[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / abdl / animu / ausneets / kpop / leftpol / sonyeon / strek / vore ]

/monarchy/ - Past, Present, and Future

Monarchy news and discussion

Catalog   Archive

Winner of the 2∞rd Attention-Hungry Games
/liberty/ - Physical removal time, communist swine.

Name
Email
Subject *
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Oekaki
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 4 per post.


The King is dead! Long live the King!

 No.932[Reply]

This is a thread I'll use to be a little less aloof and talk about minor and meta stuff: general feedback, accepting submissions for flags, banners, moderation, and rules, etc.. A court, if you will.

It seems like the board got reset a day somehow for a small time. It appears to have been another board glitch now that they're back.

The flags are still not enabled on the board. I have had a support thread up for about a week now. I'll get a response every few days telling me to alphabetize the flags or something, and then it dies again. I've tried every permutation possible to me under the board options. Still no go.

In fact, the reason that the posts have now re-appeared is because I tried setting the board flags check again and…that appears to have restored the other posts.

In short, like a second lieutenant I have no idea what's going on. So, I'm opening this up here because I'm betting you all will have better help on what to do. Until the funniness is resolved, I'll leave this thread here.

23 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.
Post last edited at

 No.1946

>>1945

Perhaps tomorrow, I might enjoy that. It would be good to exchange ideas and viewpoints.




File: 1427485651686.png (15.9 KB, 318x323, 318:323, ungern.png)

 No.13[Reply]

Can we get a Monarchist reading list?

I'll start with some:
Dante's De Monarchia
De Maistre's The Generative Principle of Political Constitutions
Filmer's Patriarcha
Kuehnelt-Leddihn's Liberty or Equality
39 posts and 13 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.1733

File: 51614e98862f2c0⋯.png (1.2 MB, 3000x2504, 375:313, robert filmer patriarcha.png)

>>13

I know Robert Filmer is very popular, but he also wrote when the monarchy in England was in a time of crisis and the Ancien Régime on the way out. His arguments probably weren't that good either, judging by what Locke wrote against him, although I haven't read Filmer myself.

So, not sure he belongs on that list.

>>1662

I posted this months ago, it is safe. Although as I see, one link died, plus I had many additions to my library in the meantime. So I might make a new upload somewhere.




File: 1425421801505.jpg (39.4 KB, 512x338, 256:169, bloodywhitebaron2.jpg)

 No.1[Reply]

Welcome to /monarchy/, under new management edition.

rules and guidelines:

1. This board is for the discussion of monarchies of the past, present, and future and serves as a discussion board for any interested person regardless of political leaning. Please keep the board's purpose in mind before you post content which might be better on /pol/ or /christian/.

2. This is a safe for work board. NSFW content is heavily discouraged in all cases, and should be spoilered and marked accordingly or else I'll delete it.

3. Bully responsibly.

4. Shitposting is permitted only when it's funny.

*

I've claimed the board and with any luck we can revive it. There's a lot to discuss and the subject matter has potential.

Let me know in this thread if you're interested in volunteering. I don't have an email set up, but when I feel like I need volunteers, I'll open up the applications. Contributing good discussion to the board and being a supporter of monarchy are really the only two criteria I'm looking for.

here's a list of changes I'm making to the board after taking over from the last guy:

1. New sticky, modified rules

2. Board is now SFW.

3. New wave of cross-board advertising.

Not much for me to do until we have some activity here. Start name-dropping /monarchy/ in /pol/ or /christian/ threads to get us some exposure. Discuss Monarchy, make OC, debate.

I'm putting advertisement threads in /pol/ and /christian/, let's see if that nets us some new users.

*

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.
Post last edited at


File: 85483aa02e62f59⋯.jpeg (50.25 KB, 750x407, 750:407, 70F6FB0D-4016-4CB7-BD6F-8….jpeg)

 No.2030[Reply]

Other than Thermidor Magazine, what are some good sources of articles, podcasts, etc. for reactionary/monarchist scholarship and social criticism? I’ve heard of Social Matter, not sure if it’s any good. Anything good that I haven’t heard of?

 No.2031

>>2030

Altar and Throne is pretty good:

http://www.altarandthrone.com/




File: e4aaae26d40dd7c⋯.jpg (32.78 KB, 450x398, 225:199, come-at-me-bro-queen.jpg)

 No.422[Reply]

Post ITT every time you visit /monarchy/, so that we can generate more activity on this board.

115 posts and 25 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.2023

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

What are /monarchy/'s thoughts on The Dismissal? Did Kerr do nothing wrong?


 No.2024

>>2023

I wanna hear Mr. Constitutional Monarchist's thoughts on this.


 No.2027

File: a068eeb02f147d2⋯.jpg (161.87 KB, 800x519, 800:519, 2 gegen 7.jpg)


 No.2028

>>2027

I love how England is a jew


 No.2029

>>2027

The real losers in this picture are the Ottomans.




File: e3c9d5bc683eb80⋯.jpg (4.07 MB, 3328x2288, 16:11, 00God,_suspended_in_the_cl….jpg)

 No.1116[Reply]

Sorry for the simple topic but I wanted to ask,

Is your monarchy religious or secular? Or would you prefer a different approach, like the monarch deciding it?

94 posts and 11 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.1995

File: 50ea8603cf49d97⋯.png (36.46 KB, 300x100, 3:1, CNNMonarchy.png)

>>1993

I'm so sorry, if the other guy wants to make a competing banner I'll accept it. This was too funny to pass up though.


 No.1996

>>1989

Any half decent monarch can trample any constitution.


 No.1997

>>1992

Oh, I’d agree wholeheartedly. I want nothing to do with Westminster monarchism.


 No.2025

>>1989

And the kang wears a mass produced chain store suit, absolutely no regalia, maybe burger king™'s paper crown is allowed on secular holidays like the anniversary of that lefty fag with depression who set himself in fire in from of Joseph Stalin's Palace of Culture and Science in Warsaw, but not before handing out leaflets with his manifesto which read like the local equivalent of CNN


 No.2026

>>2025

I like that idea. I think the king should also engage in product placement for his sponsors. Maybe at an official speech after the parade of the 1st Nestlè Battalion he could take a sip of Coke, light a Marlboro and tell his subjects about the pleasures of working out at Anytime Fitness Gyms (tm). Now that's what I'd call freedom.




File: ee86b63c448748a⋯.png (9.47 MB, 2512x2996, 628:749, ClipboardImage.png)

 No.1999[Reply]

Hello /monarchy/, lolberg from /liberty/ here. How would history change if, at the end of the Revolutionary War, Thomas Jefferson was declared the first monarch of the United States? With my admittedly limited knowledge, these are the immediate implications I can see:

>French Revolution can't use it as a historical precedent, or ideological motivation. Revolution might still happen but won't be nearly as popular or widespread.

>Without FR, Marx and his shitty ideas have far less influence, assuming Marx even tries to peddle his nonsense at all.

>Without American democracy and/or FR as inspiration, no pressure for other European nations to become democratic

>Without the European divide between monarchies and democracies, and without democratic warmongering and nationalism, world stage no longer set for WWI

>Even if Marx managed to influence some people, without WWI Germany never smuggles Lenin back into Russia

>Without Lenin Communist Revolution never happens and Marxism (again, assuming it even survived this far in history) never becomes widespread

>Without Treaty of Versailles and economic clusterfuck of WWI, WWII never happens

>Without WWII, and without commies in Russia, Cold War never happens

>Without Cold War fucking hippies never happen

>Modern world is far less war-torn, far less cucked, far more prosperous

And that's not even taking into account the internal changes in the US:

>No more incentive to continue increasing gov't size by appealing to demographics

>Progressive Era, even if it happens, need not have influence over policy

>No Prohibition

>No Central Bank and no fiat currency

>No Keynesian fantasies

>Great Depression much less 'great', assuming it happens at all

>No welfare state

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.
16 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.2017

>>2013

>Virginia and the rest of the South

That may very well be I am not learned on the specific details of denominations in the US of the 18th century, but 13 colonies: Virginia and the rest of the South~ Great Britain:Wales

>>2014

Anglicans self identify as Catholics. But that ain't gonna bring Thomas Moore back to life.

>>2015

It is just what happened historically. The USA was initially ruled by this class and was protectionist at its founding. Different people that at a later point belonged to the same class had other interests 70 years after that. The emergence of factories and mass produced goods must have played a role in it, but there is no specific answer I could give.

>>2016

England was anti mercantilist too yet the corn laws were still a thing

> which pretty quickly evolved into full-on support for laissez-faire capitalism.

But did it? Obviously free trade at the least was not part of this 'laissez-faire capitalism' then.


 No.2018

>>2017

So England isn't a Protestant country, but a Catholic one?


 No.2019

>>2018

This is what Anglicans unironically believe.


 No.2020

>>2019

When did anyone start paying attention to what Anglicans believe?


 No.2022

>>2020

The Anglican clergy sure isn't, so why would anyone else?




File: ce09c99a01a15e6⋯.png (25.71 KB, 604x643, 604:643, Maghrebin.png)

File: 23288060b767436⋯.jpg (48.84 KB, 647x610, 647:610, YUGE MOROCCO.jpg)

File: a4bd9e08979608a⋯.jpg (127.34 KB, 1143x613, 1143:613, HASSAN THE CANNIBAL.jpg)

File: 9d2ae58adc9fbd3⋯.png (203.7 KB, 460x245, 92:49, hassan ii and son.png)

 No.1418[Reply]

Any other moroccans in here? We have the classiest monarchs in existance, and the only ones who aren't keked by any "parliament", as well as not being a country stuck in the 1400s.

ALLAH, AL-WATAN, AL-MALIK!

6 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.1630

>>1604

But in all seriousness, the Moroccan royal family has killed and imprisoned thousands of Berbers, who are the native inhabitans of North Africa and therefore a member of their group has more right to be on the throne than a bunch of Arab kikes.

They do not deserve to be the rules of their country and will be overthrown and replaced just like every Moroccan dynasty that came before them.


 No.1633

>>1630

Lel, berbers are the scum of Morocco. All they do is to cultivate hash and smoke it.


 No.1634

>>1633

As if you ever met one.


 No.2010

>>1429

Holy shit, there are Liechtenstein lurkers in here. Give me a fuckin' job mate.


 No.2021

>>2010

This forum is chock full of hidden agent monarchists. It gives me hope that in every country with a monarchy, there's a very sullen, silent majority willing and waiting to follow.




File: c2dbe565f8924a2⋯.jpeg (24.83 KB, 350x236, 175:118, img.jpeg)

 No.1959[Reply]

An Ancien Regime pardon my butchery of accents anon suggested I make a thread, and I decided to do one comparing and contrasting our different viewpoints. Thus, the format will be as the following:

1) Name/Type (Your flag)

2) Description (ideally)

3) Is this a classed system? What are they and who inhabits these classes? What are the duties of the classes?

4) Benefits of your supported system

5) Problems with your supported system

Then you must optimally resolve the following issues under and according to your supported system: (Note you are not necessarily the king but can describe what the king, magistrate, governor, or constable/policeman would do in such a situation to resolve said issue.

1) (Bundle or ignore where applicable due to the existence of or lack of classes)

a) A noble has committed a crime against a commoner.

b) A commoner has committed a crime against a noble.

c) A noble has committed a crime against a noble.

d) A commoner has committed a crime against a commoner.

2) A travelling trader having a dispute with a citizen, the trader is a foreigner. The nature of the dispute is ambiguous to you at the current time.

3) The population is growing large, and a majority commute to their place of work. A system of transportation may be funded (or not).

4) The country is under threat from a foreign power or invader and the standing army is either insufficient or non-existent.

5) (in this scenario) you are king, but currently your reputation is mud. How do you resolve this?

6) The crown needs money, how is it raised?

7) Private citizens are carrying arms, and their purpose is ambiguous. What, if anything, is done?

8) The number of unemployed poor is rising due to the prevalence of either slave labor or some kind of labor reducing technology. What, if anything, is done to resolve this poverty and starvation?

9) The king has proven himself an ineffective rulePost too long. Click here to view the full text.

6 posts omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.1978

>>1959

>>1977

Continued:

>2) A travelling trader having a dispute with a citizen, the trader is a foreigner. The nature of the dispute is ambiguous to you at the current time.

The same law applies as with everybody else, although concessions might be made if the traveller was genuinely ignorant of the customs that apply.

>3) The population is growing large, and a majority commute to their place of work. A system of transportation may be funded (or not).

Let the free market decide. If the verdict is against them, that means the resources necessary to fund the transport are better used elsewhere.

>4) The country is under threat from a foreign power or invader and the standing army is either insufficient or non-existent.

Everyone would own at least seventeen guns, and the country would be highly decentralized, even under a monarch. There would be a very strong resistance against the invaders. I don't think it would come to that. Even without a king to coordinate the defense - there would be other means to do that, too - the fact that the economy would be very strong would make things hard for the enemy. If portable laser guns were developed, you could bet that Ancapistan would have them before everyone else.

>5) (in this scenario) you are king, but currently your reputation is mud. How do you resolve this?

Depends on why my reputation is so bad. Is it because my ancestor fucked up? Show myself to be different from him. Did I fuck up? Atone for it and hope the public is forgiving. There's no patent receipt.

>6) The crown needs money, how is it raised?

Ask nicely :^) Or start a business. That's what many kings used to do. Taxation, as we know it, was not very viable until somewhat recently.

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


 No.1979

File: 5e0b9fde8318d19⋯.jpg (99.87 KB, 523x720, 523:720, autismus maximus.jpg)

>>1977

>Anarchomonarchism


 No.1980

>>1979

I believe I only apologized for the semantics, so I won't do that again. Is there anything substantial about my position you want to criticize?


 No.1981

>>1980

>only

I meant "already". I really shouldn't stay awake that long.


 No.1994

>>1973

Plenty of people think just monarchism alone is a meme, there are so few monarchists in the world anymore.




File: 1b11c02c7e7b6c5⋯.png (44.7 KB, 1600x1600, 1:1, rune.png)

 No.1695[Reply]

Do you think a pagan monarchy could possibly arise in Europe's future (or any other part of the world)?

Me personally, I think that if people were to go back to their roots in terms of political ideology, they should also go back to the spiritual/religious traditions of their ancestors. Since christianity is a semitic religion with exclusively semitic prophets it has no connection to Europe whatsoever. It would not make sense for an non-Hebrew king to claim that he rules by divine right if the god he worships is one created by Hebrews.

The only modern monarchy I know of that could be considered a pagan monarchy is that of Japan whose ruling family claims to be descended from the Shintoist sun goddess Amaterasu (Shintoism being the native religion of Japan). Before the end of WWII the emperor was considered to be a god-like being himself and was actually worshipped by some.

A monarch that is actually an important aspect of his people's religion would be hard to be overthrown and indeed, the Japanese royal family has ruled for thousands of years.

34 posts and 6 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.1950

>>1888

Technically Plato was writing about proof of A god, not the God, let alone God as Christians see Him.


 No.1951

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

>>1888

>historical evidence

Contradictory and compiled decades after the alleged events.

>the fact that many of us claim more or less strong witness of God

Which is an interesting phenomenon, but not proof. Nobody denies religious 'experience'.

>the dozen or so philosophical proofs that theologians and philosophers have offered throughout the years

You should say arguments rather than proofs. To do otherwise there is no debate about the efficacy of these arguments.


 No.1976

I wrote a lengthy defense of Christianity, but got cut off. Here's an article from a website that makes all the points I made:

https://carm.org/is-there-historical-evidence-of-jesus-miracles

I would've rather written something up myself, but not twice. Sorry everyone.


 No.1986

>>1695

>I want this skinpack to my history simulator


 No.1987

>>1695

No, OP. Zero chances. First of all these neopagan movements simply don't have adherents enough to force any significant political change.

>Christianity is a semitic religion

And? This is a gross lack of knowledge of basic history of religion. Christianity is more of a roman religion than the jewish heresy that it was when it first appeared.

And in any case your vision is strikingly tribalist (you need of being from x tribe to rule x), more fitting to the religion you're criticizing (judaism) than the civilization who created christianism (Roman Empire).




File: 1428325513373.jpg (57.22 KB, 480x613, 480:613, Hideki_Tojo.jpg)

 No.33[Reply]

Social-monarchy, is this idea even compatible?
Feudalism is no more, but why must you succumb to capitalism? I find socialism to be a better successor.

Historical examples:
Chinese Empire under Wu Zetian
Incan Empire
In Mesopotamia the Semitic monarchies - Assyria and Babylonia. You may see the uncanny resemblance of Lenin's Mausoleum to Ziggurats.
Persian Empire under Mazdakism

Or more modern:
Napoelonic Empire, perhaps best example of it. Modern day Bonapartists are just national-social-democrats, but historically it was inherently a social-monarchic movement.
Fascist Italy, worked like diarchy. At the end King overthrown Mussolini
Japanese Empire
Argurably socialist-leading, both countries were also realising monarchist priciples. Japan could create countries like Manchukuo with Qing Emperor as head of state, or Mengukuo, Italy would give Emmanuel titles like Emperor of Ethiopia, or send Prince Tomislav II to Croatia.

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.
22 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.1958

>>1877

>So you are willing to claim that as soon as 'the state runs the economy' apllies a system is socialist?In that case socialism is just an economic dogma, and not a social and metaphysical agenda like irl.

No, I would add to it that the economy must be run for the benefit of the whole people, or of society as a whole. I pondered before whether this should be part of the definition, but now I'm sure of it. Socialism then clearly is an agenda, too.

>But does it even fall under your definition?If there is a series of independent and dependent bodies representing subsection of society and making agreements with each other under the supervision of the state, does that qualify as 'the state running the economy'?

I would argue that these bodies will become the state, or organs of the state.

>Can I also define fascism instead? If I define fascism as the system that seeks to restore pre French Revolution values with a post French Revolution society by the internal and external fights in order to achieve self improvement, does that require a socialist social or economic system?

It doesn't. That's a fairly anachronistic definition, however. The one authentic fascist state was Italy under Mussolini, and that one was not reactionary or even conservative, even though it occasionally paid lipservice to the ancien regimé. Still, Mussolinis collectivism, his bellicosity, nationalism, and areligiousness (sometimes bordering on anticlericalism) bar him from being a genuine reactionary. You cannot have the form of the ancien regimé without the substance, and Mussolini didn't even try to resurrect the form.

Besides Mussolinis Italy, all examples of fascism are highly debatable. I don't see why the Iron Guard or the Falange should fall under it, for example.


 No.1968

>>33

We all know that democracies increase their national debt until they collapse, and that monarchies have a far more sensible approach to debt. However, how do social policies fare economically in non-democratic countries? I didn't hear a bad word from Libya.


 No.1971

>>1968

>However, how do social policies fare economically in non-democratic countries?

Better, but certainly not good. Social policies are harmful by themselves, whether they're instituted by a responsible or an irresponsible ruler.


 No.1974

What do you think about Maurras?


 No.1975

>>1968

A good example of a social monarchy, or more precisely a charitable ruler are the United Arab Emirates where the Ruler's ancestors found a shitton of oil, decided to sell it and now they have so much money they can afford public healthcare for everyone, or to build skiining slopes with actual snow in the middle of a desert




File: 2422d75e8a35d67⋯.jpg (138.33 KB, 407x599, 407:599, rc.jpg)

 No.1878[Reply]

You and a certain amount of people (that you may specify) mounted a ship that sunk somewhere in the pacific. You are stranded on a remote island (with climatic conditions you may specify) and do not have any hope of being found. You may (or may not if you choose so) recover some basic necessities from the wreckage.

What kind of society should you form? How should your daily survival be organised? Long term and short term differences? What hardships would you face and how to deal with them?

Scenario B: At the same time or shortly thereafter a second group strands on your or a close neighbouring island and starts competing with you for resources. How do you deal with the situation depending on the social system they establish?

Feel free to add to the idea as muc has you want and explore additional thoughts in a stranded scenario.

 No.1928

Initially, while population is small, a despotic system is initiated according to military rank, which will naturally evolve into a monarchy. Once I absorb the second group by rushing them before they can get a foothold (because my extensive scouting parties found them) I consolidate my island and develop a harbor to expand.


 No.1936

>>1928

>Initially, while population is small, a despotic system is initiated according to military rank

And if you do not set out with a military ship but a civil cruiser? In fact I think it is pretty likely that a monarchy would quite naturally evolve if a military unit was stranded somewhere. provided they find wives somehow


 No.1969

Let's assume the following.

>The island is quite large

>Inhabited by savages. I'd prefer them to be somewhat aggressive, so we could conquer them with rightful Casus Belli

>Subtropical climate - it's not meant to be hellish, right?

>Crew is large enough to do conquest, 300 or so

>We are all somewhat to very religious men

If the locals farm, we maintain that. If they fish, we maintain that. If they don't, we attempt to broaden the ecosystem. Weekly routines will be enforced with religion - Christianity. The Captain (me) will be crowned king. We will start schools, marry the local women - monogamy preferred initially, later enforced. We will study their culture, and develop it to where it belongs.




File: a38a8e625c144cf⋯.jpg (537.58 KB, 1024x1024, 1:1, 478781140.jpg)

 No.824[Reply]

>TFW you live in the most corrupt republic on the planet specifically created out of a peasant revolt against the british crown, which no claimants over the entirety of the modern country's territory whatsoever, and who's only claimants over certain parts of it are a ceremonial british hag and a deposed Hawaiian cheiftain

Fellow burgers of /monarchy/, how do you cope with your beliefs in such a society where monarchism is completely alien? Is the Mad Monarchist correct in the assertion that we all should just give up hope or move back to the Old World?

I myself am a Russian descendent from White Immigrants (grandfather was a minor noble who fought for Monarchists in the Russian Civil War)- and considering the fact that I can't seem to find any legitimate American Monarchist organizations- should I just get the hell out of dodge and join the Monarchist Party of Russia?

65 posts and 7 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.1935

>>1933

Luckily I’m both a monarchist and a Southerner, so I was on this boat already. Long Live Dixie.


 No.1947

>>1935

I am a southerner too (or a Texan if you want to say we aren't southerners)

I would give anything to change my ancestor's minds and not take that boat to the New World.

Pretty soon the Heir to the Throne of the House of Stuart will be the Prince of Liechtenstein I believe. (or the current Prince's son or grandson)

Anybody have a plan to move to a European Monarchy? Or just daydream about it? I spend too much time dreaming about it, really think I should try to make it happen some day.


 No.1961

File: 0ad4d79b6eb453e⋯.png (24.83 KB, 107x147, 107:147, luxembourgSmug.png)

File: 678626e7371eb62⋯.gif (806.69 KB, 320x239, 320:239, europeanMonarchistsgtfinhe….gif)

>>1947

>Anybody have a plan to move to a European Monarchy?


 No.1965

>>1961

What is it like?


 No.1966

>>1961

>German clay




File: 807df77941b2bd8⋯.jpg (51.14 KB, 620x372, 5:3, nymph.jpg)

 No.1901[Reply]

Clare Gannaway, the gallery’s curator of contemporary art, said the aim of the removal was to provoke debate, not to censor. “It wasn’t about denying the existence of particular artworks.”

The work usually hangs in a room titled In Pursuit of Beauty, which contains late 19th century paintings showing lots of female flesh.

Gannaway said the title was a bad one, as it was male artists pursuing women’s bodies, and paintings that presented the female body as a passive decorative art form or a femme fatale.

“For me personally, there is a sense of embarrassment that we haven’t dealt with it sooner. Our attention has been elsewhere … we’ve collectively forgotten to look at this space and think about it properly. We want to do something about it now because we have forgotten about it for so long.”

Gannaway said the debates around Time’s Up and #MeToo had fed into the decision.

The removal itself is an artistic act and will feature in a solo show by the artist Sonia Boyce which opens in March. People can tweet their opinion using #MAGSoniaBoyce.

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2018/jan/31/manchester-art-gallery-removes-waterhouse-naked-nymphs-painting-prompt-conversation

 No.1925

Pardon my ignorance, but how does feminism relate to monarchism?

Post last edited at

 No.1930

>>1925

Not OP, but I think I can see a loose metaphor between this act of femynystlgbbqtXYZ123's and the destruction of the old world. At any rate, it only killed some thread nobody cared about, so I'm fine with it being here.


 No.1952

>>1925

It's highlighting the existence of Babylon so that everybody will redouble their support for the Messiah, should he arrive.




File: 70c270ffa5d9613⋯.jpg (294.65 KB, 1200x1743, 400:581, feudalism.jpg)

 No.1791[Reply]

Should there be an aristocracy to act as 'go-betweens' amid the underworld of the prole and the overworld of the heavenly monarchs; and if so, how should such an aristocracy be chosen?

Did anybody write about the role of the aristocracy very much?

58 posts and 6 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.1917

>>1916

>In the same sense as telling your wife that you'll cut her up and bury her in the woods doesn't mean you're going to kill her, yes.

i don't know what particular 'sense' you mean. it's just an obvious fact that words aren't always meant literally. i don't see how you can get around that.


 No.1918

File: c132758e6c76c0e⋯.jpg (41.52 KB, 600x540, 10:9, 1460816534654.jpg)

>>1911

>I call people niggers that are objectively black

>'oy vey stahp you raycis'

>niggers sing songs about killing whites and whites conspicuously start to vanish teheehee

>'no problem here'

What kind of kibbutz did you visit btw you kike?

>>1912

It's because they're evil.

>>1916

Hold your horses there. Only because this guy sung a song about killing his wife and his wife shortly thereafter appears cut into pieces in his car doesn't mean he did do it, because his cousin AND his mother have testified he would never do it. What do you say now you nazi?

>>1917

See? Killing all the whites is obviously an allegory for peace and prosperity. Now support diversity or else nazi scum!


 No.1920

>>1917

>it's just an obvious fact that words aren't always meant literally

It's even more obvious that words mean something. You can say that "kill all whites" is not to be taken literally, but then how do we take it? If anything, it might be hyperbole for "kill some whites" or "be hostile to whites". That's conjecture, but it's plausible (not necessarily more plausible than the literal meaning). Taking it as a metaphor for living in peace together with whites would be absurd, plain and simple. Not the least because it was a political hymn, not some grand lecture by a spiritual leader. Hymns are supposed to be easily understood by the masses of the people, they miss their purpose when you need a doctorate to interpret them properly.


 No.1932

>>1798

Shouldn't this manuscript be what this thread is discussing?


 No.1941

>>1920

i already went over my interpretation in >>1908. then somebody idiotically suggested that it was ridiculous to take words non-literally.




Delete Post [ ]
[]
Previous [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]
| Catalog | Nerve Center | Cancer
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / abdl / animu / ausneets / kpop / leftpol / sonyeon / strek / vore ]