Not taking the monarchypill

>presumably ethno-nationalist
>backs a strictly religious structure
>a structure that does not differentiate between the ethnic origin of its subjects because all that matters is that they're subjects
Monarchism comes as close to the present-day German-style globalist-capitalist democracy as possible, desu. The people don't matter, only the sovereign does. The only excuse for being a monarchist is if you are from an aristocratic family.
If you think that the "kill the king" thing only dropped with the French revolution, you're deluded, fren. Nobles, armies and even peasants have been killing monarchs since from before the times of the Roman empire. In fact, that's what made those times slightly more democratic than today - if you had a qualm with the anti-nationalist policies of monarchies, you'd just go to the capital and kick the shit out of the king. Can't do that with "democratic" civic governments since they don't have a truly central figure and because they can hide behind their "democratic mandate".

If monarchism includes figures like napoleon and cromwell, then yes it is redpilled

Indeed. Remember somewhat recently (10 years or so) the Luxemburg's duke? Vetoed euthanasia, his veto power got removed.

You can't compromise with the liberal ideology. All liberalism (including classical) is a way for subversive fabianist crap to infiltrate and dismantle your country and your people.

Are you fucking retarded?
Cromwell is the one that started this shit libtardism crap.

A mediocre king is better than a mediocre president. And good king is leagues above any president.
A bad king, with constitutional limits imposed by his contract with the citizenry, can't do that much harm.
But back then, king-killers wanted new kings, by and large, as that was only natural.
Now they want no kings, as they'd rather have shadowy rich masters, among whom a disproportionate amount are Jews.

Just cause something is in the way of capitalism and socialism doesn't make it nationalist, fren. Monarchy is still an enemy of nationalism, it's just an irrelevant enemy in this day and age.

Only if the Monarch isn't a nationalist. There can certainly be a nationalist Monarch.

> irrelevant
NRx

>being nationalist
Let me clarify what nationalism is. It is not racism or wanting to live only around your own people.
Nationalism is wanting to connect your nation with a state (A grave mistake), by including all of "your people (And everyone has different definitions of every ethnic group)" in one state, including all of your "historic land (Who decides this?)," and kicking out (Or killing) all others.
Is this what you believe in? This ideology is the biggest cause of war in the last thousand years, and has made all wars much more violent and cruel. Nationalism was a mistake.

Of course, I don't want to live around niggers or non-Anglos of any sort, but that's completely unrelated.

People stopped wanting kings because kings became outdated. That's it. Monarchy became an out of touch, ineffective government form. The only difference from the nationalist perspective is that nationalists want to replace monarchy with (most usually) nationalist dictatorship instead of capitalist democracy desu.
Yeah but at that point it's not really monarchism. If you merge monarchy with nationalist/fascist principles it becomes more applicable to the modern world - and in some ways even superior to other government forms - but it's not that simple. Monarchic families usually have their own aristocratic, anti-plebeian principles. It'd be difficult to find a noble family that consistently, without fail, produces people who can both prioritise national interests over their own and who can understand the common man. They are, after all, nobles. They live in their own world.
Name one relevant European monarchist movement that can compete with nationalist movements.

>became outdated.
Why? What the fuck do you mean by this? Who defines what is "outdated?"
Monarchy is dying because of people swallowing the nationalist pill and thinking that the leader must "represent" them, and then electing rich self-interested narcissists, like Trump, Obama, Clinton, or any other democratic leader.

Relevancy doesn't matter. Most people are stupid, so what they like isn't an argument, which you, as an anti-democracy advocate, should agree with.

Thinking the Monarchies of hundreds of years ago can't change a bit and adopt to the modern world is like saying the republics of hundreds of years ago couldn't work today. Yah Dutch and Italian republics wouldn't work today either you fucking retard. A monarch can be nationalist and anti aristocrat today no problem.

>anti aristocrat
Nobility is a good thing. An upper class (Who'd probably really fit around the upper middle class)who must be respectable to keep their (Technically meaningless) titles, and who can be based not on wealth but on heritage and maybe land ownership could only be better than the celebrity worship we have today.

Action Francaise

The ultraroyalist movements were killed not by lack of ideological base, but by same libtardic kikery. You had a bunch of marxists, a bunch of liberals and a bunch of cuckservative. All of which had as foundation the liberal ideology. Who is far-right in their made up political spectrum? The centrist nazis, kek. Through the same deceitful propagand that dates since the (((protestant reformation))) they made a scene only for themselves and acknowledge only their mob.

Jesus you guys respond really fast. Nationalism is just fighting for the cause of your own people. Doesn't have to be warlike or imperialist, in fact I mostly dislike such iterations of it. It is, however, fact, that separate groups of people want their own space to develop their society, economy and culture. They need to be under their own authority to do that, a foreign power is detrimental. I don't know if this resonates with you because you're American and you guys are quite different to any European civilisation, but it is what it is. If you're on Jow Forums but you're not nationalist you're probably just a reactionary of some sort though, desu.
>who defines what is "outdated"
The people. Monarchism began to croak once the French revolution happened, because the bourgeoisie realised they don't need the monarch to make money and the working class realised there are better government forms for it, be it anti-traditionalist (i.e. Marxist) or pro-traditionalist (i.e. nationalist). You can say that's a load of garbage and ground your opinion in your anti-democratic convictions, but in the end of the day without the will of the people on your side it'll be impossible to bring back monarchism. I dislike the present day "democracy", but I do believe in populism.
Sure, but that's not a monarchy as it's commonly understood. If you want a nationalist regime with monarch as the centerpiece instead of a dictator, that's hardly the same as wanting a monarchist regime.
They have 3000 people and after a quick glimpse I don't think they've had any tangible impact on French politics. I'm not even sure if they're vanilla monarchist.

To be honest though, I would rather live in a shitty, dysfunctional democracy than have a Jew king. In fact I'd take literally any possibly concievable system over a Jew king. So some sense of an ethnic/national basis to the Monarchy is not necessarily a bad idea.

How is a nationalist regime with a monarch as the centerpiece not a monarch?

> being this ignorant

If you don't believe in tying your ethnic group to a state, you aren't a true nationalist.
A modern monarchy that is Luxembourg-sized or smaller and is focused on a area with an ethnic group (Which we have in America, too. I, for one, am a proud Old-Stock America, and a proud Anglo) can be very good for the ethnic group itself, too, even if it's not for others who might be considered part of that ethnic group, but aren't in that state.
Populism is a cancer and "the people" shouldn't get to decide what I do. I don't really believe in forcing monarchism on people who don't want it, but a modern one formed by monarchists, for monarchists, could quickly eclipse republics in many rankings, causing others to reconsider their stances towards monarchism.
Just shut up and let us secede, and we'll show you how great it is.
Okay?
Which European monarchs have been Jews, again? If I could help found a new monarchy, I'd pick from some old blood European nobility who're close enough to any ethnic basis we may start it upon, if we start it upon one at all.

Because standard monarchy is anti-nationalist desu. The whole point is that the monarch is the be all and end all. All his subjects are equal in their subordination to the monarch. There's no difference between Hungarian, Austrian, Slovak, Slovene, Czech, Pole, Serb or Croat, so long as you are loyal to the Habsburg dynasty. That's monarchy. It's the same as being loyal to the civic structure of the US government instead of being loyal to the American people, for instance. A monarch as the centerpiece of a nationalist framework is another story. In nationalism, the be all and end all is the nation - the people. The monarch can have supreme power and status because he is to be perceived as the father of the nation, the guiding hand to look out for national interest. The monarchic government form is traditionalist, so it's easy to integrate it in a nationalist framework. Of course, there are some practical differences with that, but it's possible.
Sorry Romaniabro but there's no relevant monarchist movements in 2018. The only times I've seen monarchism brought up in any semi-serious way has been in conversations between quasi-reactionary boomers reminiscing on their great past desu. Not exactly a great force in politics.

Good. All loyal subjects of the Hapsburg monarch are equal. Before today, such issues weren't really relevant, but in a large empire, restricting certain areas for certain ethnicities could be perfectly fine, so that those ethnicities could live without other guys from the next region over coming in, or especially Arabniggers.
Each ethnicities doesn't need its own monarch, if they could share one who'd be just-as good for all of them.

>monarchs haven't been nationalist in the past so they can't be nationalist in the future.

You don't know jack shit if you think the Habsburgs thought all the people that supported them were the same as long as they supported the crown. The Habsburgs knew they were Austrians throughout all of history. Their minorities also knew that throughout all their history. Your sheer lack of Habsburg history is pretty retarded. The majority of their minorities always didn't like the Habsburgs because they were FORIEGNERS ruling over them. The Austrians liked the Habsburgs because they were NATIONALISTIC for them.

How about you actually learn about them before talking about them. This isn't reddit kiddo, people here actually know the full Habsburg history.

Many non-Austrians supported the Hapsburgs, like the Polish lower-classes.
But that's history, and isn't the same as the future ideal.

A small amount of minorities did support the Habsburgs. The lower class Poles in Galicia were just that, a small minority.

The were still better off under them than soon after. The republican governments all over central Europe have all been disasters.
Anyway, that's still irrelevant when discussing the ideal of micromonarchies.

Tying your ethnic group to a state isn't the same as tying it to a dynasty desu. All non-anarchist movements tie people to states. Micro-national separatism is super not good and definitely shouldn't be the goal. The national framework is good enough and if you think otherwise then you're not the nationalist here, fren. Local community pride is good but it's hardly something worth its own government. I can agree that populism is not super good but it's as good as it gets. It's useful for when the people want to express their dissatisfaction with the status quo. For anything else, you need a good leader to be able to harness that dissatisfaction and bring about real, beneficial change. What that change is, is always up to the leader's judgement.
You're sort of correct but you're really trespassing into globalist thinking here. One of the main features of the globalist framework is to have one state to whom multiple groups supposedly owe their loyalty to, then using these groups by playing them against each other in order to manipulate the state apparatus. I can believe in confederations of separate national communities technically sharing a state, but IMO a central figure like a monarch would only interfere on their autonomy and cause conflict until the confederation either falls apart or the monarchy centralises control.
Strawman followed by historical misconceptions doesn't do you any favours desu. The monarchic framework was falling apart by the modern era, but it hinged on the loyalty of aristocracy. Plebs weren't even considered in most cases. The Habsburgs were buddy-buddy with all the fellow aristocrats ruling their land, be they ethnically German, Hungarian or whatever. The Austro-Hungarian minorities also were nowhere near as opposed to early Habsburg rule as you seem to think, since back then religious identity was paramount and the Habsburgs united their subjects in a great Catholic empire desu.

Tying your ethnic group to a state just leads to anyone who doesn't agree with the (Usually malevolent) actions of the government to be a traitor to his people, which is complete shit. Really, the bigger the state, the more evil it can do.
Populism is harnessing people's lack of knowledge with propaganda to work in the interests of those in charge. Ideally, nobody likes the government, but people personally like the king.
The microstate is better in everything the state is meant to do except for fighting wars, which is something that an ideal state would never have to do. We should all always fight for the ideal, even while making do with the real. I mean, I still vote, even though I don't support this current government.
I don't support large states, even empires, but they're not nearly so bad as you imagine them to be. If I'm better off under a large state with other ethnicities than under a small one with just my group, or the ideal tiny one with just like-minded people, then I would support that state state. The issue is that that's rarely the case.
You have been filled with anti-monarchist propaganda since childhood, and poor Jow Forums half-thoughts for years.
Think more carefully about why you aren't a micro-state monarchist, think about the issues, and then use your own logic to attempt to answer those before asking me more questions.
Also, many monarchs throughout history were not at all friendly with the nobility. That's like saying the president is always buddies with the senators.
And the monarch has often been a champion of the peasantry against the local aristocracy, as he had no local horses in the local races.

>sub-saharan africans and whites are equal

Yeah, see, this is where the peoblem is.

Populism is just a manifestation of popular sentiment desu. Don't mistake it for "people's movements". Populism isn't a movement for this or a movement for that, it just is. If politicians listen and develop it, only then does it become something.
Also microstates are bad because they're supremely dependent. They depend on resource imports, good imports, international markets and international culture. You think a micro-nation can produce its own competitive viable national culture? No. Its citizens would just immerse themselves in cosmopolitan culture, Hollywood-style. It's not good to have small dependent states since that's when international capitalism triumphs most easily. The opposite also isn't good. You may be better off in a multi-ethnic empire, but that's the same argument for immigration. Individuals get economic benefits. That's not a social mentality.
Also I come from a country with strong monarchist sentiments so I have a very romanticised view of it, desu. I'm just thinking pragmatically. I think you're just not looking at the historical truth of how monarchs look after their own interests over the national interest.

Who said that? Legally, they would be, as are all groups of legal citizens, but that doesn't mean I want to live with niggers. In the ideal micro-monarchy, they wouldn't be allowed to immigrate in and become citizens.
But think about something other than niggers for one second, dumbass.

Why should some sort of national self-reliance be the goal? International markets aren't only the future, they're the present. International culture is another thing, but many small states have among the natives (As many are, unfortunately, filled with foreign workers) strong local traditions, and if there were more of these small states, as well as ones that would conform to the ideals I preach, local culture would be very important.
Also, the monarch's own good is the state's own good. The monarch inherently has a much lower time preference than a republican leader.
I need to sleep. Goodnight.

Heaven is a monarchy hell is a democracy

You said all subjects would be equal under the crown.

>legally they would be equal

Absolutely horrendous idea. Different hominid subspecies have vastly different neurological makeups and exhibit different behavior pattens- a system of law enforcement and justice that is identical for Europeans and sub-Saharans would not properly serve one or the other (probably by ending up treating Europeans like sub-Saharans).

>stop thinking about biology for biological organisms

And this is why your entire political philosophy shouldn't stem from computer programmers.

These are stories from Hebrew mythology

Because without self-reliance you lose your say over what can and can't happen even within your own land. The only way to prevent a micro-state from being at the mercy of another state that may have different ideological views is if every state in the world is a micro-state. But then what happens if someone starts uniting those micro-states in some part of the world? Trouble.
Also, you're correct that a monarch's own good is the state's own good. State =/= nation, though. At that point the monarch just uses the state to fuck over his nation in exactly the same way present leaders do it.

t. Christkiller

No, that was also Hebrews.

This is the propper way to deal with Neo-aristocrats

Attached: Guillotine.jpg (1200x1599, 213K)

Find me a monarchy than can at least get close to competing with Rome and I'll consider it

Not destruction of monarchy alone but all forms of nobility

Nobility is separate from kings and monarch

They while similar are very much different
With out nobility to use their wealth to self impose morals and noble things among population they lost their sense of identity in years
The Jew hates the noble for it is his opponent it has wealth and uses it to further things opposed it

i had some nice burger king for dinner if that counts. i love monarchy!

They made the communist revolutions happen to destroy nobility of country’s world wide
The reason being is that wealth is something that is hard to import .so they destroy nobility to move vital resources to force the population to give them wealth in return fror supplies

Once a nobility is destroyed it is very hard to recover.it takes decades if not hundreds of thousands of years to cultivate in good condition

In which way?

I told you why ultra-royalism isn't high profile anymore. The (((media))) burried them through decades of indoctrination in the (((press))) and political made-up literature where the political spectrum starts and ends with liberal crap. From cuckservative (liberal) to liberal to socialist (also being based on libaral principles). Fascism and soviet-style communism are seen as fringe and they made up the horseshoe theory because their made-up spectrum has some big fucking holes. Also because they want to take fascism out, Thing is stalinism wasn't as leftard as leninism for example. Also not as leftard as most leftism.

Action Francaise has a long tradition and had a lot of influence, but unfortunately in the european scene remains the most recognizable ultra-royalist movement. Usually real royalists ally with fascist parties and Europe had more of them, but ultimately faded out as the liberal propaganda machine, as I said earlier, monopolized all avenues of information dissemination. True monarchy was always (((their))) greatest enemy and they are so afraid of fascism because it also has chances to Naturally evolve into real monarchy.

Did alt-right, ultra-reactionaries, NRx register in American politics few years back? Reps had the neocon liberal faggots versing the marxistoid liberal faggots of the democrats and beside the libertarian liberal faggots, that was it. The paradigm changed, cause liberalism is anti-natural and no matter how much they push and brainwash people, reality creeps in, nature's programming through billions of years of trial and error will be victorious.

Based