Monarchist General - Millions must embrace monarchy, billions even

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
the problem with monarchs, at least in the West, is that they are fags with no power, whose only value is giving some material to yellow press; on the other hand, if we put a turkish man in a cardboard box with a computer and a printer and a hole for poo poo and let him rule absolutely some insignificant shithole, let's say Sweden, by printing decrees and throwing them out of the box, I expect we would see great results in comparsion to their king's "rule"
 
If you can stand Aydin Paladin's voice, she and Spoon (a South-African living in Ireland) have a weekly podcast named Broken Crown where they "discuss current events, sometimes from a monarchist framework, but more often than not, a sh*tposting framework."
 
I actually kind of like the idea of a monarchy where the king has a bit of power, but not so much that any decree goes without some kind of sober review and that he can't be deposed if he is mentally unwell. Monarchies with actual royal power have been more successful than republics in similar situations.
Take resource-rich African republics vs. equally resource-rich Middle Eastern kingdoms. Both regions are populated with double-digit IQ religious fanatics, are diverse in either their ethnicities or religions (or interpretation of the same religion), are recently free from western imperialism, and have a million interests in and out of the country trying to pull it in multiple directions. The Middle Eastern monarchies have become so wealthy, locals have become a minority (and unlike in the west, they are not losing their rights or quality of life to the foreigners) and the worst they do is spend on gaudy vanity projects that they forget to add the proper plumbing for. The African Republics are now worse off than they were as colonies and are basically property of Shell Oil, which corrupts their leaders and destroys their environment while doing nothing for the people but provide poverty wages. and no way up
I suspect this is because the king sees himself as the father of his people and is concerned with posterity, while the president is only concerned with the next election and what he can extract while in power. Though we are better off (for now), this may also explain the west's decline. Republicanism may have worked well enough for the first 200-odd years after the Enlightenment, but eventually our purpose is forgotten, social cohesion breaks down, and people are only concerned with what they can take. A national father might give us direction and something to rally the whole country around.
 
Will check out. Thanks for the recommendation.
Even if the podcast isn't your cup of tea, they often rant about literature that formed their monarchist viewpoint when asked.
If I remember correctly, some of the most recommended reads were
  • Liberty or Equality: The Challenge of Our Time by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn (free to download at the Mises Institute)
  • Democracy: The God That Failed by Hans-Herrmann Hoppe
  • Pretty much everything from Curtis Yarvin aka Mencius Moldbug (his old blog and his new blog)
 
Monarchism is infinitely more based than democracy, but it is still a system of theft and exploitation
 
Monarchism is infinitely more based than democracy, but it is still a system of theft and exploitation
"Are peoples any more likely to win in the lottery of democracy than in the haphazardness of genetics? Crowds, assemblies, even select councils are no less likely to be in error than nature; and anyway, Providence has always been miserly with greatness." - Maurice Druon
 
ac2.png
 
"Are peoples any more likely to win in the lottery of democracy than in the haphazardness of genetics? Crowds, assemblies, even select councils are no less likely to be in error than nature; and anyway, Providence has always been miserly with greatness." - Maurice Druon
The fuck is "win" supposed to mean in this context?
Meaningless ice cream koan by this author

The issue is that monarchy suffers from the weakness of every archic system, namely the consequences of a monopoly of ultimate jurisdiction and thus also taxation
Every archic system creates a (genuine) class conflict between those who profit from the state and those who are exploited by the state
 
The fuck is "win" supposed to mean in this context?
Meaningless ice cream koan by this author

The issue is that monarchy suffers from the weakness of every archic system, namely the consequences of a monopoly of ultimate jurisdiction and thus also taxation
Every archic system creates a (genuine) class conflict between those who profit from the state and those who are exploited by the state
'Win' in this context refers to a competent/great ruler. You can have a democracy ran by a bunch of corrupt morons or a dictatoriship/monarchy with a great benevolent ruler only for everything to collapse after their death. This quote only refered to the fact that most people are not particularly competent by nature regardless of the system. I am not a monarchist nor is the author, I just like this quote personally.
 
'Win' in this context refers to a competent/great ruler. This quote only refered to the fact that most people are not particularly competent by nature regardless of the system. I am not a monarchist nor is the author, I just like this quote personally.
Ah
Well, like I alluded to earlier, every system based on nonconsensual/nonvoluntary rule is destined to end in degeneration, folly, and chaos
 
If I get to be the monarch then hell yeah. If not, then fuck no. All the benefits of monarchy can be largely obtained through pretty much any other form of dictatorship; with less of the downsides. But also, monarchy is simply not possible anymore, we have, as a people, lost faith with any idea of an absolute ruler imbued with divinity, which is what is needed for a proper monarch and not just a guy making everyone LARP at gunpoint.
 
Here's the problem with republicanism.

When it works well it works really well. But it's fragile. If you tamper with it it will die. It is sustained pretty much entirely by a people voluntarily abiding by an unspoken agreement to follow the rules and not try to cheat each other or throw a shitfit and purge each other anytime they lose. And every time someone undermines the rules, it gets so much easier for everyone else to do it, until the whole thing falls apart spectacularly, a snowball effect in the course of a lifetime.

This was what happened with Rome (Storm Before the Storm, Mike Duncan).

And when it dies, you can't just go get it back.

Problem is, sometimes you have people that cannot be lived with. They don't obey the rules, never will obey the rules. And if you have enough of these people, motivated around some common ideal, they can present an existential threat to your republic. But the problem is that we're also prone to hysteria (see Articles and News and Happenings) and people, normalfaggots included, always, always think their times are the worst times ever and society is falling apart.

So you can have situations where you have no option but to flip the switch and go free helicopter rides to save the most important institutions of society, sacrifice what you can't keep to save what you can. And the sooner you do it the more likely you are to win. But you can't know when that line in the sand is, and once you commit to it you can never undo it.

That's the problem of the West as it is today.
 
The problem with monarchy is that you're trusting some guy* with near unlimited power to legislate unilaterally and arbitrarily. If he's an asshole, he's free to remain that way unless you can unify and successfully coordinate a coup.
*This guy would typically be born of a caste where he'd be spending much of his earlier life learning how to manage a country so is likely to be quite competent.

A, perhaps underappreciated, problem with any suffrage based system is that accountability is redistributed away from the leadership and instead placed on the populace. When things go wrong, society directs its rage at itself rather than its oppressors. For all its checks and balances, it's inherently divisive.
 
Back
Top Bottom