Monarchism

[mindlessobserver]

Man is an earthly creature with base desires and infinite potential. But this potential can only manifest in the individual. And individuals are not the same. They can never be the same. How then, can those with the spark of the divine be governed? How can the law be faithfully administered? How can peace be maintained? How can we raise our children in safety? These are the questions that form the core of the social contract between "The People" who are individuals, and "The Government" who are also Individuals. What is the difference between the Individuals who make up "The People" and the Individuals who make up "The Government?"

Liberalism has answered the question definitively. There is no difference. The Government IS the People. There is no difference. There is only an eternal union. A Divine Marriage between those who Govern, and those who are Governed. The Liberal State, in which all are within, and none are without. Its a comforting lie. Based on the greatest axiomatic lie ever uttered by man. "All Men are Created Equal".

I will now post an Anime Villain speech that encapsulates the monarchist position on Liberal Equality to scary music, that very unfairly smears the traditional position with liberal fascist notions of evolution and progress. A common trope, to conflate Monarchy with Fascism as if the two are in any way related.

All true of course. Some men are born stupid. Some men are born poor. Some men are born crippled Some men are born with guardians who lead them to moral impropriety. All these things are true. Which corrupts the core of the Liberal States utopian vision to create universal suffrage and further the union between the Governed and their Governors. And while this process may have been started with the best of intentions, it will not succeed. Has not succeeded, because at the end of the day Human Society is hierarchal and there will always be a ruling class.

I will now post a lecture by Aldous Huxley, animated by After Skool about this very thing. How a ruling class will always exist and why the prayer "Lead us Not into Temptation" is so profound.

A common misconception about rule by Monarchy is that it is inherently tyrannical. This is not true. A King is only a Tyrant if he rules unwisely, arbitrarily and for his own personal self enrichment rather then that of the State. But this does not just apply to a King. It also applies to a Congress, a President and a Judiciary. Just because such positions are elected or somehow derive their authority from popular consent does not remove the fact that they are inherently tyrannical if they meet those three categories. Which is what Aristotle recognized in his condemnations of Democracies who devolved into Oligarchic control. Tyrannies. Legally mandated no less.

I have come to the conclusion that Democracy cannot work at scale. Nor can it work with universal suffrage. ESPECIALLY at scale. Modern science has given the ruling oligarchy unbelievable power over the levers of the State and its people. The Tyranny of the Liberal State is now so total they can effect the outcome of elections based on their metrics in their favor. And if the outside context event occurs they can simply use the law (that they wrote) to reassert control and assuage their moral guilt by saying that nobody is above the law. As we approach the singularity of human and machine interfacing, AI's and all the worst aspects of a cyberpunk dystopia, the need for change is real. Everyone feels something has to change. But elections won't change this. The only thing that can change is a return of the King.

I have concluded that there is no voting or arguing our way out of the current degradation of western society into Tyranny. The only way out is for a Man of exceptional talent and ability to seize power and the crown of the State. Which is how all Monarchies are ultimately established. Such a revolution should not be informed upon liberal ideas of equality and law. It should be informed on the fundamental truth that the Law is imposed by force, and equality is a lie. But the Rights of the people are the sovereign charge of their ruler, who is a man of flesh, blood and bone. Rather then an idea or a piece of paper. And as a man of Flesh, Blood and Bone, he is answerable to his fellow men, nature, and God.

 

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

Monarchism is a patently retarded system at its core because it says one guy's bloodline is superior to everyone else's which is laughably wrong on every standpoint imaginable. Like the "divine emperors" in Japan are just a bunch of stunted inbreds with pitiful-looking faces because they have been extensively inbred with the same extended family for over a thousand years. No matter how great your first ruler is, it doesn't matter so much decades after he and everyone who knew him is dead.

Liberalism has answered the question definitively. There is no difference. The Government IS the People. There is no difference. There is only an eternal union.

Because it's true. Government exists because it's necessary, not because it's an inevitable state of being. Therefore a given group of people--a nation--should have a government of their own which should be governed by the most able of them for the common weal of the people.

Really, the system the West has now with a deep state and sham elections is a good one. The problem is the people who control the deep state are degenerate monsters out to enslave humanity and turn themselves into gods. If it were replaced with people whose goal was something more beneficial like the eternal stability of society, then it would be a paradise.

 

[Insuficiencia renal]

Code geass is lame and gay

 

[mindlessobserver]

Monarchism is a patently retarded system at its core because it says one guy's bloodline is superior to everyone else's which is laughably wrong on every standpoint imaginable. Like the "divine emperors" in Japan are just a bunch of stunted inbreds with pitiful-looking faces because they have been extensively inbred with the same extended family for over a thousand years. No matter how great your first ruler is, it doesn't matter so much decades after he and everyone who knew him is dead.

You assume that the next King has to be a generational heir. This is another issue that Liberalism throws at Monarchism. But most Monarchic governments didn't rely on Primogenitor until the renaissance period. Succession is the critical flaw of ANY government. But what does Democracy offer? For every Theodore Roosevelt there is a Howard Taft.

My position is not that Monarchy is a perfect system. Its not. Its a human system that is made by humans. So Imperfect. My position is that only the restoration of Monarchy can reverse the corruption of western society brought on by the Liberal revolution and the merchant class that rules it.

Code geass is lame and gay

Which is why I used it. It made a convenient foil to fence against.

 

[Tomlinson]

Its a human system that is made by humans.

https://youtu.be/6NTkXIidCU0?feature=shared

 

[Anasûrimbor Kellhus]

Based and truthpilled. At best you can have republics tbat still make sure retarded peasants don’t get to start voting to chop their dicks off and shit but even then you’re gonna want a closed council and an open council of the nations betters running things

 

[mindlessobserver]

Based and truthpilled. At best you can have republics tbat still make sure retarded peasants don’t get to start voting to chop their dicks off and shit but even then you’re gonna want a closed council and an open council of the nations betters running things

But the key is in making that ruling council answerable to something beyond themselves.

I hate giving the Bongs credit, but they actually created a legal system for this. Their King has to humble himself before God. Unfortunately they have also neutered their monarchy and keep them as pet pidgeons which their King happily enjoys, but the point stands. There is a REASON for this ceremony. Its done to invest the King with the legal authority of God himself, but also to remind him his power is not his alone. It is given to him.

It speaks to a larger point. A Tyranny whatever its form exists outside morality. It is answerable to nothing but itself. Monarchies are not inherently tyrannical. Despite the massive shrieks of Liberal Revolutionaries to the contrary. And the countless millions of dead would like to ask those Liberal Revolutions if it was worth it. And how close they are to achieving the equality of man. The Kings of Old may have had their foibles, but what has replaced them? Is it better?

 

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

You assume that the next King has to be a generational heir. This is another issue that Liberalism throws at Monarchism. But most Monarchic governments didn't rely on Primogenitor until the renaissance period. Succession is the critical flaw of ANY government. But what does Democracy offer? For every Theodore Roosevelt there is a Howard Taft.

The monarchies which didn't rely on primogeniture were even worse. Poland nearly ceased to exist in the Middle Ages because of its retarded seniority system. And electoral monarchy in every instance brought nothing but extreme corruption at best to literal dissolution of the state (Germany, Denmark, Poland) at worse. The other weird systems found in other parts of the world were similarly shit like Mongol ultimogeniture which was behind most every Mongol civil war which occurred almost without fail once a generation. East Asian monarchy where the king picked between eldest sons of favorite wives/concubines very often resulted in mass purges and political persecutions or coups when the king wasn't powerful enough to choose.

Monarchy has been tried over and over again and failed because vesting ultimate power in a single bloodline is ridiculous from every point of view. I don't so much defend democracy (which sucks for the reasons you stated) as much as I condemn monarchy for being utterly ridiculous.

My position is not that Monarchy is a perfect system. Its not. Its a human system that is made by humans. So Imperfect. My position is that only the restoration of Monarchy can reverse the corruption of western society brought on by the Liberal revolution and the merchant class that rules it.

Why not just advocate for communism? If your hate the merchant class so much (which is understandable since capitalism brings degeneracy as proven by Western Europe vs Eastern Europe), why not make a system inherently hostile to them instead of hoping your divine bloodline fixes everything and keeps it fixed? What's stopping the merchant class from finding new ways to influence people into degeneracy for the sake of selling more shit, just under royal charter? What's stopping them from filling your bureaucracy as they do now?

 

[Sargon's wife's son]

This still the best monarchist meme no one can ever refute this flawed less logic.
Up with the crown down with the democratic satanist we will with the world of the demonic incursion known as democracy democracy is war by the mom and the mob is ruled by Satan

 

[mindlessobserver]

Monarchy has been tried over and over again and failed because vesting ultimate power in a single bloodline is ridiculous from every point of view. I don't so much defend democracy (which sucks for the reasons you stated) as much as I condemn monarchy for being utterly ridiculous.

As opposed to what alternative? the current year where the most retarded elect the politicians who indulge the retarded and promise to give them the most gibs? You also coyly say that one bloodline gets to rule, which is not true. Dynasties got overthrown all the time if they became weak and decadent. This is not a point against Monarchism. Because Democracies suffer the same fate. Many a republic got overthrown because its rulers became decadent retards.

You are not condemning a specific government system here. You are condemning human nature in general.

I agree that Monarchism can lead to what you say. That is not my concern. My concern is the NOW. Where the oligarchic liberal democracies are crashing us head first into a cyberpunk dystopia. And after years of pondering, I have concluded only the Return of the King can avert the disaster our society is heading for. What happens 300 years from now is no concern. That is a concern for the people 300 years from now.

What I am concerned with is what is happening NOW, and IMO the only way to arrest the degradation of our society brought on by the Liberal Revolution is a counter revolution to restore the Kings and hold Liberalism to account for the horrendous lies it has foisted on humanity.

 

[Penis Drager 2.0]

I'm not reading all these gay rants and instead I'll just post my gay rant as if someone's gonna read it:

Monarchy good because the leaders are trained in statecraft from a young age and accountability is clear.
Monarchy bad because one bad leader can fuck a country for an entire generation and clear class divide alienates him from the people.

Democracy good because people can select their leaders and so will more closely align with their present interests.
Democracy bad because people leaders are inexperienced and lack of clear class divide leads to divisiveness among the people.

 

[mindlessobserver]

Why not just advocate for communism? If your hate the merchant class so much (which is understandable since capitalism brings degeneracy as proven by Western Europe vs Eastern Europe), why not make a system inherently hostile to them instead of hoping your divine bloodline fixes everything and keeps it fixed? What's stopping the merchant class from finding new ways to influence people into degeneracy for the sake of selling more shit, just under royal charter? What's stopping them from filling your bureaucracy as they do now?

The merchant class has its place. The biggest issue facing human society is that it has forgotten its place. They are servants. Not rulers. They have a right to their labor, their property and their money.

None of these things however translate into a right to rule.

 

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

View attachment 6541684
This still the best monarchist meme no one can ever refute this flawed less logic.
Up with the crown down with the democratic satanist we will with the world of the demonic incursion known as democracy democracy is war by the mom and the mob is ruled by Satan

Okay, so why'd the US and USSR win WW2 against Japan when they had a supposedly divine emperor and the majority of their generals and admirals and officers were descended from samurai families who had that possession for 1,000 years while most US and Soviet generals and admirals and officers were quite the opposite? You can't even say "oh the US had more industry" since most Japanese generals and admirals of WW2 were absolutely stupid in terms of logistics and planning for the war, like their Navy hated the idea of anti-submarine warfare so much that the goddamn Army had to step in and build warships for it to escort their troop transports.

Point is with a monarchy, your captain is just as likely to be a drooling retard as he is a decent captain.

As opposed to what alternative? the current year where the most retarded elect the politicians who indulge the retarded and promise to give them the most gibs? You also coyly say that one bloodline gets to rule, which is not true. Dynasties got overthrown all the time if they became weak and decadent. This is not a point against Monarchism. Because Democracies suffer the same fate. Many a republic got overthrown because its rulers became decadent retards.

Dynasties getting overthrown is a point against monarchism. How long did it take for them to get overthrown? Often they were allowed to decay for decades or even longer before they finally managed to get overthrown. Some never did, like Spain is still ruled by the Bourbons who were installed as French puppets and more or less let the Spanish Empire continue its decay for centuries and centuries. And then how many people died when they were overthrown? History is pretty clear that depriving a dynasty of their power leads to immense bloodshed.

Yes, one bloodline rules in a monarchy. When it doesn't, that means it has been overthrown in a revolution, which is common to all governments. So what's so special about a monarchy when you yourself are admitting that it fails?

I agree that Monarchism can lead to what you say. That is not my concern. My concern is the NOW. Where the oligarchic liberal democracies are crashing us head first into a cyberpunk dystopia. And after years of pondering, I have concluded only the Return of the King can avert the disaster our society is heading for. What happens 300 years from now is no concern. That is a concern for the people 300 years from now.

What I am concerned with is what is happening NOW, and IMO the only way to arrest the degradation of our society brought on by the Liberal Revolution is a counter revolution to restore the Kings and hold Liberalism to account for the horrendous lies it has foisted on humanity.

People like Peter Thiel were inspired by Mencius Moldbug/Curtis Yarvin, who advocates monarchy. Both are transhumanists who want (and in the latter case have built) that same cyberpunk dystopia which is coming. There's nothing special about a monarchy's ability to resist or eliminate what is coming to us. A modern Mao or Pol Pot would do the same.

The merchant class has its place. The biggest issue facing human society is that it has forgotten its place. They are servants. Not rulers. They have a right to their labor, their property and their money.

None of these things however translate into a right to rule.

Sure it does. A designated hereditary ruling class is stupid and goes against all logic. Beside, if merchants have a right to all of those things, why don't they have a right to push pornography to the masses and invent new perversions like transgenderism to better sell products?

 

[Smashed & Slamed]

Monarchy is cringe ngl.
Monarchies were the biggest proponents of humanism and liberalism as the fat fucks in charge wanted to be seen as enlightened individuals. See George III.
And even if monarchies weren't cringe, there are no monarchs worthy of rule on the planet. You look at anyone with noble blood and your first thought is that man has no noble blood in him and the 2nd thought would be that nigga is retarded.
The biggest argument for a system of power, is being in power. There are couple dozen monarchies with only a handful out of those giving the monarch power. There are as many functional monarchies as communist states.

The merchant class has its place. The biggest issue facing human society is that it has forgotten its place. They are servants. Not rulers. They have a right to their labor, their property and their money.

In a vacuum there is no such thing as classes. The tribe/village that human society is build upon did not have rigid class systems. Shitholes like India and the UK have class systems.
Because class systems don't actually make sense. And they especially don't make sense for leadership.
A nobleman is no more likely to have to be in a leadership position than a peasant.
The lowly farmer encounters leadership situations and is more dependent on them than the noble. From organizing work parties to managing his own home, things needed for his survival. While a nobleman in spite of being taught how to lead(which wasn't even the case most of the time) might never have to as they will simply live their lives coasting on their father's laurels.

 

[Nicholas II of Russia]

As a fellow monarchist myself, I agree with everything that you said here.

Monarchism needs another shot, it certainly can't be worse than what is happening with Democracy right now.

 

[YHWH's Strongest Soldier]

Which is what Aristotle recognized in his condemnations of Democracies who devolved into Oligarchic control.

I hate when retards bring up pop history trivia as an argument. Aristotle condemned demagoguery and mob rule because he lived in a declining Athens that was trying to recover from an oligarchic regime forced upon them by Sparta. His critique referred specifically to unjust oligarchic governments and tyrants who are much closer to monarchies than democracies. Mind you, this critique came after the Age of Pericles which was a golden age for Athens under democratic rule.

Besides, what type of monarchy do you even want? Do you want autocracy, absolute monarchy, elective monarchy or a constitutional monarchy? Who would you even want as a king? Have you given this any thought or are you just gooning to the idea of bowing to a king?

 

[mindlessobserver]

Besides, what type of monarchy do you even want? Do you want autocracy, absolute monarchy, elective monarchy or a constitutional monarchy? Who would you even want as a king? Have you given this any thought or are you just gooning to the idea of bowing to a king?

https://kiwifarms.st/threads/the-end-of-liberalism-as-a-political-philosophy.190531/

Yes, one bloodline rules in a monarchy. When it doesn't, that means it has been overthrown in a revolution, which is common to all governments. So what's so special about a monarchy when you yourself are admitting that it fails?

Its different, and cycles history. What form it may take could be argued endlessly. My overall point is the Liberal Democracies have had their time and need to be replaced. Monarchism has historically been generationally stable and so makes an attractive replacement to anything else that is on offer.

 

[YHWH's Strongest Soldier]

https://kiwifarms.st/threads/the-end-of-liberalism-as-a-political-philosophy.190531/

Eight pages of replies and you never go beyond polishing your hypothetical monarch's knob. Why are all monarchists such faggots?

If I interpret your babble correctly, I think that you are advocating for enlightened absolutism which is a great way of replicating all the comedy that fucked up Central and Eastern Europe in the late 18th century. Nothing like a king or emperor who pretends to care about his subjects while they are being led like cattle into war or neo-serfdom. If ChatGPT is your retarded plan for how a new monarchy should function, then you're fucking hopeless.

How can a Modern King in a digital era make the jump from the past the future? Well, AI may actually be the answer. If the Kings advisors were in fact true AI's, then the scale issue is solved. Just like how a medieval court advisor could condense the issues of the 1100's to the King, a modern unshackled AI could do the same in the digital age.

Monarchists are gay and retarded.

 

[Masturbator]

keep in mind that there never been a "real" monarchy since end of 19 century outside of a thirdworld nor any movement aimed to restore succeeded at anything besides being a honeypot

 

[The best and greatest]

Monarchists just want a daddy figure as the nominal head of state because it makes them feel safe and protected.

De facto monarchies depend on a bureaucratic deepstate for their day-to-day function. How well the sovereign's orders are interpreted or carried out depends on the particular official in question. The sovereign can't be everywhere; he is not god. This necessarily requires the delegation of authority. Thus, ostensible rule by a monarch is really rule by his appointed lackeys.

Monarchies are not immune to the political scourges currently afflicting America either. The monarchs of Europe before the institution saw its end were all incestuous with one another and acted as a globalistic cabal of self serving monied interests.

The greatest mistake of the OP is confusing cultural and moral failings of society for systemic failings of the political order. Replacing a president with a king does not magically absolve society of its collective sins.