Monarchy Revitalisation General /mrg/

Its most honourable and christian way for sure, but i dont think its the most effective

think of it that way:
currently any criticism of the degeneracy can be made only on the basis of oldschool liberalism
"equal under the law" and this kind of spiritless shit
my intent is to develop basis for the system where virtue would be valid point on its own (see overhaul of aristocracy concept where they would be the only caste that is actively given/taken away point by their actions, they virtue)
something similar to the old roman cursus honorum

the point is
Masses have already been indoctrinated - they do value the honor, sacrifice and so on, the television did that for us over the years
they just need a system that they could fall back when confronted about it
and thats what this thread need to be
look up the issues above, give me some thought on it

diagnosis is only a half way to getting back to health, help us our fellow magyar, give me some of your hungthought

I favor the governing system of monarchy but see it as unlikely to be implemented for 3 reasons:

1. Our societies are advancing rapidly towards degeneration, owing largely to the proliferation of non-whites. As such, the reinstitution of complex social orders is unlikely. The reinstitution of any tradition is unlikely.

1b. We have a preference for freedom and gluttony above lasting, stable Happiness. We prefer the gamble of voting to the assured stability of a top-down government. We enjoy being lead by evil people who pretend to be good because we are lazy.

2. Post-industrial countries reject pomp and circumstance, a large part of the glory of monarchies. At best, we'd opt to put in place "presidents for life," the modern term for monarchs.

3. Jews have effectively portrayed top-down rule as evil and unnatural. Instead of accepting the hierarchies that occur naturally, we are compelled to reject them in favor of some pozzed notion of "individualism." This is seen as more peaceful.

3b. In order to accept kings, there need to be kingdoms, i.e. nation states. Nation states are public enemy #1 for (((them))) and as such nation states on steroids (monarchies) are twice as evil and dangerous to the overall jew-plan for world domination.

Attached: Lord Chamberlain Whipped by Germania.jpg (680x450, 76K)

"All current monarchy-based gov systems are outdated."

Tradition is a poison word for the masses. "First night" shit with raping the newly married and other absurd old customs. The term we must fight with is virtue. This is timeless and actually making people do selfless things.
So far for point one

As for point two, I agree, but I never thought of it as 30% of gdp moneyleak
Stayin on the cash ammount our politicians spend at the time would be more than enough for far fewer people
It also fits with the idea of strenghtening the concept of virtue, there would be some splendor though

for points 3 and 4, there are 250millions of new "citizens" coming to europe...
things are going to get complicated no matter the worst/best scenario
What we need, is to discuss parts of the newsystem so when the time is right, and its coming, there would be something that survivors could rely on
As stated above, there is (a very) small chance that new leader beside the who to stand against will have also in his head the "how to govern"

also, if there is any chance of accomplishing any long-term scenario - be it global warming, financial puppet masters or EVER going further than this almost depleted old rock, we need something that can think in over 4y terms, or commie 5y plans
we need some new ideas

>"First night" shit with raping the newly married and other absurd old customs
That's an urban legend. You should really do more research. Tradition can promote virtue just as virtue promotes wellbeing. Simplifying everything to just what promotes good feelings and what promotes bad feelings leaves out the stimuli itself, which is in this case tradition. Tradition is good stimuli.

I don't know what 30% gdp moneyleak refers to. There's probably a language barrier here. I apologize if my previous post was too verbose.

New "citizens," yes. I mentioned that.

This leader you speak of, the God Emperor, maybe he won't exist. We'll spend so much time discussing parts of our "newsystem" that we never get a chance to let him come to power. Power will be far harder to seize under non-white rule. If you think you're safe because Poland is all white, you don't consider the rest of the world. Poland doesn't have enough Lebensraum to support 1 billion Europeans.

a monarchy would unironically be better than democracy where morons make the choices

Attached: YASS-QUEEN.jpg (720x540, 55K)

>being (((God's Chosen))) no longer commands authority
>implying

The worst democracy has ever been is still better than monarchy when a bad monarch takes power.

A pleb supporting monarchy is the most absolute cuck state. It is a cuck aspiring to be more of a cuck.

But that is what the TV consumers think tradition is
keeping womyn in kitchen and absurd lifestyles/priviliges of the upper clases
and unfortunately they need to convinced, not we - thats why I prefer the virtue word to rely on

as for really overused "polan feel safe cause nothing explodes now"
we never did, we rolled our dice and landed between russians and germans, there is no "nothing bad will ever happen here" mentality here I assure you

as for "don't waste your time on details, we need to put emperor in his throne" I disagree, different people have different talents, best way to utilise them would be to work on both fronts

That point is valid, and often used. What is never spoke of is that democray itself is the bad monarch 100% of the time

That's just cukking out. We can't let our enemies define our language. Soon they'll ruin the word virtue too by associating it with some Hitler shit–what will you do then?

I agree that we need to work on all fronts to succeed. We need some guys to talk, some guys to act. Thing is, we have too many talkers right now. I act by spreading red pills as far as I can to friends and family. I turned my parents into wignats lol

There is no democracy in the west, its a zionist oligarchy.

What's the difference?

It will be interesting too see how chinas reward system works out.
Root of problems is low iq so practice eugenics and gene editing

Can a monarchist explain how hereditary succession is better than, say, the leader choosing the next one based on qualifications? I understand that the prince heir is prepared for the role of monarch his entire life but couldn't this be done with literally anyone?

Attached: MV5BMzV1_.jpg (1244x700, 69K)

>A pleb supporting monarchy is the most absolute cuck state. It is a cuck aspiring to be more of a cuck.
Why? Cause you loose your "freedom"?
Cucking would be the state where a man accepts that his woman fucks other man and says nothing
What would be called a state, where "free" brits accept that other man gangfucks their little daughters and says nothing?
Freecking?
You are not free bong, its a fucking illusion.

In a democracy you can actually get rid of jews.
It limits power preventing well "democracy" from happening. Its up to royals to have elite genetics anyway.

But democracy is jews, user.

They keep insisting democracy is why whites advanced so fast but whites were advancing under monarchy, and the fucking steam engine was invented under monarchy as well.

The problem with monarchy is you have no idea if the monarch's successor will be as good as him. In most cases, he isn't. You either get a lackluster heir that just keeps it running or someone that crumbles the whole thing.

>The problem with monarchy is you have no idea if the monarch's successor will be as good as him. In most cases, he isn't
Genes > Campaign promises.

No it isnt, democracy was invented by us and in its original form wouldnt cause the cancer we have today. The original democracy limited voting to citizens, and the greeks limited citizenship to a few meaning no equality nonsense. Notice the jew tribe keeps trying to delimit democracy by allowing white idiotic males to vote, then white women, now shitskins, and it looks like they want goyim teenagers to vote next.

In my work >80% of the people are redpilled on most of the shit
we laugh and cry daily about the state of the world, and they know more and more every day.
But they will never do anything. There are "system people", most people are.. they need some structure they could find themselves in. Other than that, at the end of the day they are useless.
This is why I am here

Trump honestly wanted to give us a wall, but he as shown that our system doesnt actually obey the wishes of the people unless they wishes follow ZOG's protocol.

Reality > genes.
Genetics didn't help most monarchies birthing retards that brought about their downfall.

The most evil monarchs were genetically fine but simple psychopaths user. Inbreeding causes those sorts of royals we now know better due to genetic screening so future monarchs can just abort their defective spawn.

china system is ultimately party based, no value there, only self preservation and lower instincts
I would like to see a country try a similar system in which playing the system would make you proud at the end of the day
...
I really fucking would like that

It's not that easy, its hardly only about genes. Some were born without issues, but they still fucked up. Nicholas II came out fine genetically, as did Wilhelm II. Doesn't mean they weren't total fucking retards that led their countries to ruin.

Ideally you don't have to hold a vote on anything because all the laws are settled. Playing ping-pong with philosophical implementations is idiotic.

The majority of monarchies didn't have inbreds like Charles II. You're a liar.

What would you rather? One psychopath you can overthrow(monarchy) or a clique of psychopaths you cant touch(republic)?

Get your last sentence (which is a valid point) and add to it monarchs inner dialogue
In this dialogue he actually tries to do the best thing, because his own blood depend on the result of that.
There were models in which king is elected - see Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth Elective Monarchy for example
It had few nice touches (Sobieski came from excacly that) but over all it could not reform shit, as long term plans would failed due to interrex shenenigans. Powers would just wait for the noncomplying king to die, and the game would start anew
but for prince to see his father struggles, his enemies and his goals, thats something a little different

How about National Democracy but only few get to vote?

almost everything was, people like to claim that under monarchy progress was haulted, but progress (new weapons, more effective economy solutions and so on) are monarchs wet dreams
why the fuck wouldnt you like to have better shit than your neighbour

Monarchy is retarded
OP is retarded
Sage and KYSyourselfpilled

Theomonarchy.
It's the way of the future.

Attached: image.jpg (3440x1429, 2.21M)

monarch or heir in your example has the advantage of his father legacy - this being hand picked advisors by the late-king, stable country (if we are talking about good king->bad king scenario), upbringing of solely being prepared for the role and also time to learn on his own mistakes... there is no 4y limit. Not every great monarch started as a genius.
Also, see previous thread in which "Bad king scenario" was one of the topics
Beside the points above, we are here to think on upgrading this system, to bringing it to the modern era, criticisms are valued, but I also ask you, if monarchy was inevitability - what would you propose to improve on this point? How do we help our young prince?

*these are

but user, this is exacly where we started
that would work for 1 generation
it would mostly work for 2 generation
and by 3rd, people would be fucked in the head from the comfort provided by the first two, and then wanted horses to vote, or some other shit
We have been there, it starts great, it ends.. here

It should be a constitutional monarchy. People don't like rulers who are unmoral.

That's what propaganda is for. If people will see that a government does good without democracy, they will accept it.

((mass democracy)) i mean

lets say we'll go for it, I guess you are thinking about some sort of starship trooper citizen/civilian democracy hybrid
It is my perception that democracy won't evolve, It will just swell in beaurocracy, ammendments and selfpraise
How would you propose to implement such a solution - I don't think this is possible, but i'm open to be proven wrong

bumping based thread

Monarchy cuts off entry to national power for certain ((((interest groups))) therby preventing subversive usurpation . It also binds the Monarch to his land- inflicing a sense of ownership over it- making mass invasions of parasites declaration of war

DEMON-CRAP-SHIT-SY is the biggest scam ever conceived and polspastics still believe in it
dictatorship is tyranny and bad too
Monarchy is the real redpill

>yfw monarchy will never come back

Attached: justkym.gif (290x212, 1.43M)

Protestantism is one of the cause for the fall of monarchies (America) and it is a perversion of the Gospel.

Documentary: Protestantism's Big Justification Lie
youtube.com/watch?v=L14UNjaZJm8

those people didn't know about genetics, the outcomes, nothing like that
we are talking here about new "breed" of monarchs, actually fit for the Information Era
We don't have to worry about that

What about the Sobieskis? Any heirs left?

My country literally is about to create a monarchist party just to oppsose AMLO lmao

Attached: PIO.png (960x960, 56K)

>monarchy will never come back
sure it will
the only question is - will they have to figure minor details from the start, or will "some" autists do some of that work for them a bit earlier

but yea, right now and for some time to come we'll have to deal with the "monarchy haha kys" attitude
I already made my peace with this, and I'm going to beat the living shit out of people with this topic
get comfy, this will take some time

New names will need to be forged, most of "established" ones never thought that this might come back in their lifetimes and they are not prepared.. not worth it

This. People kvetch endlessly about Monarchism, usually along the lines of "but they will exercise draconian rule over their subjects!" The fact of the matter is that we are ALREADY experiencing draconian rule under these oligarchs. I would much rather take my chances with someone who is of my own blood and soul -- and has the authority to brutally crush our enemies -- so that things can get done quickly and effectively.

Attached: ardrossancastle2_lge.jpg (1400x960, 503K)

Monarchy is a folly

I never understood why we should worship executive head of state at all

Even to polish nobility it was unclear

You can't have a legit monarchy without broad religiosity. Without religion what you're doing is pointless political constructivism. All political systems are upheld by culture. Monarchy per se won't do shit

It's very telling that you want to change political system but you don't want people to change themselves. Perhaps because you're a degenerate yourself

this point is often thrown at me
"why should we worship some guy"
you shouldnt
the same way you don't worship some party, or democracy overall
what we discuss here is the system that can stand the test of time
something that won't allow cultural overtake
its as simple as that
it doesnt exist as it is - All current monarchy-based gov systems are outdated.
I want to make philosophers out of you, to discuss possible changes that new type of monarchy would need to implement to fit in the Information Era
See the topics, give me some thoughts

This is a good point. I think for most of Europe (and the US, CAN, AUS, etc), a Christian Monarch would be best. The trouble is that most people today are Christian "in name only" and are not really religious by any measure. But nevertheless, most were raised Christian and have some sympathy for Christian ideals.

What is extremely frustrating, however, is the incessant whining from the Jewish media about Christianity.

based polan

but also, monarchy is catholic. Protestants invented constitutions so that it would be like sola-scriptura.
From there democracy stems from the concept of private judgement of the bible.

Because an hereditary ruler is responsible for his (and his entire dynasty's) actions. His life and his kingdom are the same thing. He has no interest in betraying his people because betraying them would mean betraying himself and his entire dynasty.
A king can't just ruin his country and peace out like nothing ever happened.

In an hereditary monarchy, serving your own interests and serving your people are one and the same.

As I already stated before, making the change /activism-wise in the real life, and thinking about systems that would be ready WHEN the activism (or some country/region wide disaster strikes) makes the ground ready are not against each other, they are actually both necessary for the best case scenario
I'm not saying that system will change shit without any outside change in peoples minds, I'm saying lets prepare it for the time when they are ready, and eager for something to rely their new worldview on
And this change will come not only withing our lifetime, but pretty fucking soon. There are 250millions of new european "citizens" coming our way

based pessimist
but may I suggest a thought
democracy will always look like it does now, It did, It does and It will
but beside bad king scenario there are also bright spots.. and man.. these, these are beautiful

Hi, Jow Forumsand. I myself have monarchist leanings. I understand there isn't a codified manifesto explaining monarchist governance but that most monarchies were natural developments out of chaotic environments.
Now, as for my proposals.
1) base the right to rule on blood and power. Religion is not strong enough anymore, if it ever was. There should probably be a state religion, but basing the right to rule on "god's chosen" vs battle proven individuals is weak imo.
The other option is a philosopher-king type deal where the most educated in governance, philosophy, and so forth is selected to rule. The problem with this is that most of these people don't want to rule. It would be hard securing a framework wherein they could successfully do their job.
2) decentralized power. The monarch should be in direct control of war making, diplomacy, and quelling dissent in the country, and maybe regulating currency. Beyond these, I think local assemblies of landed citizens should govern or at least oversee regional enforcement of taxation and such.
3) banish or kill all non-whites.
4) liturgy system. The wealthiest citizens should be called on random to fund a nationwide public works or cultural project.
5) conscription. All men after completing their standard education should serve a year or so in the national army
6) a channel for challengers to the throne to legally pursue their claim. Basically, a formalized arena wherein both the sitting crown and the challenger(s) can face off and see who is stronger. Ideally, if a challenger went against this Avenue, the populace wouldn't accept their rule. Regardless, hopefully it would decrease the chance of civil war every time someone wants to be king and has some mercenaries
There are obviously other things, but I'm trying to approach this from a post-collapse USA standpoint. The ideas of democracy and the old Republic will likely still be found in the populace I'm working with.

Monarchy would be pretty dangerous, if it was not in a feudal system. In a feudal system, the vassals and ruling nobles had a say in the deicisions made by the monarch. This would help if the monarch ended up being a retard but most of the nobles would be based. I believe in the Islamic system, the monarch can never be questioned under Islamic law, and whoever does must be put to death or banished. They practiced a really powerful and centralised ruling system, part of why the ottoman empire was so successful.

welcome to fagvault

reading atm

I suppose. Maybe in what I suggested, instead of the elected assemblies governing their region, they could perform the role of a fuedal lord and perform counsel with the king. I don't have the answer, but I feel like a transition between democracy and monarchy would be necessary.

from a practical point of view, the most important feature within monarchy I would say, is that it is dynastic. We don't want to be owned by mercenaries, but by people who have a stake. Above all else, the incentive to care about the moral and spiritual character of your nation is the most important. Not having elections saves a lot of money too, and monarch's have a higher skill ceiling; for example, the average person doesn't know shit about what's good for the military, so not having to cater so much to their silly notions is useful.

However political systems are just expressions of religious systems and worldviews, so it simply doesn't matter what is effective, but rather what is believed. Monarchy is far too uncompromising to work in our spiritually divided nations, so unless you maybe wanted to advance some sort of strange 8.ch esque rulership where each state/county was it's own little monarchy with it's own laws and state religions/ideologies (which i wouldn't entirely mind desu) then I just don't think it can work. You just can't have an uncompromising system when you're filled with this much religious diversity.

By thinking about monarchy you're only wasting time. Thinking about monarchy now is like thinking about holidays when your house is on fire

The first step to change things is to cut degeneracy through obscenity censorship, limiting abortions and contraception

If you're not willing to live moral lives, then you have already made the first mistake, and as Aristotle teaches us, small mistake in the beginning is a big mistake at the end

1) It was user. And it might be again. But I agree, at least for the next 2 generations religion won't come back as a major power
what do you think about my proposition from 'issues for today'
> Instead of "God's chosen" - Upholding heritage and spirit of the land kind of idea.
Its virtues, traditions and faith in the future
What we need (as I understand "right to rule") is something stable, something people would follow on their own
Strenght proposal is tricky, we are on the edge of transhumanism, so we risk going into genetically modified steroid abuse dynasties that way

>banish or kill all non-whites.
stopped reading. This will never work in reality.

First step, which happens after the fall of democracy but before the rise of the new systems, is genociding all non-whites. If you don't agree, we have nothing to discuss.
If you do, the dynastic is important, but we need to figure out what's it's based on. In a post-democratic society, we'd need something more than religion. My proposal is wannabe monarchs test their might either one-on-one or with their families on a level battleground and with a large citizen audience. Who ever is left standing acquires the throne

also as for philosopher king, that would be made into ideal - as chilvarious king was in the past
every single heir would be brought up on this as the highest possible honor for his position (for him to want it)
cannot guarantee anything, but we may try to guide them

This. Otherwise whites will be destroyed by the endless pandering to the nonwhites that want in their realms, will fight for dominance, etc. I think that they can basically just be expelled, for the most part, or we can grant them some small portion of territory. But most will not leave willingly.

Daily reminder to thank the Jews and international capitalists for placing them here in the first place, aside from the blacks. I'd be fine giving the blacks SC and Florida, or something.

Attached: 1528252754019.jpg (665x1024, 185K)

4) What do you think about 'issues for today' p2
> Aristocracy - some kind of cursus honorum + starship troop (citizen/civilian) hybrid system, that would penalise acting against one’s country, and grant honours for service in its interest
Higher upper clases will exist in any type of goverment, but we could play with it - make them work for it, and in opposition to the monarch and the royal line, make every generation of them work for it
Aristocracy that needs to be uphold by later generations aswell.
"Your father proved himself worthy of this title, now show us what you've got" - kind of an idea

for that we would need a new type of aristocracy aswell
please take a look at
and tell me what you think

5) Agree
But in addition to that - have you read/watched starship troopers perhaps? if so, what do you think of the "conscription for cripples" that it suggested

Well, we'll have to do something. Whites are a minority worldwide. I have no problem trying to cleanse white majority lands of non-white filth.
I'll admit fully I am not a religious person. Spiritual for sure, but I don't follow the church or anything like that. I understand it is a powerful tool and am not opposed to it.
As for your transhumanism concern, I don't think that will happen in our scenario. I'm assuming monarchy can only come after the complete collapse of the West, in which case technology will halt and progress towards transhumanism will halt or reverse (hopefully).
And if we went with philosopher kings instead of might, I think the candidates should come from all castes. Test every individual in the country, and offer all who show promise the path to leadership. Of course, most will fail, but after military service, years or decades of education, and so on, the best will shine

3) Banish, and not banish because ur a nigger, but banish as a transition between "fallen system" and ne-monarchy (still needs a name)
What we want is not a singular case of success (US for example) but a start for a trend, and given morality of the sheeple, there will never be a good enough reason not to riot in face of the 'ultimate evil' (or what they were raised to belive as such)

as for 6) my response for 1) apply
I don't have a good solution here, more discussion is needed, but solely-power based elimination process will lead us into steroidabuse transhumanist nightmare
In my opinion at least

generally thank you user, not many actually take the time to bring up their proposals, most tend to stick to easily defendable critique of long dead XVII systems, not getting what this thread is about

Attached: 1547277410065.jpg (1920x2900, 1.22M)

I have no problem with this. Earned aristocracy is important. Merit above all else. My liturgy idea was just a rambling. This could be how aristocrats contribute to the country instead of straight taxation but isn't really important to me either way
I watched it, but I don't remember the cripple thing. I will say everyone should have a use. If they're a burden, I think maybe letting them die would be better than keeping them around. If a cripple can work, such as an autist, they should be put to use

I'm sure others have replied to this, but I'll bite. The advantage is chiefly in that the next monarch is raised from birth to rule, and sees the nation as his own family heritage and property. He cannot be bought or sold, his most precious possession is his country, and he wishes to see it prosper. A appointed successor monarchy such as in Rome may produce more brilliant rulers, but the theory is that a hereditary monarchy best guards against traitors as a head of state.

I agree with 1rst paragraph
as for the second.. would you say that perhaps some critical situation might change a situation a little on a chessboard? Like for example.. few fallen countries?
Currently as things stand I agree (theoretically) with your 2nd paragraph
But things are going to change rather soon
so lets prepare for that

I full heartedly believe killing all non-whites will be better than banishing them. I understand you're Poland and don't have the problem we have. Perhaps in your situation, sending them to Africa or wherever might work, but in the USA, I'd rather see them gone entirely. My long term goal (and I do mean LONG) is for all non-whites to be extinct. It's truly the only way to secure a future for the white race.

...

there is nothing greater than religion. Religion is world view, divine reality. What is more real than reality? The problem is spiritual confusion over what is divine reality. The various political systems were expressions of worldview-beliefs. My favorite example of this is the caste system in hindu countries.

>genociding all non-whites
this presupposes that there will be a serious shift in sentiment that makes all the institutions, the church, the people, everything change what they currently believe is true and head towards your hardline racial nationalism. I just don't think thats going to happen, as people don't care about race; they care about spirit and character. You would need to shift that. Just so many shifts that I don't see happening.

I don't make a religion out of my race, as that is folly. People should be among communities like themselves in race, simply because it is the natural expression of our human nature, not because it is anything special. To elevate any aspect of the human community above it's place and value - no matter how essential or noble that aspect is - is idolatry and a false religion.

You're welcome. I will try to stick around these threads and offer my thoughts. I am by no means a monarchist expert, but I don't want democracy or republicanism any longer. National socialism just seems like a half asked attempt at monarchist so I have just jumped to that. I recommend reading Plato's Republic if you havent., although I assume most people have. It obviously doesn't speak about monarchism as it developed in medieval Europe, but there is a lot to learn from it I think

The british monarchy was shit tho

the cripple thing was a way for unfit for military service kidn of people to gained citizenship, they would offer their services in different disciplines, wherever country could make an use of them.
So even the cripples could contribute

Well, as I said earlier, I'm not religious but spiritual. I believe the best "good" characters come from my race. Mixing does nothing good. Life is a natural challenge. There's not much to discuss here as we fundamentally disagree.

Half *assed

Not yet, although it is on the list
I noticed some time ago that my "modern education" lacked of almost all of the clasics, and started to re-do that on my own some time ago.
From my side I suggest Leviathan (Hobbes) - it doesnt really fit the current age, but its nice to know your basics

I must agree with Trinidad fellow here
what we have right now, this whole lack of morals, fall of the western spirit is a direct result of defeated idealogy - that idealogy being religion
You really need something wholesome to structure the little ones
Those who care less about big things than we do