general
Discord ID: 481597551272001546
213,643 total messages. Viewing 250 per page.
Prev |
Page 568/855
| Next
Treaties are easily broken. Look what we've done to the Injuns multiple times.
@Salo Saloson i meant the alamo cenotaph
I was just saying what the actual bourbons all agreed upon nibba
>honor
>elites
<:really:453005408064241674>
bush's aid got pretty pissy towards the end of our convo because i compared him to isis
If you don't trust them to be honorable or abide by their word, why would you trust them with real power?
"Words on paper" I'm sure the people who signed the new immigration acts said the same thing when they decided to change our founding interests of white men of good character
<:really:453005408064241674>
@TMatthews Good point, but they already have that "power".
"look Miss, all i'm telling you is that my generation have failed to see what conservative men twice my senior have actually conserved. at this rate, and this is important for you to think about if you have any children, my unborn grandchildren and yours as well will have no future. If he's prepared to remove the cenotaph and the confederate plaque, then we will have nothing at this rate"
butthurt ensued after
i'm having a hard time seeing the difference between leftists and normie-cons at this point
@Kingfish He is legitimate. He cant inherit Spain. They were overthrown in 1830's in a revolution which installed the Oreanlists branch.
He is also the great great grandson of Queen Victoria
So in theory he could end up ruling Spain France and England.
Royalty means nothing without the power to rule. The power to rule makes its own justifications of legitimacy.
Alexander didn't let superstition or tradition or decrees keep him from the Persian throne.
@MrDefault one crown to rule them all? ๐ค
@Perihelion - CA Alexander also died and his empire collapsed. He was the legitimate son of the King of Macedonia. So it was like he was some peasant revolutionary.
@Goose Habsburgs in the east Bourbons in the west, but who would rule the US ๐ค ?
Why would it matter if the monarchy of spain was overthrown, if he is still of the line that renounced all claims
No the Monarchy of France was overthrown.
but he still is of a line that renounced all legal claims
by that he wouldn't be able to claim either
Cite your source big guy
monarchy of France lost their way and abused their power <:sad:366743316475281408>
the revolution was a bad idea, but it was inevitable
citation: The treaty of Utrecht lmao
I'm assuming you're not gonna take the wiki
Yeah
Thats why he cant inherit Spain
lemme slow this down for you
He is of the branch of French successors.
Philip V renounced all claims to the FRENCH throne
he is of Philip V's line
Keep it civil, ladies. <:really:453005408064241674>
therefore
he has no claim to the French throne
Kingfish is correct but it really doesn't matter. France is not going to revert to monarchy in the foreseeable future.
I think if it's anyone it would be Henri dโOrlรฉans
@Kingfish The crown is not the personal property of the King and thus he cannot alter the line of succession by abdication or renunciation.
Yes he literally can
he did
at the Treaty of Utrecht
it happened
according to who lmao
it wasn't invalid for any of the European powers
it stood as the law for over 300 years
now it's invalid?
It was done to end endless wars in Europe not to dethrone the rightfully monarch.
He wasn't dethroned
he was King of Spain
Yeah they are all dethroned now
>arguing about European rule instead of discussing about how we fix our own countries issues. <:really:453005408064241674>
okay?
and?
yeah they are
doesn't change the laws
Which wasnt the original intent.
doesn't matter what intent was LOL
They are all pretenders.
he renounced ALL legal claims to the FRENCH throne by himself and his heirs to the end of time
that was agreed upon and signed into law by all European powers
therefore it stands as law
Check out @DSApacitoโs Tweet: https://twitter.com/DSApacito/status/1072603050202804226?s=09
The revolution ended any rightfully claim to the throne due to the end of continuity of it.
Every unelected ruler is a "pretender", heck even the elected ones pretend to care about the plebs...
LOL
revolution is valid now?
but legal treaty isn't?
No its not valid
Revolution worked out well for us.
okay bud
the dude is of the same line that renounced all claims by legal treaty
he can claim it all he wants
but it is not a legal claim anymore
I have just as good claim as he does
We iz kang? ๐ค
objectively you don't have as good a claim as he does
There is no legal claim to the throne it doesnt exist. If he was installed as a monarch it woundnt be invalid either though.
You would have a better argument if the French Monarchy was still a thing
yeah he renounced it (legally, with due process), but he's actually french and of the line. none of us are
thats way different than the argument you were making earlier
@Sam Southern - TN by renouncing legal claim it doesn't matter how close by blood he is he has no legal claim
He has more of right to the throne because of his noble birth
lol I'm not arguing legal claim, he has a *better* claim than you or any of us do
Not more of a claim than Henri @MrDefault
Guys Kings are made because their Lords fight for them. Pedigrees are legal nonsense.
This is great stuff. I recommend giving this a listen/watch.
Watch "A New French Revolution? (Gilets Jaunes)" on YouTube
https://youtu.be/pr8J1RjknLI
you said he was legitimate "He is legitimate. He cant inherit Spain."
which neither of these are accurate
actually he can't inherit spain anymore so that part is
but if anything he has a way better claim to spain
Unless these fops get 10,000 soldiers to March on the capital theyre not monarchs in any sense.
@Kingfish I said theoretically he could claim both Spain, France and England.
where
scroll up
nvm see it but he can't claim france at all
he could try to claim spain
I'd back that
He could though
Loyalists support him
okay thats cool I'm saying he doesnt have a legal claim
If they seized power they couldnt annul the treaty of Utrecth
wait who's claiming England?
sure he could overthrow the government and instate himself find
seizing power does not equal inherit.
you know that
Under the grounds that France needs a rightful monarch
Anyone who siezes power can do whatever they want by definition
he cannot legally INHERIT the french throne
That's what power means
he can take it I guess
but thats not a legal inheritance
Legality is for peasents
The way things stand no one can INHERIT the throne
sure
There is no throne
I agree with that
it was abolished in the revolution.
My only point was he no longer has a legal claim
which is correct
that's all I'm saying
Very Based And KingPilled As Well.
My dudes the throne was made up by a warlord who killed anyone who disagreed. Don't fall for the legalism meme.
<:really:453005408064241674>
@NITRODUBS lol one of my coworkers in the past called me "like the most conservative person ever"
oh I'm definitely not conservative <:teehee:381917632359563264>
>not falling for the divine right meme instead
my dudes borders aren't real they are a figment of our imagination. Don't fall for the legalism meme
@Perihelion - CA Patrick Casey is the legitimate monarch of Evropa change my mind
who cares about laws dude
borders can literally be defined and redefined at will, that's objectively true
its all about might makes right
too bad our enemies have quite a bit of might
<:really:453005408064241674>
I'm sure the Divine right meme really saved the caliph of Baghdad when the huns arrived
otherwise the LA Purchase makes no sense, the conquest of Spanish Florida makes no sense, etc.
Might makes right is terrible meme.
I agree
Im mocking it lmao
Im pretty sure though Patrick is descended from the King of Ireland
Stupid Laws destroy nations. Loyalty to them above your people is silly.
how can Ireland have a throne if it can't even have it's whole country LOL
@Perihelion - CA never said I was more loyal to law than nation
@Perihelion - CA Loyalty to your king was loyalty to your people big guy.
Except when the king was senile and weak
just saying to deny legalism is stupid and quite a bad idea.
Then a better Lord rebelled and ruled.
And made up a justificstion post facto
@Perihelion - CA That had more to do with royal families inbreding.
Ignoring laws is only a bad idea if they're enforced. The fact of their enforcement is proof of the power of the ruler.
Acknowledge power as it is
if loyalty to the king was loyalty to the people, then overthrowing bad kings and putting the next best Lord in his place is legitimate yeah? even though it's not a legal succession?
@Sam Southern - TN Depends on the situation really and why that king was bad.
(not a monarchist, don't know how yall monarchists work, honestly curious)
I'm not a monarchist either
The huns had a Divine right to rule Baghdad because they could.
I think Monarchy is big gey
Monarchy is cringe and bluepilled
Im sympathetic to Monarchists but fail to see how it would work in the US since no king.
Monarchy seems like a long term version of fascism lol
eh
Monarchy is the most heavenly form of government
some would agree
> let's just give the king's son power and see what happens lmao how could this go wrong
Monarchy is bad tbh
it just seems like fascism with a defined line of succession
the monarchy dice is a bad roll a lot of the time
The great chain of being extends from God down to the King down to the family patriarch
Best Roman emperors were all adopted. Circulation of elites is important
@Sam Southern - TN Not really Fascism was an attempt to get close to what monarchy was before it was overthrown by Communists.
I'm way late to that conversation, but @Goose "What have they conserved?" Is may favourite.
Fascism was trying to fill the void monarchy left, not build on it
Let's just let Ivanka be the next president because muh monarch's child
Monarchy is not fascism and fascism is not attempt to make a secular Monarchy.
To be fair to the line is succession bit, I kinda see the logic that someone trained from birth to lead would theoretically be very well suited to lead.
Neither is Monachy totalitarian as the rings of hierarchy were, are, clearly defined and limited
@MrDefault okay let's let Baron be president without knowing what kind of person he'll grow up to be
@Sam Southern - TN agreed 100% it just sucks that it doesnt always work out that way
@Sam Southern - TN If the first ruler was the one that was genetically the best of the tribe it would make sense that those genes would be passed down from father to son.
Imagine unironically not supporting a Barron cyber monarchy
this tbh ^
โ๐ป
If genes determined 100% of behavior, monarchy would be great.
In real life, it's a massive dice roll.
How many of you actually turned out politically similar to your parents?
okay I'm out for now. Gotta finish a paper. anyone want to continue this autism later ping me
My jeans are cool.
@Jacob The church did play a huge role in filtering out unsavory monarchs.
I prefer basketball shorts
uhh ya I'd rather not give the Catholic Church any political power but that's probably not a topic for this server
Lol
Yeah
Rome was strongest when the Senate familial clans (the Gens) were pure and intact
A heritidary nobility provides a genepool for good rulers
This was Plato's ideal as well
New rules of primogeniture could be established that factor in genetic pedgree as well as accomplishments in adult life, the Gens Imperator could be renewed every generation by the election of a new rule based on a series of standards to draw from a general aristocratic class
There's a big debate around the role of the Aristocracy and the role it plays in a monarchy. Not a lot of love for the merchant class
Circulation of genes is essential but it should be slow and we'll selected
Selection is key for sure
@Perihelion - CA Incorrect. Plato actually wanted philosopher kings to not get married or have children so that they wouldn't be influenced by any interests besides the good of the Polis. He also believed that the best leaders could come from any class and be picked based on merit
Childless rulers have not worked well in the last 60 years, I feel that a familial bond to the nation is a must, not necesarily a hereditary government office, but a prerequisite to holding office in an established state
The problem is that all the monarchs have a hatred for the ideology that unseated them: nationalism. The Hapsburgs are BIG EU supporters.
Hapsburgs support the EU because they believe they should be the head of the EU.
The prince married a half-black American divorcee because the Queen needed a colored member of the family to parade around multi-racial England.
Monarchy is fine, hereditary monarchy is big gay
Also rip France again
Is religion of peace confirmed yet
I think monarch should be selected through ritualized military tribal combat conducted in the Yukon wilderness
Obviously this is the only way to avoid fops
Monarchy sucks. Absolute power is dangerous, and there's no way for a monarchy to have the people behind it now that nobody believes in divine right
His moral character will be tried by his ability to recruit a team of the best and most competent men to risk their lives in the trial by combat
absolute power doesn't exist. Even the absolute monarch had his head chopped off by peasants. Its more honest than what we have now
Morality arises out of teamwork being stronger than solo strength
See peasents and head chopping
Revolutions almost never succeed, and when they do they're revolutions of the bourgeoisie not the peasantry
I would prefer a system that is not so unstable and inflexible as to make violent revolution the primary means of change
Once the aristocracy lost the ear of the monarch, it was only a matter of time before the monarchy lost his head.
Thats a funny thing to say as we watch the Trump presidency be strangled by the Deep State
The shift away from a feudal agricultural economy combined with the Enlightenment made the old order unsustainable.
I would prefer not to go into LARP territory regarding what it might take to salvage America, but I will say that there is a fundamental difference between having a revolution every few centuries as a last resort vs having it be the only means of achieving change. America went almost 200 years before the deep state was a thing
It's not LARPing so much as critique of democracy in the abstract. The upside of autocracy is the ability to affect change quickly. Democracy is meant to make change much harder. The Lows are higher but the highs are lower, as it were.
I don't support democracy per se. I want a constitutional republic with limited suffrage based on knowledge of history, civics, current events, etc. There would have to be guaranteed free speech online and a breakup of the Jewish oligopoly on media as well.
Check out @CRโs Tweet: https://twitter.com/CR/status/1072630863479869440?s=09
Any democratic form of government can only function properly in a homogeneous and patriotic country, I would add.
Ritualized complex combat maybe even in game form would be a good option for ruler selection
Rulers should command respect and loyalty of strong men
But lest we be ruled by Chads the combat should require analytical ability
You can do a lot worse than the quarterback president
But we could probably do better too with a better game
So Jiu Jitsu?
Jocko Wilink would rule the world
One key is that the teams can't be recruited for him . He needs to create his team from scratch
Prove his power to lead
Jocko would be a good dictator.
The King of Jordan basically is Jocko
@TMatthews and is highly suseptable to corruption.
This will all be obsolete when we can genetically engineer replicate and improve the perfect leader, coupled with mind writing technology to create an immortal prime conciousness
Haha
Immortal mind tempts the utopian principle.
Techno-medievalist Divinely Genetic predeterminist right to rule
None of this will matter when we are all stuffed into pleasure pods to live in our own personal matrix
Maybe we already are
No lie is detected
And these fevered dreams are the beginning of our birth from the pod mind into our original bodies
I'm definitely not in a pleasure pod yet...
Personal pleasure pods will exist before the robots take over.
If i was, I'd be in Iceland rn, NOT Maryland. <:sad:366743316475281408>
Embrace the age of the machine, they operate by pattern recognition
Too bad the birds are fake and cannot help us fight the robots. But you will find the last camp of humans on the edge of the icewall.
213,643 total messages. Viewing 250 per page.
Prev |
Page 568/855
| Next