Consume Product

It worked just fine for literally all of human history, I dont see why it wont work again, the issue is finding new monarchs who are loyal to their Nation and to God instead of Liberalism and the jews.

There's a reason jews targeted European monarchism so hard, even before they started publicly pushing degeneracy.

im a monarchist and im sure many others are here too. i'd say an actually capable monarchy would manage society better. the problem is keeping it that way when a good king dies. im trying to think of ways this could be kept if monarchism ever goes mainstream again

Monarchism is the natural evolution of hierarchy. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

It was good in the early days when strong and wise men naturally rose to affluence. By the end it was garbage.

Is there any man alive today who's worthy of being King?

I'm not wholly against monarchy, however, the fact that most of 3rd positionism itself was rather anti monarchy might be somewhat telling.

The main issue with establishing a monarchy is simple: industry. The industrial revolution led to the rise of the bourgeoisie which is inherently at odds with aristocracy and the Monarchs themselves. It's... difficult to reconcile these conflicting interests.

After the Renaissance and all through the age of Absolutism, there would be considerable conflicts of interests between the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie. The monarch had to increasingly depend on taxes and loans coming from the wealthy merchant classes ( i know, the funny m word. Most of them were white though) in order to pursue great infrastructure projects or wage war. In turn, this led to this bourgeoisie feeling entitled to a say in political matters of their nations, because it was ultimately funded by them. The political tool they found to make themselves heard is the proto-form of Parliament. The roots of the English Civil War are a good example of how that went: pitching aristocrats and the monarch who would not let go of ancient privileges against a growing class of people who held most of the wealth and felt entitled by it.

And the reason that the bourgeoisie could not just simply, well, *become* the aristocracy under the king is also simple: they already had other jobs that were taking their time away. They aren't octopuses and dipping their hands in being full time aristocrats and full time leaders of industry would be, well, impossible. And it's necessary that an aristocracy should have more power than the bourgeoisie in a monarchy, but in the industrial world and even today, the bourgeoisie will always be at odds with them because the bourgeoisie functionally controls most of the wealth.

But there is a caveat to this: the most effective monarchies of the time (namely Germany and Japan) are the ones who responded to industrialization by nipping the innate power of aristocracy and transferring power to the bourgeoisie and middle class without absolving the head of state. Actually, japans monarchy was incredibly radical. The emperor and the monarchists behind him completely destroyed the aristocracy in the form of the shoguns, and killed off the samurai. There was nothing left of Japan's aristocracy after meiji. There are few monarchies that actually responded properly to this change though and, many, effectively dug their own graves. If there weren't a problem already, jews wouldn't have been able to piss people off enough to destroy everything.

Yes, it can work. But bear in mind that there was a reason that so many Italian fascists, as a for instance, utterly despised monarchy. Falangism hated monarchy even more (until Franco merged the parties). Hitler's Germany didn't particularly like it very much either. Industry makes feudalism impossible. It just isn't gonna happen. Emperor meiji understood this, as did the Hohenzollerns.

Mankind desires leadership more than anything. If there is no leader, what he would have had falls apart. Some men are born to lead, some are born to follow. Removing them from this process creates nothing good.

A king cannot exist in any country that is run by international finance

What we need is a Furher worth dying for

Monarchism is the only Christian form of governance. God commands his people to have a king. It mimics the relationship between man and God. It creates unity and purpose. It also allows people to know exactly where the credit and blame for social problems rest.

There can be no other form of governance more satanic than democracy as satan controls the masses. It can by tied, but not exceeded, and only by placing the literal antichrist as emperor.

Monarchies are the natural and best form of government because a nation would have a father and mother as well as sons and daughters who are invested in the prosperity of the people.

royalism is the problem. So long as monarchism reigns over royalism it is fine but when it flips to royalism it ends up being corrupted. That being said royalism is still better than what we have

It's a train wreck. Bring on the kritarchy.