/monarchy/ - Monarchy

Past, Present, and Future

Index Catalog Archive Bottom Refresh
Mode: Reply

Max message length: 8000


Max file size: 32.00 MB

Max files: 5

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


(used to delete files and postings)


Remember to follow the rules

The backup domain is located at 8chan.se. .cc is a third fallback. TOR access can be found here, or you can access the TOR portal from the clearnet at Redchannit 2.0.

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

(203.20 KB 880x651 absoluteMonarchy.jpg)
Would Monarchism Result in Depoliticization? Peasant 07/27/2020 (Mon) 01:57:16 No. 1395
The politicization of all topics, from the most mundane of card games and sports, to scientific endeavors and mainstream media, is something that could easily be argued as the ultimate end-state of any form of democracy. Wrapped up in democracy is the idea that each of us political animals shares an equal share of the political process (one man, one vote), so it makes sense that a natural cultural extension of this is to wrap up anything and everything with politics. This isn't to say that monarchism is not immune to politicization itself, but it certainly does not have the same incentives at play in a democracy that would necessarily entail it to end up to the hyperpoliticized world we see here in the West. Believe me I understand the irony of me making a political post complaining about politicization, but hopefully you will take my point sincerely. I used to follow Ron Paul quite a bit when I was younger, and afterwards it genuinely surprised me the number of people who would tell him, "You know, you inspired me to get into politics," and I could see this cringed face of quiet disappointment in his face. As if to say, "Why couldn't I have inspired you to do something, ANYTHING, actually useful with your life?" Think how many more practical endeavors we would have in our society had not these incentives and impulses been at play. How many scientists involve themselves with the petty squabbles and temporary ruses of politics at the expense of the glory of greater and further discoveries in their disciplines? How many athletes have obsessed themselves with BLM instead of honing their crafts to ever greater heights? How many soyboy antifa activists would have been so much better off even doing something as degenerate as speedrunning in comparison to what they're doing now? We could have so much more greatness in our society if the common man was free to rid themselves of the worries of politics and to focus on themselves, and their pursuits to the expansion of the human race. Monarchism helps close the path of politics to many, which is a good thing because it helps direct the focus of so many away from the violence that is politics. I am reminded of Napoleon--the master of republicanism--calling England a nation of shopkeepers as a compliment rather than an insult. I apologize if I'm waxing too eloquent and pretentious here, but permit me to end with a quote: >You were greatly offended with me for having called you a nation of shopkeepers. Had I meant by this, that you were a nation of cowards, you would have had reason to be displeased; even though it were ridiculous and contrary to historical facts; but no such thing was ever intended. I meant that you were a nation of merchants, and that all your great riches, and your grand resources arose from commerce, which is true. What else constitutes the riches of England. It is not extent of territory, or a numerous population. It is not mines of gold, silver, or diamonds. Moreover, no man of sense ought to be ashamed of being called a shopkeeper. But your prince and your ministers appear to wish to change altogether l'esprit of the English, and to render you another nation; to make you ashamed of your shops and your trade, which have made you what you are, and to sigh after nobility, titles and crosses; in fact to assimilate you with the French... You are all nobility now, instead of the plain old Englishmen. And now in democracies, we find everyone sighing after nobility, instead of humble nations of citizens.
(1.19 MB 1280x1110 Grace Muse of Monarchy.png)
The best it could do is destroy political parties and partisanship. The political parties are the worst outcome imo of the democratic regimes. This is my ideal, but I bet someone is going to say, >NOOOOOO, YOU CAN'T DISBAND MUH POLITICAL MULTI-PARTY REPRESENTARIONOS, MUH DEMOCRACY!!! WHAT ABOUT POLITICAL IDEAS AND CHECKS AND BALANCE!?! T-TYRANNY
(3.40 MB 480x360 Politics-was-illegal.mp4)
(2.58 MB 3000x4073 grace filmer.png)
This is my dream. My opinion is that only Monarchy will make a cessation of these divisions. What we see with political parties is the by-product of democracy and oligarchy, that being the many and the petty elite, who love to pointlessly dabble in their partisanships and cause division. Between the many and the few, it is only monarchy that will bring unity. It is only monarchy that can break these political parties and bring them a better identity, and only the personal rule (that some call autocracy) that will liberate people from the ultimate divide between father and son, and these superficial political differences. >For she accompanies and attends revered kings Whomever the daughters of mighty Zeus honor and see being born from kings nurtured by Zeus, upon his tongue they pour dew sweeter than honey and from his mouth flow soothing words. All the people look to him as he decides between opposing claims with straight judgments. He addresses them without erring and quickly and knowingly ends a great quarrel. For this reason, kings are wise, because for people injuring one another in assembly, they end actions that call for vengeance easily, appeasing the parties with soft words. As he walks in the marketplace, they glorify him as if a god with soothing deference, and he stands out in the gathering. This is explicitly what makes Monarchy the best unity in comparison to democracy and oligarchy. Politicalization is not such a bad thing in itself, but there is a strong corruption of it in political parties today. It is a great thing when people feel in tangent with the body-politic, and they finally have a functioning political framework. It is greatly fulfilled with the royal bond, because it ideally should make them like one big family... and nothing like this kinship and loyalty facilitates grievances between people. I talked to leftists on this issue, between comradeship and familial division, whether the democratic greater good matters more than your family... however, with a royal monarchy, if we could have it like a great household, make every comrade like a kin, then it would better. Because comradeship is good, but familial loyalty has qualities better... if monarchy could provide greater unity and make all like kin, then this would be like a comradeship unparalleled. This is what monarchists want from obedience and loyalty, when it comes to accepting a monarchy, that they aren't just passively obeying, but they must have kinship... the same way you wouldn't kill your own kin and family so easily... because despite your differences, and despite your political leniency, doing that would be an injustice. >"If we consider the household, whose end is to teach its members to live rightly, there is need for one called the pater-familias, or for some, one holding his place." -Dante >My old home, the Monarchy, alone, was a great mansion with many doors and many chambers, for every condition of men." -Joseph Roth This is something I think North Korea understands, tbh. If there is one good thing to say about North Korea, they have achieved this from my pov. It's not about nationalism for me, neither about socialism, but through monarchy political unity is possible. Monarchy is a better politicalization, and a better personal connection with people at large, through the monarch, and through themselves in tandem and towards their goals. This is hard for most people to understand, and it might not be understood even in royal states today, but the potential is there. When there is one ruler, there is one unity, and one who doesn't divide himself. The structure itself denies political hampering found in these institutions... because the monarch is a personal ruler and has personal wisdom. It is a monarch that provides leadership and acts for the common good in ways that the majority and the minority cannot act.
Another thing to take in mind is that a monarch rules for an absolute lifetime. Many people find this more problematic than useful, as a lifelong ruler doesn't have term limits... they don't take their turns in being governed. The advocates of a limited monarchy usually like term limits to cap this lifetime personal rule, hence Doge of Genoa and US Presidents being truly limited monarch through their term limits. But a lifelong ruler has a lifelong connection with his people, and the personal rule brings lifelong experience and bond. While an indefinite rule for a life-time is problematic for those who advocate term limits, it is beneficial for a ruler to rule for life... I think with politicalization, the problem is they believe all politics is about is voting, but they do not see the political body at large, whereas with a monarch, there is one body to manifest the whole body-politic--so it is easier to conceive and pragmatically speak, without confusion and pointless deception found in party-politics dividing a people. Politics was where they stood in their everyday lives in connection to the body-politic, and it circulated around their function in building a stronger body and live rightly. The household rule found in monarchy, applied like a great household to the body-politic at large, makes politicization worthwhile.
>>1395 "Absolute X" has been normalfag'd for a while now, stop posting it.
>>1395 Loyalty to parties is a result of Enlightenment incoherence. Loyalty to abstract ideals has no fixture in reality. A state can't be united by ideology alone, because ultimately partisan politics is dominated by charisma. When poor leadership inevitably ascends to head the state as a result of ideological commitments preexisting consensus quickly loses currency amongst the masses and leads to division. Real political loyalty only exists towards corporeal individuals.

Quick Reply

no cookies?