How can people unironically be monarchists?

Venice was an exemption, most monarchies were backward ass that viewed most of their subjects as cattle.

>most monarchies were backward ass that viewed most of their subjects as cattle.
that's just liberal propaganda to justify their usurpation of the state. No monarchy was like that in Europe.

No they didn't you retard. King cared about their subjects as seen in that peasants could write petitions to their King.

I want a peacefull country without muslim and freemason, i don't care about the rest, monarchy, dictatorship or democracy or even communism.
As long as these 2 abomination are not there.

>hating on freemasons
without them, you would still be a rightless serf

They are just butthurt hyper-christians/catholics because they no longer live in an officially christian state.

Without them i wouldn't even exist. But they have too much power and act as a deep state in France.

t.french mutt

Serfs unironically had it better

In any case, you're strawmanning

Are you retarded?? You're just applying what you know about Socialists to Monarchists????

Can a monarchy exist without feudalism indefinitely? I think that is the question
Also, the captcha I just solved asked for vehicles but I instead selected all street signs
I miss calle

>t.french mutt
You're going too

>You're just applying what you know about Socialists to Monarchists????
That's what we know about all totalitarian regimes.

>comparing socialism and fascism to monarchism
brainlet off my board

>Your argument

>Can a monarchy exist without feudalism indefinitely?
yes? it was even the monarch who was the feudal lord but the nobles. Although the monarch had large holdings, that was for personal income. Not the origin of his political power.

>You have monarchical systems like Venice where the power structure lay in an elected senate which gave the middle class (and even working class) substantial power.
What's even the goddamn point of a monarchy if the example of a good monarchy is the one where the monarchy have fuck all power.

*wasn’t even

I'm asking myself the same question.
It seems this ''ideology'' lacks any fucking substance. If you're limiting your monarch in some way, imposing on him legal restrictions and such, what's the fucking purpose of monarchy?
History has shown that such form of rule is only temporary, and monarchs are in the end relegated to just being figureheads.
Somehow I suspect most of ''monarchists'' are just people who love games like EU IV and love aesthetics, but didn't really think this shit through. It's quite LARPy and cringy.

What the fuck are you talking about?
Often it was the monarch who had the most land, and that was literally the source of his political power. See France, Holy Roman Empire and such.
I mean this is kinda irrelevant, I don't think any monarchist today is suggesting a return to feudalism. That's just trolling or insane.

it’s shared power. Monarch has power to exert but it isn’t the same as liberal totalitarianism where the federal government is god.

>Often it was the monarch who had the most land, and that was literally the source of his political power.
fucking retard. it was the political/social establishment that gave the monarch his power. Not the fucking land holdings. My gosh you people are ignorant.

But what does that accomplish?
Again, if monarch is heavily restricted by law, and HAS to obey law, what's the fucking point?
You just get a bit cooler ceremonies.
Alternative is unrestricted monarch, but I'm not sure how can you defend that without resorting to some religious mystical bullshit.
Dude, I have no idea what sort of mythologized version of medieval period you read, but monarch often had extensive holdings and in the conditions of medieval Europe those holdings were literally the main source of his power and wealth, since his feudal lords weren't always cooperative (most of the time, actually).
''Political/social establishment'' didn't give a fuck, see how long it took some monarchs to extend the power over their realm. Paying a lip service and actually obeying someone as a monarch are different things.

>americans go all "muh freedom"
>same people complain that their country is going to shit, because it is
That is why, cuck.

Delusion of grandeur

>Again, if monarch is heavily restricted by law, and HAS to obey law, what's the fucking point?
The monarch was ALWAYS bound by law. Always. In every scenario. This "medieval monarch could do fuck all what ever he wants" is the mythologized version of medieval period itt.
>, but monarch often had extensive holdings and in the conditions of medieval Europe
The Church had more land than the monarch did. You seem to be mixing up Early Modern Protestant princes with medieval ones
> but monarch often had extensive holdings and in the conditions of medieval Europe those holdings were literally the main source of his power and wealth,
His position, as bestowed by the Church and society was the main source of his authority, power and wealth.
>since his feudal lords weren't always cooperative (most of the time, actually).
Medieval Monarchism was not centralized, nor did it pretend to be.

the biggest problem of monarchies isnt monarch, but parasitic elements like clergy and nobility that act like Jews and steal money from people. Republic with nobility is the same thing as Latin American countries with drug cartels

>The monarch was ALWAYS bound by law.
Yes, but only were loosely.
>The Church had more land than the monarch did
That really depends on which state are we talking about. Monarch was usually the biggest feudal lord among feudal lords.
>His position, as bestowed by the Church and society was the main source of his authority, power and wealth.
Again, in practice, that meant shit if you couldn't back it up in some other way. History of medieval Europe is full of stories of almost powerless monarchs.
>Medieval Monarchism was not centralized, nor did it pretend to be.
...that's my point?

While that's somewhat true, then what remains once you remove all elements of classical monarchy?
I mean, you get one guy ruling for life, which is akin to dictatorship, and you get hereditary rule, which is just retarded. I mean I guess it's technically a monarchy, but what's the fucking point?
Is it the ''country is his property so he will not mismanage it'' argument? Because that's just fucking retarded. People mismanage their property all the time.
This is what I was talking about, in your simplistic ideal world, you system looks marvelous, but in reality it wouldn't work like that. You're oversimplifying everything.
I saw an-caps and monarchists use fucking Liechtenstein as an example that monarchy works great. By that logic kibbutzes are an example that communism works like a clockwork.

depends what type of monarchy?

the english monarchy for example was never really 'rightless serfs' and had increasingly limited actual power, constitutional monarchy is arguably close to ideal as a form of government.

absolute monarchy on the other hand is generally a bad thing

In any constitutional monarchy observed in history, power slipped from monarch in favor of democratic representative body. Today, monarchs in constitutional monarchies enjoy almost no power. They have less power than presidents of some parliamentary republics.
So, for the 5th time, what's the fucking point?
What does monarchy of such sort solve?

>but parasitic elements like clergy and nobility
These people derive power from the opposite of Jewish money schemes and lobbying though. They are not parasites in any sense of the word, nor do they steal money.
> Republic with nobility is the same thing as Latin American countries with drug cartels
You win the shit analogy reward but still have no clue what nobility was actually like
>Yes, but only were loosely.
They were to the extent society desired them to be. You mix up propaganda with fact.
>That really depends on which state are we talking about.
No it doesn't. You are confused about the difference between Early Modern Monarchs and Medieval Monarchs. The Church was by far the largest land owner until they had all their land confiscated by central governments during and after the protestant reformation
>Again, in practice, that meant shit if you couldn't back it up in some other way. History of medieval Europe is full of stories of almost powerless monarchs.
You are schizophrenic, going between "Monarch could do whatever he wanted, had all his power derived though land holdings and wasn't bound by law" to "Medieval Europe is full of stories of powerless monarchs."
>...that's my point?
No, your point was that monarchies were all totalitarian which is a lie. Then you expressed disbelief that their could be any benefit to a system where a hereditary title has some power but not absolute power.

Well iam hardcore republican and i see all monarchies as degenerate trash. But basicaly the only thing how to fix this would be nationalization of land above some limit, but again, this would make nobles and clergy butthurt and it would make all other monarchs hate you, best thing is to hang the king, nobles and clergy and take all their land.

>These people derive power from the opposite of Jewish money schemes and lobbying though. They are not parasites in any sense of the word, nor do they steal money.
10% of the New German Nobility between 1805 and 1900 was Jewish while Jews were less than 1% of population
>You win the shit analogy reward but still have no clue what nobility was actually like
Nobility owned shitton of land they got through history by suspicious methods, history proves that its much better when huge amount of people owns X farming land than when one person does since its much more productive.

I'm really losing the will to discuss with you because you keep misunderstanding what I'm trying to say and you put words in my mouth.
I said monarch's power DEPENDED on his holdings. Monarchs with little holdings usually had little power compared to their more powerful feudal vassals, in decentralized monarchies of the time.
>Monarch could do whatever he wanted
I never meant that, perhaps I expressed myself badly. I meant there were FEW restrictions on monarch's power.
>were all totalitarian
Where the fuck did I use the word ''totalitarian''?

>Jewish money schemes
Ah, that explains it. Fuck off to /pol/ you retarded cretin.

>Monarch dindu nuffin
*Spends whole life in field and then dies like a dog*

Man, people don't think about shit like that. Monarchists all just assume they'll be part of the ruling class, and those who don't are simply ignorant of history.

Clergy and nobility derive power from extremely similar methods to Jews, historically speaking.

You should also consider that while Jews were disproportionately represented in the public sphere and the halls of power, most Jews were living shit lives just like everyone else in pre-Modern Europe.

Was he a Nord?

I enjoy serving people who God appointed. Instead of some Satanic Fortune 500 company.

where did Islam touch you?

>Is it the ''country is his property so he will not mismanage it'' argument?
>Because that's just fucking retarded. People mismanage their property all the time.
It's not like democracy and all other form of governments aren't mismanaging their resources and holdings any less than a bad monarch.
>The absolute ruler may be a Nero, but he is sometimes Titus or Marcus Aurelius; the people is often Nero, and never Marcus Aurelius.
No matter how you spin this, you will always have much higher chances of having a good ruler when they are brought up and taught from young age about ruling, politics etc. than if you just give the power to some random person who was elected because of popularity, hype and/or manipulation etc. (eg. Trump)

obvious samefag with no argument

god is dead

>you will always have much higher chances of having a good ruler when they are brought up and taught from young age about ruling, politics etc. than if you just give the power to some random person who was elected because of popularity, hype and/or manipulation etc.
then explain Charles II

>It's not like democracy and all other form of governments aren't mismanaging their resources and holdings any less than a bad monarch.
Far less than monarchs and nobles ''mismanaged'' their property, historically.
And they can be held accountable for that, it's not easy to ruin a state in 4 years. But over lifetime, it's perfectly possible, and only way to address that in a monarchic system is to revolt and behead the king.
>you will always have much higher chances of having a good ruler when they are brought up and taught from young age about ruling, politics
No you won't. That's the problem here.
And since the power of monarch (in the presumed monarchy with teeth, not some figurehead-style monarchy) is far greater, and he rules for life, damage he can cause if far greater too.
Not to mention something like monarchy is immoral and anti-egalitarian. You're giving power to someone simply because he crawled out of the right pussy.
Trump, as flawed as he is, and despite the fact he's wealthy, still had to make people vote for him.
Trump is gone in 4 years anyway. Now imagine if he was a monarch.

Serfs were freed two years before American democracy freed the slaves. 1861 vs 1863.

>Where the fuck did I use the word ''totalitarian''?
It’s implied with your use of “absolute”
>Fuck off to /pol/ you retarded cretin.
I see. You can call clergy and nobility “parasites” but calling Jews parasites is /pol/? typical hypocrisy.
Clergy and nobility didn’t derive power from usury. Clergy got power from being the backbone of society, nobility got power from land owning/ability to collect certain taxes. Nobility has it’s origins in the late Roman period btw.

This too

Wew lad you just blew that dude the fuck out, although I'm sure he won't even realize it

In the case of Veeky Forums, contrarianism. Same reason people started larping as Christians.

No it's not you dolt. ''Absolute'' and ''totalitarian'' don't mean same things. And I already explained what I meant.
>You can call clergy and nobility “parasites” but calling Jews parasites is /pol/?
Not me.

Also, JEWS are people. Some Jews can be parasitic.
Nobility and clergy are classes, and yes, they were mostly parasitic later on. Nobility especially outgrew it's purpose.

Took a long time for Christian usury laws to be implemented, also that Jews used usury exclusively to elevate themselves is a stupid meme.

>No it's not you dolt. ''Absolute'' and ''totalitarian'' don't mean same things.
techincally not, but you people create a fantasy where the monarch was hitler and stalin rolled into one, rulling with an ironfist, beholden to no one and unchallanged. At that point, monarchistic society is portrayed as textbook totalitarianism.
calling the clergy parasitic is like calling your local librarian parasitic. The church is so all encompassing it doesn’t even make sense.

I take empty fancy words for 5$

Notice ''mostly''.
>but you people
And ''you people'' put words in my mouth.

As opposed to be freeless thinking slaves of late captailism? Yes anrcho-Monarch is the True master of all righteous political agendas.

“mostly” is still idiotic. “Marginally” would be more accurate,

And even marginal should be taken as “while corruption did occasionally happen it wasn’t built into the system, and the output of good far outweighed the output of bad”.

y'all should listen to this guy.

Trump may be shit but hes the only thing stopping us from turning into shitholes like the U.K or Germany.

'''Veeky Forums is not /pol/, and Global Rule #3 is in effect.'''

The only way a monarchy today would work is if it was a constitutional one with democratic institutions. An intelligent population that has attended both high school and college would not accept their representation in government to be taken away, nor their status in society to lower.

Today, totalitarian regimes are rated third world because of the abysmal living conditions the population are going through, and the people themselves have arguably inferior education compared to democracies around the world. Any advanced technologies for medicinal and military purposes were either given to them, or they inherited them from a country that supported them or they were a part of.

>ban Jews from a shitload of work
>they have to turn to money-lending which is considered to be below a good Christian
>they get rich from doing business with money (duh)
>people hate them for this
I never understood this irrationality desu

Jews were never banned from any work you retard. The most common Jewish profession was a tailor and people begged Jews to start farming.

What representation? Only the rich class end up as politicians to begin with. Democracies lead to media becoming a psychological divide and conquer.

>Obongonigger was millionaire

I'm going too ?
In Paris and Marseille, more seriously i just want muslim to disappear. The world would be a better place.

Why can't the monarch just have some power, but not all? You either think it's all or nothing, don't you? Why can't a king have the power of the president, but have it for all his life and pass it to his son when he dies? What's the issue with that?

>an intelligent population that has attended both high school and college would not accept their representation in government to be taken away
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
*breaths in*
>unironically believes that majority of people living in democracies today are intelligent and that they care and wouldn't even notice if there was an authoritarian rule as long as it wouldn't affect their daily routine (eg. being able to play around with their iPhones, chat on FB and browse 9gag)
>unironically believes that people are the main focus of democracies and that they are properly represented in the governments
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

The majority of our politicians are upper middle class or rich.

My country has been a monarchy for its entire history and never had serfdom. Your move, republicans.

The President has no real power hes a puppet/blame guy to Congress.

democracies are shit
natsoc earth when

Republics are more organized then aristocracies as we see today in America where its impossible to get rid of corrupt officials in our government. Dont even get me started on how unstoppable third world republic cabinets are either.

>>The absolute ruler may be a Nero, but he is sometimes Titus or Marcus Aurelius; the people is often Nero, and never Marcus Aurelius.
"Muh Charlie 2" isn't an argument. Anyway, that's what noble advisers are for, to take power from dumb kings. Most will still be smart, especially when the education and good genetics of the monarch are given more priority than they were in the past.
>Far less than monarchs and nobles ''mismanaged'' their property, historically.
How much debt are we in, again?
And when twenty people in a row rule for four years, and each one fucks it up a bit more, it builds up. If the king is truly incompetent, there are other people to take the reigns, like a smart nobleman or a good brother.
Egalitarianism is retarded. People have the right to anything they inherit, and this can include a country. You seem to see a country as some God-created entity of its own, instead of what it really is: a company. And it doesn't have the right to rule over anyone, only people who want to be ruled by it.
People are stupid. They'll vote for people like Trump or Clinton just because they make promises and say things that anyone with the time(And most people simply don't have the time) to look into would know to be stupid.
Being the lesser evil is not an argument.

>How can people unironically be monarchists?

In the cases of the Habsburgs and China, the Monarchy was seen as a stabilizing influence which placed center of the state in the form of an INSTITUTION (the Dynasty) that is above the petty divisions of race & nationalities. The rule of the dynasty is often based on claims of universalism by the dynasty (i.e. Mandate of Heaven, Most Catholic Monarch, the Shadow of Allah in this world, whatever), or the dynasty's claims that it could protect the various peoples under its rule. It's worth noting that the Dynasty is even above the nation where it "belonged." to. In addition to the monarch being subjected to that institution. The Habsburg Emperor was not a "German" Emperor. He was Habsburg. The Emperor of China wasn't "Chinese" he was the "Son of Heaven," bearer of the Mandate of Heaven, appointed ruler of "All Under Heaven."

All this stops happening if the dynasty become's cucked by Nationalism and the Nation-state.

In essence: the dynasty becomes the ultimate third party. IMO that's something democratic republics and authoritarian governments never managed to do at all despite claiming "impartial government." Democracy and populism are flawed institutions in trying to achieve such a thing.

>every single monarchy in europe kept serfdom as long as backwards russia did
>every single monarchy in world history has been an absolute monarchy

>How much debt are we in, again?
And how much does the state provide for you, as opposed to the states of old?
>and each one fucks it up a bit more, it builds up
Everything decays. But democracy/republic has a better capacity for healing. It's also moral system, in absolute sense. People have the sovereignty and if shit goes down, it's people's fault.
As opposed to monarchy, where you're ruled by someone simply because he was born by someone. Whether he does good or bad, it's not up to you. You could suffer for having done nothing at all.
>there are other people to take the reigns
So why don't ''other people'' rule? The most capable ones...you know, like in a democratic republic (in theory, of course).
>Egalitarianism is retarded
How the fuck can you argue against equality of opportunity?
>You seem to see a country as some God-created entity of its own
No I don't. But I see a nation as something higher than any individual.
Sorry if I don't wanna be ruled by internationalist clique who doesn't even speak my language properly, and considers me a different species. As was the case in many monarchies in early modern period.
>a company
Nope.
>People are stupid
That's just your opinion. I find you stupid. Yet I don't suggest we should imprison you or strip you of your rights.
>Being the lesser evil is not an argument.
Ah, but your fetishism and delusions are an argument. Please.

Everyone who says he's a monarchist is either a LARPing teen or a literal cuckold.

They've never lived under monarchy.

Because it's fucking useless.
Hereditary figurehead monarch is just an expensive joke.
Why do you want monarchy for the sake of monarchy?
As I said, this reeks of fetishism and LARPing. You read War and Peace and you think how cool this nobility and monarchy shit is, oh God I wish I was a count and stuff. But you probably wouldn't be, and such a system is worse than what we have today.
Look at fucking Spain with their parasitic nobility, parasitic clergy, fascination with ''purity'' and ''nobility'', disdain of manual work...they dropped from a superpower to a third-world shithole. And they literally had it all.
Your ideas don't work in real life. You can either accept that or start writing fanfiction, I don't know. But monarchism is dead, concept of nobility is dead, feudalism is dead, and it's never coming back. Society and technology evolved beyond that. You can't turn back time.

>that's just liberal propaganda to justify their usurpation of the state. No monarchy was like that in Europe.
lol
One of the reasons the US has so many people is because monarchs were fucking up big time in much of Europe.

>One of the reasons the US has so many people is because monarchs were fucking up big time in much of Europe.
Usually because said immigrants were literally starting shit for pet liberal/nationalist/anarchist causes and subsequently got PATROLLED for it.

>intelligent population that has attended both high school and college
lol

>And how much does the state provide for you, as opposed to the states of old?
Nothing that couldn't be provided better by the free market.

>Everything decays. But democracy/republic has a better capacity for healing.
How could anyone ever come to this conclusion?
>It's also moral system, in absolute sense. People have the sovereignty and if shit goes down, it's people's fault.
What "people?" What about the 48% of voters who voted for something else and all the people who didn't vote? What about their rights?(And I'm not just posting about Trump)
>As opposed to monarchy, where you're ruled by someone simply because he was born by someone. Whether he does good or bad, it's not up to you. You could suffer for having done nothing at all.
It's his right to rule his property. If you don't want to live in it, you should move.(I'm not talking about monarchies of old, and talking about potential monarchies of the future.)
>So why don't ''other people'' rule? The most capable ones...you know, like in a democratic republic (in theory, of course).
Because it's not their property. Anyway, the "theory" that capable people will rule in a democracy had been long-since disproved.
>How the fuck can you argue against equality of opportunity?
Cutting off the tall man's legs to make the short man equal to him is retarded.
>No I don't. But I see a nation as something higher than any individual.
So I should be controlled by some arbitrary "nation?" What if my nation is full of idiots? And where does it begin? What if I'm, say, Irish? Where does "Irish" begin and "British" end?
>Sorry if I don't wanna be ruled by internationalist clique who doesn't even speak my language properly, and considers me a different species. As was the case in many monarchies in early modern period.
Count all monarchies in the early modern period and tell me what percentage of them were like this.

>>a company
>Nope.
Literally not an argument. Why should a country be anything but a company that provides services like policing? Why should each "nation" be a state? Why can't nations exist independent of states?
>>People are stupid
>That's just your opinion. I find you stupid. Yet I don't suggest we should imprison you or strip you of your rights.
I'm not saying anything like that. Everyone, even the stupid, has rights. And that includes my right not to be controlled by a majority of people who simply don't know anything about politics.(Most people don't have the time nor the desire to waste brainspace on politics)
>Ah, but your fetishism and delusions are an argument. Please.
This isn't an argument.

Now, let me be very clear, I don't want everyone to live under some divinely-appointed king. But I want the right to live in a monarchy.

>Hereditary figurehead monarch is just an expensive joke.
I never said that was what I wanted. I want a hereditary non-absolute leader. Like the president or prime minister.
You have no argument except "GIVE UP, MAN!"

>Anyway, that's what noble advisers are for, to take power from dumb kings
That is not what you said, you said monarchy is good because it produces highly qualified leaders who were trained their whole life for the job. Charles II was a literal retard who was made chief executive because he had the right last name.

Seems to blow a hole in your argument, eh?

What did kings actually do?