Are modern, young monarchists just in it for the aesthetics and special-snowflakeness of it all?

>current Pope
>socially conservative
I think not

>not racist = not conservative
no

Why the fuck isn't he calling a crusade if he's so conservative?

M8 you'd have to be either blind or dumb if you think Francis isn't the most progressive Pope yet

Everyone advocating for absolute monarchy does so on the assumption that the monarch will share their views entirely, have infallible judgement and be able to produce a line that has those qualities ad infinitum. If you ever note the unlikelihood of that happening the only argument they have is 'muh tyranny of the masses.'

You can be a conservative and not support a conservative.

Being the most progressive pope is about as impressive as having the best eyesight at a hospital for the blind.

Or worse, they say that the masses secretly /want/ a tyrant.

Or they assume they would be part of a political class, and people they disagree with would not.

They're autists who resemble Ignatius Reilly from 'A Confederacy of Dunces' - a bunch of idiot reactionaries who happened to either read too much old poetry or play too much CKII and now believe that their lives and that of everyone else would be ten thousand times better if they lived at some point in the past when monarchies held absolute power and the Church and state were intertwined, despite themselves indulging in modern conveniences such as technology and freedom of expression and the fact that they would most likely be peasants or beggars, and not nobles or kings as they fancy themselves to be.

Why so many people confuse medieval monarchy with early modern absolute monarchy, by the way?

Medieval monarchy as a form of government was extremely descentralized, it was closer to classical liberalism than to early modern absolute monarchy, with it's centralized tendencies that make it closer to modern conceptions of the State.

I never understood why so many anti-socialists and anti-statists love absolute monarchy. Like people who hate the French Revolution but love Louis XIV. Do they understand that the Jacobins merely finished the work that the Sun King began? If they truly understood that, they wouldn't lament the French Revolution, they would lament the defeat of the Fronde.

Do not be deceived, they are no different than the other leftist varieties who like big government and collectivism.

>Libertarianism

The 2000s called. It wants their ideology back.

Libertarianism since then has been exposed as the auxiliary line of communism and made irrelevant.

Why not put the more government side on the right? It's right-wingers in our democratic republics that push for more government, they're pushing left on your image.

>Libertarianism since then has been exposed as the auxiliary line of communism and made irrelevant.
explain

Libertarianism following land reform is communism following land reform.

The key difference is that libertarians tend to want to avoid land reform.

Democracy was a mistake.

>Everyone advocating for government does so on the assumption that the government will share their views entirely, have infallible judgement and be able to produce a line that has those qualities ad infinitum. If you ever note the unlikelihood of that happening the only argument they have is 'muh tyranny of the masses.'
FTFY

There's a subset of libertarians that want open borders since the very concept of borders would violate the "non-aggression principle".

But from a broader perspective, one of the core libertarian beliefs is support of free trade, and it is worth noting that Marx himself supported free trade in that it was destructive to nation states in comparison to a more protectionist economic policy. So in a way, libertarian policy would be advancing the goal of Marxist/communist groups whether they realize it or not.

Sure if Marxist assumptions were true, and we have no reason to assume they are.

>me having a say in decisions that affect me is a mistake

If you say so. I still want a say in decisions that affect me, though.

I don't know why Alex Jones and the like talk about the globalist boogeyman, when libertarians should be all about supporting globalism. Also free trade is sound economic policy and the ultimate goal should be to remove nation states and arbitrary borders.

alex jones is a retard and not a real libertarian, he supports an authoritarian fascist like drumpf so that should immediately discredit anything he has to say on the matter

Monarchists are cucks

I'm of the mindset that at this point in history being socially liberal is impossible without being fiscally liberal as well. what socially liberal causes are even left?

so whatever ideology i subscribe to i'm also fully indoctrinated by? how about no

Removing the nation state is a good thing from any actual libertarian's perspective though, since they are inherently authoritarian and collectivist in nature.

We will just have to ensure that a global society without borders does not fall prey to the economically illiterate communists which shouldn't be hard.

You don't have a say in anything.

Why?
I don't want to be American. I see their society, and everything except their material wealth is disgusting.
You want entire world like that?

Everyone benefits from more free market capitalism and social liberalism. The only ones who disagree are economic illiterates and fascist bootlickers.

no those guys actually wants the monarch to have power instead of just being a meme

Well if they're in the UK, particularly in Scotland or Northern Ireland, then it literally drilled into them from infancy.

>everyone benefits
Even in material sense you are wrong. And you are totally ignoring my point that problems aren't just material.
As I said, just look at American society and culture, do you want whole world like that?

You mean socialy conservative, fiscally liberal.

For a self-proclaimed literate economist you sure don't seem to have many arguments other than "I'm right."

>neoreactionary
>neomedievalist

Whoever puts "neo" in front his supposed ideology is a memelord.

>Everyone benefits by empowering an economic ideology which is literally predicated on someone having to lose

Uh, ok!

Well he could say losers today are far better off than those in past.
But he would be ignoring the fact that this didn't happen because of socially liberal free market worship.

>not socially conservative, fiscally conservative

There is nothing wrong with American society and culture, the only problems are due to corporatists and authoritarians having too much power not capitalism itself

Wealth is not a zero-sum game, capitalism lifts all boats like a rising tide, unlike economically illiterate Keynesians and Marxists which seek to drag the most successful people down and create debt instead of sound economic policy

>liberal as in free
>economically free
Fuqqin murrikans, free market with strong values...

Yeah sure.
Actually, I wish libertarians were main force in America, then you'd fuck off and ruin yourselves instead of ruining entire world with neoliberalism.
I don't even care about debating you, you are simply incapable of understanding what nation and culture mean, and it's not really your fault in the end, you were just born there.

>There is nothing wrong with American culture

It doesn't exist, for one.

>arguments
As a outsider reading your texts u juz got buttseksed.
Isnt nice that libertarians only can ruin themselves?
Neoloberalism is after all pretty leftist with healthcare and all(scandinavia, "free market", tax funded school/healthcare etc)

Fuck you

Don't generalize us based on stupid TV shows and movies you ignorant piece of shit.

monarchies are only good if theyre enlightened despots. other than that, democracy and liberalism is the way to go

also,
>people quoting the founding fathers like they think they would support their shitty political stances

I say people that hate democracy are people too lazy to accept political responsibility for their actions.

They don't want to take the burden so they find someone or some people who do and give it to them.

There's hardly any SVists in the real world. It's almost entirely a meme made by 20 year olds online. SSPX and Trad groups in good standing with Rome (FSSP) actually exist in decent numbers

Francis is on the liberal side of the Church, but compared to the wider society he's conservative. Still against gay marriage, for instance

Rome became a monarchy under Augustus despite having a strong history of republicanism and anti-monarchism (like the US). They got around this problem by pretending that the Republic still existed and the Emperor was just the supreme military commander (when he was the de facto monarch).

Are you baiting or just retarded?

>Drumpf
You have to leave until you grow out of namecalling and learn to take someone's statements and use them to formulate counter arguments, shitty memes used to discredit someone aren't legitimate arguments.

Signed, not a Trump supporter

>muh big gubberment

>Keynesians
>economically illiterate
>also not capitalists

Frankly, monarchism and democracy are both in a situation that makes me unable to support either

Democracy, especially with universal suffrage, is hedonistic and populated massively by uninformed, single-issue, or headline-only voters, descends into vote-pandering towards groups rather than good and effective policy, and is simply a concept that doesn't work right in an ethnically diverse society due to the varying interests that racial communities will have that may not be for the overall well-being.

Monarchy, on the other hand, is always and forever hampered by the 'shit heir' possibility. A monarchy under an enlightened ruler that in all ways had the national interest in mind when making decisions, whether or not said policies you'd agree with, would still likely be better off for the nation due to not having to deal with political gridlock and in every way would be better than democracy.

On the other hand, if you have a monarch that fancies in corruption, despotism, or tyranny, then only a fool would say monarchy at that point is better than democracy considering how monarchy is for life and democracy is only for the term length.

I want Burgers to leave.

>This picture
America is cancer

Catholicism was a safe space for acceptable conservatism and reactionary politics, however after Vatican II it was seen aa infested by evil liberals and not oppressive enough. So the best option was to jump back into traditional Catholicism and medieval philosophy.

Keynesians are capitalists.

>inb4 "muh true capitalism has never been tried" and "all government intervention is socialism"

Except democracies have more shit tier corrupt populists than monarchies have Neros and Caligulas

They seem to have more, because they have more transparency and we have more information on democracies, because they are more recent. Kings and nobles were just as corrupt as presidents and politicians

Well, the monarchs in England and Spain do a good job. And having a head of state that is above political fighting is great.

An authoritarian regime could only work better than democracy if it is not hereditary. You would need something like Plato's plan.

Rarely ever the same family has 4 good generations.

What do you mean the Jacobins finished the work the Sun King began? What was his goal?

Saved this one from a monarchy thread a few months ago.

1. The so-called Neo-reactionary crowd who tend to see absolute monarchy as the quintessential form of government. These guys often tend to be of a nationalist or even fascist persuasion who admire monarchy for its favoring of "better men" by gifting them with more complete freedom to legislate and manage without any accountability to "lesser men". These guys main concern is destruction of the "cathedral" of modern liberalism and democracy. They mainly read Evola and Moldbug.

2. The "romantic monarchist" as I like to call them. For these people, monarchy brings to mind a world that prizes moral virtue, freedom, honor, family, chivalry, high culture and a greater love of nature and just a world where men are treated more like real human beings and lived under rulers bound more by the fear of God. While they may appreciate all monarchies in different ways, they are more desirous of monarchy along the old medieval lines or along constitutional lines. They mainly read Burke, De Maistre, and Guenon.

3."Libertarian monarchists" or "merchant monarchists" I suppose you could say. These guys agree with the guys in category #2 on a lot of things but don't make arguments for monarchy based very much on religion or lofty ideals. Their main concerns are economical. They support monarchy because they believe that despite the appearance of one ruler, they have offered the greatest amount of economic freedom. They see history as being a process of degradation rather than progress from aristocracy/feudalism, to absolute monarchy, to finally democracy. They mainly read Hoppe, Rothbard and Mises.

A fourth category I think might be such monarchists whose different attitudes border more on philosophic anarchism and so sometimes avoid too specific of a categorization like those above. They aren't as concerned about reviving monarchy as much as using monarchist arguments

Evola would think neoreaction is fucking idiotic since it's so modernist, materialistic and carnal. They really feel like people who jumped from secular libertarianism straight to monarchism.

Trump does childish namecalling all the time.

I don't know enough about the Revolution or the Jacobins to make a comparison, but I know a fair amount about Louis XIV.
Basically, he delegated some shit to his nobles but still kept the ultimate final say-so on everything. He was a good ruler but also very good at delegating; he had an extraordinary knack for knowing who was the right man for a given job and also when to sack people who were taking the piss.
He created a system of government that ran France very well and kept the king and nobles very powerful, but the problem was it needed someone like him to run the whole show.
Which was why things slowly but surely went to shit after he died.

Like I said, I'm really not sure where the Jacobins are supposed to fit into the whole thing. Maybe Robespierre was supposed to be the new Gus Fring of Paris? I dunno.

That's exactly it. I blame Hoppe, Rockwell and the other crypto-fascists.

LARPing used to be about autistic nerds dressing up as fantasy or historical characters and taking on another persona for fun, fully self aware knowing its just an act. Nowadays, edgy autistic millennials LARP as Nazis, fascists, communists, anarchists, monarchists and religious fundamentalists - without a hint of self awareness or irony. Fantasy LARPers get a pass because their source materials are deliberately fiction, but todays edgy teen memelords take well documented history and trash it for a cheap, revisionist, history channel tier, /pol/ approved bastardization.

These are the faggots who couldn't name a single Crusader king or battle yet have that Knights Templar profile pic and spam DEUS VULT
These are the faggots who watch a shitty movie, play some dumb vidya and read 2 wiki articles and call themselves experts in X history
These are the faggots who idolize fascist propaganda yet fail in their personal lives to live up to a single ideal - strong, independent, virile, intelligent etc
These are the faggots who claim to be socialists who inevitably sell out on their values when they join all their liberal friends voting for the establishment
These are the faggots who worship mass murderers defending their crimes, as if they themselves wouldn't be sent to Gulag/Auschwitz for being degenerates
These are the faggots who love a strong leader unquestionably, and think said dictator owes them anything in return for their obsessive loyalty
These are the faggots who think they are uniquely special for being redpilled ignoring that reactionary thought is neither new nor special in any way
These are the faggots who claim to follow obscure ideologies but are a lot less informed about them given the lack of actual applications and moral ramifications thier ideology implies

Fuck it why can't we just pretend we are dragons or wizards on the internet? It would be so much more entertaining.

Blatantly untrue, First of all a monarch does not come from "noble stock", his family are simply warlords running a mafia protection racket who killed anyone who did not submit. Secondly the idea that an authoritarian system is less corrupt than a modern democracy is simply laughable. an authoritarian system REQUIRES corruption in order to function. Let me put it like this, any authoritarian leader maintains his power through the loyalty of certain groups. in the case of a feudal monarchy it's the aristocracy, in the case of a modern junta it's the military. In all cases the authoritarian must serve those groups needs instead of the nations. If he does not those groups withdraw their support and he is overthrown. Thus because the people cannot redress their grievances as in a democracy they must resort to corruption or violence in order to get anything done.

>economically liberal
I don't even know what this means anymore

Because a crusade goes completely against the teachings of Christ? Leave it to the military of countries to do the fighting.

Luke 22:36

Wow gee you sure showed me with that biblical quote taken completely out of context!