Monarchism

[wtfNeedSignUp]

Monarchism can be summarised as "I want the small group of individuals ruling the country to work with by how I think the world works!". If the next monarch says trannies are women those same people will suddenly switch to how it's tyrannical.

 

[mindlessobserver]

Monarchism can be summarised as "I want the small group of individuals ruling the country to work with by how I think the world works!". If the next monarch says trannies are women those same people will suddenly switch to how it's tyrannical.

That's how all Government works. There is no functional difference between a Monarchy and a Republic if the argument is that its bad for a few elites to rule over the vast unwashed masses.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

That's how all Government works. There is no functional difference between a Monarchy and a Republic if the argument is that its bad for a few elites to rule over the vast unwashed masses.

But in a democracy you still have some indirect method of forcing a change through elections. USA in particular attempted multiple times to start political dynasties only to people vote against them. Which is miles better than in shitholes like the UK where the people have no way to affect who controls their daily lives.

 

[YHWH's Strongest Soldier]

But in a democracy you still have some indirect method of forcing a change through elections. USA in particular attempted multiple times to start political dynasties only to people vote against them. Which is miles better than in shitholes like the UK where the people have no way to affect who controls their daily lives.

No child, people in democracies have zero influence over anything which is why we must give up all power to an AI-powered philosopher king so he gives everyone crown-mandated girlfriends like in my favorite anime Code Gay. Enjoy virgin oligarchy, stalker.

 

[mindlessobserver]

But in a democracy you still have some indirect method of forcing a change through elections. USA in particular attempted multiple times to start political dynasties only to people vote against them. Which is miles better than in shitholes like the UK where the people have no way to affect who controls their daily lives.

See this is not really true. For one thing, at scale democracies do not perform like at the local level. When voting for your Mayor, County Board and so on, you can make informed choices based upon the people involved as they are quite literally your neighbors. Unless you live in a massive bug hive with millions of people of course.

At the national level however you don't vote along these lines. You vote along a meta line that is easily controlled and directed. National government cannot function as a direct democracy because the nation as a whole is made up of so many people, many of them stupid and with competing needs and desires, such that an Oligarchic control is not just required to manage the situation, it is necessary. Dynastic political families emerge naturally from this, as the ruling elites tighten their grip on power simply by the nature of how power works. Once in power, patronage can be established, networks built in, laws changed, and the entire appratus of the State turned towards the preservation of the entrenched power structure.

There is no functional difference in terms of ability, choice, or even inherited positions of power between a Nation wide Monarchy and a Nation wide Republic. The most perfect example of this in the modern era is of course the American Republic, which is a powerful oligarchy controlled by a few select institutions and families and their patronage networks within the beaurocracy of the State.

The difference between a Monarchy and Republic however is that the pretense is dropped entirely. In that respect its more honest. More importantly however, Monarchy divests the ruling elites of their implied legal authority given to them by the people. Instead the contract between a Monarchical Aristocracy is constantly being renewed and earned, whereas a Republican Aristocracy can dispense with any notions of giving shit about the common plebes because they are just voting cattle who will do as they are told.

The idea that because you are a continent spanning Republic you no longer have to worry about corrupt nobles is a fallacy. The nobles are the same, they just have different titles. Instead of Lords and Dukes, they are CEOs and Secretaries.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

See this is not really true. For one thing, at scale democracies do not perform like at the local level. When voting for your Mayor, County Board and so on, you can make informed choices based upon the people involved as they are quite literally your neighbors. Unless you live in a massive bug hive with millions of people of course.

At the national level however you don't vote along these lines. You vote along a meta line that is easily controlled and directed. National government cannot function as a direct democracy because the nation as a whole is made up of so many people, many of them stupid and with competing needs and desires, that an Oligarchic control is not just required to manage the situation its necessary. Dynastic political families emerge naturally from this, as the ruling elites tighten their grip on power simply by the nature of how power works. Once in power, patronage can be established, networks built in, laws changed, and the entire appratus of the State turned towards the preservation of the entrenched power structure.

There is no functional difference in terms of ability, choice, or even inherited positions of power between a Nation wide Monarchy and a Nation wide Republic. The most perfect example of this in the modern era is of course the American Republic, which is a powerful oligarchy controlled by a few select institutions and families and their patronage networks within the beaurocracy of the State.

The difference between a Monarchy and Republic however is that the pretense is dropped entirely. In that respect its more honest. More importantly however, Monarchy divests the ruling elites of their implied legal authority given to them by the people. Instead the contract between a Monarchical Aristocracy is constantly being renewed and earned, whereas a Republican Aristocracy can dispense with any notions of giving shit about the common plebes because they are just voting cattle who will do as they are told.

The idea that because your continent spanning Republic you no longer have to worry about corrupt nobles is a fallacy. The nobles are the same, they just have different titles. Instead of Lords and Dukes, they are CEOs and Secretaries.

Excuse me but that's absolutely bullshit. A monarch can decide whatever the fuck he wants and as long as he doesn't ruffle too many feathers with the other upper caste he can do it immediately. Democracies are immune to it because a party going apeshit isn't going to get many votes and thus letting ones saner to take charge, this leads to the politics taking a massive amount of time to have any meaningful change and being beholden to popular opinion in every step of the way.

Or to get back to my example, a monarch can say a trannie is a woman and it will immediately take into effect and can be followed by any punishment he deems acceptable including death. Meanwhile the left spent more than a decade trying to push that trannies are women and seemingly losing support more and more to the point it will likely fade out in the close years as a pet goal.

The only way you can argue against democracies is with the nebulous uniparty, but that's more of a set of goals shared between political parties than actual organization. In the end every country that tried a dictatorship/monarchy went to shit really fast, while democracies are "going to fall any day now" for the last century.

 

[YHWH's Strongest Soldier]

In the end every country that tried a dictatorship/monarchy went to shit really fast, while democracies are "going to fall any day now" for the last century.

Watch out, he's going to bring up Bhutan any second now as the ultimate proof of how monarchies are superior in all ways to democracies. Democracy is in its inevitable death spiral and we must kowtow to a god king just like his favorite anime.

 

[WelperHelper99]

There is no functional difference in terms of ability, choice, or even inherited positions of power between a Nation wide Monarchy and a Nation wide Republic. The most perfect example of this in the modern era is of course the American Republic, which is a powerful oligarchy controlled by a few select institutions and families and their patronage networks within the beaurocracy of the State.
The difference between a Monarchy and Republic however is that the pretense is dropped entirely. In that respect its more honest. More importantly however, Monarchy divests the ruling elites of their implied legal authority given to them by the people. Instead the contract between a Monarchical Aristocracy is constantly being renewed and earned, whereas a Republican Aristocracy can dispense with any notions of giving shit about the common plebes because they are just voting cattle who will do as they are told.

The idea that because you are a continent spanning Republic you no longer have to worry about corrupt nobles is a fallacy. The nobles are the same, they just have different titles. Instead of Lords and Dukes, they are CEOs and Secretaries.

That is bullshit because the nobles never fear about getting kicked out. I'm not American to kiss the boot of a King. We kicked King George's ass. Should have killed that fucker. If we are to perish, let it be our decision, not some tyrant at the top. Also a CEO a noble? Lol. Lmao even. They aren't special and the fact you give them such credit is disgusting.

 

[mindlessobserver]

That is bullshit because the nobles never fear about getting kicked out. I'm not American to kiss the boot of a King. We kicked King George's ass. Should have killed that fucker. If we are to perish, let it be our decision, not some tyrant at the top. Also a CEO a noble? Lol. Lmao even. They aren't special and the fact you give them such credit is disgusting.

Try getting in a car accident with one, and see how far equality gets you even if its clearly their fault. Also, ass kissing and boot licking are not really requirements for monarchical system. Rituals can take many different forms if needed. Or not. I also like how you reflexively assume there is a clear distinction between a Lord and a CEO. I thought they were both rich ass holes. If a CEO is nothing special, what does it matter if he is a Lord?

 

[Cnidarian]

Regicide is always an act of self defense.

 

[WelperHelper99]

Try getting in a car accident with one, and see how far equality gets you even if its clearly their fault.

Its why I have insurance bro. I've been in accidents. Its more likely the rich guy writes a check to make it go away if its his fault. Even if not, insurance is practically on auto pilot.

 

[WelperHelper99]

Also, ass kissing and boot licking are not really requirements for monarchical system. Rituals can take many different forms if needed. Or not. I also like how you reflexively assume there is a clear distinction between a Lord and a CEO. I thought they were both rich ass holes. If a CEO is nothing special, what does it matter if he is a Lord?

I have met rich faggots. They are deluded idiots. I've told them no on occasion. Its really fucking funny what happens. They arent special because no one is special. Thats what being American is about. You can walk up to a rich asshole, call him a dipshit, and he can do nothing. A lord will order his men to kill you. You are delusional. Why do you even live in America if you want to transplant what we left behind?

 

[Lei Wulong's Left Leg]

Monarchism is really just a form of dictatorship. To say that one family or man can rule by some arbitrary quality that cannot be readily defined is laughable, and it is only kept in power because that family has all the power to maintain its status. North Korea is effectively a monarchical state, and see how well that's going for them.
Or, to quote Sir Terry Pratchett:

'The supreme ruler, OK,' he said, starting to stroll forward again.
'OK.'
'But that's not right, see? One man with the power of life and death.'
'But if he's a good man—' Carrot began.
'What? What? OK. OK. Let's believe he's a good man. But his second-in-command – is he a good man too? You'd better hope so. Because he's the supreme ruler, too, in the name of the king. And the rest of the court . . . they've got to be good men. Because if just one of them's a bad man the result is bribery and patronage.'
'The Patrician's a supreme ruler,' Carrot pointed out. He nodded at a passing troll. 'G'day, Mr Carbuncle.'
'But he doesn't wear a crown or sit on a throne and he doesn't tell you it's right that he should rule,' said Vimes. 'I hate the bastard. But he's honest. Honest like a corkscrew.'
'Even so, a good man as king—'
'Yes? And then what? Royalty pollutes people's minds, boy. Honest men start bowing and bobbing just because someone's grandad was a bigger murdering bastard than theirs was. Listen! We probably had good kings, once! But kings breed other kings! And blood tells, and you end up with a bunch of arrogant, murdering bastards! Chopping off queens' heads and fighting their cousins every five minutes! And we had centuries of that! And then one day a man said “No more kings!” and we rose up and we fought the bloody nobles and we dragged the king off his throne and we dragged him into Sator Square and we chopped his bloody head off! Job well done!'

 

[Agamemnon Busmalis]

If it were replaced with people whose goal was something more beneficial like the eternal stability of society, then it would be a paradise.

I think we share quite a bit of common ground. A safe, clean, orderly, and stable society in which everyone can be free from worry, free from exploitation, free to enjoy leisure and culture time with friends and family, and provided the resources from cradle to grave to make this possible with the only expectation being they contribute their fair share and follow the rules.

Equality of opportunity and the resources to make equal opportunity possible, subject to equal standards.

 

[YHWH's Strongest Soldier]

@mindlessobserver I'm curious, why haven't you brought up successful absolutist monarchies like Saudi Arabia or Oman yet? Is your ideology genuinely based on only fantasy and anime brain rot or is there some reality deep in there?

 

[mindlessobserver]

@mindlessobserver I'm curious, why haven't you brought up successful absolutist monarchies like Saudi Arabia or Oman yet? Is your ideology genuinely based on only fantasy and anime brain rot or is there some reality deep in there?

You forgot Jordan, and to some extent Japan, the UK, Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Norway and Sweden too you know. Monarchies are inherently stable over time. The Government may change now and then along with the Dynasty but the State itself continues. Oman is a good one, though I would question Saudi Arabia if only because the method the Saudi King uses to maintain control through basically paying the entire country off is not sustainable in the long term. To be fair though, Republics with vast mineral wealth tend to do the same thing too.

I'm not sure what your question is though. Are you asking have I thought about it extensively? I have actually. My first question was is there anyway to reform the modern Liberal Democracies. My conclusion was that no, there was not. They are on a terminal trajectory towards oligarchic tyranny completely unbounded and unrestrained by any sort of loyalty to the people they rule and the land they rule upon. My second question was that if not Liberal Democracy then what? Fascism? Communism? Enlightened Technocracy? Theocracy maybe? All of these potential alternatives were lacking. Which left Monarchy, which I will freely admit is not perfect, but is a proven system with a relatively good track record when compared to the current options.

 

[YHWH's Strongest Soldier]

You forgot Jordan, and to some extent Japan, the UK, Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Norway and Sweden too you know.

I specified "successful absolutist" monarchies. None of the countries you listed fit that label and I thought that you already shared your disappointment with them in the other thread. Their heads of state do not posses any executive power and in the cases of UK, Spain, Netherlands and Belgium are deeply unpopular at the moment because their kings are dipshits.

I'm not sure what your question is though.

What my question referred to is whether your ideology is based in any way on reality as you have failed to produce any examples of functional monarchies that you would like to see more of. Again, ChatGPT-powered kings are not a viable alternative to liberal democracies. You simply reject democracy as a basis for governance in favor of regression towards a monarchy because it's more true & honest.

 

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

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.

So you don't actually have a reason for why monarchy is good.

"Generationally stable" is also very optimistic. The myriad of succession wars begs to differ. Even when there wasn't war, new kings regularly passed out bribes to key supporters and persecuted potential opponents. In that regards, it's no different than how modern China works, except even worse because you put a bloodline over everything.

That's how all Government works. There is no functional difference between a Monarchy and a Republic if the argument is that its bad for a few elites to rule over the vast unwashed masses.

It's about how you choose said elites. Monarchy uses a bloodline, which is inherently retarded and thus disqualifies it from consideration. To say nothing about nonsense like having the state be personal property of the monarch to use as he pleases. A monarchy need have no loyalty to its populace and can just import new subjects as it pleases. Just like Russia, where the indigenous nobles proved frustrating to the Tsar so they just imported German nobles and a bunch of German peasants to settle on unused lands. European monarchy was a system of proto-globalism that denied the nation state, hence why Kalergi (descended from the Kallergis family of Byzantine nobles) wrote of the glories of the Great Replacement.

The difference between a Monarchy and Republic however is that the pretense is dropped entirely. In that respect its more honest. More importantly however, Monarchy divests the ruling elites of their implied legal authority given to them by the people. Instead the contract between a Monarchical Aristocracy is constantly being renewed and earned, whereas a Republican Aristocracy can dispense with any notions of giving shit about the common plebes because they are just voting cattle who will do as they are told.

Earned by who? Monarchies didn't care about the plebs, they were to shut up and do as they were told. When they didn't, they were crushed. At least until the plebs all owned muskets and learned you just need a bit of discipline to stand in rank and shoot at the right moment and that was the end of that.

A "republican aristocracy" simply doesn't exist in modern times (it did, kind of, in some ancient cases like Rome or medieval Italian republics). At most it lasts a few generations. The descendents of presidents are rarely people of note. Sure, many are upper class and attend the best schools. But they have no legal privilege. If Ethan Ralph's spawn succeeded in life, they'd be just as equal to Barron Trump or the Biden inbreds.

 

[Crex Crex]

The greatest mistake of the OP is confusing cultural and moral failings of society for systemic failings of the political order.

Lol the republican system has actively promoted societal decay, division and the weakening of national identity in my country. In 70 years we've been turned into Europe's most docile self-loathing niggercattle after the krauts, and don't blame us because the referendum that installed the republic was rigged and gay anyway.

 

[mindlessobserver]

What my question referred to is whether your ideology is based in any way on reality as you have failed to produce any examples of functional monarchies that you would like to see more of. Again, ChatGPT-powered kings are not a viable alternative to liberal democracies. You simply reject democracy as a basis for governance in favor of regression towards a monarchy because it's more true & honest.

Jordan and Oman are examples of well run absolutist Monarchies too be sure. But in the modern context that is a really small pool to derive from and in the western context we don't really have any anymore. For all that though, the Prussian Monarchy was very good, historically stable and did really well against the Democracies until it was tea bagged on two sides in World War 1. The Ottoman Sultanate did really well managing the middle east for centuries too. I suppose I must ask you then what your definition of success is. For me, its stability over time and generally running the State properly, where the general population is safe in their property and lives and able to invest in the future.