Alt-Right Monarchism

>>1449262
I thought this would be a King Crimson thread

>>1449262
I am by no means learned, but the idea of a person groomed their entire life to rule, who has been instilled with a sense of responsibility, appeals more to me than a council of greedy bumblefucks only in it for the cash or to spread their own ideology, completely ignoring the long-term effects of their actions.

>>1449285
I mean, I know it's not as black and white as that. But still.

that's easy. let's just take the example of self-driving cars. the majority of people have prejudices against it for various reasons, but statistics say it's the safest way to drive a car and also the most ecologically friendly way. In a democracy people could vote against parties/laws that would want to exchange all existing cars with self-driving ones (for the sake of the people themselves). Democracies are slow. An absolute monarch is efficient. He/she could just order it and thus solve the problem easily. You just need to have someone with the right ideas who's not easily influenceable.

>>1449285
As always , there's all the shit surrounding that that makes Monarchies quit non attractive for most people. Like the fact that monarchies often are hereditary, which means that nothing stops a good monarch's possibly bump fucking retarded first born from getting the throne. Or that the only way of getting rid of a bad/weak ruler is coups or revolutions. Or that weak rulers tend to get manipulated by higher nobles who don't got the interests of the country first.
Not that Democracy is flawless, thought you already brought up negative things with it.

>>1449262
They're all fucking LARPers

File: 6BAAD81E8.jpg (304KB, 953x953px) Image search: [Google]

304KB, 953x953px

>>1449274
Objectively their best album.

>>1449262
Aren't alt-right libertarians...ish? If they are, they are probably against monarchy.

Right? It would be retarded otherwise?

>>1449298
Are there any occasions through history where More dictatorial systems managed to advance faster in technology than more democratic ones?
Just an example, but the opposite may occur. In dictatorships the rulers may have an interest in stopping innovations as their main goal is to preserve the status quo and quick changes in innovation may hurt that.

>>1449314
The """alt right""" is not a monolith. It's just an umbrella term for anti-egalitarians who do not belong to the American "religious right". This includes libertarians, fascists, traditionalists, nazis, racists, white nationalists, monarchists, and ancaps.
>t. notpol

>>1449319
Nazi Germany desu, up until around Operation Paperclip. But that was mostly a fluke of being shit-poor prior to establishing an economy temporarily revitalized by foreign loot.

>>1449262
>>1449312
>t. Amerilard

>>1449285
>>1449309
Basically these arguments. I'd rather serve a monarch than a bunch of puppet politicians and their Wall Street puppetmasters who only care about the short term of a nation

>>1449262
The question is, where is the Court of the Crimson King?

>>1449331
Exactly. A person who is personally responsible for the country during his or her entire life would have a much larger stake in keeping the country, and its people, stable and happy.

>>1449331
>Basically these arguments. I'd rather serve a monarch than a bunch of puppet politicians and their Wall Street puppetmasters who only care about the short term of a nation
I had rather serve a group of men who view themselves as equals with the rest of the country than some name fetishizing nobles and their king who think they own the common man.

>>1449314
Right libertarianism is basically feudalism. Also, there's some overlap between neonazis and right libertarians in /pol/, so i don't see how this is surprising.

I personally don't advocate absolute monarchy, but I think there's some merit in the idea of having a competent and well trained individual tailor-raised for the job of governing wielding large enough amounts of power to get shit done. This also means governments can think longer-term than the next election. Lots of democracies basically operate on a shortsighted agenda of "what will make people happy for when I'm up for re-election? What can I do to make sure my successor doesn't undo everything I've done?"

That said, the threat factor of a total fucking moron in charge outweighs this to me. Democracy seems to err towards mediocrity, you often avoid the extremes and in either case they're rarely around long enough to do much damage/good.

>>1449330
>Nazi Germany
Can't much of their special technological progress rather be attributed to them being desperate at the end of the war and had to take anything they could that could lead to superweapons of some sort?
Or is that viewing it wrongly?>>1449330

>>1449342
>""""""equals"""""
Do you seriously think that the Western elite view themselves as an equal to the common man? It takes a certain type of underhanded personality to make it to the top in Western society and I'm sure just about all of them care more about their lobbyist interests or getting votes in the next election than the well-being of their country.

A royal dynasty has to focus on the stability and progress of their nations in the long run, not just whatever lies will get them into office for the next four years.

>>1449324
>racists
>implying all racists are right wing

yikes....

>>1449340
But there's a bunch of examples when the opposite has happened. Just as there are many republics where a temporary ruler did everything he could for his country.
Considering all the reasons there is for a ruler to just ditch his people I don't think that can be said for that people who are personally responsible will be better at keeping their country safe and people happy.

>>1449369
Exactly the same can be said about your own dynastic monarchies though.
To be able to keep your dynasty going you often need to be that sort of untrustworthy person who can backstab people, including your subjects. They have often shown themselves to run their subjects interests over for their own personal ones, like building beautiful castles, starting glory wars and making everyone adopt their own religion and killing those who don't.

And my quote wasn't as much a sincere statement but more of a counter against your very biased definition.

Why don't they advocate oligarchy? What makes monarchism better?

File: quote-man-in-general-if-reduced-to-himself-is-too-wicked-to-be-free-joseph-de-maistre-55-23-91.jpg (45KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 850x400px

Absolute monarch owns his country and isn't just a mere administrator elected for four years, people tend to value their own property more and don't sell it out to "special interests" at the first opportunity.

Also the masses are too stupid and emotional to know what they want, in many countries if they had a direct democracy they'd just vote in a 3000€ minimum wage and no taxes and watch their economy implode.

File: King of Vectors.png (80KB, 343x343px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 343x343px

>>1449262
> absolute monarchy
The one good moment is that Monarch would be a fair judge and unbiased because her didn't want to be more powerful. That allows Monarch to do what is necessary and focus on the matter of his nation instead of holding up to his power.

>>1449394
That's what we have.

>>1449405
>Absolute monarch owns his country and isn't just a mere administrator elected for four years, people tend to value their own property more and don't sell it out to "special interests" at the first opportunity.

Yeah, but people aren't property, and the whole idea of absolute monarchy rests on the idea that the masses are not free, but are his "subjects".

>>1449405
Wasn't that basically kinda what the not-so-democratic Hitler did?

>>1449420
>people aren't property

I see a claim but no argument

File: rare Hoppe.jpg (50KB, 425x640px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 425x640px

>no one mentions Triple H yet

I'll do you a favor: http://www.riosmauricio.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Hoppe_Democracy_The_God_That_Failed.pdf

>>1449324
>ancaps
>anti-egalitarians

>racists
>necessarily right wing

feel free to stop at any time.

>>1449414
We have democracy though

>>1449428
Almost cut myself on that edge. Keep the katana away when the grown ups are talking pls.

>>1449448

Saying "ow that edge" isn't an argument either, friend.

>>1449436
Rich people exist

>>1449455
I don't see you answering me about that Hitler point any.

>>1449436
Democracy is the government of the people. Does the gilens and page paper need to be posted yet again?

>>1449262
Neets who get indoctrinated since birth that the rich deserve to be rich because they're better realise that the ultimate conclusion of this would be that these "rich betters" would make better rulers if they are trained for it since birth.

>>1449469

First, I'm not the guy you're calling edgy, I'm saying whining about 'muh edgy' isn't validating your point of view any more than someone "wow like such a fucking bigot its 2016 people" does.

Second, whatever your Hitler comment is doesn't follow from the discussion we're having regarding monarchs owning their state and its citizens. If you said something relevant to the current discussion there, why not provide it instead of crying about edge?

>>1449455
If you don't accept even the most essential of modern ethical axioms, such as people not being slaves, then what's the point of having a discussion?

itt: edgefags think that they're smarter than the average, while also believing that random monarchs will consistently be smarter than common people

Because they think it would be cool.

I don't think anyone unironically thinks it would be a better form of government in this age.

>>1449477
I am not the person calling someone edgy.
And how, friend, does it not answer the post I made it for?
He is claiming that direct democracies would all follow a similar pattern, I tried to show a case where an absolute dictator ((which seemed to be pretty close to his ideal form)) did something exactly like what he was afraid would happen.

Same pro-monarchy arguments used ITT could also be used to justify dictatorships.

Speaking from someone from a country that had 24 years of military dictatorship, both sides happen. I.e. a "benevolent" dictator that implement policies to help the population out of poverty, misery and chaos, boosts economy and is overall good for the nation.
But for each one of that, there was 3+ power-hungry fuckers that just didn't crash the whole thing with no survivors because advisors/generals controlled him (somewhat).

>>1449425
>not-so-democratic Hitler

Hitler was elected democratically so if you want to argue the people elected a dumbass as their representative, by all means go for it.

>>1449478

I'm not the guy, however, it's entirely feasible to have a paternal view of it, and have people 'belong' to them the same way children 'belong' to their parents. Both sides have responsibilities to the other, with the understanding that the 'father' is supposed to act in the best interest of the child.

It's not like children aren't entitled to rights, it's not giving the monarch 100% free reign and saying "you're not even a human being, he can just put you against the wall and shoot you if you like". It's not chattel slavery where you're bought and sold.

Merely that going "YIKES THATS EDGY!" in regards to the concept that a person looks after something that's "theirs" rather than something they're basically renting isn't an intelligent rebuttal, you could address the ethics of it instead and actually have a fucking debate.

>>1449493
>it's not giving the monarch 100% free reign and saying "you're not even a human being, he can just put you against the wall and shoot you if you like". It's not chattel slavery where you're bought and sold.

But this is just an idealized version of it that you cooked up in your head.

In reality, it's going to look like 18th century Tsarist Russia.

>>1449489
While becoming democratically elected, he abolished democracy as soon as he got power.
The people had no way of democractially limiting what he did after that. He used his dictator powers to silence those who criticized his politics.
Absolutely everything he did after getting the election apart from the annexation of Austria he did as an absolute dictator.

>>1449469
I'm the guy you were calling edgy but i'm not the guy you replied to where you made that stupid point about hitler

You're delusional if you think there's only one guy in the world who disagrees with you

>>1449489
>>1449501
The problem is that Hindenburg didn't stop him. He was supposed to safeguard the democracy, but he was senile.

>>1449478
You still haven't provided an argument for why people shouldn't be property other than "dude everyone thinks that lol xd"

>>1449480
>random

>>1449502
Apart from being democratically elected, what differed Hitler from any other absolute Dictator in history?

>>1449506
>>1449501
>mimimi democracy is awesome but ONLY if the people elect who I want!

Democracy sucks cock.

>>1449512
The moustache

>>1449510
Not that guy.
Why should they be property though?

>>1449497
another claim without evidence/argument

>>1449513
Go back to your favela

>>1449497

I'm personally not in favor of an absolute monarchy in the first place, if that means that the monarch doesn't have to abide by a constitution of some sort. I'm just supporting the guy's argument that somebody is more likely to look after something that's his responsibility for life than something he's just looking after for four years 'so take advantage of your station while you're there because you'll be out soon enough.'

I'm also saying that just because you "belong" to the monarch (in the way that you're his subject) doesn't instantly translate to "you're literally a chattel slave and plaything" and that monarchs had expectations regarding their relationship with their subjects, even in Tsarist Russia. Suggesting, however, that literally every absolutist monarchy would operate like fucking Russia is also pretty dumb.

At the end of the day all I'm saying is the guy who screamed "edgy" is a moron and he should at least try to validate his position instead of going entirely on "its 2016 people the ethics I hold are flawless and don't need to be at all defended."

>>1449528
Not an argument.

>>1449489
>burn the reichstag
>forbid the communist party
>apointed by Hindenburg
Can we stop this meme?

>>1449512
He deeply cared for his people and made the country better off than when he was elected in every aspect

>>1449486
"First there comes a terrifying realisation of the limitless uncontrolled changes now in progress, then wild stampedes, suspicions, mass murders and finally mus ridiculus the Hero emerges, a poor single, silly, little human cranium held high and adorned usually with something preposterous in the way of hats. "He knows," they cry. "Hail the Leader!" He acts his part; he may even believe in it. And for quite a long time the crowd will refuse to realise that not only is nothing better than it was before, but that change is still marching on and marching at it—as inexorably as though there were no Leaders on the scene at all."
-HG Wells
I feel like disaffected reactionary teenagers flock to monarchies because they promise simple solutions to complex problems.

>>1449523
I'm not saying they should but if you can't prove that they shouldn't be then why rule it out that they can't be

All I'm asking is to back up your claims with an argument

>>1449534
> made the country better off
You mean under occupation of four western powers?

>>1449534
Ah, yes, leaving your country defeated, occupied, destroyed, and raped by the soviets. The dream of every leader.

>>1449540
So it's Hitler's fault that Churchill and the Allies were genocidal war hungry demagogues and willingly declined peace treaties in favor of war?

>>1449537
>All I'm asking is to back up your claims with an argument
I did say I weren't him though.

>>1449527
>The historical record isn't evidence

lol, you're exactly like Commies who claim their shitpiece religion "hasn't been tried yet".

File: 4IjMUT7.jpg (28KB, 499x434px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 499x434px

>>1449534
>made the country better off

You mean before [THING THAT COULDN'T POSSIBLY BE HITLER'S FAULT] right?

>>1449527
How about you give us some some god example of your ideal Monarchy?
Preferably one that lasted more than one or two generations.

>>1449545
I don't know what is bait and what isn't anymore. Is this the latest /pol/ revisionist bullshit?

>>1449559
/pol/acks seem to believe that the Gleiwitz incident was real so probably.

>>1449523

Suppose we use the word subject instead of property, operating on the same assumption that the monarch is the 'owner'.

What does it necessarily imply? The instant dismissal obviously suggests that the person assumed "slave" and made the jump to the worst things that happen to slaves, lacking in any rights, at the whims of their owner.

Why is it so unreasonable that a ruler and a subject have mutual responsibilities, as they do in every single society on earth? In democratic societies as well you have certain duties and requirements. Paying taxes, in many places jury duty, following the law. You forfeit some freedom in a contact. By being the subject of a monarch you are merely making the contract with the individual rather than the state... And in an absolute monarchy, the individual is the state anyway.

You are forfeiting freedoms, but (and this even went for absolute monarchies) there is an expectation that it's a mutual arrangement where both the monarch and the subjects have to hold up their end of the bargain. Monarchs are well aware that they can't maintain power when everyone in the country wants their head.

>>1449556
Not him but France before Louis XVI

File: NOTANARGUMENT.png (325KB, 476x536px) Image search: [Google]

325KB, 476x536px

>>1449559
Great argument

>>1449550

You can use the historical record in an argument against democracy as well, you know. It's not like democracies haven't failed repeatedly. Not to mention the most vigorous democracies right now are, as far as history goes, relatively young. It's not like we just leveled up and hit "we democracy now" and it'll never change.

File: file.png (302KB, 456x352px) Image search: [Google]

302KB, 456x352px

>>1449429
>triple H

He is the king of kings

File: enhanced-buzz-10355-1365600472-10.jpg (134KB, 486x685px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 486x685px

>>1449545

So Germany was hypothetically better off if things had gone differently. That's a lot different than "Germany was better off" you know.

You might as well say France was on the up-and-up during Louis XVI's reign "if the revolutionaries hadn't been so unreasonable".

>>1449582
Maybe I am historically illiterate, but wasn't the king before him something of a disaster for France who increased the dept of the country by quite a big percentage while laying the foundation for many of the troubles during Louis XVI's regime?

>>1449602
That's true as well

If monarchy is so good why it doesn't exist now?

>>1449593
I mean Hans-Hermann Hoppe of course, not the WWE Triple H

>>1449584
I don't need to provide any argument because he is the one affirming something. Not to mention he is the one going against the academic consensus. While we're at it, i'd like to know where were Molyneux's arguments when interviewing chomsky.

>>1449610
>I don't need to provide any argument
>going against the academic consensus

Yes you are truly the crown jewel of academia with your robust arguments like "lol xd ur just from /pol/ ur just a revisionist"

If something is incorrect, it should be revised.

>>1449626
>>1449616

Republicans and commies blown the fuck out ITT

>>1449609

It still doesn't change the outcome. Louis XVI's reign ended in his execution and horrific mob rule for years. Whether you hold him responsible or not, he failed to prevent that outcome. It's hard to argue his reign was good for France with that in mind, unless you want to start calling him the father of French democracy or something.

>>1449626
Maybe you are not aware of how logic works, but the person that affirms something is the one with the burden of proof. It is logically impossible to refute an existential statement.

> Monarch lose genetic lottery and born a literal retard
What is monarchists argument against that?

File: 1458381652184.jpg (150KB, 815x623px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 815x623px

>>1449659
Drive the nation to ruin

>>1449659
>the people lose genetic lottery and born literal retards

That's every democracy ever

>>1449646
Are you implying Churchill did not decline offers of peace treaties from Hitler?

>>1449700
While Churchill did turn down a lot of peace offers, Hitler did ignore a lot of warnings.
HE wasn't also really a trustworthy guy, as is the case with the Munich treaty and Moloto reippentrop pact.

>>1449376
Less bad monarchs than bad democratic systems. And a bad system is worse than a bad king

>>1449262
You can advocate for other forms of monarchy you know...

File: quote-the-absolute-ruler-may-be-a-nero-but-he-is-sometimes-a-titus-or-marc-aurelius-the-people-antoine-rivarol-60-40-32.jpg (55KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 850x400px

>>1449376

>>1449285
But monarchism doesn't ensure that the best person rules. It's non-meritocratic by nature.

File: quote-a-witty-saying-proves-nothing-voltaire-191097.jpg (37KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 850x400px

>>1449720

>>1449714
Got any statistics or anything to prove that?

>>1449691
People doesn't vote for truly drooling retarded or clearly insane guys that believe that they ate piano or made of glass. That shit rolls only in monarchy.

>>1449680
Charles II wasn't a bad king

File: cuckoldry.jpg (280KB, 550x731px) Image search: [Google]

280KB, 550x731px

>>1449727

>>1449741
What are you trying to say?

>>1449746
That Voltaire was cucked

>>1449752
But absolute monarchy if absolute cucking...

>>1449752
He approved of the enlightened absolute monarchies of the time, so yeah.
Absolute Monarchists tend to be cucks for the state.

>>1449758
No, I mean, literally cucked.
Some other dude banged his wife

>>1449763
And you are using that as an argument for something?

>>1449746
That you're a cuckold and the masses are never to be trusted.

>>1449735
Plenty of African retard leaders were elected by the popular vote.

>>1449765
Nope. Just shitposting

>>1449755
>>1449758
Monarchy isn't cucking

>>1449767
Niggers can't into logical thinking

>>1449770
Neither can the masses anywhere.

>>1449433
>ancaps
>egalitarians
Do you have down syndrome?

File: wow.png (491KB, 492x393px) Image search: [Google]

491KB, 492x393px

>>1449769
Monarchs literally had the right to cuck everyone. It was in laws of the past.

>>1449769
If we are going by the new insultish form, isn't thinking someone own you and it should stay that way getting cucked?

>>1449773
Neither can any Monarchs.

>>1449770
>>>/pol/

>>1449782
I am against absolute Monarchies, but that was a myth.

>>1449783
I'd say that Julius Caesar, Frederick of Prussia or Napoleon were better leaders than each and any democratically elected person that ever lived.

>>1449782
Enlightement hoax, literally.

>>1449785
>Frederick of Prussia
I give you a pass for the other two but Friedrick was a fucking asshole you should only love if you are fine with a regent letting his country get devastated by war because he got daddy issues.

>>1449794
Also, we still got the problem with heirs that rule till they die who ruin everything daddy built up.

>>1449794
>>1449787

>>1449314
The "alt-right" just means millenial fascists

>>1449700

Well the question is - would you accept peace offers at a disadvantage in a war you hope to win? Churchill was, of course, banking on the Americans pulling through.

Then would you accept a peace offer besides unconditional surrender once you had the advantage? With a guy that appeasement had failed so terribly with? How could you count on having a lasting peace when Hitler didn't keep his deals?

Read Hobbes, Moldbug, Nick Land

It's not like they are hard to understand

>>1449262
>Someone explain this shit to me.
Read Plato's Republic. Ideally a government should be ruled by men or a man who lives to do nothing more than to cultivate virtue in himself and among his people. Groomed to rule from a young age, they taught that government is a duty, not a right, and seek to ensure that their government operates Justly and in line with an absolute Good.

In contrast, a democratic country is forever at the beck and whim of millions of disparate petty whims and desires who seek improvment only for themselves and their way of life, leading to largesse and degradation of society. Laws are passed for personal gain, and virtues are set aside in the name of materialism.

File: 1-The-King-Barack-Obama-And-His-Jester-78130.jpg (159KB, 800x636px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 800x636px

Realistically speaking, did they plan to crown Obama to implement absolute monarchy or what?

>>1449659
Elective monarchy. Like the Pope. Or Poland.

Is digital monarchism the future?
Imagine an open-source governing system. The program could make decisions far faster than humans, it will be incorruptible and since it's open everyone can see how it's working.
Idk about you guys but I'm ready to serve king Google.

>>1449865
How this is different from democracy?

>>1449869
Only the aristocrats can vote.

>>1449867
Because there are tons of decisions that cannot be put on a mere correct/incorrect spectrum. There is no avoiding politics and soon people would try to overthrow your computer

>>1449857
>Ideally a government should be ruled by men or a man who lives to do nothing more than to cultivate virtue in himself and among his people. Groomed to rule from a young age, they taught that government is a duty, not a right, and seek to ensure that their government operates Justly and in line with an absolute Good

Ideally a democratically elected politician would be bound to the will of the people who elected him and would always be responsive to them. In practice...

>>1449873
That is why you connect AI to nuclear weapons.

>>1449869
The rulers are typically chosen form a select pool of people. In theory, the Catholic Church can indeed make any faithful male Catholic over a certain age to be the Successor of Peter. Yet, in practice it is always one of the Cardinals.

>>1449877
>Ideally a democratically elected politician would be bound to the will of the people who elected him

You're ignoring the crux of the argument. Plato's point is that the common people are stupid, base, materialistic, and constantly self serving. An ideal democratic leader, beholden to the will of the people is still shit because he is beholden to shit ideals.

A monarch is a person drawn of noble stock and prestige, who holds the capacity to set aside material gain, and prestige in the name of cultivating virtue.

>>1449911
Aren't the Cardinals also elected by another (bigger?) select pool of people (bishops?)

>>1449882
what could go wrong?

>>1449916
So, Plato is an idiot who didn't grasp that the people who would be ruling are fundamentally no different from the common people, is what you're saying?

Plato being a moron is nothing new.

>A monarch is a person drawn of noble stock and prestige, who holds the capacity to set aside material gain, and prestige in the name of cultivating virtue.

There's been plenty of lunatics, retards, and miscreants drawn from such stock, and although they had that capacity, they usually didn't exercise it.

Socially awkward young men ruled by personal insecurity are dissatisfied with society and blame it for their own short comings, so they naturally seek a system that offers an easy answer to the complicated questions of their lives.

>>1449262
Kill yourself.

>>1450031
>Monarchism
>Simpler/Easier than Republicanism
???

>>1449740
He wasn't even as crippled as people make out, people think he was barely able to walk yet documents show he regularly played sports and enjoyed shooting.

>>1449412
That is nonsense, monarchs do have political concerns, and those will effect their judgement, a monarch can never be a truly impartial judge, because he has a direct stake in the state winning.

Likewise the officials serving under the king are usually men of the same stock, with an even greater interest in subverting order to advance themselves, either at the expense of the people or the king

>>1449262
Simple, it's literal autism:
>inability to relate to others
>believe personal opinions are objective truths
>naturally a ruler trained from birth will rule in the """objectively""" best manner
>"finally those cucks will see I was right all along"

>>1449313
Edgy contrarian.

>>1449262
Historically speaking, monarchies were much freer in terms of the actual individual liberties enjoyed by the majority of men than modern "liberal" democracies are.

By taking power out of the hands of a single monarch or a small group of nobles who really only had the time/resources to pay attention to the most pressing issues in a nation and placing it into the hand of a boundless abstract state instrument, democratic revolutions have lead inexorably to the ever greater regimentation and bureaucratization of life. I would say that giving rights to racial minorities, foreign religions, and homosexuals is hardly worth seeing the other 70% of people subjected to crushing taxes to support the mendicant poor, innumerable regulations that far exceed the reach of the most oppressive medieval king, and a level of political corruption that makes the system barely even democratic anymore.

>>1449262
Democracy sucks

>>1450181
>Likewise the officials serving under the king are usually men of the same stock, with an even greater interest in subverting order to advance themselves, either at the expense of the people or the king

This isn't exclusive to Monarchism, I'd say this type of behaviour is more common than ever; Bernie in America, Corbyn in Britain and the The Left in France etc.

>>1450093
Yep, just trust dear leader and hope he'll sort everything out, rather than having to deal with the complexity in interparty politics, being educated on voting issues, the intricacies of specific ideologies and theories, etc.

>>1450260
Your understanding of Monarchism is below that of YA fantasy.

>>1449873
>Because there are tons of decisions that cannot be put on a mere correct/incorrect spectrum.
Any decision that doesn't have an objectively correct choice is a decision that should not be made by the government.

We've gotten way too comfortable with the idea of a multitude of laws covering all aspects of life. It seems that we've gotten to a point where everything must either be banned or mandated/subsidized, and it's created an enormous amount of division and social angst among the people.

We would be much better off if it were said of all the controversial social issues of our time, from guns to drugs to abortion, that these things are simply not within the appropriate sphere of legislation. Law should be limited to covering only those things that are the fundamental framework of a stable society; prohibiting violence, theft, treason, etc.

File: fronde.png (444KB, 600x481px) Image search: [Google]

444KB, 600x481px

What I don't understand about these "reactionaries" fans of absolute monarchy is why they don't become leftists in the first place.

Historically, the work of absolute monarchs has been the concentration of power in a centralized government authority, at the expense of every other institution in society, from aristocracy to the patriarchal family. Ever since the French Revolution, this work has been taken over by leftists such as "radicals" and communists.

>>1450307
See
>>1450267

You probably also think Lords of the Manor ruled over his land with a iron fist too.

>>1449262
time preference and investment horizons

capital ownership

>>1450316
I'm speaking of absolute monarchy as a historical phenomenom, from the 16th century onwards.

Medieval monarchy was completely different, of course.

>>1450307
>Historically, the work of absolute monarchs has been the concentration of power in a centralized government authority, at the expense of every other institution in society, from aristocracy to the patriarchal family.
But that's not true at all, nor is it what neo-spergtiaries want even if it was.

>>1450341
Not him but do you realize neoreaction isn't actually reaction? That's like calling you a Stalinist if you're an anarchist.

>>1450350
Who gives a shit how you personally define neo-autism.

>>1449262

The case for monarchism is that you get a ruler who was literally trained to be the best ruler possible from birth.

I'm not saying that I agree with it, but that's the general idea.

Stuff like mental illness and family dynamics throws a wrench in the gears.

>>1450374
Then why even bring it the fuck up, considering they're modernist autists who don't seek to recreate traditional monarchy? They're literally just a bunch of programmers and other spergs thinking they should be nobility in some kind of cyberpunk aristocracy.

Would medieval monarchy be better?

>>1450389
>programmers
>alt-right
Dude, programmers are some of the craziest far-leftists on the internet.

>>1450400
Look up neoreaction. It's literally all programmers and engies and total autists on top of that.

>>1450389
I don't get where you're going with this. Your personal hyper austic definition of neo-reactionary, reactionary, or the definitist fallacy is irrelevant and has nothing to do with what >>1450341 said.

>>1450400
Neo-reactionaries pretty much came out of Comp Sci classrooms dude. The whole "Cathedral programming vs Bazaar programming" and what not.

>>1450415
It's not "personal definition" it's THE definition. Your cunting is like going to a bakery and complaining that whiskey sucks.

>>1450407
Look up Rust, the guy running the show tweets about bashing conservative skulls, Gnome literally bankrupted themselves funding feminist outreach programs, FreeBSD gave a @freebsd.org mail account to somebody who sold their daughter for crack and a kernel developer bullied a kid with autism so much he felt suicidal.

>>1449262

Most Monarchists I know aren't advocating for absolute monarchy. Medieval semi-libertarian Monarchies are the way to go. It cuts out all the time wasted running elections and exploitative nature of short term rulers, while ensuring that there is enough resistance to the crown through decentralization and the multitude of smaller centers of power and legitimacy like guilds, principalities, and others, that the King usually can't afford to become a tyrant.

>>1450427
Are you retarded? I'm not saying all programmers are NR, I'm saying all NR are programmers.

File: 1358042956882.jpg (295KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

295KB, 1920x1080px

>>1449727

>>1450435
>I'm saying all NR are programmers

Do you even read the trash you type before you press the 'submit' button?

>>1450505
What's wrong?

>>1450267
Perhaps, but it's based entirely on my interactions with the alt-right here. Who focus primarily on how it will cut down on degeneracy, political infighting, and corruption, through the strong hand of a firm leader. It's basically a messianic fantasy to them.

First of all a monarch does not come from "noble stock", his family are simply warlords running a mafia protection racket who killed anyone who did not submit. Secondly the idea that an authoritarian system is less corrupt than a modern democracy is simply laughable. an authoritarian system REQUIRES corruption in order to function. Let me put it like this, any authoritarian leader maintains his power through the loyalty of certain groups. in the case of a feudal monarchy it's the aristocracy, in the case of a modern junta it's the military. In all cases the authoritarian must serve those groups needs instead of the nations. If he does not those groups withdraw their support and he is overthrown. Thus because the people cannot redress their grievances as in a democracy they must resort to corruption or violence in order to get anything done.

>>1449725
Then how would one run a meritocracy? Preferably one to the benefit of its people?

>>1450556
>First of all a monarch does not come from "noble stock", his family are simply warlords running a mafia protection racket who killed anyone who did not submit.

That's literally what it means to be noble, Nerdhauser.

>>1449857
But what Plato said is not what monarchism is about

>>1450015
>There's been plenty of lunatics, retards, and miscreants drawn from such stock, and although they had that capacity, they usually didn't exercise it.

You seem to be under the impression that "noble stock" of Plato was real. In truth, the idea of "noble stock," was fully acknowledged by Plato as being a complete fiction, but one that was necessary to ensure that the masses would bend to the will of their rulers. Furthermore, the philosopher kings would only be granted the power to rule at the twilight of their lives having proven themselves to be sufficient in all ways moral, mental, and spiritual, ensuring that when they rule, just and proper rule would be carried out in accordance with the Good.

And even then Plato realized that imperfections would arise in the system, leading to debasement of the public values and deviation from cultivation of human virtue. Over time the materialism and degeneration of the society would be manifest in a changing of government forms leading to despotism, with democracy only a hairs breadth away from this final stage.

>>1449997
No, the Pope appoints them.

>hi I'm anon
>let me describe the best case scenario of a monarch and why it's better than the worst case scenario of democracy

pro-absolute monarchists are simply cultivating this image of being an anti-modern, "stoic" and enlightened individual who can stand back and watch modern political systems flounder and shake their heads, muttering "plebs" under their breaths.

Fortunately for these LARPing nerds, they've never had to live under an absolutist European monarch, have done little research under biased authors with a political agenda and will go to great lengths to magnify small negative aspects of modern government (which they lump democracy, fascism and communism together) and attempt to claim it's indicative of how good monarchy is.

>>1450830
Then explain why democracy is better.

>>1450428
>
>
>
Was a shitshow at the end cause of this.

>>1450435
I'm a fan of NR and Dark enlightment and I'm an arts student lmao

File: 1465871009754.png (149KB, 599x419px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 599x419px

>>1449262
I will put my country as an example.
Our king knows over 6 languages and has studied in the best universities in the world. He has military training and is highly respected amongst everyone,as he is very educated and knows his job perfectly as he was groomed to be this way. On the other hand our last 5 presidents have strugled with Spanish,focused a lot in the short term,which blew up in 2008 with the end of the bubble and they work for their party not for the country,which is obvious through the laws that they pass and the rampant corruption.
Seeing this I can see the appealing of an absolute monarchy in my country.As the king himself,sees the country as his,so he will try to improve it and has learbed through time how to do it. Also parlamentarism is highly ineficient in my opinion and more absolutist approaches are more efficient in solving state issues as they dont really have to please the party.

File: 2edaPXU.jpg (103KB, 720x960px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 720x960px

>>1449472
>Others are indoctrined and cannot be enlighted until they read Mao and Lenin

>>1449610
It does in the wealthiest countries on earth,like Lichestein or AUE.

>>1449659
Monarchs usually dont rule alone. They have a family and advisors. Charles the II actually had a way better run as king than his father and grandfather and was an actual retard.

Because the Alt-Right is a bunch of manchildren incapable of any coherent thought process and just trying to be as contrarian to current society values as possible, all because Katey from high school would rather hang around with Chad or Jamal than watch them play video games and they weren't rich enough to get her attention because of da joos intentionally keeping them from being rich.

It's a collection of movements that are born for the most part from personal, petty spite, and deeply rooted in delusion and desires of having someone in power who will be "thankful" for their support and make them rich and powerful as a reward.

Nothing they say has any value, they're utterly incapable of impartial thought because their personal spite towards society as the cause of all their problems prevents them from anything but edgy/pseudo-intellectual contrarianism for the sake of it.

>>1451088
Liechtenstein is neither a sovereign monarchy nor a country. It is a principality.

>>1449262
>how anyone could advocate an absolute monarchy.
Just like how bosses of company's aren't voted in by democracy but put in by merit or blood.

Mormon theocracy>Catholic theocracy>Absolute monarchism>Merchant republicanism>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>presidentialism>>>>>>>>>>>parlamentarism

>>1449313
Not a lot of people will agree with you there.

Except for me.

>>1449374
Is he also implying that all libertarians, fascists, traditionalists, nazis, white nationalists, monarchists and ancaps are right wing too, or did you just get triggered?

You people should stop trying to label everything left or right wing, that dichotomy leaves much to be desired.

>>1449262
Liberal democracies don't work.
Communist states don't work.
Military dictatorships don't work.
Parliamentary monarchies don't work.
Absolute monarchies don't work.

Every time, the people at the top (whether they be called aristocracy, the Party, corporations, oligarchy, etc.) will try (and succeed) to find a way of accumulating wealth and power at the expense of the people. Even if a system works at the beginning because it's designed by people with good intentions, these people won't last forever and the system will get corrupted within a few generations at best.

Alt-rightists are looking to reform an old system, but I think we need a new system altogether.

Too idealistic.

>>1449865
I'm convinced that this is the only system that works.

Give a forum of learned people the power to appoint and destitute whoever they think is the right leader at whichever time.

Make sure the military is never loyal to anyone but the entirety of the forum (that is, they need express approval from every single person in the forum to deploy. This pretty much leaves military as it should be: an investment in defense).

Let only people with higher academic degrees apply for the forum, and let the forum decide who to accept or reject.

I know it's utopic but a man can dream.

>>1449309
That's why an ottoman system would be great.

>>1449262
Any modern monarchist/communist is a huge ass LARPer m8, i mean there might be some legit monarchist/communist movements in 3rd world countries but that's about it

Actually any ideology in 1st world countries outside conservatism and liberalism is usually LARPing.

>>1451190
also when i say liberalism i mean the amerilard definition not the classical libs who are also LARPers

>>1451192
why are you pretending to be me memelord

>>1451106
>Merchant republicanism
>giving the popular vote the ability to do anything

kek

>>1449732
There are statistically less monarchs than there have been democratic systems. Ever.
>>1449340
A person with the power of a military and colonies to be setup around the world to extract resources. Wait, nevermind those are already in place. I guess we can mine them in other ways, see, education, disease, media, drugs, human trafficing, etc.
>>1449468
This guy has the right idea.

http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/03/03/reactionary-philosophy-in-an-enormous-planet-sized-nutshell/

>>1450781
are you suggesting people in /his/ don't know what they're talking about?

ITT a bunch of serfs defend their centuries long line of inbred morons

>>1449285
oh fuck off, who do you think would teach such a person? who would instill those values? what you think these mentors wouldnt want to spread their own ideology just like politicians do? the only difference would be the way they spread it, now they do it through government then they would do it through a king who you couldnt even try to vote out if he turned out retarded

I love how the Alt-Right is so edgily cynical of contemporary democracy and politics but so fucking naive on how their wundermonarch would act.

>>1449857
Given that there are no objective Good/values/normative nor prescriptive facts, the whole Platonic enterprise is misguided from the get go. Even if there were, there would still be the epistemic problem of values, that is justifying how person A (philosopher-king) has better epistemic access to objective values than B (non-philosopher-king), After that he'd still have to justify his right to rule without appealing to his better epistemic access to the One And Only Objective Way The World Should, since presumably "philosopher-kings should govern" would be among said facts and appealing to said fact would be circular.

>>1449285

Like Caligula or Nero?

File: smug lesbian japanese nationalist.png (171KB, 450x449px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 450x449px

>>1449700
>Yo lemme annex the Sudentenland I swear that's it I'm not gonna annex anything else
>Ay yo my boy Stalin lets sign this non-aggression pact I swear I won't go back on it

>>1450192
>buzzwords
>>>/v/

File: 1396718646323.jpg (14KB, 336x340px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 336x340px

>>1450223

>>1451831
>taxes are more than twice as high
>can't sell produce from your garden
>can't own weapons
>war on drugs
>pervasive surveillance
But at least you can convert to Islam now, right?

>>1451990
>can't own weapons
Britfag detected.

Suck on freedom's cock, you tea-swilling monarchist.

>>1449471
not sure what youre on about but intrigued

>>1449593
kek

>>1451106
>Mormon theocracy

Tell us more about it. Also theonomy sounds like an interesting idea too.

>>1449448
fucking retard

>>1452440
>claiming people are property of a lucky few who've just happened to be born in a noble family
>not edgy

>>1452462
Not that guy, but calling someone "edgy" is not an argument.

>>1452462
>who've just happened to be born in a noble family

There's nothing happenstance about it. Two people with superior genetics create superior progeny.

Stay mad pleb.

>>1452486
nrx cuck spotted. It's more about the Bible saying how the world should be organized than about stupid shit like genetics.

>>1452405
Most of what Joseph Smith wrote was about finances and social services. The mormon church would become the head of the state and collect a tithe from everyone. It would also be responsible of giving out loans,and the interest being a % of the company,as they currenty do. Mormons have to do some community work weekly,and under a mormon theocracy all bureocratic jobs will be done by all the mormons,with constant rotations like some kind of civil service.

>>1451990
What makes you think those wouldn't be the case in a modern monarchy? They're just adaptations to the social and material circumstances of today. Does the alt-right seem to think that monarchs wouldn't be subject to elements of realpolitik?

>>1451715
>there would still be the epistemic problem of values, that is justifying how person A (philosopher-king) has better epistemic access to objective values than B (non-philosopher-king)

Philosopher Kings have greater epistemic access because they have been subjected to rigorous tests of spiritual and and moral nature to ensure they hold the proper mentality to rule. Furthermore, they are banned from holding and owning property and possessions to ensure that their judgments and decisions are not corrupted by greed and desire for personal gain. In fact the whole reason the class structure exists is to support a group of Kings who own nothing. The bottom rung provides the necessities of the higher class to rule. The lower classes cannot rule, because the fact they can own property indicates that their judgement will become clouded by greed and desire for more property.

In fact, its not even better epistemic access to the objective values, but rather even with equal values, a person with personal and owned goods is more like to ignore those values for self enrichment.

>>1452519
What about social welfare?

>>1452528
>What about social welfare?
The mormon church alredy has some sort of welfare. It was stablished way before the federal one. And mormons can still claim it.

>>1452486
>Two people with superior genetics create superior progeny
but there's plenty of evidence suggesting many a noble person was a near retarded idiot who only cared about living an easy life and was bad at fulfilling his responsibilities, if there were any

+they often married their cousins so there you have your "superior" genes

>>1452482
we live in a western society where it's been a common thing for the past a couple of hundred of years for common people to have freedom to decide for themselves. The arguments for why this is a good thing and why it should be kept this way have already been written a long time ago.
The burden of proof lies on he who makes dubious claims. He should give proper arguments for his opinion whereas me and the other anon are backed by the whole social construction of the western world

>>1452676
>being this Whiggish

>>1450307
"Leftist" authoritarians are nothing like "rightist" authoritarians, the mentality, logic and reasoning behind why they believe in centralized power is completely different.

Take your countries best politician or statesman and imagine he has a son who is just as loved and smart and now imagine your current leader is fucking shit and fucking shit leaders keep getting power and they keep getting richer and they dont care about the middle and lower classes, now imagine this amazingly loved politician starts advocating for your rights while no other politician does. Why wouldnt you want him and his family to rule forever?

>>1450307
Because reaction is the opposition to modernism and we want a monarchy that will intentionally halt progress, not just an authoritarian rule for the sake of it.

>>1452693
do you even know what that word means?

let me just ape you guys for a bit
>not
>an
>argument

>>1449262
Easy -- they're cucks

>>1452744
Not an argument.

>>1452371
Common people have no impact in real policy, so there is objectively no democracy.
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

File: honhonhonhon.jpg (581KB, 1536x2304px) Image search: [Google]

581KB, 1536x2304px

>>1452752
indeed, I'm still waiting for the arguments about why people should be considered property of monarchs

>>1450198
>Edgy contrarian.
Post a better king crimson than this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC4KoQW9axw

>>1452768
Romans 13:1-7

>>1452777
but western nations are secular. People being mere servants of others can't be justified by quoting an illogical book that holds no merit in how our nations are managed and how our society is built these days

>>1452796
>illogical

The worship of logic is precisely the thing I'd like to see stop.

>>1451064
How did they struggle with Spanish

>>1452832
>How did they struggle with Spanish
They dont conjugate the verbs properly or mispronounce words or say wrongly some expressions.. The parties here put idiots as leaders as they are easy to tame and loyal

>>1449659
On the other hand, you could get a genius like Frederick the Great. Most of the you'll just get a normal person. Democracy, on the other hand, selects for scumbags

>>1452824
let us go back into living in mud houses then and treat diseases with prayers instead of proper medication

Maybe you should move into Middle-east?

>>1451092
All governments are basically oligarchies. Real absolute rule doesn't happen, that's just not how people operate. Medieval monarchies were monarch + his family + nobility. Later absolute monarchies were monarch + his family + appointed bureaucrats. A modern dictator like Hitler could do what ever he wanted, had to rely on his aides and supporters, etc.

>>1452858
I'm not Muslim.

>>1451106
Catholic theocracy is just a state where a bishop or some other member of clergy welds temporal power. Functional it would no different than a regular Catholic state except the bishop has a second role as the political ruler

it's the only totalitarian position that's remotely sellable without everything already being fucked.

the thinking goes, having a single good leader is possible and beneficial. but it's really just a theory.

>>1449725
it ensures that the person wil be prepared to do it s a lifelong activity, thus ensuring they plan for long term effects and not immediate self interest.

>>1452845
Look at the Prussian history. Among dozens of monarchs, only the great elector, Frederick Wilhelm II, Frederick the Great and Wilhelm I were somewhat competent

Getting a good monarch is harder than what reactionaries want you to believe

>>1452866
but you support illogicality, so you might as well live in a place where religious thinking far surpasses logical thinking and human welfare

Jerusalem has plenty of christians living in it. Just move there and stop complaining about the rest of the world moving forward and leaving religious mumbo jumbo behind

>>1452888
but that hardly ever happened. Only the best monarchs were able to centralize their nations while the rest of them only cared about living in luxury and upholding their "god given rights"

>>1452923
>Getting a good monarch is harder than what reactionaries want you to believe
If they are not good, they have a whole family to guide them. Charles the II was pretty dumb and was a decent king. Most kings have been average,while most presidents have been bad,at least in my country.

>>1452951
Monarchs being unsuitable to rule almost always leads to nobles gaining more power and like Frederick himself put it, they only care about maintaining their own power and living a luxurious life in expense of the state and it's people

There are just way too many things that could go wrong with a system where most of the power is consolidated to only a few persons.

My country, as a contrast, has only had more or less competent presidents and we've had near constant growth since we gained independence. These days the prime minister actually holds more power, however

>>1452933
No, because muslim countries don't represent the truth. If there was a Christian version of Saudi Arabia, I'd like that.

>>1452777
Kill yourself.

>>1452824
I'm very happy that the western world will never return to being as stupid as you want it to be.

>>1453079
Because you're retarded. You're literally no different from the batshit crazy Muslim mobs that appear in videos every time someone burns a Koran.

>>1453079
you want heavy repression, corrupt leadership, and over the top punishments for seemingly small things? What kind of a fucking childhood did you have?

>>1449262
Athenian Democracy>Absolute Monarchy>constitutional Monarchy>Greek Oligarchy>Roman-style Imperium>Dictatorship>>>>>Republic, aka modern """democracy"""

Anarchists, communists, and other fantasy systems of government need not apply.

>>1453112
>>1453118
Not an argument.

>>1450249
People will always be ambitious and try to land better positions, but the obvious political bias in your post is just dumb.

Bernie out of anyone stood to gain more if he hadn't been so subversive of the establishment. He lost mostly due to a combination of "socialism is a bad word!" and the "democrats" not wanting to risk someone subverting the oligarchy.

I'm no expert, but you might want to check out the 17th century book, "Leviathan", by Thomas Hobbes, which argues for a monarchy and is one of the first "social contract theory" books.

The biggest advantage of a monarchy is probably the citizen knowing exactly what they are getting. The people in medieval England would have gone their whole lives under a single system of policy, only very rarely changing. In a democracy, for example, the system is constantly changing. Absolute tyrants under monarchies are abusive by nature, but they are far more rare. Normally, a monarch suffers alongside the people, because generally, what's good for the people is also good for the monarch, and what's bad for the people is bad for the monarch.

Alexis de Tocqueville also rights in depth about monarchy vs democracy. When democracy and corporatism took over France, in general, the former aristocrats simply became more far away from the average citizen. In the past, an aristocrats wealth was tied to the feudal system. When the peasants suffered, so did the lord. Democracy removed all aspects of this.

>>1453128
No, those are arguments alright. Theocracy is the worst form of government and everything good about the western world has come from the use of logic and reason. But since you admit to hate logic, it should be obvious that this is the level of discourse you're capable of.

Like I said, I'm happy the west will never return to be ruled by retards who think like you do. Go attack ISIS or something. You may enter heaven and you'll be dead, so everyone wins.

>>1453174
I like the Presbyterian Theonomy model the best with a hereditary monarchy as the system of rule, what's wrong with it?

>>1449285

This tbhfam

I would rather be ruled by a single lion than a pack of rats, and that's what pretty much every democracy boils down to.

>>1453174


>implying religion and reason/logic aren't compatible


Lol

>>1453204
I'm not implying that, this faggot (you?) is. I'm answering to two different propositions.

Now, I will outright state that religion and reason and logic are indeed completely incompatible and every attempt to reconcile them is hypocritical at best.

Get fucked.

>>1453180
>what's wrong with it
>hereditary monarchy
Well, that's one thing right there. I'm not familiar with the model nor willing to look it up right now though.

File: 1465684844195.jpg (55KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 640x640px

>>1453144
>He lost mostly due to a combination of "socialism is a bad word!" and the "democrats" not wanting to risk someone subverting the oligarchy.

Or because he was completely inept and embarrassed himself at every turn, committed more election violations than any other candidate in history and hired staff so corrupt their access to election/DNC systems was revoked.

>>1453195
A false analogy if I ever heard one, for one republican government has produced great leaders, second, royal governments have often been filled with petty, greedy men.

> Theocracy
> Instead of God, you actually ruled by some faggot who pretend to speak from "his name".
Why anyone would fall for this sham?

>>1453473
>speak from "his name".
What?

>>1453472
And the opposite has been true equally often.

>>1449262

Monarchy = a country ruled by 1 moron
Democracy = a country ruled by millions of morons

File: ciSaXub.jpg (106KB, 781x726px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 781x726px

>>1453144
>Bernie out of anyone stood to gain more if he hadn't been so subversive of the establishment. He lost mostly due to a combination of "socialism is a bad word!" and the "democrats" not wanting to risk someone subverting the oligarchy.

This is what Bern victims actually believe.

>>1451720
>Groomed to rule
>Sense of responsibility

Learn to read, shitbrain

File: tumblr_inline_o9g5orDiqd1uo8lff_400.jpg (52KB, 318x380px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 318x380px

>>1453950
Anarchy = a country ruled by 0 morons

File: 1456440257222.jpg (275KB, 889x889px) Image search: [Google]

275KB, 889x889px

I want a king as unifying, father-like figure for the people, with a strong prime minister doing the actual governing in the shadows, chosen by the king among the best people of the country but with the ability to strongly recommend a successor. Then religion used as a tool to give the nation morals, a sense of belonging, with the clergy under heavy control by the government. Of course a strong military, with obligatory one year military service for men and women, with mandatory youth paramilitaries. Many nativist policies, traditional gender roles heavily encouraged, immorality barely tolerated, as long as it stays in private (of course promotion of such immorality would be prohibited), the media relatively loosely controlled.

Imagine an entire nation, united, as one, by blood and under God and King. Working together to bring the country to greatness.

Of course, after a while, there could be power struggles between the King and the prime minister, which would lead to instability. But I strongly believe that such a regime, after maybe some difficult first few years, (the time for the people to adapt, so let's say a generation, or two, maybe), would be far more stable than any democracy ever was.

>>1453459
>committed more election violations than any other candidate in history
I honestly don't know what you're talking about.

>>1453951
I'm not even American, this is an outsider's perspective.

While not shutting up those dumb nigresses is embarrassing and demeaning, the overall message of Bernie's campaign was just power to the people, which Democrats SHOULD support.

If Americans didn't believe socialism was a bad word and democrats weren't absolutely corrupt, Sanders and Trump would be the two candidates running for president, with both having similar views on the issues of the American people while presenting different solutions.

Instead, now the vote is between continuing to support the corporatocracy or not.

>>1454053
> ottoman empire
> political theory
Because they done so good that they exist even today, right?

>>1454053
>military service for women
>traditional gender roles heavily encouraged
???

>>1454059
>I honestly don't know what you're talking about.

Sanders was under investigation by the FEC almost constantly for various shit, the amount of "fundraising abnormalities" required the commission to release four separate 600+ page public disclosure reports.

They're failure to respond almost resulted in enforcement action.

>>1454104
Hell it was only two months ago the FEC told him to pay back the $300k of campaign money he spent on taking his family to the Vatican.

File: 1442945385396.png (668KB, 979x802px) Image search: [Google]

668KB, 979x802px

>>1454074
The Ottomans ruled a far-reaching, multi-ethnic, multi-confessional empire, and as far as I know never attempted any of the things I proposed here. The image I posted is simply a good example of traditionalist monarchism.

>>1454081
"traditional gender roles" does not mean "women at home doing nothing", anon. Of course, women would not be in combat roles, though they would be taught how to use weapons and would have some physical training, but would be trained in healthcare, maintenance, administration, this kind of thing.

The idea behind this mandatory military service is more about reinforcing the nation sense of unity, duty and cooperation, throwing people from different backgrounds together, instill the respect of rules and authority, possibly spot troublemakers as well. In the case of war, women would be drafted only in last resort, but would be expected to still participate to the war effort.

>>1454155
> reinforcing the nation sense of unity
> instill the respect of rules and authority
Many people would actively hate the government because of that, and fuck with society with every opportunity because it operates on alien concept from their points of view. Basically this is a same mistake that communists do when suppose, that everyone would share with each other and shit. It even uses same solution to "spot troublemakers" and probably repress them. They ignore a simple fact that most of people would be troublemakers, who doesn't give a crap about their ideals. Same aberration exist here. Idea based around society that based on certain specific type of people and that idea really downplays factual, psychological pluralism that exist in society. It creates conflict, because there exists huge mass of the alienated people. That conflict soon enough destroys state that is based around specific brands of idealism.

File: 1465698408669.png (184KB, 780x432px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 780x432px

>All monarchists are absolute monarchists
Confirmed retards ITT
Absolute monarchism is one step away from progressivism
Holy Roman Imperialism is the one true ideology, the one true path forward for the United States--replace the federal government with one man who symbolizes the unity of the nation, give the states expanded powers to replace those that can't reasonably be granted to the office of the Holy American Emperor, and bam, you've got a million-year Reich.
Anyone who thinks the (((Alt Right))) or any radical right-wing groups associated with *chan discourse is full of absolute monarchists has no understanding of history or of the present. Absolute monarchy is a relatively recent phenomenon, emerging alongside Protestantism in the Western world, unprecedented elsewhere.

File: Voltaire-lisant.jpg (217KB, 831x1000px) Image search: [Google]

217KB, 831x1000px

>>1454235
> Holy Roman Imperialism is the one true ideology

>>1454210
>The State must not only be a power system that keeps people in control, it must also feel empathy for all of those people & understand each one of them as a unique individual from a unique culture!
You're what's wrong with the planet.

File: 1464918772989.png (289KB, 847x674px) Image search: [Google]

289KB, 847x674px

>>1454244
>Voltaire

>>1454235
But Evola was a fan of Ghibellinism, the ideology that attempted to turn the Holy Roman Empire into something closer to an absolute monarchy.

>>1454265
I merely posted an Evola quote. I was not saying that Evola's position is the same as my own. Besides, I will obviously admit that the HRE was a flawed entity, but it did last for a thousand years, which is more than can be said for any contemporary state.

>>1454252
> The state is a magic tool to made my wishful thinking ideal into reality!
You aren't even better than leftists, anon. The only difference is that they want government empathize with their desire for uniqueness. While, you want it
to empathize with your desire to belonging. This is reason why you want government to care about an idealistic and pure feel good bullshit like greatness or sense of unity, respect and shaming immorality as you just want force to protect your feelings and made ideal more important then it is in reality. The system that keeps people in control should not be the one, that waste energy to cater for you or even anyone else for that matter. Politics isn't the art or an entertainment. It is product of a pure necessity.

>>1454314
>> The state is a magic tool to made my wishful thinking ideal into reality!
Not sure how you got that out of my post, anon. Besides, it isn't an argument.
>The only difference is that they want government empathize with their desire for uniqueness. While, you want it
to empathize with your desire to belonging
I want the government to protect property rights and the wellbeing of its citizens. In no way is participation in the state a substitute for positive relationships with family and friends.

>>1449262
Personally, I think they're just narcissistic nerds

>>1454252
You can't build stable system by ignoring the properties of most details included in it, anon.

>>1454332
If a system changes every aspect of itself every time someone doesn't like the way it behaves, it's not a stable system. It's hardly even one system--it's a system of various, incompatible, contradictory systems.

File: 5a7.png (472KB, 957x535px) Image search: [Google]

472KB, 957x535px

>>1454338
> If a system changes every aspect of itself every time someone doesn't like the way it behaves, it's not a stable system.
You mean like the one where entire politics of the state was based on a whims of the single person. Like, for example, Absolute Monarchy?

>>1454358
But I'm not advocating absolute monarchism, you fucking mouthbreather.

File: Leviathan_by_Thomas_Hobbes.jpg (1MB, 1304x2004px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1304x2004px

>>1454210
I don't disagree at all, which is why I've said earlier:

>(the time for the people to adapt, so let's say a generation, or two, maybe)

But I truly believe that through a rigorous education, social pressure, religion, discipline, heavy repression of opponents, all that from an early age, even human nature can be changed. Humans are terribly flawed, but negative traits can be stamped out. The first generations would be unhappy, would not care about the ideals, might even revolt, but the next ones would thrive.

I do believe that the state, the King, should do as much as possible to take care of the sick and the destitute, protect the people and help it thrive. However, in the end, the individual and his happiness matters little. You will never please everybody, and it's useless to try to do so. Basically, you have to rule with an an iron fist in a velvet glove until everyone, even those that are disillusioned, those that are unhappy, those that are opposed, stay a productive member of society, a working cog in the formidable machine that is the nation.

Of course, after some time, even the rulers, the elite, the best men in the country, can lose faith in the ideals, which would lead to corruption, nepotism, degeneracy.

I will admit that I have no solution for this.

>>1454358
>You mean like the one where entire politics of the state was based on a whims of the single person
Your proposed state in >>1454210 is subject to the hurt feelings-not even the will-of every vaguely conceived group, treated as if that group were itself anything more than a linguistic construct used for the sake of making lawmaking feasible. How is that better?

>>1454383
>Of course, after some time, even the rulers, the elite, the best men in the country, can lose faith in the ideals, which would lead to corruption, nepotism, degeneracy.
>I will admit that I have no solution for this.
There isn't one. This is the destiny of all states.

>>1454371
I agree that state can't work around opinion of the single person, that would be retarded. But it can't really ignore someone if that someone is half of a society. Not on pretext of installing right believes, not even on pretext of a finding out troublemakers and such. That just creates many enemies to the state without any real reason for them to exist as gratification of idealistic minority is hardly worthy.

>>1454383
> even human nature can be changed
That is literally the same argument that was used by communists. We know that it doesn't work for one or another reason, even if it is possible in the theory, it is just task too hard even for dictator or government with absolute power. If anything, that shouldn't even be work of the state in the fucking first place. Why can't education system do that? Why can't church do that? Why can't media just do that? You got the same results here just with less meddling around what really matters for the people and doesn't bet a survival of entire nation.

>>1454384
> How is that better?
Why should it be better? Absolute monarchy is a shit idea and you really explained why. I can even agree that my idea is also shit, by the same logic.

>>1454235
>Holy Roman Imperialism is the one true ideology
>this is what the >holy >roman niggers actually believe

>>1454389
>But it can't really ignore someone if that someone is half of a society
Do you really think that pre-modern governments didn't take the desires, needs, and history of their peoples into account? Read a book.
>>1454439
>Why should it be better?
Because you put it forward as if it were supposed to be...? Why did you make that post?

>>1449340
One could just as easily argue that because they don't have to pander to the public for reelection, a monarch can just trample over the rights of their citizens and ruin their country for their own personal gain.

It depends on the ruler. yes, a democracy will only allow the good rulers to reign for a limited time, and pressure them to court public approval, but it also forces a time limit on the reign of bad rulers, and pressures them to do the same courting, which means that they can't be openly antagonistic to their constituents, lest they lose the next election.

>>1454569
How does not needing to pander prevent them from curbing their rights? People like Barack Hussein Obama get into office and curtail rights while pandering, and then get re-elected.
>inb4 Correct the Record shills

>>1454235
>Absolute monarchism is one step away from progressivism
>Holy American Emperor
>Absolute monarchy is a relatively recent phenomenon
>unprecedented elsewhere.
And I thought alt-rightists were against the use of drugs.

File: 1418212807792.jpg (16KB, 231x244px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 231x244px

>>1454613
Most people in this camp are libertarians embracing the necessity of the state for the sake of preserving freedom.

>>1454613
>>Absolute monarchy is a relatively recent phenomenon
Do you not agree? If you are talking about a specific form of government in which a monarch exists, are you sure you're talking about absolute monarchy? Because absolutism began with Henry VIII relatively recently, i.e. in the modern era.

>>1454620
So you're saying not a single ruler in history before Henry VII was an absolute ruler?

>>1454634
Henry VIII*

>>1454640
>>1454634
I'm saying that the term designates a particular form of government, popular in a particular period of time. It's a synthetic term, consisting of two parts ("ruler" and "monarch" are not synonyms, btw)
Let's consult Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_monarchy#Historical_examples
In Ancient Egypt, the Pharaoh wielded absolute power over the country and was considered a living god by his people. In ancient Mesopotamia, many rulers of Assyria, Babylonia and Sumeria were absolute monarchs as well. In ancient and medieval India, rulers of the Maurya, Satahavana, Gupta and Chalukya Empires, as well as other major and minor empires, were considered absolute monarchs. In the Khmer Empire, the kings were called "Devaraja" and "Chakravartin" (King of the world), and exercised absolute power over the empire and people. Throughout Chinese history, many emperors and one empress wielded absolute power through the Mandate of Heaven. In pre-Columbian America, the Inca Empire was ruled by a Sapa Inca, who was considered the son of Inti, the sun god and absolute ruler over the people and nation.
So there are some examples of premodern kingdoms ruled by absolutely powerful kings. However, in the Western world, it is a relatively recent development. I won't ask you to forgive my Eurocentrism, in this case, because I see no reason to apologize for it. It's your fault for not realizing that this has been a conversation about contemporary advocates of a form of government that is compatible with the modern world, i.e. with an absolute monarch as have existed in modernity. The only such examples we can find in the West ceased to exist after WWI, which is why we're asking how anyone can advocate absolute monarchy in the 21st century: this is a debate that only happens in modernity.
In the premodern world, the concept of a ruler-god was taken for granted in most places. (cont)

>>1454634
Not a single Western ruler before Louis XIV that I know of was an actually absolute ruler. And even then, the more I read about his reign, the less I'm sure he truly fits the "absolute" label.

>>1454651
Western, modern absolutism is unique because of the way it exerted itself against the Catholic Church in international relations and domestic affairs. The state became, rather than an entity under the control of the Church, an entity which exerted control over the Church, excluding and/or demonizing the Pope (i.e., the Pontifex, not a ruler and a god but the only one capable of bridging the gap between God and Man; i.e., a ruler above kings but below the King of Kings), exerting political influence, and effectively giving birth to the concept of democratic politics as it exists today.
An absolute monarch in the modern world simply claims that his word is the enforcement of God's will. A premodern absolute monarch is perceived to speak the words of the gods themselves. The Pope is not a monarch.

>>1454651
>"ruler" and "monarch" are not synonyms
Hence why I used "single ruler", which is very close to what monarch means ("single authority").

> I won't ask you to forgive my Eurocentrism, in this case, because I see no reason to apologize for it. It's your fault for not realizing that this has been a conversation about contemporary advocates of a form of government that is compatible with the modern world

What a load of bullshit. You're the one that wrote
>unprecedented elsewhere
That's not just eurocentrism, you were asserting it from ignorance.

>>1454653
>Western
That's the thing.

>>1454664
>The Pope is not a monarch.
But he's literally the King of the Vatican City.

>>1454688
>Hence why I used "single ruler", which is very close to what monarch means ("single authority").
But we're talking about 'absolute monarchy,' which is a specific form of government. I would just expect that to be taken into account on your end.
>What a load of bullshit. You're the one that wrote
>>unprecedented elsewhere
I don't see your point. Name a place other than in Western Europe wherein a state developed, independently of Western European imperialism and expansion, wherein absolute monarchy as it has existed in the modern world developed. Protip: You can't, not unless you use the phrase "absolute ruler," as you have, which means something different from "absolute monarch" because of the difference in meaning between "ruler" and "monarch." A petty despot can be a ruler, but a monarch has to have a certain kind of pedigree. This is basic shit.
>That's the thing.
It's not a big deal. I know, I know, "muh white people," I don't give a fuck. You don't know what absolute monarchy is. You don't understand the parameters of this argument as it is occurring in this thread. You have no idea what you're talking about.
>But he's literally the King of the Vatican City.
Err, I have literally never heard the Pope described that way before.

>>1454696
What do you think an absolute monarchy is if not "absolute single authority" (i.e. zero other forms of authority)?

>wherein absolute monarchy as it has existed in the modern world developed
So instead of accepting your mistake, you're moving the goalposts. You asserted that absolute monarchies only developed recently, and exclusively in the West. After finding out ancient absolute monarchies from other places, you're backpedaling to only include "absolute monarchies as they existed in the modern world."

>a monarch has to have a certain kind of pedigree
This is not in the definition of a monarch, you're just making up your own definitions.

>"muh white people"
That's not even my point. My point is that you were factually wrong in saying that absolute monarchies didn't anywhere outside of the West. That's an active claim that implies you're taking into account places that aren't the West, and that's why your mistake can't be simply avoided by "I was being eurocentrist" because you literally weren't.

>You don't know what absolute monarchy is.
It's a form of government in which the power rests solely and completely in the hands of a single authority. Wikipedia adds that this authority has to "embody the country's national identity", to which I would call [citation needed] due to the vagueness of the concept of national identity, but doesn't really contradict what I've said.

>You don't understand the parameters of this argument as it is occurring in this thread.
No, I called you out on a factual mistake and you're doing mental gymnastics to avoid accepting that you were wrong. You can't hide between vague things like "context" and "parameters of the current discussion" when you explicitly went out of your way to make your claims absolute.

>I have literally never heard the Pope described that way before.
Flaunting your ignorance yet again.

http://www.vaticanstate.va/content/vaticanstate/en/stato-e-governo/organi-dello-stato.html

>generations of ancestors fight uprisings, wars, revolutions to throw off the yoke of nobility and monarchy
>create the most prosperous and free societies in history where the large degree of people are free to say what they want, pursue whatever career they'd like, travel beyond their hometown, read, write, etc.
>shitty money and corruption is a problem, as it was during the days of feudalism and serfdom
>instead of getting politically active about reforming their government, advocate monarchy on a Dutch carburetor cleaning forum that wouldn't exist were it not for an innovative nation of free men

Wew lad tier logic.

>>1454743
>moving the goalposts
You misunderstood the parameters of this discussion. Stop shifting blame.
>This is not in the definition of a monarch, you're just making up your own definitions.
That wasn't offered as a definition, it was offered as a description. There's a difference-I can call the sky "blue" or say that there are clouds in the sky without defining "sky." This is also basic.
>My point is that you were factually wrong in saying that absolute monarchies didn't anywhere outside of the West.
But you're the one who's wrong about that.
>It's a form of government in which the power rests solely and completely in the hands of a single authority. Wikipedia adds that this authority has to "embody the country's national identity", to which I would call [citation needed] due to the vagueness of the concept of national identity, but doesn't really contradict what I've said.
Sounds like you don't even like the definition you offered. Why did you put it forward? I'm describing a historically distinct form of absolute rule, i.e. absolute monarchy, in which that authority is a monarch, i.e. a king or queen.
>I called you out on a factual mistake and you're doing mental gymnastics to avoid accepting that you were wrong. You can't hide between vague things like "context" and "parameters of the current discussion" when you explicitly went out of your way to make your claims absolute.
My 'absolute' claims were about the modern world, i.e. the world which has existed since the onset of modern capitalism in Europe. As I pointed out, this is a thread about how our contemporaries can be monarchists when it's so ridiculous to support monarchy. You're the one who thinks this is about something other than that.
>Flaunting your ignorance yet again.
My point was that The office of the Pope is not the office "King of Vatican City." The Pope played a unique role in IR that kings do not. Hence the absolute state came into existence when kings overpowered the Church.

>>1454846
Now I'm going to bed.

>>1454846
>>1454851
Okay, I'm honestly starting to think you're an idiot.

>You misunderstood the parameters of this discussion. Stop shifting blame.
Hypocritical.

>That wasn't offered as a definition, it was offered as a description.
You didn't say "the sky is blue", you said "a sky has to be blue". You made an ought statement and are trying to pass it off as an is statement, and that's completely dishonest.

>But you're the one who's wrong about that.
Really, now? If I were wrong about this, I'd be unable to find a quote by you stating that absolute monarchs didn't exist outside of the west.
>>Absolute monarchy is a relatively recent phenomenon, emerging alongside Protestantism in the Western world, unprecedented elsewhere.
Seems pretty unambiguous to me.

>Sounds like you don't even like the definition you offered. Why did you put it forward?
Because I'm not a dishonest prick like you. And is not so much that I don't like it as it is that it seems ill-defined to me. I get the idea Wikipedia is going for (absolute monarchs are also symbols that represent the state they rule) but I'm not sure if I'd use the term "national identity" for that, or even add this to the definition.

>I'm describing a historically distinct form of absolute rule, i.e. absolute monarchy, in which that authority is a monarch, i.e. a king or queen.
Monarch:

Etymology
From [...] Ancient Greek μονάρχης (monárkhēs), variant of μόναρχος (mónarkhos, “sole ruler”), from 'μόνος (mónos, “only”) + ἀρχός (arkhós, “leader”).

This is exactly the definition I'm using. The only other pertinent definition available is "The ruler of an absolute monarchy or the head of state of a constitutional monarchy.", of which one definition is circular (i.e., "ruled by a monarch") and the other two only add "today usually hereditary" and "plus the aristocracy and their lands/fiefs".

As you can see, "single ruler" is the only consistent definition.
(cont.)

>>1454846
>My 'absolute' claims were about the modern world
This quote right here sums up your entire argument, and it doesn't even make sense. You're either claiming that "[modern] Absolute monarchy is a relatively recent phenomenon" (gee, who would have thought that a modern iteration of an old idea would be relatively recent.) or that "Absolute monarchy is a relatively recent phenomenon [in the modern world].", never mind the fact that the absolute monarchies you're referring to are pretty much as old as it gets when talking about the modern world.

Face the facts, you were completely ignorant about absolute monarchies and made a mistake while trying to speak like you knew your shit. What's worse, you were so baselessly confident that you eliminated any chance of backpedaling by making your claim absolute.

What's worse, even if you hadn't made your statement so unambiguous, you'd still have a hard time backing down from it. The context of the thread is about some people trying to bring back a now considered antiquated system (hence why OP and people who agree with him are baffled). That doesn't magically exclude any "pre-modern" absolute monarchies, which would also, even more strongly so, be antiquated.

>My point was that The office of the Pope is not the office "King of Vatican City."
But it is, and therefore you're wrong. That the Pope is different from other kings doesn't stop him from being the King of the Vatican City. He was also the king of the Papal States, so even if he wasn't the literal absolute monarch of the Vatican now, he'd still be an absolute monarch (the sole authority of the Papal States) back in the day.

File: descarga (31).jpg (6KB, 193x261px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 193x261px

Mormonism is the one true path to political perfection. Utah is created one of the biggest tech hubs in the world in a ladnlock state. Mormons have the highest fertility rates in the nation and the youngest population,the mormon welfare puts into shame any federal programme and mormon universities have the lowest tuition of the country with top education and lots of grants and scholarships.Mormons have a sense of community,and usually have to do services weekly both for charity and the state. Joseph Smith was a genius that created a perfect political system based around religion and his own mythos.

File: e09[2].png (694KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

694KB, 720x720px

>>1453195
>I would rather be ruled by a single lion than a pack of rats
Except a king will likely exploit a rat, whereas in a pack of rats the rat can rely on the pack. What makes or breaks a Republic is pack instinct or patriotism. This is why the Roman Republic wrecked everyone's face until the soldiers became more loyal to their generals than the Republican ideal. This is why France managed to strike down enemy after enemy despite overwhelming odds, but is now doing to itself what its enemies could not.

Patriotism and Republicanism are two sides of the same coin, and as early as Montesquieu virtue and republicanism went hand in hand. Rousseau's only mistake was a distrust of organized religion, a mistake the less known Roustan fixes.

>That feel when no Catholic French Republic of conservative patriots

File: 450px-Gare_Metz_décor_16.png (534KB, 450x600px) Image search: [Google]

534KB, 450x600px

>>1451477
Well when monarchs ruled europe - europe ruled the world.

Now, in the age of useless politicians - europe is the toilet of the world

bring back the kings anytime, make europe great again

>>1449725
Because "elected" (whatever that means nowadays) """leaders""" who betray their countrymen and their interests any given time they see fit are so meritocratic?
Come on