Alt-Right Monarchism

The """alt right""" is not a monolith. It's just an umbrella term for anti-egalitarians who do not belong to the American "religious right". This includes libertarians, fascists, traditionalists, nazis, racists, white nationalists, monarchists, and ancaps.
>t. notpol

Nazi Germany desu, up until around Operation Paperclip. But that was mostly a fluke of being shit-poor prior to establishing an economy temporarily revitalized by foreign loot.

>t. Amerilard

Basically these arguments. I'd rather serve a monarch than a bunch of puppet politicians and their Wall Street puppetmasters who only care about the short term of a nation

The question is, where is the Court of the Crimson King?

Exactly. A person who is personally responsible for the country during his or her entire life would have a much larger stake in keeping the country, and its people, stable and happy.

>Basically these arguments. I'd rather serve a monarch than a bunch of puppet politicians and their Wall Street puppetmasters who only care about the short term of a nation
I had rather serve a group of men who view themselves as equals with the rest of the country than some name fetishizing nobles and their king who think they own the common man.

Right libertarianism is basically feudalism. Also, there's some overlap between neonazis and right libertarians in /pol/, so i don't see how this is surprising.

I personally don't advocate absolute monarchy, but I think there's some merit in the idea of having a competent and well trained individual tailor-raised for the job of governing wielding large enough amounts of power to get shit done. This also means governments can think longer-term than the next election. Lots of democracies basically operate on a shortsighted agenda of "what will make people happy for when I'm up for re-election? What can I do to make sure my successor doesn't undo everything I've done?"

That said, the threat factor of a total fucking moron in charge outweighs this to me. Democracy seems to err towards mediocrity, you often avoid the extremes and in either case they're rarely around long enough to do much damage/good.

>Nazi Germany
Can't much of their special technological progress rather be attributed to them being desperate at the end of the war and had to take anything they could that could lead to superweapons of some sort?
Or is that viewing it wrongly?

>""""""equals"""""
Do you seriously think that the Western elite view themselves as an equal to the common man? It takes a certain type of underhanded personality to make it to the top in Western society and I'm sure just about all of them care more about their lobbyist interests or getting votes in the next election than the well-being of their country.

A royal dynasty has to focus on the stability and progress of their nations in the long run, not just whatever lies will get them into office for the next four years.

>racists
>implying all racists are right wing

yikes....

But there's a bunch of examples when the opposite has happened. Just as there are many republics where a temporary ruler did everything he could for his country.
Considering all the reasons there is for a ruler to just ditch his people I don't think that can be said for that people who are personally responsible will be better at keeping their country safe and people happy.

Exactly the same can be said about your own dynastic monarchies though.
To be able to keep your dynasty going you often need to be that sort of untrustworthy person who can backstab people, including your subjects. They have often shown themselves to run their subjects interests over for their own personal ones, like building beautiful castles, starting glory wars and making everyone adopt their own religion and killing those who don't.

And my quote wasn't as much a sincere statement but more of a counter against your very biased definition.

Why don't they advocate oligarchy? What makes monarchism better?

Absolute monarch owns his country and isn't just a mere administrator elected for four years, people tend to value their own property more and don't sell it out to "special interests" at the first opportunity.

Also the masses are too stupid and emotional to know what they want, in many countries if they had a direct democracy they'd just vote in a 3000€ minimum wage and no taxes and watch their economy implode.

> absolute monarchy
The one good moment is that Monarch would be a fair judge and unbiased because her didn't want to be more powerful. That allows Monarch to do what is necessary and focus on the matter of his nation instead of holding up to his power.

That's what we have.

>Absolute monarch owns his country and isn't just a mere administrator elected for four years, people tend to value their own property more and don't sell it out to "special interests" at the first opportunity.

Yeah, but people aren't property, and the whole idea of absolute monarchy rests on the idea that the masses are not free, but are his "subjects".

Wasn't that basically kinda what the not-so-democratic Hitler did?

>people aren't property

I see a claim but no argument

>no one mentions Triple H yet

I'll do you a favor: riosmauricio.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Hoppe_Democracy_The_God_That_Failed.pdf

>ancaps
>anti-egalitarians

>racists
>necessarily right wing

feel free to stop at any time.

We have democracy though

Almost cut myself on that edge. Keep the katana away when the grown ups are talking pls.

Saying "ow that edge" isn't an argument either, friend.

Rich people exist

I don't see you answering me about that Hitler point any.

Democracy is the government of the people. Does the gilens and page paper need to be posted yet again?

Neets who get indoctrinated since birth that the rich deserve to be rich because they're better realise that the ultimate conclusion of this would be that these "rich betters" would make better rulers if they are trained for it since birth.

First, I'm not the guy you're calling edgy, I'm saying whining about 'muh edgy' isn't validating your point of view any more than someone "wow like such a fucking bigot its 2016 people" does.

Second, whatever your Hitler comment is doesn't follow from the discussion we're having regarding monarchs owning their state and its citizens. If you said something relevant to the current discussion there, why not provide it instead of crying about edge?

If you don't accept even the most essential of modern ethical axioms, such as people not being slaves, then what's the point of having a discussion?

itt: edgefags think that they're smarter than the average, while also believing that random monarchs will consistently be smarter than common people

Because they think it would be cool.

I don't think anyone unironically thinks it would be a better form of government in this age.

I am not the person calling someone edgy.
And how, friend, does it not answer the post I made it for?
He is claiming that direct democracies would all follow a similar pattern, I tried to show a case where an absolute dictator ((which seemed to be pretty close to his ideal form)) did something exactly like what he was afraid would happen.

Same pro-monarchy arguments used ITT could also be used to justify dictatorships.

Speaking from someone from a country that had 24 years of military dictatorship, both sides happen. I.e. a "benevolent" dictator that implement policies to help the population out of poverty, misery and chaos, boosts economy and is overall good for the nation.
But for each one of that, there was 3+ power-hungry fuckers that just didn't crash the whole thing with no survivors because advisors/generals controlled him (somewhat).

>not-so-democratic Hitler

Hitler was elected democratically so if you want to argue the people elected a dumbass as their representative, by all means go for it.

I'm not the guy, however, it's entirely feasible to have a paternal view of it, and have people 'belong' to them the same way children 'belong' to their parents. Both sides have responsibilities to the other, with the understanding that the 'father' is supposed to act in the best interest of the child.

It's not like children aren't entitled to rights, it's not giving the monarch 100% free reign and saying "you're not even a human being, he can just put you against the wall and shoot you if you like". It's not chattel slavery where you're bought and sold.

Merely that going "YIKES THATS EDGY!" in regards to the concept that a person looks after something that's "theirs" rather than something they're basically renting isn't an intelligent rebuttal, you could address the ethics of it instead and actually have a fucking debate.

>it's not giving the monarch 100% free reign and saying "you're not even a human being, he can just put you against the wall and shoot you if you like". It's not chattel slavery where you're bought and sold.

But this is just an idealized version of it that you cooked up in your head.

In reality, it's going to look like 18th century Tsarist Russia.

While becoming democratically elected, he abolished democracy as soon as he got power.
The people had no way of democractially limiting what he did after that. He used his dictator powers to silence those who criticized his politics.
Absolutely everything he did after getting the election apart from the annexation of Austria he did as an absolute dictator.

I'm the guy you were calling edgy but i'm not the guy you replied to where you made that stupid point about hitler

You're delusional if you think there's only one guy in the world who disagrees with you

The problem is that Hindenburg didn't stop him. He was supposed to safeguard the democracy, but he was senile.

You still haven't provided an argument for why people shouldn't be property other than "dude everyone thinks that lol xd"

>random

Apart from being democratically elected, what differed Hitler from any other absolute Dictator in history?

>mimimi democracy is awesome but ONLY if the people elect who I want!

Democracy sucks cock.

The moustache

Not that guy.
Why should they be property though?

another claim without evidence/argument

Go back to your favela

I'm personally not in favor of an absolute monarchy in the first place, if that means that the monarch doesn't have to abide by a constitution of some sort. I'm just supporting the guy's argument that somebody is more likely to look after something that's his responsibility for life than something he's just looking after for four years 'so take advantage of your station while you're there because you'll be out soon enough.'

I'm also saying that just because you "belong" to the monarch (in the way that you're his subject) doesn't instantly translate to "you're literally a chattel slave and plaything" and that monarchs had expectations regarding their relationship with their subjects, even in Tsarist Russia. Suggesting, however, that literally every absolutist monarchy would operate like fucking Russia is also pretty dumb.

At the end of the day all I'm saying is the guy who screamed "edgy" is a moron and he should at least try to validate his position instead of going entirely on "its 2016 people the ethics I hold are flawless and don't need to be at all defended."

Not an argument.

>burn the reichstag
>forbid the communist party
>apointed by Hindenburg
Can we stop this meme?

He deeply cared for his people and made the country better off than when he was elected in every aspect

"First there comes a terrifying realisation of the limitless uncontrolled changes now in progress, then wild stampedes, suspicions, mass murders and finally mus ridiculus the Hero emerges, a poor single, silly, little human cranium held high and adorned usually with something preposterous in the way of hats. "He knows," they cry. "Hail the Leader!" He acts his part; he may even believe in it. And for quite a long time the crowd will refuse to realise that not only is nothing better than it was before, but that change is still marching on and marching at it—as inexorably as though there were no Leaders on the scene at all."
-HG Wells
I feel like disaffected reactionary teenagers flock to monarchies because they promise simple solutions to complex problems.

I'm not saying they should but if you can't prove that they shouldn't be then why rule it out that they can't be

All I'm asking is to back up your claims with an argument

> made the country better off
You mean under occupation of four western powers?

Ah, yes, leaving your country defeated, occupied, destroyed, and raped by the soviets. The dream of every leader.

So it's Hitler's fault that Churchill and the Allies were genocidal war hungry demagogues and willingly declined peace treaties in favor of war?

>All I'm asking is to back up your claims with an argument
I did say I weren't him though.

>The historical record isn't evidence

lol, you're exactly like Commies who claim their shitpiece religion "hasn't been tried yet".

>made the country better off

You mean before [THING THAT COULDN'T POSSIBLY BE HITLER'S FAULT] right?

How about you give us some some god example of your ideal Monarchy?
Preferably one that lasted more than one or two generations.

I don't know what is bait and what isn't anymore. Is this the latest /pol/ revisionist bullshit?

/pol/acks seem to believe that the Gleiwitz incident was real so probably.

Suppose we use the word subject instead of property, operating on the same assumption that the monarch is the 'owner'.

What does it necessarily imply? The instant dismissal obviously suggests that the person assumed "slave" and made the jump to the worst things that happen to slaves, lacking in any rights, at the whims of their owner.

Why is it so unreasonable that a ruler and a subject have mutual responsibilities, as they do in every single society on earth? In democratic societies as well you have certain duties and requirements. Paying taxes, in many places jury duty, following the law. You forfeit some freedom in a contact. By being the subject of a monarch you are merely making the contract with the individual rather than the state... And in an absolute monarchy, the individual is the state anyway.

You are forfeiting freedoms, but (and this even went for absolute monarchies) there is an expectation that it's a mutual arrangement where both the monarch and the subjects have to hold up their end of the bargain. Monarchs are well aware that they can't maintain power when everyone in the country wants their head.

Not him but France before Louis XVI

Great argument

You can use the historical record in an argument against democracy as well, you know. It's not like democracies haven't failed repeatedly. Not to mention the most vigorous democracies right now are, as far as history goes, relatively young. It's not like we just leveled up and hit "we democracy now" and it'll never change.

>triple H

He is the king of kings

So Germany was hypothetically better off if things had gone differently. That's a lot different than "Germany was better off" you know.

You might as well say France was on the up-and-up during Louis XVI's reign "if the revolutionaries hadn't been so unreasonable".

Maybe I am historically illiterate, but wasn't the king before him something of a disaster for France who increased the dept of the country by quite a big percentage while laying the foundation for many of the troubles during Louis XVI's regime?

That's true as well

If monarchy is so good why it doesn't exist now?

I mean Hans-Hermann Hoppe of course, not the WWE Triple H

I don't need to provide any argument because he is the one affirming something. Not to mention he is the one going against the academic consensus. While we're at it, i'd like to know where were Molyneux's arguments when interviewing chomsky.

>I don't need to provide any argument
>going against the academic consensus

Yes you are truly the crown jewel of academia with your robust arguments like "lol xd ur just from /pol/ ur just a revisionist"

If something is incorrect, it should be revised.

...

Republicans and commies blown the fuck out ITT

It still doesn't change the outcome. Louis XVI's reign ended in his execution and horrific mob rule for years. Whether you hold him responsible or not, he failed to prevent that outcome. It's hard to argue his reign was good for France with that in mind, unless you want to start calling him the father of French democracy or something.

Maybe you are not aware of how logic works, but the person that affirms something is the one with the burden of proof. It is logically impossible to refute an existential statement.

> Monarch lose genetic lottery and born a literal retard
What is monarchists argument against that?

Drive the nation to ruin

>the people lose genetic lottery and born literal retards

That's every democracy ever

Are you implying Churchill did not decline offers of peace treaties from Hitler?

While Churchill did turn down a lot of peace offers, Hitler did ignore a lot of warnings.
HE wasn't also really a trustworthy guy, as is the case with the Munich treaty and Moloto reippentrop pact.

Less bad monarchs than bad democratic systems. And a bad system is worse than a bad king

You can advocate for other forms of monarchy you know...

...

But monarchism doesn't ensure that the best person rules. It's non-meritocratic by nature.

...