Are there any decent books that argue for monarchy that won't make me cringe? Apart from Leviathan?
Evola
>>8049115
in order for Evola to be worthwhile, you don't just have to confront a philosophy, you have to confront an entirely new literal religion that he synthesized and if you don't accept it then his philosophy is invalid. I'd rather have a more conventional philosopher
>>8049118
A conventional philosopher arguing for monarchy?
Get the fuck out of here
>>8049131
"Conventional" relative to "my entire argument is predicated upon a religion I created all by myself.". Not "conventional" as in "mainstream".
>>8049113
Edmund Burke perhaps?
>>8049159
Burke wasn't a monarchist, he just happened to be a liberal-conservative at a time when there was a monarchy
>>8049113
Fanged Noumena
>>8049113
>argue for monarchy
>Leviathan?
> implying
Bobby Filmer's Patriarcha is about the best defence about a monarchy, but they really just don't make sense anymore. So will it make you cringe? Maybe. It's also good to give you an idea of what Locke's arguing against in his 2 treatises
>>8049113
It's obvious we need a good Christian King to vanquish the moor, restore order and decency and keep the lower orders in their place. Deus Vult!
Might is right
>>8049713
Christianity is cucked and has only ever vanquished whites.
Jesus taught weakness and self abasement.
A return to classical virtues is the only thing that can save the west
>>8049113
Reflections on the Revolution in France, maybe?
>>8049159
>>8049737
Burke is the father of modernist conservatism, he's actually marks the divorce between conservatism being inherently monarchist. He criticizes the French Revolution for being too radical, quick and bloodthirsty, more than he does for it being non-monarchist.
>>8049197
Thanks
>>8049723
The Roman Empire was pretty multicultural
>>8051066
Perhaps you could defend a monarchy along the lines of tradition and stability (I'm speaking of a constitutional monarchy here however)? How do I into Burke?
