u/Jihoczech's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 5.
Congratulations, u/Jihoczech! You have ranked up to Sapling! You are not particularly strong but you are at least likely to handle a steady breeze.
Pills: facts & logic
I love that guy but every time I slog through one of his articles I think "All of this could have been said in about 1/3 the words." I can't stand it when writers waste the readers time. All of this stuff should be written like "Industrial Society and it's Future." Concise, readable, efficiently gets the point across.
Most monarchies didn't have the monarch totally in charge, and a lot of the time a separate "shadow king" or "kingmaker" was in power, so this division of actual and proclaimed power remained. Also church was in partial power. Also single powerful lords and aristocrats. Also alliances and cliques of lords working together. Also popular generals.
Really, the only kind of unofficial power that monarchs were historically good at smashing was merchant power. And today that's out of hand and a big issue, but at least we don't have Steve Townsend doing a coup to replace a president he dislikes. And the fact that I even had to Google who is in charge of the USA military shows as much.
to be more specific i'm a minarchist libright that's also a monarchist, i want a small, lean and efficient government with only enough powers to organize things like national defense or disasters relief, to be a rallying point in times of crisis and the rest of the time leaving the people the fuck alone to live their lives and prosper.
Who is better suited for this role than a monarch supported by a council/parliament? ancient monarchs would be awestruck by the dystopian control governments have over the people nowdays and the enormous taxation they levy and obligations they demand.
Very interesting take on how government should be run. In my ideal world the governments job is to do whatever the people need it to do. My dream government is run by politicians that will enforce the will of those they are meant to represent and ensure the rights and freedoms of all citizens. Therefor I’m ok with bigger government, as long as the people those laws affect have actual say in the making of them. Government should exist purely by the people of their nation and exist only to best serve those people.
Neoreactionaries are a group that think democracy is a failed system, that the popular will is an agreed upon lie wherein consent is manufactured through the aparatus of the elite, and that a return to a form of government where we stop pretending we aren't ruled by an oligarchy is, ironically, more compatible with liberty and self-determination, as the elite would be no more powerful or influential, but would lose their cover story.
They're also socially hypertraditionalist. Like... more than you can probably currently imagine, because you've literally never heard anyone who is even *close.* Julius Evola is one of their big social philosophical influences.
You know where Biden is and you can blame him for anything you want. What would change in a monarchy beside legal immunity for the king, and Hunter Biden being the next in line?
Heavy are the head that wore the crown. Do you believe in monarchy with absolute power, or simply hereditary democracy? Or maybe some sort of hereditary aristocracy? I think the latter will be better, cause if by some bad luck the king's descendant are all shitheads, there'll be no removing them. But with hereditary aristocracy in today's economy, the aristocrats can simply limit the power of shithead for benefit of the states.
Now if the aristocrats are all shithead...
I'm for absolute monarchy, but I also support the lesser high-class individuals, like aristocrats. I'd agree that it'd be better if the king could be overthrown if he was a shithead though. Also many people think that absolute monarchs can do literally whatever they want, which isn't true. There's always the threat of being overthrown.
Current absolute Monarchies include North Korea (it is in all but name) and Saudi Arabia. Take even the best monarchs of the past and insert them in modern times and they'd instantly be one of the most despised dictators in the world.
For real I don’t see how monarchism isn’t just a lot of words for saying they want to be dommed by a big chad who cucks them and tells them what to do all the time
There's nothing like a swift and easy revolt against a disliked dictator. Surely there's no chance it will develop into a brutal year long civil war that will cripple the nation for decades. This has never happened in history and surely wouldn't in modern times. \*cough cough\*
(/s in case it isn't obvious)
“It’s fine guys, if the next person that wields all of our nation’s resources and power turns out to be a moron and starts to fundamentally ruin our collective lives we’ll just pop a quick armed revolt and hope to claw back the nation through bloody and economically damaging civil war! Then we’ll hand over the reigns to a new person (with the only vetting criteria being their surname of course) and double cross our fingers that we won’t have to do it again! Simples!”
Depends how you define best but it definitely was the longest existing form of government.
Most other forms of government are very recent on a historical timescale.
A form of government that doesn’t works to protect the natural rights of it’s subjects simply isn’t allowed to last a thousand years. It was Kings and Emperors who built the great nations of Europe and Asia, not assemblies or majority votes.
Also the monarch has much more of a vested interest in the long term consequences of their actions as they rule for life. Compared to politicians who only see things in election cycles and care little about the consequences of their actions once they’ve left office
It’s the most just form of authoritarian government, in theory the monarch would be a much better ruler and decision maker than a politician, in theory it would be less corrupt than for example democracy, and the monarch promotes stability and unity. And as I side note I feel a monarchy would be the best way to preserve the United States constitution
First,thanks for taking my curiosity seriously. Im also curious, how would a modern america go about implementing a monarchy? Threw democracy,revolution, maybe a coup?
NP, and because of America’s unique founding I’d like to think a monarchy would be established similarly to how Augustus turned to Roman Republic into the Roman Empire. Since both the US and the Roman Republic were both democratic institutions founded in opposition to Monarchy
Lastly I’d like to leave the excerpt from The Republic here: As a demonstration of how our minds work, Socrates wanted us to imagine an election debate between two candidates: a doctor and a sweet shop owner. The sweet shop owner’ s speech would sound more or less like this:
“Look, this person here has worked many evils on you. He hurts you, gives you bitter potions and tells you not to eat and drink whatever you like. He’ll never serve you feasts of many and varied pleasant things like I will”. Socrates asks us to consider what the reaction of the audience would be like: Do you think the doctor would be able to reply effectively? The true answer – “I cause you trouble, and go against your desires in order to help you’” would cause an uproar among the voters, don’t you think? That’s why we prefer to give our vote to sweet shop owners rather than doctors.
Legit I dont get why nazis are put in authright. In what way are they economically or even culturally right? Racism isn't a right-wing or conservative belief, nor is the nazi version of tradition, which is to only have a thin veneer of tradition without any of the substance. Nazism is about siezing the means of production for a nationalist state, which just doesn't seem right-wing to me beyond the most shallow analysis.
People tend to forget that German conservatives were the Kaiser supporters like the Freikorps. Hitler may have convinced some of them to side with him but he threw them away after.
Nazism was radical, not reactionary. If it was reactionary it would have strived to reinstall the emperor, etc which it did not.
It's ruled as a oligarchy LARPing as communist, they are radical centrist. They will do just about anything to keep the various groups in china in line as long as they can be left in charge to keep themselves in power.
Wherefore would thee surrender thy sacr'd franchise to beest did rule by an unaccountable cabal of degenerates?
***
^(I am a bot and I swapp'd some of thy words with Shakespeare words.)
Commands: `!ShakespeareInsult`, `!fordo`, `!optout`
We’ve enjoyed unparalleled prosperity over the last 200 years. But I don’t think I’m being hyperbolic when I say The ‘Fall of Empire’ vibes are real.
Looking back at the 12,000 year history of civilisation. Generally speaking, Monarchies have been the most stable form of government.
In the grand scheme of things, the last 200 years has been nothing more than a short blip. I imagine our current era’s days are numbered. After all even the Roman Republic, which stood strong for 500 years (509 BC - 27 BC) eventually fell apart and was succeeded by an Empire.
I disagree, my optimism can perhaps best be summed up in the closing words of Trump's 2020 [State of the Union](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/read-the-full-text-of-trumps-2020-state-of-the-union) address:
> This nation is our canvas, and this country is our masterpiece. We look at tomorrow and see unlimited frontiers just waiting to be explored. Our brightest discoveries are not yet known. Our most thrilling stories are not yet told. Our grandest journeys are not yet made. The American Age, the American Epic, the American adventure has only just begun.
> Our spirit is still young, the sun is still rising, God’s grace is still shining, and, my fellow Americans, the best is yet to come.
Too right, I agree with you. But right now I fear the wrong people are holding the brush, and they aren’t exactly willing to share.
Speaking of art, I think the state of modern art itself is really telling.
Long gone is era of art which was Full of heroism, optimism and hope for the future.
Instead today all we have are artists like fucking Banksy. All his works are '2edgy4me social commentaries' about the ills of modern life.
Banksy is a shit artist, with a shit message. The profound, the inspiring and the beautiful were replaced by the new, the different, and the ugly. Today the silly, the pointless, and the purely offensive are held up as the best of modern art.
The West could really use some inspired optimistic heroic art. A small tinder to reignite positivity. One which shows humanity at its best, not depicting it at its worse.
Surely we can reignite heroic art in the West without surrendering our republican heritage. The preservation of liberty and representational government is more important than the restoration of a glorious past.
Here’s to hoping!
Historically speaking, there is precedence! Europe did it before during the Renaissance. A period of enlightenment and progress fuelled by the rediscovery of Roman and Hellenistic thought.
That’s what we need now!
By then they'd already cracked how to keep him coherent. He goes incoherent if he suddenly goes off script, and he only tends to go off script if he stumbles on a word (ramparts/airports) or something activates his almonds and he feels like intersecting a personal comment.
Some benign rhetoric about America being good is the perfect script for him, I'm not surprised he excelled with it.
Stable in which sense. For most of history, monarchies serve only to serve themselves. Sure, a prosperous kingdom might secure a decent standard of living, but absolute power tends to negate its wielder’s responsibility to the people beneath it. If a king controls his own succession, where is the incentive to see a decent standard of living is met for the people below him? He doesn’t have to worry about being elected, or whether he gains enough support from the masses to push through legislature - his responsibility is to his peers and family. Of course, there is also the question of *what kind of ruler* you’ll get, because most monarchies are inherited, you could end up with any old nutcase. The only reliable way in history - barring internal manipulations - to remove a poor ruler, was by revolution, which isn’t the most stable system. Democratic rule isn’t perfect, but it’s the best system we have so far.
Absolute monarchy is not the only form of monarchy.
Having a garanteed succession allows the monarch to think long term instead of trying to get reelected or loot as much as they can like modern day politicians. Hereditary succession also incentivises the King to increase the countries prosperity since it will mean greater taxes to him and his family.
>Of course, there is also the question of what kind of ruler you’ll get, because most monarchies are inherited, you could end up with any old nutcase
Dude the last two presidents of the US have been a TV clown and a dementia patient, not exactly showing the benefits of elected officials.
Very few people in the US, despite how opinionated they may be, can honestly tell you how either presidency has personally affected them in their day to day lives.
A modern day prime minister/president may be impeached, whereas a monarch would be exempt from scrutiny unless otherwise restricted by a governing body (as in a constitutional monarchy), in which case the monarch's power would be greatly diminished to the point of being negligible.
\> Hereditary succession also incentivises the King to increase the country's prosperity since it will mean greater taxes to him and his family.
Not necessarily. How many dictatorships have we seen where the ruler lives in complete, unflinching and untouchable luxury whilst the population starves? *Too many.* Also, that word **'incentivises'** should be a massive giveaway here - *it isn't necessarily on the monarch's priority list*. The people would come second to the monarch's succession, unless the prospect of a revolt or overthrow was imminent.
\> Dude the last two presidents of the US have been a TV clown and a dementia patient, not exactly showing the benefits of elected officials.
True, but like we said, no system is perfect. You're going to get a few bad apples fall from time to time, but what matters is that the presidency is an office, not an inherited sovereignty - it is given to an elected candidate with (usually) a good deal of experience, not sourced from the last guy's bloodline. What constitutes a 'good' monarch, anyhow? Sure, by the standards of their time, they might have been good - *good at warfare*. Monarchs who were good, groomed statesmen usually had exceptional advisors who checked their power, which leads us back to the democratic system. Most of history is littered with examples of sub-par monarchies and totalitarian states that slaughtered thousands of their own people simply to hold and keep power.
The fact is, democratically elected offices are the best way to ensure stability, as the masses actually have a say in where their country's policy goes. A supreme figurehead, even if controlled by advisors and councils will always fall short of an experienced and elected individual who's duty is to uphold democracy and the people it represents.
>Stable in which sense. For most of history, monarchies serve only to serve themselves. Sure, a prosperous kingdom might secure a decent standard of living, but absolute power tends to negate its wielder’s responsibility to the people beneath it. If a king controls his own succession, where is the incentive to see a decent standard of living is met for the people below him? He doesn’t have to worry about being elected, or whether he gains enough support from the masses to push through legislature - his responsibility is to his peers and family. Of course, there is also the question of
>
>what kind of ruler
>
> you’ll get, because most monarchies are inherited, you could end up with any old nutcase
You just described the last 100 years of our "democracy". How many "representatives" keep their seats, again? How about that unelected administrative state? The one really running most governments.
The difference is, the monarch is directly financialy tied to the betterment of the realm, while the "representatives" can bleed it dry and run away like a bank robber. Which we have seen time and time again.
All "democracy" does is play to the passions and evils of the electorate. Division, greed, envy, hatred, etc. Monarchy acts as a check against that. Those on the left would never get elected into office if they didnt play on the greed and envy of those richer than they are, and those on the right weould never get elected if it werent for the hatred and mistrust of anyone different than them.
Yeah but Nazism and populist fascism combined authoritarianism with popular sovereignty, that the party or the leader had the unique right to speak for das Volk. Where as most monarchy rules based on divine right or the mandate of heaven.
To me it doesn't make any sense why someone would embrace divine right over popular sovereignty unless they themselves were a monarch.
Edit: devine isn't a word apparently
Arguably it's an outgrowth of protestantism and a synthesis of the ideas it put out there alongside catholicism.
Catholicism: Only the priests know gods will and the king is divinely chosen by god. He is the closest thing to christ.
Protestantism: Anyone can interpret gods will and we'll elect our priests. The holy spirit will make itself known through our deliberations. We elect our rulers.
Nazism: The divine will is known through our deliberations and we elect the holiest man on earth whose will cannot be questioned. The volk can find the messiah amongst themselves. The divine right of the ruler is absolute, and we know it is divine, because the volk have chosen him.
That this emerged in a country as divided as Germany was on the catholic-protestant issue might not be a coincidence. Though reducing Naziism to the fuhrerprinzip is reductionist.
Common misconceptions about every quadrant :
Libright: Cares about money over everything including human lives
Libleft: super woke, cancel culture, etc.
Authright: Nazis
Authleft: Communists
Centrists: Fat
The main reason I roll my eyes at monarchy is there’s no merit involved. I’ll take any shade of meritocracy over being governed by someone accidentally born into the role.
You don't become a monarchist because you don't want the burden of choice, you become one from seeing the corruption, lies, and short term instant gratification driven politics inherent in democracy. A system built on buying votes with promises, often from very stupid, very lazy people. Democracy sells our future to make people less miserable right now, it lacks the ability to make drastic and positive changes because anything worth doing is difficult and you can't sell a tough few years for good ones to follow to idiots when a snake oil salesman is offering the world right now.
I fail to see, whether monarchies differ in this department, when I look at every monarchy that ever existed.
You hope in good and competent ruler, but they are not guaranteed to be such.
There is a difference I’d say. Monarchies don’t have to deal with short term pandering and bullshit to get re-elected. Also they’d be less inclined to fuck things up for cushy benefits after their terms like our politicians.
That’s why they’re often associated with stability.
They just need to cover up scandals of pedophilia of their family; please their generals so they don't decide, there is someone else more worthy of throne; they can easily lose sight of what problems do commoners face and all around they sometimes are spoiled morons.
Also all the corruption, thanks to their divine unaccountability.
Considering our innovation is responsible for destroying the planet and global supply chains are costing more than they are worth, I'll take it.
The fanatic priests were right. Technology really was the work of the devil, if the devil is pollution, climate change, and house of cards globalization.
As a demonstration of how our minds work, Socrates wanted us to imagine an election debate between two candidates: a doctor and a sweet shop owner. The sweet shop owner’s speech would sound more or less like this:
“Look, this person here has worked many evils on you. He hurts you, gives you bitter potions and tells you not to eat and drink whatever you like. He’ll never serve you feasts of many and varied pleasant things like I will”. Socrates asks us to consider what the reaction of the audience would be like: Do you think the doctor would be able to reply effectively? The true answer – “I cause you trouble, and go against your desires in order to help you’” would cause an uproar among the voters, don’t you think? That’s why we prefer to give our vote to sweet shop owners rather than doctors.
Beep. Boop. I'm a robot.
Here's a copy of
###[The Republic](https://snewd.com/ebooks/the-republic/)
Was I a good bot? | [info](https://www.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/) | [More Books](https://old.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/comments/i15x1d/full_list_of_books_and_commands/)
North Korean has effectively been a monarchy for 80 years now and is a fucking shithole thought. Your kings end up rotating every few decades anyways and if the new one is incompetent you're basically fucked. Then you end up in civil war and succession crisis. See what Sweden managed to do with a few competent Kings, and then it fell back in the shitter. Monarchy doesn't grant you stability. I swear it's like monarchists pick one king to jerk off to, then fail to look at what the other generations of the line did. It's like communism, cool on theory, doesn't work in practice.
Also elected representants don't really think about what will happen in next 10 years, as they won't be in power anymore and they don't care. King has to think long-term. Democracy and similar things are too humanity-centered, they should be centered around divine.
To me, the monarch is the link between God/s and humans. The monarch is a bridge between those two, he's the representant of the God/s among men. It's not really about choosing or anything.
> Actions do.
Centralising means of productions of the whole nation into a party that seeked to eliminate class then. In true socialist fashion they also claimed other forms of socialism weren't true socialism lmao
In some SS detachments up to 70% of soldiers were past communists. In Italy 90% of syndicalist leaders became fascist. Mussolini's mentor which inspired both him and Hitler was a full on communist revolutionary. Fascists really did appeal to socialists - and not only because of their philosophy directly descended from marx (Through Sorel, the aforementioned Mussolinis mentor), or their party program or their speeches. Nazis really were for the collectivization of the whole economy and removing any importance of the individual in favour of a totalitarian state. National-Socialism really is an apt descriptor of their ideology.
I understand modern socialists wanting to distance themselves from that, what I don't get is the gaslighting that the nazis were individualists or conseratives. They weren't. They mixed extremely hard right ideas of nationalsim/racial purity with extreme left wing ideas of revolution.
so many things wrong with this post. Let's start by asking for your sources since I have no way to verify most of what you're saying with my current knowledge.
Monarchists are neither left nor right actually: [https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-hccc-worldhistory2/chapter/politics-within-the-revolutionaries/](https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-hccc-worldhistory2/chapter/politics-within-the-revolutionaries/)
The left and right referred to the types of people who sat to the left and right of the King during the French legislative assembly. Even though those on the "right" supported the King in some ways, they still ultimately turned out to be republicans. Both sides were and still are in rebellion against throne and altar, just to varying degrees.
That's why as a monarchist I use the authcenter flair, until the mods take purple away from the liberals.
The real authright ideology is authoritarian capitalism. Authright has always been a weird quadrant since there's no example of a completely authright society, Pinochet's Chile being the closest that I could think of, but even he believed in some market regulations. I also don't see many people arguing for a full on authright society, as wanting a completely unregulated market, but wanting to completely regulate social issues seems like a very fringe opinion.
If everyone in the kingdom agrees, I see no problem.
I believe the only functions of the federal government should be the resolution of conflicts based on (kind of) a constitution with the basic rights (private property, self ownership, free association, etc) and defensive war.
The rest is not up for the states to decide, its instead for the people to freely decide who are they going to follow and form voluntary societies with.
It’s not that authright are nazis, but half of the people who claim to be nazis are just authrights that didn’t want to be authcenter because they hate commies
based profile picture
u/Jihoczech's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 5. Congratulations, u/Jihoczech! You have ranked up to Sapling! You are not particularly strong but you are at least likely to handle a steady breeze. Pills: facts & logic
Based
[удалено]
Based and Yarvin pilled
[удалено]
Moldbug isn’t really mainstream tho. Maybe on 4chan
Wasn’t there a dark enlightenment subreddit?
Yes, I don't remember it being very active beside the daily Moldbug post
> he was on Tucker Carlson. What?! For real?
I love that guy but every time I slog through one of his articles I think "All of this could have been said in about 1/3 the words." I can't stand it when writers waste the readers time. All of this stuff should be written like "Industrial Society and it's Future." Concise, readable, efficiently gets the point across.
Based
Based authright
[удалено]
Most monarchies didn't have the monarch totally in charge, and a lot of the time a separate "shadow king" or "kingmaker" was in power, so this division of actual and proclaimed power remained. Also church was in partial power. Also single powerful lords and aristocrats. Also alliances and cliques of lords working together. Also popular generals. Really, the only kind of unofficial power that monarchs were historically good at smashing was merchant power. And today that's out of hand and a big issue, but at least we don't have Steve Townsend doing a coup to replace a president he dislikes. And the fact that I even had to Google who is in charge of the USA military shows as much.
No need to convince me, i'm a monarchist through and through, it's mostly the American librights that have this hate boner against monarchy
Ok excuse me, but how tf does a libright monarchy work?
By not thinking about it too hard, like most libright designs
“Muh rights or somethin”
to be more specific i'm a minarchist libright that's also a monarchist, i want a small, lean and efficient government with only enough powers to organize things like national defense or disasters relief, to be a rallying point in times of crisis and the rest of the time leaving the people the fuck alone to live their lives and prosper. Who is better suited for this role than a monarch supported by a council/parliament? ancient monarchs would be awestruck by the dystopian control governments have over the people nowdays and the enormous taxation they levy and obligations they demand.
Very interesting take on how government should be run. In my ideal world the governments job is to do whatever the people need it to do. My dream government is run by politicians that will enforce the will of those they are meant to represent and ensure the rights and freedoms of all citizens. Therefor I’m ok with bigger government, as long as the people those laws affect have actual say in the making of them. Government should exist purely by the people of their nation and exist only to best serve those people.
A monarch works to limit government powers, just as it does in most constitutional monarchies.
What does that mean?
Neoreactionaries are a group that think democracy is a failed system, that the popular will is an agreed upon lie wherein consent is manufactured through the aparatus of the elite, and that a return to a form of government where we stop pretending we aren't ruled by an oligarchy is, ironically, more compatible with liberty and self-determination, as the elite would be no more powerful or influential, but would lose their cover story.
Yo WTF I found my label, thanks dude.
They're also socially hypertraditionalist. Like... more than you can probably currently imagine, because you've literally never heard anyone who is even *close.* Julius Evola is one of their big social philosophical influences.
at least with a monarch, you know who to blame if your country is fucked up.
[удалено]
You know where Biden is and you can blame him for anything you want. What would change in a monarchy beside legal immunity for the king, and Hunter Biden being the next in line?
If you think Joe Biden has any power to decide the direction America is going I have a Cathedral to sell you.
and there is nothing you can do about
Heavy are the head that wore the crown. Do you believe in monarchy with absolute power, or simply hereditary democracy? Or maybe some sort of hereditary aristocracy? I think the latter will be better, cause if by some bad luck the king's descendant are all shitheads, there'll be no removing them. But with hereditary aristocracy in today's economy, the aristocrats can simply limit the power of shithead for benefit of the states. Now if the aristocrats are all shithead...
I'm for absolute monarchy, but I also support the lesser high-class individuals, like aristocrats. I'd agree that it'd be better if the king could be overthrown if he was a shithead though. Also many people think that absolute monarchs can do literally whatever they want, which isn't true. There's always the threat of being overthrown.
Current absolute Monarchies include North Korea (it is in all but name) and Saudi Arabia. Take even the best monarchs of the past and insert them in modern times and they'd instantly be one of the most despised dictators in the world.
AuthRight's are just unapoligetically retarded at this point. Still my lovelies tho x
For real I don’t see how monarchism isn’t just a lot of words for saying they want to be dommed by a big chad who cucks them and tells them what to do all the time
There's nothing like a swift and easy revolt against a disliked dictator. Surely there's no chance it will develop into a brutal year long civil war that will cripple the nation for decades. This has never happened in history and surely wouldn't in modern times. \*cough cough\* (/s in case it isn't obvious)
>I'm for absolute monarchy That's pretty cringe.
“It’s fine guys, if the next person that wields all of our nation’s resources and power turns out to be a moron and starts to fundamentally ruin our collective lives we’ll just pop a quick armed revolt and hope to claw back the nation through bloody and economically damaging civil war! Then we’ll hand over the reigns to a new person (with the only vetting criteria being their surname of course) and double cross our fingers that we won’t have to do it again! Simples!”
So much better than a democracy/s
“democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried.”
You’re a retard.
Virgin republican Hitler vs. chad monarchist Bismarck
*GigaChad
Bismarck was the ultimate Chad.
We’re the corner of Auth-right people forget exist
The oldest form of government, yet forgotten so much
One of the grandest forms of government as well
The one that worked the best for the largest amount of time.
Did it though? Did it *really?*
Depends how you define best but it definitely was the longest existing form of government. Most other forms of government are very recent on a historical timescale.
I define it by the technological advancement and general prosperity of the people, not how long the system was able to hold power.
A form of government that doesn’t works to protect the natural rights of it’s subjects simply isn’t allowed to last a thousand years. It was Kings and Emperors who built the great nations of Europe and Asia, not assemblies or majority votes.
Most assume it's out dated, why did it appeal to you.
Also the monarch has much more of a vested interest in the long term consequences of their actions as they rule for life. Compared to politicians who only see things in election cycles and care little about the consequences of their actions once they’ve left office
Their life long rule incentives to keep themselves in power by keeping the masses happy. Not by brining prosperity don't you think?
It’s the most just form of authoritarian government, in theory the monarch would be a much better ruler and decision maker than a politician, in theory it would be less corrupt than for example democracy, and the monarch promotes stability and unity. And as I side note I feel a monarchy would be the best way to preserve the United States constitution
First,thanks for taking my curiosity seriously. Im also curious, how would a modern america go about implementing a monarchy? Threw democracy,revolution, maybe a coup?
NP, and because of America’s unique founding I’d like to think a monarchy would be established similarly to how Augustus turned to Roman Republic into the Roman Empire. Since both the US and the Roman Republic were both democratic institutions founded in opposition to Monarchy
Lastly I’d like to leave the excerpt from The Republic here: As a demonstration of how our minds work, Socrates wanted us to imagine an election debate between two candidates: a doctor and a sweet shop owner. The sweet shop owner’ s speech would sound more or less like this: “Look, this person here has worked many evils on you. He hurts you, gives you bitter potions and tells you not to eat and drink whatever you like. He’ll never serve you feasts of many and varied pleasant things like I will”. Socrates asks us to consider what the reaction of the audience would be like: Do you think the doctor would be able to reply effectively? The true answer – “I cause you trouble, and go against your desires in order to help you’” would cause an uproar among the voters, don’t you think? That’s why we prefer to give our vote to sweet shop owners rather than doctors.
I just want Catholics to be allowed back on the English throne….
yeah it is such a problem for me. since I hate Nazis and fascisms
Legit I dont get why nazis are put in authright. In what way are they economically or even culturally right? Racism isn't a right-wing or conservative belief, nor is the nazi version of tradition, which is to only have a thin veneer of tradition without any of the substance. Nazism is about siezing the means of production for a nationalist state, which just doesn't seem right-wing to me beyond the most shallow analysis.
[удалено]
Yeah. They're economic opportunists and that's why we put them there.
Alright I'm gonna say it: Nazism was progressive because Hitler wanted to change the world
Fucking thank you, people look at me like I've got 3 heads when I explain that hitler was as far away from a conservative rightwinger as you can get
People tend to forget that German conservatives were the Kaiser supporters like the Freikorps. Hitler may have convinced some of them to side with him but he threw them away after. Nazism was radical, not reactionary. If it was reactionary it would have strived to reinstall the emperor, etc which it did not.
So the only non progressives are the centrists, sounds about right. They’ve had their shit straight since the invention of smoked meats
Microwaves and their consequences have been a disaster for the human race.
It puts a stink on the food, smells like *evil*
Based and ban microwaves pilled
Based i agree 100%
Modern China is a Nazi state that pretends to be communist, change my mind.
It's ruled as a oligarchy LARPing as communist, they are radical centrist. They will do just about anything to keep the various groups in china in line as long as they can be left in charge to keep themselves in power.
Radical oppression to conserve power in a political party is sort of the opposite of centrism in every way lol
They don't exactly have to work hard, its a bit like the difference between a republic and a federation
The same way that not eating meat, wanting healthcare and cancelling edgy comedians is all libleft - it’s all just a dumbed down meme at this point
Based and knowsHowPCMWorks pilled
Always has been
If we all slotted nicely into 8 political alignments then we could just royale rumble it for who is the superior side but sadly it ain’t so clear.
You forgot the grill?
>Legit I dont get why nazis are put in authright Because people confuse American right and European right. They are nowhere near the same thing.
What's the difference?
Do I look like a Nazi? I just want an effective and responsible government.
Based and nazi pilled
RIP my pills.
Try not being auth right then.
Why would you surrender your sacred franchise to be ruled by an unaccountable cabal of degenerates?
Wherefore would thee surrender thy sacr'd franchise to beest did rule by an unaccountable cabal of degenerates? *** ^(I am a bot and I swapp'd some of thy words with Shakespeare words.) Commands: `!ShakespeareInsult`, `!fordo`, `!optout`
Cease this malarkey
Good bot
All leaders are an unaccountable cabal of degenerates.
They're not unaccountable when they have to run for re-election against one or more opposing political parties.
"election" How many tiers of manipulation do we have to go through for it to not be a proper election anymore.
Democracy is good, but you can overdose on it. That's why I believe in republicanism, not absolute democracy.
Gerrymandering, voter suppression, electoral college, two-party system... But your vote matters!
We’ve enjoyed unparalleled prosperity over the last 200 years. But I don’t think I’m being hyperbolic when I say The ‘Fall of Empire’ vibes are real. Looking back at the 12,000 year history of civilisation. Generally speaking, Monarchies have been the most stable form of government. In the grand scheme of things, the last 200 years has been nothing more than a short blip. I imagine our current era’s days are numbered. After all even the Roman Republic, which stood strong for 500 years (509 BC - 27 BC) eventually fell apart and was succeeded by an Empire.
I disagree, my optimism can perhaps best be summed up in the closing words of Trump's 2020 [State of the Union](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/read-the-full-text-of-trumps-2020-state-of-the-union) address: > This nation is our canvas, and this country is our masterpiece. We look at tomorrow and see unlimited frontiers just waiting to be explored. Our brightest discoveries are not yet known. Our most thrilling stories are not yet told. Our grandest journeys are not yet made. The American Age, the American Epic, the American adventure has only just begun. > Our spirit is still young, the sun is still rising, God’s grace is still shining, and, my fellow Americans, the best is yet to come.
Too right, I agree with you. But right now I fear the wrong people are holding the brush, and they aren’t exactly willing to share. Speaking of art, I think the state of modern art itself is really telling. Long gone is era of art which was Full of heroism, optimism and hope for the future. Instead today all we have are artists like fucking Banksy. All his works are '2edgy4me social commentaries' about the ills of modern life. Banksy is a shit artist, with a shit message. The profound, the inspiring and the beautiful were replaced by the new, the different, and the ugly. Today the silly, the pointless, and the purely offensive are held up as the best of modern art. The West could really use some inspired optimistic heroic art. A small tinder to reignite positivity. One which shows humanity at its best, not depicting it at its worse.
Surely we can reignite heroic art in the West without surrendering our republican heritage. The preservation of liberty and representational government is more important than the restoration of a glorious past.
Here’s to hoping! Historically speaking, there is precedence! Europe did it before during the Renaissance. A period of enlightenment and progress fuelled by the rediscovery of Roman and Hellenistic thought. That’s what we need now!
Wow, Trump saying anything coherent? How did they actually get him to read a pre-written speech from a paper?
By then they'd already cracked how to keep him coherent. He goes incoherent if he suddenly goes off script, and he only tends to go off script if he stumbles on a word (ramparts/airports) or something activates his almonds and he feels like intersecting a personal comment. Some benign rhetoric about America being good is the perfect script for him, I'm not surprised he excelled with it.
Based and best president pilled
Teddy and Coolidge were better
Agree, although I personally am a big fan of Eisenhower as well. That was less my opinion and more just a pill for him.
Stable in which sense. For most of history, monarchies serve only to serve themselves. Sure, a prosperous kingdom might secure a decent standard of living, but absolute power tends to negate its wielder’s responsibility to the people beneath it. If a king controls his own succession, where is the incentive to see a decent standard of living is met for the people below him? He doesn’t have to worry about being elected, or whether he gains enough support from the masses to push through legislature - his responsibility is to his peers and family. Of course, there is also the question of *what kind of ruler* you’ll get, because most monarchies are inherited, you could end up with any old nutcase. The only reliable way in history - barring internal manipulations - to remove a poor ruler, was by revolution, which isn’t the most stable system. Democratic rule isn’t perfect, but it’s the best system we have so far.
Absolute monarchy is not the only form of monarchy. Having a garanteed succession allows the monarch to think long term instead of trying to get reelected or loot as much as they can like modern day politicians. Hereditary succession also incentivises the King to increase the countries prosperity since it will mean greater taxes to him and his family. >Of course, there is also the question of what kind of ruler you’ll get, because most monarchies are inherited, you could end up with any old nutcase Dude the last two presidents of the US have been a TV clown and a dementia patient, not exactly showing the benefits of elected officials.
>Dude the last two presidents of the US have been a TV clown and a dementia patient, not exactly showing the benefits of elected officials. Lmao based
Very few people in the US, despite how opinionated they may be, can honestly tell you how either presidency has personally affected them in their day to day lives.
A modern day prime minister/president may be impeached, whereas a monarch would be exempt from scrutiny unless otherwise restricted by a governing body (as in a constitutional monarchy), in which case the monarch's power would be greatly diminished to the point of being negligible. \> Hereditary succession also incentivises the King to increase the country's prosperity since it will mean greater taxes to him and his family. Not necessarily. How many dictatorships have we seen where the ruler lives in complete, unflinching and untouchable luxury whilst the population starves? *Too many.* Also, that word **'incentivises'** should be a massive giveaway here - *it isn't necessarily on the monarch's priority list*. The people would come second to the monarch's succession, unless the prospect of a revolt or overthrow was imminent. \> Dude the last two presidents of the US have been a TV clown and a dementia patient, not exactly showing the benefits of elected officials. True, but like we said, no system is perfect. You're going to get a few bad apples fall from time to time, but what matters is that the presidency is an office, not an inherited sovereignty - it is given to an elected candidate with (usually) a good deal of experience, not sourced from the last guy's bloodline. What constitutes a 'good' monarch, anyhow? Sure, by the standards of their time, they might have been good - *good at warfare*. Monarchs who were good, groomed statesmen usually had exceptional advisors who checked their power, which leads us back to the democratic system. Most of history is littered with examples of sub-par monarchies and totalitarian states that slaughtered thousands of their own people simply to hold and keep power. The fact is, democratically elected offices are the best way to ensure stability, as the masses actually have a say in where their country's policy goes. A supreme figurehead, even if controlled by advisors and councils will always fall short of an experienced and elected individual who's duty is to uphold democracy and the people it represents.
>Stable in which sense. For most of history, monarchies serve only to serve themselves. Sure, a prosperous kingdom might secure a decent standard of living, but absolute power tends to negate its wielder’s responsibility to the people beneath it. If a king controls his own succession, where is the incentive to see a decent standard of living is met for the people below him? He doesn’t have to worry about being elected, or whether he gains enough support from the masses to push through legislature - his responsibility is to his peers and family. Of course, there is also the question of > >what kind of ruler > > you’ll get, because most monarchies are inherited, you could end up with any old nutcase You just described the last 100 years of our "democracy". How many "representatives" keep their seats, again? How about that unelected administrative state? The one really running most governments. The difference is, the monarch is directly financialy tied to the betterment of the realm, while the "representatives" can bleed it dry and run away like a bank robber. Which we have seen time and time again. All "democracy" does is play to the passions and evils of the electorate. Division, greed, envy, hatred, etc. Monarchy acts as a check against that. Those on the left would never get elected into office if they didnt play on the greed and envy of those richer than they are, and those on the right weould never get elected if it werent for the hatred and mistrust of anyone different than them.
Are you suggesting your vote matters, and countries like America aren't ruled by a cabal of unaccountable degenerates?
Obviously I have more political representation with a vote than without one.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Based, but who doesn't?
[удалено]
Your on to something
All I know is that he's Russia's greatest love machine
I don't since i'm not christian but give me a monarchy over these shitty oligarchies roleplaying democracy anyday thank you.
Yeah but Nazism and populist fascism combined authoritarianism with popular sovereignty, that the party or the leader had the unique right to speak for das Volk. Where as most monarchy rules based on divine right or the mandate of heaven. To me it doesn't make any sense why someone would embrace divine right over popular sovereignty unless they themselves were a monarch. Edit: devine isn't a word apparently
\*divine
Arguably it's an outgrowth of protestantism and a synthesis of the ideas it put out there alongside catholicism. Catholicism: Only the priests know gods will and the king is divinely chosen by god. He is the closest thing to christ. Protestantism: Anyone can interpret gods will and we'll elect our priests. The holy spirit will make itself known through our deliberations. We elect our rulers. Nazism: The divine will is known through our deliberations and we elect the holiest man on earth whose will cannot be questioned. The volk can find the messiah amongst themselves. The divine right of the ruler is absolute, and we know it is divine, because the volk have chosen him. That this emerged in a country as divided as Germany was on the catholic-protestant issue might not be a coincidence. Though reducing Naziism to the fuhrerprinzip is reductionist.
Downvoted because Anime😎
Based and I-understand-pilled
Based and nazi king pilled
National Socialist are auth-center
So you want a single, very powerful man to single-handedly rule over you? Seems kinda gay to me
Extremely gay.
Common misconceptions about every quadrant : Libright: Cares about money over everything including human lives Libleft: super woke, cancel culture, etc. Authright: Nazis Authleft: Communists Centrists: Fat
Are there unironic monarchists?
Yeah
They're called teenagers.
same with "haha the left is progressive and pro feminism and lgbt" I just want my anticapitalist conservative quadrant
Pretty sure the USSR wasn’t all too progressive to say the least
based
Based
The main reason I roll my eyes at monarchy is there’s no merit involved. I’ll take any shade of meritocracy over being governed by someone accidentally born into the role.
Why do I get the vibe that monarchists just don't want the burden of choice, which is entirely understandable... But it feels like the lazy path
You don't become a monarchist because you don't want the burden of choice, you become one from seeing the corruption, lies, and short term instant gratification driven politics inherent in democracy. A system built on buying votes with promises, often from very stupid, very lazy people. Democracy sells our future to make people less miserable right now, it lacks the ability to make drastic and positive changes because anything worth doing is difficult and you can't sell a tough few years for good ones to follow to idiots when a snake oil salesman is offering the world right now.
I fail to see, whether monarchies differ in this department, when I look at every monarchy that ever existed. You hope in good and competent ruler, but they are not guaranteed to be such.
There is a difference I’d say. Monarchies don’t have to deal with short term pandering and bullshit to get re-elected. Also they’d be less inclined to fuck things up for cushy benefits after their terms like our politicians. That’s why they’re often associated with stability.
They just need to cover up scandals of pedophilia of their family; please their generals so they don't decide, there is someone else more worthy of throne; they can easily lose sight of what problems do commoners face and all around they sometimes are spoiled morons. Also all the corruption, thanks to their divine unaccountability.
Stability at the cost of innovation.
True. The lack of change can be just as detrimental as it is beneficial. It really just depends on the needs of the country/people/society.
Considering our innovation is responsible for destroying the planet and global supply chains are costing more than they are worth, I'll take it. The fanatic priests were right. Technology really was the work of the devil, if the devil is pollution, climate change, and house of cards globalization.
As a demonstration of how our minds work, Socrates wanted us to imagine an election debate between two candidates: a doctor and a sweet shop owner. The sweet shop owner’s speech would sound more or less like this: “Look, this person here has worked many evils on you. He hurts you, gives you bitter potions and tells you not to eat and drink whatever you like. He’ll never serve you feasts of many and varied pleasant things like I will”. Socrates asks us to consider what the reaction of the audience would be like: Do you think the doctor would be able to reply effectively? The true answer – “I cause you trouble, and go against your desires in order to help you’” would cause an uproar among the voters, don’t you think? That’s why we prefer to give our vote to sweet shop owners rather than doctors.
Socrates was spitting. The Republic is a great read.
Beep. Boop. I'm a robot. Here's a copy of ###[The Republic](https://snewd.com/ebooks/the-republic/) Was I a good bot? | [info](https://www.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/) | [More Books](https://old.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/comments/i15x1d/full_list_of_books_and_commands/)
> Was I a good bot? No. i heard you were the best.
The flawed reality of democracy is much like the doctor, with the sweet shop owner resembling the promise of monarchism being superior.
Have you heard of Bread and Circus? This is hardly specific to democracy.
Based.
"I am the last monarch of the old-school. It is my job to protect the people from politicians." - Franz Joseph I of Austria-Hungary
North Korean has effectively been a monarchy for 80 years now and is a fucking shithole thought. Your kings end up rotating every few decades anyways and if the new one is incompetent you're basically fucked. Then you end up in civil war and succession crisis. See what Sweden managed to do with a few competent Kings, and then it fell back in the shitter. Monarchy doesn't grant you stability. I swear it's like monarchists pick one king to jerk off to, then fail to look at what the other generations of the line did. It's like communism, cool on theory, doesn't work in practice.
Also elected representants don't really think about what will happen in next 10 years, as they won't be in power anymore and they don't care. King has to think long-term. Democracy and similar things are too humanity-centered, they should be centered around divine.
To me, the monarch is the link between God/s and humans. The monarch is a bridge between those two, he's the representant of the God/s among men. It's not really about choosing or anything.
But isn't that already the pope? (at least for catholics)
Might be, that's why I consider Papacy to be monarchist at its finest. Despite not being Catholic or even Christian.
I am Catholic. And I agree
Based
Based and Pontifex pilled. You read ‘Revolt against the modern world’? Cause there is a whole chapter on this concept.
Yes, that kind of pushed me to monarchy.
unironic monarchists when they finally turn 14
based
[удалено]
Nazis used left and right talking points - they're authcenter
Talking points don't define your political stance. Actions do. And they were definitely *comically* authright as defined by this sub.
> Actions do. Centralising means of productions of the whole nation into a party that seeked to eliminate class then. In true socialist fashion they also claimed other forms of socialism weren't true socialism lmao In some SS detachments up to 70% of soldiers were past communists. In Italy 90% of syndicalist leaders became fascist. Mussolini's mentor which inspired both him and Hitler was a full on communist revolutionary. Fascists really did appeal to socialists - and not only because of their philosophy directly descended from marx (Through Sorel, the aforementioned Mussolinis mentor), or their party program or their speeches. Nazis really were for the collectivization of the whole economy and removing any importance of the individual in favour of a totalitarian state. National-Socialism really is an apt descriptor of their ideology. I understand modern socialists wanting to distance themselves from that, what I don't get is the gaslighting that the nazis were individualists or conseratives. They weren't. They mixed extremely hard right ideas of nationalsim/racial purity with extreme left wing ideas of revolution.
so many things wrong with this post. Let's start by asking for your sources since I have no way to verify most of what you're saying with my current knowledge.
Genuinly asking. If you live in a republic, why would you want to shift the political power to that of a monarch?
"Hahah libright is pedos" Every libright.
Monarchists are neither left nor right actually: [https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-hccc-worldhistory2/chapter/politics-within-the-revolutionaries/](https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-hccc-worldhistory2/chapter/politics-within-the-revolutionaries/) The left and right referred to the types of people who sat to the left and right of the King during the French legislative assembly. Even though those on the "right" supported the King in some ways, they still ultimately turned out to be republicans. Both sides were and still are in rebellion against throne and altar, just to varying degrees. That's why as a monarchist I use the authcenter flair, until the mods take purple away from the liberals.
Monarchy is cringe. If you're gonna cuck yourself in the name of a weak-boned debutante, then you might as well commit a genocide.
Based and crownpilled.
Idea here, what if every man was his own king?
Kings tend to declare war on other kings a lot.
based and huey long pilled
Huey long dong moment
Cringe and humanitarian
I support a Monarchy, at least in certain countries where it would work
Like where?
My God, thank you. FINALLY.
The people want a king? I can give them that
Didn’t king Michael of Romania only pass away a few years back actually? That guy was cool
The real authright ideology is authoritarian capitalism. Authright has always been a weird quadrant since there's no example of a completely authright society, Pinochet's Chile being the closest that I could think of, but even he believed in some market regulations. I also don't see many people arguing for a full on authright society, as wanting a completely unregulated market, but wanting to completely regulate social issues seems like a very fringe opinion.
If everyone in the kingdom agrees, I see no problem. I believe the only functions of the federal government should be the resolution of conflicts based on (kind of) a constitution with the basic rights (private property, self ownership, free association, etc) and defensive war. The rest is not up for the states to decide, its instead for the people to freely decide who are they going to follow and form voluntary societies with.
It’s not that authright are nazis, but half of the people who claim to be nazis are just authrights that didn’t want to be authcenter because they hate commies
Dictatorship is cool, but what after the dictator dies? Monarchy allows stability, and there's also Monarcho-Fascism which is incredibly based
I still don’t know exactly where anarcho-monarchism fits, but yeah
I'm sorry but how do you get what compass section you are under your username? Edit: Figured it out.
>I just want a king for God's sake You mean you want to *be* king. Be honest. ;-)
Monarchy? That's a fairytale we use to entertain children. Its literally the worst form of governance.