Monarchism

[Kovachs]

I disagree. Afghanistan is a barbaric shithole that even its own terrorist leadership barely controls.
Vietnam was just a pawn in the USA vs. Soviet Russia struggle.
Israel itself needs the USA veto in the UN since otherwise the automatic Muslim country majority would be able to do crippling sanctions against them

You're moving the goalpost.

 

[Sodium Benzoate]

Monarchy can be great, as long as you don't get a retard down the line who fucks everything up. Democracy is essentially betting against a population going full retard, like we see today with modern US politics.

 

[Pukich34]

Sure, the French revolutionaries were very centralized, but they just continued in the footsteps of Louis XIV who didn't give two shits about local or regional autonomy

Ancien Regime and French Republic aren't even remotely comparable. Louis XIV was bound by traditions that limited the amount of things he could do. His reforms didn't do much to destroy local cultures. French revolutionaries on the other hand committed a literal genocide against rural population, forcing everyone to become parisians.

Happened everywhere in Europe, like in 1714 the Spanish king suppressed all the regional laws in his country and put them under Castillian law. The 18th century Russian tsars were similar centrist and revoked plenty of noble privileges

The thing you're referring to is absolutism which was popularized when the liberal ideas were on the rise. They were essentially trying to implement liberal democracy but with king in charge. For most of the history Russia was dominated by zapadniks (republicans) and the slavophiles (monarchists) were suppressed. Monarchism doesn't mean that you should support anything any king does, just like a being a democrat doesn't mean that you should support anything any president in the world does.
But even the most centralized monarchies don't come close to any 21th century democratic state in terms of the scale of the bureaucracy. 19th century Germany is a libertarian paradise compared to modern Germany. You can say it's due to the inevitable march of progress and whatnot, but the existence of Liechtenstein and arabian gulf states shows that this isn't the case.

The establishment of a "monarchy" would not by itself mean greater local autonomy, whether self-described monarchists support it or not. Unless there is a fundamental change in the size and scope of the nation-state, as well as changes to basic monetary policy and technological conditions of that society, there is little possibility of having a functional monarchical or republican system in the first place. It will replicate all the same failures of the current political model.

The rise of the size and the scope of the government can in many cases be attributed to the democracy because the promises of redistribution of wealth are appealing to the poor majority. There is also a natural incentive for the power to grow bigger regardless of it's form of government. You can't stop it and the only limitations it has are self-imposed (moral). It is easier to teach a single person to be moral and bound him by traditions than it is to do the same to thousands of clerks who are being replaced every 4 years. And there's also the fact that one mouth is easier to feed than tens of thousands of them.

Monarchies ceded power to these very institutions before, and royalty within various modern states today is hardly at odds with the central banking system or the deep state. It's a problem of implementing monarchy as a practical extension of current conditions

Once again monarchism doesn't mean supporting everything monarch does, it's a concrete ideology. A monarch can be a monarchist, communist, republican or something else. The fault of these monarchies was that they weren't monarchist enough and the monarchs didn't believe they had the right to rule. This became a problem only recently due to enlightenment and it's consequences. A monarch is an embodiment of the nation together with it's flaws and societal and cultural norms, if we want a monarch to act a certain way then we must change the world around him.

 

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

You say "modern China and Russia" as if both of them haven't had massive governmental change and collapse in the last 40 years. Just because they don't allow trannies in their media doesn't mean they aren't undergoing their own kind of societal decay. In fact, in China in particular, I'd say government overreach is a significant contributor to its societal decline.

But there's less social decay than in the West. They've refuted the extreme feminism, racial self-hatred, and gender ideology that is at the core of the modern West. They aren't without issues and social challenges of course, and some policies like the One Child Policy (and how long it took to repeal) were just plain stupid, but as nations they are far, far more intact than the West.

Ancien Regime and French Republic aren't even remotely comparable. Louis XIV was bound by traditions that limited the amount of things he could do. His reforms didn't do much to destroy local cultures. French revolutionaries on the other hand committed a literal genocide against rural population, forcing everyone to become parisians.

So what is your criteria here? Louis XIV absolutely trampled on traditional institutions to centralize the state, continuing the same trends as his predecessors such as the new class of nobility they created and empowered. The French revolutionaries simply continued that. Crushing a provincial rebellion isn't a "genocide" any more than crushing the Fronde was.

The thing you're referring to is absolutism which was popularized when the liberal ideas were on the rise. They were essentially trying to implement liberal democracy but with king in charge. For most of the history Russia was dominated by zapadniks (republicans) and the slavophiles (monarchists) were suppressed.

It was trying to get the outcomes that liberalism promised without actually becoming liberal. And that's because the alternative, where you'd have a stagnant economy dominated by entrenched traditional interests and privileges, was not in the interest of the nation (although ironically often in the interests of the lower classes since working on church lands were generally better than what came after). The growth of a central bureaucracy was also extremely successful at reducing noble rebellions and secessionism (as Spain dealt with in the late 17th century with Portugal and Catalonia) actually tying together coherent nations instead of just property to be traded among the elite. That's something technology both permits and then makes necessary, because if you don't do it, then other nations will and use that to surpass your nation economically. Absolute monarchy is thus a logical development in an evolutionary stage of things, not just an ideology.

But even the most centralized monarchies don't come close to any 21th century democratic state in terms of the scale of the bureaucracy. 19th century Germany is a libertarian paradise compared to modern Germany. You can say it's due to the inevitable march of progress and whatnot, but the existence of Liechtenstein and arabian gulf states shows that this isn't the case.

Because neither Liechtenstein nor the Gulf monarchies are nations in the conventional sense. Liechtenstein exists because it's a tiny tax haven for money laundering. It's not even a traditional monarchy either, since there's no noble class and the prince doesn't actually have absolute authority. It would be a liberal paradise by the standards of 200 years ago. The Gulf monarchies exist because they have oil and the West got sick of Arab monarchies getting overthrown so backs them up. They also are lucky to have small populations that with the exception of Saudi Arabia are fairly homogenous in terms of numbers of distinct Arab tribes, so less sheikhs to keep in line.

Seems clear to me that if you want to rule a country with a diverse economy and a sizable population (which all have different economic interests), you need to bring the people into government. Monarchy by definition is simply incapable of doing so. An archaic system of hereditary nobles who inherit their privileges and positions cannot do this. And the divine right of kings simply makes little sense when theoretically, my non-hereditary fuhrer, general secretary, democratically-elected president, etc. could be good EVERY generation of leadership because it doesn't rely on a single bloodline but theoretically the Party/the voters choosing the best candidate.

 

[YHWH's Strongest Soldier]

But there's less social decay than in the West. They've refuted the extreme feminism, racial self-hatred, and gender ideology that is at the core of the modern West. They aren't without issues and social challenges of course, and some policies like the One Child Policy (and how long it took to repeal) were just plain stupid, but as nations they are far, far more intact than the West.

Mate, Russia is being devastated by brain drain, alcoholism and rampant drug use. Their culture has been completely eroded first by the Soviets and now the modern Federation. There are no Russian writers or painters anymore. The ballet dancers and opera singers all escaped to the West on golden parachute contracts. Most music groups are either political prisoners or looking to emigrate/dodge the conscription. It's a society in free fall that exists solely to support a small group of oligarchs. Why do Western right wing retards keep praising such a fucked up country?

 

[Pukich34]

So what is your criteria here? Louis XIV absolutely trampled on traditional institutions to centralize the state, continuing the same trends as his predecessors such as the new class of nobility they created and empowered. The French revolutionaries simply continued that

Louis XIV was working within the framework set by his predecessors and his reforms didn't aim at creating a completely different country. French revolutionaries wanted to create a completely new and pure utopia that bare no resemblance to the old order, they did not simply continue what Louis XIV did. This quote perfectly illustrates my point

West's counterrevolution grew directly from the efforts of revolutionary officials to install a particular kind of direct rule in the region: a rule that practically eliminated nobles and priests from their positions as partly autonomous intermediaries, that brought the state's demands for taxes, manpower, and deference to the level of individual communities, neighborhoods, and households that gave the region's bourgeois political power they had never before wielded. In seeking to extend the state's rule to every locality, and to dislodge all enemies of that rule, French revolutionaries started a process that did not cease for twenty-five years.[57]

Say what you want about Louis XIV but I don't think he ever wanted to kill all popes and nobles and establish a totalitarian state

Crushing a provincial rebellion isn't a "genocide"

Killing 25% of the population including women and children counts as genocide. The central government wanted to completely subdue the regions by destroying their cultural and societal autonomy, eventually erasing them as a separate entity. In order to do that they would need to be brutally murdered because people don't like giving up their autonomy. Same thing happened in Italy and USSR during collectivization.

It was trying to get the outcomes that liberalism promised without actually becoming liberal. And that's because the alternative, where you'd have a stagnant economy dominated by entrenched traditional interests and privileges, was not in the interest of the nation (although ironically often in the interests of the lower classes since working on church lands were generally better than what came after). The growth of a central bureaucracy was also extremely successful at reducing noble rebellions and secessionism (as Spain dealt with in the late 17th century with Portugal and Catalonia) actually tying together coherent nations instead of just property to be traded among the elite. That's something technology both permits and then makes necessary, because if you don't do it, then other nations will and use that to surpass your nation economically. Absolute monarchy is thus a logical development in an evolutionary stage of things, not just an ideology.

Your presumption is that monarchy requires noblerinos which isn't true at all. I use Aristotle's definition of monarchy (rule of one). Nobles are an oligarchical power that doesn't have anything to do with the monarchy. For most of the history monarchical and oligarchical powers were at odds with each other and the countries where the monarchical power was low had the most amount of protectionism. In France the Louis XVI was friends with Tourgot who wanted to abolish privileges but was kicked out because the oligarchy didn't like him. I don't think economic liberalism is a bad thing in itself but the people who espoused it did so with bad intentions (curbing the power of aristocracy and replacing their position), which is why after coming to power the liberals quickly turned away from it and started implementing even more regulations. You also seems to conflate politics with economics. Theoretically any form of government can pursue any form of economics it wants.

Monarchies traditionally had to rely on the power of the people to crush the power of the oligarchy, which is why for example Ivan the "Terrible" promoted regional democracy. I don't believe the growth of bloated bureaucracy was the only way forward. What it did is that it just replaced one form of oligarchical rule to another one.

Because neither Liechtenstein nor the Gulf monarchies are nations in the conventional sense. Liechtenstein exists because it's a tiny tax haven for money laundering. It's not even a traditional monarchy either, since there's no noble class and the prince doesn't actually have absolute authority. It would be a liberal paradise by the standards of 200 years ago. The Gulf monarchies exist because they have oil and the West got sick of Arab monarchies getting overthrown so backs them up. They also are lucky to have small populations that with the exception of Saudi Arabia are fairly homogenous in terms of numbers of distinct Arab tribes, so less sheikhs to keep in line.

You can say thousands of justifications as to why you believe they it exist but it doesn't change the fact that they still exist and prosper in the modern world. This fact alone shows that the western democracy isn't the only acceptable form of government.

Seems clear to me that if you want to rule a country with a diverse economy and a sizable population (which all have different economic interests), you need to bring the people into government.

So that these people could use the state to enrich themselves at the expense of the country and everyone else? As you said populations have different economic interests, therefore they can't make unbiased decisions that would benefit everyone. The monarch is the only person capable of being a neutral judge because he doesn't have any interests that would tie him to any particular group, allowing him to represent 100% of the population instead of just 51%.

the divine right of kings simply makes little sense

I agree. The divine right of kings was debunked by a monarchist Thomas Hobbes centuries ago. That's why I have never used any religious argument to justify monarchy

theoretically, my non-hereditary fuhrer, general secretary, democratically-elected president, etc. could be good EVERY generation of leadership because it doesn't rely on a single bloodline but theoretically the Party/the voters choosing the best candidate.

If the people/party were perfect and could chose the best candidate every time then there wouldn't be a need for monarchy. But we don't live in a world like that. In order to climb the political ladder the candidate needs to be cruel and slimy. Political fighting makes sure that the good and honest people are left out, leaving only the worst of humanity. These people don't necessarily know how to govern because politicians are primarily actors and public speakers. Monarchy allows good people to rise to power and makes sure they all know how to govern because they were learning how to do it ever since they were born.

 

[mindlessobserver]

I have sinned. I doubted the power of God to work with any system man has created to manifest the Will of Heaven.

 

[Señora Airi]

Monarchism is good cause every other form of rule is bad.