Is Monarchism a stable, more culturally sustainable version of

File: rommel.jpg (23KB, 242x306px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 242x306px

as long as we can keep the uniforms

File: QUEENZ.jpg (111KB, 500x352px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 500x352px

Constitutional monarchism is the only thing that can even hold a shitty muslim country from falling into political ruin.

It's very retarded, but the common man's a fool, and the system should be the same.
Your founding fathers missed the possibility that your retarded populace's democracy could be hijacked by kikes.

>>133353885
Nah.
It's sustainable sure, the issue is, let's say you have an actually smart monarch that has balls to do what needs to be done. Nothing says that his son will be the same. You could have a fucking degenerate in his place one he dies.
Intelligence and balls does not travel 100% through gene. So I don't think so.

>>133353885
Only if the monarch isn't a Jew
A European monarch is usually going to see his people as irreplaceable and an extension of his kingdom a Jew will trade his people in for civil unrest and sodomy

>>133354123
What about elective monarchy, or succession by adoption as in Rome?

>>133354123
That's my issue then how do we make fascism sustainable? Less wars?

File: costum11.jpg (24KB, 403x403px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 403x403px

>>133354123
Monarches here get an obnoxiously tough and strict upbringing, learning many languages and political science, maybe you won't get a smart monarch, hell, our's anything but smart compared to his father, but the country can still keep itself afloat, considering the throne has many good advisors and the parliment pushes the king to do shit.

>>133354021
Aestho-fascism on the block
Gas the Jews in my uber boss

>>133354123
The Revolution was a fucking mistake

>>133354338
I agree with that, in today's age monarchies aren't trash. In Europe, they haven't really been for several hundred years

>>133354251
>Elective
The point of it being patrilineal is nobody will want to let the kingdom fall into disarray because much like a house it's worth maintaining for future generations
Stake in the future of the kingdom is critical otherwise the plundering of the nation still occurs just over a lifetime instead of an 8 year period

>>133354338
Shut the fuck up, you have a totalitarian regime and they lure you with that constitutional bullcrap

>>133354661
He's got a good point tho

>>133353885
Of course, it all depends on the structure of government and the powers granted to the monarch though.
I suggest you try reading Democracy In America by Alexis De Tocqueville, he makes many comparisons between monarchy and Democracy that help draw a clearer picture.

File: 19748776_1663674836978607_475127076916823976_n.jpg (26KB, 902x507px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 902x507px

>>133354840
Thx leafbro

>>133354739
He does have a point, in fact, that is the whole point of having elected officials and advisors underneath the monarch.
Monarchs are not intended to have absolute power, and in many aspects have less power and influence than the president of the United States.

>>133354661
Nah, I think it's crap too, but it's what needs to be done considering people are dumb as shit, it's the only way it can't be hijacked.
The last time Europe was homogeneous, border-strong and menacing, Monarchies were everywhere.
If a totalitarian regime means stability and no Syria2.0, I'm all for it.

>>133354974
Praising a higher family sounds good, should we praise higher individuals who are the essence of a perfect family? Like make it a goal to be a pseudo monarch of your city?

>>133354925
#notallmonarchies. There are three major types of monarchy, and constitutions can make or break the quality of any of them.

>>133354979
Agreed, there're thousands of years of history behind that statement

>>133355166
Guess I need to study up on monarchies. Not as cancerous as I thought

>>133355121
Something something - When all our citizens are intellectuals and warriors, there are no intellectuals and no warriors.
A quote from Tocqueville:
>It would seem as if the rulers of our time sought only to use men in order to make things great; I wish that they would try a little more to make great men; that they would set less value on the work and more upon the workman; that they would never forget that a nation cannot long remain strong when every man belonging to it is individually weak; and that no form or combination of social polity has yet been devised to make an energetic people out of a community of pusillanimous and enfeebled citizens.

>>133355391
That makes sense but can't it be both ways?

>>133354123
Disregarding that the son is the genetic product of his father and a mother also of the societal elite, it's about more than the qualities of the individual monarch. One argument for monarchy is that the monarch has a long-term incentive to improve or at least not to devalue his territory. Why would he make life worse for the native population? Because he's just a crazy tyrant? On the other hand, the politician's incentives to the nation can only be short-term, encompassing at most a decade. You mention having a monarch who'd have the balls to "do what needs to me done", but I think this is missing the point. Monarchy is placid form of government compared to democracy and doesn't have incentives to create the issues that democracy does. When, for example, would a monarch import millions of third worlders to bolster his political party?

>>133355560
Like focus on society to make it a producing ground of strong men or am I focusing on that wrong

>>133353885
monarchy would be probably quite good here in brazil
in the times of the empire we were respected, and had the 2nd largest navy in the whole world.
these days we are a corrupt republic and we have nothing to be proud of

>>133355560
Sure, it could also be neither.
You should also consider that you can actually have a constitutional monarchy where the Monarch plays the role of the head of state, and a modern/revolutionary fascist government plays the role of Parliament and head of government

>>133355599
Good point, couldn't read which side you are for

>>133355694
See that's what I was looking for. I'm not a fan of three equal kings crap. Dictators produce fanaticism and monarchs produce long-standing culture, that fascists seem unable to do

File: 52345.jpg (190KB, 800x1192px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 800x1192px

>>133353885
What does stop monarch from being inbreeding globalists piece of shit again?

>>133355680
I think the average iq of a population needs to be 90 for democracy to work and that's still not necessarily ideal

>>133355917
The same thing that stopped everyone else, science.

Monarchs were never globalists

>>133355826
Oswald Mosley wanted to abolish the democratic system and the modern idea of politicians. He wanted to replace them with elected representatives of the various industries in the nation, rather than of geographical districts.
Seats in office would be reserved for industry leaders, elected by the workers of those industries, to represent their interests in parliament.
I'd be interested in putting more critical thought into how a parliament structure like this could work with a fascist or monarch head of state, and the different ways distributing power would affect the potentials of such a state.

File: tribaldress.jpg (156KB, 604x822px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 604x822px

Wow, a thread without shitposting.
RARE
A
R
E

>>133353885
>Is Monarchism a stable, more culturally sustainable version of fascism? Monarchism lasts pretty long -- fascism usually doesn't. Also not as aesthetic, seemingly. I'm natsoc so certainly open to both sides. What thinks pol?


Fascism IS Neo-Monarchistic.


The creator of fascism actually fucked off into being a minor accountant somewhere the moment Mussolini took power because real life fascism was utterly infested with the sort of party politics he loathed.

File: 423423.jpg (414KB, 1249x2048px) Image search: [Google]

414KB, 1249x2048px

>>133355599
>Why would he make life worse for the native population?
If monarch is part for many families and is ruler of many countries or have heir rights for them what population is "native" for him?

No more world wide monarchies and cross families between them? Monarch is isolated? Then he breeds with who? With his sister? Ok, no. With commoners? What then will stop these commoners from bringing their Marxist ideas into monarch family?


>When, for example, would a monarch import millions of third worlders to bolster his political party?
Bolster party? No. Bolster country? Maybe if he perceives that native population is lazy and nonproductive and better be replaced with superior breed of slaves.

>>133355987
>Monarchs were never globalists
Ahaha. Care to name full title of Charles V Holy Roman Emperor?
>EU before EU

>>133356330
They wouldn't serve as political advocates as much as technical advocates. Their role would be to act as experts in their field, and probably to raise issues in the industry, plan future developments and coordinate with other industries and the state. Rather than like... advocating wage hikes or some shit, is the impression I got at least.
>>133356547
Yeah I can see that actually. When I think about the ideas Oswald Mosley had proposed, I get the same impression that it is pretty neomonarchist. Even as I said "fascist or monarch head of state" I thought "what's the difference other than how they're appointed?" - which actually is a noteworthy difference worth debate and discussion as well. But it's very nuanced still.
Not at all surprised that that's what happened under Mussolini, same thing happened under Hitler and the nazi party, old fashioned politicians in the party held back the revolutionary technical theories that Feder came up with.

>>133356558
You're right that even in the past, many monarchs ruled vast swathes of Europe as different as Spain, Holland, Austria, etc. at the same time, so there are many people under his dominion. If you start from the premise that diversity is a net negative or makes life worse in a given territory like many people on /pol/, then increasing the diversity decreases the value of your territory. My point is that even if the monarch has many holdings, it's obvious who belongs with whom and that the stability and the social capital of his lands are part of the value of those holdings. I think white flight is a good example of people acting out that they do attach a monetary value to homogeneity.

Regarding your second point, I think you could be right and I mean I don't really have an answer. I will admit that I don't know to what extent a revival of monarchism would be linked to global capitalism but obviously there would be huge issues here. Maybe some kind of ethnic constitution.

>>133354565
And it killed 200000 peoples.