Monarchy Revitalisation General /mrg/

>1. Right to rule issue – In post monoreligious societies where being “God’s chosen” no longer command adequate authority what should be the new model?
I can write fuckhuge wall of text about how monarchy is most optimal form of government without touching any sort of religious themes, and you can probably do it too. Thing is that your average lemming doesnt understands and doesnt wants to understand such things, so you make something simple that will also keep him content, and knowing that he is inherently religious (even if you replace traditional religion with blind belief in science those modern types have), God's mandate to rule satisfies needed criteria.

You're overthinking it.
1. Collapse --> Warlords --> Strongest warlord declares himself a king.
2. Competing interests.
3. See 1.

as for the part of Christianity - I agree, its the most wholesome and reliable way to go
although implementing it from the start would seem as the "religious takeover" and bring unnecessary problems - at least in the early XXIc way of looking at things, I would propose to implement it after 20-40years of stability
that would make the transition way smoother

> the eldest of course, unless he renounces his title
that brings us back to the bad king scenario
I would like to know your thoughts about that point

>3. Choosing a king after democratic century – Matter of introducing a new line (or bringing back old one) after the end of democracy is different to establishing a new royal line after one is finished. Let’s focus on the one-time transition from democracy to monarchy.
Entire structure of modernity is pozzed to its very core and only exist for one purpose - to serve international jewry. It MUST be completely razed to the ground and scoured from minds of people if you want to have hope for any future for your people, and in chaos that follows there will be new leaders and best of them who defeated others will found new ruling dynasties. Monarchy is organic, and there is no need to artificially construct it. And no way old dynasties should be returned, they lost their power and it's not something that should be given back to them for free after they failed.

I wouldn't mind a monarchy, but you'd need an absolute monarchy where the King (no queens that is gay) has absolute rule over everything in the society and can confiscate literally anyone's resources whenever he wants.

see
I think we are already in the different stage of the cycle - now people like Mussolini or Lenin are rising after the hardship period, and they don't last, children of theirs dont last, it all goes to shit pretty soon
hence - we need a system

also, and thats important, if we are ever to go to the final frontier, space - we really fucking need kind of politics that can at least try to implement 50-100 year plans
and for that we need a dynasty

In that case, if the king's title is bestowed by god, it should hopefully be the Church's job to renounce a king's title if he does not perform well

the problem is that without a good structure to rely on it will be short lived
If you believe any of the already existing monarchic gov types are up to the job - I'm listening
if not - thinking that new lider beside being charismatic and strong to carve this domain as its own would also be smart enough to himself construct the new gov background is a wishful thinking.. that can happen - but can we take that chance?

Attached: 1547271486184.jpg (1024x640, 474K)

then the queen if shes alive

Well I hope that the new ruler would create some come of system. It must be recognised that initially, the first heir's rulership will not probably be questioned. They would have been with their father (most likley)/mother and I so it would seem just that they inherit power.

Instead problems will arise later when the inital struggle and saviour of a group of people by one family is forgotten.

For it to endure two things must occur in conjunction with eachother.

1) establishment of a class system and a aristocracy connected (through familial and friendship connections) to the ruling dynasty.

(as a note, I don't necessarily think there should be no class mobility, but inheritance must be protected)

2. A religous and possibly martial class sytem (eg. the development of 'knighthood' as a sort of lesser-gentry occured because of the combination of religous and martial cultures which did not take place prior to the High Middle Ages).

Attached: Accolade_by_Edmund_Blair_Leighton.jpg (2329x4000, 2.06M)

You would require a transitional dictatorship to begin a monarchy desu. Nobody would accept monarchy outright, you would need a dictatorship to socially engineer the populace to change their culture from globo homo to tradition first, THEN you can implement a traditional Christian monarchy.

In addition a dictatorship would more easily destroy jewish power internationally during that period.

If history is any indication, the Pope will escape to South America once SHTF.
After the situation in Europe somewhat stabilizes, one leader will guarantee the Pope a safe return to Rome in exchange for the crown.

When a warlord transitions to a ruler? When he can guarantee his subjects basic safety in exchange for taxes. Remember, anarchy is no limits on the use of force; state has a monopoly on the use of force. A warlord becomes a rules if he has enough control over the territory to impose his monopoly on the use of force. He now moves from robbing the population to collecting taxes and hanging thieves (i.e. competition).
Now Lenin, Mussolini, Stalin etc. never created an order out of anarchy, instead, they subverted existing democratic structures.

Cyberpunk absolute monarchy, the position goes to the baddest motherfucker by killing the current one in single combat. The king is then made biologically immortal so that's the only way to get a new king.

church need its own revival.. I think you would agree. I'm afraid that we can't rely on that.

what would be the second best option? some sort of royal institution? Consensus/vote point system withing family? I really wouldnt trust 'the will of the people'...

> if shes alive
if shes alive thats awesome - but we need to think of the worst care scenario if we are to construct anything close to fullproof system

No, population will revert to tradition very quickly (years) once SHTF, because the traditional model WORKS.
A lot of money has been spend on modelling the society after the nuclear war, the conclusion was that the medieval model emerges pretty quickly and remains stable.

I am inclined to agree.

However it would be interesting to consider whether or not the King should be the head of the church of a country (as in Aglicanism) or if there should be a seperate religous structure, such as with the catholic church.

I suspect the latter is superior as firstly it can alter relations between kingdoms and also is less prone to corruption/issues with the monarchy itself.

Of course there are also advanatges to a monarch being head of the church.

Attached: Edmund_Blair_Leighton_-_A_little_prince_likely_in_time_to_bless_a_royal_throne.jpg (828x1024, 717K)

Yes, it must be organic from chaos and not socially engineered. It seems the most 'natural' way for a sociey to be constructed

the aristocracy thing is especially difficult
if we don't want every year uprisings it should be implemented perfectly...

I was thinking of combining Roman cursus honorum with starship troopers (yea I know, now fuck off) distinction between civilians and citizens - any thoughts on that?

I didn't bother reading OP's post, but I'd like to ask this:

How does one go about deciding who is fit to rule?

It is from this question alone that I think Monarchism is DOA. Literally everyone on this board would be vying for the chance to be "God's Chosen", and would stop at nothing at ruining each other's reputations

divine right isnt good enough to legitimize monarchs.
until the 2nd coming of course
but even then by that time would god ordain anyone king of those unworthy of heaven?

though competitions can come with their own flaws in meta . i suggest some sort of comprehensive and rigirious test for a monarch/dynasty every 200 years.
like running a buisness while racing around the world, building the best building, and fighting a battle with your most loyal men.

this competition is also to the death,
and it may even last 200+ years.

what book or story is this from?

cursus honorum could work. Again its interesting to consider whether or not religon should be integrated into the hierachy (with ruler as head of the church) or a seperate and more international structure across nations.

desu i dont know much about starship troopers and only a bit about roman history (not enough to say how successful cursus honorum was)

can't really support the head of religion thing if there is no good "Bad king scenario" point proposal
any thought on that? you and I both know that sooner or later it is going to happen

the basic idea of Starship trooper distinction between civilian and citizen is one in which the citizen to gain rights/some other sort of advantages - is required to put some work for the country
is that military service or other way of contributing

divine right was good enough in the past - for the most of it at least
I agree, that in the transitional period with all of those fedora faggots its not optimal.. but thats why we are here, lets fucking think of better way
given our current position, with the replacement of europe and degeneracy I propose some sort of virtue + cultural/tradition based requirement

I think having the King as head of Church thing is as troublesome as the Bishop-Prince thing they had in the Holy Roman Empire, you have ""church officials""" doing wildly unorthodox things, everything get's muddied when it comes to separation of power and responsibility, and everyone seems to lose. Being a Bishop for example is an extraordinary amount of work, as is being a local Prince, so combing the two, the HRE Bishop-Princes just did a really fucking shitty job at both instead of excelling in either one

Attached: 1539921193584.jpg (2560x1440, 3.9M)

ok, lets say that it will go the way you predict, and monarchy won't get accepted for the next stage after democray, but instead dictatorship will be required
building up monarchic system fit for the Information Era will come in use for such dictator - won't it? All current are shit, as the first line of this thread suggests. Let's fucking fix that

The problem is that the current power structure of jews and satanic pedophiles beholden to them in blackmail networks are entirely anti Christian tradition.

They must be destroyed first, then we can have traditional order again.

I believe if the Third Reich won they would eventually become a traditional German monarchy over time. Just without the freemason and occultist cancer which allied with kikes.

Indeed, any monarchic return would be after the eradication of the vermin

Attached: 1546136322671.jpg (193x261, 13K)

you are reaching too far imo
Its the same as with communism - for it to work you would need to destroy it worldwide (as for communism you would need to introduce it worldwide at the same time) which is beyond our reach
We need a bastion first.

monarchy failed due weakness as result democracy replaced it, now we will end up as greece and our technology will dissapear for over a thousands years untile a people survivors of constant conflicts, outdate our technology again. most of our technology based today in overall use comes still from the world wars except its more developed through time, but rarely a new wonder appears. its blackwashed and most economy is going down due kike control and peoples egoistic beings as a democracy doesn choose skillfull people its chose people based on votes, which doesnt mean anything in general.

Voting is just fucked up in important issues so maybe, have some nobles on cities?

The monarch needs to be a philosopher-king and also needs to be held accountable in some better way than outright revolt, because then you'd have monarchs who are no longer philosopher-kings.
I think there should be some sort of test one should pass to become king, it should be very robust and somehow not able to be corrupted by other nefarious interests. I'm not sure how that would come about, but it would be agreed upon beforehand by philosophers and put into the constitution which the philosopher-kings would honor.
If there is no objective test honored by all, then the monarchy could quickly devolve into tyranny by an idiotic monarch.

Poland is an interesting case here.
It would have been workable to make Walesa a king back in 1989/90, because he had a clear authority, and (with all his faults) he was a reasonably competent leader. Most people would have accepted and the detractors were outnumbered and would be beaten into submission. Fuck, the Church would probably give him his blessing as well. Plus he had a bunch of kids which naturally solved the succession problem. Unfortunately, this chance was lost.

monarchists die
founding fathers fucked you up.

you mean if the Third Reich won europe? maybe, if it just didn't fall as one country - it would be not enough, as europe? who knows?

What I am trying to do here, is to build universal structure with which any country sick of all this shit could rely on with its transition
That way, just one country changing itself would make for a glorious example to be followed on, and the method for it would be videly available making it a chain reaction

Thanks for this thread hopefully it sticks around till after work so I can get comfy too

Attached: 211C2835-3B2A-495B-B382-E7D769D9E2AB.jpg (230x249, 23K)

Poland is an interesting case here.
It would have been workable to make Walesa a king back in 1989/90, because he had a clear authority, and (with all his faults) he was a reasonably competent leader. Most people would have accepted and the detractors were outnumbered and would be beaten into submission. Fuck, the Church would probably give him his blessing as well. Plus he had a bunch of kids which naturally solved the succession problem. Unfortunately, this chance was lost.

Monarchy never failed. I have a book from 1890s detailing how there is a masonic conspiracy which wants to destroy Christian kingdoms. Exactly that happened a couple of years later.

I’m going to throw out my only opinion out: A constitutional Monarchy that doesn’t have the Monarch act as the executive is a farce that doesn’t have the balls to just become a republic

agree
democracy doesnt value virtue
monarchy would reintroduce the concept of aristocray - and it can be entirely new concept
What if caring for your own country, of its traditions and culture, what if service to those of your kind be the entry level to "aristocracy"
this is what we discuss here

We need international control in order to secure the existence of our people though. Otherwise the jewish parasite will simply move to another area, subvert their banking and financial system, and then use their resources and media to try to undermine us.

We as traditionalists must first have control worldwide and we need to destroy our enemies worldwide in order to ensure our society never returns to globo homo again.

Read a book called "nazi international" by Joseph Farrell. Ourguys are out there, and they are working behind the scenes. May God convert them to Christianity entirely so that they can replace the current power structure.

Rule 1) monarchies must always be ruled by a King. Women can never be allowed to rule.

Founding fathers had an empty content, because smallpox conveniently genocided natives for them.
We'll have to work with the clusterfuck at hand.

The issue is, our intelligence agencies and govts are literally our direct enemies now. They will try to kill you if you gain any traction, which is why we need to gain resources and power first which could challenge them directly, and in which them trying to kill us would mean suicide for them.

meritocratic monarchy - that even is a thing. The natural ruling family will rise and should it decay, it will be replaced by another family.

>christian revival
No thanks, maybe cultural but to have people believe that shit is for scrubs.

> Wałęsa king
> this chance was lost
Kys

then try to read OP point 1. with such idea in mind - "something people would follow"
I agree, but its too vauge, what would you propose even if it would not be the whole mechanism but just a part of it

this is what we do here
we make sargons of the future say "have you even read anons?!"

yeah i agree, it just seems more prone to corruption.

Still though, problems will come when the church and King come into conflict (as with Thomas Beckett and Henry II) as well as church law vs the King's law...

Attached: Edmund_Blair_Leighton_-_The_Hostage.jpg (2000x1500, 872K)

> monarchy would reintroduce the concept of aristocray - and it can be entirely new concept
Not really, no. There are no new things under the sun. Aristocracy started as a mechanism to reward merits.
Modern tech could create a really transparent democracy. Unfortunately this will never happen.

> implying globohomo will survive the collapse

> A Pole with a Nazi flag
Just gas yourself

some sort of 'service' seems like a pretty good idea, a commitment to which one can be held responsible whether religous, millitary, agricultural, judicial etc

People would follow and honor it only for the reason that it was established by an authority, just like the US Constitution. Most people in the US still honor and hold it highly despite not understanding the reasoning or philosophy behind it, even to this day.
All that needs happen is that it be created by wise philosophers and the people will honor it anyway. There will be more reasons for those who wish to question it further since it's rationally robust.
They will honor the meritocratic 'test' of the king also because of tradition and utility, just like people still honored monarchs only by the sheer fact that they were a monarch. There would even be more philosophical reasoning for smarter people.

Transition between communism to monarchy and transition between democracy to monarchy is entirely different (less obvious to sheeple hardship)
we work with what we have

not many people do that so I'll ask you personally
any thoughts on the 1.2. and 3. point presented in the opening post?

Attached: greatmonarchTCK.jpg (1071x1600, 220K)

Theoretical problem. Canossa normalized Church-state relations until Reformation. About 500 years of stability.
You get a distorted image from school because conflicts are discussed while peaceful periods are skipped over.

Why?

I agree with agnatic primogeniture, but if there are no male heirs what is wrong with a Queen?

i support Salic law as well, I think it threatens the dynasty thus country by allowing for outsiders to get claims through women. Anyway, women should be raising the next heirs, if they're ruling they're not doing their job, and you get kids like Charles

The point is that monarchy requires a clear leader. We had one in 1989, so we could have transitioned to monarchy. We don't have one now.
Monarchy cannot emerge unless there is a clear leader -- either by consent or conquest.

Childbirth, a leader out of commission for months is not very useful.

Women can't rule and it's unbiblical for women to be rulers.

As for how this could come about via democracy: if this were to happen in the US, I think it would need to be established by a President during a time of 'renaissance,' or of a popular opnion-wave against degeneracy and a return to traditionalism.
The President would overstep his bounds, but would do it with great public support for the sake of rooting out degeneracy. That's not to say that it would be easy, but it's feasible. The President and his cohorts would need to be wise and good, which would be possible in this surging of support against degeneracy.

this is an entirely new topic..
I myself favour the male rule, but would we want to demolish good dynasty for such reason?
Not sure..
also, user wanting to give rule to the women says it under the 666 post..
well fuck

lol clearly a sign

>1. Right to rule issue – In post monoreligious societies where being “God’s chosen” no longer command adequate authority what should be the new model? Willingness to follow must be grounded in something. Upholding heritage and spirit of the land kind of idea. Something saying foreigners need not apply.
Problem is, most people in the west are increasingly becoming non-religious. However, they do still see value in "strongman" tactics used by their democratically elected leaders.

Fascism went full force with this concept.

>2. Bad King scenario – System/method of removing bad king from power while at the same time not enabling such institution to hold unfair advantage over the royal line. There will always be corruption, but let’s focus on restricting it to sensible proportions.

Constitutional monarchy, with some adjustments.

You can have a monarch, and their heir apparent (who is aligned with the party in power) and an "heir alternative", a second child or some aristocrat who works with the opposition party who can gather support too jump the line to monarch.

>3. Choosing a king after democratic century – Matter of introducing a new line (or bringing back old one) after the end of democracy is different to establishing a new royal line after one is finished. Let’s focus on the one-time transition from democracy to monarchy.

A new breed of aristocrats need to be brought up. Not from the pre-WWI families or lines, but based on current political families in Europe or North/South America.

i would love to read about it in history books
"Nowadays women cannot rule the land because satan was discovered in one of the discussion about new gov type"
this fucking timeline man..

Just don't follow the English model
They had to genocide us to get rid of ours:
1. Succession based on ability, not first borns.
2. Lords, Barons etc. Were all Kings too.
3. Kings were promoted and demoted depending on their actions

the list goes on

High Kingship

Guys seriously - please do propose new problems to be discussed in later threads, cause this is a gigantic topic, i guess there would be at least 500 things to be dealt with.. and I have only 15 topics as of now
need your help here

c'mon, give me your best

Attached: 2fe715.jpg (788x1014, 96K)

1. Might is Right, Just shill for a just leader.
2. Fines, Ireland had a 3 strike system if they broke the rules, then the Son (if he was deemed worthy took over, or else a cousin/distant relative depending on the scenario)
3. War

I really don't think we adapt our current system to create a monarchy. It has to start anew.

chaos followed by a religious revival, inevitable leader, new families, new aristocracts all over again.

Pre modern ancient families may still be important but they are in such small quantities nowadays they don't really matter.

I think it must be completely distanced and distinct from the 20th/21st century order.

Attached: Leighton-God_Speed!.jpg (800x1102, 184K)

Monarchy, okay.
But how would a future monarchic state run the administration?
Should the offices be heritable, or open to anyone who qualifies like in ancient China?
Or give it to the clergy like in Medieval Europe?

How would you get a stable, dynastical aristocracy? There must be something that could bond them to this earthly world for a longer time. In the past owning land did the trick, but I don't think it could be applied to our times, even for such trivial reasons like the fact that our buildings grow up vertically and we tend to value space especially in cities.

Hard to say how to do it in the information era, but I think Trump and Putin provide good examples.

two things can happen and I plan for both of them
Either monarchy will be seen (if there is a new model somewhat known by at least some spheres) as a good gambit in the age of neverending degeneracy.. which is my prediction right now

or will some kind of strong leader arise from the turmoil of this homoglobo shit.. and then, just to not lose the stability with his death - some sort of system will be needed for him to implement (and all current monarchy based gov systems are 100/150 years overdue)

either way, we need a new model

>Salic law
Oh, wonderful. I have learned something new.
I bring a study of effects of nuclear war as my peace offering: warrenmyers.com/war/Nuclear_Warfare_103.pdf

I think moral offices should be controlled by clergy, such as the (non-political) censor (in that religious leaders could censor for moral concerns, separate from things censored for political reasons), care for the poor, etc.

Thanks, I'll check it out

this is exacly what needs to be discussed
I myself don't hold any strong opinion with the administration question

One thing is sure, it cannot hold power over the royal line.. thats the only thing I know right now

You can't just focus into n the monarch. You need everyone within the system to have their interests tied to the interests of those above and below them. An interdependence that also allows for and promotes the maximum individual excellence.

That's why England is not a real monarchy for 400 years.

good question
my initial response is exacly as stated before, some sort of cursus honorum-starship trooper hybrid

aristocracy would only be lifelong with the option to extend it, newer generations, children of accomplished aristocrats would be raised and prepared (just as the royal line in some sort) to fulfill necessary duties to the country, reward for which would be the extension of priviliges

what do you think?

this is what I aim for
As I stated in the OP, only few issues will be presented in each /mrg/ - so there is a chance for a serious debate about them

even 350 thread with 15/30 topics would amount to nothing
but
you are more than welcome to propose new topics, I have no doubt that all I can dream off will only fill like 20% of necessary problems to be resolved

also, this is exacly what the fagvault is for
so
bring it on, fagget

Option three.
> globohomo needs to exterminate white people
> someone opens his country to prosecuted white people
> white people build him new, awesome weapons
> exterminates globohomo
> becomes king by consent
> rules the world
> peace and prosperity

But, as they say, the devil is in the details.
Another question, what about money? (((Private central bank)))? Gold? Bitcoin?

Catholic Monarchical Fascism is the absolute truth. Similarly in Spain, but that faggot Juan Carlos cucked out. Franco should've just made himself a dynasty.

Attached: IMG_2767.jpg (640x426, 71K)

These are the same faulty and progressive ideas that led to the fall of monarchy in the first place (separation of church and state, checks and balances etc...). It isn't even worth reviving monarchy in a modern form because it would be just as corrupt as the system you mold it into. The best thing for us monarchists to do now is to wait for the current system to run itself thin and build from the (hopefully) inevitable collapse of the West.

If any jews or people with any ties to jews are allowed in the monarchy it will fail. Jews should not be allowed any representation at all in a non Jewish country or that country will be destroyed.

1. You need a dictatorship period which uses social engineering apparatus to make the population traditional Christian like how the first apostles were.

2. Army your citizens and train every man to fight and shoot. If a tyrant arises they can be killed.

3. You would need to first destroy all of the modern plutocracies so they have no international power at all. Thus you need to internationally coordinate in a transition period to remove all modern globo homo power structures.

without a good system that dynasty would be exterminated withing 20years max

this is what we discuss here user
a way to prolong good episodes
cause this season fucking sucks

That was the case in Franco's Spain, the Church had the censorship office.
Related observation from Polish politics, the Catholic Church tends to be loyal to the government if you give them what they want (namely money and abortion ban).