"Remember that life is made up of loyalty: loyalty to your friends; loyalty to things beautiful and good; loyalty to...

"Remember that life is made up of loyalty: loyalty to your friends; loyalty to things beautiful and good; loyalty to the country in which you live; loyalty to your King; and above all, for this holds all other loyalties together, loyalty to God."
Queen Mary (of Teck)

Can we have a monarchist book club? We'll vote on which books to read first, but before that we'll nominate, so name whatever monarchist literature (philosophical, poetic, fiction, whatever) you would like to be on the poll, and when I get another thread up in a month or something, I will have all the nominated options on it, and we'll vote (lacking a monarch to decide for us) which work to start with

Here are some of my nominations

De Monarchia, by Dante
Eikon Basilike, by King Charles
Nihilism: The Root of the Revolution of the Modern Age, by Father Seraphim Rose
The Henriad

youtube.com/watch?v=W8wI5KCyu44

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=bbQ9wYHeY0c
ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage_print.asp?number=386119&language=en
evoandproud.blogspot.com.au/2009/08/was-christianity-responsible.html?m=1
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

kys

*kiss*

kys

youtube.com/watch?v=bbQ9wYHeY0c

Monarchists should read Aristotle, the Aquinate and Maurras to be honest.

I'm already a Monarchist.

Preaching to the converted.

Aristotle I agree, I haven't read the other two but thanks for the recs

I'm not trying to preach, though, just start a book club

>Monarchist book club
>Voting on which books to read

>(lacking a monarch to decide for us)

lol, monarchism

essentially fascism for nerds who don't work out

What kind of faggot actually wants to be ruled by an unnacountable product of centuries of incest?

>What kind of faggot actually wants to be ruled by an unnacountable product of centuries of incest?
This.

City States with an electable Oligarch from a center of powerful families is the closest comes to working.

I hate how in America we may not have a monarchy but we've had a controlling aristocracy since the beginning. Fuck "democracy."

>unaccountable

...

A landed educated elite served Rome for many generations.

The US needs a Censor of the House and a Censor of the Senate

>unaccountable

If they fuck up, you kill them.

As opposed to all those nameless/faceless oligarchs in your beloved democracy; who needn't fear a single realistic consequence for doing far worse than any monarch ever did.

>he's accountable to God!!! lol!!
>just let yourself be abused, peasant, he'll go to hell if he wasn't a just ruler!! xD

To be a monarchist you have to be either:
1. some kind of aristocrat
2. a "man" with such low levels of testosterone he has a fetish for submission to authority

>If they fuck up, you kill them.
lol, yes, that's what many republican revolutionaries did, but thanks for the tip

>monarchism

Better to be unaccountable, than supremely accountable to all the people you owe favors to for getting in power, as well as all the forces of darkness you have to appease to gain more power

Nah, the Pope shouldn't have any more power over the monarch than the monarch should over the Pope.

Did I hear call my name?

Have you read it? It argues for absolute monarchy, sure, but the modernism it uses is the death knell of monarchy

>If they fuck up, you kill them.
As said, that's pretty much how republicanism begun.

Also in "real" democracy, not this parliamentary shit we have now, you could recall your representative, if s/he would stop representing you. That's the whole point of democracy, you know the real democracy, the one that US constitution destroyed.

>Nah, the Pope shouldn't have any more power over the monarch than the monarch should over the Pope.

Nice heresy bro that's the attitude that led to the hell known as the enlightenment.

I'd join this club.

Monarchy is underrated. Ignore the Americans with no sense of tradition who say otherwise. They've lost their cultural identity and so rabidly defend the pretensions of their founders.

Only fucking book you need to read about monarchism.

Education is far more widespread in the US than in Rome. The US doesn't have an aristocracy like Rome did either, and that Roman aristocracy raped and pillaged their own people whenever they had the slightest opportunity.

Have you ever read about how taxes were collected in Rome?

With democracy, there is absolutely nothing to stop your candidates being bought and sold; nor could there ever be.

Whereas monarchy, traditionally, has been superior by virtue of the fact that monarchs value more than money.

Yes, and then the Emperors plunged Rome into constant civil war, when they weren't just being careless tyrants, save for a few good ones.

And that's monarchy in a nutshell: you might get lucky, but probably not.

>there is absolutely nothing to stop your candidates being bought and sold
Yes there is you dolt, it's called recalling your representative. Also even more basing entire system on consensus is another good way to prevent any kind of selling out.

Sure monarchs might value virtue more than money, but tell that to Richard the Lionheart and John Lackland... one used all of his kingdoms money for hist "virtue" the other had to then try and run that kingdom with no money and ended up pretty much destroying the absolute power of the monarch. And in the current political system of UK, sure the Queen might not be bought, but the actual power lies with the parliament, which supposedly can be bought, so it's even worse than pure republican democracy, where at least you have three different representatives that all need to be bought...

No, Dante argues the same in De Monarchia. If the Pope didn't try to lord over monarchs as the Caesar of the world, the Reformation probably wouldn't have happened because it wouldn't have had resentful rulers backing it.

I'm American, I would much prefer Queen Elizabeth rule our country than our current options

"I do not believe in religion, my enlightened intelligence is my church."

Codreanu.

>Whereas monarchy, traditionally, has been superior by virtue of the fact that monarchs value more than money.
lol at how naïve you are

go back to reading Moldberg

>it's called recalling your representative.
For pandering to lobbyists? Good luck with that.

This is only thing that monarchies are good for.

I think you can't count your country as a first world developed country if it isn't a republic.

>If the Pope didn't try to lord over monarchs as the Caesar of the world,

It's his right and duty. Kings must be answerable to a higher authority.

>I think you can't count your country as a first world developed country if it isn't a republic.
Why? In modern "monarchies" the royals are so castrated, they're nothing but celebrities with slightly more prestige.

God rest his soul

>I would rather choose to wear a crown of thorns with my Saviour, than to exchange that of gold, which is due to me, for one of lead, whose embased flexibleness shall be forced to bend and comply to the various and oft contrary dictates of any factions, when instead of reason and public concernments they obtrude nothing but what makes for the interest of parties, and flows from the partialities of private wills and passions. I know no resolutions more worthy a Christian king, than to prefer his conscience before his kingdoms.

Yes, God. Same authority the Pope is answerable to.

The Pope is God's representative on Earth. All authority was handed down to him by Christ Jesus.

As I said, modern parliamentary system isn't perfect, but there are few pretty simple way to make it better, compared to monarchies, especially absolute (which is apparently the one you want) which historically all ended in bloody revolutions.
And yes if recalling the representative would be enacted, the voters could recall their representative if s/he would go against the will of the voters. It's that fucking simple. There's no simple way of enacting this in monarchy, other than either forcing abdication or killing the king, which you know sounds like a argument against monarchy.

Still, you can't call your self a modern developed nation, if you still stick with a frankly retarded notion of some people being "above" others and caring about lineage and shit.
Monarchies are the stuff of the middle ages, and go against modernism.

It's really hilarious how a bunch of Internet nerds convinced themselves they were going to revive a political system nobody wants a century after it lost all credibility.

The Pope is a faggot who nobody respects anymore. Catholicism is dead or dying in every country worth naming.

Kings are God's representative on earth.

Pope did not proclaim Peter to ruler of the earth. He gave him the power to bind and lose (as all Apostles, and thus bishops have), which means to absolve and excommunicate. In 1 Peter 5:1-2, Peter addresses the other presbyters merely as a "fellow presbyters" (presbyter and episkopos were the same office then), not as some higher office.

No, you can't just recall a representative for going against the voters. That doesn't qualify as misconduct.

>It's really hilarious how a bunch of Internet nerds convinced themselves they were going to revive a political system nobody wants a century after it lost all credibility.
Fucking this. It's fucking pathetic. But it's always fun arguing with these retards, because it's so easy to refute them.

How does it feel knowing that your precious Pope is inviting millions of muslims into the heartland of Christianity?

merely as "* fellow presbyter"

Christ is the "King of Kings, Lord of Lords." The Pope is Christ's representative on this Earth. Claiming kings have the same power as the Pope is heresy tantamount to the Anglican schism.

I'm Orthodox :^)

If it causes us to become more devout in our faith, as it seems to be doing to the Poles, etc., then I think it was a stroke of genius. Encourage love and charity but at the same time demonstrate how superior Catholicism is to every other belief system.

Every bishop is Christ's representative on earth. So is every king, but in a different capacity.

>monarchism isn't an ideology

It's no wonder you hold the views you do. Orthodoxy has always been infested with the heresy of Caesaropapism.

lol, the Poles are beating up foreigners in the streets and massively protesting "refugee" presence

Good for them, but hardly christlike.

Why not? Again, I'm not talking about the current system, just as you're not talking about real-life absolute monarchies. I'm talking about "ideal" democracy (which is still easier to enact, than absolute monarchy), in which going against the will of your constituents is a misconduct.
That's the whole point of true, "direct democracy" that the people have direct word in decision making. And again, another necessary part is consensus.

What I'm trying to say is, that Rhode Island constitution of 1647 was pretty much the most perfect political system in the entire history, and we should all strive to enact it again.

>Every bishop is Christ's representative on earth

This is true. They all share in Christ's priesthood, while the Pope inherits the prime title of Pontifex Maximus, the High Priest. Of course the true High Priest is Christ, but that just goes to show the mystery of the primacy of the papacy and how closely connected Christ is with his Church.

Kings are representatives of Christ in the same way every Christian is, I suppose, but they should absolutely be answerable to their religious authority.

It's the same fervor that led to the crusades. Violence can sometimes be justified if the cause is just and no other option will work.

I agree, but I don't think the average Christian does.

So you're basically saying that daesh is the perfect state (just Muslim, instead of Christian).

ISIS are offensive. The crusades, and the reaction to the current jihad going on in Europe, are purely defensive.

That's because the average "Christian" only knows nice-guy Jesus and have never heard of the just war doctrine.

>are purely defensive.
LEL

You could claim that daesh is also defensive, as it has rose out of the US invasion of Iraq.

Monarchism doesn't require Christianity.

Time to come home, Europeans. Learn the religion of your ancestors.

>true European nationalism is pagan!

You sicken me.

>he fell for the 'the crusades were evil christians oppressing innocent mooslems' meme

yes, I'm sure those Iberians were in the wrong for retaking their country after being invaded

Almost everyone who has ever committed violence has believed that his or her cause was just. There are not really any murderers, just people who decided they were wronged and needed to enact "justice."

Belief and fact are two different things. Tell me you're not arguing for moral relativism.

Direct democracy is impossible on a mass scale, it is only possible in communities or at most small districts. People who aren't doing full time political research can't be informed on every single policy issue and have the time to deliberate each on a national scale, it would take forever to accomplish anything

Christ is the ONLY Pontifex Maximus. Every believer is a pontiff (because that is the word of the universal priesthood, not priest as in "presbyter" or "episkpos"), and Christ is the high pontiff. Apply the title of "high pontiff" to a bishop is blasphemous, and Peter would have absolutely rejected it.

ok bro, I'm sure the Cologne rapists had a sophisticated doctrine of natural law to justify gang-rape, but Europeans nationalists are monsters for reacting with violence

I'm not, but I wonder what objective basis you have for separating facts from beliefs?

Read Guénon closer you little bitch and your made-up fantasy world.
see too
and read De Maistre

>Christ is the ONLY Pontifex Maximus.

Yes, and the Pope is Christ's representative on Earth, ergo the Pope is also Pontifex Maximus in his capacity as Christ's representative on Earth. It's intriguing to me that you think the state should have more power than the church, as your view of monarchs seems rather analagous to the Catholic view of the Pope, at least from my admittedly limited comprehension.

Christianity is a pseudo-Jewish abomination. It is not for whites, does not have the interest of whites in mind.

Christ's message was inclusive, and Christianity champions the weak over the strong, losers and outcasts over the virtuous, and teaches white men to value the coloured hordes over his brothers.

>Je parle pas
What a fucking pleb. "Extreme Droite" but doesn't speak proper French, only slang.

The Logos became flesh and dwelt among us.

Don't put words in my mouth. I'm just saying nobody goes to war without believing it justified. This is the reason why the Japanese blew up their own rail depot in Manchuria or the Germans attacked their own border post with soldiers dressed in stolen Polish uniforms. It's important for there to be a cassus belli, no matter how trivial.

If all those muslim rapists were lined up and shot tomorrow I wouldn't shed any tears.

>Pope is Christ's representative on Earth, ergo the Pope is also Pontifex Maximus in his capacity as Christ's representative on Earth.

This is like saying, "Christ is God, therefore the Pope is God in his capacity as representative."

> It's intriguing to me that you think the state should have more power than the church,
I don't, I think they should have different spheres of power. The monarch has no business administrating the Church, and the Church has no business administrating the state, but they should be allies and work to a common spiritual end.

>it would take forever to accomplish anything
Better that, than having no say whatsoever in stuff that will affect you in your daily life.
I mean, how can monarch know everything about everything? Most of the time, the monarch, even the absolute one, has a council. Which means, that the power of the monarch isn't absolute. And since the monarch is giving away part of his power, why should it not be to those chosen by the people, and if go this far, do we even need a monarch in itself? Not really, the people can be as much of a sovereign as the monarch is.

But the real next step is to quote Foucault: We need to behead the king, this has yet to happen in the political theory. And that's my entire point. Yes direct democracy doesn't work on large scale, but that's because we have yet to behead the king. We need to stop thinking about large nation states, and start thinking in terms of small confederacies of organic communities, which work on principle of direct democracy and consensus, both within and without.

>This is like saying, "Christ is God, therefore the Pope is God in his capacity as representative."

This isn't entirely innacurate.

>I don't, I think they should have different spheres of power.

A body cannot have two heads like a monster.

>objective
>fact

>We need to stop thinking about large nation states, and start thinking in terms of small confederacies of organic communities, which work on principle of direct democracy and consensus, both within and without.

One will always be dominant. Nature abhors a vacuum.

>Better that,
No, it would be a freeze of all state functions.

>This isn't entirely innacurate.
I know it expressed the RCC view: ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage_print.asp?number=386119&language=en

But it is absolutely wrong.

>A body cannot have two heads like a monster.
A medical doctor and a car mechanic are authorities on separate functions, having one tell the other how to do his job is ridiculous. It would be just as ridiculous for the Pope to start telling either of them how to do his job.

>applying 20th century conceptions of nationalism to monarchism

>8067333

>pic realted

Europeans, there's a reason you've left a Semitic religion in record numbers. There's a reason rates of atheism are so high in Europe. That religion doesn't suit you. Learn from your ancestors. Read the sagas and myths of your ancestors. Find some good histories. Learn the old religion that is in your bones.

>A medical doctor and a car mechanic are authorities on separate functions, having one tell the other how to do his job is ridiculous. It would be just as ridiculous for the Pope to start telling either of them how to do his job.

The Pope is as much a temporal ruler as he is a spiritual one. He does head his own city-state, after all. This analogy does not hold.

Germanics destroyed Rome and were just destructive raiders before they converted

You mean all the old sagas about christian kings, explorers and settlers written by christians?

t. Norwegian

That's nice, but your trees are getting angry that you haven't paid them much attention lately. You don't want alfar getting into your house do you? Better go dress up as a woman and worship Freyr by having lots of gay sex, that's sure to get you back in the good graces of the landvaettir.

>He does head his own city-state, after all.
A legacy of the Donation of Pepin. He didn't have this until the Middle Ages (the Donation of Constantine being a forgery).

This sort of thinking is why Dostoevsky said the RCC succumbed to the Third Temptation Satan offered to Christ.

I love this argument. "It's in humans nature to crave power and to subjugate themselves to power". But you know what, the counter argument is as valid: humans also despise power and wish to neuter it.

The point being is, that even in the most egalitarian society, yes there will be difference in "power", but that doesn't mean that what we need is a absolute monarchy. I live in what is from time to time considered the most egalitarian society and I can assure you, that we're pretty effective in remaining egalitarian.

>No, it would be a freeze of all state functions.
You're still thinking with the wrong concepts, like state. And frankly it's kind of strange, given that modern state is not what absolute kings ruled over.

>he fell for paganism maymay

the big guy up in the sky is angry with you because you're on this website, it is haram and you need to leave to go pray in your local house of worship, synagogue, church, mosque, all the same, hurry now, go, worship the god of the sand people

>You're still thinking with the wrong concepts, like state.
There is no other concept to think of if you are talking about cohesive administration of millions

>And frankly it's kind of strange, given that modern state is not what absolute kings ruled over.
What about Byzantium?

>if you are talking about cohesive administration of millions
I'm not.

>This sort of thinking is why Dostoevsky said the RCC succumbed to the Third Temptation Satan offered to Christ.

That's actually an intriguing point. I'll have to think on it.

My point still stands though. Regardless of where it came from, it is extant.

>He forgot to appease the spirit of his computer and it caused him not to be able to capitalize

LOL you left out skim milk instead of whole for your housewights didn't you?

Then you're talking about ethnic strife, as there is no common identity bonding the various peoples together.

Rome did fine without Christianity and actually did worse with it.

evoandproud.blogspot.com.au/2009/08/was-christianity-responsible.html?m=1

every second you spend here is an additional day in hell, and every post a week, maybe yahweh will be a bit nice towards you if you genuinely leave for good, sand man