Explain why anyone would be a monarchist in the 21st century

I'll tell you why.

My King

My King does not long for a palace of gold,
My King left a palace of gold for a manger filled with hay.
My King does not long for the adoration of hosts,
My King left that adoration for a lifetime of persecution and toil.
My King does not order me to go fight his enemies,
My King says “Saddle up and follow me, boys!”
My King does not long to conquer the world,
My King was offered the world on a platter, and rejected it.
My King does not hoard wealth and riches,
My King gave them all up to be poor.
My King does not ask me to do something he cannot.
My King did something I cannot without my asking.
My King does not desire fancy clothes, and fancy cars;
My King donned a tunic, and sandals, and rode on a donkey.
My King is not trying to be deified in the afterlife;
My King thought it not robbery to be equal with God.
If your King is not my King, my King is the King over your king.
The King over everything.
The King of Kings, and the Lord of Lords.

Is the mad monarchist still around? I remember reading that blog sometimes

Yeah, I looked him up the other day. Guy just made a post about some Swedish king yesterday. Gotta give the guy credit, at least he's dedicated to his beliefs.

Many still do.

Is that something you just typed up or is that a copypasta

OC my nigga

Pretty much all Commonwealth nations are just Republics that nominally acknowledge the Monarchy because muh heritage

Nice

Thank you, that's very kind.

Oh yeah, and also
>Constitutional Monarchies are pretty much just republics with a government-paid celebrity as the technical head of government

They are still monarchies that recognize a monarch as their head of state. The England and later the UK had a parliament that managed most of the nations affairs. Does this mean it wasn't a monarchy but in fact an oligarchy of some kind?

>comparing pre-industrial with post-industrial

The democratic institutions (In Europe of course) are empowered and have more authority than the monarch.

While technically true, I am am skeptical when it comes to classifying the commonwealth and the UK as having a monarchical system of government, owing to the fact that the monarchy has no actual political power, as far as I'm aware. Saudi on the other hand...

Because democracy is a mistake.
Monarchs have genetics suited to rulership(Discounting rare exception), are raised to rule(Or should be), and have a real stake in their country, because a strong and successful country is good for the monarch for all of his life, and for his children.
Unlike silver-tongued demagogues preaching unsustainable bullshit to foolish masses who will be ultimately hurt when, in twenty years, the true effects are felt, while the demagogue is retiring in Florida.

Monarchs are also more responsible for their mistakes unlike elected officials who can shift and delegate blame or simply escape it entirely by leaving office. In fact you could say that many monarchs have a history of being blamed for things outside their control.

>After democracy, it's the best system of government.

Democracy is a failure and causes corruption that is impossible to stop.

>corruption

>17/18 century had seen rise of competent absolute monarchs that led their countries to greatness
>20 century had two of biggest soyboys their countries had ever seen in charge of their countries (nicky and wilhelm)
what the fuck happened

> What is a war of succession

No, stalin was picked by the communist parties delegation.

...

Imagine if the US was a monarchy no more stupid pointless elections, no more sociopath campaign funders, no more tribal OOGA BOOGA ME REPUBLICAN NO ME DEMOCRAT *animal noises* no more presidential candidate shitflinging and the media in general would no longer be cancerous.

>for second a misread the map an though Australia was listed under “sultanate”

Shitty parenting. Wilhelm was given all sorts of quack treatments for his paralyzed arm and was desperate to overcompensate for it. Nicholas' father didn't bother to teach him how to govern a country, or even how serious the job was.

The UK still has hereditary peerage in its upper house. The Queen still has some prerogatives, despite almost never using them. I think Japan fits though, since the Emperor of Japan is only a symbolic head of state.

None were as deadly as WWII.

I almost creamed my pants. Stop this, user.

A man can dream.

I think I just read somewhere that they recently got rid of hereditary peerage for the house of Lords. You need to be elected, but the position is for life. Someone, please correct me if I'm wrong.

On that topic, I'm really interested to hear about the actual powers of the British Monarchy. I'm certain it's a ceremonial position at this point.

>media no longer cancerous

I think you underestimate their likelihood of cancer. It's genetic

Aesthetics, cultural role, and a living link to a country's history at the very least. Monarchies (whether absolute or constitutional) operate at least as well as republics, often better. There's something to be said for having loyalty to a person rather than a vague set of ideals, and there is also something to be said for a leader who simply inherited what was rightfully theirs rather than one who was good a getting votes.
>Constitutional Monarchies are pretty much just republics with a government-paid celebrity as the technical head of government

Constitutional means that the monarch's power is limited by a constitution. Many constitutional monarchs still exercise executive power, like with Morocco, Liechtenstein, or Jordan. Some have much more limited powers like the Commonwealth realms or the Netherlands, and some are strictly ceremonial like with Sweden and Japan.

A country leader should be selected by their merit and love from the people and when they die/retire a new leader should be voted in.

Royal Families/Hereditary Monarchies are cancer riding on the actions of their ancestor rather than their own works and rising to the level of a beloved leader on their own accord.

>their own accord.
You mean a silver tongue? Preaching violence and nonsense like Communism or Fascism?

Will humanity ever properly implement a meritocracy as a form of government?

Well, if you were born into a country with an actual monarchy, you'd have to be a monarchist, because the alternative would be treason. And you don't want to be a traitor, do you?

There are many reasons to support monarchy. Perhaps if I knew your objections, I could better respond, OP. There is much to say for having a person's life and family attached to the well being of the nation and its chthonic people and culture, for having a incarnation of the national spirit that can demonstrate our culture and propriety, for making politics significant for all rather than the realm of some detached and wealthy "representative" oligarchs and business owners who can retreat at a whim.

I don't think monarchy is the ideal system, but I have utter disdain for representative oligarchy.

>no more stupid pointless elections

Sounds like the dream of the sheep. You don't have to worry about making decisions, the Almighty State will make all decisions for you.

>no more sociopath campaign funders
They'll just be the despot's bagmen instead.

>no more tribal politics
Disenfranchisement and slavery is a poor trade

>media in general would no longer be cancerous

You haven't paid much attention to media in one-party states such as North Korea or the USSR, have you?

Monarchy is at the core of western civilization and western family, the history of a nation is counted by its royal family.
( And having a genetically superior family trained since their childhood to be ruler is a very good idea)

>Monarchy is at the core of western civilization
Weird, the Greeks and Romans considered monarchy Oriental degeneracy and the representative republic is unique to Western civilizations.

It did though.

in greek democracy only a small percentage of society was allowed to participate in politics and they had slaves too
your point?

oligarchy =/= autocracy

You're an idiot

monarchs saved millions
republics killed millions of its own societies, cultures and cant be associated with by random person

I never said an oligarchy was bad, did I? Democracy is cancer, a representative republic or constitutional monarchy is much better.

>constitutional monarchy
so a republic with overrated parrot in a cage that is there only to look pretty?

>implying Rome wasn't created as a monarchy
>implying ancient Greece never had a monarch

This "parrot" could be real strong unifying factor. Most popular democratic politicians rarely have popularity of monarchs.

Greeks and romans where apolineans, we love to paint ourselves as a continuation of them but in reality we are a very different civilization

>Having a monarch in charge also makes the government much more relatable to many people compared to a faceless bureaucratic assembly.
Very much this. Current state of affiar or rather the affairs of state have become completely invisible. power has no face anymore.
On top of that there is the idea that a hereditary monarchy would lead to someone actually caring for their country because the next generation will take it over.

There's a lot of reasons, actually.

A totally democratic state only protects the interests of the majority, while usually a considerable part of the population (often more than a half) feels disenfranchized with the goverment, like in the case of the US. A monarch, as the natural representant of the country, is a very powerful unifying factor, and he can be the mediator between opposing factions.

A periodic shift of power means that short-term benefits are prioritized over more unpopular, long term investments. This makes following a clear path impossible, and contradictory policies from different goverments distabilize the country. A prince, having to face the long term consequences of his decissions, are more likely to try to take the better route for the country to prosper, rather than deteriorating the state to guarantee 4 more years in office.

A royal family is a constant symbol of a country, who is able to represent the country on the outside and act as a skillful diplomat.

Rather than electing a mediocre leader every once in a while, I'd rather have a king, who has been prepared and trained all his life to govern, to rule over me.

I laughed

Killing death itself.

Outstanding.

Have you read Democracy: The God that Failed?

Also, this is the best answer.

Edgy contrarinism

>A country leader should be selected by their merit and love from the people
The original kings of countries were the most loved of the top clique in the tribes.
>and when they die/retire a new leader should be voted in.
Fuck no as respect to the original king only their descendents should rule the nation.

>Fuck no as respect to the original king only their descendents should rule the nation.

You know why this is retarded, it would be patronizing to tell you. Quit your bullshit.

>A periodic shift of power means that short-term benefits are prioritized over more unpopular, long term investments.

>Rather than electing a mediocre leader every once in a while, I'd rather have a king, who has been prepared and trained all his life to govern, to rule over me.

very much this

Monarch is not elected by any group and have no ties to any specific political or social group or any obligations to them.

A lot of people hate democratic politicians just because they are from the "wrong" party, even if they are competent.

The jews in the protocol of zion even stated that monarchies in Europe were a major issue with executing their plans thats why they got rid of them and replaced it with their (((republic))) creation. The endgame of this experiment has been reached, the jew infestation is now in every fucking government parliament in Europe, America, Canada,Austraila,Argentina, Uruguay,Chile and New Zealand.

Well somebody needs to distract the plebs with their glorified celebrity culture

Too bad popularity is not a function of effectiveness

Hereditary Peers were largely abolished in 1999 but there are still 92 in the Lords. The rest are Life Peers, who are not elected at all but rather appointed by Queen on the advice of her ministers (in reality she doesn't choose, what actually happens is that peers get appointed to each party in proportion to the makeup of the Commons during the life of that Parliament).

The actual powers of the monarchy are still somewhat strong de jure, but de facto it is just a ceremonial position. The government rules in her name rather than her directly. However she does still have weekly meetings with the Prime Minister of the day, so she retains her power to advise and warn.

That's largely a recent thing actually. In Britain the bread and circus aspect of the monarchy didn't show until the late 1800s. That's why it's so popular even today. It's easy to forget that before Victoria's late reign, the monarchy was not popular, and they were far more private. Essentially, the monarchy ended up sacrificing power for popularity - Victoria was a less powerful but more popular monarch in her later years than George IV had been, for example.

When you need unity, it is.

after fighting his way to the top. Stalin exploited the "hidden" power that the party secretary had and used it to accumulate power.

The English and Swedish monarchies have both remained very stable for a long time.

Sometimes I wonder what it would be like if people voted for law writing reps but the president was a hereditary position. I’m going to write a really out there constitution that no one would ever agree to just as an intellectual exercise.

>Alexander also made a mockery of constitutional government by suspending the constitution for a few hours when he wanted to make unconstitutional changes

kek

Read Democracy the God that Failed by Hans Herman Hoppe
riosmauricio.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Hoppe_Democracy_The_God_That_Failed.pdf

bump

Lots of inbreeding.. Fucking Habsburgs make Alabama look civil.

I'll just quote a tract from an essay on the subject. This is from Hans Herman Hoppe.

"As a hereditary monopolist, a king regards the territory and the people under his rule as his personal property and engages in the monopolistic exploitation of this “property.” Under democracy, monopoly and monopolistic exploitation do not disappear. Rather, what happens is this: instead of a king and a nobility who regard the country as their private property, a temporary and interchangeable caretaker is put in monopolistic charge of the country. The caretaker does not own the country, but as long as he is in office he is permitted to use it to his and his protégés’ advantage. He owns its current use – usufruct– but not its capital stock. This does not eliminate exploitation. To the contrary, it makes exploitation less calculating and carried out with little or no regard to the capital stock. Exploitation becomes shortsighted and capital consumption will be systematically promoted."

I'll follow this with an addition to this specific quote from Nick Land.

"Political agents invested with transient authority by multi-party democratic systems have an overwhelming (and demonstrably irresistible) incentive to plunder society with the greatest possible rapidity and comprehensiveness. Anything they neglect to steal – or ‘leave on the table’ – is likely to be inherited by political successors who are not only unconnected, but actually opposed, and who can therefore be expected to utilize all available resources to the detriment of their foes. Whatever is left behind becomes a weapon in your enemy’s hand. Best, then, to destroy what cannot be stolen. From the perspective of a democratic politician, any type of social good that is neither directly appropriable nor attributable to (their own) partisan policy is sheer waste, and counts for nothing, whilst even the most grievous social misfortune – so long as it can be assigned to a prior administration or postponed until a subsequent one – figures in rational calculations as an obvious blessing. The long-range techno-economic improvements and associated accumulation of cultural capital that constituted social progress in its old (Whig) sense are in nobody’s political interest. Once democracy flourishes, they face the immediate threat of extinction."

It's interesting to peer into the mind of the modern autocrat, at least.

...

>Government monopolies are bad
>Let's have business monopolies instead
>Also child sex slaves

That's the Spanish Habsburgs who were inbred not the Austrian ones.

I think that Hoppe's position is basically that the government is bad, but unavoidable. Via monarchy, you at least have a chance of thoughtful long term decision making, presuming the leader is a rational agent. This isn't the case in democracy, which is governed by term limits. Basically all of the problems the US has had with the Middle East were because of short sighted policy. Had an autocrat been negotiating, perhaps they would have been more inclined to work out deals instead of just trying to fuck them over because the consequences will only come down the line, when it isn't the problem of the current administration.
Now, I'll grant you, I don't really agree with Hoppe. If we could trust humans to be rational agents, then fucking any system of government would work. But we can't. So the best we can hope for in the present is to decentralize power.
However, I am totally in favor of an AI dictator, supposing we can develop a super-intelligence. It would objectively know better than us, and it hasn't been tried.

>Monarch is not elected.
That isn't true. A monarchs were elected all the time, even the Emperor of Germany had to be nominated by the Bavarian King.

You don't know anything about Ancap.
Ancap isn't a political position. It's a philosophical position about the right of governance and other property rights.
It believes in strong property rights(Interpretations can differ on how it is decided who owns what), which include one's body, one's toothbrush, one's land, one's contracts, et cetera. Our current governments are bad because they are non-consensual. The government claims land and people, and claims that it has some Holy right to rule. It might use religion, or the more modern arguments of "National Sovereignty," the idea that everyone of a single nation, even if these can be poorly defined, should be part of some singular state, as well as democracy, which is the idea that the majority should decide what happens to them.
Now, this has a strong core, but falls apart. The individual, yes, should have the right to self-governance, as well as the right to choose a government. But he shouldn't have the right to decide the government of other people just because they could be considered his countrymen.
A government based upon a contract, therefore, is best. I call this idea a contractual-constitutional state. People are born free, with no obligations and full Natural Rights(Which are just the protection of property, including one's body or one's land, and, especially, one's contracts), but one can sign contracts, potentially with an organization that might function very similarly to our modern governmental states. The might agree to pay certain taxes, follow certain legislation(Laws that aren't Natural Laws, like not doing certain drugs), and give away some of their rights. If they owned land outside of a state, they might sign that land into a sort-of trust with this new government. Now, this contract would likely(And I say "likely" because each of these states could be very different) have certain unchangeable constitutional laws that they cannot break nor change. CONT

>unironic American monarchist
Kill yourself you un-American fucking traitor

For example, laws outlining the right of every man to a trial. If this government one had signed with was found to have, say, assassinated a drug-lord who had cheated the system to become immune, its signers would have the right to leave, or, to secede. Many of these states would likely guarantee every citizen's right to leave, but not their right to secede, or, to take land that was joined with the state's land.
I can be more clear, if you'd like.

>Monarchism mostly appeals to right-wing oriented people who want to be edgy but not nazis

accurate

You fucking kill yourself, you worthless republican shitstain. My family had been here since before your retarded German ancestors even knew there was a land to the west. If there is anything un-American, it's holding onto something that is a clear failure.

The Romans killed their Etruscan king when he turned out to be a power-mad degenerate faggot.

The Athenians elected tyrants with absolute power because voting was too hard, and thus was the term "tyranny" created.

>Classical Greece and Rome are irrelevant to modern society

>Educated Europeans once learned Koine Greek and Latin and the classical canon

>citing a forgery created by the Russian secret police to scapegoat Jews for anti-imperial revolts

I didn't know the US Founding Fathers were crypto-Jews either.

>United States
>clear failure

I don't know what more I can say to mock this.

>Call himself an American
>Believes in something else that isn't constitutional republicanism.
That isn't American.

Any Euros want to talk about their monarchies? And, especially, want to talk about restoration movements in your countries?

By rational opinions, monarchy would be better than dictature because every new dictator want pockets full of money, but in monarchy case, money are in royal family, this is better for tax-payers, it is more cheap way. Monarchy would be better than dictature because general person is exchangeable. With monarchy you don't meet an imbecile old man alike Brezhnev, because old king prefer live in peace while his son rule and sit on a throne.

sometimes you can strike gold with a monarch that is a natural genius, or an amazing military mind, such as Frederick the great, Otto von Bismarck, even vlad the impaler. people like that make monarchy truly worth it,and when the monarch is a complete and utter failure or an idiot, the advisors of the monarch take over and act as the regent and reduce the monarchs power. Even if the monarch is just average, oftentimes the advisors and people on the advising council that is made up of other rulers can be very smart, such as Otto von Bismarck who wasn’t the leader of Prussia, he was just a chancellor but he managed to unite all of Germany into the German empire and win a war against France at the same time. It only takes one smart person on the council to make the system of monarchy worth it. Oftentimes in democracy, people just get elected because they are popular, such as Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is terrible at actual politics. Monarchy, at least in my opinion is one of the better systems of governments. Also, in democracy the people in power are always changing, so they never get used to their positions and even if there is a genius there he gets out in at least 4 years. In monarchy they serve for life, ensuring that the genius on the council stays in power, helping the country even more.

Dutchman here. A few decades ago, our royal family had basically devolved into a crime syndicate because they were bored and didn't have anything to do. There were some serious calls to switch to republicanism, but the current king is relatively popular and has somewhat improved the standing of the monarchy.