/monarchy/ - monarchy

Past, Present, and Future

Index Catalog Archive Bottom Refresh
+
-
Name
Options
Subject
Message

Max message length: 0/12000

files

Max file size: 32.00 MB

Total max file size: 50.00 MB

Max files: 5

Supported file types: GIF, JPG, PNG, WebM, OGG, and more

E-mail
Password

(used to delete files and posts)

Misc

Remember to follow the Rules

The backup domains are located at 8chan.se and 8chan.cc. TOR access can be found here, or you can access the TOR portal from the clearnet at Redchannit 3.0 (Temporarily Dead).



8chan.moe is a hobby project with no affiliation whatsoever to the administration of any other "8chan" site, past or present.

(1.71 MB 850x1250 unknown.png)

/monarchy/ general Peasant 04/15/2023 (Sat) 16:07:12 No. 6355 >>6507
redux
(84.03 KB 281x384 Letter M monogram 01.png)

(547.96 KB 1257x2047 Letter M monogram 03.png)

(459.14 KB 1140x1140 166706330221329691.png)

/monarchy/ will receive a logo like the other boards. It will feature a shield, a monogram, and our crown jewels. I will also look into getting /monarchy/ a revised /icup/ logo for icup8/
>>6476 Exciting anon. I wish I had a logo.
>>6355 (OP) so.. why are monarchists not interested in competition outside of the obviously anti-monarchical "marketplace of ideas"? why no espionage no propaganda no "heat death of the universe countermeasures" ? I mean, modern republican democracies were not established by majorities, and honestly majorities are super cute, perfectly valid and overall worthy souls, may Jesus bless them all, but politically and only politically they are a fucking cattle that will always go with whatever demands out of them no risk and some bread human adaptability is a strong drug and all that so.. how would you sell your type of human coordination to a.. vanguard, or in less modern terms.. to a warband? because... not to be pessimistic, but holy shit is marketplace of sophisms not the way to do it
>>6507 Unfortunetly to compete in marketplace of ideas you wouldn't need good ideas but large loudspeakers. You need money to proceed with propaganda or pro-monarchist media. Capitalism didn't need any promotion because it is most efective way of governing economy (except for mercantilism but mercantilism doesn't colide with capitalism) in free-market society big businesses are destined to fail since they are hard to govern. Businessmen wanted to leave their wealth to their (oftenly stupid or mentaly ill) childreen so they wanted to create laws that support corporations. In Monarchy these laws would be hard to implement because it would change effective free-market into uneffective pre-feudalism (system we have today). Corpocrats are dicks and jews so they have no respect to vaules like motherland, faith, or tradition. they sponsored pro-republican moves (just like they do today) because democracy is most influence-able thing to ever exist. Monarchy is the least influence-able thing so it would not get money sorosdick or propaganda from zuckerjew. If you want monarchy to win you have to support autocrats like Saddam Hussein (F), Lukashenko or Bashar Al-Assad, they are de facto monarchs without title. It would be usefull to join bricks since they are pro-government and not pro-corporation like europe or usa. And sorry usa but you have to fall.
So any anons thoughts on vidya in particular Tempest Rising and the fact they've created a monarchist faction known as the Tempest Dynasty? Grace edit when?
Continuing a conversation from >>7917 (Cross-thread) Idk if I would describe man as a political or economic entity in any unique way. On the one hand, People that involve themselves with politics or economics will ultimately have politics and economics involved with them, but people have different sets of skills that make them better at one thing or another. I don't think everyone is equally capable of running a business, nor do I think everyone is equally capable of being a leader, but I wouldn't say that makes anyone a natural slave, unless by "slave" you mean "laborer". >Neocameralism The thing about the way our current state is run is that it legitimizes itself through the idea of democracy, which encourages excessive amounts of red tape and creates perverse incentive structures. It's not like a private corporation in goal, function, or structure, but if you could explain why you think it is, then I might have more to say on it. >I believe monarchies work best as a cult of personality Cults of personalities form around strong, charismatic men. Such a thing would form naturally if they were free to strive towards their ideals. >if you were to have a lord among lords, then they go by Aristotle's convention and would rather have it elective. As I've said, I've never heard a Hoppean argue for such a thing, and I'm fairly certain that the line of reasoning behind being against Democracy on an individual scale is the same on a collective scale. Covenant communities are not supposed to be democratic. If the person that owns the roads chooses to disassociate with someone, that person won't be able to use those roads, regardless of what the rest of the covenant thinks. The kind of property they own dictates their position in the covenant, and the one with the most important properties is effectively the ruler. That's not even counting the instances where they agree to follow the decisions of a single individual. Covenants of covenants might be a bit harder to establish or maintain, but "lord among lords" would not be. >Do you suppose that the appeal to the Free Market is not a composite brain? It depends on your views on spirituality, I believe. As a Christian, I see the market as the literal invisible hand of God. Certainly, whatever forces drive it are not merely the sum of the minds of the people engaging in it, but rather, something more fundamental about it. The logic that everything else in the universe is driven by. I see it as not being too dissimilar from evolution, or the forces that pull planetary objects closer together, or break them apart. It has more in common with mathematics itself than any particular individual. >What is your opinion on Gulf Monarchies & Brunei? I don't believe I know enough given the resources you've provided to know for certain. Generally speaking, I prefer teaching people to fish over giving people fish, so free healthcare and education seem strange to me, but I'm not against private charity, which is what you seem to be describing it as between "low taxes" and "They are so rich" so I figure I can confidently say I'm more in favor of how you describe it than what we generally have nowadays. Certainly, I can say this. Having a cult of personality, and having citizens love and admire their leaders is a good thing, and if that description accurately describes this system, then I think that is good, but we live in a cynical era where trust in leaders more often leads to betrayal, so I cannot say. >the Monarch has to be seen as a provider >I'm pointing this out so you can see how a unitary view of Sovereignty is compatible with a wide arrange of private property ownership and the autonomy of citizens. If the Sovereign is a provider in the way you describe, I see them as having more similarity to private corporations than our current system, so naturally I would tend to agree, but It is important to me that people's belief in the Monarch is based on truth, and not forced. If they don't believe, they may be excommunicated, but they should not be forced into believing, not least because it's virtually impossible.
>>7921 I'm going to be busy for a while (for the week), so I probably won't be able to follow up this conversation very much. If you're staying on the board, I'd recommend making your own general or finding something to do in the meantime (there really aren't any posters here). >Generally speaking, I prefer teaching people to fish over giving people fish My main point is everyone believes in the system that they believe provides for them in some capacity -- even if it is a system that gives them a means to prosper or gives them fishing rods. I think genuine belief in having a Monarchy goes hand in hand with this (along with believing the King is wise). >but we live in a cynical era where trust in leaders more often leads to betrayal, so I cannot say. It is preferable people trust a Monarch, otherwise there'll be no Monarchy at all -- to be frank. Plato talked about this: said that people would consider a Monarch, but their disbelief is so strong they won't. When disbelief permeates a person, & they have no sway of pre-eminence, they'll question it every turn, they'll hinder it every chance, they'll constantly look into the possibility of removing said person -- these conditions aren't ripe for Monarchy. Religion or radical political ideologies make a Monarchy a means to an end: which help people overlook the misgivings of a Monarch for better promises. >people's belief in the Monarch is based on truth, and not forced It is genuine the way I see it. However, I'm more of the opinion that the Sword of Commonwealth is a necessary thing, both externally and internally, and a foundational part in statescraft as any other craft involves carving things out. To believe in rule without force at times seems naive to me. It is something ubiquitous and necessary in nature. Some leftists naively believe world peace is attainable if the right conditions are met. I just don't believe it. Every time period has had a companion in war and a trade in weapons.
>>7923 I understand, and if I'm being honest, I'm a fair bit busy myself. I might come here from time to time, especially since it seems /liberty/ is dead and I don't know what happened to them in the meantime, but I wouldn't feel comfortable making this thread too much about me, especially since you have made your opinion on right Libertarians quite clear elsewhere. I don't think there is much disagreement that the Monarch provides in terms of cultural stability, and that such a thing is necessary for a functional society. Whether a cult of personality would form naturally, or has to be formed from the top down, a functional society will eventually have one. My position is mostly that a free market will create such a system naturally, and bring it to it's ideal scale through market forces. I can see how important trust and admiration for a Monarch is for them to remain as a Monarch. I believe it's easiest to trust a process than a person, which is why I've sometimes thought of the idea of an AI ruling an otherwise Libertarian system, but there are too many potential imperfections, and opportunities for human error in AI for me to expect it to work properly all the time. If people can be convinced that the Monarch has an incentive to help their subjects, then that is easier to trust than the idea that the Monarch themselves are perfect. >Sword of Commonwealth I'm not sure I'm familiar with this. That said, I tend to agree that world peace is an impossible goal. The best systems are the ones designed to adapt to the best and worst conditions of human civilization, which is why I find the capitalist method of tying greed to providing the public with goods and services so appealing. A system that can turn it's weaknesses into a strength is an ideal one. The best I can think of is an adaptable one that is capable of congregating when needed, and reorganizing at any given moment. That's how I view Libertarianism. Anyways, thank you very much for the conversation. It was interesting, though I'm sure some of it was lost on me. Hope your thread get's more traffic so you don't end up just talking to yourself, and the occasional outsider, like me. Bye.
>>7925 >since you have made your opinion on right Libertarians quite clear elsewhere. It is reciprocal tbh. Like I said, Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn says in an interview Absolute Monarchy is evil. & others have vilified us with prominent historical narratives coming from Alexis de Tocqueville & Bertrand de Jouvenel & I see Hoppe's From Aristocracy to Monarchy to Democracy as an extension. The right libertarian crowd, constitutional monarchists, utlra-clerical Catholics, etc, they're always my main opposition b/c of it. I guess you could say you cannot blame one side or the other for starting it. This debate in the history of political thought extends far, far, far back.
(160.42 KB 1080x1350 pope.jpg)

Pope Leo XIV
>>7931 Well, I suppose that's unfortunate then. I really do believe we have more in common than not. Certainly more that right Libertarians have with Liberals and Democrats.


Forms
Delete
Report
Quick Reply
Drag files here to upload or
click here to select them