Monarchism

One of the main arguments you could use against monarchy is their dependence of the Jews (see "Court Jews"). Also Hitler's explanation for not restoring Kaiserdom.

The problem here is that no one lives forever. Hereditary rule worked well because it outlined a very clear-cut line of succession. Without it, you'd essentially have massive upheaval and power struggles every time a leader dies.

I don't think we need to go back to straight-up monarchism though. The problem of modern society is universal suffrage. I think our system worked well the way it was intended; limited suffrage so that only white land-owning men had the right to vote. I think autocracy is something that's only really necessary in emergency scenarios. A panic button, so to speak. Different forms of gov't for different situations.

we need an autocrat to prepare things for the upcoming monarchy, as monarchy isn't an effective revolution method

You'd have to retrofit the ideology to fit within modern context. There are simply classes of people that don't exist anymore, it's impractical to the point where you'd have to change it so much it wouldn't even be Bonapartism, or what-have-you anymore.

How about an AI?

I would argue that the jews are the ones trying to move our countries towards a form of Feudalism.

Just look at marxist ground-zeroes like San Francisco and NYC. They're dystopian techno-feudal hellholes, where you have a tiny elite of kikes at the top and a sea of obedient brown hordes and cucks scraping together a life at the bottom of the barrel and being placated with gibsmedats. There is no middle class in these places. You're either a wealthy elite kike, or you're a pajeet living in a shoebox and writing code for 80 hours a weeks. These brown people are subservient serfs who toil away like good goyim for their kike masters and in return get a small kickback to barely stay alive on. Techno-feudalism.

White people were not meant to live like this.

This will quickly descend in to the same arguments that marxists make about communism being doable with an AI overlord. Don't even get me started on those singularity shills like (((kurzweil)))

Hitler had a lot to say about it in Mein Kampf, don't remember the exact chapter though. iirc his points boiled down to

Aristocrats still exist, now they are all kikes. The jewish families such as Rothschild, Bilderberg, these are the modern Aristocrats. With the kikes dead white people would fill this class. Society never changes, it merely gives the appearance of change, there will always be Aristocrats.

It's not feudalism, it's serfdom. Feudalism at least the peasants only had to work hard during planting and harvest, serfs work day after day until they die for the glory of ZOG.

I wouldn't mind monarchy if I wasn't sure that every single royal in the world was 10000000000000000% pozzed.

There is a simple way monarchy could work. Just keep the current American system, put term limits on politicians, and make the President into a King. Instead of President being voted for the President would choose his successor in advance of his abdication, his successor would be approved by either a vote of the white male landowners (who should be the only people able to vote) or the senate/congress to make sure his successor isn't a total retard, then his successor would learn and be ready to take the role.

theocratic monarchism masterrace here

I was going into this thread to stop this stupidity preemptively but it seems I was too late.

HITLER WAS A MONARCH. AN AUTOCRAT IS LITERALLY A MONARCH.

A monarchy is not automatically a hereditary monarchy, otherwise the term hereditary monarchy wouldn't exist. To be a monarch means you rule alone; you are a supreme ruler. Any title can apply to a monarch; it doesn't matter if you call yourself a king, leader, chief or emperor: If the nature of how you rule matches the definition then you are a monarch.

Words have meaning. Stop raping western language with your own newspeak definitions like the kikes do.

Glory to Kek and his prophet Trump PBUH

read ibn khaldun and the Arthashâstra
machiavelli sounds like a baby compared to those

S H A D I L A Y brother

The Jacobinists really screwed the pooch in France, and Napoleon didn't do his job to clean up the mess because of a fucking woman. Just follow the Swiss example if you want success (that is to say the Swiss way in following the American example). Of course part of the formula for why Switzerland is doing better than America right now is race and religion, which goes without saying for anyone here.

Isn't the Moarchism is autocratic though?

That's true, humans are naturally hierarchical, but the dynamics are completely different. Slaves still exist in the sense of moral slavery. Many of today's people are slaves to their "sin" or degeneracy, AKA the bread and circus act. Many are slaves own a more direct sense too, if you bring up wage slavery I suppose.

You're confusing Aristocracy (tradition ,honour, merit) with Plutocracy & nepotism (family ties, rule of the (((wealthy oligarchy))) )

He was a monarch In the sense he had absolute power. He wasn't a monarchist.

Yeah. The kikes basically killed the aristocrats because "they're oppressing you goyim!" and supplanted them. Then they told the goyim that they were more free than anyone before them in history and cracked the whip harder than the former masters. America and Russia are the only places that really had a chance and that's why the kikes orchestrated the ACW and the rise of the (((communists))) who overthrew the Russian Empire.

1795 was definitely the start of the downfall of western civilisation.

...

Laying my respects to the Russian Empire. We used to be pretty good allies during the Revolutionary War and Civil War.

>he believed a system with a supreme leader by definition a monarch was necessary and fought to establish his system
That's some sophistry right there. You are trying to imply the fact there were groups who refereed to themselves as monarchists, and who were in support of degenerate dynasties, has any bearing on the meaning of what a monarchy is. It doesn't.

I feel sorry for the deseased king. He was a good man and father but bad leader. I don't mean that he is evil but aren't talented at ruling his country. I suspect that if he was raised properly then Russia Empire would not die.

True, the term Aristocracy was mixed and bastardized by (((them))), plus the strata has changed from top to bottom. Ask any normie what's an Aristocracy, at best they will confuse it with rich oligarchies.

Although I still advocate and hope one day real aristocracies emerge from the shadows

His policies, ideology, and society wasn't monarchist in the slightest. Call him what you want, call him a despot if you want dude. Nazi Germany wasn't a despotic state you retard.

I'm just suprised the communists didn't obliterate Russia's culture. That's what they did in China. Maybe I'm just not educated enough.

Very different. Russia is made of Russians, Russian culture exists in the Russians, can't really get rid of it. But Chinese culture was in the Manchu and Han, China is made up of a bunch of different chink groups. When the Manchu and Han got gassed and all of them with more possessions than a straw hut and some rice got thrown into shalow graves the Chinese culture was destroyed. It's the way of things.

Nazi Germany wasn't a Kingdom, please lets not confuse things that are about absolute power.

Kingdom, Serfdom, Chivalry, having a Lord to Serve, Faith and Stability etc, this are characteristics of a typical Monarchy.

Nah. I'd rather build a better modern age. At the end of the day its easier to teach one aristocrat to be good then rely on an entire ecosystem of them in liberal (((democracies)))

...

Wow, it's like I'm really arguing with a kike.

This thread makes me feel nostalgic. It harks back to a simpler time, when Holla Forums was a backwater pub jerking off over ideals rather than a war machine focused on pragmatism and goals. I kinda miss it, it can't be helped since the environment has changed and we're at war, but it's still a little sad that Holla Forums no longer gives a shit about thinking about fundamental political ideas and possibilities as an intellectual curiosity.

You're the one twisting definitions and terms to fit your agenda.

Holla Forums back then
Holla Forums now

Philosophical and ideas threads aren't uncommon now. Many have just reached ideological singularity.

Miss it too, user… but soon it will be over

Just stop. Your dialectic isn't going to work here.

Killing the jews is not the end. Only once the jews are dead can anything truly begin.

Nitpicking philosophical ideas is what people do when they have no power and there's nothing else they can do. Just look at all the anarcho-capitalist LARPers who spend all their time constructing hypothetical scenarios and elaborate ruth-goldberg schemes for how roads can be constructed without violating the NAP. They do nothing but circlejerk and theorycraft because they consciously or unconsciously know that there's no point in trying to move forward with anything.

Because if they make them completely cultureless then Russia will fall into chaos and become harder to control. It's strange.

You misunderstood what I said.

You caught me red-handed. Fuck off faggot, you're not Holla Forums.

*your dialect
Didn't mean to put tactics there.

It also helps that back then there weren't major Happenings every single day. To put it in perspective, the Zimmerman trial would have barely registered as a blip on our radar these days, it certainly wouldn't be a major defining moment for Holla Forums were it to have happened now.

Now Holla Forums overthrows empires. The scale has changed.

Frankly, I suport monarchism as to avoid carrer politicians and their bullshit.

I am not sure how we could make natsoc resurface, so a strongman lineage that can simply say no to a lot of bullshit we get nowaday.

The main problem with monarchies is nepotism and a potential for a Wilhelm II&Nicholas II supershitstorm of incompetence.
Monarchy is too prone to extremes while republics have a good filter for weeding out the batshits and keeping the state on a moderate steady path.

IMO USA has by far the best style of governance as founding fathers intended, not the Civil War abomination we have today. A lot of checks and balances and a simple engine that can be cleansed from time to time with the entrails of tyrants. But can get a powerful president into power to clean shit up and step down as Cincinnatus did. The parasitic elements should be banned under the constitution though.

Breeding a perfect Emperor is impossible due to genetics and random happening in upringings. You'd have to have a human mentat ala Dune, computer educated clone or an AI to be a perfect Emperor.
But I concur that humanity evolved with patriarchal heads so a monarchy would be the best approximation to a natural family model.
I'm for the God-Emperor model though. THE SPICE MUST FLOW

Yeah, it's so ambivalent what you said. You are literally following Hitler's description of arguing with kikes.

Also, I overlooked
Yeah, you are obviously not from here. Kill yourself.

Nazi was a word Joeseph fucking Goebbels himself was using since 1926 you faggot.

RUDOLPH DID NOTHING WRONG

Reminder that Barron Trump is Muad'Dib, and his name is a killing word.

Monarchies last significantly longer than republics.

You are making incorrect assumption of what a monarch, and thus a monarchy is. There is no reason a monarch can't be put through a filter like the one you describe above and in fact Hitler talked a length on how to avoid the leadership of the NSDAP degenerating like was typical of dynastic rule, nobility and democratic parties.

It is if you are fine with mediocrity. In practice most policies need decades of consistent enforcement to be fruitful, something that is impossible with the constant replacement of leadership, not to mention that approval of the masses is always shit.

Could you make it any more obvious you are not from here?

I am somewhat of a monarchist.
I think there should be a strict hierarchy in society but there should also be a chance to climb up the ladder based on people's merits, just like Reinhart did in your pic.
Kind of like in the chatolic church or even in the freemason lounges.

or perhaps capitalism?

...

...

monarchism =/= feudalism, despite what some of these retards think

You guys should really read some Julius Evola.

Ride the tiger, brah.

There is a reason monarchy has been the primary form of governance for nearly as long as recorded history.
Monarchy guards the nation as the monarch is directly linked to it. If the nation is weak and destroyed so is he. And since his progeny will inherit it he needs to leave it strong and healthy.

More so the institution of monarchy itself gives a sense of national pride and belonging that no democracy will ever match which is good to guard against degeneracy and protect the nation.

Say what you will about "modern times" but democracy and it's ilk were only really implemented fully fairly recently and have made every single failure or their system abundantly clear.

I can only hope that the current populist and right-wing trend reaches the logical conclusion of the establishment of a monarchy. Don't think Ceaser but rather August. HAIL BARRON!

...

Should I only read Ebola after I work my way through the classics or isn't that required for him?

I'm not this guy btw. There's more than one torfriend here.

The other toranon is retarded

Monarchies in the past were basically: Rally the troops of the lesser bitches to invade another warrior's clans. Monarchies are in essence a might makes right power structure where the warrior class rules through strength of arms and smarts to get those arms.
This became obsolete in modern industrial countries where an ordinary crafty yid can fool a bunch of room temperature goys into overthrowing the government. And they can get an AK47 for pennies.
With the monarch investing into education and improving living standards, they weren't the only smart and well bred ones
A new way of running a monarchy would have to devised, possibly withouth destroying the potential of the population in process.

Which is?
Of course there is. The previous monarch trying to cover for his son, the court (((councelor))) trying to weaken the heir and deliberately destroy his education, etc.. The usual nespotic stuff.
The main problem that I see with a monarchy is that being a king is a very stressful job, more so with a modern industrialized country. And this stress can bring up any latent mental illnesses.
I'm interested in stability. What good is a genius monarch if the next one can basically destroy the whole country, as almost happened with Russia right after it's inception?
Putting all the eggs in one basket is moronic, if the basket is not perfectly mentally and physically prepared .

Caesarist. Close enough.

What is largely accepted today as a monarch are the ones who actually come from old dynasties, nobility. Hitler might've been a de facto monarch, as in he had the powers of a monarch, but he wasn't legally a monarch since he had to be of at least noble blood.

Wtf are you talking about, Holla Forums was the same in terms of jews niggers and fags, since these are degenerate elements which brought down any attempts of human elevation.

Might not start like that but always ends up being hereditary. Also kill yourself.

Whatever makes you think that the population now is more educated or living better then in the heyday of Monarchism?
Don't drink the lefty Kool-Aid that the current year is the most advanced prosperous and free. You ancestors a 100-200 years ago lived better then you.

There are plenty, but they don't admit they are monarchists. They are embarrassed so they keep making up nonsensical names like Nrxlgtbfagwhatevers.

That's embarrassing.

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

Except he hated the aristocracy, which is the pillar of every monarchism.

Hey Björn, how do you like your lesbian Bishops?

You sound like a high schooler. Being a king is not a job, your notion that it being more stressful than any other head of state position is baseless modern responsibility- free kike democracies naturally excluded, you idea that ruling in the old days where war and rebellion was pretty much guaranteed meant less pressure is just dead wrong, a monarch is not implicitly a king and and if you can't take the stress you don't belong anywhere near a seat of power to begin with.

And thus accept mediocrity. It like the trade between comfort and freedom from ZOG. Either you aim for greatness and pay the price of eternal vigilance or you settle for inevitable irrelevance. What the founding fathers did sure as fuck wasn't stable or democratic. To start what they did was just as unilateral as anything an aspiring king and his trusted men ever did but they were to blinded by ideology to see that is what they accomplished, as always, was rooted not in the masses but in the fire of a few men.

That's what you do when you base your everything on the presumed innate good of the masses. It inevitably fails.

Stop making shit up. By this logic no one who overthrew the old king and took the crown was ever considered a monarch, since what he did was was illegal by notion of the old rule.

Well infant mortality rate for one. Literacy rates for seconds. Average IQ. And more.
There are more jobs that require high levels of education since the technology is becoming more and more advanced.
Education is questionable becouse people aren't trained to think, but it's way better than an average industrial worker of the 19. century. Especially becouse of the internet where knowledge is basically unlimited and free.
And I'm talking about the average Joe, not the Elite.

Ouch, that is very awkward. I hope he is not next in line, is he?

No no no. This is where I draw the line. The problem with Monarchy is while the first and second kings may be wise and worthy, the third won't be.

The title of a Monarch is still a legal thing. Hitler did not accept any crown and his title was merely his function which he was invested with.

You can read Maurras, he's the thinker of the Action Française, the biggest monarchist party in France.

There was nothing monarchical about Hitler whatsoever. Numerous factors go into declaring someone a monarch over a dictator and/or oligarch such as a royal bloodline, the way in which power is attained and their method of rule etc. I've never heard anyone claim Hitler was a monarch, although there is no reason why he couldn't have attained the status of a monarch if things went differently. It seems quite clear that is something he aspired too, though.

I'm open to your reasoning but rather than people here playing sophistic games, I'd suggest you are pushing a semantic argument that you've convinced yourself is correct.

Besides there were kaisers ruling around that time and you have to make a distinction here; they were truly monarchs contrary to Hitler who rose through the ranks of the military and politics. It isn't the same at all.

Interesting that Wilhelm did say that he hoped Hitler would 'restore the monarchy' which was mocked by Adolf suggesting a distinction.

You just said it. Technology is becoming more advanced.
That doesn't mean society is improving - quite the opposite, as technological progress masks societal decline.

Spanishtan user here. As you know, Spain is a monarchy…. A representative democracy monarchy. And it doesnt work. Fuck the king and their doughters.

He has no real power and he receives more money for doing nothing than a thousand nigger families. The 9 years old princess receive almost 100.000€ per year, for fucks shake. All the goverment is in hands of mafia-politicians. Sadly, the most similar thing to Thrump or Marie le pen… is left wing (at least they are populist anti globalist, but also socialist and they helped Venezuela turn the shithole it is today)

What we need in spain is:
-Absolutist monarchy, at least the corrupt mafia politicians will be less and no so powerful.
-Catholic theocracy (if there wasnt this fight between Opus Dei and Jesuists…)
…
-Ok, the left wing populist party. They may be left wing but we need to purge all the parasites and they are the only ones who want to do it. I will accept 4 years of socialism-liberalism nightmare if after that we have no more shit.

Monarchy is the perfect form of government if you have an immortal king. We must create an Übermensch to start 10000 year golden age.
GOD WILLS IT

And you can't support your arguments for shit. Like:
Why? Put some argument behind it. I can't debate if you simply dismiss it.

A modern industrialized country is in a lot more complex than a feudal monarchy. A monarch in those times didn't have to worry about the economy, foreign relations, social development, the press etc… that much becouse there were no instruments to monitor or control the things in question. Their prime care was defending agricultural land.
One example for the complexity is the state of US presidents after only 4 or 8 years in office. They age twice as fast. Imagine doing the same job for 50 years during peace. A goddamn superman couldn't do it.

And you accept the power that fills the power vacuum after the monarch falls. Which might as well be a Communist dictatorship as happened in Russia. And then, there's no more monarchy and in comes the ZOG. You should also not presume that monarchy=no secret societies/jews.
I accept the fact that the political environment is constantly changing, especially in modern times and you need a form of leadership that can change to adapt to the parameters. Your way would be good if the world had only one monarch.

It was until the REPUBLIC wasn't being dismantled piece by piece. The muh guns amendment is basically the only thing that kept it going till the Current year started.
Which is the reason why the US still stands. The masses will just vote themselves into a dictatorship/monarchy. Democracy is just another form of marxism.

Ditto for you and the monarch. But I trust smart men keeping checks on each other in a set legal environment than hoping that the next monarch won't be nuts or the power struggle during the transition of power.

I didn't say that. I said that living standards and education are better. As in, conditions for people to succeed.

kek, you're the monarchist equivalent of a Strasserist or a Nazbol showing up and shitposting on this board.

one
power/authority/rule(r)/command
no/none/zilch
(the) people

lrn2greek fgt

Most on this board place race before their LARPing tho

Go to mencius moldbug blog
He is a jew, beware. So there isn1t even need to read what he writes but he points to just a shitfuckton of monarchist literature.