Why do some right-wingers love monarchy/aristocracy/nobility so much?

Metapolitics & General
1

Every once in a while, I see a rightoid who simps for that old school form of governance and they tend to weep tears for Tsar Nicholas and fallen monarchy in general.

I cannot say that I get it.

  1. The only monarchies left are mostly brown countries, particularly in the middle east.
  2. Rightoids claim to hate cuckolds and portray their opposition as cuckolds, but aristocrats were some of the biggest cuckolds in history. A large chunk had mistresses/paramours.
  3. The aristocrats had a tendency to sell out their own people to the jew.
  4. The aristocrats had a tendency to act like jews. Sending peasant levies to fight and die against other peasant levies because 2 aristocrats had a territory dispute.
  5. If monarchies are so good, why did they mostly collapse? (Furthermore, note how most European monarchies were abolished after ww1, when monarchs decided to sacrifice millions upon millions of Whites over Balkan drama)
  6. Knights aside, nobility tended to be weak and sinful. I feel like the degeneracy and weakness of the current (((rulers))) of earth is making people look back at monarchy with rose tinted glasses.

Sidenote: Why do right wingers call polyamorous people “cucks”?

Other than the fact that those right wingers are hypocrites for simping for aristocrats…

I would argue it is actually the opposite.

A monogamous person who has a crush will slump away in defeat if they learn that their crush is already dating someone, and cry in the corner somewhere.

Meanwhile: A polyamorous person will not care if their crush is currently dating someone. The polyamorous person will simply fuck their crush regardless.

Ergo, we can conclude that it is actually monogamous people who are the cuckolds.

Furthermore: The aristocrats were big on marriages, which is something that monogamous people are also big on. And yet, the aristocrats got cheated on by their spouses a lot. So that is even more evidence that monogamous people are the real cuckolds.

Anyway, what do you guys think of the rose-tinted view of monarchy that some right-wingers have? Is there any merit or upsides to monarchy?

Edit: The right wing worship of royalty reminds me of the right wing worship of Hitler tbh.

Hitler wanted to temporarily keep jews in fancy free summer camps complete with swimming pools and nurseries. And he even sent some jews to israel.

In order to achieve these temporary goals, he sacrificed tens of millions of Whites in WW2.

Anyone who claims the holobunga happened has been proven to be a far-left faggot every single time.

And yet rightoids worship Hitler as if the holobunga is real. Ugh.

2

What a stupid post.

3

>Comment has no substance

Thank you for proving me right every single time.

4

Neither does your shitty post.

5

Please read the rules.

Rule 1: Civil discussion.

6

Another point:

Many monarchs had laws against criticism or vitrol against them.

A thing right wingers criticize jews for, is that the jews rely on censorship and punishments for criticism/vitrol directed at jews.

“Imagine a group of people so disgusting that they concluded that free speech leads to their removal and thus they default to censorship”

I fail to see how that same point about jews does not apply to royalty.

7

There are archaic references to nobles being of good “breeding” and correspondingly some consider nobility to be a sort of traditional eugenics project. It isn’t clear to me how real this is, versus just a nice thing to say for powerful people.

As for the many millions dead, the trend towards total war coincides with the enlightenment and rise of democracy. The noble squabbles look like skirmishes compared to the American Revolution, Napoleon, and after. There was no precedent for mobilizing that much of the population. People have made their cases for peace through aristocracy using this, and it makes some sense.

There’s a bit of a fantasy element, too, obviously.

For men, poly typically isn’t cuckoldry because there tends to be 1 cock per 'cule. I doubt there are many polyandrous relationships.

My brain confuses S with Z in profile pictures. Agony and Zenitsu are a funny contrast.

8

Two generic “It’s bad” comments and no actual points made suggests to me that you don’t have any points to make against this post, even though you clearly want to, therefore this post is made to look far more truthful than it otherwise would

9

Let’s just end the argument there.

10

I think this is a serious thing to ask and debate, a good topic.

I agree with 0CK.

To that, I’ll add to the steelman for nobility and Monarchy. I’m not necessarily in favor of Monarchy, however. I’d be open to other forms which provide the benefits that the monarchy-supporters are seek.

The Curtis Yarvin arguments:

  • Monarchs can be genetically superior and people can use embryo screening to pick the best child to be the future monarch
    • the assumed corollary is that people should WANT to have the superior rulers due to material or economic efficiency things, even if it leaves a people groups without any kind of self-determination. Moldbug supports the British Empire restoring authority over parts of Africa. I would assume he would support his people group being “the world’s nobility” as Kalergi put it, and as the Bible promises.
  • The ideal organization (in terms of efficiency and ) is military like, in that commanders make a commandment, and everybody underneath just does it, even if they have to figure out how. This is called “Command and Control” in the US military. I can’t recall if Yarvin mentioned Command and Control explicitly, but this is his idea. The idea is that this is possible only with a pyramid shaped leadership structure, and that communal decision-making ruins it.
  • The Monarch literally owns the land and the society, which leads to the emotion of “ownership” of the outcomes. This is also how companies work. Individuals literally are ascribed as owners of certain things in the company. The CEO is treated as responsible for all of the company’s success or failure. Yarvin points out (and I agree) that people do better work when they have ownership. Why? Because the feeling of ownership ties the results of the project to your public identity. The democratic situation is the opposite. People take actions in the government, but feel no ownership. People in Washington DC who run the government can and do claim to be at the mercy of decisions of anybody else who opposes their decisions. They might blame the population of the country as a whole. This would look immature in an aristocracy, to think that you do not hold responsibility for society just because another important person disagrees.

My own supplementary material.

  • The concept of Paternalism. This is sort of included in the ownership idea. However, Ownership can be done in a soulless and sanitized corporate fashion.
    But there is an idea, which Richard Spencer mentions, that you will have these leaders who love and care for the people like a good father. He also claims that Batman is one such person, and that this is one reason he is an attractive hero, which is kind of funny and made-up.
    A better media example of this would be Downton Abbey.
    I believe that having an elite that cares about the people and attempts to improve the people is a very good thing. It’s hard for the elite to do this. The elite doesn’t like doing this.
  • The ability to control culture and the public morality in a better way by means of having a society which holds up the behavior of high-class people and accepts the idea of high-class behavior being better and worth aspiring to. The argument is that democratic cultures inevitably lead to the popularization of vulgar ways of behaving and all kinds of art and language which seems fun for some foolish low-class crazy people, but which is ultimately not for the greater good.

These are arguments in favor.

11

Personally I hate this concept of ‘ownership’. It feels infantilizing and/or dehumanizing, in the same way as most of the things in life I consider to be at the root of my most persistent and abiding anger.

12

It makes a lot more sense when you are immersed in a cooperative project where many people can pitch in in many ways. Ultimately, there needs to be one person who orchestrates everything, and that person needs to have power. And as a result of having power, he basically becomes the “owner” of the thing.

This is corporate lingo. It’s used in Tech work, where each and every application has an “owner.” But something similar happens in an orchestra, where the conductor owns the performance. In a movie, the director. And so on.

What happens if there is no overriding, central node which connects to all other nodes? You have people working on their own things, then sort of throwing it in front of the group, and when things don’t match or come together, everybody blames somebody else. The group dissolves under the distrust and resentment.

13

I don’t think there is anything wrong with acknowledging a Great Leader, and choosing to follow them of your own free-will. For most right wing thinkers of this variety, they long for a time when there was a Common Cause, a Common Purpose. A leader unites people under a common banner, be it Racial or otherwise, and the best leaders are often the ones who act in service to their own people. The relationship isn’t a matter of cuckoldry, but of symbiosis and fellowship. However, in order to hold to this position, we have to define what Good Leadership is, as distinct from Bad Leadership.

Sidenote, polyamorous people tend to be very immature and sexually promiscuous, often willingly putting themselves in self deprecating positions.

What makes a good leader is the ability to recognize the strengths in others, and act in service of maximizing those strength, often at the expense of the leaders own time and power. Adolf Hitler did not spend the majority of his career simply hating all non-germans. The first portion of Mien Kampf is instead devoted to his observations on the German People and their shared Spiritual State. He sees his people in a state of despair, and this saddens him, because he knows they are capable of so much more. He was raised by them, worked with them, fought alongside them, never once rising above the state of his peers until fate demands it.
Bad leaders on the other hand act in service of themselves, hedonistic, often serving their own greed and power. Many of the older aristocracies were like this, but there were many exceptions that people were fond of, like Queen Elizabeth, or many of the old Gothic Chieftans. They command the respect of their people, and often people out of a sense of Loyalty are Loyal to these peoples sons and daughters, even when that loyalty is misplaced, they remain True, for without Fidelity, all of Society collapses into nothing, and our sense of Purpose and Belonging goes with it.

In the ancient world, there was a time when Leaders were truly Righteous, worthy of being followed, worthy of being remembered. Alexander the Great, Arminius, etc. If we want to create a better world, it can only be done by rewarding great men to act as nature demands, not in mere domination or promiscuity, or their ability to simply accumulate resources for its own sake, but to truly act in service of the greater good of all things. We ourselves are Loyal to the notion of Loyalty, Faithful to the notion of Faith, and we uphold values of Monogamy and Nobility knowing that even where these values have been corrupted at times, they are still fundamentally the Right, Truthful, and Salubrious things to do to promote Life and Goodness.

14

But there’s a difference between doing and being. I can accept my participation being molded according to someone’s arbitrary whims much more than I can accept my life, my identity, my thoughts, my existence molded by someone whose sole attribute that determines that they can do that is the fact that they’re sitting in this baby’s high chair called ‘supreme authority’ and I’m not. No real intellectual superiority guaranteed, or moral, or personal, it’s just that the king is always right, even when he’s wrong, so if he’s a worthless retard you better jump to make yourself equally or more so

15

This is probably why Jesus is also still respected as a Leader in this sense.
The idea of Christ is that he sees the goodness in others, even when they fail to see it themselves.
He sees a common street whore with sorrow more than pure judgement, knowing that her healthier more natural state would to be a Mother, a Wife, loyal to her Husband, and so forth.

Somebody who believes in Monogamy and holds to that value, even after witnessing rampant divorce or infidelity, is less spiritually cucked than a Polygamous retard. The reason is simply that the Polygamist is a Nihilist, believing in nothing, setting no standards, who has given up on the very notion of a meaningful relationship serving a higher purpose beyond his own self gratification. The polygamist does not see distinction, and there for does not see a Higher and Lower, a Greater or a Lesser. All values being equal, the polygamist believes in whatever gratifies his appetite in a given moment.
The Monogamist (Weird way to use the word admittedly), believes in loyalty, he acts in service to his spouse, in service to his children, in service to his nation, in service to his people. All things are not equal, his spouse is valued higher than all other romantic interests. His nation he values above all other nations. His children are His children and His alone, and no one could ever call that into question due to his unyielding loyalty to Health and Truth.

The one that practices Monogamy can perceive a Higher and a Lower, and is therefor able to build Nations, Families, Cultures, etc. While to the Polygamist, a Nation is no different than a pile of rubble, and so he builds nothing, sees no higher picture, aspires to no greater heights beyond what an orgasm might provide.

The one who is cucked is the one who, acting in service to nothing, dies as nothing, and leaves nothing behind, a pitiful homunculus in the corner of the room that is Human Life.

16

I’d imagine that the supporters of this would say that the level of spiritual engagement with the Royals should not be forced, and doesn’t need to be too high.

So, you shouldn’t be expected in a Monarchic society to need to cream your pants when you see a royal or something.

I never read the Catholic neoreactionaries, but as for Moldbug, his idea for a “King” in the modern world is actually something more like a really strong president, Xi Jinping, Nayib Bukele, or something like this. His name Mencius is a reference to the Chinese sage who advised government leaders, who themselves were kings or something like that, and Moldbug tends to like the Mandarin system as well.

As for specifics of what the King is owner of…there’s question about owning land. There would be no question that he would be the “owner” of the government. He would not be the owner of private businesses. He might be the owner of a state religion, or perhaps a co-owner. People would not say that he owned people out loud, but he would have the ability to move people in ways that might suggest that. For example, there is not complete freedom of movement in China.