Monarchist Discussion Thread II: The Crown will Rise Again!

[Camelone]

You an anarchist?


Uh the farmer has the same vote as the banker they just dictate how their own field will operate so that no idiot bureaucrat or career politician has power over them. Everyone has a voice in what they know and there is nothing saying no one can't voice an opinion they just can't vote... also luciferian ideology? Are you saying that because it was developed by a Pope or just because? I don't think you are fully understanding it, I mean there are legitimate objections to the system its not perfect but this is not one of them.

If you rob people of a voice, it's luciferian.
To disregard the desires of the population entirely to favor exclusively a higher class-like these voters would be-is tyranny and satanic. And no, I'm not a Theocrat, I'm what'd happen if one's religious beliefs strongly influenced someone but those same beliefs made them secular, but still deeply devoted.

Okay you are completely missing the point here they wouldn't be higher class they are from the same occupation. Steel workers vote for things concerning steel workers, farmers vote on things concerning farmers, bankers vote on things concerning bankers, it is based on occupation no matter where you are in that occupation you have a vote and voice.

I'm just going to link you to wikipedia because I'm not getting through to you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

[Torrocca]

Just saying, there's a reason 99% of the world has done away with monarchies of nearly every form. :^)



Just because it occurs in places doesn't equate to it being a natural system. Correlation =/= causation.



2.Republicanism =/= Democracy, friendo.



3.That doesn't mean slavery was nearly as extensive under democratic systems as it ever was under authoritarian ones. :^)

1. And that's because the Entente destroyed the major players after the Great War, and started pushing for European countries (and others) to be shifted from monarchy. That does not mean that monarchy was not a functional and effective form of government.

Hmm almost like there was a recent war that just killed millions of people that was started by a duo of monarchist, imperialist governments and - oh, wait.

2. Oh, you mean like Athens? Who had about 80,000 slaves in their population? About 3 or 4 slaves per household? And also attempted to ethnically cleanse the island of Chalkis for the sake of Athenian landowners? That democracy?

No, I'm talking about democracy where everyone's legally equal. Something referred to by us gormless, Godless anarkiddies as Direct Participatory Democracy. :^)

3. Citation needed, broseph :^) I want hard information, academic sources that suggest that say, the monarchies of Europe (like France, Prussia/Germany, Austria, Britain) had more slaves than more democratic societies like the pre-abolition U.S or South America.

I can point you to the fact that one of the most well known authoritarian regimes in history, Nazi Germany, had more slaves in its twelve years of existence (roughly 10 million at its greatest extent) than America had at its greatest extent (roughly 3.9 million).

[Torrocca]

My snark's forever eternal for dead jokes, like monarchism. :^)

And mine's for impractical pipe dreams, like Anarchism :^)

You say impractical, I say increasingly probable. :^)

[Kubra]

Easier? When your throne is beset by multiple claimant's with byzantine lineage charts and unwritten codes, it's pretty difficult to discern succession. I mean, we still have wars over election, but at least we can be *mostly* sure conflict has public interest, folks want things one way or the other or some other, instead of "I wanna be king, this heir sux" or "this family has way too many thrones and it's really gonna fuck with us".

I'm speaking of something more akin to British Monarchy in terms of succession. Nobody should attempt to be like the Byzantines in anything, except aesthetics. They had damn good aesthetics.

If we mean british to exclude english, by this time the office of the monarch was much diminished compared to previous era's, where dynastic feuding got your family the goods, and against a british polity that would not stand for overreaching of the monarchs office in parliamentary matters, at least compared to its continental contemporaries. Put bluntly, a monarchs position is most secure in relation to how politically harmless the office is.

[Salus Maior]

And mine's for impractical pipe dreams, like Anarchism :^)

You say impractical, I say increasingly probable. :^)

That's pretty sad for you.

[Torrocca]

You say impractical, I say increasingly probable. :^)

That's pretty sad for you.

Less sad than believing in a revival of Monarchist systems of governance. :^)))

[Kaiserreich irl]

The difference between an elective monarchy and a republic?

[Camelone]

I got to get some sleep so I'll put some videos up do with it what you will.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxertU2shnE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NbVhFh9_-c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYwcgQfh49k- I don't agree with him on a lot but he makes some interesting arguments at least.

Democracy the God that Failed is also a pretty nice read.

[Firaxin]

The difference between an elective monarchy and a republic?

The candidates have royal blood in an elective monarchy.

[Salus Maior]

1. And that's because the Entente destroyed the major players after the Great War, and started pushing for European countries (and others) to be shifted from monarchy. That does not mean that monarchy was not a functional and effective form of government.

1.Hmm almost like there was a recent war that just killed millions of people that was started by a duo of monarchist, imperialist governments and - oh, wait.

2. Oh, you mean like Athens? Who had about 80,000 slaves in their population? About 3 or 4 slaves per household? And also attempted to ethnically cleanse the island of Chalkis for the sake of Athenian landowners? That democracy?

2.No, I'm talking about democracy where everyone's legally equal. Something referred to by us gormless, Godless anarkiddies as Direct Participatory Democracy. :^)

3. Citation needed, broseph :^) I want hard information, academic sources that suggest that say, the monarchies of Europe (like France, Prussia/Germany, Austria, Britain) had more slaves than more democratic societies like the pre-abolition U.S or South America.

3.I can point you to the fact that one of the most well known authoritarian regimes in history, Nazi Germany, had more slaves in its twelve years of existence (roughly 10 million at its greatest extent) than America had at its greatest extent (roughly 3.9 million).

1. One of those Imperialist powers, who was one of the primarily responsible factions in the war, being a Republic and the other being Britain. Monarchy isn't what started WWI.

2. "I don't like that example of democracies being bad so I'm going to discount that" :^).

3. You mean that guy who was fairly elected by the German people in a republican government? Hitler wasn't a monarch, he was an elected Chancellor who became a dictator (and yes, there is a difference). And I don't support dictatorship, really, so I would agree with you that such is bad.

[Torrocca]

I got to get some sleep so I'll put some videos up do with it what you will.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxertU2shnE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NbVhFh9_-c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYwcgQfh49k- I don't agree with him on a lot but he makes some interesting arguments at least.

Democracy the God that Failed is also a pretty nice read.

Recommended video from that first guy's video: Turns out I'm a Fascist

Yeah, nah. Not gonna take a Fascist's word for why "ebul democrates is so bad!"

[Salus Maior]

That's pretty sad for you.

Less sad than believing in a revival of Monarchist systems of governance. :^)))

I don't really put any hope in a revival of Monarchy. Outside of certain circumstances.

[Torrocca]

1.Hmm almost like there was a recent war that just killed millions of people that was started by a duo of monarchist, imperialist governments and - oh, wait.



2.No, I'm talking about democracy where everyone's legally equal. Something referred to by us gormless, Godless anarkiddies as Direct Participatory Democracy. :^)



3.I can point you to the fact that one of the most well known authoritarian regimes in history, Nazi Germany, had more slaves in its twelve years of existence (roughly 10 million at its greatest extent) than America had at its greatest extent (roughly 3.9 million).

1. One of those Imperialist powers, who was one of the primarily responsible factions in the war, being a Republic and the other being Britain. Monarchy isn't what started WWI.

I guess the literal assassination of two members of a monarchy family didn't spark the war then. :^)

2. "I don't like that example of democracies being bad so I'm going to discount that" :^).

You asked which democracy I was talking about and insinuated I was talking about one that had slaves. Nice double strawman, m8 :^)

3. You mean that guy who was fairly elected by the German people in a republican government? Hitler wasn't a monarch, he was an elected Chancellor who became a dictator (and yes, there is a difference). And I don't support dictatorship, really, so I would agree with you that such is bad.

Being appointed Chancellor by the president of the Weimar Republic with a shoddy constitution to then pass laws restricting democracy =/= being voted into power democratically.

Also, Hitler was still authoritarian, same as monarchs are. :^)

[Kubra]

>liking Tiberius
Oh yes, quite competent militarily, got a good bit of plunder out of it, but as any economist will tell you: plunder ain't sound economics. If you gotta choose 1 quality, effete administrators>swarthy warlords most of the time.

I mean of Spain, not England. Charles II of England was pretty dumb too tho, dude was basically asking to be deposed. Not sound governance.

>Godunov
What, the guy who cemented serfdom in Russia? You've got funny taste in autocrats. I bet you think Frederick I merely decent, or extraordinary simply for his military campaigns.

Tiberius left the Imperial treasury with a lot of money in it, he consolidated and made the Empire stronger, kept out of frontier disputes, and made sure to strengthen his empire. He would have gone down as a good emperor if it wasn't for Sanjenus. Are we talking about the same Tiberius who died in 37 AD I believe?

Did Charles the Second of Spain even rule? I thought he was to mentally deficient to rule so it was just his administration.

We talking about the same Tsar here? He was the guy who tried to Westernize Russia with social and intellectual reform before the Time of Troubles?

Frederick the 1st of Prussia?

Yes, the imperial treasury. He put a lot of money in that. And? The treasury does not till fields, make pottery, run the street kitchens, forge jewelry, and so on. It might build palaces, great arches and monuments, but we wouldn't necessarily call these public works a public good, insofar as the target consumer is the emperor and his court. Y'know, it wasn't "reinvested" in the economy in any meaningful fashion. Long term, pure military strengthening and expansion was the downfall of the Roman Empire, which could never properly consolidate its territory right up until it was crawling with mercenary legions and migrating tribes.

He did not rule, strictly speaking, nor did he have a court that ought to have, which is over course a problem regarding succession and the politics surrounding it. Made for quite the ugly succession. Funny thing, a monarch's biggest problem can be precisely not ruling.

Oh yes, he attempted westernisation, something that did not go well at all. He also permanently tied the peasantry to the land, a policy that outlived him for quite some time.

[Salus Maior]

1. One of those Imperialist powers, who was one of the primarily responsible factions in the war, being a Republic and the other being Britain. Monarchy isn't what started WWI.

I guess the literal assassination of two members of a monarchy family didn't spark the war then. :^)

2. "I don't like that example of democracies being bad so I'm going to discount that" :^).

2.You asked which democracy I was talking about and insinuated I was talking about one that had slaves. Nice double strawman, m8 :^)

3. You mean that guy who was fairly elected by the German people in a republican government? Hitler wasn't a monarch, he was an elected Chancellor who became a dictator (and yes, there is a difference). And I don't support dictatorship, really, so I would agree with you that such is bad.

3.Being appointed Chancellor by the president of the Weimar Republic with a shoddy constitution to then pass laws restricting democracy =/= being voted into power democratically.

Also, Hitler was still authoritarian, same as monarchs are. :^)

1. Would it be any different if it was, say, a senior administrator assassinated? Or a Senator? No, Europe and the Balkans were a powderkeg about to burst, WWI was inevitable.

2. You said before that democracy prevents atrocities, so why didn't it prevent atrocities in Athens?

3. Hitler and the Nazi Party were the popular party in Germany at the time.

And yet it used that authority and power in a completely different and incredibly more extreme way than traditional monarchy. And even then, I'm a constitutional monarchist, so I would agree with you that a single person having the power to abuse the people is not desirable.

[Torrocca]

I guess the literal assassination of two members of a monarchy family didn't spark the war then. :^)



2.You asked which democracy I was talking about and insinuated I was talking about one that had slaves. Nice double strawman, m8 :^)



3.Being appointed Chancellor by the president of the Weimar Republic with a shoddy constitution to then pass laws restricting democracy =/= being voted into power democratically.

Also, Hitler was still authoritarian, same as monarchs are. :^)

1. Would it be any different if it was, say, a senior administrator assassinated? Or a Senator? No, Europe and the Balkans were a powderkeg about to burst, WWI was inevitable.

It probably would've been vastly different. Alas, the Hapsburg dickweeds of Austria-Hungary decided to do the one thing that'd've guaranteed war. :^)

2. You said before that democracy prevents atrocities, so why didn't it prevent atrocities in Athens?

Now where in the hell did I say that?

Also, way to shift the argument. :^)

3. Hitler and the Nazi Party were the popular party in Germany at the time.

Doesn't change the fact that Hitler wasn't democratically elected to the Chancellory.

And yet it used that authority and power in a completely different and incredibly more extreme way than traditional monarchy.

Used it just like an Absolute Monarchist would've. :^)

And even then, I'm a constitutional monarchist, so I would agree with you that a single person having the power to abuse the people is not desirable.

Fair enough.

[Torrocca]

Less sad than believing in a revival of Monarchist systems of governance. :^)))

I'd take a monarchy than such a destructive anarchy, it's pathetic and I'm frankly disgusted.

>Anarchy
>Destructive

oof ouch owie all my anarchist political theory destroyed by one person's frank disgust

[Kubra]

Less sad than believing in a revival of Monarchist systems of governance. :^)))

I'd take a monarchy than such a destructive anarchy, it's pathetic and I'm frankly disgusted.

anarchy is order yo
As I've said earlier, anarchism is nothing without quite a bit of bureaucracy

[Torrocca]

>Anarchy
>Destructive

oof ouch owie all my anarchist political theory destroyed by one person's frank disgust

Anarchy descends into rule of the strong,

Lol no it doesn't hahahahaha, someone's clearly never heard of the Anarchist communes and groups of 19th century Europe

it's as proven as awful as communism and fascism, one of 3 most destructive systems in existence.

I'mma need some proofs :^)

[Kubra]

Lol no it doesn't hahahahaha, someone's clearly never heard of the Anarchist communes and groups of 19th century Europe



I'mma need some proofs :^)

1: Actually that's how we developed government systems, so yeah it does.
2:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issues_in_anarchism
Just as some basic stuff.

So sorry, don't come here with your uneducated bs.

tl;dr read an entire wikipedia page and shut up. It's funny in this instance, because your chosen wiki page does not touch on any of your very wild concerns.
If you have specific grievances by all means air them.

[Torrocca]

Lol no it doesn't hahahahaha, someone's clearly never heard of the Anarchist communes and groups of 19th century Europe



I'mma need some proofs :^)

1: Actually that's how we developed government systems, so yeah it does.

So explain how those Anarchist groups in Spain, France, Central Europe, Southern Europe, etc. just all descended into rule of the strong.

2:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issues_in_anarchism
Just as some basic stuff.

So sorry, don't come here with your uneducated bs.

I feel like you didn't even bother to read a lick of that article beyond the headline, because if you seriously think that any political ideology that uses violence or believes violence is acceptable is the most destructive thing ever then you should hate every single ideology except for pacifism.

[Torrocca]

tl;dr read an entire wikipedia page and shut up
If you have specific grievances by all means air them.

To be frank, I feel I'm not going to get through to him/her/they. Else lots of people would change their ways, not necessarily to my ideology or beliefs, but to the opposite. A lot of people are just far too stubborn and they don't realize it.
But I can't exactly not say anything back so I was obligated to.

You could try actually arguing with words why Anarchism is so woefully destructive rather than link to a wiki article and call it a day. :^)

[Kubra]

tl;dr read an entire wikipedia page and shut up
If you have specific grievances by all means air them.

To be frank, I feel I'm not going to get through to him/her/they. Else lots of people would change their ways, not necessarily to my ideology or beliefs, but to the opposite. A lot of people are just far too stubborn and they don't realize it.
But I can't exactly not say anything back so I was obligated to.

>I'm not going to get through to him, if I did he would think something else
I mean, with this point of view, I feel ashamed that I'm joining in with being snarky.

[Torrocca]

To be frank, I feel I'm not going to get through to him/her/they. Else lots of people would change their ways, not necessarily to my ideology or beliefs, but to the opposite. A lot of people are just far too stubborn and they don't realize it.
But I can't exactly not say anything back so I was obligated to.

>I'm not going to get through to him, if I did he would think something else
I mean, with this point of view, I feel ashamed that I'm joining in with being snarky.

Defeatism causes second-hand shame. *nod*

[Kubra]

>I'm not going to get through to him, if I did he would think something else
I mean, with this point of view, I feel ashamed that I'm joining in with being snarky.

To be frank, I study online debates all the damn time, and it rarely ends well.
Breitbart, Debate.Org, even Nationstates.
Yes I do go on the former 2, but to just test the waters on Breitbart to see if it was possible-I don't believe Breitbart, I don't like it either-, and just study Debate.Org and that was when I had hope for people on those sites.
On Nationstates I've observed debates for years. Kinda lost hope here too.

What does that have to do with our perception of you as narcissistic?