I’m beginning to think more and more that a mass return to small-medium sized semi-absolute monarchist states is the best path forward for humanity. Large states foster large governments and cumbersome social services that quickly loose interest in the wellbeing of individual citizens/subjects. Monarchist states with populations of 15,000-500,000, keep the monarch in relatively close contact with his citizenry, and much more in touch with their needs. His Duty is to maintain the health and welfare of his subjects that the monarchy will continue on to his sons. While a population must be loyal to a monarch, equally he must treat them with dignity and respect lest they remove him. A common misconception is that all monarchs are self serving and aloof of their citizenry. This is more of an exception than a rule. In a small kingdom it’s hard for a ruler to go without understanding the plight of his population. It’s much more common in democracies where the electoral process self selects for power hungry narcissists. A monarch had no choice in wearing the crown, they were born into it and raised to wear it with respect for the office.
Reactionary Monarchism
Other urls found in this thread:
imgur.com
imgur.com
imgur.com
imgur.com
imgur.com
imgur.com
imgur.com
libgen.is
libgen.is
libgen.is
twitter.com
big strong states with evil intent will fuck your little state if you don't do as they say
The good thing about monarchies is that they are forced to take the well being of the country in the long term in consideration, or it will be their children or grandchildren under the guillotine.
>what is an alliance
Sadly that's the nature of everything, Americans are being told now to work like the chinese to compete with their output, the small and pure cannot compete with the big and rotten, when one has some power, everyone else has to reach their level else they historically become enslaved, but to become powerful they have to embrace darkness as well. It's a race to the bottom
...
I don't really care whether it's a small state or a big state.
But here you go, OP, my monarchist collection.
Absolutism Redux series:
imgur.com
Grace Absolutism series:
imgur.com
Other Grace Infographs:
imgur.com
Grace Egypt series:
imgur.com
Monarchist Reading List 5.0:
imgur.com
Newest Grace Collection:
imgur.com
Grace Collection 9ch:
imgur.com
the weak should fear the strong
only big countries with lots of talent can fight back against the rest of the world. Germany tried and they made everyone go against them
It's absolutely not. Let's elect good people because they are good and not because some skyqueer or magic dna said so.
Nigeria is big. Good size, lots of resources and lots of people. Give them nukes and have jews at the top ruling them and it's a superpower. IT's over for Serbia
Only Monarchy regards the State as a great family & gives us a leadership that upholds what everyman cherishes in life: a celebration of birth, marriage, and death at a state level.
Only Monarchy will give the People a unity and blood relationship, as Aristotle says "And this is the reason why Hellenic states were originally governed by kings; …the kingly form of government prevailed because they were of the same blood [and suckled 'with the same milk']"
As those who drink the blood of Christ are in fraternity as Christians in Christ's Kingdom, so will the people have a royal bond and be as family, if the ideals of Monarchy are allowed to be realized.
"The Household / Family well ordered is the true image of the Commonwealth." -Jean Bodin
"My old home the Monarchy, alone, was a great mansion with many doors and many chambers, for every condition of men." -Joseph Roth
"For as household management is the kingly rule of a house, so kingly rule is the household management of a city, or of a nation, or of many nations." -Aristotle
"The rule of a household is a monarchy, for every house is under one head." -Aristotle
"If we compare the Natural Rights of a Father with those of a King, we find them all one, without any difference but only in the Latitude and Extent of them: as the Father over one Family, so the King as Father over many Families extends his care to preserve, feed, cloth, instruct and defend the whole Commonwealth. His War, his Peace, his Courts of Justice, and all his Acts of Sovereignty tend only to preserve and distribute to every subordinate and inferior Father, and to their Children, their Rights and Privileges; so that all the Duties of a King are summed up in an Universal Fatherly Care of his People." -Robert Filmer
There has to be a ruler that is actively against the progression to the abyss, but that makes the country 'uncompetitive', takes luxuries away and in the end antagonizes the oligarchs and magnates
There was one guy in our history, Saint John III of Nicaea who tried to rebuild the greco-roman state with absolutely no compromises and it worked, but it took him ruling from the forests and caves, it took a real ascetic saintly royal willing to cut trade, willing to give up alliances and benefits to build something healthier
Wow, an actually good leafpost on Any Forums. This is actually not a far-fetched idea, the US has a great deal of llocalist traditions, and Europe still has plenty of microcountries (speaking from experience, they're very comfy).
If you're interested in developing these thoughts I recommend Small is Beautiful by E.F. Schumacher (libgen.is
Based quotes thanks user.
Thanks icebro. Any more books? I really want to read more on monarchy and reactionary thought.
Monarchist Reading List 5.0:
imgur.com
I'll give you my reading list, but I doubt we share the same political ideals.
Impractical today, sadly.
Nice times those in which Lombardy belonged to its genetic/cultural world and was 100% Siculo-neapolitan free tho. Gib back HRE
What ideals are those?
I think we’re going to see massive deglobalization. A return to small scale monarchy is more possible than you’d think.
I heard these identical discourses in Lombardy 30 years ago and the only thing we got were millions of congoids.
The issue is Kingdoms only work if the population is actually blood related to the royal clan, else it becomes a multinational empire. We need to bring back strong ethnic identity first then we can talk about leadership structure(s).
None of that can be done under the auspices of the "white" race. It'll have to be actual ethnic groups.
I'm not looking for a coalition of myriad princes among many others and small town farmville LARP: my ideals are where these coalesce into the grand & pre-eminent Monarchy.
My focus isn't really on "centralization" vs "decentralization", like comparing a small house to a bigger house, but more on the structure of a household itself. The right libertarians in the monarchist fold are obsess over this. I don't.
But I don't share their vision of a Europe of a Thousand Liechtensteins. I, for one, like great kingdoms and sprawling empires the same. And likewise, there may be city-states and smaller kingdoms.
My only problem w/ neofeuds is they usually squawk back and forth about their ideal of myriad princes and many lords in the same State, whereas my tone is like Caligula, quoting Homer, Let there be one Lord, one King.
Sovereignty, or Majesty, as described by Jean Bodin & the respective view for absolute monarchy, imo, is the only branch of its kind that aspires towards monarchical pre-eminence, where the prince is regarded as having the relationship of the whole to the part, like Aristotle mentions, or having the relationship of the State itself, l'état, c'est moi.