/siberia/ - Off-topic

Oh my fuck's sake just kill yourself already

Soyteens are raiding.

>>808325
Fact

>>809564
If you kill yourself the world will be clean

E-monarchist politics is one big massive headache and not worth delving into.
If you assembled the vast majority of these people, superficially it might seem like these people were in it for the design of monarchy, but you'd sooner find out these monarchists are themselves the biggest roadblocks to this design.
Group A: Christian Integralists
Contrary to popular opinion, there is deep disharmony with Christianity and monarchy–all the success of monarchy is not by any plan or design, but typically by accident.
The Christian integralists only want an enforcer / church lackey / denominational jewelry – that is where their interest begins and that is where their interest ends and in fact they will do everything to clip the wings and make sure to humiliate such kings before a Pope or Clergy because they have phantasms of Nero, Henry VIII, or Emp Peter I.
–Their interest is only propping up the whole cult surrounding Jesus as their actual true King, so in effect they're only really monarchists for Jesus and only work towards -that- design–Jesus.
Group B: Hoppeans
These are anarcho-capitalists–do I need to explain the problem with them?
Deep down, the problem with them is the same with constitutional monarchists–they're political pluralists and against any unitary mode of politics / corporatism (& monarchy is intrinsically this–yes, I know historically monarchies haven't cleanly been this way, but that is accidental–history is messy)… a lot of their talking points date back to Aristotle and those problems with monarchy TBH.
Group C: Windsorites
Effectively only want a ceremonial royalty with the full brunt of multi-party democracy and nothing different.
TL;DR:
If you gathered all these groups, they'd find something to quack about and deny monarchy one way or another and these people pretty much run the whole conversation to my dismay… this goes to show that no monarchy will ever be achieved by the planning, deliberation, and consent of monarchists themselves–that is impossible.
…
A brutal consideration is… even Communists make much better monarchists for Lenin or Stalin or Mao or Kim Jong Un than these monarchists make for this dying breed of Christian royalty.

Kill yourself

Jean Bodin
>Wherefore let us firmly set down and resolve there are but three forms of Commonweals, and no more, and those simple also, and without any confused mixture of the with another, albiet that the government be sometimes contrary to the state. As a Monarchy is contrary to a Democracy or popular estate; and yet nevertheless the sovereignty may be in one only prince, who may popularly govern his estate, as I have before said; and yet it shall not be for that a confusion of the popular estate with a Monarchy, which are states of themselves incompatible, but is well (as it were) combining of a Monarchy with a popular government, the most assured Monarchy that is
…
<As a Monarchy is contrary to a Democracy or popular estate; and yet nevertheless the sovereignty may be in one only prince, who may popularly govern his estate, as I have before said; and yet it shall not be for that a confusion of the popular estate with a Monarchy, which are states of themselves incompatible, but is well (as it were) combining of a Monarchy with a popular government, the most assured Monarchy that is

my bbc owns you royal niqqas

I viewed the latest Lavader video.
Watched his videos on Corporatism, on Monarchy and Fascism, on the Medieval kingship and his appeal to Aquinas (& I snickered about that), on the Iranian Revolution.
Every video I found something to disagree with Lavader about.
While I am somewhat satisfied with Lavader's latest video and his criticism of Alain de Benoist, yet I still see some of the old Lavader I take issues with.

#1.
I'm not sure if Lavader reads my comments, but I -try- to tell him that the basis of anti-nationalism on the right-wing is either found among religious integralists or right libertarians – the regionalists and pan-Europeans don't count for me, because I consider them to be subvariants of nationalist, the pan-European is a macro-nationalist, the regionalist is a micro-nationalist, and arbitrarily are derisive of nationalism – while the neofeudalists/ancaps who hate nationalism again hate it because they prefer confederacy… and the people who make pretense of empire and loyalty to a monarch and being like the HRE/Austro-Hungarian Empire are also advocating confederacy and not even empire like the Roman Empire – the advocacy of confederacy and political pluralism, as opposed to operating society as one body, as advocated in Plato's Republic or Hobbes Leviathan or Fascism – is simply a rehash of that Aristotelian sentiment that society should be a partnership of clans or a concord of hosts, except with the regions – and that is what Tocqueville appeals to by "Old Constitution of Europe", that is, when the depth of political discussion was primarily lead by knowledge of Aristotle in the early Middle Ages and informed by Christian integralism as the primary corporatism/unitary feeling, that of Corpus Christi.

#2.
The fundamental problem with Lavader is I can tell see the influence of De Jouvenel working in him and his preferences.
The problem with these French intellectuals like Charles Maurras, De Jouvenel, and Alain de Benoist is they all have the old bug of Tocquevillism – along with Hans Hermann Hoppe & the right libertarian ancaps advocating for "Europe of a Thousand Liechensteins" and political pluralism – all that in turn like I have re-iterated is another variation of the old bug of Aristotelianism in politics with regard to its opposition to both absolute monarchy and state corporatism.

#3.
Lavader contrives "monarchical centralization" & "revolutionary centralization"…
…I feel out of air how many times I have to explain this to other monarchists…
I know De Jouvenel writes of the Republic of Old – that doesn't move as one body – and the basis of all this, no matter how much we compare it to "revolutionary centralization" and "Jacobism" is nonetheless anti-monarchical at its root, and the same for the stigma around this word "centralization" – which dennotes in these speakers an aversion towards any unitary mode of politics (which monarchy inherently is by its nature).
…
The actual distinction between these words "monarchical centralization" & "revolutionary centralization" is simply "Absolute Monarchy" & "State Corporatism"… both of which Aristotle condemned–the only confusion when it comes to this is the stupid influence of the integralists because they want limited monarchy for another absolute monarchy and so people are confounded, but in either case you have the preeminence of a royal household and the preeminence of a political party, and like Plato says these are the same art whether you call it a royal estate or a one-party state, both are a unitary mode of politics and outlook.
…
Aristotle writes in Politics condemning State Corporatism on the same basis he has problems with monarchical rule… so I think it isn't very generous of monarchists like Lavader to be too harsh about "revolutionary centralization" or to quibble about "centralization" too much because the same could be said for monarchy and in fact they do for "Absolute Monarchy" and all these "monarchists" hate "absolute monarchy" because they are either mislead by the competing influence of right libertarians or integralists to which Shaw aptly says that the Pope is like a Whig in politics.

#4.
It's interesting that Lavader's stance is close to Giovanni Gentile's stance that the national identities are always a work in progress and evolving – for as much as Lavader condemns Fascism, he is so close to it, only that he hates the nationalism and unitary politics… –I think Lavader should toss off those greviances that all the other monarchists are fed about centralization and absolute monarchy because it contradicts the character of monarchy no matter how much they appeal to the unity of religion / integralism or how things were in the past due to accident.
Lavader brought up regionalism – which is just micro-nationalism – and asked about how states like Prussia and Bavaria have a claim – or how Prussia has a claim over Bavaria, and since Lavader brought up that violence encompasses this, I feel like he read my response to him when he posed that question – because like Bismarck suggests, blood and iron.
Jean Bodin makes this clear in distinguishing Lordly Monarchy.
>And that more is, the rule that wills that the law of arms should take no place where there be superiours to do justice… that where there is no superiour to command, their force is reputed just.
Which was the case after the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire – there were no superiors, so yes Prussia gained the preeminence as the primary kingpin of German identity by conquest.
Now he also poses that these identities are invalidated by a broader German identity, but they did have a German identity prior to this contrary to Lavader says. It's just like the twelve tribes of Israel, there are different tribes, but each tribe fell under the branch of being an Israelite. –Same for Bavaria and Prussia and overall Germany… the major contention is not this when it comes to Nationalism – I feel Lavader is not fundamentally even tackling Nationalism… the real grievance against Nationalism has always been the religious integralists, so while Lavader is looking from the perspective of the right libertarians of this dilemma… who long for a form of confederacy (mistakenly with monarchy, which they snear at "absolute monarchy" because they're not actually monarchists like Hoppe himself confessed, but simply want a partnership of clans with noble clans, not the preeminence of one royal estate which they scold as absolutism…).
–Nonetheless, I agree with him that national identity is something that grows and changes but develops and that resides with a cult of personality or as Lavader invokes with hesitation "social construct"… I largely agree with his sentiments there that the identity of a people changes with the rulers… the conflict seen between "monarchy centralization" and "revolutionary centralization" and nationalism overall is a weak contrivance and really a problem of Christianity TBH, nothing inherently opposed to monarchy itself IMHO – Christianity is inherently anti-nationalist and it can easily be anti-monarchy too if said monarch is not with the Christian integralists and monopoly of the Clergy… contrary to what most monarchists think and hope for.
…
The basis for "monarchical centralization" is like what Robert Filmer says, that the monarchy retains authority in the same way that a father of a family is said to retain the position of being pater familias even over the children after they grow old and move out of the father's estate – the absolute monarchist position is based on this unitary outlook and that the cities / political states were colonies of which grew out of the father's estate, as if they were simply rooms in the same original estate, that the city with all the sons leaving the original father's household were under the same authority, but instead of being buildings were rooms, even though they were apart – that is the case with sovereignty and tbh any group that seeks monarchical preeminence even the absurd degree that the ultramontanists claim to it with universal monarchy & Jesus, yes, so it is. –That brings up Aristotle's third man argument when Lavader dawdles on the dilemma of swapping authorities arbitrary – who is the unity? the father, the regional lord, the king, the emperor, the pope, jesus? –it can easily keep going up and up, like Aristotle says, and utterly destroy a state by being too unitary… as he wards against Plato, and I reluctantly agree with Lavader that this is a genuine criticism of Plato which ultimately has been rescued by forms consisting in themselves or ultimately as a last resort – God – to which all consist in, but even the perennielists confound this by whichever God and nullify even the religions… that is a conversation for another day and ultimately while there is a unitary politics that has been approached by different worldviews even apart from Plato and that has been made more severe with the advent of Christianity… –but different worldviews like with Hobbes or Fascism… both achieved a kind of monarchical preeminence…
…
But back to the question of Prussia and Bavaria, before they were centered on a broader identity and superior government of the Holy Roman Empire, but that was dissolved in the time of Napoleon – so like Bodin says, where there are no superiors, then another party will swallow it up… the Holy Roman Empire and political Catholicism needlessly confuses monarchists for the agenda of these Christian integralists… along with ancaps… again, like Shaw says, the Pope has become a Whig in politics… so have the agents of Catholicism… to my frustration obscuring a clear understanding of monarchy here and why ultimately it defers to absolute monarchy and a kind of unitary politics.

It annoys me that Lavader still kind of makes a pretense of Corporatism – in spite of all that is really at heart here… the whole basis of it rages at State Corporatism with De Jouvenel, Tocquevillism, and Aristotle – along with absolute monarchy it holds in contempt… it doesn't want political organization to be corporatist or even monarchical– until Lavader understands that and the problem there with monarchy, I have problems with him.

The world won't have peace until OP kills himself.

>>812929
In that case:

>>812922 grace poster, who do you think should be queen/king in real life?????? And what do u think about Kim Jong Un
>>812929 i will kill you with my bare hands in roblox
>>813045 me too

>>813071
>who do you think should be queen/king in real life?
The old royalty are a dying breed and cannot reproduce the dying brand of Christian monarchy.
New royalty, IMHO, will come from dictatorships / caesarism / bonapartism, whatever you call it, and any kind of state corporatism (fascism, hitlerist, socialist, militarist coup). Those are the future monarchies and while they lack the conventional stamp of religion that makes conservatives embrace it – make up for it with political ideology – and because these times are like Bodin and Hobbes says, the name of King is despised – so instead new Kings will have to be called anything but a King and something different and new Kings will have to wear anything but a Crown – because a Crown has become an instrument against Monarchy rather than an instrument for Monarchy – a burden, not in any way that makes Monarchy, but inhibits it from any potential, a burden that is like adding a big bullseye to your head, a burden that only makes more enemies, a burden that makes people think less of you rather than more of you – worst, nobody believes in it, so it is better to pry away from the monopoly of the clergy on this institution and embrace Leviathan. Moving beyond Christianity at this point is becoming increasingly necessary for their survivial not only because of the unbelief of the people themselves but also because Christians themselves are becoming increasingly Neronian / persecution complex, 2nd society, cult-like agitators, and hostitle to any other gentile Kings themselves apart from Jesus.

>what do u think about Kim Jong Un
I view Kims – like other hereditary dictatorships / corporatist regimes with dynasties – with the hope they'll become the new modern royalty. State Corporatism demands a unitary form of State modeled after "one person" and that inevitably lends itself to the actual rule and preservation of one person – and it comes packed with autonomy that warrants its own absolutism and its own arbiter. Unlike Lavader, I don't contrast "monarchical centralization" and "revolutionary centralization" – we're simply looking at the gulf between old monarchies and new monarchies, the state corporatism itself is not an enemy of monarchy inherently – but an enemy of Christianity & only inconveniences Christian kings – the unitary mode of politics of state corporatism complements monarchy rather than inherently opposes it and that is why dictators of any corporatist regime gradually become monarchical and any means to preserve the monarchical form means potentially a dynasty, so this almost naturally lends itself to the creation of new monarchies – which is warranted.
So regimes like the Kim dynasty, Duvalier dynasty, Assad dynasty, Pahlavi dynasty, Lopez dynasty in Paraguay, Berdimuhamedow dynasty, & etc – contrary to what other monarchists say that there aren't conventional monarchies but "hereditary dictatorships" – they only say that because it lacks the monopoly of the Christian clergy, these are monarchists who cannot think outside the box of their standard convention and dying breed of royalty, and at the end of the day like I said the integralists are truly only looking out for one king – Jesus – and no other king's kingdom. These regimes might not have the same appearance and staple of religion they are used to seeing in the long dead anachronistic expectation they have (because TBH even conventional Christian royalty today don't have Christian coronations anymore and already are in a halfway Limbo point between the old and new) – this is for the better. It really has become an over-glorified baggage with some malice in their word "duty" because they have transformed it into an anti-monarchy monarchy with the current institution of "constitutional monarchy" – so-called "constitutional monarchy" cannot be the new monarchies, but they're a denial of the further advent of Christian monarchies – again, the new monarchies are found in Caesarism, Bonapartism, State Corporatism, hereditary dictatorships – those are your truly modern monarchies, not the anglocentric Victorian breed of "constitutional monarchy".

>who do you think should be queen/king in real life?
I'd say that the legitimatist monarchists – contrary to their own pretense – are going against even the pretense of the nature of things, because very rarely or no dynasties come back after 100+ years. The legitimatist integralist monarchists have a fatal combination of supporting the easy overthrow of royal dynasties with no resistance and great disbelief (at any small offense) but being incredibly stubborn about the restoration and preservation of royalty dynasties – because they see them no better than as their enforcers and denominational jewelry and their royalism is a fashion statement and only support royalty after they're dead (because of their ineptitude) – this is extremely useless and trivial – the only practical window of opportunity for a dynasty restoration is typically within the span of 45 or a few more years (if they're lucky) from the precedent I know, not hundreds of years. At that point no matter how just or unjust they feel the dynasty was overthrown, it is time to move on and consider new blood. These conventional monarchists make the worst monarchists and only proper monarchists for Jesus at best. That is the ultimate problem I have with them. Everywhere the Christian integralists have fought, they have been ruthlessly crushed and would have been crushed in Spain if not for ᴉuᴉlossnW's & Hitler's assistance & ᴉuᴉlossnW / Hitler represent where the trend of rightwing politics is headed, like I said, with Caesarism/Bonapartism/State Corporatism.

>who do you think should be queen/king in real life?
Like Louis XIV says, whoever has the courage to establish a new dynasty and is fortunate and capable of making it stick to the wall. The North Koreans have had success compared to others I think because of the wars and they quickly cemented it in their ideology Juche about the importance of the Leaders and because Koreans are customarily used to this due to centuries of Confucianism and their own culture. –Westerners are a harder shell to crack because Christianity & the Classics aren't as harmonious a foundation with monarchical rule contrary to how traditionalist monarchists feel – for every Bible verse that seems to praise kings, there are ten other Bible verses than condemn kings and what has ultimately made me sign off that Christianity is more onerous to the whole idea is the verses in Genesis with Abraham and the Pharaoh and Isaiah about kings licking the dust off feet and, yes, in Samuel about the warnings against a king – compared with the history of uneasy feelings with Pharaoh, Nero, Henry VIII, & Enlightenment tier monarchs like Joseph II or Peter I… makes Christians view monarchies mostly like a Babylonian Captivity – they're more appropriate to be anarchists than monarchists at this point with their 2nd society antics – unless you play into their integralism to absurd degrees that only goes to alienate everyone else but the most hardcore, fringe Christians nowadays… and for the Classics, well, Hobbes talks about the inconvenience of the Greeks and Romans well enough and especially with Aristotle in particular when it comes to monarchy.
–So for countries without an established royalty, I think it goes to whoever is capable and fortunate enough to establish a dynasty.
As Bodin says,
>And that more is, the rule that wills that the law of arms should take no place where there be superiours to do justice… that where there is no superiour to command, their force is reputed just.
& while that might not be a necessary component for its preservation – it is a crucial part of its initiation, because any corporatist aim relies upon some degree of an arbiter and all the dictators and even traditionalist regimes push away the other political parties in order to attain a greater unity.
So I don't really have any pretense for pretenders at this point – I think the more pretenders, the more ineffective and divided it is, (again, monarchists make the worst monarchists actually, them and their habit of playing between pretenders like political parties and dividing themselves only weakens them more and they're already in a pretty weak position to begin with and the expectations they have for noble houses along with this game contradict monarchy itself – they're useless).
So that is my position – I'm for any new blood. I think new trees need to be planted.

A big incentive that has personally driven me to kicking off Christianity & rejecting for its disharmony with monarchy has been my bad experience with Christian integralists and monarchy.
They claim to be monarchy's best friend & for its interests all the way, but everytime I interact with them – these tradcath integralists work to counteract it and break the fundamental design of monarchy.
I cannot sum this situation up better than what George Bernard Shaw says.
…
>"In politics–the Pope is always a Whig, because every earthly monarch's court is a rival to the Vatican."

• George Bernard Shaw
  

…
It honestly is like this.
The worst manifestation of this is that it's no coincidence that these Tradcath Christian integralists form the most annoying tag-team imaginable with Right Libertarian Austrian School / Ancapy / Hoppean people – they both share similar interests, both want to to severely limit and humiliate political states and hate our corporatist / unitary agenda, except the Papist hates it for his own corporatist / unitary agenda – but as two agents of 2nd society and imperium in imperio, the ancap and tradcath Christian make natural allies because both benefit from private society and partiality against the political states they reside in.
This little alliance is the most annoying partnership to deal with as an absolute monarchist because ultimately it shows how much they work to undermine monarchy no matter the pretense of religion.
…
I was really tired of playing games with integralists, but the straw that broke the camel's back is reading the passages in Isaiah all about humiliating kings (which integralists now see as the church). Or looking into Genesis where Abraham gives Sarah to Pharaoh and confides a false loyalty. –That is when I ultimately threw up my hands and said that Christian monarchy is a big mistake and the problems that keep coming up are due to problems with Christianity itself.
…
It's obvious to me why right libertarianism and the integralists come together in their agenda – both want limited states / mixed constitutions for their own separate reasons, and both value 2nd society / private society when it comes to politics.
If I could count the number of times I've been rivaled by this combination of interests working in tandem– I'd be rich.
They attack us under the banner of "neofeudalism" and "traditional monarchy"… and under these names, they actually mean to diminish monarchy contrary to the pretense. –These integralists are permanently resentful whether they contrive a Henry VIII, Pharaoh, Nero, or Julian the Apostate and that resentment is mutual.
I have seen the popularity of the term "neofeudalist" among them which just means they want a strong nobility and a strong clergy to severely limit monarchy and flatten it like a pancake and embrace their own political pluralism (because the goal of integralists is to reduce the strength of courts to ensure the strength of the church – and the goal of ancaps is decentralization at the expense of monarchy – these two groups conjoin to co-op and ruin monarchy).
I hate dealing with these Integralists and I hate dealing with these Hoppeans, but sadly they run the show and every other monarchist revolves around these groups (to my great dismay).

The state of monarchist discussion is a really sorry state – these Integralists have overshadowed and pushed the discussion of monarchy out of the way to make room for only shilling their Church affiliation.
–And no, that in turn is not making room for monarchies… these Integralists are (despite the appearance of sympathy) harbor a deeply bitter attitude towards absolutist monarchies and those honestly feelings are mutual.
There's no point discussing who wronged who first–only pointing out the inconvenience of this situation that despite the appearances of things going forward these integralists are not really always looking out for the interests of monarchies (despite their claim to be) – sure, they'll even say they aren't because of the rule of law or common good… albeit while going out of their way to sap the discussion in crucial areas.
…
This video rails about Bourbon monarchies courting the revolution by wanting to get rid of Jesuits due to interference in politics… coaxed by revolutionaries… to get more power.
>"In politics–the Pope is always a Whig, because every earthly monarch's court is a rival to the Vatican."

• George Bernard Shaw
  

This quote of Shaw's is so true – whenever I see these Catholic integralists courting right libertarians like Hoppeans or De Jouvenel or making a bunch of mixed constitutionalist pretenses for limited & mixed monarchy – they're no better, but as Shaw says, rather become Whigs in politics. –That is also the case with traditionalism upholding that pretense with Spain against absolutism and strongly advocating decentralization/limited monarchy, because they are more of a strong clericalist party tbh.
This has made the whole discussion around monarchy a confounded mess because of these trivalities and rivalries – and the major parties making a pretense of supporting monarchy become its own worst enemies and rivals.
The Tsar of Russia failed and was "punished" for being the kind of monarch these integralists want. It only shows how thankless a job it is courting these people.

what causes one dynasty to become decadent, incompetent, buffoonish, and lose their grip on power? while others manage to keep the family business running smoothly?
for example. the kim's of people's korea so far have manged to succesfully transition between generations.

>>813125
>for example. the kim's of people's korea so far have manged to successfully transition between generations
For starters, I would say many dictatorships appear illegitimate because they are followed by usurpation which often leads to more usurpation like a succession of knives in the back. It leaves a very ugly mark like a mark of Cain and gives people certain ideas. –So many dictatorships that come from usurpation or civil war struggle.
The case is that many dynasties don't stick or dictators – I would say that it isn't always even entirely their personal virtue or competence but simply the case that many are thrown at the wall and don't stick and some have managed to stick around and establish a foothold.
Whereas the Kims have the benefit of simply combating a foreign invasion (Japan or US). –The appearance of a foreign enemy is a VERY convenient prompt to unify under one commander and the Kims wisely took that opportunity to set down and establish the ideological tenet of the Leaders in the foundation of their country and party ideology so there would be no confusion "ifs" or "what ifs" going forward–Communism also helped because Leninism and the idea of democratic centralism also works against factionalism.
Koreans also benefit from a long heritage of having dynasties – so it isn't met with proactive resistance.
Numerous times the fear of an enemy comes in handy whereas the lack of a fear of an enemy leads to internal turmoil and in-fighting – and North Korea is a state in which there is very strong fear of an enemy and so the appeal to an arbiter comes with ease, just as the Romans would appeal to a dictator whenever any domestic or foreign threat compelled them to.
Sometimes you could be the most competent, brightest ruler and lose your grip on power, sometimes you can be incompetent, decadent, a buffoon and carry on well enough–depending on how fortunate these circumstances come and go.
That is what I would say so far as the justification process is concerned – foreign enemy as an external threat and Communism dealt with the internal threats and factionalism.
Fear of an enemy meant an easy recourse to an arbiter needed to establish greater unity behind a leadership and they were equipped with the Juche ideology which inherently propped up the Leaders and gave them a central place. –No unitary formation like this can happen without recourse to the Sword as well. Lending the utiltiy of the Sword and the Crosier that are definitely in want for monarchical rule.
I would add on top of it the prudence of the Leaders looking after their successors of their blood, but also pruning the milk duds (as you see with Kim Jong Il and his succession). Which is a very tricky predicament but the importance is the arbitration stayed with the Leader and inherently that keeps the unity of command. Yes, naturally, the recourse to proximity and blood is a safeguard in the case of preserving that cult of personality – but I think in that case with Kim Jong Il favoring Kim Jong Un ultimately worked out well and is a rare instance of that being successful.
Nothing really lasts forever and all dynasties come to an end – and politics can make victims of even very competent men. For Christian royalty and their downfall, it's simply the case that Christianity itself lost steam and the inconveniences of its factionalism. Like I was saying earlier, ruling empires is like holding a wolf by the ears – you could be overthrown not because of your competence but simply because of any factionalism or the opportunity was ripe or harm caused a revolt.

IDK I have to agree with Hobbes that the earlier the preeminence and sovereignty of a monarch is established without disputation and a cult of personality becomes a kind of civic religion, the better it is.
Have a strong & early precedent for monarchical authority.
Because I have read and seen how Whiggish agents have abused the pretense of precedent really hard against monarchy in those days in England.
Of course, they'll always find any pretense no matter how resolute and firm it has been set down later on… but laying it down early on is important to try and combat this. –Yet I'll admit the greatest defense of a monarch is not how firm the ideology is, but warding off these contenders and keeping fear of someone else at hand. Aristotle says a tyrant is fond of war for that reason – it keeps people drawn to his unity of command and Hobbes is also vindicated to appraise that fear of internal and domestic enemies.

>>813083
Are you larping or do you believe all this? If so, how is it beneficial for your wellbeing to live under a totalitarian dictatorship, taking into account that you're not royalty in this scenario? For all you know your posts could be outlawed in this dictatorship and it ain't nothing you can do about it.

pls don't answer with an essay

>>813187
>Are you larping or do you believe all this?
>If so, how is it beneficial for your wellbeing to live under a totalitarian dictatorship, taking into account that you're not royalty in this scenario?
I'm not larping.
The same question could be chucked back at most of leftypol, you know.
It could be chucked back at most of /pol/ as well.
Could honestly be chucked at so many people "Are you really serious about this?" – & I agree, for many, there are many reasons to prefer the status quo, as it affords stability, protection, liberality or freedom. I don't underestimate that. If most of us were really serious, we would be revolting and people underestimate that. I don't.
People can bitch and complain about the way things are, but yes, you're right–overall there are many comforts and nevertheless the people who say they would throw their life away to upend it – don't, like everybody else.

>If so, how is it beneficial for your wellbeing to live under a totalitarian dictatorship
What I'm saying is more of a projection of how I think monarchies will be.
The corporatist ideologies are the only people bringing the impetuous for this to come about.
It sounds ludicrous the way you say it, but nevertheless there have been many people have embraced that. It sounds strange to people to want this–who don't see the appeal of any unitary politics, right? why would anyone want that? It really is an acquired taste that is hard to explain.
I lay out many different scenarios why people would want this–I think Plato when he talks about a community of pleasures and pains is very seductive appeal–one side of the city is celebrating, the other side of the city is lamenting–think of multi-party politics, one side of the country is celebrating, the other side is lamenting, is that not bothersome to you? –Or, to be a little /pol/, the inevitable conflict with identity politics and race, George Floyd – one side of the community is lamenting, the other side is celebrating.
Many constitutional monarchists say they want a monarch for a symbol of unity for that exact reason, but that doesn't stamp out the causes…

>For all you know your posts could be outlawed in this dictatorship and it ain't nothing you can do about it.

>For all you know your posts could be outlawed in this dictatorship and it ain't nothing you can do about it.
The jannies here could do the same and so I am at their mercy, but I'm suave enough to know to bribe the jannies and make leftypol want me here.

I honestly think the same for Traditionalists, lmao, the way you look at me as peculiar – obviously, many of these people enjoy the fruits of Liberalism in spite of how much they ramble about wanting to return to a Christian fundamentalist theocracy–they love their anime, they love their freedoms/libertarianism, they love p0rn and big anime tiddies, much like Haz says, "you have an anime pfp!"
…
Earlier I brought up Plato, but honestly I really have to say Hobbes sums up my feelings better for how monarchy is involved. The Hobbesian war of all against all is really akin to what Plato is lamenting. Hobbes also gives deference to an arbiter – in this case, a sovereign monarch – to establish an equalibrium and peace and put "mine" and "thine" in harmony, and much of that is what I see in monarchy.
I look at political parties and Christian denominations as a relentless battle of "mine" and "thine" and I think partisan lines are a stupid reason to hate a leader – many people will say that a dictatorship is bad because "but what if the opposite party you belong to is in charge? – you don't want precedent for that, right?" – my contention is I want to do away with all of that, no more fussing about what party you belong to, unity behind an monarch, we are family irrespective of this fuss… Like most conservative tendencies, I admire that a family sticks together irrespective of the opinions of family members, and that is what I hope to see in monarchy, a kind of big tent party that brings all people into its fold.

A personal anecdote of mine is as a child I felt sympathetic to conservative politics in a leftwing household and leftwing area–and I also hid my beliefs–but I blamed that on party politics and the multi-party system for why I felt at odds with my family and divided.
On a micro-level, multi-party politics was destroying the community of pleasures and pains there, and on another level with cities, and another level with the country.
–I didn't like that many people simply liked or disliked leaders for party politics and I took note only leaders could look between the aisles and arbitrate.
So an appeal to the familialism – a bond that cannot be broken by party beliefs, but stays resolute by bonds of blood – always appealed to me with royalism and that is why I strongly oppose the advocates of regicide (who want regicide because muh faction) – the whole appeal to royalism for me is having a blood bond like that beyond the factions and the country being like a large family, and that is why I value this, because I want people to be kindred and not mutual enemies.
On a personal level, that is why this appeals to me, and I always joke that with leftists… the reason you don't see the appeal is because leftists have the cow's milk already, they have their own state corporatism with a one-party state, much like a monarchy, we're not really very different in that respect, and they see the same problem with private property "mine" vs "thine" and class conflict–the only difference is our solution is different, and I appeal to a cult of personality / familialism to bring "mine" and "thine" into harmony.

uygha end your life

>>813259 y r u being mean to Grace poster

>>813244 That's a very interesting point. Liberal democracies probably aren't any better than monarchies on average… However, I don't think this is an argument in favor of monarchies, but against liberal democracies. I think that a socialist monarchy would be less likely to be a good system to live under than a democratic socialist government, by virtue of people theoretically being able to voot in their best interest.

And have you ever thought about becoming a youtuber or some kind of influencer? You seem to have the gift of yapping and you seem to be knowledgeable.

>>813258 Wait, u'r not a leftist? I thought you were the socialist kind of monarchist. Do you believe in market economies?

>>813263
>Wait, u'r not a leftist? I thought you were the socialist kind of monarchist. Do you believe in market economies?
I have always been a little bit sort of a le centrist meme / pragmatist of "just do what works" and that's partially why I favor monarchy – a monarch, like I said, can possibly do just that without inhibitions by a party, contrary to most other monarchists that value that kind of rigidity – I value an arbiter and unity of command for that exact reason.

>by virtue of people theoretically being able to voot in their best interest.
You say voting in their best interest – but all this leads to is factionalism and many leftists agree with Leninism – democratic centralism is just their solution to that, mine is like Hobbes – appeal to an arbiter / unity of command / monarch.
All voting does is bring back "mine" and "thine" as a quarrel and prompts people to fight each other – this is why I want to nullify this with a monarch / cult of personality. I see that voting brings more problems in this respect, and it's the same with private property and socialists – private property brings disputes of "mine" and "thine" – I just think the same with persons, I want to abolish the disputations of persons by consolidating them all into the unity of one person (a monarch).
This is why I personally don't vote – I think voting is the pandora's box.

Tbh, I have always sort of been a Machiavellian sympathizer and always liked that in Third Worldist politics and their appeal to dictators (blegh, before Duginism). –What benefit does it really bring to tie myself down to a position like that? the world is a much more dynamic place and all this does is make enemies.
The #1 rule of that Machiavellian politics is just say what people want to hear and nobody knows who you really are.
Now that might be hard to believe that monarchies take a more neutral stance, but many dictators have blended and hybridized left-right politics, like the Third Positionists and other Caudillos and examples of big tent parties.

>>813263
>And have you ever thought about becoming a youtuber or some kind of influencer?
TBH, my views are not popular – I actual do take stances when it comes to monarchy, and sadly the rest of the monarchist community doesn't like my stances.
I always whine about the inconvenience that integralists or the right libertarian to monarchist pipeline has brought me.
Also, I just don't have the personality and appeal, because I'm kind of an autist. I said this before, but I sound like a retarded Canadian.

I'd never have the popularity like Lavader does as a youtuber or influencer, lol, because I feel like his positions appeal directly to a lot of normalfag monarchists (*cough* constitutional monarchists) – perfect blend of being sort of right libertarian adjacent there and appeasing to conservatives in a way.

The libertarian tendencies are so bad around monarchist circles…that is probably why I come off as a socialist is I'm constantly rivaled by right libertarians with what they have to say about absolute monarchy alongside the integralists…
Absolute monarchy is offensive to the right libertarians because it is a unitary politics and – yes – that inherently is a view that as Bodin says, the estates are limited by the sovereign.
Economically, that expressed itself through mercantilism or in Fascism its own kind of corporatist politics, but this wouldn't satisfy a socialist obviously – and honestly I'm not so strident about market economics to oppose socialism as long as it complements my priorities.

Like I said before, though, voting just feels useless anyways.
Earlier I brought this up.

representative multi-party democracy
>individual vote doesn't really matter
>collective vote is siphoned off by other party blocks, making the collective altogether dissolved
>voting does more harm than benefit and the issues are trivial anyway

collective democratic centralism
>is effectively corporatist wannabe monarchy for the left tbh, but lacking Christian integralism
>why would you want monarchy? –corporatist collectivism effectively already has the cow's milk (monarchy being the cow) for all monarchy has.
>but elected leaders leads to factionalism on the top–better to have a hereditary dynasty like North Korea does
>corporatism itself is a huge concession to monarchy in its ideal: the best system is to "act like one man".

The topics that are brought up to vote upon… feel like the same old, recycled food scraps – and is it really worth dividing a country into factions to fight over food scraps?

>However, I don't think this is an argument in favor of monarchies, but against liberal democracies.
That's because like I said, socialists already have the cow's milk – they don't think they see the need for monarchy because they have their democratic centralism, which is just corporatism, which is just the monarchy of the party to "act like one man" – & tbh, like I said, what appeal is there to the withered Christian royalty apart from that for the youth today? nobody likes Christian fundamentalism and hardly anyone does, not even conservatives really, not even a few traditionalists who think they do but don't, except a few fringe traditionalists.
…
Monarchy… in spite of that… is an acquired taste, like I said, but people voting in their best interest doesn't appeal to me for that reason – now that doesn't mean I'm opposed to any consensus to look into the general feeling people have… but I think the people are much stronger when they chant with a singer, because like I say a mass of people is like an amorphous blob and always conflicting with each other – a singer brings a mass of people into harmony, and chants back them and allows them to chant back – this is what truly allows for communication and for people as a whole to cohere together and have any general affection.

Cows don't see the appeal of milk… because they already have plenty of milk.
You can't sell milk to cows.
Leftists don't see the appeal to monarchy… because "we have corporatism at home"… at least for some of you.
& honestly because the conventional use of "monarchy" has the baggage of many things that leftists don't like in loose association… so that obscures the vision…

This shit has nkthing to do with drugs or alchohol

Theyre idiots

>>813264
>I have always been a little bit sort of a le centrist meme / pragmatist of "just do what works"

Here's the thing, though: market economies very rarely work for the most critical things – such as housing, healthcare, and education – anything for which the demand is inelastic. Example: virtually every country in the world where housing is mostly considered a commodity is facing a housing crisis at the moment. Houses end up being used for speculation, not for living. And when healthcare is treated as a commodity everything is dramatically more expensive, due to the fact that people are willing to pay everything they have in order to stay alive (inelastic demand).

In other words, market economies (especially unregulated ones) are overwhelmingly inadvisable.

>>813277
>TBH, my views are not popular

Well, you don't need to talk exclusively about monarchies. You can talk abt anything u'r interested in, like philosophy and such.

>I just don't have the personality and appeal, because I'm kind of an autist

Tons of ppl are autistic and want another autistic person info dumping autistic things in their ears while they play cities skylines or whatever on their second monitor. These autistic infodumping channels do crazy numbers

>>813408
>In other words, market economies (especially unregulated ones) are overwhelmingly inadvisable.
I'm not a muh free market sperg, if that's what you think.
–When I said I was conservative, I mean more of a "I like patriotism" ordeal or very moderately in a social way.
If a monarchy has a market economy or isn't socialist, I'm not inclined to destroy said monarchy – that is not my priority. –Monarchy is my priority, simply said.

>Well, you don't need to talk exclusively about monarchies. You can talk abt anything u'r interested in, like philosophy and such.
When I am not talking about politics, I am talking about OCs or vidya or just everyday stuff, tbh.

I agree with a few other rightwingers (& this isn't universally agreed upon, but…) – I have a pessimistic outlook and pretty much agree with realpolitik that what the Empire of Japan or the State of Israel or what the USA does in terms of war crimes is actually the law of nations – to colonize, murder or genocide, rape and pillage, that is normal, and regular people although they might not consciously agree or even protest it, nonetheless accept the fruits of this.
Leftists come off to me as painfully naive in believing in universal brotherhood / friendship. These are the rightwing tendencies I have.

What did you get for >>815195 ?

Kill yourself

>>815591
Cozy Glow, but I was close to being Sombra.

Stop feeding us your monarcho-fascist propaganda because hierarchy is reactionary