Q/A:
Q: Why do you support a dead ideology?
A: Ideologies do not die, they are merely abandoned by the ignorant masses. If Monarchism is dead, then National Socialism has been dead for seventy years, and Communism the last two decades.
Q: Are nations such as North Korea monarchist just because they have a singular and absolute ruler?
A: No, North Korea is a Communist Dictatorship - and goes against many values of Monarchism such as the strong connections to Tradition and Culture which the North Koreans have replaced with a mindless cult. The characterization of North Korea has a Monarchy is an ignorant and loose connection based entirely on one facet of Monarchism, Hereditary inheritance, which is not even a universal - but extremely common - belief among monarchists.
Q: Wouldn't Hereditary Succession allow madmen to get in power simply by birth?
A: No, the Rightful heir would by default be tutored and educated from birth to rule as a proper and efficient leader. In this way a Monarchy allows a much more smoother transition of power and long-term stability than democracy or a dictatorship.
Q: Is Monarchism inherently authoritarian?
A: This is a huge mis-characterization of monarchism and history in General. Various different forms of Monarchy can occur from Absolutism to Constitutionalism and everything in between; the existence of a Monarch does not automatically mandate that the various rights and freedoms of the people should then be culled. Take a look at states such as Liechtenstein for a modern example of this.
Social Media:
Curious about being a Monarchist or our Beliefs?
Join our discord.
Discord code: VRmVMe
/mg/ - Monarchist General: Rohan Will Answer Edition
Other urls found in this thread:
archive.org
madmonarchist.blogspot.ca
youtube.com
classics.mit.edu
thejournalofneoabsolutism.wordpress.com
reactionaryfuture.wordpress.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
Monarchist Resources:
A Defense of Aristocracy - Ludovici
archive.org
Mad Monarchist
madmonarchist.blogspot.ca
On Monarchism and Democracy - Truediltom
youtube.com
Politics - Aristotle
classics.mit.edu
The Journal of Neo-absolutism
thejournalofneoabsolutism.wordpress.com
Reactionary Future
reactionaryfuture.wordpress.com
Why I'm a Monarchist - Fritz Imperial
youtube.com
The discord link in the first post is bad, here's the good invite: 3P9bbJ
bump
Bump of Faith
bump
>thread as dead as his ideology
Have a pity bump, friend.
Monarchism isn't dead, there just isn't a youtuber or an edgy site to propagate it like there is for the NatSocs or the Fascists. Cock-sucking is how a lot of these ideologies grow desu
How do you propose we get people to suck monarch cock again?
Elective Monarchy is the best system, fight me
>inb4 Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth
Poland was geographically fucked from the start
I'm a libertarian but open to the idea of monarchy. Enlighten me, please, on why a monarchy is best? One problem I have with it is that giving so much power to a single person could lead to corruption: take for example a person who despite being raised to be a good monarch becomes displeased with their subjects and takes too much power for themselves. How would this be solved, other than just accepting that the people are now completely ruled by a tyrant?
>an American monarchist
Please leave faggot
I agree with monarchism as a functional system but I don't think it can be implemented in a modern society without a warlord or something that by a miracle actually won
Build hype and numbers. Confused authoritarians really only have two options, National Socialism and Fascism, with maybe some other authoritarian branches out there, but those are the main two. They need to see that what they're thinking of is monarchy and not fascism, that there literally is no such thing as a government which isn't based on hereditary principles. There always exists a person who has the function of a king, even in democracy. Having the government be a monarchy gets rid of the unnecessary hurdles and makes the functions of the state much more clear and honest, and gets rid of the "imperium in imperio" issue that plagues our (((democratic process))) today.
Who would be the American monarch? Would we just join the commonwealth? Maybe offer the crown to Prince Harry because his kids will be 56% like us.
>I'm a libertarian but open to the idea of monarchy. Enlighten me, please, on why a monarchy is best?
Because a King derives his power from the middle class and needs his population to be well off and happy much more so than any other government. In a monarchy the class consciousness is much higher amongst the population, meaning that when the monarch does something truly unpopular, he is the prime (and often lone) target to eliminate to fix the system. Because of this, having a lot of poor, starving and angry men is a bad idea when compared to having a lot of lower to upper middle class men who are only periodically angry. It's a win-win, the monarch fulfills his role and the people get a figure who is (by nature) interested in their well-being, since his life is on the line. Take a look at Liechtenstein, they are a libertarian monarchy with the highest GDP per capita in the world, after being a country with basically nothing to offer after WWII ended.
>One problem I have with it is that giving so much power to a single person could lead to corruption: take for example a person who despite being raised to be a good monarch becomes displeased with their subjects and takes too much power for themselves. How would this be solved, other than just accepting that the people are now completely ruled by a tyrant?
In democracy and other democratic systems, such as republics, the issue of "the deep state" is more elusive and deadly since the voting process gives the illusion that our government is """""""of the people"""""""""" and not of people with other interests. This is less likely due to reasons stated above in the first half of this response, and also because having a single person in power means that a deep state can never truly seize all the institutions when the monarch is running them. And if a leader does ignore his people for the deep state, the people have their target. Hence, being involved in the deep state is much more risky for a monarch.
>Defending the American system
>Wanting the unstable democratic process to destroy traditions
>Wanting for "people" to get """"""""elected""""""" so that they won't keep the Democrat-Republican cycle of degeneracy turning
The Greeks abandoned democracy and turned to monarch because they saw their invention doesn't work.
Who knows? We're comparatively small right now, but maybe in the future there will be good men and good ideas pushing it forward. Brazil, for example, is becoming so conservative that some of their conservative politicians are wishing to return to monarchy.
Liechtenstein is a constitutional monarchy though, with an elected parliament. And while the people like their prince and let him have a lot of power (such as veto and dismissal of other government figures and ministers) I don't know if the same would happen in America. We have too many brown people who would bitch about "oppression". And even besides the race argument is the fact that their population is so much smaller than the US. But I do like how they don't seem to give as much welfare out like we do here.
Yeah, like any country it would be idea that the country is mostly homogeneous. America is difficult since it's a part of the culture to hate monarchy, but unlike National Socialism, we don't have the baggage. Any real change in the governance style will require a cultural shift, which may very well come with the generations. Best to stick with what's right even when no one understands or cares so that the future generations can look back and say "This is who we owe our government to, this is where we come from"
Does anyone have the link to the discord server?
bump
for da kangs
bump
3P9bbJ
1. The leader of this /mg/ movement is 16
2. The leader of this movement is pagan
3. The leader of this movement looks like this (pic related)
4. The leader of this movement is an anarchist.
(Not doxxing, its in the server he posted)
ayy where my hohenzollers at?
No. Everybody gets a king but Germany. Next time you'll think before invading Belgium.
He's not an anarchist buddy
This is just something I found from a few min of scrolling through his bullshit.
He changes his own ranks from "anarcho-capitalist" to "libertarian-monarchist" and other such bullshit often because he is attempting to find some semblance of identity.
he is creating a community what r u doing with your life?
He changed his ranks months ago. His view of Anarcho-Capitalism was that it was a form of Neo-Feudalism.
>you'll never have cute princesses to fight and die for
Why even live?
WE
Take a closer look at that snout!
Ah yes,
Not LARPing on discord servers with 8 active members
>using diskike
Saapa Íinka of the Lúunasúuyu welcomed presumably.
what are you guys' opinion on symbolic monarchy. In America for instance it would take away the symbolic and to some extent diplomatic duties of the president so that they can be selected for more so on the basis of administrational competence instead of charisma.
Stop. Thats actually doxxing and not publicly available.
WHAT THE FUCK
This is a NatSoc thread now. Monarchist niggers fuck off.
Right on brother.
You're literally not white, let alone European.
"Not even white hurrr durr"
Fuck off, nigger.
What, does it hurt to be told the truth? (Nice VPN by the way, you're very clearly just supporting yourself as damage control)
>muh monarchy
as someone living under one, I can tell you they are completely fucking useless nowadays. Only by pure luck would you have a strong monarch willing to defy the government and actually help his nation, rather than just sitting back in impotency and collecting tax money like they do now.
>as someone living under one
>implying
stop believing those puppets of democracy have any influence
They are the only thing making you important these days. 2 billion people watched the royal wedding. Aside from that Brits go to USA to be famous.
If they really wanted to they could end this shit tomorrow, every soldier must swear an oath of loyalty to the queen, not parliament. Sure it would be another English civil war - part 2: electric boogaloo with half the country against the other half, but would be better to at least try and to go down fighting than just sit back and let everything fall apart anyway.
Agreed. It's a shame the Queen hasn't done it. However, the Queen does provide more money to the United Kingdom than she receives.
The only reason she hasn't done it is she knows that not only would half the country, but the entire current world order would be against her.
>vpns are automatically banned on Jow Forums
Nice try, Jew.
I support this
I have to admit monarchy is mildly interesting for us in Dixie. Many of us are descendants of Cavaliers from the English Civil War and the Knights of the Golden Circle toyed with the idea of a Hapsburg to lead the new southern nation when it seceded. The south also liked the monarchies of Europe more than the north. That said I doubt the south would support a monarchy any more than anywhere else in America at this point.