A Monarchy is the most pure and best governmental system in existence. The history of Europe is tied together with Aristocracy and Monarchy. The rise of Republicanism and democracy are already marking the end of Europe, through the means of mass-immigration, destruction of Christianity, marriage, culture and gender.
Now I will refute various myths regarding Monarchies. Please refrain from commenting in the first 2 minutes so I can list my rebuttals to common myths from Republicans.
>Monarchies are un-democratic!
Not true. Actually, most monarchies in the world today are more democratic than most republics in the world. Further, in most republics (even the United States) the President is not directly elected by the people anyway. However, being democratic is not necessarily a good thing. Benevolent leaders and bloodthirsty dictators have both come to power through democracy.
>Monarchies are too expensive!
Not true, not by a long shot. Some monarchs (such as the Prince of Liechtenstein) cost the public nothing at all. In the United Kingdom, the money the Queen grants the government from the Crown Estates is considerably more than the allowance she receives from the Civil List, so Britain effectively makes money off the monarchy. Republics often spend more on their presidents, past presidents and first families than monarchies do on their royal houses. Many countries (like Australia, Jamaica or Canada) share a monarch and pay nothing and monarchies do not have the constant, massive expense of elections and political campaigns for the top job.
>Hereditary monarchy just isn’t fair!
Why not? How can any system for determining national leadership be absolutely fair? It hardly seems fair that one person should receive the top job simply because he or she is more popular. Surely the correct criteria should be how qualified a person is rather than if they are good at making speeches, more photogenic or being more gifted at graft and deceit. In a monarchy the top job goes to someone trained from birth to fill that role. In a republic, even under the best circumstances, an elected president will take half their term learning to do the job and the other half campaigning to retain it; hardly a model of efficiency. Hereditary succession seems much more “fair” than granting power to those able to swindle enough money and promise enough favors to the powerful to obtain the highest office in the land.
>Monarchies are dangerous! What if the monarch is incompetent?
The same question could be asked about republican leaders. However, rest assured, monarchs who are not capable of fulfilling their duties can be replaced and have been throughout history. Take two of the oldest and most stable monarchies; in Great Britain, when King George III became incapacitated the Prince of Wales was made regent and exercised his duties for him. Similarly, in Japan, when the Taisho Emperor was no longer able to fulfill his duties, the Crown Prince took over those duties for him as regent. On the other hand, even in the most successful republic in the world, the United States, only two presidents have ever been impeached and neither one was actually removed from office.
>Monarchy is an archaic throwback! It’s simply out of date!
Certainly monarchy is an ancient institution as it developed naturally from the dawn of time and the growth of human civilizations. However, democracy and republicanism is just as archaic. The Greek city-states of ancient times tried direct democracy and found it of very limited value, lasting only so long as people found out they could vote themselves the property of others. Republicanism was tried on a large-scale by the ancient Romans and yet they too found that it caused too many divisions, factions and civil wars before they decided a monarchy was preferable. The oldest republic in the world today was founded in 301 AD. How out of date is that?
>What about cruel monarchs like Nero or Attila the Hun? Surely no benefits could be worth risking leaders like that!
Actually, far more people have been butchered in wars or massacred by those in power since the start of the revolutionary period than in all history previously. Nero or Attila the Hun were unsavory characters but nowhere near as bad as republican monsters like Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Mao Zedong or Pol Pot. It has only been in the post-revolutionary era of mass politics and political ideologies that governments have taken to killing their own people in huge numbers. Nero was cruel to his own family and later persecuted Christians who were still a tiny minority and Attila the Hun, as ruthless as he was toward his enemies, ruled his own people well from what we know and with justice. No monarch ever wiped out as many of their own people as the communist dictators of the Twentieth Century, all of whom did so in the name of “the people” and “fairness”.
>Royals are too out of touch. They have no idea how regular people live.
Some people believe this, but it simply isn’t true. Queen Elizabeth II was a mechanic and truck driver during World War II, the King of Thailand is a renowned jazz musician and composer, Queen Margrethe II of Denmark has painted illustrations for several books, including the Danish edition of “The Lord of the Rings”. The Emperor of Japan grows his own rice, the King of Cambodia was a practically anonymous dance instructor before coming to the throne and many royal heirs take ordinary jobs, often in obscure places where they are unknown, after finishing school. Despite what people think, royal life is not all champagne and caviar. Compare this to many presidents who have often never worked outside the public sector in their entire lives, never served in the military (as most royals do) or ever known any other life besides making speeches and casting votes.
>At best, monarchs are unnecessary. A president could do just as good a job.
Not true at all. Some republics have ceremonial presidents that are supposed to be non-political but they still invariably have a political background and are beholden to the party that appoints them. A monarch, on the other hand, is above all political divisions and has a blood connection to the history of the country, its traditions and most deeply held beliefs. No politician could ever represent a people in the way a monarch can whose family history has been the history of the country itself.
>Monarchies must be bad or else there would be more of them!
That argument could only begin to make sense if most monarchies had fallen because of a conscious decision by the whole people to see them end. This has certainly not been the case. Most monarchies have fallen because of brute force exerted by a powerful, motivated minority or because their country was defeated in war and their state collapsed. How about looking at how people live? The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development annually puts out a list of the best countries to live in based on a variety of factors and monarchies invariably outrank republics by far. Last year, 2012, is a typical case with 8 out of the top 10 best countries to live in being monarchies; the only republics to make the top 10 were the United States and Switzerland. If republics are so great, shouldn’t their people be living better lives than those in monarchies?
>Monarchs are so set apart, they cannot represent ordinary people.
Actually, that is precisely why they can represent everyone in a way no politician ever could. President Hollande of France is an agnostic socialist, so how can he truly represent those French who are Catholic or capitalists? President Napolitano of Italy was a long-time communist, which is certainly not representative of most Italians. President Obama of the US, a liberal from Hawaii, cannot have much in common with a conservative from South Carolina. Yet, a monarch, because they are set apart, can represent everyone because they are not from any particular group.
>Republics bring progress, monarchies only oppressed.
Historical fact says otherwise. Time and time again history has shown that the end of monarchy makes things worse for a country, not better. In France it resulted in the “Reign of Terror” that saw tens of thousands of people get their heads chopped off. In Russia, the loss of the monarchy allowed the Bolsheviks to take power who then created the Soviet Union which spread oppression around the world and murdered millions of people. In China the result was a chaotic period of warlord rule followed by the bloodiest civil war in human history and then a communist dictatorship that took the lives of 60 million people. The end of monarchy in Germany and Austria resulted in divided republics that allowed Adolf Hitler to come to power, devastate the continent and butcher 9 million people. The fall of the Shah of Iran allowed a radical theocracy to take power that has spread terrorism around the world and brutally oppressed its own people. These are only a few of the examples that could be cited and the facts are inarguable.
THIS IS FUCKING BULLSHIT AND YOU SOULD FEEL BAD
One king can be good but their son will?
Monarchy is a system where there is no equality in rights so it's not democratic
So who am I ? I cover royal history, which I have an interest in, looking at good times and bad. My goal is to aid in some small way in shoring up support for existing monarchies and restoring those which have been destroyed. I am a pan-monarchist, which means I do not focus on one country or one royal family or one monarchial tradition alone but on the world-wide monarchist cause. That is to say, I hope to foster support for what sociologists call “traditional authority” everywhere in the world. That includes supporting traditional figures in government and traditional values in society. For the vast majority of peoples throughout the world these traditional values are largely the same. I have very strong religious opinions (which I think are obvious to most people) but this is not a religious blog, Just because I choose not to preach does not mean I consider the issue inconsequential. When it comes to religion, I will say that I consider almost any religion better than none at all since, again, the vast majority have the same basic social values in common and the vast majority support the same basic form of government, which is monarchy.
I hope to unite monarchists rather than divide them. In France, for example, the monarchist cause has long been bitterly divided between the supporters of the “Legitimists”, “Orleanists” and “Bonapartists”. There is one which I consider right and always will. However, I would consider any of them a vast improvement over the revolutionary republic and abhor the manner in which the republic has endured by default because monarchists failed to come together for the good of their country and countrymen. My most basic definition of a monarchist is quite simple: you support monarchy and oppose republics. That means I do not and will not undermine any existing royal houses because in every case the only current alternative would be a republic rather than some other royal house or genealogical line. Anyone who would wish to undermine any existing monarchy for any reason whatsoever may pass their time elsewhere. Anyone who would seek to pursue their personal preference rather than remaining loyal to legal and legitimate sovereigns is a republican at heart and may do the same.
I am proudly reactionary and counterrevolutionary. I support that which strengthens monarchy and traditional values and oppose that which weakens them. However, I also strive to be practical and realistic and that means never sacrificing a preferable present in the hope of a totally perfect future. I support monarchs having actual powers and more than mere symbolic authority but I will support and defend even the most purely ceremonial monarchies as preferable to an outright republic since there is at least a root from which the tree can be restored. No matter how stripped down and muzzled, any monarchy at all provides more to work with than a republic for history has largely proven the last German Kaiser correct when he said, “Monarchy is like virginity, once lost, you can never get it back”. That is not always true, but in the vast majority of cases it is and that is why a republic is a calamity that is to be avoided at all costs and I will defend even the smallest nub of an existing monarchy rather than giving up on it in the naïve hope that something better can come from the triumph of republicanism. I believe monarchists must be resolute, determined and loyal to the death, whether in good times or bad.
In a monarchy the top job goes to someone trained from birth to fill that role, under the best circumstances, where the Princes learn ethics, law, philosophy, history and all needed qualities for a King.
In a republic, even under the best circumstances, an elected president will take half their term learning to do the job and the other half campaigning to retain it; hardly a model of efficiency. Hereditary succession seems much more “fair” than granting power to those able to swindle enough money and promise enough favors to the powerful to obtain the highest office in the land. Next, the only priority of the democratically elected party is staying in power, while a King does not have to worry about such trivial matters and is thus not motivated by the idea's of letting millions of immigrants in who will vote for you. Instead the King can rule the lands with the best interest of the Country at heart.
If you want to see our side of the perspective, please listen to the following conversation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBvHBmpfXHM
>>74462903
Represent
>>74463198
In a monarchy the top job goes to someone trained from birth to fill that role, under the best circumstances, where the heirs are learned ethics, law, philosophy, history and all needed qualities for a King.
In a republic, even under the best circumstances, an elected president will take half their term learning to do the job and the other half campaigning to retain it; hardly a model of efficiency. Hereditary succession seems much more “fair” than granting power to those able to swindle enough money and promise enough favors to the powerful to obtain the highest office in the land. Next, the only priority of the democratically elected party is staying in power, while a King does not have to worry about such trivial matters and is thus not motivated by the idea's of letting millions of immigrants in who will vote for you. Instead the King can rule the lands with the best interest of the Country at heart.
>>74463340
I only have respect for absolute monarchs. The others can go to hell. Monarchy should be absolute
The Coronation of King Willem Alexander.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwvjM6kF8VM
The Queen Opens British Parliament Pageantry 2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htJlSC9lXVg
The Proclamation Ceremony of King Felipe VI 2014
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBwmAIqYFiA
The Politically Incorrect Truth About the Chinese Revolution
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TExd4a18a9s
The Politically Incorrect Truth About the Russian Revolution Part I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QY9ZvOyo1qA
The Politically Incorrect Truth About Japan Korea and Comfort Women
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6g-Yj6c-Hg
The Politically Incorrect Truth About the French Revolution
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PypWCpmQGPY
>>74463674
completely unrealistic
that's right on level with communism
also, todays monarchies are retarded and worthless,
they shame their glorious ancestors with their shitty ultrademocratic, supertolerant feminism
>>74462903
On this subject, Can anyone recommend some books both for and against monarchy?
>>74463989
>>74463989
"Politics Drawn from Holy Scripture"
by Bishop Jacques-Benigne Bossuet
"Patriarcha: Or the Natural Power of Kings"
by Sir Robert Filmer
"Essay on the Generative Principle of Political Constitutions and other Human Institutions"
by Count Joseph de Maistre
"Monarchism in the Age of Enlightenment"
by Hans W. Blom
"On the Pope"
by Count Joseph de Maistre
"Essays on Catholicism, Liberalism and Socialism"
by Juan Donoso Cortes
"Liberty or Equality"
by Erik Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn
"Reflections of a Russian Statesman"
by Konstantin Pobedonostsev
"Democracy: The God That Failed"
by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
"On Monarchist Statehood"
by Lev Tikhomirov
Recommended by Readers
"The Menace of the Herd"
by Erik Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn
"A History of the French Revolution"
by Thomas Carlyle
"Politics"
by Aristotle
"The Analects"
by Confucius
"Human Action"
by Ludwig von Mises
Any form of republicanism is already a form of leftism. Americans don't want to hear this because they want to believe their "Republican Party" is on the right. Yet they are not. Republicanism has roots in the French Revolution, which then paved the way for Communist Revolutions. If you want to define extreme right and extreme left than you would have an Absolute Monarchy on the extreme right and a Communist dictatorship on the extreme left. A republic is somewhere in between, but more to the left, while constitutional republic is generally more to the right. Believing in a Republican form of government is thus not right wing, contrary to popular believe, but actually in support of "the people" or "the bourgeoisie" whatever meanings you give to both of those terms. Liberte, Egalite and Fraternite are leftist ideals at heart. But what they really do is create the very fabric for an oligarchy, which is basically a primeval monarchy, and thus a way of going back in time. This is why I say, just avoid a republican form of government, and continue with the line of European aristocracy, because a repeating of history will then be prevented.
>>74464532
>constitutional republic
I meant to say constitutional monarchy.
>>74462903
Monarchy is shit.
No gods, no kings.
>>74464164
>>74463989
More books:
"Popular Government"
by Henry Maine
"Reflection on the Revolution in France"
by Edmund Burke
"The Shortest-Way With The Dissenters"
by Daniel Defoe
"Strictures upon the Declaration of the Congress at Philadelphia"
by Thomas Hutchinson
"Origin & Progress of the American Rebellion"
by Peter Oliver
"History of the Origin, Progress, and Termination of the American War" Volumes I & II
by Charles Stedman
"The Prince"
by Machiavelli
"Le Morte de Arthur"
by Thomas Malory
>>74464719
No Gods, No kings, No society. Just KYS already.
>>74464532
And what places no one is making any claim to any throne? How would you create a new royal house to be king?
>>74464719
>ignoring everything he posted
not to mention
>no gods
tippingintensifies.webm
Why didn’t you post the best king?
>>74465083
"Leftism: from de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Marcuse." By Erik Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn
"The great survivors: How monarchy made it into the twenty first century."
By Peter Conradi
I'm not against monarchy but this nigger should receive less money. It's retarded that he and his family members get a shitload of money.
>>74465111
>>74465198
>>74465115
How do you expect anybody to read any of these books you're referencing? Do you have links to them online somewhere?
If you are against the Monarchy you are a leftist, revolutionary, edgy teen and most like anti-authority as well. Any form of republicanism is leftist.
Being anti-Monarchy is being a youthful, rebellious phase of youth. You grow out of it eventually and come to accept the beauty of it.
Right now Europe is dieing because of parliamentary democracy.
>>74463842
was that way for most of human history
>>74462903
We kicked ass when we were still a Republic.
The second we turned into a Monarchy we became the most cucked country in Europe.
- explain this.
>>74465649
also this.
>>74465336
For heaven's sake, I gave you titles, you copy paste them, and search yourself.
>>74465176
Most of their wealth comes from their Crown Domains. I don't think less money is the solution, King Willem Alexander needs to rule instead. The Parliamentary Democracy wastes a lot more money.
>>74465176
I have no problem with the money he receives but he should at least kick all the current ministers out of the cabinet for their incompetence.
>>74462903
I'm all for monarchs but only if:
-they hold people's values, leaning to traditional and conservative ones.
-they're not degenerates(not even in their private times)
-don't get influenced by money / get bought ( which is pretty much impossible and has happened everytime but still wrong because muh shekels)
I'm saying this even tho the king of Romania has basically ordered to kill the nazis in the country(under muh influences of shekels & ruskies) to then drop-out like a bitch (again after the first time he was like underage) to let the commies planned brain-washing begin.
I believe Monarchs should be hereditary but have a right to opt-out.It would only make the bloodline look like shit but not everybody got preferences in politics(and you must have them)
>>74462903
>Monarchies are un-democratic!
The more I look at contemporary 'democracies', the less I care.
>>74465649
Half of the power in the Republic was in the hands of the Aristocratic families, the other half in the hands of Regents.
It's a common misconception that the Dutch Republic became wealthy because of the ''Free-market''. This is untrue. The VOC was given a monopoly from the state, including soldiers and forts to kill any competition (literally.)
We only became a Monarchy after Napoleon restored order in Europe.
The Dutch Empire grew sustainably under the King William 1st and 2nd. It were the revolutions of 1848 (stimulated by rich regents, oligarchs and, Jews) that we became a Constitutional Monarchy. Then the following 100 years more and more power was taken from the King, and during those years we became more 'cucked'. It is because of parliamentary democracy that we lost our colonies and the pressure of the oligarchs and the rebels in the United States government that despised Monarchies and European dominance in their hearts. So your statement is untrue.
>>74464164
Capital! Thank you for pointing me in the right direction, sir!
>>74465730
Art 40GW
De Koning ontvangt jaarlijks ten laste van het Rijk uitkeringen naar regels bij de wet te stellen. Deze wet bepaalt aan welke andere leden van het koninklijk huis uitkeringen ten laste van het Rijk worden toegekend en regelt deze uitkeringen.
2 De door hen ontvangen uitkeringen ten laste van het Rijk, alsmede de vermogensbestanddelen welke dienstbaar zijn aan de uitoefening van hun functie, zijn vrij van persoonlijke belastingen. Voorts is hetgeen de Koning of zijn vermoedelijke opvolger krachtens erfrecht of door schenking verkrijgt van een lid van het koninklijk huis vrij van de rechten van successie, overgang en schenking. Verdere vrijdom van belasting kan bij de wet worden verleend.
> monarchisten verdedigen dit
But Caligula
>>74466330
Why did you paint the lakes red?
>>74466057
THIIIIIISSSSSS
>>74466483
They're monarchist lakes. They run red with traitor blood.
>>74462903
I like the spanish monarchy the most. King Felipe is based.
>>74466382
I see nothing wrong with it. The only thing that is wrong is that King Willem Alexander only has ceremonial roles. Our current cabinet consists once again (and all future cabinets will be, for how long that may be, I don't think we will hold for much longer) incompetent leaders that should be fired.
>>74466483
It's from wiki
>>74462903
God save the Queen!
Long may she reign!
This is cool and all but I still don't want to have a king rule over me.
>>74466668
are you implying that king willy knows how to actually run the country?
Here's our future king preparing for the next great war
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LalRKy_QAwg
>>74466422
But Joseph Stalin, But Adolf Hitler, But Mao Zedong, But Pol Pot, But Fidel Castro, But Kim Jon-un, but King-Jun-Il, but Kim-II Sung, but Mussolini, but Lenin, but Mugabe, but Idi Amin Dada, But Brezhnev, but Saddam Hussein
All. Republican. Scum. That killed more people in the last 100 years then the last 1000 years of monarchy.
>>74466820
Because a president or minister is better how?
>>74466668
The king AND his wife AND his mother both get a ridiculous amount of wellfare. If it was just the king i would not mind. He gets 5.4 million this should be bloody enough for his mother and wife.
>>74467027
If it was up to me we wouldn't have those either.
Just because I dislike monarchies doesn't mean I like bureaucracy and democracy.
>>74465730
You still didn't answer this >>74464912 . How do create a new royal family?
>>74466822
Don't you think a King doesn't have any advisors ? His family will teach him, other aristocratic families will teach him, his teachers will teach him. A good King is surrounded by the best teachers, the most wisest of philosophers, the most intelligent of scientists. From birth princes learn all necessary traits that a good King should know, in law, science, rulership, ethics and philosophy. We don't live in 300 A.C anymore.
>>74467174
Fair enough, but you literally can't have none.
>>74467213
You'd need either a warlord, or an invited claimant (ala Glorious Revolution).
>>74466330
i wish leopold 3 didnt fucked up so the monarchy still had some power today :(
>>74466205
>>lost our colonies
>>Implying it wasn't because of picture related
Why not an elective constitutional monarchy?
>>74467429
So the benefits of neither system?
>>74462903
Heb je niks beters te doen, willy ?
>>74467429
Ask the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth why that doesn't work.
>>74467213
>How do create a new royal family?
If you are referring to the United States, it is impossible under current conditions. And you don't create a new Royal Family, you put one in power. The America's should then be returned to European Aristocracy (White Americans are inherently European, stop fooling yourselves.). Since the America's have developed, we will send European princes from either the Spanish or English royal family to rule over the America's.
The royal history of Texas begins with reign of King Carlos I of Spain, better known as Holy Roman Emperor Charles V of the German nation. It was in his name that Alonso Alvarez de Pineda first claimed Texas in 1519. However, he was simply exploring the Gulf of Mexico and though the map he made is the first document in Texas history it would be some time longer before Spain ever got really serious about the land of Texas. In 1528 Alvar Nunez Cabeza de Vaca became the first Christian to set foot on Texas soil. He was shipwrecked on the Texas coast, washed ashore and was the first to make contact with the natives of Texas. It is rather surprising that he survived given how fierce the natives of the Texas coast were, particularly the cannibalistic Karankawas, however, he did so and eventually made it back to civilization to report on his travels. So, Carlos I, Felipe II, Felipe III and Felipe IV all reigned over Texas but throughout all that time most of Texas remained devoid of non-native inhabitants. In about 1541, during the reign of King Felipe II, Francisco Coronado explored north Texas during his epic trek through the northern reaches of New Spain. In 1598 near what is now the west Texas town of El Paso, explorer Juan de Onate (not many months before the death of Felipe II) celebrated the first Thanksgiving in Texas when he had the Franciscan missionaries with him say a mass of thanksgiving for their finding a place of abundant food and water during what had been a harsh overland march.
>>74467224
Dont get me wrong, i dont dislike a monarchy, but a king should be thought how to rule and not how to be a celebrity. our king might be way to old to teach. and everytime i see him make statements its the same pro immigration crap the politcians push.
>>74467326
It's primarily the United States who gave power to Soekarno because the United States was anti-colonialist (because of their history of anti-Monarchism and pro-Republicanism). They wanted Soekarno on their side and not on the Communist side. The US threatened to stop the Marshallplan if we didn't retreat our troops from the Dutch-Indies.
>>74462903
Reminder that de Oranjes are not rightfull rulers. They are not royal blood. Also, they were traitors in WW2. Fled to England whilst taking our gold.
Best rulers are philosopher kings as described by Plato. Not de fucking Oranjes.
>>74467731
I fully agree. But the reason he's so politically correct is because the oligarchs have seized power and now partly control the aristocracy with their politically correct bullshit.
>>74467936
>Nation which does incredibly well thanks to monarchy
>Talking shit about system which allows them to do well
>>74467695
So, your idea is putting some foreign "aristocrat" in power? Goddamn, how deluded can you monarchists get?
>>74468090
What's the problem there?
>>74468187
Stellar refutation, traitor.
>>74467897
So if the current aristocracy is corrupt and corruptable, why should we have them as monarchs?
>>74467936
>Western cunt
>endorsing Communism
Why did Americans even try?
>>74467695
So by your logic we if we were to instate a monarchy we would have to put some Baltic-German in power?
Fuck off.
>>74467665
Patricians could veto the king on anything? Disgusting.
>>74467462
Constitutional monarchy probably isn't what I was thinking of
i wish we had our monarch back );
someone collage this btw
The only good monarchy is an absolutist Monarchy. All other forms are castrations of said practice.
>>74468368
All European Monarchies are interconnected. Kaiser Wilhelm II was eldest grandchild of the British Queen Victoria. The Daughter of Kaiser Wilhelm II (The Emperor of Germany during WW1 for any ignorant fuck), Princess Victoria Louise of Prussia, is the maternal Grandmother of Queen Sophia of Spain, who is the mother of Felipe VI, current King of Spain. Do you guys even into Monarchy?
>>74462903
My ancestors already left yurop to get away from your monarchs
>>74463198
Literally every single one of our monarchs has been great, maybe it's just the superior Anglo blood. Queen Victoria had a whole era named for her, and I'm sure after HM Queen Elizabeth II this era will be called the Elizabethan era.
God save the Queen
>>74469455
And now your head of state is a nigger.
How do you think your ancestors would feel?
>>74469455
We're incredibly grateful.
>>74467665
I wonder where the Commonwealth is now...
Wait, you mean it was partitioned by monarchies for over a century? No way!
>>74462903
>>74462939
>>74463020
>>74463067
>>74463108
>>74463161
OP knows what is what.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfrYbSh3uwQ
>>74462903
>Belgium
Jihadist infection, cucked: some analyst mark it as a failed state
>Sweden
The definition of cucked
>Spain
Economically fucked and close to collapsing in new countries
>UK
Cucked
I really don't see how the Savoia cowards could have saved my country if the best aristocratic of Europe has not saved theirs.
>>74469699
This. Somehow many people think that a Monarchy is dangerous because the King (or Queen) has virtually unlimited power. They don't somehow seem to understand that we don't live in 300 AC any more where you constantly had to fight and kill to keep your position as King or Queen. We've had the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, we've grown out of our infancy. Modern Kings get the best possible upbringing and education you can get. They learn everything from history to ethics to philosophy. If European Kings today where to rule they would rule as Enlightened Absolutists. The Dutch Queen Wilhelmina and Juliana were loved dearly by the majority of the Dutch. She would ride her bicycle to the Dutch soldiers and greet them personally.
And it's not just ruler ship, it's the culture and traditions that surrounds it that makes it superior to any form of decadent republicanism.
>>74469004
Baltic German Aristocracy oppressed and ruled us in our land and treated our culture worse than dirt for 700 years.
Then when Latvians finally can rule in their own state, they start trowing hissy fits despite still controlling most of capital and industry. Then these pompous aristocrats in their highest act of disrespect, despite being claims of belonging to this land as they had "lived here side by side with us for 700 years", fled back to Germany in less then a year after Hitler called out to them.
And then the "brotherly" Europe condemned its Eastern "brethren" to 50 years of Communist rule.
After all this you expect me to support some despotic filth as my countries sole ruler, who has no connection to the local traditions or pain what so ever, despite the well known fact that the West gives absolutely no shit about the East.
God fuck the queen.
>>74470372
Annndddd your nation is African :')
>>74470307
Thank you for this thread OP. Prinsgezinde hier.
>>74470307
Her bike is rad.
>>74462903
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8_kRVkCDBs
Didn't we solve this debate years ago?
>>74469973
Sadly I feel most people ITT didn't even read my rebuttals to common myths because the republicans ITT are exactly using the common myths I listed.
>>74469801
For not having to speak German
You're welcome
>>74470758
Oh, you're a Russian tourist?
>>74470727
At least you're somewhat half aware of your autism.
>>74470758
Shalom.
>>74470307
Yeah, maybe this is why monarchy has been so good here we never went through the medieval or ancient monarchs.
I don't understand why people are so against the monarch, this is a person who has devoted their entire life to their people and country. Since birth they are exceed to one day hold this role and are prepared for it, Queen Elizabeth was in her 20's or something and Victoria something like 18. They're born learning about their families history, everything they've done the good and bad, learning everything about their country it's people and it's customs.
>>74470727
Did you get them from the mad monarchist? I feel I saw some of them somewhere before
You're either a monarchist or a leftist.
You either believe the most qualified and educated person, who has spent their entire life being groomed for leadership position and makes every decision and performs every action for the good of the people because he is in fact the embodiment of the nation
OR
you believe we should vote (from the limited options presented to us by the business and political elite) and then after a few years throw it all out and start again.
>>74470758
Yeah, thanks for that
>>74470841
Autism is a stupid useless term made to catalogue certain people in my opinion. By cataloguing autists from young age they will live their lives believing they have that ''mental disease'' and will only act to it, or use it as an excuse to evade social interaction. I think that the ''rise of autism'' is largely bullshit, people where just ''as autistic'' back in history but then you had no option but to communicate with people, you had no opt-out like you have today, so you'd just learn to become social. These days you can simply ''opt-out'' of society. This is just another result of decadent republicanism and parliamentary democracy and the destruction of Christian morality and culture, though.
>>74469455
yes, let's talk about these great Presidents...
>Washington was elected unanimously, despised political parties, set the soft "two-terms" precedent that was broken by FDR and codified into a constitiutional amendment
>Jefferson was famous for writing the Declaration of Independence
>Jackson was a war hero, destroyed the central bank, removed indians from their lands
>Lincoln came to power in a divided Union and unified it, also paved the way for ending slavery once and for all
>Theodore Roosevelt was a war hero in the Spanish-American War, busted corporate trusts, the Panama Canal was built in his administration, etc...
>FDR: New Deal, Social Security, oversaw America's entry into WWII, was elected FOUR times.
>JFK: Young, charismatic, loved by people, negotiated the Cuban Missile Crisis and prevented MAD, tragically assassinated (people still debate the official theory of his assassination even today)
>Reagan: Popular, charismatic former actor. Policies proved wildly popular for his time and he won re-election in a landslide. His presidency defined the '80's.
>Bill Clinton: Proved to be more affable than his opponents. Presided over the birth of the Internet and the '90's tech bubble. The Lewinsky scandal only endeared him to the American public.
>Obama: Got elected on his message of "hope and change", proceeded to deliver terribly on both fronts but that's besides the point I'm making here
>Trump: Taps in to popular undercurrents in the wake of Obama's relatively disastrous presidency, message is built on revitalizing the nation which appeals to those dissatisfied with the current direction of the country and distrustful of the current establishment.
Notice anything about all of these presidents?
>>74471227
I genuinely don't care what you call it but you're sperging out hard.
>>74468735
No single drop of Greek blood in him. You are pathetic.
>>74471481
>inb4 muh European cosmopolitanism what is important here :^)
>>74471481
Does that preclude them from doing a good job? Or restoring the curious union of Greece and Denmark?
>>74471444
Since when is making sound of one's opinion and replying to one's statements, to try and stir an intellectual conversation, considered autism?
>>74471032
I don't know why, but I find it weird that's what Emperor Hirohito looked like, he looks like he's bribed into doing other people's homework for them rather than ruling Imperial Japan.
>>74471369
Out of what 40 presidents you have like 5 good ones
>>74470326
>Baltic German Aristocracy oppressed and ruled us in our land and treated our culture worse than dirt for 700 years.
>Teutonic and Livonian Orders
>monarchies
>>74471778
>missing the point this hard
Come on, leaf. You can do better than this.
>>74471032
Exactly.
>>74471794
>What is the Duchy of Courland and Semigallia
Besides, I said aristocracy, not monarchy.
The local lands were ruled by Noble Baltic German families who formed the aristocracy here, many having roots in mainland.
and this status quo was not ended not by Commonwealth, not by the Swedes, not by Russian Empire.
Baltic German elitism and dominance only truly ended when Ulmanis came to power in 1934.
And by OP's reasoning these are the only fit people to rule us in case of monarchy, despite not having anything to do with us in our darkest hour.
That is, unless he believe Baltics to be Tsar lands, in which case he is a moron.
>>74471903
I'm right though
>>74472248
Fair enough.
>>74472332
I never said you were wrong, I'm saying that you missed the point of my post.
The point was to not some, shall we say, "similarities" among the great presidents of the nation.
>>74471666
Yes. Their affinity to Germans almost costed us dearly during WW1. The King was actually replaced by his more Hellenised son/nephew (or whatever) because he wanted to side with the Germans. If that happened, who knows if Macedonia and Thrace would be Greek today.
>>74472781
It's because America has the superior Anglo blood in it, every other country pretty much fails as a Republic. America is literally the only good Republic
>>74471908
>>74471032
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io1hVzGu2xs
You're a fucking idiot, most wars in the past were fought because "muh birthright to this one plot of land"
Shit, look at our history, we were owned by a French family and then a Spanish-Austrian family and then they started to dictate how we should be ruled
Fuck off, monarchies are shit and always have been
>>74473324
Go to a Republic like Brazil if you hate monarchies so much, after all Brazil became so great after their monarchy ended right?
Didn't the celts elect their king when the old one died?
>>74473023
A good point, but not quite the one I was making.
Isn't it interesting how these great presidents seem to share a common link?
Isn't it interesting that the great Presidents we hear about in U.S. history seem to be the ones that best represent the people and ideals of the nation at their particular point in time?
>>74473436
The usurpers removed our emperor, the most beloved man in our history. We complain about the lack of heros but don't allow them to exist. Sad!
>>74473324
Just as much if not more people died in republics at the hands of great elected leaders.
If it wasn't for the Monarchy Europe wouldn't exist today.
Now that we've gone away from the Monarchy Europe is already falling. Christianity is dead. Marriage is dead. Sexuality is dead. We're being robbed of our culture, identity and past. Kids being indoctrinated with white guilt. Islam is the new tolerance. Race is a social construct. Were importing millions of Africans into Europe, the same Africans that we put in zoo's not even 60 years ago, because they stupid, looked like apes, and were considered inferior, our media is now promoting breeding with them. I give it a maximum of 50 years. Democracy collapses in on itself.
>>74473715
I wonder where Brazil would be today if the Dom family were still in power...
>>74462903
>beeing this much of an english fag
>>74474266
RIP Germany 1871-1918 and Wilhelm II the misunderstood, sidelined, Emperor
When the Great War did come the Kaiser was slowly sidelined. He blamed the conflict on a conspiracy against him started by King Edward VII with the alliance with France and, given his tendency to view things in personal terms, considered it a betrayal on the part of his cousins George V of Great Britain and Nicholas II of Russia. During the war he was reduced to settling disputes between generals and finally to almost purely figurehead status as the team of Hindenburg and Ludendorff came to dominate and could have their way on almost anything by threatening to resign. His advice and warnings were often ignored and when the Allies made it clear that the presence of the Kaiser was a block to ending the war he was forced to abdicate and go into exile in the Netherlands. It was a decision the Kaiser wrestled with and he always held a little anger on Hindenburg for failing to try to use the army to maintain his throne.
Exiled in Holland, Wilhelm II lived the life of a country gentleman and though he thought a restoration highly unlikely he never completely lost hope in an eventual return. Always a very religious man this only increased during his exile. The Nazis flirted with him, and the Kaiser extended some courtesies but he quickly realized they were no friends of his and he came to despise them. When World War II broke out he turned down an offer of rescue from the British and, it must be said, he took some joy in seeing France defeated and German troops marching triumphantly through Paris. The Kaiser died on June 4, 1941 and in his will forbid the display of any swastikas at his funeral and also refused to be buried in Germany so long as it was not a monarchy. This prevented Hitler from making a spectacle of his passing and despite a ban from the Nazi leader many high-ranking German officers and officials attended. His remains rest to this day at House Doorn in the Netherlands.
>>74473715
Brazil could have been a first world country. During the empire days you had a standard of living higher than most European countries. Very interesting country and history
>>74474059
For a time people thought Brazil would be the richest country in the Americas, during the empire days it was the richest behind America.
>>74462903
Why should you be able to rule a country based on your family name rather than your suitability for the role?
>>74474032
Belgium went to shit the moment the Walloons became a majority to keep the Flemish down.
Flanders should be rightful Dutch clay tbqh, as long the Walloons keep that shariah shithole that is Brussels.
>>74474624
You don't think being trained from birth to be a leader is enough? I can understand the Irish being anti monarchy because of your history with Britain but really for most countries it was better under a monarchy
>>74473715
Blame the freemasons
What is a nation to do when the monarchy is corrupted and doesn't follow biblical Christianity?
>>74474624
Confirmed for not reading the thread.
Republics are never ruled by your duly elected representatives, but by who pulls their purse strings.
>>74474583
And yet all of South America is a shithole, because some people thought they knew better than the beloved Emperor. "For the people" my ass.
>>74474624
It hardly seems fair that one person should receive the top job simply because he or she is more popular. Surely the correct criteria should be how qualified a person is rather than if they are good at making speeches, more photogenic or being more gifted at graft and deceit. In a monarchy the top job goes to someone trained from birth to fill that role, somebody who's learned all the necessary knowledge of philosophy, history and ethics. In a republic, even under the best circumstances, an elected president will take half their term learning to do the job and the other half campaigning to retain it; hardly a model of efficiency. Hereditary succession seems much more “fair” than granting power to those able to swindle enough money and promise enough favors to the powerful to obtain the highest office in the land.
>>74469699
>House of Saxe-Coburg
>Anglo blood
I have some bad news.
>>74474832
Is there any Republic that follows biblical Christianity?
>>74474841
I can understand the reasoning behind wanting a Republic, but the fact is in every aspect of life there will be a hierarchy and the monarch is simply someone who has the resources to allow them the best education and the best training for the job. There is nothing wrong with his hierarchy as long as everyone is respected, today though I think people have lost respect for labour jobs or working class people.
>>74473436
I'd rather go to Switzerland, thanks
Personally, I don't want to be under a rule of some old faggot who rules only cause he is born to rule.
>>74474962
The family is mostly Anglo still at least culturally they are fully Anglo.
>>74475078
Early America, and its holdovers today.
>>74474832
Following complete biblical Christianity is impossible in the first place. However, one religion is needed, and that is why Catholics of the past saw the necessity to keep Christianity from splitting up, which sadly did happen.
Corrupted Monarchies are virtually non-existent. Sure, there has been some in the first days of Europe after the Roman Empire when different families tried to establish their rulership, but we are 1500 years past that, the European aristocracy is so well refined and established, that such a thing is highly, if not impossible, to happen. Unlike with an elected person of course.
>>74475279
I have to ask: What factors could cause corruption of states and how does a monarchy counter these factors?
Maurits van Oranje was een HOMO die de coolste vent ooit heeft laten executeren. Johan van Oldenbarnevelt, YOU WILL NOT BE FORGOTTEN.
>>74463020
>Adolf Hitler
>Bad
>>74475279
For a professing traditionalist you have a very modernist view of honoring God to see it's primary value as a cultural unifier
Christendom split because Catholicism is heterodoxy
As an American, I am triggered by this thread.
However, all my favorite historical figures were monarchs. I want Trump as our Emperor.
>>74462903
this faggot wants to be a posession of some inbred faggot family
>PIC RELATED
>>74475389
For one, monarchs gain nothing from corruption, since the country their represent is the image of themselves and its achievements are much more personal. So the monarch might get money, but it would not be of too much use.
>>74475266
I asked if there is, not if there was.
>>74475713
>he wants to submit to the full unchecked dictatorship of the majority
>>74475739
With the current system if the UK became a Republic the royal family would pay LESS taxes than it does now.
>>74475824
I cannot name one
>>74475850
who said that? Monarchy>Democracy
but they both are shit tier
>Constitutional Republic masterrace
>>74462903
>monarchy
Kek National Socialism is what we need. Never going to get dicipline like this again.
>>74476033
>not constitutional monarchy
>>74475911
Exactly, monarchies should ideally be influenced by the bible since they are meant to be the defender of the faith but unfortunately they don't but republics aren't doing that either.
>>74471369
Trump ain't gonna win. His loss actually exemplifies one of the problems with democratic republics. Trump is winning with those for who this nation was made for and up until recently ego it belonged to.
In a republic such as ours though our leaders have no interests in our people, a king enriches himself by enriching the value of his subject, a politician enriches himself by chasing cynical bids for power. Republics ultimately lead to mass immigration as a plurality of elites rightly will see it as the best way to stay in power.
Republicanism I'd synonymous with endogenous suicide.
>>74476033
Republic yes sir, the best if I could have any system.
No amount of education can prepare someone incapable of leadership, and weak rulers will end up as mere figureheads while the country is run by their "advisors".
Succession in monarchies has not been very stable historically. Members of the royal family will inevitably start fighting for power, and weaken the country as a result.
Non-parliamentary monarchies are run by a single family. This family is not accountable to anyone, and they do not have to represent their people's interests. Monarchism is incompatible with ethnic, religious, and racial nationalism, the very things which Europe desperately needs at the moment.
>>74476118
Damn... 4chan on your phone is difficult.
>>74476118
And once a politician leaves office, what will have mattered to him is how much personal gain he achieved. And I speak this as the son of a congressman
>>74469455
Fuck FDR.
>>74476100
we are property of alpha draconians anyway so it doesn't matter, just hope you won't get eaten alive but a nasty reptile jew
>>74476366
Brazillian politics don't apply to the rest of the world and you know it, here if you don't have a corrupt person in your family, you are the corrupt one.
>>74476536
I am sad to inform you that we are no different than most in this regard, and that the only difference is our politicians haven`t adapted into being more subtle.
>>74476043
>never going to get discipline like this again
uwot?
>>74462903
Totally agreed. Monarchy is what keeps the bureaucracy at bay. The french revolution was started and funded by bureaucrats to destroy the only thing that prevented them from taking full control of the country. Now, the monarchy is long gone and just fucking take a look at europe, what it has become ...
>>74476366
Yes. Monarchy does a better job at encouraging far sighted and intelligent future investment. A king who owns the resources is less likely to exploit them for short term gain.
Politicians however do not own the resources but have access to them. Their position is also temporary. This only encourages short term exploitation for personal gain before they're out of a job.
>>74476692
>posts a painting from before the time period I was talking about
What?
Land of the free home of the brave
>>74476868
>Land of the free, home of the brave.
60 percent white,
can't be saved.
>>74475389
>What factors could cause corruption of states?
Politicians are very prone to bribery. Next to that, in a republic or parliamentary democracy, anyone can strive to become President or Prime Minister. You don't need necessary qualifications. or undergo tests to see if you are even fit to lead, as long as the majority supports you.
The King or Queen, however, can virtually not be bribed because he or she has the highest of authority and stands highest in the social hierarchy. The Royals are taught from their birth to rule over their lands. They learn all the necessary knowledge that is needed in the arts, literature, sciences, philosophy, history and other important aspects of culture and tradition that form the fabrics of the country. Next to that, the bloodline of the Royals that goes back generations is historically tied to the country or continent and is therefore more willing to defend it and to rule over it justly.
>>74475577
You can even say that Protestantism is heterodoxy because the Monarch is put there by God and therefore nothing justifies rebellion. Catholicism or Protestantism is not perfect. I do see Christianity as a cultural unifier and not as a cultural divider and therefore I am against the reformation.
>>74476868
> land of the cucks
> home of the spics
>>74476868
>free
>Slaves to major corporations and corruption.
People like you piss the everliving fuck out of me.
>>74476043
The way Adolf Hitler is constantly portrayed as a figure of the political “right” is astounding. The idea that anyone could perceive the leader of a group called the National Socialist German Workers Party as anything close to being a “conservative” defies belief. And yet, many seem to do just that. Of course, Hitler was not a conservative, not a member of the political right and Hitler himself would have considered such a classification deeply insulting. He despised everything that the traditional, right-wing conservatives of Germany stood for. This included Christianity, the aristocracy and, of course, monarchy. Hitler was, and always considered himself, a revolutionary and a socialist; he was simply a national socialist whereas the communists were international socialists. By his own admission, Hitler was a “little revolutionary” from his very boyhood, growing up in the Dual-Empire of Austria-Hungary and, he makes it perfectly clear in his own autobiography that he had nothing but contempt for the Imperial House of Hapsburg.
>>74477095
Hitler accused the Hapsburgs of favoring the Slavic peoples over the German-Austrians and even said it was the “hand of the goddess of eternal justice” which caused the Archduke Franz Ferdinand to be shot as he had been prominent in advocating greater outreach to the Slavs. He even found room to criticize the Austrian alliance with Germany, saying, “The Hapsburg hypocrisy, which enabled the Austrian rulers to create the outward appearance that Austria was a German state, raised the hatred toward this house to flaming indignation and at the same time - contempt.” He went on to refer to Austro-German friendship as an “unholy alliance” and, as we all know, when World War I broke out the young Adolf Hitler would not fight for the Hapsburg empire but instead crossed over into Bavaria to volunteer to join the more “pure” army of the German Empire. Indeed, a great deal of the first part of his book Hitler devotes to pouring scorn on Austrian history and the House of Hapsburg in particular. In fact, one of his complaints about the Bavarian people, after arriving there, was that they continued to view the Austrian monarchy as German and a reliable friend. Hitler viewed such people, as he viewed most other than himself, as hopelessly stupid.
>>74477110
He did remark on the loyalty of the Bavarian people toward their royal family, the House of Wittelsbach, but his anger was turned on them fiercely after his failed coup on November 8-9, 1923. Hitler tried to enlist the support of the still widely respected Crown Prince Rupprecht of Bavaria, well known not only for his royal position but as a highly successful army group commander on the western front in World War I, but the Crown Prince would have nothing to do with him and denounced the Nazi Party from start to finish. Hitler had been trying to imitate the success of Mussolini’s black shirts and their “March on Rome” the year before. However, whereas Mussolini had widespread support and ended up leading the government, Hitler had relatively little support, bolted with his men after the first shots were fired against them and he ended up in prison. While there he poured out his hatred against the late monarchy and the old order on the pages of his book, dictated to Rudolf Hess. Taking the socialist line, he denounced the aristocracy for being too cozy with wealthy financiers (universally Jewish in his mind) and he opined that in his “New Germany” the only aristocracy would be the aristocracy of race and that all class distinctions would be abolished. He criticized Kaiser Wilhelm II for allowing parliamentary democracy at all and for giving “cover” to those who had stabbed Germany in the back. At the time, few took his mindless ravings seriously.
>>74477137
However, he eventually did become a powerful political force, as we know, and had to reach out to some of the same groups he had earlier condemned. However, there was no doubt on either side as to where he stood from the perspective of the old, conservative monarchists. The most prominent figure in this group was probably the President himself, the aging but revered Field Marshal Paul von Hindenburg who scoffed at the suggestion of making Hitler chancellor. The old Prussian aristocrat quipped that he, “wouldn’t make that Bohemian corporal postmaster much less chancellor”. Hitler tried to reach out to the conservatives of course, to further his ambitions, and even sent his most likeable deputy, former air ace Herman Göring to try to woo the exiled Kaiser over to their side. At first, a number supported the idea, but the old Kaiser had enough experience to tell fairly quickly that Hitler was not what he pretended to be and he refused to endorse him and forbid the Crown Prince from getting involved as well. When Wilhelm II died during World War II a vindictive Hitler forbid high ranking Germans from attending his funeral and refused him any state honors (but the Kaiser didn’t want them anyway).
>>74462903
Your country only became a monarchy 200 years ago, you fucking tube.
>>74477160
Hitler, in his own book, let his true feelings about monarchy be known. He said on the subject of monarchy that, “If the value of this institution lay in the momentary person of the monarch, it would be the worst institution that can be imagined; for monarchs only in the rarest cases are the cream of wisdom and reason or even of character, as some people like to claim. This is believed only by professional lickspittles and sneaks, but all straightforward men - and these remain the most valuable men in the state despite everything - will only feel repelled by the idea of arguing such nonsense”. Thus, Hitler allowed himself to admire a select few monarchs while at the same time dismissing monarchy since, in his view, such worthy individuals came along at such infrequent intervals as to make having a monarchy simply not worth the trouble. Later, he hinted to the Kaiser that he might effect a restoration but, when the Kaiser saw through him to be the dishonest, power-mad politician that he was, Hitler quickly reverted to denouncing the Kaiser as a “Jew-lover”. Not all Nazis were so stridently opposed to anyone with a noble or royal title, but Hitler certainly was and in such a state it was only Hitler that mattered.
>>74477184
There was no difference in this attitude concerning foreign monarchs either. Hitler had rather idolized Mussolini, but when he made his first state visit to Italy he was greatly annoyed that he had to deal with HM King Victor Emanuel III, the head of state, rather than only Mussolini, the head of government. It grated on every socialist fiber of his being to have to bow his head to the King and to try to be pleasant to the Savoy royals, who he viewed as being far too friendly with the British. Hitler also commented on their perceived lack of support for Fascism, noting that the King saluted and the royal ladies bowed deeply when the flags of the Royal Italian Army passed by in review, but pretended not to notice when the flags of the Fascist black shirt militia marched by. During the war, Hitler had attached a German officer to the prisoner-King of the Belgians Leopold III. However, this man, Colonel Kiewitz, became so close to the King that Hitler came to view him as a monarchist and from that time on refused to even sit next to him. It goes without saying that he took an equally dim view of monarchs like the Queen of the Netherlands and the King of Norway who continued to oppose German occupation from exile.
>>74477204
Despite his writings and obvious opinions, there were German royals who, at the start of World War II, ‘rushed to the colors’ not out of any love for the Nazis but simply to defend their beloved Germany. In the same way, after the Axis invasion of the Soviet Union, many people who bitterly opposed Stalin and the communists joined the Red Army simply to defend Mother Russia and not out of any political affinity with the government in Moscow. Such patriotic displays did not change Hitler’s view of royals, aristocrats or monarchists however. One of those who volunteered to defend his country was Prince Wilhelm of Prussia, eldest son of Crown Prince Wilhelm III. He fought gallantly and was mortally wounded in France. When his funeral attracted a crowd of 50,000 people Hitler was shocked and alarmed at this display of monarchist sentiment. As a result he issued his famous ‘Prince’s Decree’ which forbid any members of the House of Hohenzollern from front-line military service so as to avoid any such repeat of sympathy for the old monarchy.
>>74476868
>>74477230
The Bavarian Royal Family went into exile in the Kingdom of Italy as soon as the Nazis came to power. In 1944 the Nazis occupied half of Italy and sent most of the family to concentration camps. Princess Mafalda of Italy, also despised by Hitler, was arrested and sent to a concentration camp where she later died. Her husband, Prince Philip of Hesse, who had even been a Nazi Party member, was also sent to a concentration camp though he survived the war. King Boris III of Bulgaria was a constant irritant to Hitler, both for his refusal to hand over Bulgarian Jews for extermination and for his refusal to join the war against Soviet Russia. The Nazi takeover of Austria had also been prompted by fears on the part of Hitler that the Austrofascist (but ardently anti-Nazi) party there intended to restore the Austrian monarchy and place the Archduke Otto on the throne. The Nazi invasion plan was even named “Operation Otto” in his “honor”. It should go without saying that Hitler was infuriated by the young King Michael of Romania who had taken his country out of the Axis camp and joined the Allies. Even before that though, Hitler had also opposed King Carol II because of his refusal to persecute minorities, his suppression of more pro-Nazi elements in the country and because he had a mistress who was Catholic by religion but Jewish by blood. There was simply no monarchy or royal house in Europe Hitler ever, in any way, viewed favorably. Everyone also remembers his famous phrase about the late Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother of Great Britain, calling her, “the most dangerous woman in Europe”.
>>74477230
It should also be remembered, though it is not much talked about, that monarchists and aristocrats were involved in numerous plots aimed at removing Hitler or assassinating him. Baron Adolf von Harnier, a devoted Bavarian monarchist, was a leader in the secret opposition and, as most know, it was an aristocrat, Claus Graf von Stauffenberg, who was executed for his failed effort to kill Hitler with a bomb. Had that plot succeeded, the man who was to have served as chancellor was the monarchist Carl Friedrich Goerdeler (a former member of the monarchist DNVP) who favored the post-Hitler Germany becoming a constitutional monarchy (similar to the British model) with Prince Louis Ferdinand of Prussia assuming the throne. He had also, from fairly early on, been involved in numerous plots against the Nazi dictator and in organizing right-wing dissidents, many monarchist, in this opposition. The list of monarchists persecuted by Hitler for their opposition to him is a long one. The Bavarian Catholic Rudolf Kanzler was jailed by the Nazis for “treason” for promoting the monarchist cause. The Christian monarchist Ewald von Kleist-Schmenzin was executed for his part in the Stauffenberg plot. Another Bavarian monarchist (a Protestant one) Gustav Ritter von Kahr helped thwart Hitler’s first effort to take power and was later killed by the Nazis in the “Night of the Long Knives”.
>>74477256
So, it can easily be seen that Hitler hated monarchy and most monarchists felt exactly the same towards him. There would be no room for monarchs, aristocrats or traditional religion in the future Nazi Germany envisioned by Hitler. Having come from the lower classes he never got over his class envy and the bitter jealousy he felt when, as a young man, he watched Hapsburg royals dancing while he shoveled snow outside. He resented anyone who had any status or privilege which they did not “earn” as he had to (and in his case, “earn” meant to lie, cheat and kill to obtain power). Not everyone in the Nazi hierarchy was so opposed to monarchy as Hitler was, but most were and it was the opinion of Hitler that mattered. It is unfortunate that, in this regard, Hitler was so successful. The war he started would ultimately lead to the loss of the Italian, Serbian, Bulgarian and Romanian monarchies as well as stopping a near-restoration in Austria. The war would also so completely exhaust the British Empire that dominions began to fall away rapidly in the post-war years. Hitler was an enemy of everything that the “Old Europe” of Christian monarchies stood for and no one should ever forget it.
>>74477095
I always just thought of him as a third way individual.
How are my fellow American Monarchists approaching this election?
I won't be voting, since every vote gives legitimacy to our republican system, but I am pulling for Trump and have given him money through hats.
you should write a book mate, bring it into the mainstream conversation
>>74477401
Then vote for him you retard.
>>74477401
Do you think somehow your abstaining will cause the system to collapse?
>>74477298
>enemy of what Europe stood for
Complete fucking bullshit, the only reason you say that is because he lost.
>he is responsible for the shit today
Oh because Hitler constructed modern Germany right? I guess I missed the part where he didn't die.
Fucking admit Europeans fought each other and one side won resulting in the cucked Europe today.
>inb4 murica is cucked
We aren't talking about fucking America and I'm not denying that we are discussing Europe.
The current Germany is the result of allied reconstruction policies and actions. Fuck off.
>>74477544
No, it's just a moral abstention. I'm under no illusions that I myself will change anything.
>>74477520
No.
>>74477835
>moral
God you're disgusting.
>I want Trump to win
>I'm not willing to do anything to help it happen
The most fucking idiotic thing I've heard today, congrats.
>>74477925
>Giving money isn't helping
I just don't think that the vote is a good way for our nation to choose its leaders.
>>74477806
The United States should've never interfered in Europe during World War 1. The German Empire would've won, the Old Europe would've kept existing, World War 2 wouldn't have happened. It was a war between European Kingdoms and your republic had no business here.
>>74477860
Again complete bullshit. He wanted an alliance with the British Empire, fight communism the biggest threat to Europe, and eleminate the banking families control over Europe. Today is the continuation of suckling these banking families cocks, congrats. Keep blaming those who actually rose up against the banks. The Nazis didn't do everything right but I feel sorry for you if you think they wanted to destroy Europe just to destroy it and had no plan.
>>74462903
>>74462939
>>74463020
>>74463067
>>74463108
>>74463161
Fuck off, I, a member of the mighty Granducato di Toscana want My Duke back. Fuck The Emanuele Dinasty.
>>74478173
I didn't disagree, in fact we should have stayed neutral in both wars. England and their "Zimmerman telegram" bullshit is what led us to war.
>>74462903
ITT: We propragate massive retardation
>>74478568
>this shit poster in every thread
Hur good b8 m8, the sole purpose of every thread is to trigger, b8, and start retarded discussions haha hoho good one guise.
Fuck you cum gargling nigger.
>>74478177
>The Nazis didn't do everything right but I feel sorry for you if you think they wanted to destroy Europe just to destroy it and had no plan.
I never said that. It's just said that because Hitler was so anti-monarchist, pro-socialist and expansionist is one of the reasons he lost. He's was never worthy of the title "Führer des Deutschen Volkes''.
If Hitler really wanted to save Europe, he would've restored the Monarchy and the German Empire.
Those banking families you talk of only came into existence after the French Revolution, which was perpetrated by pro-Republican, anti-Monarchist traitors who should've been shot.
>>74478568
Oops misspelled *propagate
>>74478698
>Inferring I'm a nigger
Are you autistic or just retarded
>>74478568
This is the best thread on /pol/ at the moment.
Read the rebuttals in the beginning of the thread.
You fucking retards should shut the fuck up and read what this wise dutch anon posts. That is the true redpill right here.
>>74478841
Idk Tyrone which one are you?
>>74478704
Alright I'm starting to see what you are saying. Now when you say reinstate the monarchy would that be the kaiser Wilhelm's family?
>>74463390
So OP was this a mistake?
>>74479104
No I don't think so, the war was yes it was unnecessary killings but I think America is the most successful Republic. Unfortunately for a while now your government has stopped caring about the people but this isn't unique to you.
Yes, dear god bring back the monarchies , pls pls pls
>>74479081
This thread marks the beginning of the Renaissance of Pro-Monarchism on /pol/, and from there the meme-magic will flow into the real world. I'm happy to see you understand my side of things.
>>74479321
>This thread marks the beginning of the Renaissance of Pro-Monarchism
Yeah, keep believing that.
>74479321
>This thread marks the beginning of the Renaissance of Pro-Monarchism on /pol/, and from there the meme-magic will flow into the real world.
I truly hope this will be the case.
LONG LIVE THE MONARCHY !
>>74479321
Dude, that has been a thing around here since people started seeing that democracy is a hoax, you can see people with signs that spell "Bring monarchy back" on any manifestation against the government around here.
>>74462903
Monarchy was so great:
- that people lived from 30 to 35 years on average
- couldn't get educated, unless they were royal blood
- had to work for king, where king done nothing
- had to die for king in religious wars
- didn't had the right to speak their own language, since the only allowed language was king's language
- when you got sick jesus would heal you so you would die
- all money was in hands of king, everybody else was shitting on the streets and living in shit
- all those conquered nations that were slaves to king's dick and not to mention the king's cuck religion Christianity who intermixed every conquered nation into one big royal army
- constant civil wars and plagues of diseases
Cool story bro.
>>74479095
There are many Princes of Prussia who could reinstate that role. But I don't think the United States will allow it.
>>74479104
Things happen.
The United States was the largest factor in the decolonization, though. Because they were ''once a colony themselves'' they didn't want Europe to have other colonies. Plus they have helped construct the European welfare states through the Marshallplan which we now see the result of.
I wouldn't really care about the United States if they just kept to their isolationism. But no, they had to vomit their cancerous republicanism all over the world which reduced the monarchies in Europe to mere ceremonial function.
>>74479952
Stalinism was so great
- Send to gulag to freeze to death because of loyalty to your King
- Brutally murder the Royal Family
- Exploit your countries nature completely & pollute the shit out of it
- Be forced to work on collectivized farms & kolkhoz
- Have all your private property and farming land taken away by the state with force
- Start a huge civil war against the whites
- Super large famines killing millions of ethnic Russians.
- Hundreds of Churches, Temples and Religious works destroyed, Orthodox Christianity heavily persecuted.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QY9ZvOyo1qA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRJRG2mdk_Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gUPB1f2K0s
>>74479952
In no point in history did people have a life expectancy that low, even in medieval times. It's just because infant deaths were so high that it put the total life expectancy really low.
Anyone could get an education, now I don't know the exact situation there but under our monarchy everyone has a free education.
The Queen (or King) actually does a lot, our Queen probably works longer hours than a lot of people here, yes things are easier for them because they're wealthy but that's the case for every wealthy person not just a monarch.
I don't remember being called to fight for the Anglican Church against another country, maybe you know of a time when Queen Elizabeth asked Canadians or Australians to though.
My whole family speaks Hungarian at home more than English, in fact our Queen speaks fluent French and doesn't use an interpreter when speaking in Quebec.
I can go to hospital no problem and get treatment.
The a Queen can't touch my bank account and in fact the royal family pays more taxes then a regular citizen who makes as much money as them.
Australians, Canadians, New Zealanders are not slaves.
Canada, Australia, and New Zealand never had a civil war but America has had one. England has had one that I know of.
So according to you we are a Republic?
>year is 2040
>america became a monarchy
>look outside
>everyone is fucking gay
>>74480573
My family grew up in Hungary under communism, my grandma said she was forced to learn Russian in school and they had to practice their religion in secret otherwise they would get into trouble. Half my family got killed in the revolution so my grandma and her mom came to Canada (a monarchy) as refugees and finally they had the freedom to practice their religion, there was no rationing my great grandma cried when she found out you could leave the grocery store with a whole carton of eggs.
All this under a supposed corrupt monarchy
>>74479952
> that people lived from 30 to 35 years on average
This is a meme statistic. Its because of the high infant mortality rate. A shit ton of people dying before age 3 will surely skew the average life span. If you grew into adulthood you lasted well into your 60s, even in the caveman days.
>couldn't get educated, unless they were royal blood
How many people on this planet need to know mitochondria is the power house of the cell. I say get them trained for a job starting in grade 8 fuck being well rounded. + if they ever wanted shit everything is online now so its even better.
> had to work for king, where king done nothing
Bullshit. But ill respond by saying this
>implying our politicians now do anything
>had to die for king in religious wars
>He doesn't crusade
How does it feel being a cuck?
>didn't had the right to speak their own language, since the only allowed language was king's language
You mean... god forbid.... countries had national languages that defined them and thier people!?!?!. Holy shit mind blown
>when you got sick jesus would heal you so you would die
Im going to assume you meant "wouldn't". And duh. Faster death = faster heaven. Fuck this planet im going to God.
>all money was in hands of king, everybody else was shitting on the streets and living in shit
>Technology meme
Wanting monarchy now doesn't imply we want thatch ceiling housing and blacksmiths making swords. Technology still advances and the system of government is usually not responsible for that.
>all those conquered nations that were slaves to king's dick and not to mention the king's cuck religion Christianity who intermixed every conquered nation into one big royal army
>Fedora.jpg
But there's nothing wrong with conquering weaker nations. Non-monarchist countries did exactly the same as well so this isn't a criticism of monarchy, just human instinct in general.
>constant civil wars
Not really.
> and plagues of diseases
>Technology meme again.
>>74480573
Communism invented independent countries, too bad capitalism screwed that up again. Not to mention that Communism recognized cultures, where we see Eurovision today, everybody sings in English and the winner is an shilling anti-Stalin Tatar who's testament song is against Stalin's deportation of Tatars from Crimea. Monarchy established EU, pretty much everything that was done to take monarchy power away during WW1 & WW2 was reversed by cuck Christians and their love for Jewish royals, since they basically gave them back all the money and property during 50ies and later, so they can intermix this world into 1 global money house with no borders. Royals and caring about anybody, you are a retard, they have many many islands where they hide out and many many financial royal countries where they hide money, not even paying tax to their own country.
>>74479952
of course people lived shorter and less rich because humanity wasn't so advanced in medicine, technology and other things. nothing of what you said is located to monarchy -,-
>>74462903
hey toothpaste what do you guys think about your queen?
>>74481251
Blyad, you should have said that earlier, nobody would even waste time on you.
>>74481388
I honestly like Argentina, your government is kind of autistic but hey find me a western country with a decent government.
>>74481251
>Communism invented independent countries, too bad capitalism screwed that up again
Stopped reading right there.
Now stop huffing that lead paint. I know you love it, but stop.
>Monarchy established EU, pretty much everything that was done to take monarchy power away during WW1 & WW2 was reversed by cuck Christians and their love for Jewish royals
>Jewish royals
>Jewish
There's your problem.
>>74481251
>being this retarded
>>74467695
you dont know shit about America. We would have to establish our own Trump dynasty.
>>74481747
>your government is kind of autistic
at least we don't have a populist socialist goverment anymore. We were near to become Venezuela
>>74481388
A little bit of fresh blood into the Royal bloodlines is never wrong. She is a beautiful queen. The Coronation was great.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwvjM6kF8VM
>>74481251
I can't even fathom your line of thought.
>Communism invented independent countries
Communism tried to eradicate the nation-state concept and wanted a world revolution & central communist world government.
>Not to mention that Communism recognized cultures
By relocating them thousands of kilometers through land in to different Oblasts? By persecuting anyone with religious believes? By destroying hundreds of Churches?
>everybody sings in English
Behold the great might of the British Empire.
>anti-Stalin
Ah, the mass murderer who killed tens of millions in the name of progress, stole the lands of farmers, persecuted christians, forced people into gulags and killed anyone who was a threat to him. No kidding.
>Monarchy established EU
The burden of proof is yours.
>Jewish royals
Jews don't have too good relationships with European Monarchs.
>1 global money house with no borders.
Hmm, I wonder where the idea "cough international socialism cough" came from.
>>74462903
And what if the monarch is someone you disagree with, OP? Then is it okay to rebel?
>>74482127
I meant autistic because of it's obsession with the Falkland Islands, but every Argie I've met seemed fine (admittedly I've only ever met one) looks like a nice country, beautiful by South American standards.
I will always be loyal to the house of Orange-Nassau
>>74481906
You are completely retarded. Habsburg family was the biggest Jewish concentration in Europe. They are the reason for WW1 & WW2, since first a Slav killed one, then in WW2 Hitler ended their rule by plugging in Austria.
>>74482259
If you disagree with any government republican or monarchy it's okay to rebel.
>>74482213
In the old times that coronation would mean that our nations are now together
>>74482096
It's a shame that the establishment will fight tooth and nail to stop him from attaining the Presidency.
>>74482321
I'd like to see your proof of how the Habsburgs were Jews.
>>74462903
Doing God's work, Geert
1789 was the beginning of the end of Western civilization
>>74463198
Democracy is not an objectively good thing. America's founding fathers, the founders of the first successful democratic Republic since Rome, were as wary of absolute democracy (mob-rule) as of absolute monarchy. Every successful Republic has included a monarch-like office (consul, president, stadhouder) and an aristocratic element (patrician, landed gentry) with a very narrowly limited franchise
Universal suffrage is the cancer of nations
>>74481251
You're on krokodil again, slobodan
That stuff is bad for you, you should switch to a healthier alternative like drinking mouthwash
>>74482213
Do you see the Cape the KIng is wearing? It is the same cape that King William I of the Netherlands wore 300 years ago. Pic related.
>>74482295
That obsession it's not only from the government, most of the people feel the same way.
Pic related, a little monument to the islands I found while walking. you can find places like that in all the country
>>74462903
Constitutional Monarchy is the best non-idealistic-and-impossible ideology.
Any problems with a corrupt leader need only have countermeasures through rights of the people be detailed in the constitution at the founding of the country. It only takes 1 bullet to kill a corrupt monarch so no gun restriction necessary.
>>74482860
Woops, about 200 years ago, my bad, got confused with the Stadtholder.
>>74482297
See
>>74477095
>>74477110
>>74477137
>>74477160
>>74477184
>>74477204
>>74477230
>>74477256
>>74477275
>>74477298
It was not allowed during nazi occupation of the Netherlands to show any symbols of the Royal family or sign of pride. The nazi's were anti-monarchists.
>>74482948
Really? A lot of Argies here have said it's only the government that cares.
