/fascist/ - Surf The Kali Yuga

>>4326 (OP) 
>Logistically speaking, all good ideas that actually benefit humanity, are the ones that eventually take hold for the bettering of mankind.
False, Democracy only ever took hold because it benefitted those in power who could now hire a moron who talked good to blame all their greed and corruption on.
>if fascism really was so exceptional, many governments using this doctrine would still exist, 
Fascism and National Socialism would have places under those ideologies and governmental styles today if the Jews and Traitor whites did not have the entire planet under a stranglehold designed to suppress those ideologies.
>the main reason for this to be the case is because most people are comfortable in the state things are,
The lemmings are by design comfortable with whomever is in power, and they will suffer whatever they must, mostly without complaint in order to survive, this is a no point, for, or against, anything.
>and there is no need to take that approach again.
We cannot take the approaches of the past in many ways but National Socialism is the only path forward for the White Aryan Man, anyone advocating for anything else is either lazy or intellectually dishonest.
>Most changes that can harm civilization can be democratically corrected, if not, an alternative would always prop up.
No they cannot, or we would not exist today as National Socialists,  the only reason that it was attempted democratically the last time was that Hitler saw that the ending of the Beer Hall Putsch not in his and his compatriots favor, showed that the German people and it's state was still sound enough that it could be recovered through more peaceful electoral, means and done so willfully on the part of the people, but their means were not, by any measure, peaceful as we have been led to think peaceful is today today.
>I think we reached a point where violence and state subjugation is not necessary, and the responsibility for one's community is not only his but everyone's. By everyone gathering similar interests, things get done.
Not only are you wrong about violence and state subjugation, which is at it's most insidious and vile today but nobody is taking responsibility for their community, and despite your idiocy you cannot just work together on anything with someone who has "similar" interests, this has been tried a thousand times and it always gets worse and harms what one wishes to advocate for if not completely undoing any progress you might have made in pursuit of your goals.

Fascism is not exceptional as benito mussolinis mistress was jewish

>>4326 (OP) 
liberalism is a sin
democracy=communism
if you think the enslavement of humanity for the benefit of a jewish ruling class is good there you go.
being liberal is more of a sin than being a blasphemer, thief, adulterer or murderer

>>4326 (OP) 
>Low effort appeal to authority of contemporary status quo, the thread
>Not having having realized democracy is precisely controlled by jewish owned public opinion media and banking (ZOG), as well as overt fraud in 2024.
Your democracy today enforces jail for thought crime and for disagreeing on a specific single historical event (holohoax) but you will pretend that you are right and just when in reality your policies are all worse in every single metric than the fascism you claim to oppose as a peabrained retard that is ruled by jewish racists who want to kill you every day and enforce sickening anti white genocide apartheid on you/us.

You're a complete fucking idiot and if you have any family at all i hope they get raped to death by niggers who will then face no jail for their crimes if you are genuinely this stupid. It's exactly what you deserve and if that's what it takes for you to mentally grow up and start thinking things through like an adult then so be it.

I think you would be better off arguing that the current state of Western governments is not a true or proper democracy, which I can agree with as the result of an implementation of an actual democracy would lead to respect for all ideological differences, unlike they do now. Although to be a Fascist or National Socialist, while advocating and supporting a democratic state or for the installation of one goes against their ideological principles. Both Fascism and National Socialism completely reject democracy, see it as useless, and do nothing more than empower parasites over the aristocratic man. In Mein Kampf, Hitler talks about how one of his greatest struggles was something comparable to Oliver Cromwell when he disbanded the parliament and brought about a dictatorship because the parliamentarians were useless and idiotic, something Hitler wanted to do when he first obtained power through the election of becoming Chancellor. If democracy had any good use of values whatsoever, then I think Adolf Hitler would of at least complimented democracy just once whenever he referred to it and their conception of "liberty.".

>>4326 (OP) 
>Logistically speaking, all good ideas that actually benefit humanity, are the ones that eventually take hold for the bettering of mankind.
Yes, but when has democracy ever benefited humanity? Democracy has done more to turn men into weak-minded sheep.

>If fascism really was so exceptional, many governments using this doctrine would still exist
Modern governments don't want the exceptional; they want mediocrity and something that is easy to take control of. They want governments that work for the benefit of those whose interests are in favor of themselves or a specific group that has no ties or loyalty to the nation and its people. National Socialism and Fascism reject this; therefore, our bureaucrats and statesmen do everything in their power to curtail any influence of said ideologies.

>Most changes that can harm civilization can be democratically corrected
Most of all, the changes that are actively harming civilization have become apparent, because of democracy. The United States, France and the United Kingdom are the best examples of this.

> Let us not forget that the fascist movements that happened prior were democratically elected and spoke for the interests of the people, not for a minority or some other thingamagick.
Let's not forget that fascists did away with or wanted to rid of a democratic process as a whole in favor of a dictator and an exclusively fascist parliament.

>>4355
To add to this anon's point, The historical tendency of democracies including democratic republics to vote themselves out of existence in favor of more absolute government is particularly damning.

>>4326 (OP) 
>If fascism really was so exceptional, many governments using this doctrine would still exist
What if, hear me out, the entire capitalist and communist world joined together to crush it?

I have a much better argument for democracy; If America had been a direct democracy in 1965, the immigration act that threw American heritage into the toilet wouldn't have passed and the border wouldn't have been spread open. The country would have remained 90% White.
At least in theory. We must understand that so long as mass media is in the hands of hostile aliens, and so long as the great majority of our race is mindless lemmings, the jews will always wield ultimate control over any "democracy."

democracy_the_god_that_failed_hoppe.jpeg
[Hide] (32.4KB, 480x719) Reverse

>>4636
>if America had been a direct democracy in 1965, the immigration act that threw American heritage into the toilet wouldn't have passed 
White women would still have voted for it. Women are very conformist by nature which makes them easy to propagandize. A man wants to know who has the best policies. A woman wants to know who "everyone else" is voting for. That's why the people who own the media are extremely invested in every country having women voters.

The problem with western democracy is that everyone gets an equal vote regardless of how much or little they contribute to society. 
>Alan makes $20
>Bob makes $0
>Charlie makes $0
>Politician A takes $10 from Alan and gives $5 to Bob and Charlie
>Bob and Charlie vote for Politician A
>It doesn't matter who Alan votes for he is permanently outvoted
Universal suffrage is the express train to communism.

The problem with democracy in general is that you don't have leaders you have caretakers. A president is only president for 8 years. That means he has 8 years to loot as much as he can from the country. Anything that happens after that is not his problem. That's why the rise of central banking and the obsession with spreading democracy went hand in hand during the 20th century. Why there is so much propaganda against dictators and monarchies.

International bankers cannot sell an exploitative 10 year loan to Saddam Hussain because Saddam expects to still be in power in 10 years time. You can sell any loan you want to the new democratic president of Iraq though because in 10 years time it will be somebody else's problem. That's why democracies have such huge unpayable national debts, there is simply no incentive for a temporary leader to take any kind of long term action.

election_by_race_and_sex.png
[Hide] (758.6KB, 1280x1730) Reverse

>>4927
>White women would still have voted for it.
Would they though?
Women are indeed more conformist by nature. However, the feeling at the time was that immigration was bad. If the everyone else in question really was voting against it, then women would vote against it. Furthermore, women tend to vote the way their husbands vote when married. While there are cunts who vote for the other party because they're some sort of dysfunctional feminist, these relationships tend to fall apart. Normal women conform to their husband's ideology. So again, a majority of women would have voted the way the majority of men did.
I don't even need to get into pic related which shows that even a majority of White women voted for the anti-immigration candidate in 2016, a time far more driven by propaganda than 1965.

I agree with all of your critiques of the pseudo democracy we live in. However, it is a fact or at least highly likely that the actual ideas we propose are popular and back in 1965, were almost universal among the actual people.
I used to be very strongly against democracy and I do not deny that the vast majority of people are dumb as bricks. Iirc, only 1 in 5 of the voters (not the public but the ~50% of adults who actually vote) can describe a single political issue being debated. Yes, the people are retarded. And yet paradoxically, the people as a whole are actually less retarded than the elites.
Especially if we remove niggers, spics, and Arabs from the equation. If only White people were voting on issues, the result is almost always something the elites hate.
That is because, despite the political retardation, the people tend to hold sane collective views on policies that affect them.

Also, let's examine your example, which is a good one. A high interest loan means free money, right? And people are retarded so they take high interest loans in their personal lives. So I surely we would expect people to just vote for infinite loans.
And yet paradoxically, if you canvass your local area, you will be hard pressed to find a single person who wants America to take on more debt. No one understands fractional reserve banking. Yet for some reason, if you ask people, they instinctively understand that debt = bad.

And let's not forget that the political elite are not just random people who happened to get elected for 6 years. Congressmen are basically lifetime appointments if you live in a gerrymandered district. Don't think of them as elected. Think of them as the landed aristocracy. Everyone HATES Mitch McConnel. Yet he is going to die in office. Given that he is a landed elite, a permanent congressman, you'd expect he would be thinking about the long term health of the nation, right? Yet the opposite is true. He is among the most treasonous. All of the political aristocracy are enthralled by the anti-White religion. They're retards too but unlike normal retards, they are totally disconnected from the repercussions of their actions. If you are a rich elite and you vote for open borders, who cares?
More money for you and your rich pals.
You even get a pat on the head from your jewish financers.
Good goy.
But if you're a carpenter making 90k a year, you just voted for less money, more crime, more traffic, higher hospital bills, and fucking over your children. 

In fact, let's envision a monarchy.
Firstly, all your elite are just going to be Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, and Jeff Bezos types. They're all telling you to spread open the border so they can make more money. Since your power is secure from populist reaction, you will now devote all your attention to appeasing your rich supporters. So what if this policy ruins the lives of your people? You live in a palace with a big beautify wall to keep both the spics and the people out.
>Oh, well, he might get a revolution
No one thinks that way though. The elite live in a bubble of ass kissers who tell them everything they want to hear.
<"Oh my lord, the protesters are racist fascists. Shoot them, my lord! They have no public support!"

Mind you, I would LOVE it if America were a monarchy for precisely this reason. It would be comparatively easy to overthrow.

>>4928
>Furthermore, women tend to vote the way their husbands vote when married.
>Normal women conform to their husband's ideology. So again, a majority of women would have voted the way the majority of men did.
Thus proving that asking for their opinion, and thus granting them voting powers, is useless.
Nor that this would in any way make the voting of men any better since we have seen men unfit to decide at large what is better for them. We have seen them fail to recognize their enemies and vote them out of power.
>I agree with all of your critiques of the pseudo democracy we live in. However, it is a fact or at least highly likely that the actual ideas we propose are popular and back in 1965, were almost universal among the actual people.
I sincerely doubt that they were so popular. You would certainly need to move further into the past to get closer to an overall consensus erring closer to our wishes. Nevertheless, it utterly failed. The opinion of the masses was easily swayed. It mattered little against the medias, against the deceptions, against the final word of the man in the oval office.
The entire history of the United States is a profound testament to the sheer mediocrity and lunacy of democracy.
Beyond this, what is the sense in taking the risk of allowing the plebeians to vote for someone who will be bad for the city, the state or the nation?
>I used to be very strongly against democracy and I do not deny that the vast majority of people are dumb as bricks.
Then they are unfit to decide and should be remain silent and follow the orders and visions of those with greater capacities. Thus proving once more that democracy is at best highly irresponsible.
>And yet paradoxically, the people as a whole are actually less retarded than the elites.
The elites are not retarded for the most part. They are corrupt and selfish and align their interests with those of the people who control the money supply. Our greatest failure was to have failed to couple a racial consciousness with the power to control our currencies. It's precisely when Germany achieved that symbiosis that war was declared on her.
> If only White people were voting on issues, the result is almost always something the elites hate.
The United States remained mostly White for a long time and this never prevented White people from voting for their own executioners. You will never win this because the further back you go, the less democracy you will find.
>That is because, despite the political retardation, the people tend to hold sane collective views on policies that affect them.
They certainly don't. They only parrot what they're told to repeat and follow. This is how you find countless millions of White voters regularly making statements that go against their best collective interests.
>And yet paradoxically, if you canvass your local area, you will be hard pressed to find a single person who wants America to take on more debt.
They had many chances to vote themselves out of a debt based system yet they continue drinking on debt like if it were milk. White vote has not prevented the surge of an internal force that would push for greater dependency on debt.
>All of the political aristocracy are enthralled by the anti-White religion.
You use the word aristocracy to refer to people who are anything but.
If you want to vote someone out of power because this person has failed the people, then you're observing that democracy has failed said people by allowing said person in power first, proving that the system of democracy is far from foolproof.
From there, since the masses want circus and bread, they are not fit to decide what is proper to the management of their destinies for they are incapable of grasping greater ideals by themselves until they're fed such ideals on a dialy basis and these principles become their world vision, their culture, their faith. Which in all ways would once more prove to be in no need of democracy whatsoever.
Democracy is such a hoax in essence as an unnecessary overthought complexity that brings no benefits at all to the people who are made to partake in it, that in comparison to any other system, that it immediately writes itself out of any legitimacy and pales in light of more straightforward processes of legitimate acquisition and transmission of power.
No democracy will be as potent and effective as the immediate might that resides in the holy hands of a single lord, an enlightened prince.
Do not bother wasting your abilities by diluting them in senseless preaches in the vain attempt to elevate the masses to heights they will never reach by themselves when you should employ all your intelligence and will to seize power or at the very least belabor to make yourself closer to the throne.
>In fact, let's envision a monarchy.
>Firstly, all your elite are just going to be Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, and Jeff Bezos types.
Flatly wrong and the people you mention only use the money as a tool to secure their power while they follow a globalist agenda that is designed to be anti-White. Their end goal is not more money, it's the modification of the world to bring it to a state that is immensely divorced from what we as Whites require.
This board will never take off as long as it keeps torposters out.

>>4953
I mean, I agree with you. Women shouldn't vote.
>I sincerely doubt that they were so popular. 
Only 20 years earlier, a poll found that 90% of (White) Americans would have rather lost WW2 than give blacks access to White schools.
And again, today in 2024, the majority of Whites oppose immigration.
60 years ago it would have been an absolutely undefeatable majority.
Left and right.
>It mattered little against the medias, against the deceptions, against the final word of the man in the oval office.
That's pretty much my point from a different perspective. I am saying that had America been a direct democracy in 1965, open borders would not have been passed. It is only among the elite that these kinds of poisonous policies are popular.

>what is the sense in taking the risk of allowing the plebeians to vote for someone who will be bad for the city
Look at the elites, anon. Look at them.
They are inferior to the people they rule. 
> they are unfit to decide and should be remain silent and follow the orders and visions of those with greater capacities.
That is what is happening today, anon. Well, there is some grumbling from the people but the grumbling is in opposition to the globalists. The people are the ones who most agree with you, anon. That is what I have been saying.

>The elites are not retarded for the most part.
I would argue otherwise, but I can easily concede this point and still have a sounder argument. If the elites are really more clever than the people, they are still evil and dumb good people make better rulers than smart evil people.

>You will never win this because the further back you go, the less democracy you will find.
Is that truly the case? If you actually examine history, the further back you go the more power people held over local communities. Sure, you had lords who allegedly reigned absolute over the communities. Yet if the lord violated a local custom, he would likely face a revolt and die. The people would often just invent laws and customs and impose it onto their elites. Take Saint's Monday, something peasant/serf labourers just made up and the land owners went along with because to do otherwise caused violence.
Before around the 20th century, local towns were practically independent states and they were not run by some random guy making decisions for everyone but by the locals.
Lastly, every time peasants actually had had enough of aristocratic impositions, they always did things that you & I agree with. Well, maybe you wouldn't agree with burning the tax records, but they ALWAYS attacked foreign workers and mercenaries brought in BY THE ELITE to undercut the natives.
Again, the elite often imported foreigners to undermine the native population
This was the feudal, European landed elite. Not jews but by our own people.
The elite have always been corrupt traitors. Always.

>They only parrot what they're told to repeat and follow.
Untrue. Were that correct, the majority of Whites would support immigration. They don't so this point is false.
>They had many chances to vote themselves out of a debt based system
Please tell me when THE ELITES who run the parties offered this choice.
It is not the people who are voting to raise the debt. Congress doesn't work like that. It is a small cabal of aristocrats who almost never lose power.

>You use the word aristocracy to refer to people who are anything but.
Families like the Clintons and Kennedys have been in power for generations. They are the aristocracy. 
> they are not fit to decide what is proper to the management of their destinies
Yet they objectively hold wiser political positions than the elite.
>No democracy will be as potent and effective as the immediate might that resides in the holy hands of a single lord
Historically, these landed lords brought in foreigners to undermine their own people. Traitors.

>the people you mention only use the money as a tool to secure their power
That is by definition the kind of aristocracy you will get in an era where owning a bunch of serfs doesn't make you rich. Farming wheat doesn't generate wealth in the technological age.
Also, btw, back when it did, the English nobility discovered that sheep was more profitable and as soon as this happened, they began to kick peasants off their own land to replace THE PEOPLE with sheep. Literal sheep, not NPCs.
That is treason on the highest level. That is the kind of behavior I expect from a jew.

I am not even a partisan about this issue. I support anything pro-White. I'd support absolutist monarchy or even sheep feudalism that evicted me from my own land so long as the end result was White survival.
However, the knee jerk opposition to democracy is built upon shaky arguments.
The claim that the people aren't fit to rule themselves is immediately disproven by the fact that the elite are and have always been the most disgusting traitors. It is the PEOPLE who compelled their nobility to expel the jews. It was the ARISTOCRACY who brought them in. It was the ARISTOCRATS who imported foreigners to work the mills while evicting native Englishmen and Frenchmen and Germans from land they had dutifully tended for centuries.

The social contract was broken not by the people, but by the elites. They relinquished their duties to care for subjects which the law described as their loyal children.
Treason nullifies all rights to rule.

2u04ptkcqwra1.jpg
[Hide] (206.8KB, 1065x1400) Reverse

>>4960
>Only 20 years earlier, a poll found that 90% of (White) Americans would have rather lost WW2 than give blacks access to White schools.
>And again, today in 2024, the majority of Whites oppose immigration.
>60 years ago it would have been an absolutely undefeatable majority.
Which is a fact that any strong WN leader would exploit for good without needing any validation from below. Let's not skip the fact that despite all these wishes, never the democracy in the US managed to give all these Whites what they desired. Would a strong White leader have emerged, seized power by force and told people that now he would give them what they wanted without wasting time through houses and parliaments, said leader would have been hailed as a hero and the populations would have gladly forsaken democracy. Because when people get what they need and deserve, they don't mind politics anymore, they can focus on better things that are more relevant to their daily requirements. This for the most part was true of monarchies.
>That's pretty much my point from a different perspective. I am saying that had America been a direct democracy in 1965, open borders would not have been passed. It is only among the elite that these kinds of poisonous policies are popular.
I see where you're coming from, with that, all the people constantly involved in politics. Factually, they have better things to do, and they for the most part don't possess the skills or aptitudes to properly handle the realities of power. You're chasing unicorns. What is the point of asking them this? As a leader you know it's the right thing to do. You don't need their opinion. Asking them if they're willing to support a policy that protects their identity? Why even ask, it's silly! Why even take the risk of suggesting that it might be a valid option to say yes to immigration? And if they say yes, that they want their own selves to be eradicated biologically, what is there to do then? Ignore them to save them from their folly? Because you know that if they're racially conscious they would already be on your side, so you're needlessly adding absurd steps in a global process that adds absolutely nothing to the value and quality of your work as a White leader. Merely giving the people the possibility to vote stupidly and sign their own suicide is irresponsible and insane. The point is that your democracy simply provides nothing of value to what a benevolent White despot would already endeavor to enforce.
>Look at the elites, anon. Look at them. They are inferior to the people they rule.
So? These parasites will not be removed with more democracy but with less of it. Straight violence, sword and scepter in the hands of a strong man, will purge our lands. We again do not need to waste time on elections and ask White masses what is better for them when we already know the answer to such riddles. You're again doing acrobatics to legitimize a system that is devoid of any added value to what an old school, straight forward and brutal order would achieve.
>The people are the ones who most agree with you, anon. That is what I have been saying.
Those who agree with me, I really don't need their opinions, do I? I know I am right and they would follow me. For those who would be found to be in disagreement, they are either enemies or fools and they probably stand on our way to freedom and power so I would be invited to speak lowly of their lives and the worthiness of their existence.
>If the elites are really more clever than the people, they are still evil and dumb good people make better rulers than smart evil people.
Both are equally bad. With the evil person you're looking at someone destroying you by design. With the dumb person, you're facing a long and agonizing process of destruction fueled by sheer stupidity and incompetence, which you will notice many people are so quick to accord to their respective politicians, even the worse of the lot, thinking these scumbags are merely "wrong" and, at worst, self-centered, but our dear voters would never be capable of imagining that these political men and women may also willingly follow a far more sinister plan. Anyway, one way or another, you need pro-White competent leaders and I think that as we move fur(t)her back in time, we will find that ancient methods of revelation of might and valor will prevail over any sophomoric yapping and random elections. I simply don't see the point of any of this noise.
>If you actually examine history, the further back you go the more power people held over local communities.
All the great armies that protected Europe from invasions were lead by princes, kings and emperors who hardly were elected by the masses. Taking decisions at small scales is perhaps the only level which the common folk can get involved at with any degree of respectable efficiency, but as soon as you move beyond those very restricted limits it quickly falls apart. Soon enough they would find themselves having to voice their requests and concerns to intermediaries such as nobles of varying ranks. Autonomy at the local scale is fine but comes nowhere close to the kind of considerations that are the bread and butter of national and international matters, even less anything related to fate.
>Yet if the lord violated a local custom, he would likely face a revolt and die.
In most cases it is true and it is perfectly sane. Being imbued with greater power doesn't mean being free to tread on customs and morals and I'd rather believe the lords of yesteryear were detached from the typical political hypocrisy we are asked to accept as fact from our current leaders who always speak of freedom and justice but truly are the most opposed to such concepts.
>Saint's Monday
Nothing of significant importance. A quirkiness at best.
>Before around the 20th century, local towns were practically independent states and they were not run by some random guy making decisions for everyone but by the locals.
It wildly varies between cultures, times and locales, and the size of your urban area. In most cases where a council would be found, a central figure still was required to often have the final word, if only to get things rolling. In other cases you had a few powerful families wrestling power over entire city states. Obviously in all cases it was much preferable and plain logical in fact to please the population without bringing iniquity upon the lower classes, nor would it be advised to feed the hatred of the nobles. However the idea that anything close to an intense direct democracy was the most adopted model of management for most significant population centers in history is but a fantasy as far as I'm concerned.
>Again, the elite often imported foreigners to undermine the native population
This reads more like a generalization derived from a few minor cases, if only because it would often be impractical to try to replace a population by another.
The use of foreign armies and mercenaries is certainly not unheard of, but we're getting lost in technicalities. And if one example were to be selected, what would you say of the Germans invading France, purging its northern half from Jews and vice, and being used by local high ranking local Frenchmen to keep the overall population both happy and in check?
>The elite have always been corrupt traitors. Always.
Is this a case of "source: trust me bro"?
>Untrue. Were that correct, the majority of Whites would support immigration. They don't so this point is false.
The majority of Whites have definitely supported immigration in most Western countries since they kept voting for traitorous politicians. Democracy would either be banned or not a problem if most Whites massively voted in favor of their racial interests. They don't. Even a lot of right-wing voters are stuck at the cultural level, praising the well mannered and educated patriot African or China man. For those who want less immigration, or perhaps none of it anymore, how many go as far as vote for deportation? How could they when most politicians of the right-wing spectrum hardly mention this? At best they waste people's time with quibbles over legal and illegal immigration. The situation is so broken that you can easily find non-Whites voting for supposedly far-right parties in our own countries. Ireland can't even muster a few percents of White Nationalism, the scores are pathetic. Likewise, Germany for the Germans still remains a minority choice all landers combined. UK, France and Italy have nothing better than controlled opposition parties that for the most part refuse to engage the race and deportation topics. America is utterly screwed with a massive majority of White voters still falling prey to the Trump scam. They are retards, that's all.
>Please tell me when THE ELITES who run the parties offered this choice.
If no such choice was offered, it clearly didn't prevent most of the people who were legally allowed to vote to do so and you're simply showing they kept voting for people who had no real solutions. This is another proof that democracy was not the solution back then already. It doesn't even matter if the democratic system is totally direct or not, because the candidates people vote for hardly promise to solve any problem at all the way it should be done, yet these voters keep going at it. If they truly wanted an end to debt, an end to immigration and a reversal of the demographic waves, they would abstain from voting at all because none of the candidates support these. Yet look at the voting rates!
>Families like the Clintons and Kennedys have been in power for generations. They are the aristocracy.
Being in power for a long time is not a definition for aristocracy. Otherwise Putin is an aristocrat.
>Yet they objectively hold wiser political positions than the elite.
If it were true we would see that through elections, where a wise and honest White Nationalist would gather heaps of support. But none of that happens and the dearth of valuable candidates doesn't translate in massive abstentions so high as to near the point of breaking the legitimacy of that elective process.
I don't think waiting for the White masses to come to their senses is a reasonable path to follow. Common sense needs to be drilled through their heads by sheer force, not consensus.
>Farming wheat doesn't generate wealth in the technological age.
It actually does but in very large quantities managed by plutocrats.
Plutocrats are not aristocrats, they are nowhere noble.
>Also, btw, back when it did, the English nobility discovered that sheep was more profitable and as soon as this happened, they began to kick peasants off their own land to replace THE PEOPLE with sheep. Literal sheep, not NPCs.
And I suppose there's a suppressed history about the unsung tides of peasants left to die of hunger by the million or something? And these peasants wouldn't benefit from having sheep themselves too? Where are we going with this exactly?
>I support anything pro-White. I'd support absolutist monarchy or even sheep feudalism that evicted me from my own land so long as the end result was White survival.
We don't need to go there mate.
>The claim that the people aren't fit to rule themselves is immediately disproven by the fact that the elite are and have always been the most disgusting traitors. It is the PEOPLE who compelled their nobility to expel the jews. It was the ARISTOCRACY who brought them in. It was the ARISTOCRATS who imported foreigners to work the mills while evicting native Englishmen and Frenchmen and Germans from land they had dutifully tended for centuries.
Are you going to argue that Whites were replaced by niggers to work the mills now? Your strong desire to prove that all aristocrats were rascals of the worst order is puzzling to me. For example, in France up to the French Revolution, it was nobles and the kings who swiftly stood against the import of niggers into the country. Here's wikipedia's already biased version about the Black Code (Code Noir). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_Noir
The article doesn't really explain much about how negroes were handled if they ever was an attempt to dump them even in minute quantities on French soil because this code largely deals with colonies.
When Louis XVI learned of the Talmud, he was absolutely outraged. Unfortunately for him, his family and most the nobility, he as king had failed to properly assess the threat he was soon to be subjected to.

>>4964
>What if a strong leader emerged and led the people?
Well, that'd have been swell too. But this doesn't contradict my thesis. This strong leader is relying on public support to accomplish his goals. This further proves that power ultimately does come from the people. If the American public had been as you say they are, then back in the 1960s, they would all have supported race mixing and we'd have gone extinct decades ago.
Put another way, a king without public support is a bandit. A bandit with the backing of the people can become a king.

>As a leader you know it's the right thing to do
I'm getting the feeling that you imagine that if you were the all powerful dictator, everything would work perfectly. Everyone believes this. Even I do. But we're not the all powerful dictator and we never will be. You need to base your ideology around human nature and the nature of power. Not imagining that you will be like a Paradox game ruler. No one ever has been that powerful.
This is why I left monarchism. 

I'm going to take some of your arguments & rephrase them into succinct arguments so I can better respond to them. I will try to be as true to the spirit of the argument as I can as I find this an interesting discussion.
>If the public are naturally good, why would we need to ask them their opinion?
Because the elites are not naturally good. History demonstrates this.
Furthermore, if you detach the elites from the people, they will inevitably become extreme degenerates and traitors. This will result in a revolution. Since, in your ideal world, the government is projecting as right wing, the reaction to it will be left wing. That is inevitable. 
Therefore, by detaching the elites from the people, you are ensuring a communist revolution.

>instead of being ruled by evil smart people or dumb good people, in my ideal world, we will be ruled by smart good people.
Yes, that'd be nice but that's not how the world looks right now. 
Firstly, if you get to artificially create an angelic elite who will somehow take power from the current elite, then I may counter by artificially creating a hyper intelligent populace and pointing out that if the public were dedicated White nationalists, then democracy would achieve what we both want without the need for an oligarchy.
Immigration? Vote. 90% against. Banned.
Race mixing? Vote. 90% against. Banned.
You see what I'm saying? You're constructing an elite who only exist in your head and who all happen to be basically yourself. Yes, if you ruled society, I'm sure it'd be perfect. But you don't and most people don't agree with you even in this site.
Furthermore, you would eventually die and you cannot ensure that your successor will be as perfect as you surely are.
Also, real countries cannot function as absolutist states. Even 17th century France was an oligarchy. The king never held absolute power. No one can possibly run everything so power is delegated. Can you ensure they are as perfectly angelic as you? No. So we must assume that any elite will act in accordance with human nature. 
Do not construct your perfect world based on an assumption that human nature can be altered. I openly admit that the masses are dumb. But dumb good people are better than smart evil people.

>Saint's Monday was unimportant
Anon, we're talking about imposing a rule upon the elites that you could not compel serfs to work on Mondays. This is literally the origin of the two day weekend and it was imposed by serfs upon lords
That's pretty serious.
Also, elites at the time bitched indecently at the indolence of the peasantry for doing this. Yet they did not violate this custom... until capitalism came around and destroyed the old world. But that's another story.

>In the examples you provided, there was no direct democracy. Local leaders, even if it's just a village headman, held the most sway.
Yes. I agree. In fact, I will go further. People actually like elevating leaders to speak for them.
This actually meshes with your own world view. You would like for people to get behind a good and smart man, elevate him to power, and then shut up while he does his work.
In the real world, it's quite possible that the people would naturally elect or appoint a dictator to represent their interests. And that is one manifestation of democracy. In the past, petty kings and chiefs ruled at the behest of their people. If you, say the king of the Suabi, ruled well, you would have the support of the people. But if you sold them out to the Romans and offered jewish slave merchants the right to take children from homes, then the tribe would rise up and cut your throat. Again, a true king rules at the behest of his people. Money can mitigate this law. You can hire mercenaries to bayonet the people you rule away. But eventually, a king that rules contrary to the will of the people will die. Or flee.

>what would you say of the Germans invading France, purging its northern half from Jews and vice, and being used by local high ranking local Frenchmen to keep the overall population both happy and in check?
Is this a historical event? I don't recall it.
>Is this a case of "source: trust me bro"?
Throughout the renaissance, English nobles imported Flemmish and other foreigners to England to work trades for them. When the English peasantry revolted, they slaughtered these foreign squatters with intense hatred. No one likes foreigners. I am not anti-Flemmish. However, if you move to another country and take their jobs and their houses, you deserve what you get. That said, the ones responsible were the aristocratic elite. They are the ones should really should have been killed.
German lords imported Poles to work mines in Silesia because apparently they did it for cheaper than Germans did. Nevermind the hundreds of examples of kings and aristocrats employing foreign mercenaries to brutalize their people. What a rotten, treasonous thing to do.
That sort of behavior is one of many reasons why I abandoned monarchism. These people are traitors, no different than modern politicians. If they had had africans, they would have replaced Europe long ago.

I brought up sheep and England because a distant ancestor of myself lived around Norfolk. He was a successful cattle herdsman. Some time in the 16th century, the local lords discovered that wool was more profitable than peasants paying rent. For centuries untold, my ancestors as well as thousands of other families loyally served the landed elite in Norfolk. This meant absolutely nothing to them and they began to evict people from their ancestral land and evicted them from the common grazing grounds.
Monarchists have this notion that the elites are like fathers and the people are their children.
A father doesn't demolish his son's house to make room for more profit. That's disgusting behavior. They have always been like this. 
>I suppose there's a suppressed history about the unsung tides of peasants left to die of hunger by the million or something?
No, they revolted. They captured the second largest city in England before being crushed by foreign mercenaries in the service of the treasonous king. 

>If the people didn't support infinite Haitians and transgender freaks, why did they vote for politicians who support these things.
They didn't. Especially in the 1960s. Both parties openly opposed immigration but behind the scenes, they worked to open the borders.
>Being in power for a long time is not a definition for aristocracy.
You will not find 13th century landed nobles in the 21st century. Today, power comes from either being a career politician or owning a fortune 500 company. These families are the modern aristocracy. They always wield power and wealth.

>If the masses were wiser than the elites, why don't they support White nationalists?
I said wiser than the elites, not wise.
I have made no secret that the masses are stupid. However, they still hold saner views than the elites. 

>Plutocrats are not aristocrats, they are nowhere noble.
Being morally noble has nothing to do with being an aristocrat. If you meant ennobled, then that's an anachronism. Modern elites are not given fancy titles to LARP over... usually. But that doesn't mean anything. You could be the direct descendant of Gilbert de Clare but that is meaningless in today's society. But if you're in the Clinton family, you wield the same kind of power as a medieval Duke. 

>What about noble who opposed niggers in France?
Good for him.
Individuals within a group are never 100% uniform. That's why you can find black doctors and even blacks who don't hate White people. However, when you are dealing with a class of men who purport to be ruling in the best interests of the people, they must be held to a high standard.
What I hate is how monarchists demand that we unquestioningly trust these random fucking families and yet if we hold them to the standards that even peasants meet, they come off as inferior.

>>4965
>This further proves that power ultimately does come from the people.
That is not the same as democracy. Public support needs not be full, it needs be high enough so that the masses won't openly rebel, and as we see today it takes a lot for them to get unhinged to the point of toppling anything, and I don't even believe in grassroots movements, I always see the hands of other minorities or would-be elites acting behind. Most of the rebellion I suspect would be supported by irritated nobles and contenders more than anything else.
>If the American public had been as you say they are, then back in the 1960s, they would all have supported race mixing and we'd have gone extinct decades ago.
That's a reversal of my point, which was that democracy has certainly not prevented Whites from progressively voting for anti-White politicians, quite the contrary.
>A bandit with the backing of the people can become a king.
In this case the population is definitely stupid at the expense of its own good. Cue anything left of our political camp. One could say we may even have a right to subdue and oppress these idiots, if not expel them or outright exterminate them.
>I'm getting the feeling that you imagine that if you were the all powerful dictator, everything would work perfectly. Everyone believes this.
I don't and I know it would be a complicated affair but I'd work all day long to reinforce my powers and nip in the bud dissenters. Not that I would take much pleasure in that but it would be a basic necessity. A night of the long knives is more than acceptable, it's a duty, but such events have to be swift and quick, you don't want anything like that to stretch over months.
>You need to base your ideology around human nature and the nature of power.
From this I know that most human are vacuous biological computers, and many of them are downright ill equipped to know anything about politics and what is suited for the "greater good". Once you seize power it's your responsibility to make them agree with you, not the other way round, which is achieved through continuous propaganda and good works, the later being absolutely important.
>No one ever has been that powerful.
A great many emperors would beg to disagree. Hitler himself was quite powerful and despite the traitors who lurked in the shadows he was far less at risk than Stalin who played a dangerous game with his Jews.
>Because the elites are not naturally good. History demonstrates this.
I disagree and unfortunately that means we won't be able to see things eye to eye. Elites can be good.
>Furthermore, if you detach the elites from the people, they will inevitably become extreme degenerates and traitors.
True and fortunately I never said such a detachment should happen, merely that sometimes leaders know much better than the childish and clueless humans they're meant to lord over, people who are generally satisfied with very basic needs which are often used to lure them into pitfalls.
>Yes, that'd be nice but that's not how the world looks right now.
If you don't nurture that hope there is no point even pretending fighting. Hope is important and the desire to reach an ideal is of importance. All we are exposed to is meant to make us depressed and despondent, to hate ourselves and our lives, to lack respect, to forgive trust in our neighbors.
>I may counter by artificially creating a hyper intelligent populace
Why not strive for both, so much that at some point the population will be so clever that it will self-rule and a new golden age will shine upon us? This would be a long work stretching over millennia with eugenics at its heart.
Nevertheless, if you keep defending this blackpilled vision of yours where it will be impossible to have true good leaders then we will never make it. As simple as that.
>Furthermore, you would eventually die and you cannot ensure that your successor will be as perfect as you surely are.
That's true. Eventually we will need to work a plan out to ensure that the best people get trained properly and find their way to the highest levels of society to keep it on good rails and the rules to follow would be so good that they would be set in stone for thousands of years and suffer no amendment nor any deviation. National Socialists were getting very close to this I believe. Many people deride Himmler as some kind of LARPagan but he was building something much deeper and tailored for long term prosperity than the mere secular political machinery that is understood by most as National Socialism. Religion is a fundamental aspect of this and we gain nothing by ignoring it.
>Also, real countries cannot function as absolutist states. Even 17th century France was an oligarchy. The king never held absolute power. 
It came very close to be a factual absolute monarchy. At some point the king Louis XIV had all final say. That doesn't mean that delegating work is a bad thing. Some popes got that powerful. Frederich II held immense power. Napoleon and Hitler would barely see anyone able to oppose their words. For the most part they all deserved the immense power they had.
>Can you ensure they are as perfectly angelic as you? No.
Obviously no but it's up to you to create an entire structure that filters the bad apples out. Troublesome elements, you push them to the bottom of the ladder or downright execute them.
>But dumb good people are better than smart evil people.
I already said that they're both bad from the perspective of taking decisions for a whole nation.
Or even just a village. Tards gonna tard. You can't bet your future on this.
>People actually like elevating leaders to speak for them.
With all the issues that entails in the form of smooth talkers. Democracy relies too much on talks, not enough on deeds.
>In the real world, it's quite possible that the people would naturally elect or appoint a dictator to represent their interests. And that is one manifestation of democracy. 
History would above all say that they'll more often than not get an evil man to power. To get people to vote correctly they need to be educated properly, which is done through customs, taboos, religious views, cultural norms. Those who write these rules in turn are sure to get elected or more realistically get a puppet on the big seat, which means they already have a significant amount of power over a society. All of which are unnecessary extra steps when it could just be more straightforward. I truly believe that the next real White leader will gather a loyal retinue of men around him and conquer the rest of the masses through pure might. Politics are going nowhere and talk is cheap.
>If you, say the king of the Suabi, ruled well, you would have the support of the people. But if you sold them out to the Romans and offered jewish slave merchants the right to take children from homes, then the tribe would rise up and cut your throat.
I don't claim the king should antagonize the people, just make clear who is in charge.
Also, I'd loathe raining over your parade but the idea that the people will rise if they're badly abused is a nice fairy tale. Too many cases mark history of tyrants remaining in place. At best the population might obtain help from foreign political powers but without any guarantee of being better handled after the fall of the former power.
>Is this a historical event? I don't recall it.
That's the invasion of France by the Germans and the subsequent victory of the latter. It turned out that there was a lot of support for the Germans. Many men entered the fighting forces willingly and as for the Resistance (mostly commies), even today they keep whining about how they were plagued by informants and traitors working for the Germans.
>Throughout the renaissance, English nobles imported Flemmish and other foreigners to England to work trades for them.
At a time when the wider Netherlands and their banks and businesses were mostly in Jewish hands. These English leaders were at that time real sellouts.
>No one likes foreigners.
Not always. Educated, smart, respectable and honest foreigners of a relatively similar racial origin can be quite appreciated as long as they're not seen as detrimental to the well being of the locals.
>German lords imported Poles to work mines in Silesia because apparently they did it for cheaper than Germans did.
Working in mines is such a dangerous and cruel profession that from a higher perspective I seriously don't think it was that much of a loss for German workers being spared working in mines when they should have been able to return to a sustainable modest peasantry or small crafts.
>Monarchists have this notion that the elites are like fathers and the people are their children.
Wrong analogy here since fathers don't kill or evict their children just to make more money. That's just a White trash mindset. That's the behavior of callous tyrants. A father protects his children and knows what's best for them even if they disagree.
>muh ancestors and revolts
It's sad but do you realize that the records for democracy paint a far more despicable picture regarding the overall well being of populations?
>They didn't. Especially in the 1960s. Both parties openly opposed immigration but behind the scenes, they worked to open the borders.
Yet when they got abused and lied to they kept asking for more because of the Jewish brainwashing. Once you remove this Jewish stupor you are left with sane leaders whose interests align with those of the people and there's no need to check people's opinions on every Tuesday because you know you're right and doing the good work.
>These families are the modern aristocracy. They always wield power and wealth.
Nobody calls them aristocrats but plutocrats. That's the proper term.
>I said wiser than the elites, not wise.
So they're just one notch wiser than pigs and will still fall for pathetically basic blunders. You're not really managing to prove that they're fit to decide for anything other than people like you and me already agree on. Maybe if we collectively wrote a We The White People charter all things would have been much simpler and better.
>Being morally noble has nothing to do with being an aristocrat. If you meant ennobled, then that's an anachronism.
It used to. But I acknowledge that kings would bestow titles to people who would sometimes just be good boys and it meant very little morally speaking.
>Modern elites are not given fancy titles to LARP over... usually.
Anon, they literally buy these titles these days.
>But if you're in the Clinton family, you wield the same kind of power as a medieval Duke.
True. Power knows no morals, its use being the only difference between a benefactor and a total selfish prick. It's a tool and most of it today could be considered stolen from more legitimate hands.
>However, when you are dealing with a class of men who purport to be ruling in the best interests of the people, they must be held to a high standard.
Some did. We can easily notice that the more the nobles listened to the Church, the more they tolerated the presence of money lenders who asked for real wealth as collateral for the loans. Once again the populations were being victims of such shortsightedness.
Have you also considered how many Jews managed to make their way into the nobility?
>What I hate is how monarchists demand that we unquestioningly trust these random fucking families and yet if we hold them to the standards that even peasants meet, they come off as inferior.
A very legitimate resentment.

>>4977
>I don't even believe in grassroots movements
You best start believing, friend. If what you say is true and grassroots movements will never topple a democratic regime, then you will not get a monarchy ever and I will not get a White revolution.
I disagree with your prognosis and can defend my position logically. But even if I could not, to believe that our cause is hopeless is a counter-productive mentality even if it is hopeless.
> democracy has certainly not prevented Whites from progressively voting for anti-White politicians
But my point is that the "democracy" you're rightfully blaming is nothing more than an oligarchy of familial elites.
Had America been a direct democracy, none of this would be happening because the policies the jews push are deeply unpopular. 

>A night of the long knives is more than acceptable, it's a duty
Against who?
I may be missing the context of this.

>There have been all powerful emperors.
Name an emperor who was actually this powerful. Adolf Hitler delegated a huge amount of authority to governors, political figures, and generals.
>I never said such a detachment should happen
But that is the inevitable result of creating a system where the elites do not need to consider the people. They will inevitably ignore them. Consider a paradox game where you could listen to the people or you could ignore them but ignoring them had no (immediately apparent) effect. You'd just ignore them. I would too. 

>What if both the population and elites were intelligent and good?
That'd be grand. But if that were the case, you seem to agree that self rule is good.
>Hitler and Frederick II were examples of absolute rulers.
Have you ever managed a large group of people? If you have, you know that no one in command actually micromanages everything. If you do, your office, party, unit, or wedding will be incredibly inefficient. When you delegate authority, you delegate power. Hitler was not the omnipotent god-emperor he appeared to be from afar.

>just prevent bad apples from attaining power ever.
That's naive. And the moment you get one in a position of power in a dictatorial regime, your entire system comes apart.
>There are many examples of tyrants remaining in place with no revolt
Are there? Some of the men who most closely resemble your ideas of an absolute ruler or tyrant were also examples of populist rulers. Hitler had overwhelming support of his people. Napoleon had overwhelming support of the people. Caesar had overwhelming support of the people of Rome.
Some deeply unpopular monarchs come to mind. Louis XVI, Nicholas II, and the last emperor of China.

>The WW2 invasion of France
I assumed you meant some medieval example in the context. Not sure how this supports or dispute the argument against absolutism or employing foreigners. Yes, the Germans were foreign to France but this has little to do with a debate on using mercenaries to police your population. 
>The English aristocrats were sellouts
Yes. My point exactly. 

>Who would want to work in mines
You'd think that but importing foreigners to work in your minds is importing an inevitably hostile population to live amongst your people and the moment they become the majority, you lose that territory forever. Besides, as someone who has lived in West Virginia, I know that people would rather work in mines than have no work.

>A father protects his children and knows what's best for them even if they disagree.
That is why I am not a monarchist. Very few monarchs act like fathers.
>the records for democracy paint a far more despicable picture regarding the overall well being of populations?
Do they? Athenian democracy was more nationalistic than Germany under Hitler. By a lot.
More recently, we have jewish subversion but this affects both democratic and monarchist states. Really, it affects White nations irrespective of whether they are a democracy like France or a monarchy like the UK. True, the UK isn't absolutist but if they were, there would be literally zero difference because 100% of English elites are traitors. If you dispute this, name ONE (1) English aristocrat who has explicitly spoken out against jews, feminism, or White genocide.

>Not aristocrats, plutocrats.
These terms do not differ in practical terms. Rule by the rich is rule by the rich whether you have fancy titles or not.
>Maybe if we collectively wrote a We The White People charter all things would have been much simpler and better.
Indeed. But I would insist on articles enshrining public participation in the new government. To ignore this is to doom the new ideology to eventual leftist overthrow.
>Have you also considered how many Jews managed to make their way into the nobility?
Yes. Yet again, another reason why faith in aristocracy is wrong. These people invited the jews in. They are traitors. Maybe not literally every single one, but overall they are traitors. It was always public outcry against the jews and their exploitation of the people that led to their expulsion. Not noblemen growing a backbone.

32_grace_newspaper.png
[Hide] (235.1KB, 937x939) Reverse

y6VhgoJH.jpg
[Hide] (396.8KB, 1568x2048) Reverse

I'm glad the discussion is civil here.
A bit wordy, but civil.
I'm an absolute monarchist and like hereditary monarchy.
I sympathize with OP in the sense that bashing democracy is trendy; not that I fancy democracy, but I like monarchy more than I dislike democracy. Also, the Hoppean trend along with right libertarian monarchists I can't agree with, b/c they all invariably dislike absolute monarchists (i.e. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, a sort of proto-Hoppe, condemns absolutism as evil).
Absolute monarchists (the camp that asserts the pre-eminent ideal of monarchy) are the fringe minority, btw. The vast majority of monarchists you'll meet are either the contemporary constitutional monarchists or the traditionalist Christian sort. 
I agree with the other monarchist that the anon here is mislead about how much popular support there is for White nationalism. There is the conversation about who would be a perfect dictator, but the people themselves are not a hivemind either.
I idealize hereditary monarchy. The State is a great family, with the reigning royal family representing this and blood relationship with the people. A familial State, because it is a natural blood bond with loyalty that comes with kinship; the king having a blood relationship with his kindred people is not only for the king's benefit, but for their benefit altogether: not only are people supposed to be more loyal to the king, but also amongst themselves: in this instance, Christian brotherhood is a universal application of that blood bond found in particular kings amongst their kin, signifying that this king is their lifeforce, and by divesting a familial bond to these people they are no longer strangers as it were: so there is a Christian brotherhood and fraternity, united in blood centering on Christ the King -- this way Christians have charity amongst each other and love each other and bond with each other, because the Church has become a 2nd family -- I know Christianity is hated here, and using Christianity to illustrate the virtues of a royal bond won't win followers here -- but the White Nationalism's problem with Christianity is that this blood blond is applied to all peoples and thereby irrespective of their own -- basically, Rousseau's problems with Christianity.
I don't imagine that the son will be altogether virtuous as the father's virtue, but the virtue I admire is the virtue of the family in order to model the state after a great family: that is the virtue I am primarily invested in. A son might not be perfect, but there is an ancestral wisdom there: we hear it all the time about following your ancestor's, the son's constitution is his pride in looking back to his ancestors and trying to replicate their achievements, and the loyalty that is natural between a father and son to accomplish this. 
It might be a grievance, that you say why should there be any pre-eminence with absolute monarchy? why trust these random fucking families -- but in general the same is said for a lot of groups and the truth is not many monarchists themselves are under any effects of pre-eminence with our contemporary royalty. 
Most people are under the sway of pre-eminence as it were in their own way with their own respective camps. You don't see Leftists typically questioning Lenin every step of the way or casting doubt; you don't see Trump supporters siding with the Democrats to indict Trump. In fact, in some respects leftists are better equipped to be monarchists than most monarchists themselves. They easily take after the names of their statesmen, like Leninists, Maoists, Stalinists, Trotskyists, as if they were philosopher kings; they aren't constantly calling into question when it's okay to kill Lenin or limiting their vision for a better society, and neither do Natsocs decide when it's the right time to overthrow the Natsoc Party & their Leader or push the breaks on their vision for society, but most monarchists are carried away with their own disbelieve, and aren't visionaries in the same way.
When I talk about Monarchy, I'm not really talking about a general aristocracy, which could mean simply good government or the rule of the best -- or the rule of the few -- talking about the elites first is not my preference, because then you'd fall into the ideology of petty kinglets; remember, Homer's maxim, let there be one ruler, one king. I'm not for any group or clique of elites or even nobles, but the rule of one person -- that is Monarchy. I don't deny that a monarch has subordinates, but an absolute monarch is the sole monarch and unity. --That anon said, for example, the elites -- plural -- as fathers of their children, but that isn't my ideal. More like, the King is the founding father of his people, and his sons follow after his personality, and the people altogether form a cult of personality around the King in order to be more kindred people: Unity is the ideal we aim for, it is what makes an ethno-state desirable to begin with: because white nationalism in the abstract is like taking the traits of one person and applying it to a group, making it so different people have the same complexion and appearance, so they cohabit together in peace without their blood boiling like wolves at each other. 
White nationalists talk about how they can't relate with the totalitarian doctrine of Fascism, for instance, because it is simply not pertinent to the cause of White nationalism because it is a Statist ideology. Yet White Nationalists themselves should be keen to understand, that their ideals are totalitarian with race and it's the same mentality at the root: white nationalists don't seem to like multiculturalism or diversity too much...
Tell me, how is White Nationalism different from what Plato is saying in Plato's Republic about a community of pleasures and pains or unity of emotion?
Plato Republic
>And there is unity where there is community of pleasures and pains–where all the citizens are glad or grieved on the same occasions of joy and sorrow?

>No doubt.

>Yes; and where there is no common but only private feeling a State is disorganized–when you have one half of the world triumphing and the other plunged in grief at the same events happening to the city or the citizens?

>Certainly.

You have this City, where it is disorganized, with no common expression amongst the people: imagine, then, if Plato wasn't talking about private property dividing the City against itself, but instead properties of persons dividing the City against itself. Isn't this the same issue White Nationalists have with the status quo? You have one group of people plunged into grief, and another group of people in triumph (think of all the race riots and other examples). This is a common theme in totalitarianism to achieve this end: white nationalism and Hitler's 3rd Reich likely understood this, as seen in the uniformity of their State ceremonies and attempts to gather that unity of emotion, this community of pleasures and pains. Hitler himself even admired the socialists with their display of red banners and the mesmerizing effects it had upon the crowd: Hitler was way more in tune with Plato's Republic than Aristotle's City, that can be read in Mein Kampf and his own criticisms of Democracy and parliamentarianism. 
I like to think, that between absolute monarchists, fascists / natsocs, and communists, what is held in common when opposing democracy is obviously with the status quo of multi-party democracy. The so-called centrists and right libertarians tend to throw you two together (natsocs & communists) -- horseshoe theory -- that is because they dislike the unitary aims of you two.
...
Hitler in Mein Kampf condemned parliamentarianism and democracy, but also hated the Habsburg Monarchy: I have my own opinions on this matter, and I think Hitler was more discontent with Traditional Catholicism than royal monarchy: the main fault Hitler found with Habsburgs was their apathy to German nationalism (except for HRE Joseph II who is called an Enlightened Absolutist btw) -- Habsburgs had a blood relationship in mind, but it wasn't the blood relationship Hitler thought of, but Christ's blood. I personally think Hitler has his position wrong, when Hitler said that the problem was the Habsburgs abusing religion for the sake of policy or wasn't being straightforward. More like the Habsburgs disregarded policy for the sake of religion if anything could be said against tradcaths and apathy towards nationalism -- that is typically the root of it.
A more fair analysis of dynastic patriotism would probably be seen in the monarchies of the Far East like Japan or Korea or China for this exact reason if I had to be honest with Hitler: in the West, dynastic patriotism is more understood spiritually with Christ, not so much politically with earthly kings -- otherwise they just tout Aristotle's opinion this is a barbarian despotism foreign to them. In a way I agree with Rousseau, that there is a disconnect between the spiritual and political interests for that reason (probably would be bad to say around traditionalist monarchists, btw) but that really is the case with Hitler and the Habsburgs: Hitler's problems are a fair bit more akin to Rousseau's problems with Christianity with the Habsburgs.
I still think Hitler wouldn't really consider Hereditary Monarchy if we acknowledge this with the Habsburgs, but I feel Hitler throws the baby out with the bathwater with all royalism because of his discontent with Habsburg royalism in particular. I always felt that was unfair, because I also don't really have a penchant for the Habsburg type monarchists for similar reasons.
...
That is all I have to say for now. /monarchy/ & /fascist/ did have more crossposting in the past, but on our side it always narrowed down to /fascist/'s dislike for hereditary monarchy (a conversation I don't look forward to) or /monarchy/ being shilled here (which I think /fascist/ resents, b/c I admit we have a history and I understand that).

I think it's strange some anons here talk about monarchists as if absolute monarchists are the majority; I'm just a vocal minority in my corner. The vast majority of e-monarchists, like I said -- are basically your contemporary constitutional monarchists, or the traditionalist Christian sort.
It is the other way around. The majority of monarchists are constitutional monarchists. Even the traditionalist Christians are basically idealizing constitutional monarchy, but minus the liberalism / modernity.
I don't understand why bash absolute monarchists over constitutional monarchists albeit you hate royalism altogether (for the monarchy-haters).

Sorry to samefag, but to set things straight:
Constitutional monarchists generally bash Fascism / Natsoc way more, and the traditionalist sort also bash Fascism / Natsoc as a modern statelolatry Caesarism or neglect nationalism to begin with.
IDK why Fascists would seek out and throw punches at absolute monarchists (an obscure group btw) over these other monarchists who are the main culprits against you in monarchist circles. Ideologically, there is also much more in common between absolute monarchists and fascists than the others (although Mussolini denied it).

Rousseau_royalist_writers.png
[Hide] (39.2KB, 613x270) Reverse

Our_father_is_Marshal_Kim_Jong_il(1).mp4
[Hide] (12.1MB, 720x544, 02:40)

An anon says he
>left monarchism
but I wouldn't be surprised.
Most monarchists don't really fully grasp it either.
If likening the State to a family is an alien mode of thought or outrageous, then it doesn't surprise me; Rousseau hinted he would have been a full-fledged royalist too if he could only believe it. 
The epitome of that for me has honestly got to be BAP from what I've read. He also was a pro-Habsburg sort of monarchist and his criticisms of Monarchy felt more like a disillusioned tradcath. Most other monarchists don't like monarchy as absolute monarchists do. 
(In fact, I'd say North Korea "gets it" more than most monarchists themselves do).
Louis XIV wrote memoirs and I think if Fascists here honestly read them and took time to listen to absolute monarchists they'd realize we're 10x better than the other monarchists (as far as Fascism is concerned).

FfwGfOlaYAUoKR3.jpeg
[Hide] (632.4KB, 1380x2048) Reverse

>>5007
>>5008
In Germany, a significant royalist group opposed the rise of the NSDAP. In a way this is easy to understand even if the royalists didn't voice their griefs clearly, because it did look like another rise of the plebe that went against the very traditional segmentation and ordering of Aryan populations. They also were seeing themselves losing privileges which were mostly of the bourgeois type at this point anyway. But they still believed in the old system nonetheless and were very attached to the martial tradition.
The NSDAP shook all of that. Despite the misleading form, it was about the renewal of nobility, the rise of a new one to partially revigorate and replace the old tired one. As soon as they consolidated their power, the more plebeian aspect that existed with the SA got curtailed and soon enough, the construction of a typical aristocratic armed elite went on. No doubt the royalists comprised a lot many grumpy Christian old men who may have also not really appreciated the nebulous and strange positions took by the party regarding Christianity despite all the positive public overtures.

It is necessary to understand exactly why this traditional monarchist force opposed the rise of the NSDAP and also analyze how it evolved and splintered, see how some of these people might have softened their positions to be more compatible with those of the 3rd Reich while some others may have for opportunistic or ideological reasons moved closer to staunch opposition or treason.

We would love to think that traditionalist and monarchists would, culturally and in no little part historically, be more prone to intuitively understand the laws of the universe and metaphysical principles, but one can make the claim that in a large part the nobility was but a mere shadow of itself and this may have been true for several centuries already or perhaps more! Many would forget that their distant ennobled ancestors were themselves lifted off from the plebe, and we perhaps naively would like to think this was mainly done because of the value of their deeds alone. But a strange calcified view of hierarchies encroached on the minds of this entire caste that seems to have largely eschewed the yet very important notion of meritocracy.

The resentment that some humans nurture against the upper caste in thinking that they are illegitimate in large part because some people were lucky in drawing their life's cards is perhaps blind to how things are decided up there, but I could not chastise them for this because such an opinion partially stems from a noble ideal that only the best should rule. It is a common thing to claim that the masses hate those who are their betters and they soon try to pull them down. It's a very cynical worldview that is doubtlessly fueled by communistic views and which easily finds it way into the hearts of the envious and people of low stature who, too aware of what they are yet feeling incapable of rising by their own merits not because the system itself is biased against them but simply because these people are not that clever at all, would do all they can to thwart the chances of a more enlightened society to form.

Ideals of meritocracy have always been at the heart of the American spirit I believe, but this was completely hijacked by the plutocracy which was in a large part helped by the Protestant view of sheer work being one man's value, which is as callous and reductive as the next Marxist's stance on such a matter. Soon enough, then, what could have been Plato's Republic progressively gave place to a society solely thriving for money and where one's wealth was all that mattered. A slow but unrelenting process that gave way to the vilest and most hypocritical form of profiteering known as Capitalism, possibly because the influence of Christianity was too strong, possibly because Protestantism was the worst form of Christianity too, and possibly because republicans would firmly oppose anything remotely reminding them of monarchy.

>>5007
>The vast majority of e-monarchists, like I said -- are basically your contemporary constitutional monarchists
I agree with you but, as I pointed out then, if you are nothing more than a democrat who wants a monarch as a window dressing, you're not really a monarchist.
It would be like me saying I am a National Socialist but upon closer inspection, all I wanted was American democracy as it is today but swapping the flag for a Swastika.
If monarchism is a better form of government, then give the monarch true power.
>Well, what if decisions should be reached democratically but the monarch just has veto power to prevent dumb decisions
Okay but what is the fundamental philosophy here? It's still democracy since it is the people (or at least, an oligarchy representing them) who are making the actual decisions. The monarch is relegating to a veto stamp at best. If our philosophical principle is that the people should be sovereign to make decisions, why have a monarch at all?

>>5009
It's not that.
A large part of my arguments in favor of monarchism were predicated upon the familial nature of monarchy. The father is like a king, or should be.
And yet, so often these "fathers" fail to perform their sole duty to their subjects. Instead of addressing this, most monarchists say it doesn't matter. Obey your father.
Duty is reciprocal. If the father has no loyalty to his children, his children owe him nothing.

>>5006
I agree and even though I disagree with you on several items, I am not partisan to this issue. So long as a monarchist is pro-White, he is my brother.
>the anon here is mislead about how much popular support there is for White nationalism
I did not claim that the public are White nationalists. Though the most recent polls found that at least 10% of Americans "agreed with the alt-right"
And as far as I am aware, they polled niggers, Asians, and Mexicans too. Furthermore, there's a huge chance that the wording of the question is biased against Whiteness. So the true number of Americans who hold White nationalist views could be much, much higher.
Forget that though, on actual issues, the public is far more based than you think. No one likes trannies, foreign wars, diversity, or globalism.

>The State is a great family, with the reigning royal family representing this and blood relationship with the people
>a natural blood bond with loyalty that comes with kinship
>the king having a blood relationship with his kindred people is not only for the king's benefit, but for their benefit altogether:
>people supposed to be more loyal to the king,
>the King is the founding father of his people
This sort of thing is what I believed in and why I am not a monarchist.
A father does not pass a law that enslaves his own people for failing to get hired within 3 days of leaving the employment of a lord.
A father does not pass laws evicting his sons of their houses and fields so he can earn a higher profit.
A father does not hire foreigners to brutalize his sons.
A father does not import foreigners to undermine his sons so he can pay them less money, then imprison or enslave them when they cannot find work.
That's just disgusting.

Monarchists talk about our duty to be loyal to the monarch, yet almost never talk about the monarch's duty to his people. They imply that surely this will just naturally happen since, of course a king will be loyal. Yet historically, kings were generally more loyal to the oligarchy of lords under them than the people. 
You're an absolutist. You want an absolute monarch. If that's the case, we should hold the monarch to an absolute standard. An absolute monarch should at the very least, be more upright, nationalistic, loyal to his people, and moral than his subjects are.
In short, monarchists seem to want the people to be as loyal to a king as they would be loyal to a populist paragon of virtue, yet do not hold the king to such standards. And considering that the punishment meted out to many a peasant for "disloyalty" was death, a monarch who is not 10 times more loyal to his people than they are to him must be put to death as well.

>>5011
>I did not claim that the public are White nationalists.*
At least today they are not. In 1960, a majority of Whites were absolutely White nationalists. Not in name, but in thought. In 1940, they were White nationalists in thought and deed.

>>5009
North Korea has all the retarded cringe glued to it though. Daily, it sells itself as a clueless self-satire to the rest of the world.

1mbieu.jpg
[Hide] (46.8KB, 568x335) Reverse

If on the basis of offering more democratic power to the masses you were to give them a free day or two a month to officially dedicate themselves to the political affairs of their domain, unless you used a very constraining force that they would soon learn to despise which would be used to confirm their dedication to this social activity, most of these people would surely use this free time to do nothing related to politics and rather frolic around.

1709881021721228.jpg
[Hide] (172.8KB, 1024x1024) Reverse

>>5011
>1st part of the post
>be an absolute super total monarch and let the others seethe
>that's the way to go baby
>2nd part of the post
>all monarchs and nobles and aristocrats and their dogs suck
>democracy is superious
I can barely believe the same person wrote that schizophrenic post.

>>5016
>I'm glad the discussion is civil here.
>ur schizo
My post does not contradict itself. 
I will simplify it for you:
1. If the monarchy is window dressing, you might as well just have a democracy since that's the central philosophy of your government.
2. Real monarchies almost never live up to the ideals that you said they do.

>>5014
>most people wouldn't engage politically if given the choice
Then they shouldn't be made to.
I have a proposal government that is not a monarchy but is also absolutely not the kind of democracy you are used to. But even if we go with straight voting, let people who don't want to participate opt out.

HNK-607463819027.jpg
[Hide] (215.4KB, 1920x1200) Reverse

>>5017
>Real monarchies almost never live up to the ideals that you said they do.
Like wtf? The vast majority of monarchies did what they are expected to do, be it in Europe or elsewhere, and that's been true for thousands of years where most of them never gave a shit about muh parliament or constitution. Sorry if you can't cope with the fact that we live in a tough world that begs for wars to happen. Stay with your peasant class and shut up.
Besides, all people defending democracy are terminally inbred idiots because I can tell you that what will save us is so far removed from any idea of democracy that any retard who will even dare utter the word "vote" will be found sliced open from groin to nose within the next minute.

t_44aef93b4cfcb42c0565e71393c3d81003ca3ec36a8e3bf7cc9bebde761a6b0b.gif
[Hide] (1.1MB, 256x253) Reverse

>>5018
>my better solution and all brand new system is teh betterest, lemme explain
<let people who don't want to participate opt out
>thinking that's not what people already do

1701771684420.jpg
[Hide] (136.3KB, 860x1252) Reverse

>>5017
No tard, you can't defend democracy, and why? because it's bad. You have to make a choice, you cannot say OK let's have a real solid turbo-monarchy but if that fails then I'm OK with democracy.
If the current state of a given monarchy is deplorable, then it has to be changed by a better monarchy, not by some fabled clever, fair and useful democracy. More democracy will never be the solution no matter the situation.

>>5023
>The vast majority of monarchies did what they are expected to do
You have low expectations.
A monarch who fails to be loyal to his people above his oligarchs is a failure.
>Stay with your peasant class and shut up.
You are also in the peasant class, retard.
You are not a lord. You will never be a nobleman. You were born with peasant DNA and you will die with it. In 1,000 years, they will dig up your skeleton and scan it and conclude that you were a peasant.
Lean to cope with this fact.
>all people defending democracy are terminally inbred idiots
It's a shame you cannot discuss ideas without becoming emotional.
>i wil kil u!! IM SO ANGRY I CUD KIL U!
Jesus Christ. Grow up, delusional LARPer

>>5024
I never explained my alternative. Nor will I here as you'd find it incredibly confusing and boring.

>>5028
>its le bad because it's le bad
Yet you cannot explain why.
You're like a liberal who says racism is bad because it's bad. 
>if it doesn't work, replace it with the same thing
That's retarded.

In these posts, I explain in detail everything wrong with you ideology in excruciating detail. 
You cannot and will not even try to refute these ideas because you simply cannot.
>>4928
>>4960
>>4965

FpvsunYXoAE4U_C.jpeg
[Hide] (62.5KB, 1033x716) Reverse

>>5029
>You have low expectations.
I have very high expectations.
>A monarch who fails to be loyal to his people above his oligarchs is a failure.
Duh. Still not making democracy legitimate though.
>You are also in the peasant class, retard.
Prove it prole.
>You are not a lord. You will never be a nobleman.
>don't hope, don't try
mysides.jpg
>Lean to cope with this fact.
You're just a materialistic deluded brainlet who knows shit about metaphysics, most of history, genetics and Providence.
>It's a shame you cannot discuss ideas without becoming emotional.
You don't discuss about democracy. It's a waste of time. You remove it.
>Jesus Christ. Grow up, delusional LARPer
You're hurt that no real man would want to uphold your sweet democracy. You suffocate when forced to face reality about the sheer violence that will be necessary to make this world a better place and how after that nobody will ever give a shit about your national vooting faggotry.
>>5030
>you can't replace a failed king with a good one because it's still a monarchy and monarchy is bad waah!!
Holy shit anon, you're one special specimen.
>in these posts I explain why giving idiots voting rights is the solution to our distress
...

>>5038
>I have very high expectations.
I expect a monarch to be a paragon of virtue.
>but democracy is also bad.
I can argue otherwise, but at present my concern is with monarchism as an ideology. You're so butthurt that you cannot engage in a rational conversation. What happened with you is that you probably played a lot of videogames and became enthralled by monarchism. So you try to force reality to fit around your ideology rather than come to conclusions based on reality.

>I AM NOT A PEASANT!!!!!
Yes you are. Are you in power? Are you related to those in power?
Nope. You're on an anonymous image board. You're a peasant. You're not just a peasant, but a peasant in a class of peasants that the elite have slated for destruction. You cannot get lower than a poor White man.
>You're this, you're that!
No, I'm just a realist.
>u don't talk bout democracy! I jus remov it!
No, you're a peasant with no power. I'm not going to roleplay with you.
>nobody will ever give a shit about your national vooting faggotry.
In the event of a White revolution against the regime, the vast, vast majority of normal White people will be in favor of participation in the new regime. Even among the current tiny sliver of Whites who are self conscious White nationalists, the majority agree with me that we need populist participation in the new government.
You're nothing more than a roleplaying loon. I'm not trying to demean you, but you are undeniably on the extreme fringe of the extreme fringe. Not in a good way either. You're even roleplaying now instead of talking rationally. And you think you're not a peasant when you literally have less social power than a nigger.
You have less social power than a nigger, anon.
Think about that.

ee98b665fbe08e3.png
[Hide] (269.2KB, 512x384) Reverse

>>5039
>paragooning
And you think that your silly democracy will be capable of giving such a person any kind of immense power? Democracy's track record speaks for itself I'm afraid, you have merely failed to pay close attention to it.
>I can argue otherwise
Yes you definitely can argue for ages from what I can see by skimming this thread. You're a hypocrite because you don't have any respect for the people at all you merely wish you had that much power but you would never let even your neighbor decide against what you think is right. You would hate him with all your guts but you would have to suck it up and seethe in your closet if you failed to convince the population to vote your way while repeating to yourself that it was the good thing to do and you'd die on that hill because even if you disagree with some absolute cretin, for the sake of the most homosexual virtual signaling possible you'd claim that this same cretin deserves to have a right to speak and ruin the possibility of creating a much better society. Democracy is such a stupid, silly and tiring system. It's entirely built on delusions and make believe, that for some reason the whole bunch of a people will suddenly become very wise and clairvoyant once they're allowed to add more legal noise to their yapping and daily toiling routine. It's pathetic. You definitely think like the lowest peasant. I don't encumber myself with this kind of lame trash.
>So you try to force reality to fit around your ideology rather than come to conclusions based on reality.
>I'm just a realist.
Really? What do you know about reality? You know nothing about it. You can't even wrap your limp neck around the fact that it is extreme violence wished upon the whole world by a very few people with extreme power that will decide the fate of the entirety of mankind, and somehow you think that these same people would depower themselves and reintroduce the worse governing system ever after so much spilled blood and extreme sacrifices.
I'll let you continue bore the others with your funny arguments, I'm done.

Fuck democracy right in the woman parts. Kill niggers, milk cows, expand Whiteland.

>>5051
>will democracy deliver an all powerful dictator who is also a paragon of virtue? 
Have you ever been in a group of equals who needed to do something? Inevitably, whoever is the most persuasive will end up leading. This is natural. 

> You're a hypocrite because you don't have any respect for the people at all you merely wish you had that much power but you would never let even your neighbor decide against what you think is right
I don't follow your accusation. You're saying I am a hypocrite because I want to control others or what?
> You definitely think like the lowest peasant. I don't encumber myself with this kind of lame trash.
You are a peasant too.
This roleplay is cringe.
The fact that you're roleplaying as an aristocrat is yet more proof that monarchists are not serious people. Non-serious people will never be able to impose their ideas onto the world.

>What do you know about reality?
Obviously more than you considering you're literally play acting in this post that you're some kind of aristocrat.
Anon, you have no power at all.
You're on my level. In fact, considering you demonstrate acute ignorance of how power politics works, you've probably never led or organized any kind of body of people in your life. So embarrassingly for you, you're technically one social level lower than me. But not by much since I am a poor White male.

Your last sentence is disjointed but I will iron man it:
>You are a fool because you believe that White insurgents who take power by force will be self sacrificing enough to relinquish power
I don't know this for certain, but if they are wise, they will. Monarchism with LARP-lords and LARP-titles is childish. But a dictatorship is quite possible. If the new elites are doing this just for themselves, then they will not relinquish power. But if they're genuine White nationalists, they will need to think long term. That means they will have to involve the people in the new regime or it will inevitably fall apart. Without public support, the new regime will be extremely weak. The reason why the jews wield so much power is because they have gotten the support of the masses. At this point, if White nationalists rose up to topple it, we would be crushed by our own population. The key to victory is to break that social contract.
Everyone understands this. Even you, I hope.
Yet it's unpopular to extrapolate this logic further than that. I do. This is why I have grown out of dictator LARPing and especially of monarchism.

Z2eISkk-RmHkiBQXJx4Map_pKC3MF2WTiJAuhIl3WFQ.jpeg
[Hide] (32.4KB, 627x571) Reverse

>>5061
>a group of equals

>>5063
Yes. ie, not your boss and not a man in a suit or a cop.

OK, guys, I've figured out how America 2 is going to work. White men of good character can come in and enjoy a certain range of rights (including the right to kill non-Whites), White men with land are allowed to vote in state elections, each state can do whatever it wants, and whoever has killed the most enemies of the White Race and is currently alive gets to be King of America. I believe America was meant to be a place where White men are free to take care of themselves and contribute to the expansions and total victory of our Race. Am I wrong?

Is it strange shall we say that the vast majority if not all the staunchest nationalists in the world have historically agreed that democracy is the most insufferable, unfair and terrible governance form of all?......

>>5072
No one denies that American democracy, as it exists, is the most horrible system.
However, the vast majority of White nationalists have not been monarchists. I doubt anyone seriously believes that is the case.
If we look at the people who have actually spoken on this in detail, most nationalists seem to prefer authoritarian republican systems with strong barriers either to voting or restrictions on who can vote. In fact, it is largely the word "democracy" that is triggering. If you call something a Republic, suddenly it's more palatable. It's because democracy is heavily associated with the anti-White regime.

But even all this aside, there has to be some way in which the people are involved in the new regime or it will be very weak. Openly declaring hostility towards your own population is not wise.
Also, it seems a bit odd that we're fighting for White people only to turn around and say that White people are not mature enough to govern ourselves. Isn't that literally what the jews are saying? White people have problems, true. But I am not convinced that we would fail to govern ourselves if given the chance.

grace_monarchy_snow.jpg
[Hide] (144.6KB, 462x540) Reverse

8og93fxszyh81_png.png
[Hide] (307.7KB, 975x503) Reverse

>>5010
>In Germany, a significant royalist group opposed the rise of the NSDAP. In a way this is easy to understand even if the royalists didn't voice their griefs clearly, because it did look like another rise of the plebe that went against the very traditional segmentation and ordering of Aryan populations.
I've read Mein Kampf, & I found Hitler's thoughts against parliamentarianism stronger than even most other monarchists.
I don't fault Hitler for putting down would-be assassins: the same expectation I would have for a Monarch to put down & kill those who would kill him.
I don't fault Hitler for not restoring the Kaiser: Diarchy is not Monarchy, two pre-eminent persons cannot share the unity of State; I even sympathize with Hitler against the Kaiser's words condemning him. We see this quote passed around e-monarchist circles regarding Natsocs & even I have second thoughts about it concerning Wilhelm II.

>There is a man alone
That's the ideal of monarchy (one ruler alone).

>the rest the Kaiser resumes with rose-tinted flowery traditionalist fluff about an all-swallowing State
Meh. That doesn't appeal to me either.

>And the man who, alone incorporates in himself this whole State
Umm, based? That's the ideal of Monarchy: the Monarch incorporates in himself the whole State.

>has neither a God to honour
I cannot fault Hitler for this: times have changed, and it's not like Hitler had the luxury of having his authority passed down through centuries to benefit him into the modern age like Wilhelm II had.
Hitler was 100% right that Germany was too religiously divided to have the benefit of unity concerning Religion. Protestants & Catholics are both of a partisan and animal spirit that inevitably would tear apart that Unity. Hitler was a modern man confronted with modern problems: probably what modern monarchs will like, more secular -- not because their own fault -- but because Religion in some countries has the virtue of a divided Household, and being a more secular figure is thereby the only reasonable recourse with nationalism.
If Hitler had invoked and honored Christianity too much, it would have invited the spirit of partisanship and division, Hitler well understood this that the fire between the denominations made it not worthwhile, and because of this Hitler chose to be seemingly more "secular" (but with plenty of virtues) and I think that the Fascist philosophy doesn't look down upon these things as but secularism anyways or "mere political machinery" like the ultra-clericals do.
This is something Monarchists themselves should well understand: until these wounds heal, the "new monarchs" will also likely be in a disposition much like Hitler's & indeed most certainly have to be "secular" in countries like Germany that are srsly divided in terms of religion between the denominations. A kind of dictatorship like this is the only way of handling that situation.

>nor a dynasty to conserve nor a past to consult
This is the only sentiment of Kaiser Wilhelm II concerning Hitler that I agree with, but that's because that is the virtue of hereditary monarchy I agree with & I obviously disagree with Hitler on his thoughts on hereditary monarchy.

>>5011
>I agree with you
Yeah, that is the thing with constitutional monarchists. 
They are too married to Aristotle's suppositions concerning Monarchy: part of why they want to totally disempower the monarch is they believe like Aristotle that the City cannot be arranged like a Household (they call Despotism) and the form of a Household is a Monarchy, so no Monarch at all is so ideal unless they would be "one among equals": a constitutional monarch is sort of the right libertarian monarch, that only minds -his- own estate like all the others, and that is it.

>And yet, so often these "fathers" fail to perform their sole duty to their subjects.
That is your opinion. I'll agree with you, that today most royalty fall short of that ideal or even tout that doctrine to begin with. 

>Duty is reciprocal
The father is a natural superior to his children; their birth, their life, and their identity are call connected to the father. The father even had the authority to give them their names.
Yet a father indeed has duty to his children.
>If the father has no loyalty to his children, his children owe him nothing.
A father's loyalty to his children is -natural-. I hardly doubt it. If there is anyone to trust over the children, it is not any stranger, but the father.
Even if the father is a bad father, he still remains their father by blood: because it is a -natural- bond and -blood- relationship. 
I don't recite this as a license to abuse children, but to stress the virtue (as I see it) of sticking together through good times AND bad times as a family. The ship of State is cast in harsh waters, that you cannot expect there to be only good times.
You care about your race of people, even though these are bad times, and decadent -- you don't give up on them.
What I strongly dislike about multi-party democracy is that first the multi-parties divide the families over these plastic identities like Labour or Tory, or Democrat or Republican, with their phony stickers. It's nothing to live for.
People are taught daily to trade their loyalties: but a family's loyalty is -natural- and blood related, people cannot change their blood relation. The loyalty within a family is supposed to be through good times and bad times, they should stay to together no matter what ideally.
I would prefer a one-party state or a kind of monarchy, both have the same virtue as opposed to multi-party democracies: as a one-party is like a monarchy in caring much more for unity and loyalty amongst a people.

>This sort of thing is what I believed in and why I am not a monarchist.
I should add, that while Aristotle distinguishes that a good King should treat his subjects like his sons & daughters, and his foreign occupants like servants: originally, with Plato, he said that a family -and- a household manager (a father & a master) have the same science in a way, along with a small city and great household (which has a family & his companies).
Look at any City: it has familial residences, but also properties where people work and do the menial labor. That is just how things operate. 
It might sound outrageous, but we have a plethora of terms like "public servants" for our statesmen and "public services" as well, that it isn't far-fetched. Even for a good King is said to be the #1 servant of State.
I obviously don't think it's ideal either for a father to treat his sons this way either, but these are broad strokes of the brush: I think there are some monarchs who -do- care. I assume, that you're not a monarchist, but I could probably give counter-examples. 

>In short, monarchists seem to want the people to be as loyal to a king as they would be loyal to a populist paragon of virtue, yet do not hold the king to such standards.
That is because we believe in the Majesty of the King, and populists believe in their leaders: it's nothing different. A populist is lead to believe in their leaders, they don't limit their vision for society, but add to it and join it. 

>a monarch who is not 10 times more loyal to his people than they are to him must be put to death as well.
Besides the Roman maxims that it is the Pater Familias that has the power of life & death, I'd say that most people are in awe of their leaders, that they don't speak of them this way, like I said with the example of the Leftists or the MAGA Trumpists: when did they begin to consider turncoating their Leader or limiting the vision of these Leaders? they don't. They partake in -that- vision, they don't limit it, because they are in awe of the possibilities they could do for better or worse. 
I've not seen one Natsoc here applaud the supposed Monarchist assassins for their disobedience to Hitler and their plots to kill him.
Like Xenophon says in Cyropaedia, the wheel of State is obedience. The moment you start casting doubts, or limiting the potential vision of a Leader, or drawing questions at every turn of action... you break that wheel and halt its motion. There must be a sway of pre-eminence to keep that wheel moving, to keep the people in awe, to move things along despite the risks of political rule.

>>5029
>You are also in the peasant class, retard.
>You are not a lord. You will never be a nobleman.
I'm also not the type of Monarchist btw.
I've always viewed those types as under the Tocquevillist spell: they reek more of the ideology of petty kings that Homer warned us about: "Let there be one ruler, one king". 
My ideal is Monarchy (the rule of one person) not Oligarchy (the rule of a few).
As an absolute monarchist, the stress is more on the royal monarch than the notables for me.

jhe5p3zY.jpg
[Hide] (287.4KB, 1668x1142) Reverse

6iXdV4J6.jpg
[Hide] (568.8KB, 1386x2048) Reverse

Bg1aLHtE.jpg
[Hide] (259.9KB, 1668x893) Reverse

This is almost a lost ideal of royalism: most royalists themselves are unaware of the racial & kindred doctrine of royalism.
In Christianity, that defines royalism, it is half-understood: it is understood spiritually with Christ the King, but neglected politically with their Father the King.
This is one time I will credit Aristotle, despite my absolutist tendencies, but Aristotle is right that one aspect of royalism is a unity of the same blood and being suckled by the same milk.
These days I feel most royalists are totally blind to this idea. I used to think it was a popular conception b/c many children's shows & stories portray that vision of "King and Kin" in the sense that the King makes "the People", breathes life into them, and gives them a common bond... as most portrayals in popular media where you have a race of people tightly knit and homogeneous, there is also a Father King or a Mother Queen, who is hailed as the progenitor of their race and their unity, the person who made them a kindred people, in the same sense that Ants in a monogamous colony or bees are considered "royal animals" because they are of the same blood, and have unity, and are "suckled by the same milk".
& by children's media, there is always a queen of the faeries or some mythological race of beings, that still carries this idea (sadly, not many monarchists are receptive to it; I feel either b/c they understand it well in Christianity (blood relation via Eucharist "suckled by the same milk and of the same blood" but have apathy towards their political kings -- which even in Christianity Christ is portrayed typically as a temporal king and having a blood relationship with their followers, i.e. the various racial depictions of Christ as Black or Asian etc).

>>5076
>But even all this aside, there has to be some way in which the people are involved in the new regime or it will be very weak. Openly declaring hostility towards your own population is not wise. I find quite disingenuous on your part that any time an argument is lifted against democracy you resort to the same false dichotomy in claiming that a ruler would automatically antagonize the population, perhaps even on purpose. I think this may have something to do with why some people seem to be losing patience with you in this thread.

You also tackle this issue the wrong way. For one, if a group of leaders ever needed to ask the population what should be done, it is that these men would seriously appear to be critically unqualified to rule. Good rulers should know intuitively and with experience what is suitable for a population. The requirements have hardly changed in thousands of years. Justice, honor, protection, health, hope and happiness, elevated spirit and culture, there is no arcane science involved there. Even a very powerful ruler ought to give enough liberty to the population as long as it follows exalted guidelines which would be undeniably understood by all. Polls should take care of the rest at worse if anything modern needs to be relied upon.

As for the restriction on voting we may need to insist on the fact that a great many people are not really capable or willing to engage in the preliminary work necessary to understand the intricacies of political forces and their ongoing working upon the world, and that by having understood this age old limitation innate to populations at large, the power to decide on who should rule would find itself limited to only the most clever, the most learned, the most experimented, because there and only there one would find an apt degree of manifest responsibility. With this we would find ourselves contending with a limited number of people definitely fit to produce an opinion of the highest value about who should be given the control over an entire nation. The more you widen the democratic angle the further you open it up to ideologues and merchants of speech, who in return will understand that a good way to maintain their power may be by adding more voices to the democratic morass according to the basest demagogy possible. Thus it is a race to the bottom. So much that the only way to counter this effect is to have within the heart of the political body an integral principle that aims at constraining, not widening, the quantity of people fit to have a strong influence on the sensitive affairs of such or such nation by way of election.

One could say that the American Republic's system was supposed to follow this principle but we have seen that it has utterly failed to protect the founding people. As always we will find that great changes are always the act of very few men, and that the greatest changes are but the act of one man alone, and such a man deserves to have as much power as possible.

1653069979672.jpg
[Hide] (180.2KB, 640x640) Reverse

leviathan.png
[Hide] (839.2KB, 995x826) Reverse

1640097083409-1.jpg
[Hide] (60.5KB, 680x536) Reverse

I post North Korean propaganda, b/c I think the ideas of ancestor worship in the Far East & a familial State are more in tune with royalism than most contemporary Western monarchists for the aforementioned reasons: it is almost a lost art with Western royalists.
Now Plato & Aristotle both say that it isn't our nature: we are not like bees or ants with a natural superior over us. But I think with Royal Monarchy, it is the best we could hope for; & so Hobbes, realizing that the Ancients disagreed people could have such a natural superior, made an artificial monarch to make a kindred people...
But regardless, that is the ideal of Royal Monarchy, that there is unity of One Person, to achieve that ideal Plato spoke of, the community of pleasures & pains, or unity of emotion, and thereby a united City, to work together to be not many persons, but One Person together.
That is the ideal of Absolute Monarchy in stating that "The King is the Father of the People" is to make them a kindred people and one family, -not- to boost the conceit of the King to abuse them... notice, in this North Korean propaganda poster, there it is -- that community of pleasures and pains, notice Kim Il Sung is smiling, and the children are smiling, & have a racial unity as well...
Going to samefag one more time to elaborate, but I made separate posts to post these images to convey the idea.

>>5063
>>5065
I suppose that the issue boils down to who are these equals. Even in the smallest clique of talented men you will see that there are men who stand above others and that such peers, be they regrouped around a Round Table or not, don't really have that much of a true choice when it comes to acknowledge the sheer natural superiority of the legitime ruler they surround. Life is all but equal, it loves hierarchies and denying them is the surest and quickest parth towards ruin.

35.png
[Hide] (236.5KB, 1016x1100) Reverse

La_Royale_-_Anthem_of_the_Action_Française.mp4
[Hide] (4MB, 640x360, 02:48)

The_smile_of_love(1).mp4
[Hide] (19.4MB, 720x544, 04:56)

Embrace_of_motherland_trimmed.mp4
[Hide] (3.1MB, 384x288, 01:08)

>>5076
>No one denies that American democracy, as it exists, is the most horrible system.
That's our point, & where the virtue of "governing ourselves" is problematic.
What good is "governing ourselves" if via this process of multi-party democracies, it makes us as if strangers to ourselves? We might as well be back at square one with the status quo now with all these other races & multiculturalism.
Natsocs, like Fascists, want a One-Party State, no? You don't -want- to divide the people against themselves like a divided household: by this particular process of "governing ourselves"  in multi-party democracies it brings our all egos and vanities upon ourselves, which unfurled becomes chaotic mess within the parties with multi-parties and class warfare and other parties vying to divide the people --, if not for unity of any kind, whether it is under the Natsoc Party or Fascism, on one hand, or under One Person as a familial bond like an Absolute Royal Monarchy. 
Because what good is "governing ourselves" if it makes us a community of strangers? I don't see the virtue in that, whereas by having a royal monarch as a sort of "public father" we thereby become a kindred people and one family and not a community of strangers, and so more integral to ourselves and who we are to begin with.
...
I know Natsocs push at Fascists for implying that the State "makes a people"
As Mussolini says--
>Rather is it the State which creates the nation, conferring volition and therefore real life on a people made aware of their moral unity.
But there is a point, without unity, white people are like a motley bunch of goats, or a bunch of grasshoppers: when some power makes them "aware of their moral unity," and who they really are, then they benefit, but that's clearly something we struggle to do.
...
For that reason, I think an Absolute & Hereditary Simple Monarchy is preferable, but also a One Party State or a Big Tent Party -- that way it becomes -like- a Monarchy as a Household under One Head (one party) -- we all strive for this in our own ways, and I see Natsoc racial unity is another road towards that end.
Indeed, that's also what Plato said, when he denied that there could be such a natural superior, that the best we could also hope for is to "emulate it" as though there really was such a supreme power to unite us as a true science, hence the appeal to political ideologies & one-party states, like I said, that way it becomes -like- a Monarchy in that sense.
...
Sorry to avatarfag / samefag now, but I'm doing this so I don't look more like a crypto-shill or multi-poster... because sometimes I worry people think it's me when it's not also since there aren't many other monarchists around, an I know that goes against the spirit of imageboards & anonymity.

>>5082
>old Prussian man seething and yelling at clouds
These words from Wilhelm II are frankly painful and embarrassing to read. Blind and out of the loop he was.
Hitler was the new de facto Kaiser. He had absolutely all of the virtues required. He was with faith. He proved his nobility and devotion to his people in acts.

In his veins flowed the bluest of all Prussian hues.

All he lacked was a crown. A mistake that shall be corrected in future times.

>divided by religion
This is why something radical will need to be done here too. We cannot let opposed variants of an alien faith continue ripping nations to pieces. They don't have such issues in Islam when their nations are not subverted by Israeli-Saudi proxies.
On the other hand I agree that an amount of secularism will be needed in only to provide enough liberty to the current generation of people. But let's not kid our selves, the Third Reich had a clear plan to bring about a more unified religious system for Germany, and Christianity was on its way out. It will be a long transition but it will happen. In some countries in Europe, the most useful spiritual tool to the Jews has by weakened by their own uncaring crooked fingers.

Monarchists have nothing to look at but an old and obsolete Christian ruler model. They have a hard time conceiving of a new monarch who would not be subservient to Jesus Christ, and this is definitely an issue that needs to be dealt with. A modern monarch would need to be very cunning to get the best from the Christian monarchists while leading them by the nose onto a path that will change them forever.

>hereditary monarchy
From my position I'd argue that it is legitimate only from a blood and providence perspective. But assuming for a moment that Hitler had been king and had sons, we find no certainty in the idea that any of them would have been as clever as their father. The hereditary model is convenient and we need to explain how, but it has its limits. One observation to be made is how entire swathes of the population rejoice at seeing their royals having an offspring. There is definitely something lodged in the minds of people such as a natural respect for the higher lords. It's only a pity that this drive has been abused all too many times.

>>5083
Because the entire vital notion has been soiled. If we remember for a moment what being anointed meant and what the Mystery schools protected in their midst regarding the original Christ, there was no such monopoly by one man, one figure built out of whole cloth for a Church to control at will. Here we talked of people of inherent value, with their own true potential, then lifted to greater abilities. When all worked well, this was reserved for the best of the lot and very few they were. Intuitively this world view carried in itself the understanding that only the great ones would be anointed, that is, receive a light. But the Church's ploy was to remove this from human hands and place it in an unreachable domain which entrance was strictly controlled by the psycho-pomp whom she had under her thumb. This is nothing else but theft. It became impossible to unite all into one king through real blood when the Christian blood was a fraud that accepted all human creatures, all of which came from the source. The denial of race was crucial to the survival of Whites and was entirely erased on purpose by the Church.

>>5076
>Also, it seems a bit odd that we're fighting for White people only to turn around and say that White people are not mature enough to govern ourselves. Isn't that literally what the jews are saying? White people have problems, true. But I am not convinced that we would fail to govern ourselves if given the chance.
Many people fail to see the invisible hand that held ancient people together. If they truly had enjoyed absolute liberalism we would see that their customs and ideas of their gods would be greatly altered over small geographical distances. Just like with Protestantism, any man could declare himself the new enlightened local father. In truth, people were guided with subtlety. What rules they didn't take from the secular power of a lord they took from the spiritual principles and moral limitations that many people followed, so much that there would be much need of lording over each one individual. Life was also simpler back then outside of the great empire, the local powers were subdivided and gathered only in times of great distress. Maybe we will return to this mode of life but for now the enemies we have within and without call from a great unity of unparalleled scope.
Also you should not summon the Jews here to establish any equivocation to win an argument, it's distasteful.
We mean what we say. The Jews lie, that is a major difference. When they say they care about our security, they hate Whites and plot to ruin us. They keep talking about love when they nurture the highest hatred for our kin.

>>5087
Are you the BO of /monarchy/, that board stuck somewhere, wherever?

graceandintegralist.jpg
[Hide] (513.6KB, 1500x1500) Reverse

e60c9b1b999c17ec30bc6e6b89358767c82c3ca61a840f5b950bab2f90464755.png
[Hide] (264KB, 769x904) Reverse

>>5092
Yes, I am.
I used to crosspost on /fascist/ because I had hoped /fascist/ would form a coalition with me against the right libertarians on the /monarchy/ board back then (when we were all on 8chan). But all that happened was /fascist/ posters got into debates about Nationalism w/ the Tradcaths & nagged about hereditary monarchy than help make a buffer between me & my rivals
I liked the Integralist poster on /fascist/ who posted the old board tan, but I think that anon is long gone.

>that board stuck somewhere, wherever?
I have long given up on the popularity of the board, but neither do I look forward to inviting e-monarchists who generally all oppose absolute monarchy (whether they be constitutional monarchists, right libertarian ilk, or jealous Ultramontanist tradcaths).
At this point the board is a storage unit.

>>5082
>Even if the father is a bad father, he still remains their father by blood: because it is a -natural- bond and -blood- relationship. 
The blood bond will always exist, but children do not owe a cruel or sellout father anything, nevermind loyalty. 

>multi-parties divide the families over these plastic identities like Labour or Tory, or Democrat or Republican, with their phony stickers
I agree with you. Actually, I have an alternative that is neither pure monarchy nor democracy but involves voting but no political parties. And no, it is not based on some decree that parties are bad because that doesn't work. So long as elections are held, there will always naturally evolve parties. Ironically, I would like to abolish national elections entirely. I have a far better way to involve the people in government which builds familial loyalty and nationalism even better than democracy does.
Here's the problem with a single party state, if you abolish alternatives to the regime party, then this will inevitably evolve into either a multi-party democracy within said party, thus defeating the purpose, or it will lead to a rigid oligarchy that gradually loses touch with reality an falls.
Trying to mandate a desired outcome will fail unless you change the systems and structures that lead to the undesirable outcomes.
For example: if you have a monarchy whereby the public has no input upon government, then the king's power base will be his direct underlings, aristocrats, or oligarchs. You can mandate that a king must be loyal to the people but if there is no reason for this to be so, he will favor the 1% over the people. It's just not logical to waste energy on politically irrelevant entities.
Eventually, you get a disconnect between the nation and the government which will inevitably lead to communists gaining the support of the people and then all the sacrifice we will have made to get this monarch, whom we do not even know, into power will be for nothing.

I do not believe that our purpose in life is to service the state. I believe that, if there is a purpose beyond resisting ((( evil ))), it is to serve the nation. Very big difference.

The issue with absolutism is that no man has the capacity to rule everything. So power is inevitably delegated to underlings who become oligarchs.

>>5084
>Good rulers should know intuitively and with experience what is suitable for a population.
>should
What makes them qualified to know if they live in a walled palace?
>The requirements have hardly changed in thousands of years. Justice, honor, protection, health, hope and happiness, elevated spirit and culture, there is no arcane science involved there.
Yet these simple concepts seem above the reach of a great many rulers.
Even things as simple as not importing infinite Somalians is beyond the understanding of modern monarchs. And historic ones couldn't seem to figure out that disrupting the lives of millions of people, kicking them off their land, and forcing them into crowded cities was not in the long term interests of the nation.
How are they this stupid? Because, why wouldn't they be this stupid? They don't live in the real world. They live in a palace.
That said, polls would be a good idea if you have a monarchy. 

It's true that full suffrage can lead to demagoguery. However, I am not convinced this is a bad thing. Demagoguery tends to empower really serious nationalists and unleash forces I believe are positive. For instance, in ancient Athens the Metics (non-Athenian Greeks) helped the Athenians overthrow the tyranny of 30. In return for their service, Thrasybulus asked the Athenian Assembly, who again, were just liberated by Thrasybulus and these non-Athenian allies to grant the Metics citizenship.
The Athenians resoundingly rejected this.
The thought of granting citizenship to non-Athenians was so preposterous that even being asked to do so by their savior and knowing full well their contribution to their liberty was not enough to convince them that this was a good idea.
Compare that with how all monarchs tended to not only bring foreigners into their realms, but actively hired them to hurt their own people. Like, what the fuck bro? Be loyal to your children.

>>5086
I know. That's my point. >>5061

>>5087
>You don't -want- to divide the people against themselves like a divided household
I agree.
However, I also do not want to create a class divide because that WILL lead to communism.
What inevitably happens is, once the rich nobles get out of touch, leftists reach out to the people and promise salvation. Normal people fucking hate leftist social policies. Yet they clearly are overcome by their promise of political participation. Thus, they end up supporting them. And what do right wingers do? They attach themselves to the royals and thus alienate the people. This leads to the utter destruction of the right for 3 generations.
I use right & left colloquially, I understand they aren't real ideologies but it is shorthand for discussing them without a wall of text
If you want a fascist government to last longer than a generation or two, it must have unwavering support of the governed. You do not earn this loyalty by decrees. You earn it by involving the people in it. Just like an ancient tribe. 
You want government to be organic. Not a small clique dictating everything from their palaces.

I have some amendments to your idea. What if we do have a hereditary monarchy of sorts. However, if he fucks up, there is a way to remove his entire dynasty from power. Thus, the monarch is given serious repercussions for ignoring the people. Thus, he has both moral and political reasons to be fiercely loyal to the nation.
That will deliver far superior, pure fascism than just hoping that some guy, who you don't even know, just happens to be like you.

Plato_household_like_small_city.png
[Hide] (33.1KB, 825x222) Reverse

Robert_Filmer_Quote_01.png
[Hide] (1.8MB, 1668x977) Reverse

Hobbes_Quote_Family_Little_City.jpg
[Hide] (504.7KB, 1742x2048) Reverse

00dLIvdUE.jpg_large.jpg
[Hide] (591.5KB, 1536x966) Reverse

>>5095
>What makes them qualified to know if they live in a walled palace?
Absolute Monarchists uphold Plato's maxim, that a great household & small city have the same science for good reason.
If a monarch knows how to govern himself, and knows how to govern his own estate, then we presume that monarch is well on his way to knowing how to govern the entire State.

>>5096
>And what do right wingers do? They attach themselves to the royals and thus alienate the people. 
You say this as if the right-wingers were not part of the people and as if they were few, but they are many. Nevertheless, where have you recently seen right-wingers support royals since royals hardly have any political power anymore?
>If you want a fascist government to last longer than a generation or two, it must have unwavering support of the governed. You do not earn this loyalty by decrees. You earn it by involving the people in it. Just like an ancient tribe.
The involvement you speak of can be absolutely minimal as long as good decisions are taken to protect the people. When they have fair life they have very little reason to even want to peek into politics as they'd rather focus on anything else. I suppose that people start feeling concerned by politics when there are troubles.
>I have some amendments to your idea.
Who would remove him and his dynasty since you have numerous times separated the nobles from the people? Nobles traditionally led the army. You would need the population to have armed militia and be willing to use them.

>>5095
>What makes them qualified to know if they live in a walled palace?
Excuse me, are you arguing that a king must toil the earth to know anything about what is going on in his kingdom and that otherwise he would rejoice in being willingly blind? His eyes and ears are supposed to be everywhere. He surrounds himself with functional hands who gather the information for him. I fail to see what could be elusive about this rather bland fact. Presidents have that too already and to a large extent.
>Yet these simple concepts seem above the reach of a great many rulers.
Then you believe that if no good ruler could ever uphold these, yet an entire population could succeed where one man fails? This is the most unsound logic I've ever heard. I am afraid you're not thinking this thoroughly.
>Even things as simple as not importing infinite Somalians is beyond the understanding of modern monarchs. 
First of all they are not monarchs but I think you have this continuous issue differentiating between different functions and classes.
Secondly, you are refering to traitors who know full well what they're doing as there is no failure to understand anything on their part.
>And historic ones couldn't seem to figure out that disrupting the lives of millions of people, kicking them off their land, and forcing them into crowded cities was not in the long term interests of the nation.
It seems you're making generalities out of a few bad apples. It would be well appreciated that you could in fact substantiate your claims right now before we go any further.
>It's true that full suffrage can lead to demagoguery. However, I am not convinced this is a bad thing. 
Depends on which definition of demagoguery you decide to run with.
>Athens
It seems the city was far more stable when it was ruled by kings.

>>5094
>I have a far better way to involve the people in government which builds familial loyalty and nationalism even better than democracy does.
This is a weird statement to make because democracy does not build familial loyalty and (true) nationalism at all. There is literally none to be gotten from it so there is not even any form of improvement unless you consider that moving from nothing to something is an improvement in itself.
>Here's the problem with a single party state, if you abolish alternatives to the regime party, then this will inevitably evolve into either a multi-party democracy within said party,
I don't recall much inner "multi-party democracy" existing within Italian Fascism or the NSDAP, or even Stalin's party. Anytime deviations were spotted they were suppressed. What's the point of the one-party if it allows division? None, that's illogical and contradictory. The one-party wishes for unity and centralized absolute authority, not diversity and critical tensions.
>or it will lead to a rigid oligarchy that gradually loses touch with reality an falls.
That is but pure speculation on your part and nothing else.
>The issue with absolutism is that no man has the capacity to rule everything. So power is inevitably delegated to underlings who become oligarchs.
You appear incoherent to me. Are you arguing that delegating power creates corruption when in the same breathe you remind us how much you despise royals and vie to see power shared as most as possible? I must be missing something here.

>>5102
On the contrary. All the most fiercely nationalist nations were either led by a populist leader or involved a large degree of public involvement in government.
All of the least nationalistic nations (and often the violent enemies of nationalism) were autocratic empires such as the Habsburgs and Romanovs.
Furthermore, the most fiercely nationalistic entities per capita would be Germanic, Celtic, etc chieftains in the distant past. And these most closely resemble an excellent mix of democratic populism and consensual monarchy.

>No inner party competition in NS Germany or Italy
Firstly, Hitler was a one of a kind leader. He had the ability to just make things work and galvanize support. Once he died, everything fell apart. Secondly, there was fierce factionalism in even the NS party. And in Italy, eventually the fascists ousted Mussolini himself once he became weak. You do not want to see this happen in a White government because our task of ridding the world of jews may not be complete and then we will lose everything.
>What about the USSR
Again, fierce factionalism which forced Stalin to purge thousands of elites.
And when he died, the anti-Stalin faction won anyway.
Furthermore, bro, is this really the kind of thing you want to see in a pro-White government? Endless purges and counter-purges? You will eventually be purged yourself if you were involved in that and any regime built upon such shaky foundation will not last 10 years without a fanatically popular leader.

>It's pure speculation to believe that a rigid oligarchy would lose touch with reality
No.
It is logical
Do you care about what's happening in rural Tajikistan? Of course not. Because it doesn't affect you.
Why would elites care about things that do not affect them?

> Are you arguing that delegating power creates corruption when in the same breathe you remind us how much you despise royals and vie to see power shared as most as possible?
I see your argument here. But you misunderstand.
The issue is that when the regime becomes "corrupt" or rather, loses connection with the people, this is bad for both the longevity of the regime, but also the longevity of the ideology. If the ruling party calls itself fascist and then gets overthrown, then the enemies of fascism will triumph. 
How to protect the idea from being overthrown? By making everyone a fascist. By making the people support the idea.
And how is this achieved? It isn't by excluding them from everything. This is likely why you are a dissident in the first place.

>>5099
Plato's philosophy leaves much to be desired. He says that we should be ruled by the wisest men who are trained to be wise. But this is naive. Who does the training? How are they selected? How do we know that they will not exert undue influence on the king?

>>5100
>You say this as if the right-wingers were not part of the people and as if they were few, but they are many.
Are we a plurality? If that is the case, then why not have a democracy anyway and get what we want. If we are not, then the danger persists. 
>where have you recently seen right-wingers support royals since royals hardly have any political power anymore?
In Russia. While the Communists preached to the people, the right wingers stupidly latched onto the monarch and the elite. They literally just ceded the public to communists so they could be dragged down with the king.

>The involvement you speak of can be absolutely minimal as long as good decisions are taken to protect the people. 
>as long as
Okay. And what compels the regime to do that?
Goodness? Niceness? Self sacrifice for its own sake?

>Who would remove him and his dynasty since you have numerous times separated the nobles from the people?
Firstly, no nobles. They're a very bad idea.
Secondly, a public assembly of the people who hold short terms in office. Their short terms prevent them from becoming aristocrats with ruling families like the Clintons. Furthermore, they will be selected from the working class, not lawyers, not politicians, not parties. But people. The flesh and blood of the nation.

>>5101
>He surrounds himself with functional hands who gather the information for him.
If oligarchs run the realm, why on earth would he waste any time learning what the people think?
>Presidents have that too already and to a large extent.
Presidents need to worry about public opinion.

>Then you believe that if no good ruler could ever uphold these, yet an entire population could succeed where one man fails?
Yes.
1. It is an objective fact that the public are more moral than the elite. If you dispute this, tell me honestly who you would rather see in charge
>A congress of randomly selected normal Americans?
>A congress of randomly selected politicians?
You know it, I know it, everyone does. The people would make saner decisions than the elites.
2. Even after 80 years of anti-White propaganda, a majority of White people oppose transgender ship, immigration, and anti-White hate. Yet nearly 100% of the elites support it. Thus, the elites are more easily corrupted than the people.
3. Counter-intuitively, democracy actually kind of works despite how stupid everyone is. Experiments show us that if you ask a crowd to guess the weight of a cow, even though most people do not know it, the average choice tends to be correct.

Let's imagine some specifics: If there was a referendum on immigration today, what would happen? We know that a majority would vote for either closing it entirely or imposing stringent restrictions on entry. If there was a referendum on whether to take on more debt, the majority of people oppose it now so they'd probably vote no. And if there was a referendum on CRT, the majority of White people would vote it down.

What do the elites do? The opposite. The elites are corrupt. That's why all elections are held amongst them, not the people.

>a few bad apples
Let's see, starting from the year 1600 and excluding non-Europeans, there's virtually every Tsar in Russia, every Hapsburg, the French kings, the kings of England, the kings of Poland (who brought in the jews in the first place to tax their people), The Scandinavian kingdoms seem okay but I'd wager they often used mercenaries to crush peasant revolts. Why not use your own soldiers? What were they afraid of? If kings are so great, why do they act like their men will turn on them in a second if given the opportunity?
If the kings of Prussia had gotten their way, half of the Prussian population would have been Polish. 
The king of Portugal abandoned his own people for fucking Brazil. 
Basically, all of the monarchs were more concerned with titles and expanding their landholdings and profits than taking care of their own people. Or else they pursued weird pet projects that wasted the wealth of their people on personal aggrandizement.

y6VhgoJH.jpg
[Hide] (396.8KB, 1568x2048) Reverse

Bodin_Majesty_series_pg_7.png
[Hide] (4.7MB, 1417x2000) Reverse

>>5104
Hitler obviously cared about the rule of a wise man: that's why in his criticism of parliamentarianism, Hitler's remark here is obviously aimed at Aristotle & his food argument against the rule of a wise man.
>Does anybody honestly believe that human progress originates in the composite brain of the majority and not in the brain of the individual personality?
I know that is just an appeal to authority, particularly Hitler's authority, not sure how much it matters in this thread.

>>5100
>Who would remove him and his dynasty since you have numerous times separated the nobles from the people?
I wouldn't really condone this pre-eminence of the notables over the king, neither a license for them to remove him. That is not a monarchist persuasion... to give all the notables the power, but like Bodin says, Optimacy or Oligarchy... that is a -big- difference between traditionalists & absolute monarchists (we adhere to terms of the Herodotus Debate & simple forms of State), neither are we as big virtuosos where the stress is only for Aristocracy (Good Government) vs Tyranny (Bad Government), but also consideration of the Herodotus Debate & those simple forms.
The other NatSoc should take note to see how absolute monarchists differ from the traditionalist circles in our own way (and I think he would agree with you more).
Like Jean Bodin remarks.
>"So also might we say of the state of Lacedemonians, which was a pure Oligarchy, wherein were two kings, without any sovereignty at all, being indeed nothing but Captains and Generals for the managing of their wars: and for that cause were by the other magistrates of the state, sometimes for their faults condemned to fines... And such were in ancient times the kings of the cities of the Gauls, whom Caesar for this cause oftentimes called Regulos, that is to say little kings: being themselves subjects, and justiciable unto the Nobility, who had all the sovereignty."
(This same mentality and conceit was probably with those who conspired to remove and kill Hitler, btw).
Part 7 in this Majesty series explains the Absolutist position.

it's_over.jpg
[Hide] (100.9KB, 1000x1000) Reverse

Bhutan_03_(online-video-cutter.com)(1).mp4
[Hide] (9.5MB, 720x404, 02:57)

That only goes to show the other Natsoc here who is complaining about non-resistance theory & monarchists asserting the pre-eminence of the king -- that Natsoc might as well be yelling at the clouds.
That is something more partial to Absolute Monarchists, & particularly the breed of the 16th-17th century. 
I've been mocked & ridiculed in monarchist circles for maintaining the absolutist stance. Absolute Monarchists are the fringe of the fringe.
I'm flattered this anon thinks absolute monarchists are the only real monarchists, but that is not the reality today. Neither the traditionalists, nor the constitutional monarchists, nor the libertarian bunch really like us absolute monarchists. 
IDK why you're even angry, the faggotry of constitutional monarchism way, waaaaaay more prevalent in monarchist circles. These videos related, the constitutionalists basically got everything they want, & Bhutan is an example of that.

36_xeyes(1).png
[Hide] (283.7KB, 1065x1314) Reverse

Dog_in_top_hat.jpg
[Hide] (158.6KB, 640x898) Reverse

Go to 4cuck monarchist generals, pretty much all of them are on board with the idea of resistance theory & removing the king.
Go to r/monarchism, pretty much all of them are on board with that idea of making the king a constitutional monarch and removing him.
Go to other media among the traditionalist circles & right libertarians -- they ALSO back that idea.
It's only us Absolute Monarchists who really seem to care about that position, and effectively you might as well be complaining about me since we're like an endangered species.

>>5109
why would you want some absolutist faggot to rule over you lmao

1683275205295203.jpeg
[Hide] (27.9KB, 450x360) Reverse

Still feeding the democracy troll I see?

1721898413538751.png
[Hide] (153.4KB, 332x682) Reverse

>>5109
Ponder your orb harder, abmonanon!
Have you ever considered the very real possibility that as Jews fear an absolute monarch, which is literally the worst possible system for them and they know it, that all these boards might have been invaded and polluted by malicious Hasbara faggots? We could have an astute example right there under our eyes.

>>5110
To exterminate you without mercy kike.

ClipboardImage.png
[Hide] (17.7KB, 551x276) Reverse

ClipboardImage.png
[Hide] (17.9KB, 547x299) Reverse

>>5118
I saw that, faggot
>deleted
nah

>>5119
Sorry, I was going to reply to this thread but forgot to remove my tripcode lmao.
Anyway I was going to say to not reply to retarded 4cuck posts.

>>5120
figures a censorious faggot would browse another censorious shithole. birds of a feather, cut from the same cloth etc

>>5121
That mod has made two bans (one was for CP) and one deletion in the past month on the other board. There is likewise sparse moderation action on this one. I think you're just looking for shit to complain about.

>>5106
We don't know what Hitler wanted to bestow upon Germany after the war. Only vague conjecture.
However, what actually happened is a cautionary tale. While Hitler was alive, his people fought back against overwhelming odds. The German experience is similar to ancient Athens in the sense that they were more highly motivated to continue the fight than almost any other nation.
But when he died, the will to resist evaporated and fascism was extinguished easily.
How can we solve this? By making everyone Hitler.
Simply put, do not invest 100% of the spirit of the nation in a man who can die or fail. Instead, make everyone a fanatic fascist by involving all men in the preservation of their nation.
Kill one and 1000 more are ready to fight.

>>5107
>I'm flattered this anon thinks absolute monarchists are the only real monarchists
As I said when I was with you, if you claim to be a monarchist but want a democratic government with a monarch as a rubber stamp, you're not really much of a monarchist. You're just a parliamentarian with monarchist window dressing.

>>5124
what characteristics would make someone qualify as a traditional monarchist?

>>5125
I'll give my criteria (because anon thinks absolute monarchists are -right- about monarchy).
We reject the mixed State or mixed Constitution.
In putting toward a simple State, our thoughts dwell on the Herodotus Debate with 3 simple forms: Monarchy (rule of one), Oligarchy (rule of the few), Democracy (rule of the many). The form of State or Republic or Commonwealth (doesn't matter what you call it) must ultimately be one of these three forms over the others
...
Our view of the State with Sovereignty is built on a Unitary view. We're more in line with Plato's view that the nature of the City or State is Unity.
Aristotle thought otherwise, that the nature of the City or State is Plurality, & that as a concordant power it is the plurality of the heads & estates (the masters of the estates) who convene together in the estates-general or parliament. The laws and virtue of this City come about as the convention of these estates and their masters (the notables) as a composite with the masses with stress on a middle class.
Hobbes explains it well.
>The other error in this his first argument is that he says the members of every Commonwealth, as of a natural body, depend one of another. It is true they cohere together, but they depend only on the sovereign, which is the soul of the Commonwealth

>The error concerning mixed government has proceeded from want of understanding of what is meant by this word body politic, and how it signifies not the concord, but the union of many men.

Before there is any meeting for the common good, or any concord of the estates, there must be unity first. You cannot communicate if there's no language you share: that was the problem with the Tower of Babylon was immediately their construction came to a halt when they lost their unity of language. 
Before there is any convention of the estates or parliament, there must be unity first.
...
This is aimed at traditionalists, but I strongly reject Alexis de Tocqueville concerning absolute monarchy: I see Tocquevillism as foundational for all the neofeudalist / right libertarian criticisms of absolute monarchy on the basis of "decentralization" & Tocqueville appealing to Germany over France as the Ancient Constitution of Europe. Imo, their appeal to decentralization & a Europe of a Thousand Liechensteins is none other than an appeal to Aristotle's City on a map (the "decentralization" is that view of plurality, and the many realms the many estates concordant as a plurality and the convention of heads -- Aristotle's City on a map is what they appeal to, but instead of estates in a city... regions on a map) -- & his maxim that the true nature of the State is a Plurality and not too much Unity. That stance is antithetical to our view of Monarchy, so kick out Aristotle and you kick out the chair the neofeudalists / mixed constitutionalists / right libertarian monarchists / Tocquevillists are all really standing upon. 
...
That goes hand in hand with the view of "one among equals" since Aristotle denies Plato's view that Political (City) & Economical (Household) don't differ. Aristotle says that the Political constitution is for freemen and equals, but Monarchy is always a household rule (which in Aristotle's view is fundamentally incompatible with political rule -- there can be no monarchical polity or monarchical city without going against the very nature of the city -- see why this is antithetical to monarchy?). So not only does Aristotle deny the rule of the wise man over the city with his food argument, but also says that it is against monarchy's nature to have political rule and so monarchy's estate has no knowledge of governing the political state since the nature of monarchy's estate differs from the political state.
...
You can see it today with multi-party democracy vs one-party states: the former, Aristotle's view of the convention of the estates with their heads (the multi-parties) as a composite body, and the latter one-party states like Natsoc or Fascism or Communism with their unitary views. It is the same business with constitutional monarchy vs absolute monarchy. As the constitutional monarchists (many of them traditionalists) are partial to the view of multi-party democracy, but instead of multi-parties and a liberal constitution they want multi-estates and households of the nobles to reflect that view with the monarch as one among equals not with the political parties but with the noble houses with his own estate.

quote-ill-fares-the-state-where-many-masters-rule-let-one-be-lord-one-king-supreme-homer-115-50-24(3).jpg
[Hide] (62.1KB, 850x400) Reverse

illiad_zeus_king_rage.png
[Hide] (13.5KB, 339x319) Reverse

Nine_Boatmen_-_DPRK_Kid_Cartoon.mp4
[Hide] (5.7MB, 638x360, 00:50)

Two_Commanding_Swords_Song_DPRK.mp4
[Hide] (5.6MB, 638x360, 00:45)

Every monarchist should know Homer's monarchist maxim & the Herodotus Debate.
This should be foundational to your thinking as a monarchist.

The Herodotus Debate
Between Otanes (Democracy), Megabyzus (Oligarchy), & Darius (Monarchy)
As told by the Father of /his/tory, Herodotus
Among the oldest sources of Monarchist politics there is, next to Homer's monarchist maxim: Let there be One Lord, One King
Jean Bodin revives the spirit of Herodotus in our political discourse in maintaining 3 forms of State only, denying a mixed State, but only a govt to be mixed.
Others imitated Herodotus such as Josephus, Cassius Dio, & Philostratus, to follow the discourse between one, few, many.

Otanes (Democracy)
Otanes was for giving the government to the whole body of the Persian people. "I hold," he said, "that we must make an end of monarchy; there is no pleasure or advantage in it. You have seen to what lengths went the insolence of Cambyses, and you have borne your share of the insolence of the Magian. What right order is there to be found in monarchy, when the ruler can do what he will, nor be held to account for it? Give this power to the best man on earth, and his wonted mind must leave him. The advantage which he holds breeds insolence, and nature makes all men jealous. This double cause is the root of all evil in him; he will do many wicked deeds, some from the insolence which is born of satiety, some from jealousy. For whereas an absolute ruler, as having all that heart can desire, should rightly be jealous of no man, yet it is contrariwise with him in his dealing with his countrymen; he is jealous of the safety of the good, and glad of the safety of the evil; and no man is so ready to believe calumny. Nor is any so hard to please; accord him but just honour, and he is displeased that you make him not your first care; make him such, and he damns for a flatterer. But I have yet worse to say of him than that; he turns the laws of the land upside down, he rapes women, he puts high and low to death. But the virtue of a multitude's rule lies first in its excellent name, which signifies equality before the law; and secondly, in that its acts are not the acts of the monarch. All offices are assigned by lot, and the holders are accountable for what they do therein; and the general assembly arbitrates on all counsels. Therefore I declare my opinion, that we make an end of monarchy and increase the power of the multitude, seeing that all good lies in the many."

Megabyzus (Oligarchy)
Megabyzus' counsel was to make a ruling oligarchy. "I agree," said he, "to all that Otanes says against the rule of one; but when he bids you give the power to the multitude, his judgment falls short of the best. Nothing is more foolish and violent than a useless mob; to save ourselves from the insolence of a despot by changing it for the insolence of the unbridled commonalty — that were unbearable indeed. Whatever the despot does, he does with knowledge; but the people have not even that; how can they have knowledge, who have neither learnt nor for themselves seen what is best, but ever rush headlong and drive blindly onward, like a river in spate? Let those stand for democracy who wish ill to Persia; but let us choose a company of the best men and invest these with the power. For we ourselves shall be of that company; and where we have the best men, there 'tis like that we shall the best counsels.

Darius (Monarchy)
Darius was the third to declare his opinion. "Methinks," said he, "Megabyzus speaks rightly concerning democracy, but not so concerning oligarchy. For the choice lying between these three, and each of them, democracy, oligarchy and monarchy being supposed to be the best of its kind, I hold that monarchy is by far the most excellent. Nothing can be found better than the rule of the one best man; his judgment being like to himself, he will govern the multitude with perfect wisdom, and best conceal plans made for the defeat of enemies. But in an oligarchy, the desire of many to do the state good service sometimes engenders bitter enmity among them; for each one wishing to be chief of all and to make his counsels prevail, violent enmity is the outcome, enmity brings faction and faction bloodshed; and the end of bloodshed is monarchy; whereby it is shown that this fashion of government is the best. Again, the rule of the commonalty must of necessity engender evil-mindedness; and when evil-mindedness in public matters is engendered, bad men are not divided by enmity but united by close friendship; for they that would do evil to the commonwealth conspire together to do it. This continues till someone rises to champion the people's cause and makes an end of such evil-doing. He therefore becomes the people's idol, and being their idol is made their monarch; so his case also proves that monarchy is the best government. But (to conclude the whole matter in one word) tell me, whence and by whose gift came our freedom — from the commonalty or an oligarchy or a single ruler? I hold therefore, that as the rule of one man gave us freedom, so that rule we should preserve; and, moreover, that we should not repeal the good laws of our fathers; that were ill done."

3 simple forms. Monarchy, Oligarchy, or Democracy. In the absolute monarchist view, you are a partisan for one of these forms. 
If you favor Democracy over Monarchy like many of the constitutional monarchists do (always gloating and praising Democracy without much to say about Monarchy) -- clearly a bunch of democracyfags.
...
If you favor Oligarchy over Monarchy like many of the traditionalists do with Tocquevillism (always gloating about Medieval kings and the Holy Roman Empire and how the Nobility was basically supreme without any deference to the rule of one person)-- clearly a bunch of oligarchyfags
...
Jean Bodin on Herodotus:
>It goes back four hundred years earlier to Herodotus. He said that many thought that the mixed was the best type, but for his part he thought there were only three types, and all the others were imperfect forms

>Let us therefore conclude, never any Commonwealth to have been made of an Oligarchy and popular estate; and so much less of the three states of Commonweals, and that there are not indeed but three estates of Commonweales, as Herodotus first most truly said amongst the Greeks, whom Tacitus amongst the Latins imitating, saith, The people, the nobility, or one alone, do rule all nations and cities.

>Wherefore such states as wherein the rights of sovereignty are divided, are not rightly to be called Commonweales, but rather the corruption of Commonweales, as Herodotus hath most briefly, but most truly written.
...
Besides Homer's monarchist maxim & the Herodotus Debate, you must also understand the nature of monarchical pre-eminence: monarchical pre-eminence is synonymous with Majesty or Sovereignty in our view. I typically cite Aristotle on this, but Aristotle is alluding back to Plato's Laws & Plato's story about a time when mankind was ruled by demigods like men do over cattle. 
...
THE GREAT FOUNDER
As explained by Aristotle in Politics
Further, the state is by nature clearly prior to the family and to the individual since the whole is of necessity prior to the part… The proof that the state is a creation of nature and prior to the individual is that the individual, when isolated, is not self-sufficing; and therefore he is like a part in relation to the Whole. But He who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because He is sufficient for himself, must either be a Beast or a God! A social instinct is implanted in all men by nature.
& yet he who first FOUNDED the state was the GREATEST of benefactors!

But when a whole family or some individual, happens to be so pre-eminent in virtue as to surpass all others, then it is just that they should the royal family and supreme over all, or that this one citizen should be king of the whole nation. For, as I said before, to give them authority is not only agreeable to that ground of right which the FOUNDER of all states… are accustomed to put forward … but accords with the principle already laid down. For surely it would not be right to kill, or ostracize, or exile such a person, or… require that he should take his turn in being governed. The Whole is naturally superior to the part, and he who has this pre-eminence is in the relation of the Whole to a part. But if so, the only alternative is that he should have the supreme power, and that mankind should obey him, not in turn, but always!

Such an one may truly be deemed a God among men. Hence we see that legislation is necessarily concerned only with those who are equal in birth and in capacity; and for men of pre-eminent virtue there is no law -- they are themselves a law! (living law).
...
Aristotle went on to say.
>Any would be ridiculous who attempted to make laws for them: they would probably retort what, in the fable of Antisthenes, the lions said to the hares.

>For surely it would not be right to kill, or ostracize, or exile such a person, or… require that he should take his turn in being governed–the whole is naturally superior to the part, and he who has this pre-eminence is in the relation of the whole to the part. But if so the only alternative is that he should have the supreme power, and that mankind should obey him, not in turn, but always.

>Such an one may truly be deemed a god among men. Hence we see that legislation is necessarily concerned only with those who are equal in birth and in capacity; and for men of pre-eminent virtue there is no law–they are themselves a law (living law).

Of course, Aristotle after setting the bar this high (& increasing my suspicion of him as a monarchist) said that this was unattainable.

>Now, if some men excelled others in the same degree in which gods and heroes are supposed to excel mankind in general (having in the first place a great advantage even in their bodies, and secondly in their minds), so that the superiority of the governors was undisputed and patent to their subjects, it would clearly be better that once for an the one class should rule and the other serve. But since this is unattainable, and kings have no marked superiority over their subjects, such as Scylax affirms to be found among the Indians, it is obviously necessary on many grounds that all the citizens alike should take their turn of governing and being governed

This is the nature of monarchical pre-eminence before Majesty or Sovereignty (that absolute monarchists established in the 16th-17th centuries) and formalized for Royal Monarchy. 
...
Aristotle - Qualities of a Pre-eminent Monarch:
>Agreeable to that ground of right which of the great founders of States
>It would not be right to kill, or ostracize, or exile such a person
>[We should not] require that he should take his turn in being governed
>He who has this pre-eminence is in the relation of the Whole (the State) to a part
>He should have the supreme power and subjects' obedience
>Is like a demigod among men

d93b872ababf2938bdb9fa6c666c32bac62b9edbc6238377549cd5f5d2e03ce2.png
[Hide] (44.4KB, 874x471) Reverse

>>5124
>However, what actually happened is a cautionary tale. While Hitler was alive, his people fought back against overwhelming odds. The German experience is similar to ancient Athens in the sense that they were more highly motivated to continue the fight than almost any other nation.
>But when he died, the will to resist evaporated and fascism was extinguished easily.
The fact that the world's most powerful superpowers, all controlled by Jews, had banded against Germany and utterly crushed her on both sides, that the NS propaganda couldn't be maintained, that German women were being raped and tortured, that the German land was soiled by the boots of millions of foreign conquering troopers, that the Germans were then thrown into the most despicable concentration camps ever that naturally turned into extermination camps for many of them while other Germans were sent as slaves elsewhere, all of that certainly has nothing to do with the loss of will to fight anymore.
No no. See, it must be due to Megalord Hitler's giga mind powers that magically vanished upon his death, which freed all the Germans as they suddenly regained their own sanity once the spell dissolved.
>How can we solve this? By making everyone Hitler.
You cannot make everyone Hitler you blind fool! You don't understand anything at all. Establishing goals that are metaphysically impossible to reach on purpose is the sign of madness or treachery. There is nothing to solve because you have not identified a real issue at all.
What we need is... 

HITLER II
Stronger
Badder
Meaner
⚡️⚡️

>Instead, make everyone a fanatic fascist by involving all men in the preservation of their nation.
<implying that's not what many Germans were
Spare us your poison.

yjicOp_h.jpg
[Hide] (505.3KB, 1669x1110) Reverse

Z48hEnjL.jpg
[Hide] (453.4KB, 1352x2048) Reverse

Now that you understand -- Homer's monarchist maxim & the Herodotus Debate, let's fast forward centuries to the Middle Ages & the predicament there.
1st, the only people considered to be pre-eminent rulers were the Pope & the Emperor.
The name of Caesar had been passed down as a name of pre-eminence for centuries down to the Emperors. Caesar was a literal dictator (dictators have monarchical form), & the pre-eminence of his name was borrowed and passed down among others to give them his pre-eminence -- in the way that in Little Red Riding Hood, the wolf eats grandma and wears her clothes -- numerous factions ate the roman empire, and dawned on the name / title of Caesar to secure the subjects' obedience, like the wolf in grandma's clothes did to secure the obedience of little red riding hood.
The Kings of France were a close contender, but many kings in Europe were all considered petty kinglets & not worthy of pre-eminence. The nature of monarchy is invariably tied with royalism, but not always: you can have a state with many kings and not one king. 
2nd, the Popes ultimately wanted to treat every king in the world as a petty king / limited royalty (the Popes wanting to be the sole full monarchy in the world & not "one among equals" like the ultramontanists maintain). It is easy to see why this view is a grievance to other monarchists who want full monarchies for the benefit of political States (which was denied because...) 
3rd, the importance of the Political State was downplayed for the benefit of the Ultra-Clericals. The Church was a kind of super-State in its own way. But it was always a mistake to downplay the importance of the political good, which many ancient contemporaries listed as among the highest good we could strive to preserve and integral to ourselves as a people.
Absolute Monarchists & Fascists would restore the stress on political order -after- the Wars of Religion & the advance of secularism. This was long due. You see remnants of that ultra-clerical conceit against political order when they also slander it as "secularism" and "mere political machinery" while trying to confide all the virtues of political order on the Church (which denied it to any benefit "down here" in the temporal world -- which became a suicidal conceit). 
Cicero:
"For nothing happens in the world more pleasing to that supreme Deity, who governs all the universe, than those gatherings and unions of men allied by common laws, which are called states. From this place do their rulers and guardians set out, and to this place do they return."

Aristotle / The State or Political Community Aims at the Highest Good
>But, if all communities aim at some good, the state or political community, which is the highest of all, and which embraces all the rest, aims at good in a greater degree than any other, and at the highest good.

In some ways, Rousseau's criticism against Christianity was partially right, but Rousseau credited that view to Hobbes as someone who tried to resolve the divide between the political & spiritual Christendom. The return to more stress on political states that came with modernity corrected an injustice long overdue.

Frq7DpXXgAIxHxg.jpeg
[Hide] (72.4KB, 680x907) Reverse

>>5128
>must either be a Beast or a God!
Why not both?

Essentially, Rocco's point is that the ((( Church ))) kept playing one city and one kingdom against another. It is no secret that despite all their lofty claims the Popes also fought for power and that by the very structure of the Church, one might say it stood halfway between an oligarchy and a monarchy, all divinely mandated.

As soon as great men like Bonaparte or Hitler appeared, unseen forces seemed to take the hearts of people in their hands and irresistibly brought them to the feet of such superior men.

Person_attlee2.jpg
[Hide] (125.8KB, 1559x2048) Reverse

ng7pjl6loqp51.jpg
[Hide] (1002.7KB, 2972x1724) Reverse

Now this is the biggest difference between absolute monarchists & constitutional monarchists: absolute monarchists actually hold views of monarchical pre-eminence under the names of Majesty or Sovereignty. Monarchical pre-eminence, majesty, or sovereignty are all synonymous terms for us. The idea that the Monarch -is- the State is related to that ideal.
Constitutional monarchists want to treat monarchy simply as another composite part or constituent or another chairman at a board. 
Constitutional monarchism is a war against all notions of monarchical pre-eminence. They want the monarch to be simply another rich man. Or like the US President (yes, constitutional monarchists like David Starkey or Clement Attlee even testify that their ideal monarchy is like the US Presidency in comparison to how it was under King Billy (William of Orange). I'm not making this up. The constitutional monarchists definitely hold almost all of Aristotle's suppositions about Monarchy against absolute monarchists. 
...
To prove I'm not making this shit up, I'll give you Clement Attlee.
--
Clement Attlee
>I have never been a republican even in theory, and certainly not in practice.

>The Labour Party has never been republican. British Socialists, with their own experiences of the long reign of Queen Victoria, differ from their Continental colleagues, with their memories of Habsburgs, Hohenzollerns and Bourbons.

>I remember Jimmie Maxton quoting John Wheatley as saying that he saw no point in substituting a bourgeois president for a bourgeois king... Capitalism, not monarchy, was the enemy. 

A King Every Four Years
>The most stable and successful republic is that of the United States of America, and Americans are currently supposed to be most critical of what they call 'this King business.' Yet America is really more monarchical than Britain.

>In effect, what they do is to elect a king for a period of four years. The powers of the President are much the same as those enjoyed by our King William III. What he does with those powers depends largely on his personal will. There is all the difference in the world between a Roosevelt and a Coolidge, just as there was between a Henry III and an Edward I. 

>There is the serious disadvantage of combining in one person the symbol of the nation and the party leader... At the end of dinner the British general rose, glass in hand, and gave 'The Queen,' adding 'God bless her.'  He then gave 'The President of the United States.' The President was a Democrat. The American general, a Republican, said 'The President,' and added 'God help us.'

>A British king making himself a dictator is unthinkable, but many thoughtful Americans would not deny that a President might do so. 

The Advantage of Constitutional Kingship
>The advantage of constitutional kingship is, in my view, every simple. The Monarch is the general representative of all the people and stands aloof from the party political battle. A president, however popular, is bound to have been chosen as representative of some political trend, and as such is open to attack from those of a different view. A monarch is a kind of referee, although the occasions when he or she has to blow the whistle are nowadays very few.

>The monarchy attracts to itself the kind of sentimental loyalty which otherwise might go to the leader of a faction. There is, therefore, far less danger under a constitutional monarchy of the people being carried away by a Hitler, a Mussolini or even a de Gaulle. The monarchy gives a certain stability and continuity to the government. The substitution of one political leader for another causes no upset. The Queen's Government is carried on. The institution was not seriously affected even by the abdication of King Edward VIII, which elsewhere might have caused very serious trouble. 

Common Symbol of Unity
>One may ask here whether it is the institution or the monarchs who have maintained it in being. Britain has been well served by its last three monarchs, but it is noteworthy also that the greatest progress towards the democratic Socialism in which I believe has been made not in republics but in limited monarchies.

>Norway, Sweden, and Denmark are probably the three countries where there is the highest degree of equality of well-being. They, like Britain, have been fortunate in having monarchs who are democratic and imbued with the spirit of service, while the leading statesmen have been, and are, practical men who understand the needs of their people and are tolerant. It may be said that in all these countries the persons have flattered the institution. 

>There is one other very practical point in favour of monarchy. The British Commonwealth is made up of a great variety of peoples. More and more they need a common symbol of unity. Some of these peoples are inheritors to a high degree of the sentiment of loyalty to the monarch; others have this to a lesser degree. Yet others are now republics, but the monarch is there as head of the Commonwealth, a living symbol of unity which cannot be replaced by a formula, still less by a president elected by all the constituent peoples of the Commonwealth.

Nec_Pluribus_Impar.jpg
[Hide] (439.3KB, 1109x951) Reverse

King_Lear_speech_pre-eminence_majesty.mp4
[Hide] (6.2MB, 640x360, 01:31)

Absolute Monarchists are upholding the notion of monarchical pre-eminence against constitutional monarchists.
That is what Louis XIV's personal motto "Nec Pluribus Impar" alludes to, it translates to "Not Unequal to Many" meaning that his power as on par with myriad peoples or to say that in his power he had the power of a thousand men. Another way of asserting that Louis XIV was like the whole to the part. 
Hobbes called his Leviathan a mortal god under the immortal god -- and made it of the whole body of the people as one person -- this was done to checkmate Aristotle and establish grounds for monarchical pre-eminence.
Hobbes uses this phrase:
>Non est potestas Super Terram quae Comparetur ei
>There is no power on earth to be compared to him.
Stressing the pre-eminence of his Leviathan. 
In King Lear, there is also an allusion to this idea.
...
King Lear
Let it be so; thy truth, then, be thy dower:
For, by the sacred radiance of the sun,
The mysteries of Hecate, and the night;
By all the operation of the orbs
From whom we do exist, and cease to be;
Here I disclaim all my paternal care,
Propinquity and property of blood,
…
I do invest you jointly with my power,
[and] Pre eminence, and all the large effects
That troop with majesty. Ourself, by monthly course,
With reservation of an hundred knights,
By you to be sustain'd, shall our abode
Make with you by due turns. Only we still retain
The name, and all the additions to a king;
The sway, revenue, execution of the rest,
Beloved sons, be yours: which to confirm,
This coronet part betwixt you.
...
Louis XIV himself testifies.
Louis XIV Quotes:
We must guard nothing more jealously than the pre-eminence that embellishes our post.
>There is no doubt that we must guard nothing more jealously than the pre-eminence that embellishes our post. Everything that indicates it or preserves it must be infinitely precious to us.

>It is a possession for which we are accountable to the public and to our successors. We cannot dispose of it as we see fit, and we can have no doubt that it is among the rights of the crown that cannot be legally alienated.

>Those who imagine that claims of this kind are only questions of ceremony are sadly mistaken. There is nothing in this matter that is unimportant or inconsequential.

>As important as it is for the public to be governed only by a single person, it is just as important for the one who performs this function to be raised so far above the others that no one else may be confused or compared to him.
...
Understand all the above, you fundamentally understand the mentality of absolute monarchists. 
We're at odds with many in the traditionalist camp, because they're against us b/c they're utlramontanists or they prefer the holy roman empire or heard all of Alexis de Tocqueville's criticisms against absolute monarchy and took it close to heart or they're right libertarians or they stress that constitutional monarchism was the status quo of the Middle Ages (& they're right; it was, Alfredo Rocco comments the Middle Ages was the age of Aristotle in many respects). 
It is true, that the modern state is a return to that view of unity maintained in Plato's Republic, for better or worse. And that many of the complaints about centralization (too much unity) and atomization / individualism was -also- a complaint Aristotle had with Socrates for Plato's Republic. Aristotle even disagreed with Plato about the ideal that the State should work to form the unity of one person (which many traditionalists attribute to Hobbes' Leviathan, & Fascist's maintain a similar corporatist view -- that was also maintained in Plato's Republic). But this was a necessary transition for the sake of monarchy in political states: as I already explained, the opposing view is really antithetical to the idea of monarchy ruling the political state... even if you concede with them that they are right, that monarchy's proper estate is simply its own estate as one house among others, you deny so much for monarchy like 1. the knowledge of governing the state & 2. ultimately monarchy becomes inferior to democracy -- so that is why the ideals of constitutional monarchism was less ideal for monarchists.

8_basics_Monarchy.png
[Hide] (1.5MB, 3000x4000) Reverse

Marks_of_Sovereignty.png
[Hide] (1.5MB, 875x1151) Reverse

Jean_Bodin_Dictator_Sulla.jpg
[Hide] (451.3KB, 1600x1200) Reverse

My criteria for monarchy?
1st,
These 8 points are the basic ideals.
(Every point I can cite & draw back to an ancient source to explain).
2nd, 
Jean Bodin's marks of sovereignty.

8 points of Sovereign Monarchy:
1. Monarchy is the Majesty of One Person (or the rule of one).
2. Monarchy is supreme; whole in relation to part; general to particular (with simple unity).
3. Monarchy is personal rule.
4. No rule by turns; it is perpetual.
5. Monarchy is lifelong rule.
6. Monarchy is paternal.
7. Political & Economical don't differ.
8. Blood relationship; the King is the life of the country.

So obviously, MONarchy, it is one ruler. That ruler is supreme in the State. He gives personal guidance like a shepherd to his flock, and his a mirror to his people. He doesn't take his turn in being governed like we see with Presidents with term limits or PMs with party coalitions. He rules for life. He is considered the father of his people. He believes political & economical don't differ. He has a blood relationship with the country, both truly and metaphorically (meaning, he is the sovereign lifeforce and soul and heart of the country).
Some traditionalists go so hard on constitutional monachism they want it to be more like Malaysia, where there's rotational government between many kings and a high king -- taking their turns in being governed. We reject this view, because that is a formal Oligarchy where many elite families take their turns. The ideal monarchy typically has one family in pre-eminence like the Kims in North Korea. 

Jean Bodin's marks of sovereignty:
1. Make laws
2. Declare war / peace
3. Appoint magistrates
4. Hear last appeals
5. Give pardons
6. Receive fealty & homage
7. Coining of money
8. Regulation of weights & measures
9. Impose taxes
10. Power of life & eath; condemn or save; reward or punish. 

These are the fundamental powers of a State. They are seen as natural to States. Every State has a pre-eminent & absolute power -- and that is part of their fundamental nature. Majesty or Sovereignty is the highest and most pre-eminent power to command & of mightiness. 
>Sovereignty is the absolute and perpetual power of a commonwealth [La Souveraineté est la puissance absoluë & perpetuelle d’une République], which the Latins call Majestas; the Greeks akra exousia, kurion arche, and kurion politeuma; and the Italians segniora, a word they use for private persons as well as for those who have full control of the state, while the Hebrews call it tomech shévet – that is the highest power of command.
>Majesty or Sovereignty is the most high, absolute, and perpetual power over the citizens and subjects in a Commonwealth: Which the Latins call Majestatem, the Italians Segnoria, that is to say, The greatest power to command. For Majesty (as Festus saith) is so called of mightiness.

Dictatorship has monarchical form typically (one person). Modern dictatorships apart from traditional dictatorships -could- be sovereign monarchies at time I've come to recognize. 
Jean Bodin / Dictators are Sufficient Proof that Monarchy is necessary for the preservation of society
>And what power soever they have by virtue of their places, yet Popular and Aristocratical commonweales, finding themselves embarked in any dangerous war, either against the enemy, or among themselves, or in difficulty to proceed criminally against some mighty citizen, or to give order for the plague, or to create magistrates, or to do any other thing of great consequence, did usually create a Dictator, as a sovereign Monarch: knowing well that a Monarchy was the anchor whereunto of necessity they must have recourse.

>The impunity of vices, and the contempt of magistrates in a Popular estate, does sufficiently show that Monarchs are necessary for the preservation of the society of mankind, seeing that the Romans who for the error of one Prince, had all kings in hatred, made a Dictator for the conduct of all their great affairs.

>So did the Lacedemonians in their extremities create a magistrate with power like unto the Dictator, whom they called Harmoste: and the Thessaliens, him whom they called Archus: as in the like case the Mityleniens their great Aezimnere; to whom the great Providador of the Venetians may be in some sort compared: finding by experience that an absolute power united in one person, is more eminent and of greater effect.

Aristotle even classifies dictatorship as a kind of royalty as well. 
...
I'm of the opinion, that some dictators are obviously primed to be the "new monarchs" of modernity.
...
I also think that constitutional monarchism & traditionalists are bent on taking us back to the ideology of petty kinglets that Homer warned us about where there's a state of many kings in one and the same state. I also think constitutional monarchism does tend to make the State a plain democracy in trying to make a mixed Constitution.
Jean Bodin: The Analogy of Three Cities with Different Forms of Commonwealth (or State) Mixing together: The Three Forms of State are of Contrary Natures:
>"So as if the mixture of things of diverse and contrary natures, arises a third all together differing form the things so together mixed. But that State which is made of the mixture of the three kinds of Commonweales differs in deed nothing from a mean popular State (democracy); For if three cites, whereof one of them is governed by a King, and so a Monarchy (One); the second by an Optimacy, and so an Oligarchy (Few); the third by the People, and so a Democracy (Many); should be confounded, and so thrust together into one and the same form of a Commonweale (State), and so the chief power and Sovereignty communicated unto all; who is there that can doubt but that that State shall be altogether a State popular (Democracy)? except the Sovereignty should by turns be given; first to the King, then to the Nobility, and afterwards to the People; As in the vacancy of the Roman Kingdom, the King being dead, the Senators ruled by turns: yet must they need again fall unto one of these three kinds of a Commonweale which we have spoken of: neither could this alternative manner of government be of any long continuance, either yet more profitable to the Commonwealth, then as if in an evil governed family, the wife should first command the husband; then the children them both; and the servants after them to domineer over all."

caligula_let_there_be_one_lord.jpg
[Hide] (678.5KB, 2048x1856) Reverse

Bodin_Majesty_series_pg_6.png
[Hide] (4.7MB, 1417x2000) Reverse

Bodin_Majesty_series_pg_12_what_about_parliament.png
[Hide] (506.9KB, 892x356) Reverse

Jean_Bodin_on_the_HRE.png
[Hide] (445.7KB, 1100x600) Reverse

That is all I'll say for my criteria.
It doesn't mean that there cannot be parliaments or assemblies or estates-generals, btw.
Contrary to popular belief, absolute monarchists aren't opposed to those (unless it's a total lordly monarchy). 
In part 6 of my Majesty series, I cite examples -why- that is untrue, & in part 12 Q&A I also touch on this.
It is true Jean Bodin (in true French chauvinist fashion) considered the realm of the Holy Roman Empire to be oligarchical at the time and at fault for having a state of many petty kinglets like Homer warned about. Many TradCat Traditionalists won't like that absolute monarchists don't consider their ideal state (muh HRE) to be a true monarchy, but they also use that as their model against absolute monarchy appealing to "decentralization" (it was Alexis de Tocqueville who started that trend & I already criticized it from a monarchist standpoint). So it's fair game.

Grace_mic_wink.png
[Hide] (807.6KB, 3000x3000) Reverse

That is enough filling this thread with my autism.
(sorry again)
I'll agree with the pagan white nationalists have a point over Christian traditionalists on the issue of race. 
If we were to return to Medievalism & the Ultra-Clerical views, "race" would be a "mere secularism" & "worldly inheritance" anyways -- they take it for granted that this would come packed with white nationalism. They talk about how they care about "Europe" -- worldly place, btw in the Ultra-Clerical view -- but Christendom in the modern world today is obviously not exclusively a European phenomenon like it once was, and treating it as if it were is stupid.

Keep in mind (also) in private quarters these sort of ultra-clerical traditionalists also oppose nationalism (along with white nationalism) and not only nationalism but politics itself & valid political concerns in general for them is but secularism (which is ultimately their reason for disapproving both nationalism & any appeal to political unity). The full weight of the stupidity of this should dawn upon anyone here. If we apply the virtues of policy to the Church, but in the same manner deny policy in the temporal world again -- it becomes mute and null.

Rousseau writes.
>It was in these circumstances that Jesus came to set up on earth a spiritual kingdom, which, by separating the theological from the political system, made the State no longer one, and brought about the internal divisions which have never ceased to trouble Christian peoples. As the new idea of a kingdom of the other world could never have occurred to pagans, they always looked on the Christians as really rebels, who, while feigning to submit, were only waiting for the chance to make themselves independent and their masters, and to usurp by guile the authority they pretended in their weakness to respect. This was the cause of the persecutions.

>However, as there have always been a prince and civil laws, this double power and conflict of jurisdiction have made all good polity impossible in Christian States; and men have never succeeded in finding out whether they were bound to obey the master or the priest.

>Several peoples, however, even in Europe and its neighbourhood, have desired without success to preserve or restore the old system: but the spirit of Christianity has everywhere prevailed. The sacred cult has always remained or again become independent of the Sovereign, and there has been no necessary link between it and the body of the State. Mahomet held very sane views, and linked his political system well together; and, as long as the form of his government continued under the caliphs who succeeded him, that government was indeed one, and so far good. But the Arabs, having grown prosperous, lettered, civilised, slack and cowardly, were conquered by barbarians: the division between the two powers began again; and, although it is less apparent among the Mahometans than among the Christians, it none the less exists, especially in the sect of Ali, and there are States, such as Persia, where it is continually making itself felt.

>Of all Christian writers, the philosopher Hobbes alone has seen the evil and how to remedy it, and has dared to propose the reunion of the two heads of the eagle, and the restoration throughout of political unity, without which no State or government will ever be rightly constituted. But he should have seen that the masterful spirit of Christianity is incompatible with his system, and that the priestly interest would always be stronger than that of the State. It is not so much what is false and terrible in his political theory, as what is just and true, that has drawn down hatred on it.

>There is a third sort of religion of a more singular kind, which gives men two codes of legislation, two rulers, and two countries, renders them subject to contradictory duties, and makes it impossible for them to be faithful both to religion and to citizenship. Such are the religions of the Lamas and of the Japanese, and such is Roman Christianity, which may be called the religion of the priest. It leads to a sort of mixed and anti-social code which has no name.

>The third is so clearly bad, that it is waste of time to stop to prove it such. All that destroys social unity is worthless; all institutions that set man in contradiction to himself are worthless.

>But this religion, having no particular relation to the body politic, leaves the laws in possession of the force they have in themselves without making any addition to it; and thus one of the great bonds that unite society considered in severalty fails to operate. Nay, more, so far from binding the hearts of the citizens to the State, it has the effect of taking them away from all earthly things. 

>I know of nothing more contrary to the social spirit.

>We are told that a people of true Christians would form the most perfect society imaginable. I see in this supposition only one great difficulty: that a society of true Christians would not be a society of men.

>But I am mistaken in speaking of a Christian republic; the terms are mutually exclusive.

>>5125
Support for 19th century or 18th century style monarchism. 

>>5129
>Germany was under a lot of duress.
Yeah but you and I both know that German resistance to the enemy was absolute right up until the point Hitler died, then it was like the lights turned off and the will to resist evaporated.
Had Hitler died in 1944, Germany would have folded just as quickly. This is a major flaw in investing all your eggs into one man.
>You cannot make everyone Hitler you blind fool
We can make everyone deeply invested in the preservation of fascism.

>>5133
>>The monarchy attracts to itself the kind of sentimental loyalty which otherwise might go to the leader of a faction. There is, therefore, far less danger under a constitutional monarchy of the people being carried away by a Hitler, a Mussolini or even a de Gaulle. 
Way to admit in fact that a constitutional monarchy neutralizes great men.
The monarch's slot calls for such a bland personality that 
>the substitution of one political leader for another causes no upset.
The king affects nothing but presents a continuing figure, the front end of an enduring brand, while political leaders can be switched at will like CEOs and there too we expect so little differences that no great upheaval would happen. With amusement, we remember that Capitalism is declared the enemy despite adopting some of its core values.
This is so insipid.
>them Scandinavian countries
They have literally become absolutely bland, boring to death, over-socialized and hardly capable of any kind of virile shakeup. They are good cattle managers and have been cucked just like any other European country that has abandoned any true monarchy for what is a travesty of clowns in royal garbs. We can observe the same thing in England. When the queen passed away, there was a sense of amusement if not plain mockery in what some journalists would identify as an obsolete institution which, no matter how weak and pathetic today, people still were attached to for some reason, one that secularists and democrats have a hard time explaining.

>>5140
The German resistance was already reduced to almost nothing even before Hitler's death (assuming he even died around that date). It was over, Hitler or not.
>We can make everyone deeply invested in the preservation of fascism.
People seem more willing to care about the survival or monarchy than fascism. Besides, the latter got such a bad press for a whole century that it would not be wise to promote it so much.

>>5136
So what is the model that has historically proved the most efficient?
And which one would happen to provide the best tools to cater to White needs in such dramatic times?

>>5143
They were fighting in the street, bro. No one was surrendering. After his death, the whole country surrendered.
>People seem more willing to care about the survival or monarchy than fascism.
Is this a joke?
Monarchies are the easiest government to overthrow. Usually, their support melts away the moment they're challenged by communists. They only survived in places that either didn't experience communist revolts or when they received support from fascists, who then kept them on as more or less a rubber stamp for sentimental reasons.
>We should not espouse fascism due to the poor optics of fascism. Let's espouse monarchism instead.
If optics are really such a concern, monarchism also has very low support. While we can debate whether it has more or less support than fascism, it absolutely has lower support than nationalism, which is essentially fascism.

>>5136
So the excuse for the estates or the parliament is just for the king or prince to have a more direct landline to the people itself?
Why, couldn't the monarch organize by himself a structure which function would precisely be to gather all these grievances and wishes in the most discrete way and leave it to him and eventually some few men he would appoint for the occasion to solve them in the most efficient of ways? Why bother with the pseudo-democratic pomp exactly? This supposed desire for transparency hides something that is untold but I call a lack of faith in the monarch, as simple as that.

>>5147
>They were fighting in the street, bro. No one was surrendering. After his death, the whole country surrendered.
What the hell are you talking about? Entire groups had already been defeated and captured. Their numbers were simply reduced to almost nothing at that point when the two fronts fell on Berlin, and those who remained fighting in the city were in large part the most dedicated. Exalted warriors may fight to the end even if it means death. You can see it in Japan, they didn't need the emperor to die for the country to surrender, that against the will of many generals who wanted to continue fighting despite the uselessness of this action.
The Germans finally surrendered because they had been utterly crushed, militarily, physically, mathematically. They fought as long as humanely possible with whatever meagre and disorganized resources they had. Some fights kept going on for more than a week after the official death of the Fuhrer, then stopped when it was just pointless, and many of these fighters tried above all not to fall into the Soviets' hands, which is why their fighting had them in fact make their way to the west.
You have that cute tale running in your head that could not be more divorced from reality. I suggest you stick with facts and books, not fan fiction about Hitler the Sorcerer and his supreme mind powers.
>Is this a joke?
No. In Europe you have large a historical coveted support for monarchy in the right wing. Catholics in particular want that and they seem far more open to the idea of a powerful monarchy than I found people hoping for fascism.
>Monarchies are the easiest government to overthrow. 
What kind of ludicrous theory is that? Are you comparing monarchy to fascism in their respective abilities to resist to something that existed for a century and a half at most? Would you care to tell me how many truly fascist governments actually survived more than two decades? Were you so born yesterday and would you know so little about history that you would not be aware that monarchies have endured for countless centuries? I suggest you return to that bizarre dimension you come from where fascism existed for millennia, it surely sounds fun.
>Usually, their support melts away the moment they're challenged by communists.
What are your examples? Communism isn't that old so it would be nice to look into how exactly the monarchies were toppled, what kind of monarchies they were, how strong or weak they were. Not that it matters because democracy is even less suited to oppose communism, it literally invites it.
>While we can debate whether it has more or less support than fascism, it absolutely has lower support than nationalism, which is essentially fascism.
Nationalism is a throw-all-in term these days and its most popular form is the civic one, which is no solution at all.
But I do not even wish to oppose fascism and monarchy because I consider them in their absolute forms as almost overlapping baring a few details which are almost more symbolic than anything else.

>>5139
I believe that this separation of spiritual matters and materialistic regal concerns should be dismissed and all be reunited. I cannot for one moment imagine how a perfect White system could be ever created if not all parts of man's life, from the more elevated to the more beastly, were not united. Religion must concern itself with worldly matters and as such must above all incorporate in the clearest form possible the entire spectrum of the racial topic. Excesses and idiosyncrasies aside, we can see that Islam encompasses everything. Another example, it has been noted that the Rig Veda is one of the most secular books of the entire Vedic literature. I think in fact that if there were to be a constitution, it should exist in a barely veiled form in the religious books and be of the type totally supportive of the absolute monarchy by tying divinity, ruler, race and nation together in one unassailable form.

>>5152
>Entire groups had already been defeated and captured
The only significant organizations to have surrendered at that point were groups cut off and surrounded. That's normal. In fact, it would have been normal for the whole country to have surrendered in 1944 or earlier. What's abnormal is that Germans were putting up heroic resistance up until April 30th.
Also, it's somewhat strange that there was virtually no post-war resistance. This isn't abnormal per se but given the fanatic loyalty Germans had for Hitler, it is strange that there was no serious resistance against occupation.
My analysis is not based on magic, it is based on dozens of real world examples of ideologies fighting past the point of military defeat. 

>In Europe you have large a historical coveted support for monarchy
Okay, so where were these people when, for example, Nicholas II was deposed? I cannot think of a single example of anyone even standing up for him. No mutinies in the military, no peasant protests, nothing.
If you have even 20% support among the population, if you want to remain in power, the time to fight is while you still hold official power. Not to abdicate, surrender, and then hope you can be invited back.

>how many truly fascist governments actually survived more than two decades?
Spain and Portugal for one.
Arguably, China and North Korea are both nationalist and socialist. But people hate hearing this because they're non-White and drape themselves in marxist symbolism so I'll ignore it.
What interests me more is that there are no examples of a fascist government being overthrown by the people. Well, maybe Spain and Portugal but that was more of a bureaucratic coup. 
Monarchy on the other hand in every single country on earth is just a tale of either conceding more power to oligarchs or being overthrown. They simply lack staying power and public support.

>What are your examples? 
Russia is the most obvious example. However, even the comparatively benign Hohenzollerns had so little domestic support in Germany that losing a single war, albeit a big one, destroyed his domestic support to such an extent that he had to flee his own country like a thief after half his navy mutinied. Meanwhile, Germany under Hitler experienced far greater stress by the end of the war than Imperial Germany ever did, yet his people fought with the tenacity that puts Japan to absolute shame. The Japanese never experienced half of what the Germans fought through. They could learn a thing or two about persevering in the face of certain defeat.

2fee01a8920b513f9a0580d7303ac83cc91dc58d037a04b981ec1d7d8d230bd6.jpg
[Hide] (17.1KB, 221x300) Reverse

bf5e023bf65c34ce201e0f4ec81d61691fa47b4f6fad4202dccf67072b6f537b.jpg
[Hide] (120.5KB, 971x1500) Reverse

>>5157
>What's abnormal is that Germans were putting up heroic resistance up until April 30th.
Again, some Germans, and to a large extent, specifically those who still could fight, and continued fighting days after the supposed suicide of their leader. Some because they're hardline exalted pushovers, others because they likely tried to reach the Western troops thinking they'd be better off than falling into the hands of the Reds. Unfortunately they wouldn't know that they too would in several cases be thrown with other families into truly terrifying concentration camps managed by the Americans. You are just not debunking my points but only trying to force your unfounded theory.
>Okay, so where were these people when, for example, Nicholas II was deposed?
I used present tense. As in, today. Which does not mean it's without trouble.
>Spain 
Was not really fascist despite all the leftists' claims, and played her cards to remain largely neutral. Besides, note with much irony that Franco was supportive of monarchy. His concern for the concept of race was nonexistent as he cared much more about reintroducing Catholicism in all aspects of Spanish life while dreaming of recreating a pathetic little empire. Consider that he ruined Europe's chances because he wasn't supported by Hitler in his desire to seize Morocco, which would have led to racial mixing on the long term. He also had curious views towards Portugal. By the mid fifties very few of the vaguely fascist-like elements remained in the government's overall structure and influence. The skewed vision that it was fascist was because of Primo de Rivera's Falange for Spain, but this one dwindled in grace and power quickly beyond its primary military use against the communists, and it was reduced to a political instrument in Franco's play for power while it was on its way out, weakened from within through mixing with consequent non-fascist people, and finally largely neutered with some targeted arrests and purges. Franco didn't revolutionize anything but only moved back closer to an older governmental form so he was much more like a stiff conservative.
It is rather relevant to this topic by the way because we have another case of fascism being opposed by conservatives and monarchists, both from the military and the clergy.
>Russia
You are presenting the case as if the monarchy in Russia wasn't already in a very precarious and weakened position when internal agents, jews and freemasons had spent decades eating it from within and creating a crisis that was very hard to curbstomp. In a way the French Revolution followed a very similar pattern and it's a very complex case. But let's remember that you opposed monarchy to fascism by looking at which model proved better to resist communism. This doesn't take into account when the events happened, nor does this opposition you came up with encumbers itself with the fact that a strong racial and antisemitic set of ideological tools had yet to be assembled to guide the people.
What I will give you though is that monarchy will remain fighting with a hand tied in its back as long as it will commit the same two mistakes: firstly, that it just aspires to move back a couple centuries at most instead of aiming for a greater revolution to move further back in time and bridge both a distant past and a far away future. Secondly, that it ties itself to Christianity, which is as devoid of a necessary racial concept as it is mired in Semitic fables and myths.

>>5174
>they surrendered though
Yes, but only After Hitler died. We've gone over this many times.
>I used present tense. "In Europe you have large a historical coveted support for monarchy"
You said historical. But I was giving you a better position. If you mean to argue that there is strong support today for absolutism or anything more serious than a rubber stamp LARPmonarchy, where is it? Is it even half of the support for nationalism?

>Spain wasn't fascist
Okay... 
> irony that Franco was supportive of monarchy 
And it would not have survived without him. Thus again proving my point. Monarchy is too weak to survive on its own. That's why I would love it if America in its present state was a monarchy. We would be in a state of revolution by now. Democracy makes whatever ideology founds it almost impossible to overthrow. It is for that reason that once fascists are in power, we should adopt similar kinds of institutions. 

>monarchy in Russia was weak
Yeah. My point.
>freemasons and jews weakened it
They sure had an easy time doing so. Just like every other monarchy. Weakness.
My point.
>a strong racial and antisemitic set of ideological tools had yet to be assembled to guide the people.
I am arguing for a fascist or nationalist democracy. Just as I am giving you the benefit of assuming that the monarch is a nationalist (though not granting you the assumption that he is perfect) you must grant me the benefit of the assumption that the structure of a future fascist democracy is built by nationalists (though not necessarily perfect ones nor are we assuming a hyper intelligent population)

If you somehow got an above average monarchy in America, it would have no traditional support and would likely eventually lose touch with the population after a few generations at best. UNLESS you somehow also included the people in government. Without public support for the monarchy, it will fall to people like us but not necessarily people who agree with us. That must be avoided.
But populism brings the people on board with the ruling class. I am actually confident that eliminating the ruling class entirely and making everything democratic would not produce bad results in an all White society. I can and will defend this and you will be hard pressed to refute this. However, if we do maintain a ruling class (of at least initially White nationalists) it will be easy to maintain pro-White propaganda because 
A. we will command the media
B. our ideas are normal and naturally popular

Yes, my positions are unorthodox. However, we all believe that White people should rule ourselves. At least, I hope we do.
If the above statement is true, take it to its logical conclusion. Do not veer off path and agree with the jews that we do NOT deserve to rule ourselves. If White people are naturally like our ancestors were, we do not need to be manipulated by a bunch of rich elites. We can rule ourselves.

>>5181
>Yes, but only After Hitler died. We've gone over this many times.
Sure, and no German forces had been defeated and forced to surrender and be captured prior to Hitler's death.
>You said historical.
Historical means it is inherited from older times, it's not a fresh invention.
>If you mean to argue that there is strong support today for absolutism or anything more serious than a rubber stamp LARPmonarchy, where is it? Is it even half of the support for nationalism?
Nationalism isn't fascism.
>>Spain wasn't fascist
>Okay... 
The Falange was, not Spain. By the time the Falange rose in power it was being used as a mixed bag by Franco to dilute its fascist tendencies by allowing other political groups. Franco kept distancing himself from fascist elements as soon as after the civil war. Again he wasn't a fascist, he was an opportunist who shifted his views to allow his power to endure. He had no issue teaming up with the Americans right after WW2.
>And it would not have survived without him. 
It didn't even survive with him. That doesn't prove that fascism survived better against communism than monarchies. However it will certainly interest you to know that the Francist forces won in the civil war notably because monarchists joined the anti-republican forces alongside conservatives. The fascist part of that coalition, on its own, would have not prevailed.
>Monarchy is too weak to survive on its own.
Monarchies have historically trampled enemies just as fierce as communists could be, whether they operated within or without the kingdom.
>Democracy makes whatever ideology founds it almost impossible to overthrow.
Then we will never win because our side is certainly not the one having anywhere the power necessary to reconfigure democracy. Which means this is over and you have no point coming to this place if not to disseminate black pills.
In truth, your position is as myopic as it can get because you feigning not knowing what and who support democracy and thus why a democracy seems so all powerful. Modern republics and democracies literally even go as far as make room for communist parties that coexist with other parties, they're not opposed.
>It is for that reason that once fascists are in power, we should adopt similar kinds of institutions.
So are you really suggesting that fascists could take control of democracy?
No, you cannot be that stupid. You know that a coup or in fact a complete secession is the only way to divorce ourselves from ((( democracy ))), and there is therefore little reason that after a successful toppling of the antagonistic power or a downright segregation from it, we'd fall back into the very system that has proved worldwide to be absolutely poisonous to us all.
>>monarchy in Russia was weak
>Yeah. My point.
Chronology is of importance. Back then we still were desperately in the need for a unified view of the Semitic issue and how it related to race and Whites. Even Italian Fascism had none of that and stood against National Socialism before Mussolini closed the gap as much as he could. Fascism in Italy was so weak that it's Fascists who backstabbed Mussolini by the way, and Fascism didn't survive.
The only political structure that proved to possess all the elements necessary for a victory was National Socialism and it was definitely on its way to be an unsung monarchy while being far more than just being another brand of fascism. It was literally rebuilding a new kingdom from the ground up. All it would have taken was a crown. Hitler merely lacked a major religious order with all the necessary pomp to elevate him to his due rank. It is true that by necessity the NSDAP tried to keep religion out of the political struggle to remain neutral as much as possible. The party had no other choice. Please take a serious look at Napoleon Bonaparte. He was a very competent war leader who seized all power, got crowned and became emperor.
>>freemasons and jews weakened it
>They sure had an easy time doing so. Just like every other monarchy. Weakness. My point.
Your point seems to forget that Jews have been chased out of kingdoms by monarchs. Meanwhile, closer to us in time, many fascist groups failed to even seize power in their respective nations, while others were defeated soundly, like the Iron Guard for example.
But this is quite stupid because there is no use to oppose fascists and monarchists, they should in fact combine in race, not be opposed. There's only one kind of people who would want these two groups to be viciously opposed.
Besides, I don't even know why you obsess over defending fascism against monarchy which seems more to be done for your own entertainment when you're defending democracy above all, which would not exist under fascism at all.
>I am arguing for a fascist or nationalist democracy.
How do you prevent the usual bandits from opening up the gates to external influences? How do you guarantee that all political parties are truly pro-White? And why would you even take the risk of having subversive parties when you would have preemptively created a system that certainly forces all groups to adhere more or less closely to the idealistic view of preserving the race, culture, economy? Why would you bother with a democracy when the political liberty would have been already tightly constrained to prevent any possible subversion?
>America, fascist, nationalism, democracy
Are you trying to sell me some Heinlein-like power structure with a solid bias for race?
Have your democracy if it amuses you, as long as your constitution and your laws repeat as often as possible that the country belongs to Whites only and this excludes Jews. Keep wasting your time trying to educate people to concepts and matters they are not capable of fully comprehending. I find it more worthwhile to see them as children and have them see the leader as a father and willing to accept his authority.
All in all I'm not even sure America is fit for any sound political system. You have too many Whites who will oppose nazism, fascism, socialism (of the national kind), monarchy, all due to the large quantity of conservatives, Republicans, Christians, constitutionalists and more.
As for the rest of what you said and believe would work I think it's hopeless but have fun feeding such hopes.
>Yes, my positions are unorthodox. However, we all believe that White people should rule ourselves. At least, I hope we do.
No. Too many Whites are dumb as their shoes, they need leaders who will rule them and tell them what to do. Even in the early ages of America you had an embryonic form of centralized power despite pioneers being spread thin and isolated amidst gigantic wild lands. Yesterday morning I talked to a neighbor living two stories above me and that man is slightly older than me and a vet, but above all he's just incapable of understanding anything. The idea that he even deserves to open up his clap trap when it comes to deciding what to do on a scale that already encompasses more than his own belly is downright irresponsible and laughable. I'm done waiting for people to magically grow natural abilities to be self sufficient and smart and reveal latent powers to all be potential leaders of their own little worlds. That's complete horse shit and so fundamentally opposed to the cold reality of human nature and mob behavior. Democracy is dishonest and hypocrite. It lies to people and pretends they are all clever and capable of taking the right decisions when it simply is not true at all. Some people are born followers and it should stay that way.

>>5184
When I hang out around old people, they seem to strongly imply that they wouldn't mind being told what to do by a particularly competent young man. Most people are proud to take orders and be useful. We will lead our Race like the wind leads the ocean. Have no worries. Teach White people how to lose fat. Bulking is bullshit.

There is no doubt that some of the current European monarchies are totally onboard with the Agenda. Here, kinglet thanks Spectre for organizing the extermination of his own people instead of shooting the old bitch on the spot:
https://web.archive.org/web/20180326102600/http://paideia-eu.org/2018/02/02/paideias-founding-director-barbara-spectre-receives-the-kings-medal/

Grace_hair_majestic.png
[Hide] (207.9KB, 800x1024) Reverse

dog_chernobyl1280x720.jpg
[Hide] (191.7KB, 1280x720) Reverse

>>5248
Tbh, some of the contemporary European "monarchies" aren't even real monarchies to begin with -- there, I said it. (I don't usually say that to other monarchists because I know the "not real monarchy" talking point pisses off constitutional monarchists & I try to be polite).
I'll admit myself that a lot of royalty are indeed pozzed & cucked, & I mostly give homage to them because I just support the idea of royalism in general and not because I think they're all the best).
I'd say not only are most royalty onboard with the Agenda, but even most royalists also. 
Sure, there are some niche examples of better dynasties & royal monarchies, but there's a lot holding it back as well both with royalist circles and with the baggage that comes with royalty.
Then you might ask, "Why are you still a monarchist?" Well... I still have my hope & fancy. 
(Also, a lot of regimes in this world are coalstacks and onboard with the Agenda and if it ever comes to a time where it's /fascist/ vs the status quo again I wouldn't hold it against /fascist/ if they invaded and deposed some of these royalty, I mean, what's there to depose to begin with? also you have the right of conquest. Of course I don't support domestic insurgence against a truly sovereign monarch in general, but at this point there's few royalty who are to begin with anyways) also, most constitutional monarchists want to kill my style of monarch, so I can't say I'm sympathetic to them if theirs get killed

>>5250
It sounds like your political philosophy is simply "might is right" and you've chosen monarchy because in the ages of Bronze and Iron that is what they symbolized.

Jean_Bodin_Lordly_Monarchy.mp4
[Hide] (2.6MB, 640x360, 00:25)

>>5251
Sorta, but I mostly speak in conformity with Bodin's take.
The right of conquest is the law of nature, so if a foreign power conquers another for whatever reason, then yes.
The twist is Bodin doesn't approve of domestic usurpation against your own native king (if he truly is a sovereign and not some figurehead). I guess you could say, that yes, such a ruler can be usurped and eventually even the new monarchy, but our opinion is that causes an imperfect generation of commonwealth (as Hobbes calls it) & is a mark against the usurper (since it teaches others to usurp him & you get this rule by daggers, even if the intentions were good).

>>5253
According to Bodin, how can a foreigner become a legitimate ruler?

>>5257
He already said by conquering you, lol.
Once you have lost, woe to the conquered.
Don't be a conquered people.

>>5258
No, illegitimate rulers keep having to deal with the shit the locals keep making, it's not... sustainable?

>>5184
>Nationalism isn't fascism.
No. However, fascism is built upon nationalism. We do not need to recreate 1934 Germany in America. We need an American nationalist system that can last indefinitely. 
>He had no issue teaming up with the Americans right after WW2.
That is because historically, fascists always prioritized defeating communism over defeating liberalism. Whether you believe that this was a good thing or not seems to reflect when you were born.

>monarchists won the Spanish civil war, not fascists
>therefore, monarchism is viable
If that's the case, why doesn't it ever succeed against communists when fascists don't help them? Fascists at least have the counter-argument that the communists and liberals united to destroy them militarily. But monarchists do not have this argument and ironically, the only countries that kept monarchies around were fascists who kept them around due to national heritage reasons or democracies which keep them as rubber stamps.

>Then we will never win
On the contrary. The jews have trashed their credibility with the public. White people increasingly feel that the regime doesn't represent them anymore. They are not aware yet that it's the jews doing this but American democracy has lost the pretense of representation. This is a very good thing. Though, it is not happening fast enough for my taste.
>are you really suggesting that fascists could take control of democracy?
No. Armed revolution is necessary. Yet another reason why appeals to democratic principles and populism are beneficial. You're not going to overthrow the regime by claiming you want to elevate some random elite to monarch.

>Napoleon Bonaparte was a war leader who became emperor
At the time, monarchy was still the norm. But we are far beyond this.
The public is literate and relatively engaged. You cannot maintain power or accomplish anything by saying
>"Hey, White people, when we get power, we're gonna take away most of your rights. We'll be even worse than jews and you will have no influence upon the government anymore, not even a pretense. Instead, some random guy and his cronies will rule you. Yes, we don't even know who he is because we're hoping some fucking neocon general does it."
This is a dumb pitch.

>your constitution and your laws repeat as often as possible that the country belongs to Whites only and this excludes Jews
That's the ideal, yes.
>You have too many Whites who will oppose nazism, fascism, socialism
True. Propaganda is the cause of and the solution to this. But man, I do not care about labels. You'll find that the thing people dislike about Nazism has nothing to do with the policies. If you took a carbon copy of Nazi Germany and replaced the flag and the word "National Socialism" with something else, 70% of Whites would enjoy it. 

>The idea that dumb people even deserve to open up their clap traps is laughable.
You're right. However, we live in the real world and we need those people to support a pro-White regime or it will not last very long.

>>5297
As an aside, this is why I cringe every time some pro-White movement insists upon using random German phrases and flying Swastikas in public. Do that in private if you wish but this kind of thing shuts down peoples' brains. Yes, Hitler was right. But Hitler is dead and appealing to him is not going to win over normal people.
If you think we can infiltrate the system, this accomplishes nothing.
If you think we can create an alternative to the system and secede, we will need millions of Whites on board to do that and this doesn't achieve that.
If you think we can overthrow the regime in a popular revolution, you need millions of people to support you to do that. So, again, flying swastikas even though you know it shuts normal people down is not a good idea.

IMG_0128.png
[Hide] (105.6KB, 381x250) Reverse

>>5298
Bread and circus.

Think about what you’re saying, you’re talking about a revolution, the overthrowing and collapse of the kike System, and yet you’re suggesting that normal people will become revolutionaries for a somehow pro-White revolution, just given a different coat of paint.

Popular revolution tactics identical to what you have just described have been attempted for longer than you have been alive. You will never be able to deceive any System dogs into fighting for their race. And you will end up in perpetual stagnative decline, grovelling on your knees in the face of nuspeak accusations, trying to appeal to worthless, brainwormed pieces of shit.
They can fucking die with the kikes.

You have acknowledged that there are excessive LARPers that wank off to dated aesthetics and ideas, and get ugly gothic lettering tattoos of forgettable German slogans. You are right. It is quite obvious why: because other aesthetics, original directions, mean nothing to dress-up parasites, because they’re just lemmings with a red armband.
They haven’t paved any path, they’re just cowardly yes-men, and their feelings get hurt when someone has balls, so they shout, “fed!”. Unlike SIEGEists, who are actually brave in the face of tyranny, not begging boomer lemmings to fight for something they don’t even acknowledge. With disgusting motormouth cancers like these already so prominent, do you think we need to degrade ourselves even more?

Why do you know what the fucking IRA is? Is it because they marched around with Irish flags, begging Unionists to join them? NO. It is because they fucking bombed Tories, and had the balls not to be parasitic motormouth spastics that pranced around trying to reframe the concept of a Republic.

The Swastika is our single most powerful symbol. Personally, I think the left-facing one looks nicer, and solidifies a message of thinking about the future, not being nostalgist bedroom fascists biting their nails over whether the flag they’ll never fly will arrive while they’re out and their parents will intercept it.
We know what we fucking believe. They know what we fucking believe; but this degrading degeneracy makes us unappealing. Who the fuck would want to join some limp-wristed autists that match around in dress-up and then get fired from their work? What the fuck is in it for them? Well?
On the other hand, if any aspiring natsoc, or skeptic of the System, saw his kike-loving prime minister have his brains blown out, and then have the bold weed killer proudly display a swastika banner on the podium, he would feel so invigorated. He would feel inspired. National Socialism would be POWERFUL. The lemmings would be terrified. The spineless grifters would panic, because the precedent of actually showing dedication to what they believe has been set high.
Ditch the slogans. It should be clear we are the FUTURE.
But fuck off with the damage control. There is no weak, idle, movementarian National Socialist future, let’s not act like there is.
SIEGE

clown_dog.png
[Hide] (317.2KB, 530x796) Reverse

>>5297
>we're gonna take away most of your rights
Away from multi-party democracy?
Nothing of value would be lost. I can't fathom why people care to participate.
The same could be said for /fascist/ again... people see fascists or natsocs and also will think of an impending totalitarian dictatorship and that their rights will be taken away.
Also, /fascist/ is just as unappealing to normalfags if not worse than us monarchists. 

>You'll find that the thing people dislike about Nazism has nothing to do with the policies
Fascism & Natsoc is just as alien to the West as monarchical absolutism at this point.
Generations of people have been raised to think you're evil and your political ideology & Hitler has a damnatio memoriae like never before.

It doesn't have to be a random noble from any European aristocracy.
I agree, that this is forced and stupid with contemporary monarchists & was only a concern for monarchies when that was part of the fundamental law and succession, but legitimatists don't understand that many of these royal trees are dead trunks now and are political entities no longer relevant or alive for the past century or more (sometimes MUCH older & where they think they are restoring the law, they are going against the law of nature with their necromancy). 
The traditionalists & legitimatists who want the exact legal framework from political entities long dead and buried... they are too optimistic about Restorationism & there aren't many instances of Restoration for royal families. It's certainly safe to say, that once it has been 100+ years since a dynasty had been deposed, it's safe to say that they aren't coming back.
Monarchists in the modern day need to think outside the box of both royal houses, their customs & fundamental laws of yore, but also when it comes to multi-party democracy: it is absurd for monarchists to participate in multi-party democracy or start a monarchist political party, unless our aim was a kind of one-party state or with /fascist/ or some other group.
I have faith in the natural course of politics will lead to monarchical form without having to rely on old aristocratic houses or their own customs.

27.png
[Hide] (231.5KB, 1000x1000) Reverse

dog_chernobyl1280x720.jpg
[Hide] (191.7KB, 1280x720) Reverse

I'm not a legitimatist. 
I'm fairly open to newblood, & I think it's absurd legitimatists would think that's usurpation if a new person came to lead over a domain of princes long gone.
These crowns they revere -- are scrap metal now. 
The constitutions, fundamental laws, customs -- crumbling sawdust.
The royal houses & nobility -- deposed & dead trunks.
Sure, they can salvage elements they like from these old bodies, but their minds should be anchored on what's essential for monarchy without all the baggage. I know that is hard to convey to traditionalists, because they want nothing less than all the baggage and exactly how it once was rather than focusing on bare necessity and the essentials.
I myself wish we could have hereditary primogeniture & would still advocate it, but I also trust the nature of monarchical form to assert itself. I'm also of the opinion a monarch doesn't need to have a crown or any of the appearance of old royalty: what simply matters is one person has majesty in this State, not only the clothes they wear.

>>5297
>That is because historically, fascists always prioritized defeating communism over defeating liberalism. Whether you believe that this was a good thing or not seems to reflect when you were born.
That's a confusing statement. For starters liberalism is just extremely diluted communism so there is little surprise they'd go for the heart instead of the toe. Besides, the quantity of truly fascist governments to have survived WW2 is so close to null that there is quite nothing to say about this.
>let's talk about weak carboard monarchies
Why? Monarchies have been the target of incessant plotting for periods far longer than what fascism had to deal with. The force of fascism not found in the latest forms of monarchy–unless one espouses a true, ancient and truly traditional mindset–is described by how it saw the world in need of a revolution of equal importance to the one communism was trying to achieve. But fascism had its weaknesses too that only the Germans seem to have patched properly.
>On the contrary. The jews have trashed their credibility with the public. White people increasingly feel that the regime doesn't represent them anymore. They are not aware yet that it's the jews doing this but American democracy has lost the pretense of representation. This is a very good thing. Though, it is not happening fast enough for my taste.
So begone democracy. You're welcome.
>Armed revolution is necessary. Yet another reason why appeals to democratic principles and populism are beneficial. You're not going to overthrow the regime by claiming you want to elevate some random elite to monarch.
Really? Maybe some people are so genuinely tired of the noise, the confusion, the calculations and plotting and yet all of this making their life more miserable and insufferable and adds to nothing that they are in fact craving someone, one man, to get shit done. It's actually something you hear when people talk about Hitler. He got shit done. Yet if you look at it he had to go through the horrible democratic hoops and barely made it through. If you see democracy just like one big practical polling of the population then you see the Beer Putsch was the right thing to do again but in different conditions.
>At the time, monarchy was still the norm. But we are far beyond this.
>The public is literate and relatively engaged. You cannot maintain power or accomplish anything by saying
>>"Hey, White people, when we get power, we're gonna take away most of your rights. We'll be even worse than jews and you will have no influence upon the government anymore, not even a pretense. Instead, some random guy and his cronies will rule you. Yes, we don't even know who he is because we're hoping some fucking neocon general does it."
>This is a dumb pitch.
Literacy is an illusion and does not make people smarter, it just means they can read words on paper when most of what mattered for ages was the spoken word. As for the norm, it should not be followed.
You are also creating false arguments which are very close to being so caricatural that it's like you were trying to paint a bad view of monarchy by any means necessary instead of objectively looking at its benefits.
For one, nobody said that a monarch would take most of people's rights. Democracy was effectively dead after Hitler assumed full powers and it was all for the better. The folk loved it because they saw the good that was being done and if removed an absurd burden off of their shoulders so they could concentrate on their own work with their minds filled with true hope.
Why would a monarch, a true benefactor of his people, present himself by saying that he would be worse than Jews? How can you even be worse than Jews when you try to repair everything they have destroyed? What you say makes no sense.
As for announcing the rise of a neocon general, if that is the only figure you can liken to a monarch you are quite out of your mind and very disingenuous because a neocon general is self-centered, he defends democracy, sacrifices lives for money and ghoulishly submits to foreign interests.
Also, you the defender of democracy you have totally dodged this paragraph and I'm really eager to see you actually address it properly:
>>How do you prevent the usual bandits from opening up the gates to external influences? How do you guarantee that all political parties are truly pro-White? And why would you even take the risk of having subversive parties when you would have preemptively created a system that certainly forces all groups to adhere more or less closely to the idealistic view of preserving the race, culture, economy? Why would you bother with a democracy when the political liberty would have been already tightly constrained to prevent any possible subversion?
>Propaganda is the cause of and the solution to this.
It has a limited effect until you're in complete power.
>70% of Whites would enjoy it.
You're making shit up. The NSDAP struggled to come at the top of the voting pool back in November 1932. They did not win by a landslide at all. Those 70% are just a pipe dream of yours because you care about democracy. I don't. People act like kids and kids intuitively recognize supreme authority and strength. You merely need to get through the unruly ones and that again is not going to happen with democracy.

>>5304
>Why do you know what the IRA is? Is it because they marched around with Irish flags, begging Unionists to join them? NO. It is because they bombed Tories, and had the balls not to be parasitic motormouth spastics that pranced around trying to reframe the concept of a Republic.
The PIRA were good, yet time softened them all and they gave up their weapons in a trade for more of that sweet democracy. In other words they got bought.

>>5313
Maybe so but the thing about not being attached to wordism means that I can call myself any ism name on earth and yet my ideas remain the same.

>>5304
>you’re suggesting that normal people will become revolutionaries for a somehow pro-White revolution
Somehow, they will need to support it or we will lose. It is no more complex than this.
>You will never be able to deceive any System dogs into fighting for their race.
Is your alternative that we should delude ourselves and go play pretend that it's 1600 and advocate for fucking absolutist monarchy and feudalism?
At least appealing to actual people, the actual population that is our race, has the potential to achieve RESULTS. How about we do that instead of pretending that real life is a paradox game with magical monarchs who solve all our problems who will take power magically with zero public support? That sounds like a much better strategy.

>Why do you know what the fucking IRA is? Is it because they marched around with Irish flags, begging Unionists to join them? NO. It is because they fucking bombed Tories, and had the balls not to be parasitic motormouth spastics that pranced around trying to reframe the concept of a Republic.
I do not deny any word of this. However, you and I both know that we are not in a position to engage in... activities because of a lack of support from the population. Until this occurs, no extra legal actions will succeed. The IRA had near universal support from Irish people. 

I do not believe that SIEGE readers are monarchists hoping that somehow a magical unicorn monarch will appear out of the either and just magically become all powerful. Pretty sure they're National Socialists.

>>5329
>>5330
Okay. So who?
You have no idea. No one does. The very best any monarchist can do is either say
>ME!!!
or 
>uh... well, maybe like... a general... or something will just take power somehow?
All US generals are neocons.
And if one actually did this, he would not be such a retard that he would buy a plastic crown to play pretend that it's 1624. He would style himself as the chief executive of a restorationist republic. If he was at all intelligent, he would realize that he would need an exit strategy for his junta or the country and everything he built would implode in less than 3 generations. At best.
But again, we're talking about a fucking neocon as all US generals are neocons. 

No, there must be a Revolution.

>>5339
oh sorry, wrote that post while pissed, didn’t realise we’re in some gay Monarchist(?) thread

>>5339
You're the only retard ITT thinking about magical monarchs who pop in and grab power without caring one shit about the people. Even Gengis Khan did have at some point the need to convince people to follow him to move across an entire continent just for the sake of adventure and plunder.
>The IRA had near universal support from Irish people.
What is your solid evidence for this very bold claim?

>>5340
>Revolution!!!
Sorry but the chair I'm sitting in is way too comfy and my fridge is still full of food.

>>5346
>You're the only retard ITT thinking about magical monarchs who pop in and grab power without caring one shit about the people
Then explain how some LARPer with a fetish for the middle ages ever 
1. takes power
2. actually chooses to crown himself king. Do you want him to make a crown too to complete the fantasy?
No one does that shit. The best you can ever hope for is a dictator who cloaks himself in democracy like every other dictator does while actually running the country like a family business.

>What is your solid evidence for this very bold claim?
You're claiming otherwise? You do realize what a bizarre position that is, right? You are claiming that Irish nationalists did NOT enjoy nearly universal support from Irish people?
Okay, that's fucking retarded. But okay.
Proof: Pro-Irish political parties got nearly universal support from Irish people. 
The IRA got millions of dollars in donations from Irish people.
The IRA was sheltered in the homes of Irish people, supplied with ammunition from Irish people, and received intelligence and recruits from Irish people.

I am genuinely curious: So you obviously think that it's possible to fight an insurgency while being hated by the people. How does one do that? Where do the insurgents get their weapons from? Where do they get their money from? Where do they get shelter? 
This is just retarded. You took a clownish position.

>>5343
idk, the anti-democracy crowd has ben co-opted by monarchists LARPers ITT.

>>5347
>revolution is impossible so long as there is food
At least you have implied that there is a way to get you off your comfy chair.

>>5331
>That's a confusing statement. 
Okay.
Hitler prioritized peace with the UK so he could go fight communism in Russia.
>fascism has weaknesses too, but monarchy has been around for a longer time
Pre-18th century was so different from recent history that it may as well not be a factor. Yes, if we could go back to a time when 90% of White people were illiterate serfs with no guns, monarchy would have a pretty easy time ruling. However, since people became literate, monarchy has had a really shitty time.
Once peasants become capable of thinking and resisting, you need to actually justify WHY you deserve to tell us what to do. Monarchy fails because it's based on nothing but "I told you so"
So monarchists appeal to 2 really weak arguments
1. "The monarch is the father of the nation"
That'd be great if it were true but a father behaves as a protector, not an exploiter. Fathers do not sell out his children to giant corporations for profit. A true king/father must protect his children FROM his oligarchs. Not the other way around. That's why communism was so appealing.
2. "Because my priest says that the Bible says that Jesus says that you should obey this guy and his underlings who just so happen to obviously be paying my priest."

>People are tired of the noise of democracy
No, they're tired of people who they hate running things.
Go ahead and espouse the idea that we should surrender all power to some random family and his cronies. No one is on board with this. What people want is THEIR people running the show. Not some random family which you cannot even name. 
If you don't even know who you want having absolute power, why on earth should anyone support your plan?
Nor is there a realistic way to get said random, probably shitty family in power unless you can convince millions of people to support said arbitrary rich family who are probably degenerates, considering the fact that every rich elite in America is a degenerate snorting coke and diddling children.

>nobody said that a monarch would take most of people's rights.
Well, for starters, the monarchist pitch is usually to take away people's right to even vote. Which is very important to millions of Americans.
That's not going to go over very well.
>Hitler was loved and he sort of took away democracy
No he didn't. There were elections right up until the war. Hitler never said he will remove the right of German people to vote.
If you want power, I suggest you don't say you will take away Americans' right to vote. That will not generate much enthusiasm for your cause. If anything, just say that you will take away liberals' right to vote. That might work.

>>How do you prevent the usual bandits from opening up the gates to external influences?
For me to believe that my "one true idea" will be the one to take hold is naive.
However, I do have proposals which will eliminate political parties and political factions. As well as castrate the media forever.
What makes my proposals different is that I do not just assert that they will happen because "it's good" or because "well, monarchs are nice while non-monarchs are bad"
Instead, I designed a system around human nature to make political factions irrelevant and media neutralized.
What is needed is a government without parties, without national elections, without lawyers running everything. It would take an entire post to explain each article of such a system because unfortunately, designing a functioning government is complex. 
>How do you guarantee that all political parties are truly pro-White?
I cannot. However, what can occur is a period of dictatorship and political purges to remove bad elements from the population. Then, because White people are naturally pro-White, because nationalism is inevitable without anti-White propaganda, because the organic position of all people in all races is to be nationalistic, mathematically, any political party such a system did have would need to be pro-White to be competitive. Just like all political parties before the 20th century were. There are holes in what I am suggesting. Much relies upon the wisdom of a dictatorial regime that takes power through force. However, there is reason to believe that after a pro-White revolution, the new government would want to purge anti-Whites.
>why would you even take the risk of having subversive parties when you would have preemptively created a system that certainly forces all groups to adhere more or less closely to the idealistic view of preserving the race, culture, economy? 
That is the question. How can we permanently do this? 
Monarchists claim that there'll just be a pro-White monarch who wears a crown for some reason, who will do everything they personally want him to and is basically themselves in power. And that is it.
There is no contingency plan for what happens after he dies except that an identical person, also a mirror of their own beliefs, takes power flawlessly and also wears a clown-crown for some reason.
No reason is ever given why he has such universal support from every section of society apart from "because he will be good" and he will be good because he is a mirror reflection of the monarchist proposing the idea.
It's a childish proposal. There is no accounting for human nature, for power, for how government actually functions.

1677947246770911.png
[Hide] (258KB, 498x494) Reverse

Brunei_Part_1(2).mp4
[Hide] (10.9MB, 640x360, 01:21)

Kim_jong_un.mp4
[Hide] (2.8MB, 320x568, 01:00)

kim_jong_un2.jpg
[Hide] (113.7KB, 1280x720) Reverse

>>5358
>idk, the anti-democracy crowd has ben co-opted by monarchists LARPers ITT.
We've been around much longer than you, that's why.

>Go ahead and espouse the idea that we should surrender all power to some random family and his cronies.
This is no different than 
>oh, we should surrender all power to some random political party and his cronies
--
>That'd be great if it were true but a father behaves as a protector, not an exploiter. Fathers do not sell out his children to giant corporations for profit.
And if such a monarch truly is? then what.
There are numerous examples where a monarch truly is the father of his people and their protector. 
The King of Brunei takes good care of his people; Kim Jong Un obviously shows more care going out and helping his people during their floods where the US govt is too busy caring about Israel or Ukraine.
Everything you fault Monarchy with is exactly what we see with the status quo TODAY.
Also many neofeudalists today hate absolute monarchists.

Joseph_II_is_plowing.jpg
[Hide] (1.2MB, 2573x1419) Reverse

Joseph_II.jpg
[Hide] (210.4KB, 828x1351) Reverse

HRE Joseph II was an absolute monarch -- Hitler admired him along with Frederick the Great.
He sought to end serfdom and cared very much for Germanization (hence all of Hitler's praise for this monarch). Out of all the other Habsburg monarchs, Hitler seemed apathetic and those were generally the tradcath traditionalist ones, but Hitler does reserve his praise for HRE Joseph II saying,
>Only before the eyes of one Habsburg ruler (Joseph II), and that for the last time, did the hand of Destiny hold aloft the torch that threw light on the future of his country. But the torch was then extinguished for ever.

>Joseph II, Roman Emperor of the German nation, was filled with a growing anxiety when he realized the fact that his House was removed to an outlying frontier of his Empire and that the time would soon be at hand when it would be overturned and engulfed in the whirlpool caused by that Babylon of nationalities, unless something was done at the eleventh hour to overcome the dire consequences resulting from the negligence of his ancestors.

>With superhuman energy this 'Friend of Mankind' made every possible effort to counteract the effects of the carelessness and thoughtlessness of his predecessors.

>Within one decade he strove to repair the damage that had been done through centuries. If Destiny had only granted him forty years for his labours, and if only two generations had carried on the work which he had started, the miracle might have been performed. But when he died, broken in body and spirit after ten years of rulership, his work sank with him into the grave and rests with him there in the Capucin Crypt, sleeping its eternal sleep, having never again showed signs of awakening.

France_w_LouisXIV_portrait.jpg
[Hide] (42.8KB, 600x427) Reverse

Establishment_of_the_Hôtel_Royal_des_Invalides_Louis_XIV.jpg
[Hide] (161.5KB, 650x752) Reverse

Louis_XIV-Relief_of_the_People_during_Famine.jpg
[Hide] (77.6KB, 650x452) Reverse

If anything, Fascism / Natsoc co-opted our spotlight.
Before Fascism / Natsoc, monarchies ran the show for many hundreds of years.
I don't say that with jealousy or anything.
...
From Louis XIV's memoirs:
>As for the contracts for the direct taxes, I reduced the commission from five sols to only fifteen deniers per livre, a diminution that amounted to such a large sum for the entire kingdom that it permitted me, in my great exhaustion, to lower the taille by four millions.

>I was astonished myself that in such a short time and by such entirely just means I should have been able to procure so much profit for the public. But what might cause still greater astonishment in that those who dealt with me on these terms made almost as great and much more solid a gain than those who had dealt previously, because the respect of my subjects for me then and my care in protecting my servants in all their requests made them find as much facility in their collections than as there had previously been chicanery and obstruction. 

>I resolved, a short time later, to reduce from three quarters to two the payments on the salary increases that the officials had acquired at the pittance and that had greatly diminished the value of my farmed taxes. But I have already explained the justice and the facility of this reduction to you now in passing as one of the good effects of the economy that was so necessary to my state.

>But if you consider the great advantages that I have drawn from it later, the relief that I have granted to my subjects each year, of how many debts I have disengaged the State, how many alienated taxes I have repurchased, with what punctuality I have paid all legitimate burdens, and the number of poor workers I have supported by employing them on my buildings, how many gratuities I have given to people of merit, how I have furthered public works, what aid in men and in money I have furnished my allies, how greatly I have increased the number of my ships, what strongholds I have purchased, with what vigor I have taken possession of my rights when they were challenged, without ever having been reduce to the unfortunate necessity of burening my subjects with any extraordinary tax, you would certainly find then that the labors by which I have reached this position must have appeared very pleasant to me, since they have borne so much fruit for my subjects.

><For indeed, my son, we must consider the good of our subjects far more than our own. They are almost a part of ourselves, since we are the head of a body and they are its members. It is only for their own advantage that we must give them laws, and our power over them must only be used by us in order to work more effectively for their happiness. It is wonderful to deserve from them the name of a father and sovereign, and if one belongs to us by right of birth, the other must be the sweetest object of our ambition. I am well aware that such a wonderful title is not obtained without a great deal of effort, but in praiseworthy undertakings one must not be stopped by the idea of difficulty. Work only dismays weak souls, and when a plan is advantageous and just, it is weakness not to execute it. Laziness in those of our rank is just as opposed to the greatness of courage as timidity, and there is no doubt that a monarch responsible for watching over the public interest deserves more blame in fleeing from a useful burden than in stopping in the face of imminent danger; for indeed, the fear of danger can almost always be tinge by a feeling of prudence, whereas the fear of work can never be considered as anything but an inexcusable weakness.

Louis-XIV-Portrait-Charles-Le-Brun-1655.jpg
[Hide] (675.6KB, 1256x1600) Reverse

Louis_XIV-Relief_of_the_People_during_Famine.jpg
[Hide] (77.6KB, 650x452) Reverse

Louis XIV describes rescuing his subjects from a famine
>There arose soon thereafter an occasion, unpleasant in itself, yet useful in its outcome, that gave my people a clear indication of how capable I was of this same attention to details in regard to their own interests and their own advantages. The great dearth of 1661 did not actually make itself felt until the beginning of the year 1662, when most of the wheat of the previous ones had been consumed, but then it afflicted the entire kingdom in the midst of these first successes, as if God, who is careful to temper His blessings, had wanted to balance the great and joyful hopes for the future with a present misfortune. Those who in such a case are accustomed to profit from public calamity did not fail to close their stores, expecting higher prices and greater profits. 

>One may imagine, however, my son, what effect markets empty of all sorts of grain, peasants compelled to abandon the cultivation of the soil in order to go elsewhere in desperate search for their sustenance produced in the kingdom, even causing apprehension that the misfortune of that year would continue into the following ones; artisans who raised the prices of their products in proportion to the cost of living, the poor making their complaints and their murmurs heard everywhere, middling families who held back their usual charities from fear of an impending need, the most wealthy burdened with their servants and unable to do everything – all the orders in the State, finally, threatened with the grave diseases that accompany a poor diet, and which, beginning with the people, subsequently spread to the persons of the highest quality; all this caused indescribable dismay throughout France.

>It would have been infinitely greater, my son, if I had merely agonize uselessly over it or if I had relied on the remedies at hand, on the ordinary magistrates, who are all too often weak and incompetent, lacking in zeal, or even corrupt. I became intimately acquainted with the needs of the people and with conditions. I obliged the more affluent provinces to aid the others, private individuals to open their stores and to put up their commodities at a fair price. I hastily sent orders everywhere to bring in as much wheat as I possibly could by sea from Danzig and from other foreign countries. I had my treasury purchase it. I distributed most of it free to the lower classes of the biggest cities, such as Paris, Rouen, Tours, and others. I had the rest sold at a very modest price to those who could afford it, and any profit from this was immediately employed for the relief of the poor, who derived, by this means, voluntary, natural, and imperceptible aid from the more wealthy. In the countryside, where distribution of wheat could not be effected so promptly, I dispatched money with which each one subsequently tried to relieve his need. I appeared, finally to all my subjects, as a true father of a family, who provides for his household and equitably distributes nourishment to his children and to his servants.

>I have never found any expense more useful than this one. For our subjects, my son, are our true riches and the only ones that we conserve purely for themselves, all the others being good for nothing unless we know the art of using them, that is, of spending them wisely. And if God gives me the grace to execute everything that I have in mind, I shall try to bring the prosperity of my reign to such a point, that in truth there should be no more rich or poor, for fortune, industry, and intelligence will always retain this distinction among men, but at least there should be no more indigence or begging throughout the kingdom; I mean no one, however impoverished he may be, who is not assured of his sustenance either through his work or through normal and regulated aid.

>But without looking forward, I was abundantly and immediately rewarded for my cares by the upsurge of affection that they produced for me in the hearts of the people. And this is how, my son, we may sometimes fortunately turn into blessings the greatest troubles of the State. For if anything can tighten the sacred knot that attaches subjects to their sovereign and awaken in their hearts their natural sentiments of respect, of gratitude, and of love for him, it is undoubtedly the aid that they receive from him in time of some unexpected public misfortune. We hardly note the admirable order of the world and the regular and useful course of the Sun until some disturbance in the seasons or some apparent disorder in the machine makes us give it a little more reflection. As long as everything in a State is prosperous, it is easy to forget the infinite blessings that royalty provides and merely envy those that it possesses. Man, naturally ambitious and proud, can never understand why another should command him until he feels the need for it. But habit makes him insensitive to this very need, as soon as it constantly and regularly satisfied. It is extraordinary incidents that make him consider what he ordinarily gains from this; and that, without authority, he would himself fall prey to the strongest, finding in the world neither justice, nor reason, nor security for his possessions, nor recourse against his losses; and this is how he comes to love obedience as much as he loves his own life and his own tranquility.

King_Louis_XIV_by_himself.jpg
[Hide] (93.9KB, 468x600) Reverse

41251251255125125412412412(1).jpg
[Hide] (328.3KB, 1536x906) Reverse

LouisXIV_against_financial_harpies_w_france.jpg
[Hide] (158.9KB, 650x783) Reverse

More Louis XIV Quotes:
>Each profession contributes in its own way to sustaining the monarchy, and each has its own functions which the others undoubtedly have a great deal of difficulty in doing without. The peasant by his work furnishes nourishment to this whole great body, the artisan by his craft provides everything for the convenience of the public, and the merchant by his cares assembles from a thousand different places all the useful and pleasant products of the world in order to furnish them to each individual whenever he needs them; the financier by collecting the public money helps to support the state, the judges by enforcing the law maintain security among men. And the clergy by instructing the people in religion acquire the blessings of Heaven and preserve peace in earth

>This is why, far from scorning any of these conditions or raising one at the expense of others, we must take care to make them all, if possible, exactly what they should be. We must be firmly convinced that we have no interest in favoring one at the expense of the others.

>So that the only way to reign in all hearts at once is to be the incorruptible judge and common father of all.

Louis_XIV_hospital_for_invalid_veterans.jpg
[Hide] (2.4MB, 1666x2692) Reverse

Establishment_of_the_Hôtel_Royal_des_Invalides_Louis_XIV.jpg
[Hide] (161.4KB, 650x752) Reverse

Colonnade_des_Invalides.jpg
[Hide] (734.8KB, 1066x1225) Reverse

Louis XIV's care for veterans:
>Around 1670, Louis XIV had decided to build a hotel which would house officers wounded in battle or who had fallen into poverty. The edict establishing the Hôtel Royal des Invalides dates from April 1674. The composition presents Royal Wisdom (symbolized by Minerva) and Royal Piety as being at the origin of the creation of the Invalides.

>Minerva personifies Royal Wisdom, which is also at the origin of the project for the Hôtel Royal des Invalides. Around 1670, Louis XIV had decided to build a hotel that would house officers wounded in service. The edict of establishment of the hotel dates from April 1674, but the medal of the History of the king which was struck for its inauguration bears the date of 1675. This medal includes a bird's eye view of the building quite close to the painting in the Hall of Mirrors (only the foreground differs). Let us add that the architectural plan is a traditional attribute of Magnificence which is undoubtedly also mentioned here: the word is even used in the text of the Mercure galant of December 1684. 

>The soldiers seen on the right are the beneficiaries of royal piety: soldiers whom “long service, or the misfortunes of war, had rendered useless” and who were “constrained to seek in the charity of the people, a relief to their miseries” (Mercure galant December 1684). The soldier in the foreground is kneeling with his arms crossed on his chest in deep gratitude; one wonders if he wears a bandage on his left arm or if it is simply the white fabric of his shirt; the one in the background receives the military order of Saint-Lazare of Jerusalem (according to the Mercure galant , but this identification is questioned by Virginie Bar [2003] who writes that the cross of Saint-Lazare “was not white, as is the case here, but purple and green, edged in gold. In fact it seems that the painter represented some decoration which was logically identified with that of Saint-Lazare which, before the creation of the order of Saint-Louis [1693], rewarded the merit of soldiers”). The preparatory drawing kept at the Louvre Museum (inv. 29759) is very close to the description of the Mercure galant (1684) where it is written that Piety gives “the order of S. Lazare to officers” and “money to soldiers”.

>>5372
>Espousing that we should surrender all power to some random family is the same as advocating surrendering all power to a political party.
Not in the slightest. A political party represents ideas. Some random family does not. You don't even know what random family you want to rule.

>What if said family really is a paragon of virtue.
Okay, who?
And why would his kids be? And why would his grandkids be?
>The King of Brunei takes good care of his people
I don't know much about non-European monarchs. I'll take your word for it. So why is he so concerned with keeping his people free from jewish and capitalist domination while European monarchs have not been? Maybe we should just do that.
>All of the flaws you have cited for monarchies are present today in democracies
I agree. I am not attempting to defend modern democracies or even present it as the ideal system. Though obviously it appears this way given my previous posts. My position is that
1. Monarchism has no hope of garnering mass support necessary to win because
2. It is a very weak ideology 
3. In order to preserve fascism or even just preserve any kind of revolutionary anti-leftist idealism in a new government, the public must be made to feel involved in the system.
To ignore this will lead to the collapse of said system and that leads to either jews or leftists taking over.
While a non-jewish leftist regime is still better than a jewish one, it is less than ideal and thus must be avoided.

>>5373
>There are many examples of monarchs who sought to reign in feudalism
I agree with you. However, we're forgetting that monarchy as we know it would not exist without feudalism. All the customs and aristocratic elite of European monarchies were the direct result of feudalism.
This is another reason why it will never happen in America. Due to the lack of tradition of feudalism, a king with a crown and a stick/scepter will never take power and wear a robe and sit on a golden chair.
If a supreme dictator ever does take power, he will either wear a uniform or a suit. He will not appeal to nobility but to democracy or the constitution. If he does appeal to God, it will not be that God sanctifies his right to be a king but that he is uprooting anti-Christian elements in the name of Jesus. Seemingly a small difference but actually a major one. A king gets his right to rule from God, allegedly. A dictator appeals to the people. And if said dictator is wise, he will find a way to gradually transfer powers back to the people or his regime will not last much longer than himself.

36_eyes.png
[Hide] (326.5KB, 1065x1314) Reverse

LOUIS_XIV's_dogs_Bonne_Nonne_Ponne.png
[Hide] (1.7MB, 1000x784) Reverse

>>5380
>A political party represents ideas
That's part of the problem of multi-party democracy: you have two sides blinded by their ideals, the monarch represents fair judgment and a helmsman who can steer the ship of State between the polarization of these ideas when the time is right.
But nevertheless I already touted what is ideal for Monarchy; you didn't heed it or feel swayed, but continuously lashed out about how all kings hate the people and are exploiters. The ideal of King & Kin where the State is a family with the King as its grand patriarch is clearly not your ideal. (Even though it is more racial and familial for a people as a whole).

>So why is he so concerned with keeping his people free from jewish and capitalist domination while European monarchs have not been?
Plenty of royalty have also expelled Jews (I know you'll say, that that doesn't count or it was mostly by a popular whim... but just look at all the anti-Romanov jews out there).

>2. It is a very weak ideology 
I would say only because of certain baggage hindering it, not because the potential isn't there.
It's the same I said about the Habsburgs & Hitler: the style of royalism there couldn't be very in tune with nationalism to begin with, because it was mostly carried with the ultra-clerical sentiments of traditional Catholicism moreso than other monarchies: which vehemently states that the political concerns inferior, so what largely looks like apathy to you nationalist types is really just misplaced.

>However, we're forgetting that monarchy as we know it would not exist without feudalism. All the customs and aristocratic elite of European monarchies were the direct result of feudalism.
This is another reason why it will never happen in America. Due to the lack of tradition of feudalism, a king with a crown and a stick/scepter will never take power and wear a robe and sit on a golden chair.
I partially disagree, because there's more depth to monarchy than the Middle Ages, but I do agree that, yes, a crowned Christian monarch is less likely in the USA than a more secular Dictator -- but to me they both share monarchical form (the rule of one person). Certainly a dictator has virtue, like Louis XIV, that such rule is rule by Heaven regardless of the appeal.

>And if said dictator is wise, he will find a way to gradually transfer powers back to the people or his regime will not last much longer than himself.
Or he can preserve the monarchical form: the preservation of which, being the preservation of himself, tends to be why naturally these states become hereditary, since the offspring at least carry the image of their predecessor and have a blood relationship.
...
Like Hitler champions, it's not necessarily the people's inquisition that leads to glorious men leading the states, but by their own individual initiative they come and save the people.
To leave the people to themselves is to take us back to the problem of them being fledgling goats running amok, again, back to the problems of multi-party democracy (which you say you don't support anyways). To maintain a one-party state is in a way to maintain a monarchy over the people no less:
You tell us all about the right to vote and how much that matters for Americans;
Both Fascism & Natsoc have a history of banning all other political parties...
Are you going to tell me, that the Republicans & Democrats need to be re-introduced as well as Green Party and the Communist Party and Libertarian Party? 
Why can't Americans have the right to vote for these entities?

Grace_n_Erika.png
[Hide] (928.7KB, 1378x1378) Reverse

dog_chernobyl1280x720.jpg
[Hide] (191.7KB, 1280x720) Reverse

Hitler obviously wasn't one of us monarchists. I read Mein Kampf, & Hitler seriously considered Dynastic Patriotism & Absolute Monarchy, and even said he might have been... but for his part, Hitler could never like the Habsburg dynasty and for that Hitler was repulsed from being a monarchist.
Yet Hitler was clearly by no means a democracyfag either:
>Democracy, as practised in Western Europe to-day, is the fore-runner of Marxism. In fact, the latter would not be conceivable without the former. Democracy is the breeding-ground in which the filth of the Marxist world pest can grow and spread. By the introduction of parliamentarianism, democracy produced an abortion of filth and fire (Note 6), the creative fire of which, however, seems to have died out.
As you can see, Hitler calls Democracy as practiced in Western Europe in his time -- to be the fore-runner of Marxism.
If you're still not convinced, you there with your Aristotelian maxims about "governing ourselves" should know Hitler also clearly believed in the ideals of the philosopher king (which Aristotle reproved, but Hitler re-asserts).
>In this world is not the creative act of the genius always a protest against the inertia of the mass?
As you see, the creative act of the genius is a protest against the inertia of the mass.
And more:

>What shall the statesman do if he does not succeed in coaxing the parliamentary multitude to give its consent to his policy? Shall he purchase that consent for some sort of consideration?

>Or, when confronted with the obstinate stupidity of his fellow citizens, should he then refrain from pushing forward the measures which he deems to be of vital necessity to the life of the nation? Should he retire or remain in power?

>In such circumstances does not a man of character find himself face to face with an insoluble contradiction between his own political insight on the one hand and, on the other, his moral integrity, or, better still, his sense of honesty?

>Where can we draw the line between public duty and personal honour?

>Must not every genuine leader renounce the idea of degrading himself to the level of a political jobber?

>And, on the other hand, does not every jobber feel the itch to 'play politics', seeing that the final responsibility will never rest with him personally but with an anonymous mass which can never be called to account for their deeds?

>Must not our parliamentary principle of government by numerical majority necessarily lead to the destruction of the principle of leadership?

>Or may it be presumed that for the future human civilization will be able to dispense with this as a condition of its existence?

>But may it not be that, to-day, more than ever before, the creative brain of the individual is indispensable?

>>5382
>>5383
>That's part of the problem of multi-party democracy: you have two sides blinded by their ideals, the monarch represents fair judgment 
What institutional factors cause him to "represent" fair judgement? Historically, monarchs who engage in politics take sides. Any monarch who actually wields political power will need to take sides on issues.
>Plenty of royalty have also expelled Jews (I know you'll say, that that doesn't count or it was mostly by a popular whim
Actually, in most cases, it was indeed as a reaction to public outrage against jews.
Do you believe that in, say, 1290 or something, that the actual people of Medieval France or England liked the child sacrificing, rent gouging, loan sharking, weird foreigners? If there had been a vote in 1290, do you believe that the people of England would have opposed evicting the hated foreigners?
The ideals which you and I both agree upon are also held organically by a majority of people.
> the style of royalism there couldn't be very in tune with nationalism to begin with, because it was mostly carried with the ultra-clerical sentiments of traditional Catholicism moreso than other monarchies
I agree with you once again. But most monarchists want to keep all the weird clerical mumbojumbo.
I am not opposed to a supreme authority, even one which wears silly clothes. Actually, I would find that really neat. But I also care deeply about perpetuating the ideals which I value. Namely nationalism. In order to perpetuate these ideals, we must imbue them in the people. Therefore, the people must be deeply involved and indeed, energized by populist leaders.
We do not even need to have national elections, though that is a very easy way to involve the public in the system. So long as people are deeply involved in the government, they will perpetuate the ideals of the revolution that ousted the ((( old one )))
>to me, a dictator is a monarch
I mean, sure I guess. But we're really squinting hard. It's like saying that Joseph Stalin or Chairman Mao were monarchs. 

>Or a wise dictator can preserve the monarchical form:
Let's say that a non-perfect, potentially very non-perfect man manages to not only overthrow the jews, but also somehow unite all the bickering heavily armed factions and declares himself president for life.
Say he rules well enough given the circumstances but also abolishes public participation in government because it is destabilizing or immoral or something.
What will inevitably happen is the new regime will be governed by the personal friends and family of the dictator. When he dies, his son takes over. When his cronies die, their sons take over. Who will the son need to think about pleasing? The people, or the cronies? Obviously he doesn't need to consider the people at all so he will focus on the cronies. The oligarchs.
The interest of moneyed elites is not the same as the interests of the national body, and the rift will grow and grow.
If the "right wing" is wedded to preserving the monarchy, we will become alienated from the public. They will turn to leftists to agitate for them.
Eventually, conflict between the people and the regime will result and the regime will lose.
Everything we hypothetically fought for will be destroyed.
A wise ruler MUST involve the people or eventually, there will be an irreconcilable rift between the people and the government.

>Both Fascism & Natsoc have a history of banning all other political parties..
True.
Neither system was perfect. 
That said, there were still elections and the public were involved, could rise up the ranks, and clearly felt that the government was representing their interests so much that they fought nearly to the death.

873_20241007193033.png
[Hide] (965.5KB, 2005x2641) Reverse

Bossuet_mp4_Louis_XIV.mp4
[Hide] (3MB, 640x360, 00:32)

>>5392
>Who will the son need to think about pleasing?
His ancestors.

>Actually, in most cases, it was indeed as a reaction to public outrage against jews.
Who's to say not the some of the royalty themselves? 

>A wise ruler MUST involve the people or eventually, there will be an irreconcilable rift between the people and the government.
Again, I don't consider Monarchy an entirely private affair: sure, there is some pre-eminence of the monarch or a cult of personality imposed on the public.
The virtue of monarchy therein is like having a singer on the stage: he sings into the crowd, and with his air gives that crowd a soul:
Otherwise, that crowd would be like an amorphous blob without unity. Or a crowd always has strength gathering around a person, a person or persona gives them an identity.

>It's like saying that Joseph Stalin or Chairman Mao were monarchs.
Yes, I would even argue that's why they had cults of personality: they were harvesting the benefit of monarchical form for their regimes. Even tyrannical monarchies have some virtue of monarchy itself.
Of course, perhaps not full monarchies, but today I tend to even compliment North Korea so there you go.

>there will be an irreconcilable rift between the people and the government.
You are taking Hitler's words against Dynastic Patriotism, who also followed the same pattern of thinking and so Hitler followed the opinion of Rousseau against royalism, saying that he doubts the people and monarch are one, and have an aligned corporate will, and are at odds.
Obviously, I'm not Natsoc, & I do believe there can be such a Dynastic Patriotism, & I tend to point to North Korea and other regimes as proof.

For the record, when it comes to Hitler & Dynastic Patriotism with Monarchy, I obviously am with him in slanting the Habsburgs. I'm also one of those rare monarchists who isn't a total pro-Habsburg goofball.
Previously I already gave my opinions about the Habsburgs & why Dynastic Patriotism wasn't effective there, precisely because it was a different kind of Dynastic Patriotism and a different blood relationship.
So that's why I am critical of Hitler's criticism of Dynastic Patriotism when it comes to the 'burgs*

82Lwd_tz.jpg
[Hide] (515KB, 1462x2048) Reverse

fF7uiibd.jpg
[Hide] (294KB, 1669x1310) Reverse

zBmfTX6y.jpg
[Hide] (289.3KB, 2048x1184) Reverse

I'm also VERY keen on pointing out, that the sole Habsburg that Hitler made an exception for was HRE Joseph II, who is oft lambasted in monarchist circles for Enlightened Absolutism by the more traditionalist monarchists.
Absolute Monarchists tend to care more about the political good and political state (as paradoxical as that might sound to you) than other monarchists. It's why in a different thread I felt absolutist values actually did have more in common with Italian Fascism. We're both concerned strongly with the political good, ours dating back to the Politiques and Wars of Religion, with Bodin's sovereignty theirs much further ahead.
I'd say on this point, where Rousseau disregards a corporate will with the state, Fascism is perhaps closer to ours since they do maintain their State as a corporate entity: many talk about Fascism as mostly private corporations when they talk about Fascist corporatism, but the truth is Fascist corporatism is like the Leviathan-type corporatism (minus the materialism) in that it is a corporatism of the State and political benefit: in their view, much like ours with Dynastic Patriotism, we don't see people and government as separate entities like the lolberts do, but truly a unified character when it goes towards their perfection, and when it is not then it's imperfection.
If I had to talk to /fascist/, I tend to agree more with the Italian Fascist view as opposed to the Natsocs who criticize it for this reason, and say that a State and people are not so aligned. 
They see the virtue of the State in unity, and likewise absolute monarchists also share that ideal... Natsocs who stress this against Italian Fascism, I feel appeal to the other sense of plurality, and yet arguably Natsoc ideology has the same unitary ambitions like I pointed out, so I think that ought to be ironed out with Natsoc  and Fascism, and I truly think it is a misunderstanding between your groups.

883_20241009194506.png
[Hide] (254.9KB, 768x959) Reverse

>>5392
>What institutional factors cause him to "represent" fair judgement?
This sounds as if nobody has any personal integrity -- I wouldn't be a monarchist if I felt the monarch had to be this sort of muzzled hyena. 
First, the monarch represents for me the entire country, as the State is in his person; he is the unity, and is positioned in a way that can overlook the class divide as an integral person with the view of the entire State and not just the partiality of the rich or poor, as I see a full monarch as a check on both, likely in the same way Fascists believe the unity of their State can overcome class war.
2nd, I personally believe it comes with monarchical form, that a monarch is positioned between the parties in the same way that Hitler praises the "spark of individual genius and initiative".
3rd, Bodin was anti-Machiavellian, & didn't approve of class war rhetoric, and said a monarch ought not to pick a side. 
The statist outlook is we want to benefit the entire State, and all classes, with its unity, the monarch represents that unity of the State.
It sounds like you don't believe in class collaborationism (which is a hallmark of both Fascism & Natsoc).

83d7a4920ef8a0d299e4aa15a987fd2b608ffe10f521b04cb8318331cf75cf4d.png
[Hide] (207.3KB, 1004x1004) Reverse

>>5396
shit boring words words words memes, this board is a joke lol

USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST Quit being a moron and either discuss why you think differently, or kill yourself.

>>5401
speak for yourself, whenever i visit this board, the locals pride themselves on having more in-depth discussion compared to /pol/.

2663c7a84d86f8a50d46893e82c8ddbc0f7b1cea14d886c529e11562e2d18956.jpg
[Hide] (297.6KB, 750x538) Reverse

>>5396
SNOOOOORRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>5393
>His ancestors.
Cute but not a serious response. It's like saying "it's his duty" or saying, "just make him promise to be good"
If there are no consequences for being a liberal shithead, nothing stops the heir from being a liberal shithead. I don't want to risk it considering that at least 90% of elites turn out to be liberal shitheads, even in the 19th century.
>Who's to say not the some of the royalty themselves? 
I'm sure some royals also disliked jews. But who brought them in? They did for the cheap money.
Historically, jews exploited European poor with the support of European governments.

>Stalin and Mao were monarchs. Anyone who exercises power as an individual is a monarch.
Well, by that standard, I am not opposed to monarchy. What if we had a system whereby we had a small group of monarchs elected annually to make decisions? Or perhaps, randomly selected from among the working class? Would that be a monarchy?
Sparta had 2 kings. What if we had 200 and they were selected like jury duty?

>>5400
This isn't addressing the question.
Your first point sums up to, 
>he really ought to do it this way because it's right
Okay. Well, modern elites sure the fuck aren't doing the right thing so instead of wishing people would change, let's address the real factors which cause rich oligarchs to be liberal shitheads.
Your second point
>he really ought to do it this way because it's right
Again...
Your third
>Jean Bodin said X, Y, and Z
Okay but he's dead and cannot impose his will on anyone. The fact is that people do not behave according to how you think they should. Ideally, all elites should be nationalists. They're not.
You are asserting that if we replace them with another random set of elites, they'll behave differently.
I am asking ''Why are the elites universally terrible across all time periods? How can we fix this?"
The fact is that elites tend to skew left. It's time to stop propping them up. Elites are not affected by the real world. They reject nationalism. They adopt globalism and universalist ideals because they don't suffer consequences for immigration.
It's time to face reality and recognize that the elites are not our friends. They are our implacable enemies.

>>5426
>>5400
To put it another way, who is more likely to lynch foreigners?
A bunch of rich noblemen in London? Or the peasants who work the land?
Who has a REAL attachment to the land? The worldly rich who marry into royal families in foreign lands or the actual real people who live here and always have and always will?
There is no question. In every case, normal people are far more decent than elites.
On every single issue, the public is far to the "right" of the elites.
Even monarchists appeal to this fact. But they don't take it to its logical conclusion.

Go ahead. Tell me in good faith that you believe that Joe Farmer is a worse person than some rich noble in London or Paris. You know it, I know it, the world knows it. Normal people are far more fascist than elites.

grace_12_kitto.png
[Hide] (931.6KB, 1500x1500) Reverse

surprised_dog.jpg
[Hide] (54.1KB, 649x650) Reverse

>>5426
>Cute but not a serious response.
That's the whole appeal to hereditary monarchy: the son succeeds his father, has inherited traits and a similar appearance to his father, is more likely to behave and follow the constitution of his father, and should be proud to follow in the footsteps of his ancestors: natsocs & neopagans are all about following their ancestors, right?

>What if we had a system whereby we had a small group of monarchs elected annually to make decisions?
>small group of monarchs
Are you playing dumb? That's oligarchy.
I clearly stressed Stalin or Mao because they were dictators or had cults of personalities that stressed their persona over the masses (which, as far as I know, wasn't shared so much). I'm not saying Stalin or Mao strike me because there are 2 Stalins or 200 Maos, but because they alone seem to appear like prophets.
Monarchy is where the focus is solely on one person.

>Or perhaps, randomly selected from among the working class?"
If this was by lottery, sure, that would be a kind of succession & perhaps a more limited monarch. (I said the same for Stalin or Mao, that there were not full monarchies, even the US President in my view plays the role of a "limited monarch" in the sense he has a leadership role, but the State is not a monarchy).

>Sparta had 2 kings.
Count with your fingers.
Are 2 kings... 1 king? no.
Monarchy is when you have 1 king with sovereign & pre-eminent status -- it is a full & absolute & simple monarchy --, limited monarchs are dictators or those employed to serve another kind of State in a more limited role or term, they don't have the fullness of the State in their persons, and simply take their turn but play a leadership role a monarch would generally do.

>It's time to face reality and recognize that the elites are not our friends. They are our implacable enemies.
I don't view a full monarch as just another elite or rich man. Maybe constitutional monarchists like the idea of one among equals with the other elites, but for me a monarch is such a pre-eminent person that he is unique.
...
Besides, if the elite are to be held perpetually in contempt, and any monarchical figure or caesar sort also held in contempt, then I would say that the masses won't have any hope at all: rarely do the masses actually rise up by their own initiative unless something so catastrophic impacts all of them and arouses the public's anger. It has no mind without a mastermind, the best the public will do is react, but it will severely lack co-ordination or any meaningful organization without a leader figure or even any influential members.
You could say, that the people really ought to do this or that, and assume they are all misguided white nationalists as well, but if that were true they would have done something by now.

35fedec34888a9963e1f69675f23334891f9528f5c406ca384502c6ac81b045a_99.png
[Hide] (97.4KB, 452x414) Reverse

Oswald_mosley_MP.jpg
[Hide] (73.5KB, 587x800) Reverse

>>5427
>Who has a REAL attachment to the land? 
A monarch who truly is sovereign over that land... has very real attachment to that land.
We already know where despots or tyrants rule, not even the people leave that land.

>Tell me in good faith that you believe that Joe Farmer is a worse person
The majority of people aren't Joe Farmers, first of all: do you think we're in pre-industrial times?
There are just as many cosmopolitan people in the middle class as there are as the leftists say "lumpenproles".

>Normal people are far more fascist than elites.
Oswald Mosley comes from a noble background and was a founder of Fascism.

>>5426
>If there are no consequences for being a liberal shithead, nothing stops the heir from being a liberal shithead.
People aren't liberals because there are no consequences, people are liberals because of their genes.
>I don't want to risk it considering that at least 90% of elites turn out to be liberal shitheads, even in the 19th century.
The only reason why elites are disproportionately liberal is that they were hit by the effects of post-industrial revolution dysgenics earlier than the commoners.
>Or perhaps, randomly selected from among the working class?
You should test that theory by selecting a random working class person to run a large corporation before advocating for national suicide via intraracial egalitarianism.
>>5428
How do hereditary monarchists deal with the problem of regression to the mean?

Grace_cropped.png
[Hide] (147.1KB, 550x616) Reverse

Song_of_General_Kim_Il_Sung_(english_subtitles).mp4
[Hide] (8.3MB, 640x360, 02:45)

>>5430
The deal is that all sons orient their minds back to the progenitor of their race & the founder.
I explained earlier in this thread where Aristotle talks about the rights of the original founders of States: they are naturally held to be pre-eminent figures or founding fathers because they established the foundation of the whole State, and thereby have the relevance of being in the relationship of the Whole to the Part from Aristotle's perspective of the grounds of pre-eminence.
...
If you look at North Korea, it's another clear example: Kim Il Sung is the Great Founder motif: the descendants of the Great Leader are supposed to follow and orient their minds back to the Great Leader:
The founder is supposed to be the prototype or foundation, the sons his offspring, even if they are lesser, have the benefit of having to follow their founder, and the pride of their heritage and lineage as a reason for following a good example.
So a good hereditary monarchy starts with a truly virtuous man who lays the foundation, and the heirs are just supposed to follow his example, even if they fall short of it.
Kim Il Sung is the Eternal President: the same maxim is found in France, that the King never dies.
Ever since Clovis, where the name Louis is derived, many French kings have adopted the namesake of their founder: the same with the namesake of Caesar, is passed down and borrowed, because it was a pre-eminent name.
That is how dynasties are supposed to function.

>>5431
>The deal is that all sons orient their minds back to the progenitor of their race & the founder.
It is not enough for people to want to emulate their founders, if it were then any man could become a king. This is because a person's potential and the set of worldviews he is willing to adopt is determined by his genes. It follows that when the royal family completely regresses to the mean that they will be just as incapable of ruling the nation as the masses.
>and the heirs are just supposed to follow his example, even if they fall short of it.
It is not about occasionally falling short of the founder's example, each successive generation will fall short of them until they are average in all aspects except title. Much like the people they are made up of, dynasties have not yet found a way to reverse or even prevent generational decay.
As it stands advocating for dynasties lasting longer than 5 generations is suicidal.

>>5357
>You do realize what a bizarre position that is, right? You are claiming that Irish nationalists did NOT enjoy nearly universal support from Irish people?
is different than
>The IRA had near universal support from Irish people.
>near universal support

87ea8e03d51893b6f39343a9248e160d803dee2f527667c7ba142ff27a8b687c.png
[Hide] (36.8KB, 640x480) Reverse

>>5360
>Once peasants become capable of thinking
You'll never make it alive.

582c6aba95a1aa37f84b2032664f5172749da96313d7fde2442466e0be3901ca.png
[Hide] (1.1MB, 736x736) Reverse

>>5372
You are wasting your time with an absolute retard who for some reason is totally convinced that a monarch is a traitor, a sellout, an imbecile, an exploiter, etc. The entire substance of his posts is completely based on a set of false premises and this been going on for as long as he posted ITT. He's a prime idiot who doesn't anything about life, power, authority, pre-eminence and just the way the brain of a basic man functions. Pathetic as it gets because essentially democracy is people playing a game of finding their favorite sugar daddy. He's double jabbed with demvax and can't imagine living without a system that has largely proven how disastrous it was for any nation that went through it and anyone with anything close to an acceptable degree of objectivity can easily notice that this demfag can't break through his own conceptual ceiling. He's totally impaired and unable to reach into history, of which he has demonstrated having a laughably poor grasp.

>>5381
America won't make it. Size does matter not.

0ea34176f6ceb074877ecee8acaed5b4e02434da54b0f51f8d0da2a313597f95.jpg
[Hide] (328.3KB, 1536x906) Reverse

TJC3V7X9EPX11631651583797-3940158713.jpg
[Hide] (735.3KB, 1920x1076) Reverse

>>5377
>to be the incorruptible judge

516ad3dbfa7b62517801b6809145d9f8abceddf712026346d6ddc12d1469469e.jpg
[Hide] (36.9KB, 562x600) Reverse

>>5380
>A political party represents ideas. 
Yeah, like a democratic party's heads could never ever represent personal interests and self-centered ambitions. See, the selfish claim can be turned against democracy too.
>why has the King of Brunei not been targeted by jews?
It's as if jews had largely focused all their envy and hatred on the highest race of all instead of going for nigh irrelevant minor powers.
>monarchy is a weak ideology
It's on the contrary very simple. One clear head, one guardian for the people. No political games beyond what is strictly expedient for the king.
>the public must be made to feel involved in the system
>proceeds to ignore several posts by royalanon that prove that good kings are absolutely involved in caring about the people
Keep going on, don't ever let anyone here derail your from that straight disingenuous line.

>>5393
It is good to note that many things changed between Mein Kempf itself and the days under Hitler's rule.

National Socialism and Monarchy are compatible, National Socialism is not bound to any one way of governance so long as that system of governance is in accordance with the ironclad rule of "Race comes first in all matters" as typified so eloquently by David lane in the 28 word poem on the beauty of the Aryan women and it's necessity in this world.
And anybody else who posts low effort shit in here, will be banned

>>5396
Appeal to the volk as the initial power is incorrect. Then, when it moves up to the topic of metaphysics, Evola didn't share Jung's claim of an appeal to a collective substrate when the real source would be from above. But Italian Fascism had the issue of being too detached from the importance of the race whereas National Socialism brought the race, volk and state on equal grounds. Incidentally, a watered down Italian Fascism with its State as its central feature carries the risk of devolving into civic nationalism because the concept of the state as a stable and unifying mixture is too abstract and collapses as soon as Nature and race are ignored.

>>5400
>3rd, Bodin was anti-Machiavellian... and said a monarch ought not to pick a side.
Niccolò Machiavelli makes it very clear that having the people on one's side is defintely the most stable and best long term solution and frowns upon following the nobles too much. He unjustly gets such a bad reputation as a philosopher supposedly arguing in favor of schemers and plotters but it couldn't be farther from the truth. He's just straight to the point in a most brutal way and he sees what has worked and what has failed. It is true however that he doesn't seem to provide a view that appears appeasing with great dreams of grand unity between all layers of a people, but by focusing on the common folk and seeing them as makers of rulers by gathering their love and support, we do perceive an embryonic glimpse of the direct bond between ruler and the masses that has been highlighted across this thread and that is shared by many thinkers, regardless of their personal preferences regarding models of governance, which again demonstrates the many bridges that link strong monarchism, fascism and national socialism, which I believe and more numerous and firmer than the differences.

Doing an archive of this thread and you all saving it as a PDF too would be useful, just in case.

>>5445
this is just like the holocaust… oy…

USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST Low effort retardation

>>5445
lame censorious bastard

USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST Low effort retardation

>>5428
>, is more likely to behave and follow the constitution of his father
You and I both know that there are countless examples of monarchs who's personality types were polar opposites of their fathers.
>natsocs & neopagans are all about following their ancestors, right?
I mean, this is a complex issue. Technically, we are rejecting the ideology which predominated our fathers' generation. If your father was a Christian conservative and you are a National Socialist, you are embracing a wildly different ideology than your father.

>A small group of monarchs is oligarchy.
Okay, fine. So you're just sold on the idea of a single leader making all decisions. I content that that is impossible. You may have an executive, but there has never been a (complex) country where all decisions were made by just one guy. Power is always delegated so in practice, everything larger than a tribe is a form of oligarchy.
>Monarchy is where the focus is solely on one person.
What if the focus is on one monarch, but he is elected and has an advisory body who are also elected?
>Sparta was not a monarchy.
Very well. This is the first time I have encountered someone who took that position but it doesn't hinder my position.

>I don't view a full monarch as just another elite or rich man
But by definition, he is the most elite of the elite. The common definition of elite is the ruling class. How can you get more ruling class than the guy with, allegedly, the power to execute anyone?

>rarely do the masses actually rise up by their own initiative unless something so catastrophic impacts all of them and arouses the public's anger
I cannot dispute this. However, it is not a helpful position to take because if you are correct, we will never ever have any hope of having either a monarchy or a pro-White government at all.
There will never be a defecting faction within the existing elite. Elon Musk is not actually pro-White. Tucker Carlson is not actually pro-White. Donald Trump is not actually pro-White. 
No billionaire, no congressman, no CIA director, no state governor will ever throw away his standing within the ruling class to side with us against the jews.
If grassroots resistance against the regime is impossible, White genocide is inevitable because the elites are basically all jews. Some are gentiles, but they are so thoroughly imbedded with the jews that they may as well just be jews. 
I am not trying to blackpill you or anyone. I am saying simply: I don't recommend believing that grassroots resistance is impossible because this is our only hope for success. Nick Fuentes is simply wrong.

>>5429
>A monarch who truly is sovereign over that land... has very real attachment to that land.
Nice theory. In practice, we know this isn't true. 
It's like saying that owning land in a nation makes you a nationalist. So I guess Bill Gates is a nationalist.
But he isn't. Theory =/= practice. 

>The majority of people aren't Joe Farmers
In medieval England, the majority of people were indeed farmers.
>There are just as many cosmopolitan people in the middle class
Dr. Pierce was right about the middle class. Cowards.
>Oswald Mosley was a noble
There have been examples of of elites who held decent values. Just as there are examples of niggers who are doctors and really nice guys. Hell, there are even examples of pro-White niggers.
However, when we look at the elite as a whole, the majority of them were far more cosmopolitan than working class people of any nation.

>>5430
>People are liberal due to bad genetics
I really like this theory. But if that is so, then the elite are tainted by liberal genetics. Therefore, perhaps they all need to die. 
>The elite were hit by the effects of post-industrial dysgenics the hardest
I can accept this. What caused this? Perhaps it was better medical technology among the elites.
If that is the case, again, maybe they all need to be put to death so we can rid our race of this embarrassing treason gene. But whatever sequence is causing this complex behavior, it may be impossible to cleanse from our race. If that's the case, then possessing advanced medical technology will enable the continuation of the liberal gene. Even you and I, say we have 10 children and ~4 of them are tainted by the gene. You and I will not see the effects of this until they are adults. We have no way of testing this gene in our children and even if we did, would you put almost half your children to death because of it?
No one would. So if it is genetic, it may be an intractable problem.
We need an INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE to prevent this from happening again. I believe that that is empowering the working class over the elites who were most affected by the treason gene or money or whatever the hell is causing people like Bill Gates to predominate among the rich.
Something must be done.

>>5443
>political parties can be corrupted
I agree. We can solve this by removing national elections for political positions.

>monarchy is a strong ideology
Then why is it that it began failing from the 18th century onwards? Every single monarchy either ceded power or was overthrown.

>You are disingenuous because you ignored several examples of decent monarchs
I never denied that there existed some decent monarchs. However, what makes Joseph so great? Well he freed serfs for starters, that's a good thing. He made school compulsory for all boys and even girls, that's a good thing.
But if the peasants themselves had had the power to vote for serfdom or school, would they have remained serfs or demanded their children remain uneducated? I doubt it.
Ironically, virtually every example of a good monarch which monarchists provide did things which the people wanted anyway, which I support in full by the way." I agree that this is exactly what a good king should be doing.''

>>5456
>I really like this theory. But if that is so, then the elite are tainted by liberal genetics.
The elites are more liberal than average but most of them are still normal people. By now every class in society has been effected to some degree by mutational load, elites were just the first to fall victim.
>Therefore, perhaps they all need to die. 
As with the rest of the classes it is only necessary to get rid of the defective portions. Communist countries have already shown what the consequences of killing the elite are.
>What caused this? Perhaps it was better medical technology among the elites..
This is one of the factors, better medical technology led to lower childhood mortality rates and their elite status would increase their chances of finding a mate. This abolished natural selection for the upper class, combined with the trend of elites having children later in life led to a rapid increase in harmful mutations.
>it may be impossible to cleanse from our race.
This is not the first time this has happened, similar circumstances led to the collapse of the Roman Empire yet Europe prevailed.
>If that's the case, then possessing advanced medical technology will enable the continuation of the liberal gene.
Embryo selection and gene therapy look promising, given a sane ruling class medicine will eventually solve most the problems it created.
>Even you and I, say we have 10 children and ~4 of them are tainted by the gene.
It is not a single gene, it is a combination of small defects which when combined lead to them becoming resentful, they may even have completely different sets of mutations from each other yet the result will be the same. The amount of mutations is a function of parental age, there is no need to worry about having defective children so long as you pick a healthy mate and aren't too old.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature24018
>You and I will not see the effects of this until they are adults.
Leftism correlates with left-handedness, facial asymmetry, mental illness and other negative traits.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30080438/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-50247-7
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-79310-1
>We have no way of testing this gene in our children and even if we did, would you put almost half your children to death because of it?
In a healthy society the accumulation of mutations would not be instant, the solution would be to simply encourage those who have bad traits to have fewer kids. Programs like giving a weekly sum of money to those who opt to be sterilized.
>We need an INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE to prevent this from happening again.
We need eugenics.

27.png
[Hide] (231.5KB, 1000x1000) Reverse

Rosenborg_Castle_Christian_IV(4).mp4
[Hide] (7.1MB, 720x404, 02:13)

GZE2iEgXwAAiJUl_optimized.png
[Hide] (634.8KB, 1650x971) Reverse

>You and I both know that there are countless examples of monarchs who's personality types were polar opposites of their fathers.
Yes, and also examples of dutiful sons.
--
Ramses II / Speech for his Father
>For the son becomes the champion of his father, like Horus, when he championed his father, forming him that formed him, fashioning him that fashioned him, making to live the name of him that begat him.

>My heart leads me in doing excellent things… I will cause it to be said forever and ever: 'It was his son, who made his name live.' May my father, Osiris, favor me with the long life of his son, Horus, according as I do that which he did; I do excellent things, as he did excellent things, for him who begat me.
--
Even if such a son were the opposite, and more ambitious than his forebearer, it is still no offense to his ancestor that his offspring should aspire to be greater than him.
Countless times, you see with statesmen that they tear down their predecessor rather than build upon it: the next candidate denounces and tears down their predecessor.
You see this with the US election, but also I would probably compare that with the Soviets & North Koreans: after Stalin died, you had de-Stalinzation and eventually the decomposition of that State, but North Korea with descendants of the Great Leader far more integrity, and I believe due to the dynasty it is why North Korea still stands out today compared to other socialist regimes, because the character of their State has been preserved in their bloodline.
Now, true it is, that there are some hiccups here and there, but that was averted with the discretion of Kim Jong Il in favoring Kim Jong Un over his brother. That is natural. It is only a general rule, but there are exceptions.
...
Ask yourself, don't you trust your own, right? It's the same principle with race, you'd favor your own over complete strangers? so why should we casually trust strangers with the keys of State? Even if a son have some of his own quirks, a son is still way more trustworthy to honor his predecessor (even if they disagree) than a stranger.

>Power is always delegated so in practice, 
I'm not against this. A sovereign can appoint people.
But Bodin's maxim is, that just because a master has servants, doesn't mean he isn't a master.

>he is the most elite of the elite
You could say that, but I would say still distinct.
The others have parts, but the monarch is invested with the business of ruling the whole country and being the father of his people. He does rule over them, I don't deny that conceptually this person would be considered a superior not only to the elite, but in the sense of pre-eminence he is even superior to his subjects: that might sound outrageous, but this is something about monarchy most monarchists don't consider, that on paper, yes, one person rules over all the rest, and is considered a superior, and gets all this wealth, and honors, and is of preliminary status, is given all this alone.
Most other monarchists don't appreciate the gravity of this: at best, the king is another saint humble before the church or a bit outstanding in virtue, but the nature of monarchical pre-eminence demands this greatly exceptional quality like Aristotle puts it as a lion among hares... like Hobbes put it... a Leviathan (Hobbes truly understood). That is why in older posts, I'd often say that "Monarchy is monstrous" not in a bad way, but to stress this whole notion.
And that is entirely consistent with the idea with Monarchy: it is necessary to understand, when it comes to understanding the nature of Monarchy itself and why it has to be like this... I am more disappointed most other monarchists don't appreciate the gravity of this or the full strength of the word "Monarchy", because you know they're mostly woo'd by the clothes / reglia / ceremonies and types like you do think of the monarch as simply "another rich man", but if the gravity of the situation that one person rules, over the elites, over myriad people, then you'll understand why Hobbes deemed his popular sovereign a Leviathan monster or "Mortal God" or why Louis XIV appeals to Apollo and has his motto "Nec Pluribus Impar" which means "Not unequal to many"... Aristotle himself said that such a monarch is like a lion to hares, and even John Milton complains that such a monarch has to be treated "like a demigod" --
John Milton in The Readie & Easie Way to Establish a Free Commonwealth--
<Whereas a king must be ador'd like a Demigod, with a dissolute and haughty court about him, of vast expence and luxury, masks and revels, to the debaushing of our prime gentry both male and female
Yes, John Milton is right -- yes, Aristotle is right in his description of a pre-eminent ruler (albeit he denied it) -- yes, Hobbes in Leviathan is also right on this point. 
If you take it seriously, that one person alone rules.

>What if the focus is on one monarch, but he is elected and has an advisory body who are also elected?
It depends, but generally speaking I don't consider most elective monarchs to be full sovereign monarchies: generally, they go by Aristotle's prescriptions. I'm a hereditary monarchist, I prefer the ideals of hereditary monarchy, & I find it strongly complementary to my notion of the State as a great family when it comes to royalism.
I'd say that can be the case, if this monarch is elected for the term of his life. Even more if he can choose his own successor (but that becomes hereditary in a sense that he is picking an heir, even if it's not blood-related). 
The case is even better if this election is out of his peers within his own household.
BUT if there is rotational government (like term limits) or party coalitions (or other noble houses swapping in and out with his estate) then I think it detracts from the idea of it being a monarchy.
The closest an elective monarch can be to a full sovereign imho is if it is rule for life, and within his household or with his choice for the succession.
...
--
But your problem is with "the elites" and most "elective monarchs" are generally going between some country's nobility and has the semblance more of an oligarchy than a democracy or monarchy. (That is controversial, but that is the absolutist stance).
It's usually exceptional when you have a populist dictator or something like socialism, I suppose, but these are often considered to be the real tyrants... elective kings might be "dictators for the rich" but these sorts of popular dictators are always stamped as tyrants or "dictators for the poor" or demagogues... I'm impartial to the whole language of tyrant here, tbh, but that is what's conventional regardless of their personal virtues or even the cause they're mobilizing the public for...

>There will never be a defecting faction within the existing elite.
>No billionaire, no congressman, no CIA director, no state governor will ever throw away his standing within the ruling class to side with us against the jews.
idk go out in the street with an armband and swastika, you'll probably also find normalfags will also shy away from it also.
That's not something impacting only our elites, but even average people are afraid of losing their jobs and cancel culture.

>Then why is it that it began failing from the 18th century onwards?
When you say "monarchy is a weak ideology", I'm not sure what to cover -- there's so much I could talk about.
But I already covered why "monarchy is a weak ideology" for you... like with the Habsburgs, I blamed the hoary ultra-clericalism latent in the traditionalist circles... to them, "political ideologies" that seem to mobilize the masses or have totalitarianism or stress political values... those are just "secularism" and I'll agree they're underpinning some legitimate political concerns, but that has been an attitude imho holding us back... I blame that for why some monarchs seem "apathetic" and "weak" to your ilk.
True it is, that the staple Christian monarchies took a massive blow from the French Revolution, but I wouldn't say that ended monarch right then and there and forever damned it. I'd go further and say, that while Christianity has sort of become this sinking ship, monarchy can well survive into the modern age -- it just looks different than your staple Christian traditional royalty... what you get are the dictators and other abnormal regimes like North Korea, that would probably fill in the gap if there isn't a great re-awakening to Christianity or anything else.
But absolute monarchists are definitely not the reason why "monarchy is a weak ideology" if anything we're the reason why it is an ideology at all at this point... like I said before, we're the ones who revived the Herodotus Debate & brought the stress on Homer's maxim, we're the ones who made the case for monarchical pre-eminence, and we're the ones who began to prioritize the legitimate political concerns and values when they were disparaged. That is why I point to that Alfredo Rocco quote praising monarchies for their role in revitalizing the State.
The main reason why "monarchy is a weak ideology" continues is the traditionalists desperately want to pull us back to the ultra-clerical sentiments and again, that apathy towards the more political integrity, alongside with their Tocquevillist ideals of more petty kings... and the constitutional monarchists with their hoary Victorian residue are pulling us back away from notions of Majesty and more towards "one among equals".

>Ironically, virtually every example of a good monarch which monarchists provide did things which the people wanted
I don't wholly agree with you there: there are times where people don't know what's a stake or see things from the eagle's perch or "the mysteries of state".
Of course, I fully anticipate you'll say, that ivory tower royalty wouldn't see it from their perspective either, but it wouldn't necessarily be that public opinion and council is excluded either (if that were the case; I don't think it is entirely). There are examples of that as well.
You also have to know the multitudes' opinions are far from unanimous: a plethora of them want vastly different things, and sure for that reason you could say all the more why there should be democracy, so that these multitudes themselves could account for that plethora of differences. 
Yet for that reason again I also see a monarch as a beneficiary and mediator. Bodin says that harmony is the virtue of royal rule for a reason: again, someone who can mediate rich and poor, and in his singularity appeal to all with the unity of his person. Not just the way that constitutional monarchists appeal to unity either -- they keep that pretense under multi-party democracy which doesn't really hold that as ideal. I say that with the full strength of it, the way Hesiod appeals to it in his praise of kingship.

Grace_hesiod_text_reduce.jpg
[Hide] (846.8KB, 6000x5105) Reverse

Anyways, let's agree to disagree.
I don't want to teeter back and forth with replies, lol.
I'm about done with this conversation.

>>5456
>It's like saying that owning land in a nation makes you a nationalist. So I guess Bill Gates is a nationalist.
Bill Gates isn't the sovereign ruler of any territory, Bill Gates has the legal rights to land usage in disconnected areas. Contemporary powerful people are wealthy and are powerful in connections. It shouldn't surprise you, then, that since their power lies with who they know and their currency (coveted most everywhere) that they have no particular allegiance to any given place (but rather value globalism, which increases their shared network). They have no need nor want to protect a fraction of their holdings which amount to little more than words on paper.

>>5466
>Bill Gates isn't the sovereign ruler of any territory
He is one of the largest landowners in the USA. If holding land makes you a good person, he should be a good person.

Look, I would like everyone who is vehemently opposed to democracy to consider the fact that the public is organically pro-White (obviously, I am only talking about White people)
If we remove the jews from power, do you genuinely believe that the public will remain or become more liberal?
Seriously?
I doubt you do. I suspect that you, like me, understand that in the absence of jewish power, the public is what the jews would call "extreme right wingers"

You also know that the entire aristocracy of today is leftist. They were not propagandized into becoming leftist. They chose this. They chose to betray their race despite having the money and power to defeat the jews on their own. The elite are thoroughly corrupt. You may be able to point out isolated examples of decent elites such as Henry Ford. However, exceptions do not disprove rules. If the elites were not thoroughly corrupt, jews would never have taken power and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Given these two facts, the hostility to democracy is irrational. In fact, democracy is the best safeguard against jewish subversion. It is the elites who betrayed us, not the people.

>>5464
Very well.

7c938068018de43a867f39363b68ebc3276f8e2920059cf8e2d131f183616057.jpg
[Hide] (221.8KB, 1329x1566) Reverse

>>5477
Democracy is a lame game of deception that will only materialise a proletariat underclass even if we gas the kikes.
Monarchy, in the context of this thread, is a meaningless reactionary LARP towards the perennial development of hereditary governance and organic personality cults that spring forth out of primitive societies, often leading them forwards admittedly if they aren’t dysgenic (like, if they have the capacity to progress; not negroes or abos even with organic, efficient monarchic phenomena)
You will only find yourself in a select, even religious cult if you attempt to whizz a monarch into existence out of thin air. This has happened thousands of times with cults of personality, often to horrific outcome, with the isolated group losing its mind and never lasting more than a decade.
The masses are lemmings by definition. As ghoulish and obscure political countryball 13-year-old HOI4 fan as it sounds, syndical devolution under a fascist leader seems to be the best compromise, as it allows hierarchy and local authority, obviously to the effect of holding the ultimate führer accountable as a leader of his volk and not as a self-interested autocrat; this is the socialism in National Socialism.
The Third Reich had a pretty good idea with the devolution of German states (I did forget what they were called) allowing local powers to emerge relevant to where they were needed (such as Strasserism in the rhineland (yes, I know Strasserism had a lot of issues ultimately leading to the NOTLK including Strasser’s alleged corruption with kike bankers, and I know modern “Strasserists” are for the most part Discord trannies that have the balls to admit niggers are disgusting in their self-objectifying pederasty, but this is relevant because due to Uncle H’s devolution of Germany a dedicated industry-thinking movement emerged in industrial areas))
A lot of issues with the better Korea (North) come from the autocratic idiocy of attempting to apply a blanket movement over large areas with completely different people in them, country mice and city mice miles and miles apart. This is an arrogant and selfish idea in a post-industrial world where there are cities and not just huge towns.)
Yeah.

>>5479
so another point was, which I forgot to finish, that monarchy can lead an übermensch out of primitivity, but it proves, being the judgement of one guy, the limits of just one guy (becoming more and more inbred at that in a lot of historical cases) to be ineffective at progressing towards an advanced society, and there’s also the lumpenbourgeoise jealousy angle, which we can see today, the worship of THE RICHEST GUY OML GUYS will invite bad actors such as kikes and quakers in my country the UK to infiltrate the monarchy in whatever power it may still have (irregardless of the current “constitutional monarchy” power severing bullshit from ((( democratic Western countries ))))
Thought supporting democracy can be marginalised and emboldened by the fact that anti-monarchism is a chronic pinko obsession, which pathetically some right-wing griftoids don’t want to take up even in moderation because they are neurotics that don’t want to be correct and ideologically superior by hearing their enemy out for a minute or two before making fun of them for being nigger-loving untermensch.

>>5480
oops, I meant “thought supporting monarchy can become” not “democracy”.

eclipse_and_power.jpeg
[Hide] (16.3KB, 680x453) Reverse

>>5455
>Okay, fine. So you're just sold on the idea of a single leader making all decisions. I content that that is impossible. You may have an executive, but there has never been a (complex) country where all decisions were made by just one guy. Power is always delegated so in practice, everything larger than a tribe is a form of oligarchy.
You really need to learn the difference between taking absolutely all decisions like a micro-managing autist, which is simply technically infeasible, and having the final say on setting the overall guidelines for the kingdom's or empire's affairs without necessarily intervening every single time. An absolute ruler obviously fits the second case and history has plenty of solid examples.
>What if the focus is on one monarch, but he is elected and has an advisory body who are also elected?
He would need to be elected by a very few competent people when no other option is available to obtain a competent king through lineage. Supposedly, every single new king should be screened. In other times, a man who simply proved being very competent by acts of war and overall decisions that allowed him to rise through the ranks and prove his honor and valor would also suffice. The less elections the better for it opens the door to politics and plots.
>I cannot dispute this. However, it is not a helpful position to take because if you are correct, we will never ever have any hope of having either a monarchy or a pro-White government at all.
Why? Short of an economical collapse such as what happened in Germany but which the jews won't have happen because it's way too risky, and short of legalized pedophilia, cannibalism, zoophilia and mandatory transgenderism, all of which are very very far fetched no matter what normies seem to accept, we're already scrapping the bottom of the barrel. Which is just full of shit because there's also all the migrants, and pretty much the worst of them all, flooding our nations. The racial tension is certainly there and it can barely get any worse beyond the situation naturally worsening merely due to each year's change in demographics.
You really need to keep the faith up.
>There will never be a defecting faction within the existing elite.
Forget about all these big names. A hidden force will take care of this issue but it's quite obvious that it's waiting for something, for the proper parameters to be in alignment. At this point we're dealing with Providence, scrying, rune reading and based astrology. There is a time for every thing.
Orlog is respectful of David Lane and I assume he knows a thing or two about the more bizarre side of this man's story and why he came to this world under very carefully selected circumstances, despite the immense odds against such events; I think any true White fascist who aspires to a better understanding of this great war should really look into the more esoteric side of this all. There are cycles, there are moments. If you look at our issues from a secular perspective, you will indeed feel that there is no solution in sight, not even a glimpse of a hope. Now I'm not saying that future times will be comfy, no, far from that. It's going to be gory. Things which we thought were forever lost will return and things we thought impossible to destroy will fall apart faster than believable.
>>5456
>Nice theory. In practice, we know this isn't true. 
I wonder where you got your belief from. Why do you think plebeians would succeed to feel something for an entire "land" where a king would fail?
Besides, even before the land we must look towards the race. The land becomes a tool to control, a resource to manage, something to nourish us physically and then spiritually. I will also spare you the more occult parts about the value of specific regions in the world.
>It's like saying that owning land in a nation makes you a nationalist. So I guess Bill Gates is a nationalist.
Nation refers to the people, the blood, not frontiers and real estate bonds.
>Dr. Pierce was right about the middle class. Cowards.
All people are cowards. Then the propaganda stokes the fire of war and suddenly millions are eager to die somewhere on this planet.
>However, when we look at the elite as a whole, the majority of them were far more cosmopolitan than working class people of any nation.
Stop thinking like a reddit marxist prole for a moment. Not working in a field is not a fucking crime. A king is not supposed to be a lazy bum, he actually has a lot of work to complete and hopefully is far more qualified to achieve this than your average farmer who tiles the land. To each his own.
>>The elite were hit by the effects of post-industrial dysgenics the hardest
>I can accept this. What caused this? Perhaps it was better medical technology among the elites.
Because at this point the "elites" were from the lower castes, not even warriors, even less priests, and certainly not anyone with the aptitudes to be a legitimate and divinely inspired ruler. Read some Evola for fuck's sake.

>>5457
>Then why is it that it began failing from the 18th century onwards? Every single monarchy either ceded power or was overthrown.
<what is the Iron Age?
<is Christianity a poison?
<when did kikes truly accelerate their uprisings in Europe?
>But if the peasants themselves had had the power to vote for serfdom or school, would they have remained serfs or demanded their children remain uneducated? I doubt it.
I see "education" being pushed in the third world as some kind of Grail but what do people really learn? Education was largely unnecessary for a long time because families depended on their sons and daughters to work in the fields or keep up with their parents' crafts. Few really needed an education in theology and classical texts. Today we have tons of people who are educated but they still show no sign of acting better than their very distant ancestors. It's all a smokescreen. To say nothing of the fact that many years are wasted in school when you just need some very basic knowledge and should specialize very quickly, which surprise has been shunned for decades so we sacrificed entire generations to have their heads full of air, ideologies and slogans, when in truth they just were being brainwashed while kept utterly sterile and incapable of any physical and real productivity. So the peasants, while gladly quitting serfdom (we assume) would very logically mock education. It has now became more important because our society is more complex and we have many new types of activity that require greater yet still specialized skills. For this, knowing how to count and to read is important. Aything else beyond this and the practical and relevant skills necessary for one's future job are useless.

>>5459
>This is one of the factors, better medical technology led to lower childhood mortality rates and their elite status would increase their chances of finding a mate. This abolished natural selection for the upper class, combined with the trend of elites having children later in life led to a rapid increase in harmful mutations.
Which is why eugenics and filtering as seen with the SS was and still remain necessary.
>This is not the first time this has happened, similar circumstances led to the collapse of the Roman Empire yet Europe prevailed.
The Roman Empire failed for many reasons, one of which was Jews and way too many migrants and mutts crawling their way up in society. It was saved with the racial purge obviously ran by the "barbarian" Whites from the north. Mostly Germans.
>In a healthy society the accumulation of mutations would not be instant, the solution would be to simply encourage those who have bad traits to have fewer kids. 
Or come up with a shrewd excuse to send them to war.

>>5463
If it's just to get another almost random politician in disguise with checks and balances without the true epic gravitas, I don't see the point.
>Homer
Sometimes it's hard to understand how far into the past he lived. Would his principles scale up well to the modern world, almost three millenia later?

>>5477
>He is one of the largest landowners in the USA. If holding land makes you a good person, he should be a good person.
Luckily nobody made that shortcut but you.
>Look, I would like everyone who is vehemently opposed to democracy to consider the fact that the public is organically pro-White
Elections seem to disagree. Those who are, you don't know if they want democracy or not.
>If we remove the jews from power, do you genuinely believe that the public will remain or become more liberal? Seriously?
>I doubt you do. I suspect that you, like me, understand that in the absence of jewish power, the public is what the jews would call "extreme right wingers"
Only if reeducated properly into following sound principles. Yet this does not support democracy, it just means that naturally people return to sane societies which is one of the duhest statements ever.
>You also know that the entire aristocracy of today is leftist. 
Wrong and it would very appreciated if you didn't reboot the entire thread like a filthy Jew.
>Given these two facts, the hostility to democracy is irrational.
Proper arguments have been given repeatedly. You have spent the entire thread ignoring them.
>In fact, democracy is the best safeguard against jewish subversion.
No it isn't. I suggest you seriously read more because no sane and wise man on our side of history ever supported democracy. And you should also look into the leadership principle.

>>5493
>lemmings
>organically pro-White
how do I sage thread?

>>5493
That is one of the pillars of the argument in favor of absolutism. 
>If a monarch owns the country, he should be loyal to it.

>Elections seem to disagree
On the contrary, up until the 1970s, the vast majority of Americans were White nationalists.
> naturally people return to sane societies
That is an argument for democracy since you just stated that people will organically try to return to a sane society. In otherwords, you believe that the people are naturally sane.
>The elite are not left wing
Okay, then why do leftist elites run the world?
>Proper arguments have been given repeatedly
I have responded to or refuted all of them. You just ignored the responses. 
> no sane and wise man on our side of history ever supported democracy
Then why can't anyone refute my positions?
You have not. In fact, you even made several arguments in favor of democracy in this very post.
You stated that the people are naturally sane. If that is the case, why do you wish to deprive them of sovereignty?

>>5494
So you believe that White people are organically anti-White?
History refutes that position.

>>5488
> Education was largely unnecessary for a long time because families depended on their sons and daughters to work in the fields 
Do you believe that White people should be illiterate?
I don't follow your critique here. 

>>5479
>syndical devolution under a fascist leader seems to be the best compromise
That is a very vague statement. What does that mean in practice? How are rulers selected? And why should the people buy into such a system?
> holding the ultimate führer accountable as a leader of his volk and not as a self-interested autocrat
Yes, but how is he held accountable? 
>The Third Reich had a pretty good idea with the devolution of German states
I agree but brilliant as Hitler was, his death exposed a serious flaw in the system. It could not live without him. What would have happened if he won the war and then died? Heinrich Himmler turned out to be a traitor and Hermann Goring was ultimately just a conservative.
But even if Hermann Göring was a devoted National Socialist, who succeeds after him? If your system is predicated on brilliant, inspiring leaders, you will eventually reach a state where the leader is weak and conservative. What next? How does the system perpetuate itself when you get a weak leader?

>>5487
>overall guidelines for the kingdom's or empire's affairs without necessarily intervening every single time
The rational conclusion of this statement is that not just the king is ruling. There are elites who can make decisions independent of the executive/king. Ergo, it is in fact an oligarchy with a head of state. Just like most oligarchies today.
That is the point.

>elected by a very few competent people
Who are these people? How do we objectively determine that they are competent? What happens when they die?
Another problem is that if we determine rulers based on their prowess in war, who do we fight once jews and their cronies are dead? Niggers and Asians, I would expect. So we kill them all. Now what? We turn on ourselves? Basing our government on eternal war is a very bad idea. It's also quite literally what jews say fascism is, which we have spent decades refuting.

> Short of an economical collapse
Economic collapse and then what?
Do you think Bill Gates and Donald Trump will defect from the jews if there is a major recession? Hyper-Inflation?
Ultimately, if you hope for an economic collapse, you STILL need grassroots revolution from the people to overthrow the globalists. They are the elite.
>legalized pedophilia, cannibalism, zoophilia and mandatory transgenderism, all of which are very very far fetched
Is it though? 10 years ago, no one had even heard of trannies.
>The racial tension is certainly there and it can barely get any worse beyond the situation naturally worsening 
I mean, yeah, the racial tension is going to get worse. Yes.

>A hidden force will take care of this issue
You realize this sounds just like "Trust the Plan" 

>I wonder where you got your belief from
Experience. Both experience in organizing people IRL and in observing society, the elites, and studying history.
>Why do you think plebeians would succeed to feel something for an entire "land" where a king would fail?
Because a king isn't connected with the land, he's connected with his elite and his palace. A king never even sees his people, why would he care about them?
None of the arguments for monarchy explain this. They just assume that if you officially own land or the country, you will care for its people. But that isn't how things work in real life or in history.

>Stop thinking like a reddit marxist prole
It's funny you should insult me this way. So you believe that having faith in the ability of White people to govern ourselves is marxist? Yet history demonstrates that in rea life, normal people are not marxists. They only turn to marxism when the right abandons them but historically, the people are deeply nationalistic, anti-semitic, and tribalistic. The people are not liberals, they hate liberalism. They hate this disgusting transgender shit, they hate multiculturalism. If this were not so, why is it that after 100s of billions of dollars in propaganda they STILL can't get a majority of White people to vote for the globohomo candidates? Yes, Trump isn't Hitler, but he has been called Hitler and he is popular because he styles himself as anti-globohomo.
It's just bizarre that you would accuse me of marxism because I took White nationalism to the logical final conclusion: White people should rule ourselves.

>>5501
Who are these people?
If a monarch defaults to the iron law of oligarchy, because he has subordinates, but at least a monarch is always like-minded and there is a mental frame of reference: he is of one mind, here is someone who might be consulted without difference of opinion.
The same cannot be said for your notion of popular sovereignty unless it has a corporate or personal will. At least with a monarch, a monarch may independently hold his subordinates to his criteria: the masses cannot, their criteria differs, their opinions are diverse, they aren't likeminded to begin with, and cannot possibly be.
If the elites act independently or betray him, it could be said they failed their monarch, but it cannot be said they failed the masses (unless their failure impacts them all together). 

>the people are deeply nationalistic, anti-semitic, and tribalistic
If that were the case, then we wouldn't be in this predicament to begin with.

>The people are not liberals, they hate liberalism. 
Then why is liberalism the predominate ideology of the West?
There shouldn't be so many liberals if that were the case, but there are.

>they STILL can't get a majority of White people to vote for the globohomo candidates?
They do vote for globohomo canidates.

>Yes, Trump isn't Hitler, but he has been called Hitler
Trump is the biggest Zionist candidate out there. He isn't Hitler.

>because he styles himself as anti-globohomo
Trump styles himself as anti-globohomo, but Trump isn't.
Trump is another elite, why do make exception for Donald Trump of all people? have you seen his estates? Trump might be a populist candidate, but he obviously coming from a wealthy background.

>White people should rule ourselves.
How do the people rule themselves? If a monarch cannot rule himself because he has subordinates, how should the masses hope to rule without statesmen, representatives, or politicians? If the masses need these, then the same could be said for them: iron law of oligarchy & people acting independently of them (which cannot be done to begin with unless there is a popular sovereignty with a corporate or personal will).
Do you want a superstate covering all lands where White people live? or independent nationalities / localities (french, german, british, etc)? you did say something about decentralizing, but examples of that are small. The only greater examples are mediated with an elite.

>>5499
>On the contrary, up until the 1970s, the vast majority of Americans were White nationalists.
And now they're not, genius. Can't you get it? They merely go with the flow. These same 70% were blindly taken into two world wars to kill Whites in Europe and ravage White cities. Democracy. How does that make you feel?
Here's the core idea you really struggle to understand to the point it's really farcical and I wonder who you really are, if you're truly that thick or if you're here just to challenge our views, either because you hate them or because you want to make sure they're kike-proof.
Let me explain. Who sets the flow is what matters. I'd rather have a 1488 Emperor to take care of that, not one of your useless politicos.
>That is an argument for democracy since you just stated that people will organically try to return to a sane society.
It's democracy today that prevents people from returning to a normal society. The entire society is corrupt. As I said so many times to you even if you seem to have elevated this recurring dodging to Olympic heights, the force needed to change it will beg for a strong power, and when that power comes, democracy will be washed away and nobody will ever ask for it anymore, for people will understand it for the waste and poison it was. Fourth Reich, the age of the White Overman on Erda.
>>The elite are not left wing
>Okay, then why do leftist elites run the world?
It would very appreciated if you didn't distort my words. I'm not going to fight against strawman arguments.
>I have responded to or refuted all of them. You just ignored the responses.
Classical. We can go through the whole thread again and you will see that every single of your points was properly addressed and debunked. Every time you post you just reset the clock.
>Then why can't anyone refute my positions?
They have been, you're deaf. I really doubt that your knowledge and science outweighs those of these great nationalist thinkers.
>In fact, you even made several arguments in favor of democracy in this very post.
No. At best just one and you're not even correct.
>You stated that the people are naturally sane. If that is the case, why do you wish to deprive them of sovereignty?
This is what I said and pay attention to the context of the first sentence:
>>Only if reeducated properly into following sound principles. Yet this does not support democracy, it just means that naturally people return to sane societies which is one of the duhest statements ever.
>>Only if reeducated properly into following sound principles.
Naturally does not mean they go back to a healthy state on their own, it means that the force that brings them back there is natural, i.e. in accord with the fundamental principles of Nature, and that if White people were left to their own affairs, they'd enjoy a natural way of life that's good for them. It is that very force that will reeducate people by breaking the Jewish spell and purging the filth. Subsequently, this same force will establish the necessary rules to be observed by every single White person.
However, having a central source of power in the name of an overlord does not mean that White people will be enslaved, they will on the contrary be made responsible of their own lives but according to principles set by a higher authority that will cover faith, science and life.

>>5500
>Do you believe that White people should be illiterate?
>I don't follow your critique here. 
You oversell the value of modern education. Not only it was largely unnecessary for millennia but it has definitely failed to keep people free, it in fact contributed to their own enslavement. But as I said, in a more complex world that calls for more refined functions, a certain minimal level of education is required, as explained before.
>>5500
>I agree but brilliant as Hitler was, his death exposed a serious flaw in the system. It could not live without him. 
See that? The whole rebooting thing and arguing in bad faith. We already covered that point at length. We proved, rather easily, that the Jews thoroughly ruined Germany. That it was already falling apart before Hitler died. That proud soldiers still fought after his death. And that no matter how strong what the NSDAP built, it could not survive because the Jews and their servants simply went after everything in and outside of Germany. They brought about the combined might of no less than two superpowers to utterly crush Germany. Occupational American forces still are present in Germany as we speak and up to a certain time there were both Western and Soviet soldiers in Germany.
The only weakness there ever was is simply that Germany was not powerful enough as a military power to withstand the attacks of nearly two thirds of the planet against her. It has nothing to with a inherent limit to Hitler's plans and his hold on Germany.
>What would have happened if he won the war and then died? Heinrich Himmler turned out to be a traitor and Hermann Goring was ultimately just a conservative.
Had Germany won, Himmler would have never done that and he would have kept working on furthering the power of the next Aryan and anti-Christian elite. Himmler merely attempted an uneasy negotiation in the direst of times, until the last moment. Although a kind of treason against direct orders and shameful of him, it is understandable why he tried that. Had they won, the SS order would have prevailed, providing more and more fine men, and the cultural power of Germany would have illuminated the entire world with such intensity that even the United States would have been at pain to resist the power of the light cast upon their faces. The Jews would have been exposed more than ever. The USSR would have been crushed, just like they were about to be before tides turned thanks to the immense help this federation got from the rest of the Allies. At some point, the Third Reich would have likely been so powerful after strengthening its base that a decade later it would gone against the Commonwealth to purge the Jews out once and for all.
As for Göring, he was in the NSDAP, not with conservatives. That he may have been less radical than his comrades or not doesn't really matter as he would have had no reason to be weaken the Reich from within. His final stance at the kangaroo trials of Nuremberg tells us all we need to know about his faith and loyalty.
>If your system is predicated on brilliant, inspiring leaders, you will eventually reach a state where the leader is weak and conservative. What next? How does the system perpetuate itself when you get a weak leader?
If you live in a time where your state is not capable of coming up with good leaders, then democracy will obviously not solve this, it will just make it worse by dividing the power for scraps which scheming politicians will fight over.

1c3074194f6bdc71e438d18826ffe9aa175f12eb16da1c797bd7f7e8c25fa3dd.jpg
[Hide] (1.5MB, 3000x1680) Reverse

>>5501
>The rational conclusion of this statement is that not just the king is ruling. 
What? So if a king wasn't telling how a peasant was supposed to fetch his milk, it meant the king wasn't all powerful? Wonderful logic there. More like arguing in bad faith, again.
>There are elites who can make decisions independent of the executive/king.
Delegating some less important duties doesn't mean a ruler wouldn't have the final say if a given order of affair were to get back to him and require his immediate intervention. Letting some people under him do things for him does in no way put into question his authority. You really have a weird way to look at this.
>Who are these people? How do we objectively determine that they are competent? What happens when they die?
A circle of qualified members of a very selective order for example.
The reputation, action and principles followed by the order prove its value.
The order cannot die because it perpetuates itself by both recruiting external candidates and having the inner members to have families.
>Another problem is that if we determine rulers based on their prowess in war, who do we fight once jews and their cronies are dead?
If there truly are not enemies anymore, well good for us. It's beyond the scope of this topic.
>Economic collapse and then what?
Chaos, we fight.
>Do you think Bill Gates and Donald Trump will defect from the jews if there is a major recession? Hyper-Inflation?
I don't care about these goons. They're part of the problem. They go.
>Ultimately, if you hope for an economic collapse, you STILL need grassroots revolution from the people to overthrow the globalists. They are the elite.
How an economic collapse would happen and why is just calling for another thread.
But any grassroots movement will need leaders and historically they're often part of some secret clique.
>Is it though? 10 years ago, no one had even heard of trannies.
Yet more than ever there is a strong opposition to this. It was only allowed to fester for decades because it didn't come under spotlight. The Jewish machine is trained to maintain the transgender agenda, it's burning all its money for it and other scams. It won't last for long now.
>You realize this sounds just like "Trust the Plan"
Yes.
That's the difference between you and me.
I have the faith.
>Because a king isn't connected with the land, he's connected with his elite and his palace.
If ultimately this is and will remain your belief, then this discussion is totally pointless.
Hitler was very close to be a king or even an emperor and he absolutely cared like no one else did. Again, you have no faith, you're too cynical and jaded. You do not have hope and are only wasting time trying to drag people down to your level of sadness and despair.
>It's funny you should insult me this way. So you believe that having faith in the ability of White people to govern ourselves is marxist?
This obviously not what I said. Once more, do not distort my words.
>People hate this and that
Yet they won't do anything until a leader shows up and guides them. More than anything else, people want to be able to trust a leader like they could trust a father. Would they be able to give all their passion and faith to such a figure, they would relinquish all absurd notions of self-governance that require them being involved in politics about worldly affairs all day long and they could finally go back to their simpler, clearer, saner life to focus on what they truly love, because they could and would blindly and safely trust this person.

>>5507
>at least a monarch is always like-minded and there is a mental frame of reference
That is a baseless assumption unless you're only claiming that an individual monarch probably won't change his mind during his lifetime. Which is also untrue and happens a lot. Vacillating monarchs are a common theme.
>a monarch may independently hold his subordinates to his criteria
That criteria may be shit and also, a monarch is beholden to his underlings or oligarchs because unless the monarch has iron will, his noble oligarchs will control him.
It happens repeatedly throughout history.

>The public is not deeply nationalistic, anti-semitic, and tribalistic
Not today, but even with 100s of billions of dollars of propaganda, the public is still infinitely more nationalistic than the elites whom you would like to elevate to supreme authority.
>why is liberalism the predominate ideology of the West?
Because the elites have too much power and are liberals.
I keep telling you, the elites are not your friend. They hate you. You should hate them too.

>They do vote for globohomo canidates.
Trump is the least globohomo candidate available. Brexit was the least globohomo option for the British people. 
Normal people hate this shit. You shouldn't hate them.
The elites are 100% in lock step globohomo. They are your enemy. You should not try to empower them further. They hate you with a depth and passion you cannot comprehend.
>Trump is the biggest Zionist candidate out there
True. However, he also promises restrictions on globohomo. That's just a fact. Acknowledging it doesn't make you a Trump supporter. 

>Trump styles himself as anti-globohomo... and the people are voting for this
Yes.
>Trump is another elite,
True, but
<Trump styles himself as anti-globohomo
Ergo, the people are voting for him. If there were less globohomo options, they likely would support that too. Normal people do not like globohomo.

I get frustrated with monarchists because, no offense directed at you personally but: The central premise of monarchists is that White people are inherently leftist, jew worshiping liberals who should not be allowed to rule ourselves.
Ironically, this is literally what jews say as well.
While I'm not accusing you of being anti-White, I am a bit confused why you think so poorly of White people. Historically, White people have been awesome. Deeply nationalistic, tribalistic, and anti-semitic. That's a historical fact. Do you deny it? If so, I will begin recounting the history of Europe.
If not, then why do you insist on keeping White people away from power?
The elites today are 100% anti-White and the elites of yesteryear were all rootless aristocrats who cared more about money and land than people. They are not fit to rule.

dea43fa20e5d766b26aab3f11f24f9a2e5eac96eb611a21bff3a03f59434542b.jpg
[Hide] (81.2KB, 1024x988) Reverse

>>5574
>Not today, but even with 100s of billions of dollars of propaganda, the public is still infinitely more nationalistic than the elites whom you would like to elevate to supreme authority.
>than the elites whom you would like to elevate to supreme authority.
>yU wAnt tO gIvE TrAITorS abSolUtE POwrE
My god can't this democracy retard get more retarded?

bad771c0a20c6789d076555965dc3c402525d6fde545babf11250c36c629de4a.jpg
[Hide] (66.7KB, 945x960) Reverse

Oh I forgot that too
>>5574
>Trump is the least globohomo candidate available.
>However, he also promises restrictions on globohomo.
>promises
This QAsson 4tranny refugee democraslime needs to die. NOW.

>>5591
Non argument

>>5592
More seething non-arguments

The fact is that monarchists simply have no good arguments. Those few which are presented fail upon close inspection.
For example, most monarchist arguments rest upon the assumption that a magical king will emerge who just so happens to be a mirror reflection of themselves.
This is not realistic or mature.

>>4326 (OP) 
america wasn't designed to be a democracy, andrew jackson was a whig. they wanted libertarian confederacy, almost a theocracy. direct democracy is just a facet of confederacy. it was idealism and the only reason it wasn't a theocracy with autocratic power was because there was no central power of anything.

>>5604
It got hijacked early on. Its foundations were shaky.

>>5607
actually it had quite good foundations since it beat england, france and the native americans, and the spanish. it also led to a giant rich empire. but it all died after like one generation because the people in the north were essentially crown loyalists and it was a mini england, it was destined for civil war. it never recovered from that bloody civil war. ever since then it has been government expansion to attack the opposing red/blue side, imploding on itself. same problems exist today, loyalists to other countries vs loyalists to america. the government can never return to its original form of confederacy because it would collapse the power and economy of the empire. there will either be an eventual civil war 2, or an eventual complete takeover by loyalists to other countries. there will probably be no civil war 2 and loyalists to england/others will win because the population doesn't even identify with confederacy anymore. everyone in the government is also not a confederate but a loyalist to england or israel or china or something. the government will continually expand to try to keep a grasp on the economy and oppress the population to allow for the making of money, until it gets so big it can't pay for itself  and dies. then maybe in naturally turns back into confederacy i don't know. the states probably will combine to make a bunch of little republics but with a large federal government inside of it. probably won't return to no federal government

>>5608
>actually it had quite good foundations since it beat england, france and the native americans, and the spanish. it also led to a giant rich empire. 
It didn't even "beat" France, France was massively indebted and sold tons of lands. Then it only won against Britain with France's support.
As for the giant rich empire you cannot be that stupid right? It's Jewish through and thorough and could expand that much by ruining Europe twice and killing tens of millions of Whites in the process.

e73bc932f09efac54619d7dc0cff8802e25e0b3d07c7e1ecc692bd3170506632.jpg
[Hide] (23.2KB, 750x422) Reverse

>>5602
>western men, abandon all your vain and childish hopes
>this white ruler, your ideal king, will never come for you
>to our democracy you shall submit at once and forever

>>5610
It's fitting that you're quoting a fantasy.

What is sad is that the entire premise of monarchist argument is that White people are not fit to rule ourselves. Which, ironically, is the exact same position the jews took.

>>5609
>France was massively indebted and sold tons of lands
It should be noted that it was an absolute monarchy which led to such an indebted France in the first place. Yet again flying in the face of the monarchist argument that monarchs wouldn't borrow insane amounts of money because a monarch owns land or whatever non-sequitur is fashionable today.
The truth is that debt is accrued by oligarchs and kings are no less short sighted than Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos are today.
Yet ask any random selection of normal White people and they will tell you that debt should be avoided.
Normal White people are wiser, more decent, and more long term thinking than elites are. Now and then.

9b70b140d6d7f46e97998e3a0186ee6f6296359747d0db6cbbde5d7400ac86e5.jpg
[Hide] (132KB, 1024x1024) Reverse

>>5623
>It's fitting that you're quoting a fantasy.
Yes, people do love quoting Ovidius or the Bible too. Fine points remain fine regardless of the source.

What if America was a place where we try different systems but fight the same enemies? Definitely would work in the short term, the real question is which system will still be killing niggers in 300 years.

>>5630
You didn't make a point either.
Monarchism isn't a serious ideology. I am a serious person. At least insofar as I consider governing philosophy.

>>5636
Ideally, niggers will be exterminated immediately. 
If a White government is still killing niggers in 300 years, then we have kind of failed.
More specifically, if White people do not overthrow the regime some time within the next 3 to 4 generations, we will be so few in numbers that we will be lucky to carve out a sliver of the earth to ourselves. More likely, the kikes will have mixed our race out of existence. Mutts are a great danger because once a family gets blended, they lose all rootedness and become a raceless consumer with no historical connection to the past.
This is unironically true and anyone whose family has sullied themselves this way can confirm.

>>5654
>raceless consumer with no historical connection to the past.
Most Americans already view themselves this way even without horribly mixed genealogy.

>>5655
People say a lot of things when the penalty for the truth is social ostracization. 
But the fact is that a large percentage of Americans openly describe themselves as pro-White and an even larger percentage hold intrinsically pro-White views.
The problem is that various unnatural ideologies cause Americans to say remarkably stupid things or go against their natural instincts.

If it is possible to reawaken these instincts, White people can come to realize that the regime is their enemy. If they cannot, then our cause is hopeless. So it is pointless to believe the latter.

db2abde1dc494d46954d382de98498211a7a9c2bf253a7deefcaca46137d7795.jpg
[Hide] (93.1KB, 1290x1271) Reverse

>>5653
>five thousand years of rule by monarchs that gave us the best classics and wisdom gems, that have a proven track record of order across multiple continents and the only known governmental forms known to have been capable of kicking the jews out, is not serious!!!!!
It's a miracle you even manage to breathe.

>>5654
>More specifically, if White people do not overthrow the regime some time within the next 3 to 4 generations,
You are not only stupid but so outrageously divorced from the demogrphic reality that you believe we do have that much time. But we don't even have one generation. A generation is more than two decades. By 2040-2050 it will be way more than over. We won't even be able to object to whatever kind of advanced weapons the Jews or their new allies will be using from a thousand feet above us. Meanwhile only a portion of Whites will be on our side which for all intents and purposes means that we would have to fight against 50-90% of the population (non-White, mixed and racial traitors) with even more limited means than what we still have today.

There, anti-bot.

>>5664
Conflating "monarchism" from the Iron age with monarchists today is yet another facet of the lack of seriousness of your ideas. Furthermore, ancient societies were far more similar to my ideal government than 18th century absolutism. You have fallen for modern myths about the power and authority of chieftains and kings.

>>5665
>You are not only stupid but so outrageously divorced from the demogrphic reality that you believe we do have that much time. But we don't even have one generation.
>By 2040-2050 it will be way more than over.
That is a very blackpilled perspective.

Virtually every single meaningful aspect of monarchism is naive.

>Who do you want to become king? Do you even know?
<I dunno, someone who happens to agree with me on every issue will just somehow take absolute power and then declare himself king despite how badly this would harm his ability to hold power
>How is he going to take power if his main political platform is to take away the right to vote?
<I dunno, he'll just take power somehow! You're stupid!
>How will he maintain his power?
<What do you mean? He's the fucking king
>Will his support base be the people?
<Yes! They'll love him for some reason because he is a perfect manifestation of my own perfect ideals.
>Will he also have the support of the ruling class?
<Yes! They'll either magically transform into based people like myself or be replaced, again by means I cannot explain, by people like myself. All of them. No dissent at all despite the fact that this isn't how the real world works. 

This isn't even hyperbole. Monarchists cannot explain how monarchs will appear except to argue that maybe a neocon general will just declare himself king for some reason.
It's not going to happen and if one did seize power, you would hate him almost as much as me because they're all zionist liberals.
And if one did seize power, he wouldn't crown himself as a king because that's childish roleplay. In reality, he would rule behind a pseudo congress to give a veneer of democratic process because no one is stupid enough to believe that the public will be jumping to get behind someone who openly wants to take away rights they cherish. 

And lastly, again, why the fuck do you take the position that White people are unfit to govern ourselves? If you believe that in our natural state, White people are too subhuman to rule ourselves, then are you even a White nationalist? All you seem to care about is the rights of a ruling class which do not even exist outside of EU4.

>>5670
I mention monarchies covering millennia:
>muh iron age
>today
As if there had been nothing in between. Most European countries still had a monarchy as late as a century and a half ago.
>Conflating "monarchism" from the Iron age with monarchists today is yet another facet of the lack of seriousness of your ideas.
Why?
>Furthermore, ancient societies were far more similar to my ideal government than 18th century absolutism. You have fallen for modern myths about the power and authority of chieftains and kings.
Thank you for admiting they existed, regardless of the extent of their power.
>That is a very blackpilled perspective.
It's a matter of fact. Your four or three generations timescale brings us into 2100-2125 because a generation is 20-30 years long, so 25 on average. All demographic projections show that in most Western countries, the majority of born babies will be non-White around 2040, 2050 at best. Right now we already find many Whites rejecting a hardline right-wing position, voting for other parties that are anti-White. We already find Whites mixing and we already find Whites beginning to turn to Islam. It will only get worse and faster. Governments are now pulling all the migrants outside of the ghettos to install them even in the most remote village possible. White kids who grow with non-Whites tend to have a positive opinion of the racial foreigners, especially if someone in their family later on gets in bed with one of those non-Whites. All our nations are already turning into massive cesspits of high criminality. Muslims are accruing large sums of money and begin to use it to buy politicians and settle further away from the cities so they can acquire land to feed their families still living in denser urban areas. Some European countries have already begun a race to show which country can be the most tyrannical and anti-White while massively increasing the inflow of migrants, which the demographic projections have not yet taken into account. More and more resources are given to these foreigners despite our economies becoming depleted. When these governments will be so weak that they won't be able to oppose anything against the foreigners grabbing more political power, when the older Whites will die, we will be put under an even greater anti-White pressure and treated as sub-humans in our own countries.

>>5671
>Virtually every single meaningful aspect of monarchism is naive.
No.
>I dunno, someone who happens to agree with me on every issue will just somehow take absolute power and then declare himself king despite how badly this would harm his ability to hold power
Nobody claimed that it would happen overnight.
>I dunno, he'll just take power somehow! You're stupid!
You're overrating democracy and the desire of the people to vote. In all of our nations there's already a third of the voting base that cannot be bothered to even pretend giving a shit about democracy. Then there are those who continue voting but see no meaningful changes and everything going for the worse.
>What do you mean? He's the fucking king
Your question is indeed stupid. Authority, legitimacy, proof of improving the nation's status and elimination of the enemies will definitely allow the king to cement his position.
>Yes! They'll love him for some reason because he is a perfect manifestation of my own perfect ideals.
He will be pro-White and will get shit done without wasting time voting. He will protect the people. That's all. If he's none of that then he's not useful. A pro-White ruler with lots of power, that's what we need.
>Yes! They'll either magically transform into based people like myself or be replaced, again by means I cannot explain, by people like myself. All of them. No dissent at all despite the fact that this isn't how the real world works.
The ruling class will be minimal, the king will be a strong ruler. Period. Dissent will be managed the way it should be, with all the required ruthlessness.
>This isn't even hyperbole. Monarchists cannot explain how monarchs will appear except to argue that maybe a neocon general will just declare himself king for some reason.
This makes no sense. A neocon typically holds none of the values monarchists look for, and even less pro-White values.
>It's not going to happen and if one did seize power, you would hate him almost as much as me because they're all zionist liberals.
Who are you to complain that my comment was a blackpill when you can't even imagine that someone on our side would seize power. We will only defend a just system if it protects the people, it's implied in our struggle, genius. We're not supporting a monarchy just to get destroyed as much if not more than we already are under democracy. That should be pretty obvious.
>And if one did seize power, he wouldn't crown himself as a king because that's childish roleplay.
There again you are claiming that thousands of years of kingdoms and empires were nothing more than puerile LARPing. What, do you think we can't have a king in any Western country because we have smartphones and that millions of people engaging in useless noise on social networks?
>In reality, he would rule behind a pseudo congress to give a veneer of democratic process because no one is stupid enough to believe that the public will be jumping to get behind someone who openly wants to take away rights they cherish. 
No, he would say fuck off to democracy, that's the deal, all or nothing. He would hate lying and having to pretend upholding a fake institution just for the sake of optics and contenting a clueless portion of a population. This would be dishonorable, but I don't think you understand what that means.
>And lastly, again, why the fuck do you take the position that White people are unfit to govern ourselves?
The masses as a whole make for a terrible ruler, that's why. As much as I like Whites the fact remains that merely talking to my neighbors painfully reminds me of why it's pointless to even expect them to save themselves from their own suffering. The people will take care of themselves for their daily affairs, for their simple routines, but the greater, more important and intricate national and international matters will be in the hands of a ruler who will have the dignity and responsibility of forcing a new vision and rules onto the whole of the population.
You on the other hand are a deluded man who believes that any individual is capable of understanding economics or religion or having a good flair about the right decisions to be taken at the most opportune of times. There are capacities that can simply not be taught and waiting for the opinion of people who cannot understand this or that concept is an exercise in futility. It's stupid and irresponsible.

>>5673
>As if there had been nothing in between.
Indeed there was. Namely the Roman Republic and Greek cities, which were far more populist than today's oligarchy.
And in the middle ages, kings were first among equals. They held almost no real power beyond their own domain. 
>Why?
Because it exposes a very shallow understanding of European history.
>admiting they existed
I never implied otherwise. The ideal form of government must reflect the natural order of the chiefdom. A head of state who is bound by traditions and power to serve his people. Kings, if they do exist, exist solely to serve the nation. The nation does not exist to serve the king. 

>It's a matter of fact.
No.
>but by 2040, White babies will be a minority in America so it is over.
So what? A shame, yes. But history is replete with examples of minorities carving out freedom from large empires.
>Whites exposed to non-Whites have positive opinions of them
Really? That's not why I'm here and if what you said is true, then why is it that mixing everyone has not created the peace and brotherhood the shitlibs make movies about?

>>5675
>Nobody claimed that it would happen overnight.
Yet earlier, you stated that it's over by 2040. So unless you envision a non-White monarchy as your ideal, you're tacitly admitting that monarchy is a pipe dream.
> a third of the voting base that cannot be bothered to even pretend giving a shit about democracy. 
Most of this is niggers & spics, you know. Is this your demographic?
Mine is White people. I only care about them.

>Authority, legitimacy, proof of improving the nation's status 
That's gobildigook, anon. You may as well start spouting off about freedom, liberty, justice, and the American way. 
>He'll protect the people and shit diamonds and fly and shoot lazers
Uh huh. In your fantasy maybe. But here in the real world your unicorn doesn't exist. Name him now. You cannot since he doesn't fucking exist.
>There will be a tiny ruling class
So your fictional unicorn just does everything on his own like in your favorite videogame. Monarchism is not a serious ideology. It's a videogame for you. 
> A neocon typically holds none of the values monarchists look for,
A neocon is literally the go to example monarchists choose when asked to explain how monarchs can even exist.
>Oh a general will just proclaim himself king!!!
That's a fucking neocon, anon. 

>I hate talking with my neighbors.
Oh so you like the elites then?
Because that's your choice. Either the people, or the global elite.
>You on the other hand are a deluded man who believes that any individual is capable of understanding economics or religion
You literally are pitching that an omnipotent magical superman will come and declare himself as king. Or rather, you're pitching that we make you king and then mindlessly obey you forever and then your son is you too just like in Crusader Kings. That's not how reality works.
In the real world, the kind of authoritarianism you liked in Paradox requires a huge ruling class.
Serious people discuss politics as it is. Not your fantasy world where people will mindlessly support you becoming king after you do jack shit for them.

>>5676
>Indeed there was. Namely the Roman Republic and Greek cities, which were far more populist than today's oligarchy.
Literally whataboutisms. The oligarchy is only a problem because it's anti-White.
>And in the middle ages, kings were first among equals. They held almost no real power beyond their own domain. 
And now the myth of the powerless kings. Shouldn't have you been whining about the feudal system instead? Let's ignore the whole of the Middle East and Asia while we're there and all their respective kingdoms and empires, obviously all ruled by a disguised democracy.
>Because it exposes a very shallow understanding of European history.
As ridiculous as it is irrelevant because the point was about there existing kings, who were expected to be fair towards princes, dukes and subjects but had the final say nevertheless. The size of their domains is just as irrelevant as long as their authority was certain.
>The ideal form of government must reflect the natural order of the chiefdom. A head of state who is bound by traditions and power to serve his people. Kings, if they do exist, exist solely to serve the nation. The nation does not exist to serve the king. 
I never implied otherwise.
>>but by 2040, White babies will be a minority in America so it is over.
>So what? A shame, yes. But history is replete with examples of minorities carving out freedom from large empires.
Minority being the right word here. In one generation we will be totally outbred and our people forced to culturally and racially intermingle with non-Whites. By 2100 and beyond we will be a lost cause, a toothless and ridiculously small minority with no power at all, no military and industry to speak of to serve our interests. We will be like Whites in South Africa with no nearby allies to support us. It would hardly be surprising that by then we would have already been pacified as a multiracial territory under control of some Eastern ZOG superpower. It really takes one big fruitcake to believe we would be in any good position in such conditions to ever win our liberty and safety back.
>Really? That's not why I'm here and if what you said is true, then why is it that mixing everyone has not created the peace and brotherhood the shitlibs make movies about?
Then explain the tons of Whites who keep voting for all these anti-White parties. When Whites become a minority in a region and can't really move out, they are under such pressure that they submit. They can't even vote for any candidate to defend their racial interests logcally, and only a portion of these Whites manage to flee soon enough. This said, most of the cucked votes come from the liberals and boomers. The latter will soon die, it's a matter of two decades at most, likely accelerated thanks to the safe and effective vaccines. I expect the quantity of leftists to dwindle to some extent while the conservative fence-sitters to either fall for the race-blind patriotism or go full WN.

>>5677
>Yet earlier, you stated that it's over by 2040. 
If nothing is done before. Once it takes off, we will be able to fend off the direst effects of democraphics and push back the clock for several years while we will keep pushing politically while street justice will happen more often.
>So unless you envision a non-White monarchy as your ideal, you're tacitly admitting that monarchy is a pipe dream.
Do you even try to make sense sometimes? Who ever said that the new monarchy would magically coalesce and impose itself just like that?
>Most of this is niggers & spics, you know. Is this your demographic?
If you're right then you've just proven that most of the retards who continue voting for fake parties are Whites mostly. Thank you for such a concession.
>That's gobildigook, anon. You may as well start spouting off about freedom, liberty, justice, and the American way.
Do you know where you're posting? Your rebuking is not making any sense. Authority, legitimacy, proof of improving the nation's status are obviously based on pro-White values that at the very least align with a more fascist worldview. I'm not expecting less from a good White leader. His legitimacy will be seated in both leadingexamplarly and by armed might. Too many of your posts have been about you denying that such a man could ever exist. I don't even know why you keep posting here, you should return to reddit and fancy some subforum such as /democracy if it ever exists, over there you will find plenty of people willing to listen to your ideals of finding solutions through endless talks and vooting.
>Uh huh. In your fantasy maybe. But here in the real world your unicorn doesn't exist. Name him now. You cannot since he doesn't fucking exist.
I go by the leadership principle so it is required that some figure of that type shall emerge, no matter how rare they tend to be unfortunately. All revolts and armies have been led by such people, it won't be different this time. The alternative is absurd: all the lemmings suddenly banding together under one collective consciousness like if they were some kind of hive-mind. That is so retarded I can't even believe you would even dare entertain this idea.
Once again your hipocrisy shines. You cannot both accuse me of championing a blackpilling position about our current and alarming predicament and yet, at the same time, say that no good White leader exist and will ever show up. You believe that the quantity will bring about a revolution out of its own amalgamated volition when I believe in a quality. You will never find a single example supporting your asinine position. Not one.
>So your fictional unicorn just does everything on his own like in your favorite videogame. Monarchism is not a serious ideology. It's a videogame for you. 
I know you love to reset discussions every now and then so look it up. We already went over the question of monarchies being nothing new. There's nothing laughable about them.
>A neocon is literally the go to example monarchists choose when asked to explain how monarchs can even exist.
Not only would you have to prove that but where did you read that I agreed with the usual monarchists? Neocons are selfish men of little honor who at best only care about a banner, the stars and stripes, as long as it can grant them power, money, cocaine and underage girls or boys. They don't give two shits about their own people or race.
>>Oh a general will just proclaim himself king!!!
>That's a fucking neocon, anon.
>general to king
Who said that? You and only you. At this point I truly hope you're merely pretending being that dense.
>>I hate talking with my neighbors.
>Oh so you like the elites then?
I didn't say I hated talking with them. I recognized that their capacity to understand politics was abysmally low outside of their own respective professional competences.
And drop the anti-elite shtick, you're cringe. We need elites. People at large cannot handle the means of decision-taking. You will notice, maybe, that this is the essential concept of democracy, which is almost paraphrasing a well known high tenet of communism. Another proof it cannot work.
>Because that's your choice. Either the people, or the global elite.
I'm laughing at you and your blatantly fallacious false dilemma. You know where you can shove it. It is not to be against the people than to recognize that the rule of the mob is a disaster for a country. You need qualified people to take decisions and such people are few.
>You literally are pitching that an omnipotent magical superman will come and declare himself as king.
Short of a crown and a scepter, and your exaggerated appeal to ridicule aside, that's more or less what happened with Hitler. So yes.
Gifted leaders naturally need to emerge and guide their people. It is a law in this universe whether you like it or not. Go cry somewhere else if that offends you.
>Or rather, you're pitching that we make you king and then mindlessly obey you forever and then your son is you too just like in Crusader Kings. That's not how reality works.
I didn't pitch that.
You also seem bizarrely unaware of how most successions happened all over the globe anytime a kingdom existed. Short of a king being killed or captured or him naming a successor outside of his own direct family, power more often than not went to one of the male children.
>In the real world, the kind of authoritarianism you liked in Paradox requires a huge ruling class.
Really? What a big empty claim you make. Let's see. How huge would it need to be?
>Serious people discuss politics as it is. Not your fantasy world where people will mindlessly support you becoming king after you do jack shit for them.
And there we go again, rebooting the discussion, even if it's been clear that I said leading by example. That doesn't mean this ruler would be weak. He could if he chooses so to act swiftly against enemies and competitors and ax them off.

>>5671
>why the fuck do you take the position that White people are unfit to govern ourselves? If you believe that in our natural state, White people are too subhuman to rule ourselves, then are you even a White nationalist?
Yes, this is the Hitlerian view in Mein Kampf. You just happen to espouse gay racial egalitarianism where all White™ people (including dysgenic retards) are equally capable of doing anything and can just freely violate the natural laws of reality without any significant consequences, that would be 'White Nationalism'  in general, as it's really just racial communism as rebranded.
It fucking sucked and both I and Hitler (in his time, "Aryan Racialism") will say why it eats dog shit for all of eternity.
It is vague enough to allow bad actors to sneak in, which they wouldn't be able to get in to an total, specific and principled worldview like National Socialism/Fascism.
Go learn from the Big Man himself, he created his book for this reason specifically, so you wouldn't have to blabber about stupid shit like "EVERY WHITE IZ SPESHIAL AN' EQUAL BRO! WE CANS ROOLE OURSELVES N SHEEIT!!" and spouting empty platitudes.
Take your free time.... and read what he has wrote, the greatest book in all of mankind's history ever. 
In general... REED MEIN KAMPF, FEGGIT!

>From MK with two chapters named as the "LACK OF RESPONSIBILITY" and "THE DESTRUCTION OF THE IDEA OF
LEADERSHIP".
The aspect of the situation that was most thought-provoking to me was the manifest lack of any individual responsibility. The parliament takes an action that may have the most devastating consequences, and yet nobody bears responsibility for it. No one can be called to account. Can we call the government responsible if, in the face of a catastrophe, it simply resigns? Or if the coalition is changed, or even if parliament is dissolved? Can a fluctuating majority of people ever be truly responsible for anything?
Isn't the idea of responsibility bound to an individual person? Is it even possible to actually hold the parliamentary leaders accountable for any action that originated in the desires of the mass of representatives, and was carried out under their direction? Instead of developing constructive ideas and plans, does the true statesman's business really consist in the art of making a whole pack of blockheads understand his projects? Is it really his job to beg and plead so that they will grant him their generous consent?
Where can we draw the line between public duty and personal honor? Shouldn't every genuine leader renounce the idea of degrading himself to the level of a political gangster? And, on the other hand, doesn't every gangster feel the itch to ‘play politics,’ seeing that the final responsibility will never rest with him personally but rather with an anonymous, unaccountable mob?
Doesn't our parliamentary principle of majority rule necessarily lead to the destruction of the idea of leadership?
Does anyone honestly believe that human progress originates in the brain of the majority, and not in the brain of the individual personality? Or may it be presumed that future human civilization can dispense with this as a condition of its existence? Or rather, doesn't this seem today to be more indispensible than ever?
The parliamentary principle of majority rule rejects the authority of the individual and puts a numerical quota of anonymous heads in its place. In doing so, it contradicts the aristocratic principle, which is a fundamental law of nature, though it must be admitted that this principle is not reflected in the decadence of our upper 10,000.
''The devastating influence of this parliamentary institution might not easily be recognized by those who read the Jewish press,
unless the reader has learned how to think independently and examine facts for himself. This institution is primarily responsible
for the crowded inrush of mediocre people into the field of politics. Confronted with such a phenomenon, a man who is endowed with real qualities of leadership will be tempted to refrain from taking part in politics; under these circumstances, the situation doesn't call for a man who has a capacity for constructive statesmanship but rather for a man who is capable of bargaining for the favor of the majority.''
The situation appeals to small minds, and it attracts them accordingly. The narrower the spirit and knowledge of our leather-handlers, the more accurately can they assess their own situation. They will therefore be all the more inclined to praise a system that doesn't demand creative genius or even high-class talent, but rather the craftiness of an efficient town clerk. Indeed, they value this kind of petty craftiness more than the political genius of a Pericles.
Such mediocrity never worries about responsibility. From the beginning, our parliamentarian knows that, whatever be the results of his ‘statesmanship,’ his end is already written in the stars; one day, he will have to clear out and make room for another 'equally great spirit'.
>From the "THE EXCLUSION OF THE INDIVIDUAL LEADER"
This invention of democracy is very closely connected with a peculiar phenomenon that has recently become a real disgrace namely, the cowardice of a large section of our so-called political leaders. Whenever important decisions must be made, they always find themselves fortunate in being able to hide behind the so-called majority!
In observing one of these political manipulators, one notices how he begs the majority for their approval for whatever action he takes. He needs to have accomplices, in order to shift responsibility to other shoulders whenever it is convenient to do so. That's the main reason why this kind of political activity is abhorrent to men of character and courage. At the same time, it attracts inferior types; for a person who is not willing to accept responsibility for his own actions, but is always seeking to hide, is a cowardly scoundrel. Whenever a national leader comes from that low class of politicians, evil consequences will soon follow. No one will then have the courage to take a decisive step. They will submit to abuse and defamation rather than rise up and take a stand. And thus nobody is left who is willing to risk his position and his career, if necessary, in support of a determined line of policy.
One truth must always be kept in mind: the majority can never replace the man. The majority represents not only ignorance but also cowardice. And just as a hundred blockheads don't equal one wise man, so a hundred cowards are incapable of any heroic action.
All of that was from Hitler.
If you're still arguing for racial communism by this point after reading all of this, you're a lost cause...

>>5728
>You just happen to espouse gay racial egalitarianism where all White™ people (including dysgenic retards) are equally capable of doing anything and can just freely violate the natural laws of reality without any significant consequences, that would be 'White Nationalism'  in general, as it's really just racial communism as rebranded.
kek

>>5728
>If you're still arguing for racial communism by this point after reading all of this
<you're a lost cause
Not that anon, but...
Sounds like Hitler was a huge bootlicking dumb faggot! I mean, I think that all Whites are indeed equal, a lot of people will disagree with this however, like ((( You ))), because they want to LARP. 

It's so mindboggling to me, you know. Whitey is getting genocided, yet he will still have the insistent urge to exclude certain groups of Europeans, like Meds or Slavs for example, because Dolfy is basically the replacement of Rabbi Yeshua for this raped joke of a movement and every single thing he says should be treated as a gospel. But, hey, Hitler was a cuck. Not to mention he failed to holocaust the kikes proving that he's the most cucked individual on the planet Earth. And when Germans couldn't make his autistic project in the east about displacing another group of native Europeans a reality, he decided to issue a Nero's decree and kill himself like a coward. What a loser. Charlemagne-adoring, nigger-loving, mudslime-praising, Shlomo-sheltering, pagan-bashing, meth-addicted, insecure, schizophrenic, useless dysgenic retard. Given that more huwites died during his chimpout might as well disregard whatever the fuck that subhuman wrote in that book of his and go with the "racial communism" as you call it, without the input of Lenin and Marx and all other assorted kikes that is. Would be less harmful for the Whites in my humble opinion.

I know, truth hurts. But he lost and didn't kill a single kike. Try to cope somehow and own up to your cuckery, Hitlerite coons. I am sure sperging and writing walls of text on the internet will save fully vaxxed and masked Europe while jacking off to chinky toons, if not marrying a chink outright.

bald_cancer_patient_meets_his_idol_charlie_chaplin.jpeg
[Hide] (19.7KB, 457x311) Reverse

special_triangles.png
[Hide] (775.5KB, 540x719) Reverse

>>5809
>he got so mentally buck-broken by Mein-Kampf quotes that he spews verbal diarrhea seething at Hitler.
<BRO!!! YOU'RE JUST A JEWISH LARPER IF YOU DON"T BELIEVE THAT ALL WHITES ARE MAGICALLY EQUAL.
<JUST IGNORE ANY ACTUAL DIFFERENCES GOY- I mean BRO, WE'RE ALL ONE RACE, THE HUWITE RACE.
<bro, he hated slavs and meds bro!!! just ignore that he attended JÓZEF PIŁSUDSKI's funeral service while allying with italy.. croatia.. 'n bulgaria bro!!
<HE DIDYNT KEEEL ANYONE NIGGUH, HE WUZ A KUKK 'N SHEEEEEEIT!! BUUT HE'Z KEELED HUWITEYS THO, SUCH A MOONSTA!!
<HE KILLED LOTTA HUWITEYS!! WE SHOULDN"T HAD RESISTED TO JEWISH RULE SO WE DON"T GET HUWITEY KILLED GUISE!!
Very remarkable, Richard Spencer, now go fellate yourself with a shotgun and pull the trigger.
Before you do so, explain the second image then if he didn't exterminate any racial traitors, faggots or ((( Marxists ))) at all.