/monarchy/ - Monarchy

Past, Present, and Future

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


(used to delete files and postings)

Open file (142.72 KB 988x1200 DS2kNFoXkAAnAJy.jpg)
Is it possible to purplepill women? Peasant 11/14/2019 (Thu) 14:59:48 No.1251
No, this is not a 'tfw no monarchist gf' thread but it can be
It is more about womankind and their proclivity towards the royalist pov. There are those niche women who dabble in politics and partake with the political animalisms, but what about the feminine attraction towards monarchy.
Before anyone says a word, I am not saying we bring females into our fold. I am calling for an opportunity to bring our voice through to women as a royal game of ours. We could start Operation Joan of Arc and have women embrace the royalist point of view and indirectly influence them from the Despotate
Beyond this line, okay, maybe it can be a tfw no monarchist gf thread.
Women just follow whatever the strongest authority figure in their life tells them to follow. Expect when their hormones go haywire, and their mating instincts take over their mind. In the absence of a strong authority figure they just follow the least risky opinions that give them the most benefits. If you enforce patriarchy then women are a non-issue, because they will even support it the same way they support anything else. But you can't turn them into the force that enforces patriarchy.
Women change their politics like they change fashion styles. Few of them are truly committed to one philosophy or another. Given time to adapt, they will follow either
>whatever political view gets them the most attention (think alt-lite e-girls)
>whatever political view dominates the sewing circle
>whatever political view is presented by the most influential man in her life (either her mate or her father)
If you present yourself as firmly traditionalist (this is different from sperging out like some wignats do), over time she will become trad as well. Perhaps not a fully-fledged monarchist, at least not at first, but she will become accustomed with time. And unlike ideological pretenders, there's something inherently appealing about the monarchical aesthetic on a primal level. Patriarchal "tyranny" is natural, and as a result alluring.
Open file (46.90 KB 600x600 f36.jpg)
>Women just follow whatever the strongest authority figure in their life tells them to follow. Expect when their hormones go haywire, and their mating instincts take over their mind.
Of course, we should not have bind all women to abandon natural roles as men are, but it would still be entertaining to have a select few monarchist girls.
>Women change their politics like they change fashion styles. Few of them are truly committed to one philosophy or another. Given time to adapt, they will follow either
True dat.
>If you present yourself as firmly traditionalist (this is different from sperging out like some wignats do), over time she will become trad as well. Perhaps not a fully-fledged monarchist
I want to see full blown spergy monarchist girls. There are already trad girls and e-thots on board there. I want girls that autistically repeat the rhetoric we have here.
>And unlike ideological pretenders, there's something inherently appealing about the monarchical aesthetic on a primal level. Patriarchal "tyranny" is natural
That was what I was thinkin in the OP. There is an inclination for them to embrace the royalist cause. However, I know a few of them resist it out of disdain for being associated with a 'princess' like persona. But I recall that they still desire a prince-like figure.
I personally understand that it is enough for most men to have your trad e-thots cultivated into the wife role model, but I want a special cultivated role for female royalists. We will make them like the Amazonian Guard that Gaddafi had. Not an ideal role model for all women, since those women should stick to the natural component, but influence another group of females to appeal to the royalist pov autistically.
tbh, at this rate, it would be cute to have an absolutist gf who bitterly talks about how we need despotism, but I guess that is what Grace is for
Open file (95.30 KB 712x720 fKpdAllW8aI.jpg)
I don't subscribe to the opinion that women's political opinions are based completely on things like hormones or boyfriends or authority figures or muh feels or whatever, and a lot of these observations about them can easily apply for men just as well. We must remember that we are discussing fringe topics which are also borderline autistic, not only is the vast majority of the population (including men) not this autistic, but there is also about 4x less female autists than males. So if we're judging who is monarchist and who is not by the kind of discussions we have here, then obviously there will be a lot less women.

Women are also capable of critical thinking and even holding the kind of fringe beliefs we have here, but they may have different reasons for it, maybe their monarchy depends on a fairytale utopia guided by a kind father figure who loves his people, maybe the value status and tradition over "cheap" democracies and unreliable politicians. It really depends on the vision, and a lot of other things.

If we're talking about human nature, it's a very nuanced topic, and there's a lot that could be said about it, I could write pages about it from the interesting research I did so far in Jungian depth psychology and there are a lot of amazing insights on how people make decisions or choose their beliefs. You can't really explain it all away with simple reasons when we are talking about something as complex as whole systems layered on top of other systems, because if you get an incomplete picture somewhere on a low enough level from lazy research or meme infographs, the bias you end up with on the higher levels is so magnified that you end up with the same extremely skewed beliefs that /pol/ and /fascist/ believe in. Even most of us won't easily explain how we became monarchists, or under what circumstances would we have continued not being monarchists.

Of course, it's also absolutely possible to purplepill women, it's even possible for them to purplepill you if you aren't already purplepilled (I personally heard few stories about how a guy would start out as some liberal normalfag or something, but his girlfriend goldpilled him into being a libertarian, though I didn't really hang out in monarchist circles enough to hear the same thing). I say it enough times already in probably every thread, that if you want to convince anyone, learn the art and science of post-irony, it's the only way to talk about monarchy in a way that won't completely dry a girl's pussy, but on the contrary, for her to go along with the fun and appreciate that you can think for yourself and you aren't a normalfag like everyone else, and then for her to reconsider her own beliefs on the topic.

>Beyond this line, okay, maybe it can be a tfw no monarchist gf thread.
Ok, in that case I'll add that there was a REALLY cute girl I met working at this monarchist book club I went to a few weeks ago for a lecture/discussion, she was easily one of the top 5 cutest girls I ever met both in terms of face, fashion choice, and personality, she was really helpful and considerate, served tea and cookies and tried her best to make you comfortable while being noticeably shy and anxious, you could tell she's an introverted nerd who reads books and watches anime, anyway, the problem is she looked a bit too young for me to consider dating her, I think she was in her late teens, and if I were 4 years younger I would have maybe asked her for her number or something (not really, because I was nowhere near as confident back then as I am today).
>a bit too young for me
>late teens
Are you in your fifties?
Open file (103.11 KB 749x652 y2vqnl4tfxo32.jpg)
Involving women in any sort of sub-culture or movement never ends well.
Let's consider a few royalist women.
Mary Astell is considered the first English feminist, but she was also a royalist.
>Having been exposed in her youth to violent political situations such as civil unrest and riots in the streets of Newcastle is probably what helped develop her interest in politics. She had "idealized" King Charles I.
And the 2nd pic
Mary Bankes defended a castle from a parliamentarian siege.
Open file (747.38 KB 1049x1080 r2PgQajF6Ic.jpg)
You don't have to involve them, but they will involve themselves on their own whether we like it or not. Women in a movement or sub-culture is an indicator that it is becoming mainstream. There must also be exclusively male spaces for discussion and planning and strategizing, but there's nothing wrong with women in the broader movement as a whole.
Both of them were royalists in a time when being a royalist was the norm, and I'm sure that both of them were influenced by authority figures to be loyal to the king when they were growing up.
>Women in a movement or sub-culture is an indicator that it is becoming mainstream.
Indeed, but trying to bring them in won't make a movement mainstream. That's why you should just ignore them.
Open file (58.47 KB 800x600 king.jpg)
>>1262 >monarchist book club where is that? also, if the girl is the one on the pic, you should totally date her, how many years of difference it could have? how many years of difference usually had kings respect their wives?
>>1264 so then, FRESH MEAT
Open file (116.15 KB 470x312 1364128723_0.jpg)
Open file (138.16 KB 768x432 1354533763352.jpg)
Open file (227.27 KB 1046x1280 IMG_95381.jpg)
A lot of people, not just women, need arguments to be applicable to something in their daily lives. I like to start off by attacking the existent framework before suggesting that it doesnt have to be this way. With my own gr: >bb I was arguing with a friend >what about? >how democracy is bad >why would you say that? >because nobody ever makes important decisions in their lives by democratic vote >for example would you let me and my friends vote on which gynecologist you get to see? >wow youre right that's awful >also think about it a president is in for 4-8 yrs and he nor the people who elected are responsible for how he leads >imagine if i was only committed to this relationship and the financial health of our account for 4-8 years and when I leave Im absolved of all of it + will be paid for life. >what kind of debt do you think i could run up in that time Needless to say working on people's level while not patronizing them is a good start. Flies to honey and all that.
Open file (106.37 KB 678x768 1577767947145.jpg)
>>2008 It's a place in my city owned by a monarchist publishing startup where they host events and lectures and stuff. One of the co-founders is a libertarian and I had a chance to chat with him while there, pretty cool guy. It's not the one in the pic, the one I met looked kinda like pic related, but a bit younger and more bashful, and also wearing some kind of modern Japanese/Korean fashion. She also looked like she's 19 at most while I'm 25.
You can red pill them the Genghis Khan way. On a more serious note, wives/brides to be are easier to sway than siblings/non related grills.
Open file (49.84 KB 600x340 5t5fhrmg98ay.jpg)
Open file (60.78 KB 946x395 jewish (1).jpg)
>>2035 Having somewhat spaniard and french ancestry, I don't understand much why some (economic) libertarians are interested in monarchy. I think on opus dei and I didn't like their selfish approach to catholicism and their infatuation with logical and epistemological absurd austrian economics. She is a russian monarchist and also a kpoplover? curious stuff
Open file (55.60 KB 438x461 sakamoto woods.jpg)
>>2139 >I don't understand much why some (economic) libertarians are interested in monarchy What does that have to do with being a Spaniard or Frog? Seeing the monarch as a private property owner and having a stronger mind equipped for time preference, libertarians have reasons to back monarchy from a libertarian angle. Dante says that only through Monarchy could Mankind exist for its own sake, and that freedom is best with a monarch. >With this in mind we may understand that this freedom, or basic principle of our freedom, is, as I said, the greatest gift bestowed by God upon human nature, for through it we attain to joy here as men, and to blessedness there as gos. If this is so, who will not admit that mankind is best ordered when able to use this principle most effectively? But the race is most free under a Monarch. Wherefore let us know that the Philosopher holds in his book, concerning simple Being, that whatever exists for its own sake and not for the sake of another is free. For whatever exists for the sake of another is conditioned by that other, as a road by its terminus. Only if a Monarch rules can the human race exist for its own sake Also, muh joos isn't good enough.
>>2139 >le lolbergism is jooish maymay Three of the five in your pic are described as self-hating Nazis by other Jews, one of those three wrote an entire article about how he hates other Jews because most of them are communist vermin. The other two have no philosophical connection to Australian egonomics of any sort and aren't followed by the people you call lolbergs. >logical and epistemological absurd austrian economics. Oh, so you've managed to disprove the action axiom? That's quite the accomplishment. Do tell, how did you manage this? Truly you are a galaxy brain for doing what no one else has been able to do, please enlighten us lowly plebians with your thought process.
Open file (1.03 MB 665x650 wtf.png)
>>2139 I honestly don't understand what's written here.
>>2150 Well, jews kvetch constantly about Trump and he is the most pro jewish president of all tie. The jew always plays both sides. And it works damn well.
>>2153 >Jews like it: Jewish >Jews don't like it: Jewish Wow, you sure convinced me with this top-tier rhetoric.
>>2153 This isn't a good way to look at things. Like it or not there are always exceptions. The best way to look at the Jewish people is to ask yourself one thing. Are they knowingly trying to destroy Europeans. I.e someone like kalergi. Or are they some rando with no power who is waving a fag flag around. Sure both are bad but one is malicious the other is retarded.
>>2155 Nah, they can't do that. Pics related. Being paranoid about literally everything that Jews say and do betrays a lot of neuroticism and a lack of confidence in their own cognitive abilities. If you're a dumbass nigsoc, it's easier to outsource your thinking to the group, and it's safer to paint with broad strokes and assume that some Jew wants the worst for you than to do some critical thinking and to verify what he says based on what you know and your own research. For example, if you're a neurotic nigsoc and a Jew tells you "do regular exercise, sleep 8 hours, and drink 7 cups of water every day, goy" and you do the opposite, it means your fear of Jews is stronger than your confidence in what you know, and it also means Jews are literally your masters via reverse-psychology. It's related to the same kind of paranoia that you get when you feel something crawling on your arm, or when you hear something in the dark, or when you think you see something long and slithery next to you in the corner of your eye. It really might be nothing at all, but we evolved to jump back in fear anyway because this tiny expenditure of energy is literally nothing in the small chance that it really is a real threat. However, if you jump in fear at literally everything that happens, that's the definition of "neurotic", it means you're either in a radically unfamiliar situation with no information about what's a threat or what's not, or you have so little trust in what you know that you feel like literally everything could be a threat to you. This results in primitive black and white ways of thinking which we evolved as a defense mechanism, but if you use it all the time it just means you're dumb as shit: Before a fascist even reads your whole post, they already decide their stance based on "us vs them" queries, and if they detect that you're not with them but against them, they will disregard the objectivity of whatever you say even if you happen to be the living reincarnation of Hitler himself. If you want to have some fun, you can actually force nigsocs to try and think critically by tricking their "us vs them" detection system and keep them guessing whether you agree with them or not. It will really grind their gears and they will change the subject to talking about niggers and BBCs or something else in their programming. Just go look at /pol/ or their board here, most of their posts are either feels>realz dramatic essays meant to appeal to some emotions or asking others about how they should think/feel about something. I'm not even going to mention reddit, but the only other imageboard where I can see the same kind of "how do you guys feel about this?" groupthink behaviour is fucking crystal cafe.
Ashkenazi/Euromutt Jews are gasoline. They don't start fires, merely fuel them. Jewish behavior we all know and hate roots in Reform/Modern Judaism. Not really the Judaism of David's day. Modern Euromutt Jews are more about hating Whitey for muh Crusades/Hitler than following the laws of their patriarchs.
>>2155 Like my fellow LARPer said, the kind of person who immediately reduces all philosophical questions to Jew or no-Jew isn't going to be responsive to this mode of thinking. These are the same people who say abstract reasoning independent of evidence is a Jewish invention and antithetical to truth if anyone has that screencap please post it, after all.
>>2159 Honestly /pol/ and /fascist/ give the Jews way too much credit. I think it's more along the lines of trying to blame everything for your failures. I would consider myself a failure but this pessimistic view on life has given me a unique perspective. Made me convert to christianity.
>>2159 >Crystal.cafe Talking shit about my harem now are we?
>>2139 Maybe you're right. Maybe the JQ does matter a bit.
>>2192 Of course the JQ matters. But if you don't understand why it matters, which most NEETSocs don't seem to grasp, you only leave yourself more vulnerable to its influences than you were before. Smoothbrains who think Mamma Goldberg's Deli down the street is in on the conspiracy to destroy the West, or who mindlessly insert Rothbard's name into parentheses to go "haha look guys, I found a Jew, aren't I smart?" are examples of this. Even the NatSocs of the 30s fell for this trap--they saw the Jew as the source of society's ills, but never saw what made them dangerous. So, even after purging Berlin of degenerate trash, they unwittingly adopt a materialist and fundamentally Jewish philosophy, but for Aryans instead of Jews. They even incorporate a bit of Jewish mythology into their own, what with Himmler's LARP about being the chosen people.
>>2166 >Talking shit about my harem Huh? I didn't say anything about /trannypol/.
>>1251 >WOMEN IN POLY-DICKS???? Fucking idiot moron cunt. Women do not belong in politics unless they are in charge of the State. It's bad enough we have pleb retards who think they know this or that when they could never know, being plebs. Also, women adapt anyway.

Report/Delete/Moderation Forms

Captcha (required for reports and bans by board staff)

no cookies?