/fascist/ - Surf the Kali Yuga

Fascist and Third Position Discussion

Winner of the JulayWorld Attention-Hungry Games™, Week 5

/retro/ - 1990s ans[sic] 2000s nostalgia

Nominations for week 6 coming soon.


Report your front-end woes 2: Electric Boogaloo

What is the Imageboard Federation?

JulayWorld onion service: bhlnasxdkbaoxf4gtpbhavref7l2j3bwooes77hqcacxztkindztzrad.onion

Max message length: 32768

Drag files to upload or
click here to select them

Maximum 5 files / Maximum size: 20.00 MB

More

(used to delete files and postings)


Open file (73.17 KB 400x518 hitler clay statue.jpg)
Blackshirt 02/10/2020 (Mon) 19:32:52 ID: 9de469 No.4544
What is the /fascist/ conception of ideal leadership? What would you advocate for in your country? I've noticed that this board tends to have significant leanings toward classical antiquity and have seen posters advocating here and there for some sort of monarchy, which can be surprising at first. >is the leader dependent on the consent of the people? >how is the leader chosen? >how is his successor chosen? >are there limits to his powers >can he be removed from office?
Open file (76.02 KB 766x507 ClipboardImage.png)
Personally I advocate for ideals similar to the philosopher king. The ideal ruler of a people in my mind is a natural born leader combining the qualities of martial and administrative prowess and a high level of spiritual attainment. He is like a father to the nation, forwarding their interests, serving as an example for all and simultaneously willing to extirpate all degeneracy and subversion from his midst like weeds from a garden. The ruler of a nation must be held to the highest standards. If the rulers are corrupt, so will be the people. The only claim to legitimacy is ruling in adherence with the Natural Order, the source of all legitimate authority. I do not think hereditary monarchy is the solution, instead the very best must be located through some sort of extremely complex process and given the way forward providing that he has the innate abilities to do so. Personally, I am interested in the system of Iran for providing a potential model. This system is slightly complex so I won't summarize it here and lengthen my post any further, but basically the Supreme Leader - who is Commander and Chief, can declare war and peace, appoint military commanders, dismiss the duly elected president, etc - is elected by an Assembly of Experts made up of Ayatollahs which are elected by the public and can also be removed by it in theory. I like the idea of a subordinated president in a system with a Supreme Leader, with the President serving at the Supreme Leader's pleasure. This ensures a degree of stability within the system with the Supreme Leader, and some democratic ideals. In many ways this reminds me of Breivik's concept put forth in 2083 of the Guardian Council. My conception of it would of course differ greatly from Iran's since I have much more stringent ideals for leadership than mere proficiency in religious dogma. Likewise I am skeptical of any democracy whatsoever.
Open file (2.22 MB 3419x3096 Grace recites.png)
>What is the /fascist/ conception of ideal leadership? /monarchy/ anon here (not a /fascist/ anon, but sometimes I visit). A royal monarchy would be my ideal. An ideal leadership is a royal monarch. By royal, he is of the household. And by royal monarchy, one individual ruler with the willpower to make a nation like a great household (despotate). Ideally, I want a kind of Sun King, tbh. Monarchy comes first. Aristocracy or democracy will be subordinate. >have seen posters advocating here and there for some sort of monarchy, which can be surprising at first. What I've noticed is a leniency towards aristocracy (rule of few/the elite) besides Mexican poster. Imo, I think Natsocs undervalue royalism (kingship w/ household structure), but they do place emphasis on a leader (or kind of popular monarch). That goes with the 'Great Man Theory' . >is the leader dependent on the consent of the people? No. >how is the leader chosen? Not chosen. The previous monarch might choose the successor. >how is his successor chosen? Hereditary/dynastic line. Based on how the monarch appoints since monarchs naturally want to choose their own. The monarch has the ability to appoint the successor and a backup regent. If the monarch is dead, the queen consort will help. >are there limits to his powers No, it will be an absolute monarchy. >can he be removed from office? No.
Open file (304.61 KB 1280x1809 EAkms-HUYAE2QsY.jpg)
>>4544 >and have seen posters advocating here and there for some sort of monarchy, which can be surprising at first. Here is Mussolini on the subject in 'The Doctrine of Fascism'. >”After Socialism, Fascism combats the whole complex system of democratic ideology, and repudiates it, whether in its theoretical premises or in its practical application. Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society; it denies that numbers alone can govern by means of a periodical consultation, and it affirms that immutable, beneficial, and fruitful inequality of mankind, which can never be permanently leveled through the mere operation of a mechanical process such as universal suffrage. >"The Democratic regime may be defined as from time to time giving the people the illusion of sovereignty, while the real, effective sovereignty lies in the hands of the other, concealed and irresponsible forces. Democracy is a regime nominally without a king, but it is ruled by many kings, more absolute, tyrannical, and ruinous than one sole king, even though a tyrant." >"this explains why Fascism, having first in 1922 (for reasons of expediency) assumed an attitude tending towards republicanism, renounced this point of view before the March to Rome, being convinced that the question of political form is not to-day of prime importance; and, after having studied examples of monarchies and republics past and present, reached the conclusion that monarchism and republicanism are not to be judged, as it were, by an absolute standard, but that they represent forms in which the evolution--political, historical, traditional, or psychological--of a particular country has expressed itself." >"Fascism supersedes the antithesis, monarchism of republicanism, while democracy still tarries beneath the domination of this idea, forever pointing out the insufficiency of the first and forever praising the second as the perfect regime. To-day, it can be seen that there are republics innately reactionary and absolutist, and also monarchies that incorporate the most ardent social and political hopes of the future."
Open file (93.43 KB 612x459 sdxhfdhr.jpg)
>>4556 >“'Reason and science,' says Renan (one of the inspired pre-Fascists) in his philosophical meditations, 'are products of humanity, but to expect reason as a direct product of the people and a direct result of their action is to deceive ones' self by a chimera. It is not necessary for the existence of reason that everybody should understand it. And, in any case, if such a decimation of truth were necessary, it could not be achieved in a low-class democracy, which seems as though it must of its very nature extinguish any kind of noble training. The principle that society exists solely through the well-being and the personal liberty of all the individuals which it is composed does not appear to be the conformable to the plans of nature, in whose workings the race alone seems to be taken into consideration, and the individual sacrificed to it. It is greatly to be feared tht the last stage of such a conception of democracy (though I must hasten to point out that the term “democracy” may be interpreted in various ways) would end in a condition of society in which a degenerate herd would have no other preoccupation but the satisfaction of the lowest desires of common men.” >”Thus Renan. Fascism denies, in democracy, the absurd conventional untruth of political equality dressed out in the garb of collective irresponsibility, and the myth of 'happiness' and indefinite progress. But, if democracy may be conceived in diverse forms,--that is to say, taking democracy to mean a state of society in which the populace are not reduced to impotence in the state,--Fascism may write itself down as 'an organized, centralized, and authoritative democracy.” >”But the Fascist negation of Socialism, Democracy and Liberalism must not be taken to mean that Fascism desires to lead the world back to the state of affairs before 1789, the date which seems to be indicated as the opening years of the succeeding semi-Liberal century. We do not desire to turn back; Fascism has not chosen De Maistre for its high priest. Absolute monarchy has been and can never return, any more than blind acceptance of ecclesiastical authority.” >”So too the privileges of the feudal system 'have been,' and the division of society into castes impenetrable from outside, and with no intercommunication among them; the Fascist conception of authority has nothing to do with such a polity. A party that entirely governs a nation is a fact new to history; there are no possible references or parallels. Fascism uses in its construction whatever elements in the Liberal, Socialist, or Democratic doctrines still have a living value; it maintains what may be called the certainties that we owe to history, but it rejects all the rest—that is to say, the conception that there can be any doctrine of unquestioned efficacy for all times and all peoples.”
PDF here.
Open file (9.94 MB 480x360 king louis xiv.mp4)
>>4555 This is what I want. NEC PLURIBUS IMPAR
>>4555 If he is not chosen and his leadership is not dependent on the people's consent, does the ruler put his power over his people, race, and country? webm unrelated
>>4555 >Monarchy comes first. Aristocracy or democracy will be subordinate. Like you mention later in your post many anons here favor a sort of “popular” monarchy, but why do you favor it staying within a single royal house as opposed to being conferred on the best? That’s why I’m in support of aristocracy in the original sense of the term, i.e. the rule of the excellent. Of course if I had to choose between the democratic clownworld of today and the type of absolute monarchy that you are advocating for here, I’d choose the absolute monarch, but I’ve just always felt that the power staying within one family doesn’t necessarily ensure the highest quality of leadership. You’ve smartly sidestepped the issue of it falling onto a potentially extremely incompetent successor by saying that the monarch may choose his successor rather than it automatically conferring on the oldest son at least – I’m sure you guys have to hear about Charles II of Spain far too much. Personally I’ve always been partial towards stuff like the Roman Empire. The ideal ruler would someone like Marcus Aurelius. I guess I’m more of a monarchist than I think in some ways. What I don’t understand is the fixation on a certain family. I agree it can serve as a bedrock of stability and tradition in some cases – just look at Japan with its nearly 3000 year old dynasty, especially before it got cucked. I’d be venerating the emperor if I was Japanese for sure. How would new dynasties be established and considered legitimate?
Open file (78.28 KB 400x518 Hitla.jpg)
>>4544 >What is the /fascist/ conception of ideal leadership? This, but unironically
Open file (1.31 MB 1522x1100 6 fascist.png)
>>4564 Imo, no. But I think that a king should be kin with his people. It isn't such an alienating view to have a king whose power is divine rather than popular, and it wouldn't be too harsh to say there is an element of both as though people and king were one... I maintain that there should be divine kingship because it makes monarchy greater on behalf of the whole and brings it closer to a model closer how a monarchy should function. Gods are like an extension of the Royalist argument of a wise man and the power to advance royal wisdom in circumstances where there law might not function in certain instances. >If he is not chosen and his leadership is not dependent on the people's consent, does the ruler put his power over his people, race, and country? No, because the monarch is a power greater on behalf of the whole and not partial to it. Divine kingship removes the most harmful elements of popular sovereignty and aligns the monarch closer to monarchy's fundamental values like its self-discipline and personal being. When I say that a king should be kin, I also mean to say that a king should be like a father to his people. >Aristotle on royal authority: >The rule of a father over his children is royal, for he rules by virtue both of love and of the respect due to age, exercising a kind of royal power. And therefore Homer has appropriately called Zeus ‘father of Gods and men,’ because he is the king of them all. For a king is the natural superior of his subjects, but he should be of the same kin or kind with them, and such is the relation of elder and younger, of father and son. Robert Filmer's views. >As long as the first Fathers of Families lived, the name of Patriarchs did aptly belong unto them; but after a few Descents, when the true Fatherhood it self was extinct, and only the Right of the Father descends to the true Heir, then the Title of Prince or King was more significant, to express the Power of him who succeeds only to the Right of that Fatherhood which his Ancestors did Naturally enjoy; by this means it comes to pass, that many a Child, by succeeding a King, hath the Right of a Father over many a Gray-headed Multitude, and hath the Title of Pater Patriæ. >If we compare the Natural Rights of a Father with those of a King, we find them all one, without any difference at all but only in the Latitude or Extent of them: as the Father over one Family, so the King as Father over many Families extends his care to preserve, feed, cloth, instruct and defend the whole Commonwealth. His War, his Peace, his Courts of Justice, and all his Acts of Sovereignty tend only to preserve and distribute to every subordinate and inferiour Father, and to their Children, their Rights and Privileges; so that all the Duties of a King are summed up in an Universal Fatherly Care of his People. The soul of royal extends around this sense of fatherhood along with the household as the basic structure. The monarchy extends itself around the rule of one. Together, a royal monarchy means a great patriarch.
>4567 >but I’ve just always felt that the power staying within one family doesn’t necessarily ensure the highest quality of leadership. You’ve smartly sidestepped the issue of it falling onto a potentially extremely incompetent successor by saying that the monarch may choose his successor rather than it automatically conferring on the oldest son at least – I’m sure you guys have to hear about Charles II of Spain far too much. Royalists aren't against that view (because like we explained earlier--royalist argument--that there are general instances where a law might not function well--this case being an unsuitable heir. Absolutists in particular maintain the monarch's right to choose the heir... However, it must be understood that monarchs have a natural inclination to choose an extension of themselves as maintenance work. I stress some kind of dynastic royal line with hereditary primogeniture as the standard. An anon told me the other day--Kim Jong-Il choosing Kim Jong-un over the eldest and other offspring--from the discretion of the father. That is totally acceptable from this point of view, especially since it is kept within the dynasty. The general rule of the eldest is from the idea that generally the eldest rules (by being older). >If we consider the individual man, we shall see that this applies to him, for, when all his faculties are ordered for his happiness, the intellectual faculty itself is regulator and ruler of all others; in no way else can man attain to happiness. If we consider the household, whose end is to teach its members to live rightly, there is need for one called the pater-familias, or for some one holding his place, to direct and govern according to the Philosopher when he says, “Every household is ruled by its eldest." >Likewise, every son acts well and for the best when, as far as his individual nature permits, he follows in the footprints of a perfect father. As “Man and the sun generate man,” according to the second book of Natural Learning, the human race is the son of heaven, which is absolutely perfect in all its works. Therefore mankind acts for the best when it follows in the footprints of heaven, as far as its distinctive nature permits -Dante, De Monarchia I'm not a total Aristotelian, but I think a few his views on royalism are foundational. But there are examples of how a few of these views extend outside Aristotle alone (like the word pharaoh means 'great house') but Aristotle describes the early period of Greece monarchies as kingdoms like great households... Sometimes I go between an unorthodox, modern writer like Hobbes and then go to Aristotle. But I'll say this, despite what Hobbes says about Greco-Roman hatred of monarchy, it would be hard to understand monarchy without Aristotle (even if what was said is true about disliking monarchy). >I’m sure you guys have to hear about Charles II of Spain far too much. Let alone Commodious. It still doesn't push me away from primogeniture as a rule for succession, smh.
Open file (3.04 MB 3787x3000 lewd int grace.png)
/monarchy/ and /fascist/ are much closer than it is often made out to be. The most divisive issue is doubtlessly Christianity.
>>4585 Will monarchy prevent our racial genocide? To me the system is secondary to that. We don't have much time either.
Also the /monarchy/ chan is way better than that disgusting mongrel shit being pushed on /fascist/
Open file (2.25 MB 2728x2624 LARP02.png)
Open file (14.81 KB 637x309 pharaoh origins.png)
Open file (21.72 KB 587x218 Aristotle-royalism01.png)
Open file (12.47 KB 553x133 aristotle-royalism03.png)
>>4585 I'm okay with throwing around non-Christian views about royal monarchy like the Ma'atpill or plain secular arguments. I don't speak very anti-Christian either. But I don't really try to alienate people. Monarchs need an extension of their own spirit. I think a royal monarchy should see their people as an extension of themselves, but not subordinate to them. It's very important to me when it comes to monarchy to understand how a monarch functions. It is important also to know how it functions differently from other forms. It starts with what is personal with monarchy for me.
>>4586 The survival of our race obviously is the most important thing. >>4587 >Integralist-chan >mongrel It's Kuruminha in a uniform, so technically she's racially pure kek. I forgot how it became the de facto tan but I think it was some autism that was plaguing the meta thread back when /fascist/ was on 8chan where people kept posting Kuruminha
My personal ideal for a leader would be similar to the ancient Roman Republic and George Washington and Thomas Jefferson: meritorious aristocrats who worked for the good of the people. In essence, the new Commander (which is what I would call the leader of my own fantasy America) would be the Head of State, while the President of Congress, the Chancellor of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House would be the Heads of Government. The states, which would be vastly more independent than they are now, would be divided into shires, which are formed from individual counties and elect representatives to Congress. There would also be autonomous republics for ethnic minorities, Native Americans and Negroes chiefly. >is the leader dependent on the consent of the people? Yes, as long as the will of the people is right-minded, and doesn't lead to destructive tendencies from short-sightedness or vice. >how is the leader chosen? I think the best way to choose the leader would be through a congregation of elders, the best of the aristocrats, to select the best candidates, and then allow the people to vote, and an electoral college to ratify, the President. In essence, it would be same as it currently is in America. >how is his successor chosen? In the same manner as before. >are there limits to his powers? Yes, however they may be removed only if he were to be nominated as a dictator in Roman style. >can he be removed from office? If he violates the laws of the land, he may be removed from power and replaced.
Open file (513.60 KB 1500x1500 graceandintegralist.jpg)
>How would new dynasties be established and considered legitimate? Unlike other royalists, I'm not very exclusive in terms of 'new dynasties' or 'self-proclaimed monarchs'. We brought up popular monarchs, a kind of non-royal monarch who serves a republic/ideology. It's often the case that popular monarchs come to a point where so much depends on maintaining the form (person) that they move towards royalism to preserve it... and attempt to make themselves legitimate. Reza Shah, Bokassa, Kim Il Sung, and Napoleon are examples of 'popular monarchs' going royal because it came to a point where it was better on behalf of the common good and stability (better for the whole) that this leadership be maintained and not take its turn. By electoral monarchy, it's also the case that those who ascend want a kind of life-time role to not take their turn. And often even those move towards dynastic pursuit. I see electoral monarchy as borderline aristocratic at times, but I also sometimes respect it as a form of monarchy in its own right. >I agree it can serve as a bedrock of stability and tradition in some cases – just look at Japan with its nearly 3000 year old dynasty, especially before it got cucked. I’d be venerating the emperor if I was Japanese for sure. Ceremonialists often point out the difference between Chinese imperial system and Japanese one with the Japanese being just a figurehead (I dislike that term, but that's what they believe). Chinese Emperors kept power and hand to deal with the consequences (like usurps/revolts) while in Japan it was in the Heian and previous eras... until the Meiji Restoration where they claimed to have restored the Emperor and made the feudal regimes return their power from whence it came. Feudboys get very upset over this (usually from an aristocratic pov rather than seeing the Shogun s as monarchs). But it is important to remember that before written laws, there was oral tradition and often those types write off religious power as do-nothing ceremonial power (with emphasis on what is sacred, meaning restrictions, rather than a proactive divine one). Oral tradition surrounding the monarch as high priest pointed towards power controlling conduct like written laws do (and the foundation of written laws reside there). >>4585 >>4590 I approve of Integralist. If these guys want something else, they should stick with Anchovy or beg drawfag to make a blackshirt chan or something (if he feels like it).
If it makes /fascist/ feel better, I have respect for the leadership principle (or Great Man Theory) when it isn't anti-royal. That goes for your Fuhrers, Duces, and Caudillos. Both royal and non-royal still share the same form (even if it isn't powerful). Monarchy's main appeal is it isn't so plutocratic in terms of the minority or the majority... The minority of rich or the majority of poor... Or what percentages--it is already one and total.
If someone want to become king they should hurry up and gas the jews and remove brownskin otherwise it's just fake and gay
>>4594 >muh elections >Non-Whites aren't segregated and kept under heel Okay cuckservative.
>>4594 >There would also be autonomous republics for ethnic minorities, Native Americans and Negroes chiefly. Whether this is a good idea or not depends on whether they are allowed to roam outside of these territories and mingle with whites. Negro-reservations in America are actually a very sensible idea, especially if presented to them as if they were being “decolonized” by whites while kept under our control. Someone will inevitably reply to this post saying that they need sent back to Africa, which I have no problem with as an idea, but there are far too many negroes on American soil today for this to be a practical solution. Some sort of large territorial segregation or slow ethnic cleansing through sterilization is the only option.
>>4640 Ironically, this is more or less similar to the Soviet Union than cuckservatism, friend. But this is more of a thought experiment I've been considering, since I'm trying to consider various fascist forms of American government, chiefly inspired by Jeffersonian/Jacksonian ideals. Whether this experiment of mine is good in the real world is a naturally different matter. >>4643 >Whether this is a good idea or not depends on whether they are allowed to roam outside of these territories and mingle with whites. They're allowed to visit (as tourists), but not to live in, white areas. Miscegenation would be illegal and punishable by castration or death. >Someone will inevitably reply to this post saying that they need sent back to Africa, which I have no problem with as an idea, but there are far too many negroes on American soil today for this to be a practical solution. I think a good number of negroes (probably a third, around 13 million, to start off with) should be shipped off to Liberia, since the nation was founded for that purpose to begin with. The rest would be given areas like the Mississippi Delta, and the Gullah lands to live in. Non-whites would not be the only ones with their own autonomous republics, as the Cajuns and Mormons would have their own as well.
>>4647 >They're allowed to visit (as tourists), but not to live in, white areas. Miscegenation would be illegal and punishable by castration or death. That seems somewhat sensible. I’m sure in such a scenario private businesses again would be able to choose who they wish to serve in their establishments without ZOG breathing down their necks as well. It seems dumb to say in retrospect but I hadn’t thought of sending some blacks to Africa AND giving them some territory here. That could be a good way to reduce them and solve many racial problems. The only issue with Africa is whether Liberia or other countries want them or could sustain that many immigrants. Of course we don’t have to care what happens after they get there but practically speaking it’d be important if this was to be carried out what those countries themselves thought
>>4595 the Japanese emperors are often described as figureheads, but for much of their history, they were something more than that. while political power was consolidated under the shoguns, the emperors were the source of legitimacy, which should not be underestimated. >>4594 >I think the best way to choose the leader would be through a congregation of elders, the best of the aristocrats, to select the best candidates, and then allow the people to vote, and an electoral college to ratify, the President. In essence, it would be same as it currently is in America. this is essentially the 'mixed constitution', which combines elements of monarchy (rule of one), aristocracy (rule of few), and democracy (rule of many). the problem with these governments, taken individually, is that they tend to degenerate into corrupted forms, namely tyranny, oligarchy, and ochlocracy (mob rule). by weaving them together, the government becomes much more robust, with the different forms of power acting as checks and balances. you can see this in the structure of the Roman Republic, with its two consuls, senate, and tribunes & assemblies.
>>4594 I've often heard the emperor described as being more a figurehead as well, not always playing an active role in politics, so when I refer to admiration of Japan and its emperor it's primarily in reference to the more modern emperors from Meiji onward. In this period, at least from what I understand, the emperor became an integral part of the new political system and stood as the very embodiment of the nation, a kind of unchanging and everlasting essence of Japan. Even in the time when their power was lesser, their importance should not be underestimated, as >>4652 says. I can't imagine the legitimacy that is gained from such an unbroken and natively-originated line with a direct line of descent from their native pagan gods.
Open file (712.21 KB 1200x2000 boot-lick!.png)
>>4652 Imo, I always saw the 'let's mix it up' as the ultimate copout or rather just a move towards Aristocracy than saying it's 'mixed' (that's where having 'mixed' systems usually lead). Like you say 'check your balance', but mixed usually incorporate the leading flaws of an aristocracy. It isn't so robust when it has the in-fighting that accompanies aristocratic forms and the code of conduct movement followed in aristocratic forms (meaning, that to act together as a group, they can only move together w/ rules of conduct). Neither is there a means to prevent degeneration. Now it's just tha the whole system degenerates through another means. By being taken 'individually', really, that means monarchically, but an oligarchy cannot be restrained individually--to restrain an individual power is to restrain monarchy--but when it comes to a few, they automatically surpass individual restraint. Oligarchy will simply do what a few can do and what an individual power cannot do. This is the biggest flaw we find--where people boast about preventing 'tyranny' by restraining an individual power--but enable something else. Another annoying factor about 'it's mixed' is that they usually ignore the forms altogether (as if they didn't matter). Absolutists usually write off 'its mixed' as not existing--whereas there is always a prominent form in each system no matter how mixed--so it might have elements of monarchy and democracy, but it most prominently tends to be aristocratic.
>>4726 >pic Please don’t give me a Grace-dom fetish, /monarchy/
>>4647 What about the mutts who side with you? They get an autonomous republic too right? Could Cajuns be considered mutts? I don't know a whole a lot about them besides that they have a french background
>>4731 Don't Cajuns just keep to themselves, as in they're no bother to anybody?
>>4732 From what I understand, yes. I've never heard of "Cajun extremism" but that doesn't mean the kikes don't want to wipe them out. It's just that they're not that high on the list compared to Whites and the Japanese. Hell, they might not even want to get rid of some people like Assad based on race but instead ideology. Malcom X is an example of this.
>>4726 it's tricky to find the right balance, for sure. I believe the US has been drifting towards oligarchy for awhile, with Trump presenting a challenge to their consolidation of power (which is why he's up against large-scale resistance). and of course, the Roman Republic eventually degenerated into the Roman Empire. the 'mixed constitution' may not be ideal, but it's the best political solution anyone has come up with thus far.
>>4735 I forgot to add this Could Cajuns be consider white?
>>4731 >>4732 >>4737 Cajuns are white. They're the direct descendants of French refugees who fled from Acadia during the Seven Years' War/French and Indian War. They're as hwite as you can get. Creoles are the ones you fellas are probably thinking of. They're the mutts from intermixing between the French, Spanish, Injuns, and blacks.
>>4544 >is the leader dependent on the consent of the people? Measurable (long term) well-being of the people yes, consent and popular opinion, no. >how is the leader chosen? Qualified by distinguishing himself in some way and then undergoing a series of trials testing every aspect of his being. Per aristocratic principles, the best man that a nation could offer would be assigned as leader, the same principle being applied to a lesser extent hierarchically downwards. He would get to choose other roles, but he would only be able to choose among people who have qualified and passed the trials showing them possessing sufficient quality for that rank/position. >how is his successor chosen? Same way as the original leader >are there limits to his powers >can he be removed from office? Yes, his actions would need to be for the common good. If a leader becomes too harmful for the society (nation), he would be deposed. He would have great powers, but those would be balanced with great responsibility and accountability
>>4582 > I maintain that there should be divine kingship Assigning divine attributes to something as flawed as a human being is a recipe for disaster >>4584 >I stress some kind of dynastic royal line with hereditary primogeniture as the standard. Nepotism belongs to a Jewish mindset, and it marked the transition from traditional European aristocracies (pre-Christian) to Christian monarchies infused with the semitic/Abrahamistic mindset. Plus, hereditary succession is highly dysgenic and degenerate (see Hapsburgs) >>4587 Agreed >>4589 I never understood how can any self-respecting man call himself someones subject. I mean in absolutist monarchy, you are a literal property of someone kek. The only positive thing about monarchy is that monarch can serve as a kingpin maintaining social cohesion. But why have that when you can have the Fuhrer. Compare Hitler to that British dunce. Hitler fought in an actual war, got injured and almost killed, started as a nobody and built up his reputation from the scratch, achieved tremendous success against all odds, and lived every day of his life for his people. The other one got babysitted for his entire life, never achieved anything of value and eventually married a negress because uncle Rothkike told him so. A completely average and indistinguishable individual who would be working as some office clerk and living a boring, ordinary life befitting of him at best, were it not for nepotism. >>4643 Segregating and isolating them should do the trick, the natural environment would reduce their numbers to a manageable level.
>ideal leadership Monarchy, I want a leader from a well-cared-for bloodline who has being trained since birth to rule a nation, but not every one of the current emperor's children should be expected to be a good ruler, so there must be another selection-method other than just age. I also do not believe in the fantasy of a single all-knowing ruler. A good leader surrounds himself with people in order to make up for his limitations, this group should be officialized and be recognized. >is the leader dependent on the consent of the people? The consent of the people should not be a force with legislative power, but any good leader should pay attention to what his people think of him, if he is truly hated he should look at himself and find why, if the problem is internal then is his responsibility to change, thank his people and apologize; be it external and the hunt is on. >how is the leader/successor chosen? How can we combine birthright and meritocracy? I believe the Emperor should aim to have as manny children as he can, these children then should be sent into a path that forces them to start from the bottom of society to the high offices. Then they are to be judged and by some mechanism chosen, this I do not know how >are there limits to his powers This is something I have thought a lot of and I still have not found an answer which completely satisfies me. On one side if he is wise then we should listen to him and there should not be legal ways to undermine him, On the other side if he commits a mistake there should be a mechanism able to stop him. Absolute power would require absolute certainty which would make decision-making slow. I think I would want him to have absolute power, but his responsibilities are to keep him contemplating the bigger picture, he would guide the nation, but everyone else would make sure things go according to his plan. Mission-Command, basically. >can he be removed from office? Yes, but only by an overwhelming force
Open file (328.15 KB 874x1024 Es lebe Deutschland.jpg)
I don't think /monarchy/ fags have convincingly explained yet why the best of the best should not rule in all cases. People have said that the monarch can choose among his sons, but merely from choosing among one's sons does not guarantee that there are not other men out there that are far, far more equipped by birth to rule other men. Monarchists like to claim that their institutions are legitimate by divine right but in my mind God intends for Nature's finest to rule over the lesser in all cases.
>>4780 The truth is nobody has proposed a system for leadership without flaws.
reinhard_becomes_dictator.jpg
Open file (49.03 KB 405x470 0202020202.jpg)
Open file (48.69 KB 574x487 Aristotle-royalism02.png)
>>4736 >it's tricky to find the right balance Imo monarchy is the balance between the errors of aristocracy and democracy. It checks your balance. >>4765 >I also do not believe in the fantasy of a single all-knowing ruler. That's how monarchy functions. It is able to deliberate faster--and more importantly--pragmatically without all this partisan bs you find in cliques. The worst example of partisanship/ideology of the clique/aristocracy is the party system that inhibits any pragmatic thinking that only a monarch could deliberate--a monarch above the peers and not part of the idiotic political hampering. Make no mistake that my ideal is also a pragmatic leader above this nonsense. >A good leader surrounds himself with people in order to make up for his limitations This is an appeal to the democratic thinking that Aristotle brings up (and by no means bad). That while a wise man might beat one individually, the more people bring more food to the table. It's related to the 2nd picture. It's not merely a fantasy--there is a degree of truth that monarchy by its own function--is able to transgress independently to the public benefit. I never said I advocated a super-computer god that does everything in the most totalizing fashion ever or a totally isolated man... but it needs to be understood what Monarchy brings to the table--what worth Monarchy has in itself--most monarchists don't evaluate this enough imo. A monarch executes command, and a monarch is less passionate than an aristocracy together. A monarch also can think independently from the clique that squabbles over petty issues. Remember, a god is like an extension of the Royalist argument of wise men -- the person and will -- over frozen reason like the law. There are general instances where a monarch should be able to atone for these instances. The person of the monarch is very important. It is not only an institution, but on a personal level able to measure justice rather than freeze it. What is personal in monarchy matters very much, but most conservatives only place emphasis on the institution of the family and royalism -- not the sense of the monarch as a person or as one. Without the person of the monarch, there is no face or head to a body. Without the person of the monarch, there is no leadership or soul. Without the person of the monarch, there is no spirit. It is important that a monarch doesn't rely on strictly social reinforcement--the check to your balance that aristocracy boasts--but relies on the spirit of his person... by other means, self-discipline and personal realization, but also the extension of himself with his people--denied. The best things in monarchy about monarchy rely on the person and without it there is no monarchy... a crown is made to be worn on the head, because a monarch holds the mind and body. It should also be remembered that a monarch is able to handle aristocratic passions. It is assumed that an aristocracy is all about checks, but really together they multiply the mark of the beast and no rules of conduct prevent this. A monarch doesn't have the same waltz and conduct, like an aristocracy tied together trying not to trip over another and constantly bumping shoulders with each other about who is more free and who has more merit. A monarch doesn't need to conduct himself like he is part of that mess and needs rules of conduct to prevent his head from bumping into their heads... What applies to the monarch is what applies to a person not tied together like this. A person who enables virtue by his personal control and determination--that is how a monarch functions, but not like a clique.
>>4780 >I don't think /monarchy/ fags have convincingly explained yet why the best of the best should not rule in all cases. You don't understand. It's not about the best, but what is best for all. Even the best have faults, where a democracy by strength of number overturn the scale--to the point where enough bronze outweighs silver. >People have said that the monarch can choose among his sons, but merely from choosing among one's sons does not guarantee that there are not other men out there that are far, far more equipped by birth to rule other men. You could say there's always someone better, but that's not my point. Aristocratic merit -- where they put up this show about dueling and killing each other to prove how 'better' they are -- isn't what monarchy seeks. This merit is fine for aristocracy, but monarchy needs more. It needs extraordinary virtue--and that alone seems impossible for the aristocratic man to imagine. So it's not just virtue and not just merit, but extraordinary virtue... a kind that is hardly physically capable, really. You can't just give a test for that. >Monarchists like to claim Honestly, these monarchists and monarchyfags--you might as well just be talking to me. I don't think anyone in my circle talks like I do. I don't think even /monarchy/ is fit to be my home atm. (I really don't like going there anymore). >like to claim that their institutions are legitimate by divine right but in my mind God intends for Nature's finest to rule over the lesser in all cases. Look at your Hitler picture. Even that testifies the monarchy principle. That doesn't even look like your regular merit--that picture shows extraordinary virtue--do you see those sun rays behind him? As for nature, this 2nd Aristotle screencap talks about how man is sociable--but more importantly--how man independently like a baby cannot survive--UNLESS it was like a beast or a god or some kind of heroic character. This is the same mentality towards monarchy and the need for extraordinary virtue--and this extraordinary virtue must be somewhat divine--it must inspire, and it must go beyond virtue that is physically capable by regular merit--it takes a monarch to function like that. Only a monarch has that kind of imagination and ambition... I don't emphasize that kind of thing because for me monarchy and the way it functions is useful. The function is necessary and already potentially great with what monarchy is. An aristocracy of best men cannot by function do what is best for all like a monarchy potentially could... Like I explained >>4596 here, a monarchy is already total and one. And divine right is necessary for a monarch in some fashion. It doesn't have to only be a holy mandate, but some correspondence and extension of the monarch--interpersonal with a benign will or force of nature--that is good... You could always say that the monarch -is- the People or some jargon. >>4762 >never understood how can any self-respecting man call himself someones subject. I mean in absolutist monarchy, you are a literal property of someone kek. It goes around a sense of kinship--that is what the heart of loyalty should be, like a kind of familial bond replicated on a public level. I'll admit I'm not really into the aristocratic notion of the freeman... I mean, everyone belongs somewhere, subordinate or insubordinate. There is an extension of that everywhere you look... a sense of body-politic and statehood extended. People are governed and governors in many ways like teacher and student, father and son, and emperor and subject--there's nothing wrong with being a churl in itself sometimes either. I don't hold a contempt towards democracy like that or toss away simple truths or average joe's practical wisdom. Like a monarch should see a people as an extension of himself and kin, a people should see a monarch as their man. I'll probably get flak for this, but like their Leviathan--in the giant artifical being sense--the pride that wherever that man's arm moves, so does their arm move (because that is made up of people; a body-politic or state in this sense, is what we see as social glue... there is no sense of the State and the People schism--they consist together; a state governs with the people who constitute it not only near the head and shoulders, but also in the body itself).
>>4780 No concrete arguments why Monarchy has more merits than fascism/NS were provided, just wishful thinking. It appeals only to emotional people who don't think much (the same type of people who read celebrity gossip magazines and have an unhealthy fixation on them), not to the people of reason.
>>4780 >I don't think /monarchy/ fags have convincingly explained yet why the best of the best should not rule in all cases. You haven't visited /monarchy/ enough, tbh. I think the majority of anons there would agree with you, get on their knees, and nod their head about how great aristocracy is, even better than monarchy--that's what it seems to be like. There is nothing I grumble over more than running into other /monarchy/ anons lately. I don't think a board like /monarchy/ has a sense of community like /fascist/ or /liberty/ (I am pretty sure most anons hate each other there). We share a BO with /liberty/ and the previous king's foreign policy also had been pro-/liberty/ administration too. (You could notice that sometimes there's powerplay between our boards). But I hate running into other monarchy people. Most monarchist types I run into are afraid of the principle of one man. They don't want a kind of 'totalitarian' system. When they think of one man, they view it in an antagonist light... They're inclined to say it's good to have one because it's easier to kill that monarch than anything the monarch could contribute. It's a headache everytime I interact with monarchists anywhere (most of the time). >2nd screencap related OP from /monarchy/ /monarchy/ anons would probably be inclined to agree with you there, imo. The anons who argue with over Christianity--if it wasn't over religion, but this kind of topic--would probably be in concord with the /fascist/ anon that visits more than what I'd tell them. >>4814 >No concrete arguments why Monarchy has more merits than fascism/NS were provided, It's nothing to do with showboating about how 'better' anything is than fascism/NS.
>>4812 I'll admit, monarchy has its strengths. it offers charismatic leadership, stability, and efficiency, all of which are significant. however, much depends on the person of the monarch. if they are virtuous and capable, all will benefit. but if the monarch is corrupt and ineffective, these liabilities are greatly magnified by the power of the Crown. in addition, the whole emphasis on bloodlines is a false doctrine, character and ability are not directly inherited; this means that dynastic rule leads to nepotism, which is a serious weakness for any government. there's also a lack of representation, so that you're trusting the government to know what's best for the people, rather than the people themselves. in many ways, the republic is an inverse of the above. charismatic leadership is lacking compared to a royal system, elections are destabilizing, and all the checks & balances, debates in legislation, partisan factions, etc are very inefficient in comparison to a royal decree being carried out. but at the same time, corrupt & ineffective officials are limited in their ability to be disruptive, and can be impeached or voted out; the party/election system is somewhat less susceptible to nepotism, and far more responsive to the will of the people; the rule of law & constitutional supremacy have a tempering, stabilizing effect, providing a solid foundation amidst the chaos of vacillating majorities and administrations. on that last point, I suppose constitutional monarchy is a compromise between monarchy and republic. you could describe it as a republic with an exceedingly powerful executive branch, or as a fatally weakened monarchy, depending on your point of view.
Open file (849.45 KB 604x720 Grace.png)
>>4822 >I'll admit, monarchy has its strengths. it offers charismatic leadership, stability, and efficiency Hm, now I want to play devil's advocate. There are plenty of examples of republics long-lasting republics like Rome and city-states from Medieval period (particularly Venice). I don't care what anyone here thinks about royal monarchy >these liabilities are greatly magnified by the power of the Crown A crown exists to be worn, with the monarch as the head of a body. The monarch and institution exist as one (or, at least, that is how I would prefer). A coronation oath as a promise to perform on public good. It's unlikely it will be so bad for all if there is a little bit of corruption--even if it was a little bit of self-interest--because a monarch already has most to content himself and its only for the satisfaction for one person. Roughly speaking, that won't hurt as much on a large scale--those closest to the monarch, those trying to influence the monarch--they are more in danger than any ordinary people. Also, a monarchy isn't necessarily all doing--although it is total--people will rule like subordinate households. It really doesn't take the most merit to do something as simple as rule over a nation--look at any head of state today and tell me that's not true, because they're idiots and they're still doing fine. He doesn't need the virtue of strength and big burly muscles--he doesn't need big intelligence either--simply put, it begins with extraordinary virtue, outside of that--his self-discipline is first for a monarch. This is like for any person--say that you get punished... It doesn't teach you to be a good person, by restriction, as much as coming to learn by your own understanding and knowledge. That is simple social reinforcement and the other is virtue. Anyways, even with a bad guy, he can't go and get you everywhere at once. A monarch has that one advantage of its distance. Ordinary people minding their own business--they will be out of harms way with that kind of monarch for the vast majority... But I don't really buy into this good king and bad king thing. It's often the case that it's both characteristics, good and bad, with a monarch (or just a really mediocre one). For example, take a leader who does something people here would consider good--he creates an ethnostate. That's going to be condemned harshly and labelled as tyranny from crybabies within and observers outside. And a multicultural paradise--that will be showered in praise for being the perfect love regime. >in addition, the whole emphasis on bloodlines is a false doctrine, character and ability are not directly inherited They do say like father, like son--but imo that's part of the appeal for dynastic monarchy in some ways. It is a preservation of the character and predecessor, but also the form. It actually does sometimes work to preserve the character of that person in some instances. And when it is like that--the benefit is that its following in the footsteps--a kind of wisdom of his lineage. That is the main appeal to have emperors looking back at their grandfathers and saying, "I want to be great like him--I want to make my people great and proud like it was in his time." And when it isn't like that, you could say it is a welcome innovation to have a royal monarch bring a different character once in a while. But even with non-hereditary monarchs or leaders, they often look back to a great person or period and say that they want to bring things back to those golden days. >the rule of law & constitutional supremacy have a tempering, stabilizing effect, providing a solid foundation amidst the chaos of vacillating majorities and administrations. I'm not opposed to having laws, but I stress that laws could also have magnificent effects. Laws are capable of preserving and oppressing. It's often the case with the accumulation of laws--that an oligarchy lives, breaths, and moves through laws to restrict. That's how you find popular monarchs--usually, that an abundance of laws and a mess of regulations demands reform--it demands a monarch that could reform and pull these back... like you said, the check and balance of a clique like a multi-party system--too slow to adequately reform like this, you could say, but accumulate laws and regulations much faster in their conduct. I tend to stress that monarchy has the potential to be an instrument of reform. Like I said, the wisdom of monarchs--there are general instances where the laws aren't always the answer and an absolutist approach is necessary. Like I said with the heirs--sometimes it is right that a monarch does this. not the laws are bad--they benefit everyone, but this should be remembered It's likewise important that the spirit of the monarch's reign should be preserved in those laws and leave room for the heart of them--leave room for mercy from their penalties. >on that last point, I suppose constitutional monarchy is a compromise between monarchy and republic. I need to stress what I think about royalism and monarchy. There is a kind of difference--monarchy is strictly the rule of one. That can apply to any leader, tbh (even the ones people would sack me for)--and then there's royalism, the household structure with kingship. Monarchy isn't necessarily royalism. You sometimes get royalism w/o much monarchy and vice versa. Where the royal has a person of the monarch, but it's not really much of a monarchy (like the Doge of the Republic of Venice--an elected, not-so-powerful monarch, but in a political state that isn't necessarily a monarchy). I would describe those cases as having mere royalism and not much monarchy. Only the household structure of the royal estate is preserved, but what is left of the monarchy is little--kinda like the reverse they say with Roman Emperors, where they aren't really royal (Rome was anti-royal)--but they capture a kind of monarchy.
>>4820 >It's nothing to do with showboating about how 'better' anything is than fascism/NS. Based and humblepilled. I don't see these ideas as needing to be some winner takes all
Open file (47.25 KB 405x470 0303030303.jpg)
>>4827 I went into this thread to LARP about my ideals and vent a little. It kinda annoys me when people assume that because I say something pro-monarchy, I must be anti-something. One of the things that annoys me is how trendy the anti-democracy stance is. It's not enough for me to be anti-democratic. I think some people try too hard. Tbh, I'm not entirely against the idea of aristocracy either. I just like monarchy more >>4556 >>4558 I posted these greentexts to even contribute to the conversation (despite disagreeing). It's not out of aggression to fascism/NS. I don't think fascists should be autistic about monarchy the same way--Mussolini clearly says that the Fascist doctrine denies that numbers alone can govern. >"this explains why Fascism, having first in 1922 (for reasons of expediency) assumed an attitude tending towards republicanism, renounced this point of view before the March to Rome, being convinced that the question of political form is not to-day of prime importance; and, after having studied examples of monarchies and republics past and present, reached the conclusion that monarchism and republicanism are not to be judged, as it were, by an absolute standard, but that they represent forms in which the evolution--political, historical, traditional, or psychological--of a particular country has expressed itself." >"Fascism supersedes the antithesis, monarchism of republicanism, while democracy still tarries beneath the domination of this idea, forever pointing out the insufficiency of the first and forever praising the second as the perfect regime. To-day, it can be seen that there are republics innately reactionary and absolutist, and also monarchies that incorporate the most ardent social and political hopes of the future."
>>4813 >It's not about the best, but what is best for all. I see these as one and the same. The greatest leader is not a despot, he is like a father to his people. Or, as Hitler said he tried to embody, he was the alterter of his people, the teacher of his people and the leader of his people. I think we are much closer in our positions than it may first seem. I draw much influence from monarchical philosophies / concepts such as Confucianism, concepts such as the philosopher king / Chakravartin. It seems that our biggest difference is how the leader should be chosen. >his merit is fine for aristocracy, but monarchy needs more. It needs extraordinary virtue True aristocracy is inseparable from the virtuous, especially when considering the term in its etymological sense of "the rule of the excellent". This is how the Greeks conceived of this term. A non-virtuous man had no merit to rule or associate with others of who did have such qualities. To lack virtue, excellence and self-discipline was to be slavish.
>>4820 >It's nothing to do with showboating about how 'better' anything is than fascism/NS. What's the point of you writing walls of text about Monarchy then? Why do you support such a system to begin with? It doesn't make sense, why settle with worse when you can strive for the better. Sure, many anons follow inferior systems like Ancap, Communism, but they at least delude themselves of gaining some personal benefit from those, what benefit would you have of being someone's subject? Especially considering that you would have the greatest chance of being born as a lowly serf (or becoming one), not even a lesser nobility. And nothing which you do would change that. Seems irrational and miscalculated, like gambling. The house always wins.
>>4848 What if you don't necessarily think you have everything figured out yet, that you know the perfect system to rule them all, but have a slight preference.
>>4849 That preference has to be based on something
Open file (3.37 MB 3400x3082 grace-reprimand.png)
Open file (8.36 KB 841x97 Despotism04.png)
>>4840 >The greatest leader is not a despot, he is like a father to his people. Clearly, a royal monarchy on my terms is a despotate. A despot is simply a word for lord--specifically, 'Lord of the House'. It was a Byzantine title for its own sake. When I talk about a royal monarchy, I invoke the great household (despotate). Royalism is built around the household, and monarchy as the rule of one--together a great house. This is why royal monarchs build great palaces. Versailles and other royal palaces, the pyramids, and other places--an extension of the royal monarch's soul to build a nation like a great household--a despotate--I take a royal monarchy in preference. >>4848 >What's the point of you writing walls of text about Monarchy then? Idk, I get passionate. >Why do you support such a system to begin with? Disillusion with partisanship/multi-party system, but with an appreciation for pragmatic leadership... I think a royal approach as the only alternative. The household is not only non-partisan, it is anti-partisan. It is a natural web and bond. It is the perfect unity, where man and woman are together in the familial sense. Monarchy is made for royalism in this sense that it seeks unity (unity not possible alone--but also UNity by its oneness when consummated). >what benefit would you have of being someone's subject? I have no interest in voting, tbh. I think it's a pretty worthless preoccupation that doesn't achieve much--it might seem a ideal--but talking to people like you does more in terms of a political impact than throwing a nod. >Especially considering that you would have the greatest chance of being born as a lowly serf (or becoming one), not even a lesser nobility That's not what I really advocate, tbh. I'm not for a return to feudalism or some kind of serfdom.
>>4852 >Disillusion with partisanship/multi-party system You came to /fascist/ to argue against democracy (that no one here supports, at least not to a greater extent) but you ignore fascist arguments. Most of your posts were about how monarchy is better than democracy, so you are not exactly impartial to aristocratic principles either. There are many similarities between fascist/NS Aristocracy and Monarchy, the main difference being that one is a down-top and another is a top-down manifestation. Fuhrer is similar to Monarch in many aspects, but he is the ultimate son of his people, (ideally) embodying their highest qualities/virtues and being a manifestation of their collective will. For a Monarch, people are an extension of his personal will. Every tree grows from it's roots upwards, not from it's fruits downwards (except when they produce a seed for a new tree to sprout). Monarchy is not natural, that's why it has to rely on artifice like "divine mandate" to sustain itself, otherwise it falls apart. >It is the perfect unity, where man and woman are together in the familial sense That unity resulting in a son. Monarchistic principle would be something like a son cell dividing/replicating into his mother and father. You are going in a wrong direction. But this goes in line with the creationist thought. However, such "God" is the ultimate artifice and illusion. This makes fascism/NS diametrically opposed to Monarchy in spite of all of their similarities. Metaphysically, they are representing the ideas of creator God and emergent God.
Open file (75.39 KB 370x450 0909090213.png)
>>4855 I'm just here to talk about what I like. The OP prompted it. >Fuhrer is similar to Monarch in many aspects, but he is the ultimate son of his people, (ideally) embodying their highest qualities/virtues and being a manifestation of their collective will. Son and father are different manifestations of the same being--in one generation the father begets the son, and later the son becomes the father. You would be surprised to hear that I always fancied a prince to be the son of his people and later their father. That is how I imagined it--and I don't disconnect their wills--a monarchist could look either way. >Every tree grows from it's roots upwards And any tree drops an acorn. This is the chicken or the egg--It doesn't matter how you do this as above, as below stuff. >This makes fascism/NS diametrically opposed to Monarchy in spite of all of their similarities. Metaphysically, they are representing the ideas of creator God and emergent God. I don't really think so. Not the way I interpret things--top down or bottom up--I don't see a monarch as juxtaposed to being with his people because it organizes them.
Open file (2.41 MB 3225x3082 Monarchomachist!.png)
What do you make of the title of Pater Patriæ? The Romans assigned that title and they were pagan? And what about those screencaps from Aristotle referencing Zeus as 'Father of the Gods and Man' rather than Son--that is what was said about kingship. Personally, I fell this Christianity vs. Pagan stuff is being shoehorned in, and these weak attempts to portray royalism/monarchy as foreign despite evidence to the contrary
Many European royal kingdoms were electoral even in Christendom. Although there were a few exceptions like in Wessex, Norway, and Rugii Kingdom. However, electoral kingdoms were pronounced in the Holy Roman Empire for centuries. I know that Varg--for instance--talked about kingship with the Gauls raising a king on a shield and that was a Byzantine tradition also. But Varg also described the Legend of King Arthur and the Lady of the Lake, the kind of marriage between feminine goddess and man. However, there were other such dynastic kingships in the past--royalism is strongly associated with the hereditary desire for people to take care of their own kin and place them there. Alexander the Great and the Kingdom of Macedonia, for one--and evidence in the Greek tyrannies (tyrant was just another word for king, mind you). But I think all those screencaps from Aristotle are also sufficent when he describes his notion of royalism and the household and how a king manages his kingdom like a household. Another thing I need to remind anons is that a 'collective will' is a democratic will--of the People--that's democratic. There's no need to vilify it--demo in democracy means People. Sometimes I even go that route and make the Hobbesian trap myself (as evinced by those pics--he said that that monarch was of the People too). honestly, though, I am somewhat content and discontent w/ how Varg talks about kingship--I have preference for Aristotle more in that case, but I also look at aspects of it
Open file (15.43 MB 640x360 Varg_Kingship.mp4)
>>4831 Europe has tried Monarchy already and although the initial start may have been good it always led to defunct and petty Henry the fifth type tyrants who rule with no check and balances more increasingly than anything else even in antiquity due to the abnormal, and very old concepts of "hereditary rule" and "divine right" where genetic predecessors are being appointed and the internal power struggle that always ensue when "blue blood" were to get married with another monarch family, so massive crime against nature (inbreeding that everyone knew not to do) ensued just to keep the "line pure" to avoid this problem. Monarchy simply leads to decadence bearing on naivete as if the thought isn't laughable that being born into some royal family magically qualifies anyone for leadership, wealth or anything whatsoever and without having to show anything for it. Those ideas are ridiculous Instead of merit from a large party constituency being selected by your peers and/or leader when he retires from the post as which National Socialism advocates, it has way better quality control. Just look at how diseased European monarchic families are today, serving no function whatsoever but being a bunch of propped up welfare queen parasites 0 merit and shamelessly enjoying it dearly for all it's worth while making backroom deals with "demo"-cratic regimes worldwide, and these families even heavily frequent judeomasonic circles. Monarchy's and in turn democracy's power comes from petty nationalism and not a racial or wholesome unity as a people, and that is a major problem that none of those people who advocate for it realize, petty nationalism is just a cheap band aid on a wound comparing that to embracing race and nation. The national socialists were way ahead of their time on many fronts, we all know now today with the racial problems caused by Jewish/masonic corruption ignored and supported by democrats and many monarchs in their time how antiquated it is believing in simply the "nation" or the "lords" instead of the unity of the people that live in it which make the nation function, it's cheap obfuscation, because the "lords" or the "nation" have exactly nothing to do with the actual people who do the vital labor of harvest the fields for grain feeding them both, the hand workers are in their own way just as important as bureaucrats, because they both serve their functions to different degrees. This problem isn't simply idealism and reaches way further when we see how modern oligarchs under the the guise of democratic governments operate. The Meritocratic method is the best form of leadership, if a man is better as a whole he will show it, and in order to get there he must show it. This is only natural, not unnatural. Who controlled Hitlers rise to power? He did himself, and with his supporters, after a long struggle he gained public support and was initially appointed by the German people. To get there though from being a poor struggling artist who had a different idea of what society needs to look like and to be able put it all into practice, and look what he did he engaged in a massive effort and proved himself. And everyone could see it. We should never limit people from taking the same path. Further into the meritocracy part anyone can argue some aristocratic nonsense about how it is "easier" in society(no shit) for aristocrats i.e affluent wealthy citizens but then you would ignore what made them affluent in the first place and for whites it is usually hard work in some shape or form, not Jewish or masonic usury which communists confuse with capitalist affluence in their retarded class warfare arguments. For Hitler it didn't matter whether you worked with your hands or your head, this shows when we saw social programs such as the Volkswagen, inventing paid leave/vacation and extensive social programs for housing/citizens he wanted his people to get access to things most other nation's normal people could only dream of getting, automobiles and housing, and social aid being three examples. Scandinavia borrowed these policies heavily from Germany after the war socially (and with great success from this one party system of NSDAP). As we could see nearing the end of WW2 Hitler appointed people who he trusted dearly in his organization to take charge, it was an emergency and not the best candidate for chancellor but the fact remains that he did explicitly order this to happen. If the wrong side did not win WW2 however we would have probably likely seen a natural transfer of power within the NSDAP to a less 12 year (revolutionary period) system. Unfortunately Hitler didn't have a lot of time to rule in those 12 years and after the idealist modernization of National Socialism was considered to be complete we probably would have seen a more controlled 'republicanized' form of rule probably depending a little bit more on the Reichstag to check and balance but still with one chancellor who would of course still give out 'executive orders' depending on circumstances.
>>4871 >Just look at how diseased European monarchic families are today, serving no function whatsoever but being a bunch of propped up welfare queen parasites 0 merit and shamelessly enjoying it dearly for all it's worth while making backroom deals with "demo"-cratic regimes worldwide, and these families even heavily frequent judeomasonic circles. I'm not very content w/ the current royal situation and I know fascists have resented these members of the established elite. I say that I'm okay with a new order. >where genetic predecessors are being appointed and the internal power struggle that always ensue when "blue blood" were to get married with another monarch family, so massive crime against nature (inbreeding that everyone knew not to do) ensued just to keep the "line pure" to avoid this problem. Smh, I don't advocate inbreeding either. >The Meritocratic method is the best form of leadership, if a man is better as a whole he will show it, and in order to get there he must show it In other words, he will make himself better on behalf of the whole. I understand meritocracy and this talking point. My point is that even merit alone isn't good enough--it needs extraordinary virtue--super merit--that is what a monarchy demands. Any faggot could go around brushing shoulders w/ people and say 'better than you', but it takes something more. Natsocs really push the merit angle hard, but I'm not against a leader who has merit regardless. I think there should be dynastic succession w/ the model of an extraordinarily person of merit as that inspiration... but imo there will never be an established merit--like you said with Hitler--that kind of leader comes by his own time and making. I'm not really against 'The Great Man Theory'--but I am also not against royal dynasties either. Another thing that annoys me that people say is that no leader--however the merit--could do anything for the common good. I believe in leadership that becomes greater on behalf of the whole--I appreciate leadership, royal or non-royal, and I don't hold it in contempt--I believe in a leader who makes well on their behalf. What I hate most in royalist circles also is the disbelief in leadership--many royalists don't believe in the possibility of leadership--and deny that a leader could use his merit and ability, and come by an extraordinary virtue--to benefit his people. They say, 'Not for his own self,' as if monarchy by itself is only ever be for self-interest, but I tend to think it works to the benefit of the whole. It is this mentality that prevails, only believing in the sturdy administration of councils/nobility or even democracy rather than leadership. >Unfortunately Hitler didn't have a lot of time to rule in those 12 years and after the idealist modernization of National Socialism was considered to be complete we probably would have seen a more controlled 'republicanized' form of rule probably depending a little bit more on the Reichstag to check and balance but still with one chancellor who would of course still give out 'executive orders' depending on circumstances. That might have been the case and for the benefit of the 3rd Reich. A system like that--if anything good is to be said--preserves its structure neatly once established... and inhibits that kind of dynamic. I'm going to return this thread to /fascist/. It was nice talking during my stay.
>>4875 BY EXTRAORDINARY VIRTUE, I MEAN SO BREATH-TAKING AND MAGNIFICENT, SO INSPIRED AND VISIONARY, THAT IS SURPASSES REGULAR MERIT AND ENCOMPASSES A WHOLE OTHER WORLD Anyone could have merit in the sense that you say, "He does his job well, folks. Let's clap." That's not good enough. There needs to be an EXTRAORDINARY merit--or else people will grumble and contest--people will not like the monarchy/leadership in the same way. Remember the lines in Aristotle talking about an independent man alone--without society--he will die and no merit is enough--but with extraordinary virtue, this divine, awe-inspiring vision--that uplifts him to this kind of demi-god status. >But when a whole family or some individual, happens to be SO PRE-EMINENT in virtue [SO PRE-EMINENT] as to SURPASS ALL OTHERS, then, it is just that they should be the royal family supreme over all, or that this one citizen should be king of the whole nation." It needs to be so pre-eminent, so inspiring, and so great your mouth drops--it needs to be grand--and ordinary merit won't cut it--there's a reason that while Hitler had others, it was Hitler's vision and extraordinary character that inspired. Look at 1st pic related, isn't it breath-taking? This monarch is sitting on the clouds w/ nymphs. LOOK AT THE 2ND PICTURE Hitler looking over a city model--he was an artist, a man with surpassing visions and views, unchecked ambition that could only inspire things so pre-eminent and great. It's not that there was virtue or that it was just enough merit--but it was so pre-eminent and so EXTRAordinary than even merit itself. For a man alone, to be above and independent, must have this glory. That screencap about a man alone, an individual baby--dies in the woods, even with whatever small feat or merit--but with pre-eminent virtue and extraordinary ambition--surpasses. This 2nd picture might help break the point. Hitler was an artist and liked to paint buildings--it was like his own Versailles to build these cities and drape them with red swastika banners. Even in democratic countries with a kind of elected leader for only a small term--there is a White House, a kind of palace--because it is so natural to monarchy to embrace this kind of view. Russian Emperors would build cities up, like St. Petersburg. It's that kind of extraordinary and grandness that takes the cake. You're right to say it's not ordinary or something you naturally see on occasion--it is extraordinary, pre-eminent. >The proof that the state is a creation of nature and prior to the individual is that the individual, when isolated, is not self-sufficing; and therefore he is LIKE A PART in relation to the WHOLE >BUT he who is unable to live in a society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be a BEAST or a GOD >A social instinct is implanted in all men by nature, and yet HE who first founded the state was the greatest of benefactors. Back to the other-- >For, as I said before, to give them authority is not only agreeable to that ground of right which the founders of all statees, whether aristocratical, or oligarchical, or again democratical, are accustomed to put forward (for these all recognize the claim of excellence, although NOT the -same excellence-), but accords with the principle already laid down. For surely it would NOT be right to kill, or ostracize, or exile such a person, or require that he should take his turn in being governed. The WHOLE is naturally superior to the part, and he who has this pre-eminence is in relation of the whole to a part. But if so, the only alternative is that he should have the supreme power, and that mankind should obey him, not in turn, but always. This is going to annoy because of the anti-Christian views. One example is the story of Nebuchadnezzar--he was portrayed as becoming a beast in a wild, among the animals when separate from society--we know this view--but later a kind of pre-eminent virtue. This is a crucial thing to understand. I think we should strip our ideological pretenses about monarchy for once, then, and understand what essential traits of monarchy--we get so caught up in the conventions of these royal celebrities and what people see as monarchy nowadays, but there is something more to it. In a sense, there is monarchy wherever there is leadership and one man--it doesn't necessarily have to wear a crown. This might startle anons because they hate the conventional image of monarchy they are used to seeing... That's my final word on this subject. I'm done.
Open file (487.97 KB 768x720 Grace x Aurelia.png)
>>4727 you don't know how bad it can be
>>4877 It's funny you mention former swamp of St. Petersburg, the entire city was built on human bones from citizen slaves/serfs, aka indentured servants for the romanov family, hundreds of thousands died completely preventable deaths to build that city for Peter the "Great", Great for who exactly? The workers? No. What's eminent about that city? The people who built it were nothing to their royal slavedrivers. Russia as with other European countries people had no fucking rights and no social mobility, if you were a tailor, if you were a pig farmer or mason the feudalism nature of the system usually meant you would be working in these professions for life, a "not noble" enough birth was literally the cause lol, imagine that. You couldn't even obtain schooling those were limited to nobles, and if you were lucky enough to be granted a change profession you had to enter a guild/apprenticeship, which also meant indentured servitude to a master who after typically many years allowed your freedom due to proprietary methods but this was also a form of extreme social control. This continued until the late 1800's. The class society issue with monarchy is that while the people who are at the top are able to enjoy the finest and only most grand decadent palaces whereas common people would literally live in wooden hovels and entire families in cramped apartments, never having been to a palace, seen an artwork or anything grand in their entire lives, couldn't even read. Because the focus wasn't ever the people or race but it was always for X king's Empire. You have no idea how bad it was in Europe under the hundreds of years under these rulers for completely common people, who were from their actions you can read about, viewed with utter scorn by hereditary rule inbred maniacs they sold their own people out as slaves for hundreds of years. Their actions are the sole reason America was created in the first place and paved the way for a more free modern society. Only when the industrial revolution came about and countries started modernizing themselves Tsar Nicholas II who was a great but soft man recognized that the subhuman standards of living for commoners in russia and wanted to change it, without an iron fist leadership which he was not going for public appeasement was necessary, and this meant liberalization in the classical sense. He was simply too late in realizing this and he left himself open to Jewish bolsheviks who exploited every famine and problem that Russia had. This being said Nicholas II did not execute many rebels and Jewish communists with his okhrana secret police or prison system, Nicholas II prisons were even way better than in communist Russia. It comes without saying that no system is perfect, that is the human condition but as i mentioned we tried it before, it just fast-tracks to tyranny because natural selection which also applies to rulers is artificially eliminated by "virtue of birth", it's something so antiquated and that makes zero sense. You should read "They were White and they were Slaves" by Micheal A. Hoffman. You can also find it here http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.619.3821&rep=rep1&type=pdf Such systems are what you get when you don't place emphasis on the people that live in your nation, anything else is honestly a copout and nothing more than spiritually semitic. But it made sense at the time to not emphasize people, race. Since pretty much nobody had ever seen or heard about a negro/pygme or a tribal race. So this very important recognition didn't happen.
>>4890 >It's funny you mention former swamp of St. Petersburg, the entire city was built on human bones from citizen slaves/serfs, aka indentured servants for the romanov family, hundreds of thousands died completely preventable deaths to build that city for Peter the "Great", It wasn't too far-fetched to have military regiments and household slaves work on construction process. The Emperor's serfs did have to come in droves to begin construction on St. Petersburg. Like the Romans, they also had soldiers and slaves constructing roads and sanctioned them to work and die, but we still praise Roman engineering and their civics. The French monarchs also had commissions for projects of larger scale with service brought in from different parts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canal_du_Midi It was a marvel of engineering to keep the water afloat and was made for the benefit of avoiding the strait and allowing France to transport goods with ease across the continent--that was the same motivation with St. Petersburg. Russia always needed a good port city for its trade and commerce to industrialize with Western European nations. They always wanted access to the Black Sea and their Port Arthur in Korea. It was a measure to take for their public good in mind. They had a notion of the common good and this was whacked over the head of monarchs for centuries. It was assumed for the majority of these people that they were self-sufficient in many ways and they could scoop their service like a sand in a sandbox... I think sometimes those details are exaggerated, but that's all I'll dispute because I'm not going to deny that being a serf/slave isn't ideal. People today also think they're playing a slave role once in a while. >So, the preserved archival documents about the builders of North Palmyra for the first eight years of its existence allow us to come to the following conclusions. Firstly, in different years a rather different number of workers was determined in St. Petersburg (from 20 to 40 thousand per season). Secondly, in reality, the number of people sent and laborers and craftsmen was always less than the indicated number, as a result of which they were constantly in short supply. As the documents cited above show, they could not send people at all, or did not have time to collect the right number in time; there were even cases when working people recruited in a particular area scattered due to the invasion of the enemy army. In addition, some fell ill, fled or died on the way already at work in St. Petersburg. Therefore, it is natural to assumethat the officials responsible for these or those objects tried to preserve the workers they had. This is evidenced, for example, by the establishment of infirmaries, mentioned already under 1704. >Thirdly, the available historical sources cannot give the total number of people who died during the creation of the Petrovsky "paradise", but contain only fragmentary information. The mortality rate in them ranges from 0.19 to 13.25%, and the sick - from 1.06 to 40%. But according to this information, it is impossible to calculate the total number of deaths or illnesses, since, for example, the highest mortality rate (13.25%) was in July 1704 among 1,525 workers sent to Shlisselburg from Kargopol, Beloozero and Rzheva Volodimerovs, while mortality among those sent there in May from Rzheva Volodimerov, Romanov, Beloozer and from the Olonets shipyard, 1267 workers amounted to only 3%. In total, according to the decree of 1704, 20 thousand people were to send to Shlisselburg. Thus, we have data on only 14 percent of a certain number of people,by which it is impossible to judge what was the mortality rate of all working people who were in Shlisselburg in 1704. For the first eight years of the existence of St. Petersburg, information on all working people is available only in 1711, in which 0.24% died on the way to the "paradise", but it is not known how many workers died in the city itself. >Thus, the figures cited by foreign descriptions and created the history of the construction of St. Petersburg on the bones of its first builders, indeed, are very, very overstated. However, the documentary archival materials at our disposal are fragmented and are not able to provide generalized information on the number of deaths during the creation of the Northern capital in its early years. Translated from: https://statehistory.ru/5/Mif-o-postroennom-na-kostyakh-Peterburge/ That's what they say about Versailles (which I won't deny had its own death toll), but they also talk about a story published in a Dutch newspaper... exaggerating some incidents--and we know how the Dutch felt about King Louis XIV. >The workers? No. What's eminent about that city? The people who built it were nothing to their royal slavedrivers. Russia as with other European countries people had no fucking rights and no social mobility, if you were a tailor, if you were a pig farmer or mason the feudalism nature of the system usually meant you would be working in these professions for life, a "not noble" enough birth was literally the cause lol, imagine that. You couldn't even obtain schooling those were limited to nobles, and if you were lucky enough to be granted a change profession you had to enter a guild/apprenticeship, which also meant indentured servitude to a master who after typically many years allowed your freedom due to proprietary methods but this was also a form of extreme social control. This continued until the late 1800's. This will surprise most people because most trads/royalists today advocate a traditionalism and return to Feudalism/or even downplay Serfdom--but I don't want this. Don't get me wrong--I value tradition and know traditionalist qualms with rulers like Peter the Great and their scorn of 'Peterism'--but I also embrace innovations. I think that royal monarchy should encompass itself as an innovation, a renewal for the present-day dilemmas. But don't get the impression that I'm a kind of progressive--I value both old AND new to the extent it functions and works for all ages. For example, I am not even a Medievalist, but sometimes I dig up Medieval texts and appreciate them--but I also mostly don't really speak for Feudalism like other /monarchy/ anons (the majority, tbh) do... I don't condemn muh (((modernity))) the same way they do--I think that's silly to make new things on the basis of being new evil--or old bad because old things are old--I value all ages and want to see things eternally... modern isn't a bad word for me and neither is tradition... I hate these buzzwords and word salads the most (like the Collectivist vs. Individualist divide) and many other stupid things. >You should read "They were White and they were Slaves" by Micheal A. Hoffman. Maybe, but honestly--being brutally honest--I don't care when people do the guilt-trip angle like with King Leopold II's Belgian Congo or mark bad incidents--Charles Maurras had that occasion talking with a friend who mentioned King Louis XIV with the same tone of killing a peasant and resting his feet in the carcass--that's stuff is like the equivalent of muh Holocaust or muh slavery. >it just fast-tracks to tyranny Tyrannophobia. You should honestly hear about muh HLvM that NRx always bickers with this whole talk about monarchs not caring about ordinary people. Emperor Paul I would have a box for any serf or ordinary subject to bring complaints to him about the abuses in Russia. Various Russian Emperors considered the idea of liberation for the serfs, but it inevitably happened from the Tsar-Liberator. I'll confess that the serf debts were bad and that hit the economic situation, and also there was trouble w/ industrial systems--but are also many things exaggerated like being a completely backwater empire in the later centuries--Russia was one of the great powers. It had many innovative assets even in the Imperial era.

Report/Delete/Moderation Forms
Delete
Report

Captcha (required for reports and bans by board staff)

no cookies?