs or emperors - after the collapse of the Republic (in which, by the by, only those who owned property could vote) - that these deviant sexual practices became so prevalent, and yet it is monarchy that you are here defending. The empire represented the nadir of the morals and cultures of the ancient Romans - when the people lost their will to have liberty. It is not something either to be emulated or desired.

Caligula evinced precisely the same kind of degenerate practices that Tiberius and Nero and innumerable other emperors and monarchs did throughout history, and yet you attribute this bad behaviour to "brain damage." Do you not think that the more plausible reason is that Caligula was corrupted by absolute power, just as these other men so clearly were?

The height of the morals and culture and virtue of Rome was during the time of the Republic. Rome became an empery only when the people had become so degenerate that they no longer cared for liberty. It was all downhill from the time of the empire onward.

Monarchy or Aristocracy versus Democracy is a false trichotomy. Under this tripartite system of nomenclature a state in which only married property-owning men over the age of 25 have the vote is made equivalent with a state in which everybody in society from the age of 16 upwards, including prisoners and those collecting welfare, have the vote.

Okay, so the answers just fall out of the sky.

If you tried to impose upon me a system of government in which I have no voice, I would shoot you with my assault rifle. Furthermore, would you want to live in a society in which the common man doesn't oppose autocratic rule? It would be like living in a country full of sheep or full of Chinamen. If a man has no say in his governance, then he is little more than a goy.

It seems obvious to me that the best form of governance for White men is a democracy in which representation is proportional to your capability as a human. The criteria for voting don't even need to be that complicated; if you have a vagina, or if you're under 25, or if you have some sort of mental defect or a degenerate addiction, then you're not allowed to vote. Shitskins and Jews, having been deported or slaughtered, would not be allowed to vote, either.

Of course, if all of the shitskins and Jews were removed from a country, it would have been done through extralegal methods by a bunch of white men with guns. So, the best form of government is periodically asserting your racial sovereignty by associating with kin and killing all non-kin.

Your argument here is, "Property-owners used to have the vote, but then everybody got the vote, therefore we ought not to try to return to that state of affairs, because it was overthrown once before." I could just as easily say to you, "Consider that France started with an absolute monarchy, and yet that the tyranny of that monarchy led to its absolute downfall, and the subsequent imposition of universal suffrage in France."

Frederick the so-called "Great" and Kaiser Wilhelm were monsters who started World Wars. The Habsburgs were also monsters who attempted to impose the tyranny and slavery of Catholic Church upon Europe by brute force. I have no sympathy with either of those dynasties.

The system itself does so. In the 19th century, only a handful of people could vote in republics, and yet we face today's situation where almost all citizens are allowed to vote. The problem does not lie with the implementation or the specifics of the system, but with the system itself.

yeah again do I have to reiterate
Suetonius didnt like Nero, Sporus was propaganda, a lie
Sporus was apparently married to Nero yet has no grave?
Remember
however

no I believe that since early accounts of his reign applaud what a fine and just Emperor Caligula was whereas his madness didnt become apparent until after the failed assassination attempt I blame the poison

someones an assmad french liberal republican whom Plato would probably spit on tbh

the optimates had voting rights and the optimates were mainly drawn out of the noble houses of Rome and former military leaders and philanthropists
Roman Republic was very much a Noble Republic

You cant create new monarchies lad until society collapses completely again is what im getting at>the Republic (in which, by the by, only those who owned property could vote)

Claudius ought really to be described as an idiot-savant. He did some good things during his actual reign, (which he only attained to by chance,) but he was an incredibly weak-headed man. It was his seduction by Agrippina, and subsequent death by her poisoning him, that led to the disastrous reign of her son Nero, who bankrupted the treasury and led to a catastrophic civil war. That is certainly not a desirable state of affairs.

Suetonius says: "He acquired a reputation for still grosser depravities that one can hardly bear to tell or be told, let alone believe. For example, he trained little boys (whom he termed tiddlers [minnows]) to crawl between his thighs when he went swimming and tease him with their licks and nibbles. Unweaned babies he would put to his organ as though to the breast, being by both nature and age rather fond of this form of satisfaction."

True, but go back a hundred years before universal suffrage took over and you have a different story entirely. Give me Gladstone, Pitt the Younger, Pitt the Elder, Walpole, Peel, and all our great Prime Ministers of old, who were elected during the days when we had a property qualification for voters, any day.

So would you rather have a voice, just so it could be outshouted by the leftists?

Yes. Indeed, I would. Just as the passengers of a plane do not vote on whom or how the plane is flown, the common people whom hold no notion of administration, strategy or economy should not be allowed to vote.

So everyone who didn't lived in a 20th century democracy is a goy? Also, what's wrong with people being goys? Would you wish someone like Anita Sarkeesian or Lena Dunham had power, or would you wish the to be ordinary goys?

This was the basic principles of modern republics and, yet again, we have the situation at hand where everyone votes. If you give a rabid animal a finger, he will take your whole arm.

Indeed, but one this is done you are still left with a governance dilemma.

You wrote "no Nero wasnt brain damaged Sporus was a slanderous lie and propaganda created by Cassius Dio one of Neros lifelong critics." I then gave you a quotation from Suetonius, not Cassius Dio. Now you have shifted the goalposts and stated that Suetonius is not reliable either.

Of course this was the state of affairs. Nero regularly bribed the people with welfare he ransacked from the provinces. That was why the provinces revolted against him and instituted Galba as his successor.

Put simply, the constitution of the Roman Republic gave all free citizens the vote, but you got more of a vote according to the amount of property you owned. It was not an aristocracy by any means. The Senate had a great deal of power in the beginning, but once the Tribunes of the Plebs were instated, who could veto the actions of the consuls and other magistrates, they lost a great deal of it.

Please understand that I am not a defender of democracy. I simply do not like either absolute democracy or absolute monarchy. I believe in (so to speak) limited democracy, which is what you had in ancient Greece and Rome, and in pre-twentieth-century Western civilization.

Sadly, a lot of great men are feeble when confronted by the female charms. Such is the case of Flavius Belisarius, the most powerful man in the Byzantine Empire, even surpassing the greatness of Justinian, just so his wife, Antonina, to cheat and manipulate him at her will.

Suetonius is not a reliable source. Regardless, this is not uncommon amongst the powerful men even in today's society. Sadly.

True. Though the problem is that most common people, devoid of any wisdom and yet rabid for any sliver of power, will attempt to transform any dignified Republic into a popularity contest and a mob rule.

Suetonius worked for Pliny the Younger who was good friends with Tacitus
They all shared the same opinion and didnt like the emperors overall and wanted a return to the republic
I would only trust Tacitus's accounts myself because he was the least likely one of the historians of his time to embellish, exaggerate or lie about the truth
guessing his pessimism had something to do with it

just like Caesar?
Guessing you hate Caesar too for the same reason

neither do I, im no proponent of a system where one man is given the keys to heaven so to speak
I just view republics as something that will inherently become corrupt and fall apart over time, look at how weak Athens became and how the Roman Republic was only able to sustain itself by being in a near constant state of expansionist war
you need a trinity in my view, three arms of government all keeping check on the other
I'm in favour of a Senate/Parliament, an Emperor/King and a theocratic/moralistic council all either working in tandem or opposing each other depending on how the others are

It goes quite a bit deeper than that – true, many men are weak through their amorous proclivities – but Claudius really was described by his contemporaries as an idiot – and the facts, I think, bear it out – consider the way in which Messalina so openly committed adultery behind his back, and had her mock marriage with Gaius – or how he allowed Agrippina to abuse his own son Britannicus by her making his education to be neglected, and pushing him into absolute obscurity, while she did everything she could to raise Nero to a higher precedence in the public eye. And consider that he only came to power in the first place by sheer chance – Claudius was assassinated, and some soldiers found Claudius cowering in a corner somewhere, and they decided that it would be convenient for them to make him Emperor, and so that was that. The point is that everything about him – from his rise to power to his poisoning and the way in which that allowed for the monstrous Nero to become his successor – shows that monarchy is certainly not the stable thing that monarchists would make it out to be.

He is not as reliable as Tacitus of course, but he certainly is a source of note not to be discounted. De vita Caesarum has always been and remains to this day a primary source about Roman History. I am willing to believe that Tiberius was a paedophile in view of the fact that he manifested his tyranny and cruelty in so many ways.

Yes, but France was as absolute a monarchy as you can hope for, and yet that was overthrown. So there is nothing perfect in the state of human affairs. You cannot say to me, "We ought not to try to return to a government under which the vote was restricted, because that eventually changed into universal suffrage" when at the same time France really was an absolute monarchy and that descended into universal suffrage as well. Indeed while France was in a state of absolute anarchy, Britain, with its voting according to property qualification, managed to put down any such similar revolt in its own country and so remained in a state of peace and prosperity.

correct: "Caligula was assassinated" *

...

How must a king rule, Holla Forums?

As in Caesar regularly distributed his wealth he ransacked from his military campaigns to the plebs of Rome in order to curry favour with them

You're forgetting the role the Praetorian Guard played in all this
just like the Janissaries would in the Ottoman Empire a thousand years later the Praetorian Guard of Rome could make or break emperors depending on how useful they saw them
Roman emperor that gives money to the Praetorian Guard and lets them do as they please?
lives long and happy
A Roman Emperor who believes the Praetorian Guard is too decadent and receives too much money and commits too many crimes?
he wakes up with a dagger in his chest and his new successor being pushed onto the throne by the guard

Ignore , hit the enter key before I wrote my reply.

Are you sympathetic with Caesar then, as opposed to the cause of the great Cicero, Brutus, and Cato? We shall simply have to agree to disagree on that point. Caesar was a remarkable man, but quite clearly those who wanted to return to the old Republic were in the right, and stood on the side of the nobler cause. Rome probably would have degenerated into a monarchy at any rate, because the people had become so debauched and corrupt and servile by that time; but I certainly would rather rank myself among those who tried as best they could to save the old ways, rather than to ally themselves with the man who paved the way for absolute monarchy and so the loss of Liberty.

By the sound of how you describe your views you are not a monarchist but rather a believer in a mixed government, like what Britain or Sparta or Rome used to have - i.e. a mixture between either monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, or between aristocracy and democracy. I am certainly partial towards that view of things either so I don't think that we disagree. But the point is that to run towards instating absolute monarchies in the West would be a disaster for us. I simply do not agree with that at all. I think that the most practical and salutary step we can take at the present time is to restrict the vote to people who pay more money into the state than they take out of it only. That would solve almost all our problems - for the left-wing parties would collapse imminently.

Not at all, I mean, what does the word emperor mean after all? A commander of the troops. The emperors only had their power as monarchs because they had the support of the army. But they were nevertheless monarchs.

The army would allow emperors to get away with an astonishing amount of evil before they would finally do away with them – just so long as they were paid, the emperor could often ransack the treasury, commit the most infamous acts of debauchery, deprive the people of any number of their liberties – whatsoever he pleased. That is certainly not a desirable system to live under.

The point is that there's legislated a benchmark as to who can vote (and run) for official positions. If the voting base is restricted to productive white men, then pink-haired cat ladies will never win a position.

Secondly, the primary function of government should be to prevent things from happening, rather than enact or legislate things. This becomes truer as the scope of the government becomes larger. At the federal level, the government should be concerned only with collective racial defense. Everything else (health, education, money) should be left to private citizens.

There weren't enough white men who decided to simply go and shoot those who suggested that women and niggers should vote. White people got upset about all of these things, and maybe a little rowdy, but they were unable to organize themselves into a collective in order to defend themselves. Ultimately, that sort of defense can't be legislated. Pissed off white men just need to have the courage to go lone wolf and start killing "progressive" men who want to destroy white society.

lmao virgin loser

Thanks for taking it out of context and using ad hominem. I think I'll rest my case.

Sadly, I need to go, but indeed you make some compelling arguments.

You are a gentlemen and a scholar, and I have enjoyed our discussion.

Have a great day, user.

But, again, if you want to use this slippery slope fallacy you have to acknowledge that the French Revolution happened in a country which had an absolute monarchy, while Britain, with its voting according to property qualification, remained peaceful and prosperous and without any such revolution. True, we also got universal suffrage in the end, but that was 130 years or so later.

Thanks for your kind words – I return the same sentiments to you. I also apologize if I seemed in any way cold or confrontational in my replies to you - it is an ingrained habit of mine to be in that sort of state of mind whenever I debate on chan sites.

You should look further into what Caesar was trying to achieve
if you do you'll release noone loved the Republic more than him
he wasn't killed because he was a tyrant or because he was going to become a monarch
he was killed because he was introducing reforms which would have allowed plebeians and the kings of the Germanic and Celtic tribes loyal to Rome to become Senators and the optimates felt their power was being threatened

I'm not a supporter of centuries of absolute monarchies I just believe a good king can do more for the nation than any good politician or senator but a bad king needs the shackles of the senate or nobility in order to make sure they dont steer the nation into chaos

irrelevant really since the emperors all referred to themselves as Augustus or Caesar
im fairly certain it took a while for Augustus Caesar himself to actually assume the tile of Imperator Romanum

just like Pompey treasury, Crassus debauchery and Cinna purges really
no power to keep the Senate in line causes chaos, no power to keep the Crown in check causes tyranny
need both in my opinion so yeah I'm not really a supporter of absolute monarchy except when Parliament/Senate restricts the actions of a good King/Emperor

Caesar was a partisan of Pompey and the Democratic party – everything he supported in his career was about expanding the franchise, redistributing property, and granting more power to the common people – that is, at least until he threw off the mask and displayed his true intentions to the world (as so often happens with such "men of the people"). His great abilities aside, he was a demagogue. He founded the empire in the sense that he demonstrated, once and for all, that it was only that man who had command of the army who could wield power in the state. And once he had got power, after all that bloodshed, did he, like Sylla, make any attempt to restore the Republic? Not in the slightest degree.
Some even contend that he was a participant of Catiline's conspiracy. In the end, in view of the opinions on government you have stated in this thread, it surprises me that you are not sympathetic with the optimates, who wanted to restore the old system of the Republic with its checks and balances and its distribution of power between the aristocracy and the people.

Pompey, Crassus, and Cinna, came at a time when the Republic was at any rate on the verge of collapse owing to the servility and debauchery of the people. In my opinion as soon as Rome instituted a standing army the Republic was undone. It was only because they had the support of the army (whether by character or by money) that Pompey, Crassus, and the like, were able to do the sorts of things they did.

Aye Sulla restored the Republic only for it to be thrown back into civil war a decade after his death almost

the Republic wasnt dying by this point it was thoroughly dead
Caesars reforms could have saved the republic, i dont view what he was doing as the act of a man intending to become the king of Rome
he got a little bit too big-headed but the idea would have been to unify the Senate, the Roman citizenry and eventually all the non-citizens of the Roman Republic for a common cause and save the Republic from civil war
hell all evidence points that shortly before he was assassinated Caesar was preparing to launch the largest invasion of Parthian Persia Rome had ever attempted
he even restored the original dual consul system and resigned as consul 6 months before his assasination
his methods were questionable but his will wasnt, he used corruption to sweep away the corruption of the Republic

because it was the optimates that had allowed conditions to fall so far that Sullas, Cinnas and Caesars could take the state by force
corrupt, decadent rich old perverts most of them save for the die hard virtuous republicans like Cicero and Cato
unfortunately I think their idealism blinded them to what Caesar was attempting to accomplish, they feared a tyrant more than they could acknowledge the decay of the republic

I agree with you about many of your points, disagree about some others – but at any rate your opinions and your knowledge have my respect. - ID 1212f9 (will probably have changed because I re-opened VPN).

They need a little bit of water and a few slices of bread to be enjoyed in a shelter not much bigger than a coffin.

Yeah I think our main difference in opinion is that you place more faith in rule of law while I put my trust more in virtuous and capable leaders
I cant trust an institution because it will invariably become corrupt over time

I was wondering why the fuck he wasn't on the list in the first place.

Why did you ignore the Marius Reforms and Sulla?

Marius promoted the impoverished to be able to join the Legions as a way out of poverty, eliminating to requirement to own land and the purchase/fund your own equipment.

Sulla spoke out against this while using it himself and he did absolutely nothing to return things the way they were.

So instead of being forced to make sure an adequate number of Romans owned land of decent wealth, they just allowed the poorest to join and paid for them in taxes.

This devastated the Middle class and concentrated wealth upward. This eventually lead to the dole, because the super rich owned all the land.

And eventually, nobody cared enough to defend Rome.

Dubs for voting rights for only White men over 30.

There was no reason to go into the actual origin of the standing armies (Marius was the founder of it, as you say) because it was not really directly pertinent to the discussion.

I do not think that it is fair to say that Sylla did nothing to restore things to the way they were, in view of the fact that 1) He restored the power of the senate, 2) He restored the power of the property qualification in the assembly of the centuries, as opposed to the majority of sheer number, and 3) When he felt that he had done his duty, he voluntarily relinquished his power as dictator in order to live out his life in obscurity.

If I am not mistaken, in the rest of the points you make you appear to agree with me that the institution of the standing army was the cause of the collapse of Rome.

correct: founder of them*

correct: 2) He restored the power of the property qualification by putting the power to make laws in the hands of the assembly of the centuries, as opposed to the majority of sheer number as represented in the assembly of the tribes* (was not really phrased clearly enough – beginning to get tired)

...

NOT EVEN ONCE

Spinoza was a straight up retard

FEUDAL
BREEDING
PATTERNS
If you believe in monarchy, you believe in India.
/thread

Fuck off nigger we wuz kangz

Only you niggers would think that IQ doesn't measure anything. I'm not looking to start a religious shitflinging here but seriously, it's like your bullshit permeates even the most secular of ideas. Keep your shit in your containment zone.

But anyway, to the main topic; another user already said everything that needed to be said in.

He should be on the list for Waco and Serbia alone

I descend from a Swedish aristocratic family, and I'm more intelligent than majority of my peers, more committed to truth, I have a drive for self-improvement, and I wound up on Holla Forums a year after being exposed to leftist hypocrisy for the first time.

I wouldn't call it divine, but that spark definitely still exists, at least in some families.

I remember being in 9th grade in 1997 and some feminazi bitch told me I had the political views of a 68 year old man for opposing Slick Willy

Why not guarantee the rights of man and the limitations of his power in a constitution which could not be changed without his own and democratic approval?

That would count me out because im on welfare.

To extend this post this is why we should have pre-merchant capitalist feudalist government

Mixed government is the best.

The monarch or dictator should have executive power and should control the nation's diplomacy, finance, law and foreign policy. During a national crisis, he can adjourn the rest of government and have total dictatorial powers for four years.

The aristocracy serves as an advisory council to the Monarch or dictator.

The democratic element proposes legislation and is voted based upon a limited franchise and on occupation rather than geography.

Ultimately the king could be forced to abdicate if his rule is proven to be bad, and he would be replaced by someone from the aristocracy.

Curiously, what you just described is the traditional British Constitution almost to a T. We used to pride ourselves in this country on the fact that we had a mixed government; the Monarch, the Lords, and the House of Commons, acting as they did as a system of checks and balances the one upon the other. That system made us the envy of foreign nations. Of course universal suffrage and our false democratic ideals have since led to the utter abolition of the power both of the Aristocracy and the Monarchy in this country (the hereditary peers were almost all turned out in 1999 owing to Blair, and those who sit in the House of Lords now are for the most part mere toadies appointed by the three main parties).

In any event, mixed government with a limited franchise, is far preferable to absolute monarchy; for the liberty which naturally sprung from the ancient British constitution was what led in great measure to our prosperity, which liberty was utterly alien to those peoples who lived under continental despots. Enlightened absolute monarchs have ever been few and far between.

What is an elective monarchy.

ANACYCLOSIS
N
A
C
Y
C
L
O
S
I
S

Sorel and Vico are your friends monarchkiddies

You know what's funny, OP?

According to the Anacyclosis of Aristotle, a Monarchy is going to follow a Democracy.

Sadly, there is no English kikepedia article to this, so I'm reffering to the German version: de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verfassungskreislauf

I think this system has a merit but is complicated. People are generally stupid and need a simpler system but I think there is definitely something to what you said.

ANACYCLOSIS - "First, society begins with a monarchy. In the beginning the king is a good and wise ruler, but his successors become tyrants, prompting the higher class to overthrow the monarchy and institute an aristocracy. As the descendants of the aristocrats come into power, they become power-hungry and corrupt, and turn into oppressive oligarchs. This prompts the people to finally remove the oligarchs and take over the government themselves, forming democracy. But democracy degrades and becomes mob rule, and out the chaos of mob rule a new monarch rises up, thus beginning the cycle anew."

This is true. Essentially, human politics is cyclical and people want a monarch, king or emperor now because mob rule is absolute shit.

Well…

After Emperorship, I'd like to see power transfer after several generations into a council and several generations later into democracy of white men and from there back to monarch, etc, etc, etc.

Bump

Papist, please go (back to a third-world, Roman Catholic cesspool).

150, and just let them act as the oligarchs and chose minions to manage shit