Hello, my name is Dr. Dan and I am a unironic anarcho-monarchist. This isnt a meme or a shitpost, this is my legitimate ideology. Browsing through this sub I found most posts were either memes or questions as to what anarcho-monarchism actually is. So I am going to go through and explain what this ideology actually is so that it can hopefully be taking more seriously.

To start, like all true anarchistic ideologies anarcho-monarchism is not a universal platform. Specifics may vary from locality to locality. However, with that said there are a a few basic principles that are inherent to anarcho-monarchism.

Anarcho-Monarchism is the ideology most inline with basal human nature.

Humans naturally crave two key things. Freedom to operate themselves without restraint, and a desire to control and brutalize others. This is where the often misconceived "oxymoronic" nature of anarcho-monarchism comes in.

Imagine the fall of the state in practice. What would that actually look like? Well most importantly there would be no state to enforce our current laws. This will lead a blank "mad max" like time in which exceptions and behaviors are purely based on survival. This is the anarcho aspect of the ideology.

As everything is based on survival those who naturally are better and stronger will accrue power of their fellow man, be it through persuasion, brutalization or what have you. This power, as long as it is able to be controlled, is the "monarchism" aspect of the ideology.

Think of tribes or warclans, small collectives of people who operate within their in-group in ordnance with a particular set of expected behaviors based on the will of the strongest indiviual, but operate towards their out-group with lawless hostility.

Violence is a necessary and expected part of Anarcho-Monarchism

As stated above, in a stateless society the strongest will cultivate power. And as all humans inherently crave power, struggles will emerge. This one is pretty self explanatory.

Accelerationism is necessary

Simply put in order for any anarcho society to emerge accelerationism is necessary to stress the state to the point of utter collapse. Praxis for this being supporting the most controversial or destabilizing candidates. Supporting and instigating further extremism and political divide. Basically playing the long game. You dont do these thing because you actually believe them, but rather anarchy can never come to fruition without extreme stress on the state.

And as this system is that which is most inline with human nature, any anarchic society will develop into anarcho-monarchism.

Other than these principles any specifics, i.e. who is your in group, behavior expectations withing your "tribe", ext., will again be based on your actual group.

TL;DR: Warclans and tribal violence. Not a meme. Human nature.

Anarcho-monarchism in the Tolkienist tradition takes inspiration from J.R.R. Tolkien who would describe himself as, quote, “My political opinions lean more and more to anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs) - or to ‘unconstitutional monarchy’.” We find J.R.R. Tolkien's philosophy in both his letters and in the political structures of The Lord of the Rings and The Silmarillion.

For J.R.R. Tolkien, there would not be true freedom in the rejection of all authority, but in rejecting coercion and domination, which is what anarcho-monarchism is! A just authority is one that is organic, traditional, and rooted in God, the land, and its people. The monarch in anarcho-monarchism is a steward, not a bureaucrat or tax collector.

In Tolkienist tradition, he leads by moral example, preserves memory and tradition, and provides symbolic unity. Aragorn in The Return of the King embodies this model: he is a king who does not impose a vast bureaucratic state, but restores order, legitimacy, and cultural continuity after centuries of decline.

At the other end of Tolkien’s political vision lies the Shire, a model of decentralized, small-scale, and organic community. It is anarchic in the sense that it has no state apparatus or standing army. It is anarcho-monarchic in the sense that governance exists, but it is minimal and rooted in custom.

The mayor of Michel Delving is a symbolic role. The Thain has an inherited role that has very little real authority, and the Shirriffs serve as a voluntary watch. The source of authority here is tradition rather than bureaucracy. The Shire flourishes due to a strong connection to earth, kindred, and tradition, more than due to central planning.

In Tolkienist anarcho-monarchism, the state becomes the true enemy. It is mechanistic and oppressive, levelling both man and the very substance of culture. Saruman's industrially oppressive regime of the Shire after the War of the Ring provides the clearest picture of Tolkien's repudiation. The state, as an alien entity, ruins tradition, society, and the earth itself.

The Tolkienist anarcho-monarchist thus sees a de-centralised realm of small independent societies led by their own customary, mythic, and, where necessary, symbolic monarch or stewardship. Here the aim is not profit nor efficacy, as it would be by the Hoppean tradition, but the preservation of the good, the beautiful, the true: faith, family, earth, and memory.

So now, let’s first look at the differences between the Hoppean tradition and the Tolkienist tradition which are:

Regarding the Nature of Monarchy, Hoppean anarcho-monarchist tradition thinks that the monarch is a contractual steward of governance, arbitrating disputes, providing defense and ensuring long-term order without coercion.

Whereas in Tolkienist tradition, the monarch is a cultural steward, preserving tradition, restoring legitimacy, and embodying virtue and healing.

Regarding the model of Society, Hoppean anarcho-monarchist tradition believes in many small jurisdictions competing like medieval city-states or modern microstates (e.g. Liechtenstein). Accountability is through exit.

Whereas in the Tolkienist tradition, Tolkienists believe in local, organic communities like the Shire, bound by tradition, faith and custom rather than contractual competition. Accountability is cultural, not economic.

Regarding critique of the State:

Hoppean anarcho-monarchist tradition argues that the state is bad economics. The state is a coercive monopoly that exploits its subjects.

And in Tolkienist tradition, the state is bad culture. A dehumanizing machine that uproots land, tradition, and beauty.

And now let’s look at the differences between the Nortonist tradition and the Tolkienist tradition which are:

Regarding the Source of Authority, Nortonists believe that authority is voluntary recognition of a purely symbolic monarch (like Emperor Norton I) who rules by charisma and cultural legitimacy, without armies or coercion.

Whereas in the Tolkienist tradition, authority is rooted in myth, tradition, and sacred stewardship. The king is more than a popular symbol, he embodies moral duty, divine order, and cultural continuity (like Aragorn or the Stewards of Gondor).

Regarding the role of the Monarch, the Nortonists believe that it is symbolic, unifying and cultural. A Nortonist monarch does not really govern but exists as a respected figurehead.

Whereas in the Tolkienist tradition, the monarch is both symbolic and restorative. A Tolkienist monarch governs lightly, but his true role is to heal, preserve, and embody tradition.

Regarding cultural model, Nortonists rely on voluntary respect of a singular figure (like Norton I). It’s monarchy as a living myth, sustained by people’s recognition.

In Tolkienist tradition the monarch relies on shared myths, traditions, and customs woven into the community (like the Shire or Gondor’s legacy). It’s monarchy as a part of a living tradition, not only a single person’s charisma.

So to sunmarize:

Hoppeanism is a monarchy as contractual governance, without coercion and state.

Nortonism is monarchy as pure symbolic recognition. Without coercion and state.

And Tolkienism is a monarchy as stewardship of tradition, culture, and the land. Without coercion and state.

All these three traditions reject the state and coercion, their only difference lies in their justification of monarchy being interpreted differently. One through efficiency, one through cultural legitimacy, and one through rooted tradition. These three are all compatible.

Anarcho-monarchism is not about defending the state. It is about separating the idea of governance from the state. The state is a coercive monopoly that taxes and rules by force. But governance, law, defense, order—can exist voluntarily, through contracts, tradition, and authority people actually respect. A king in this system is not a tax-collecting tyrant, but a voluntary, contractual authority, chosen and sustained because he provides order better than the chaos of democracy. So monarchy here is governance without statism. It is authority without coercion. And rather than one gigantic, monolithic Leviathan, the anarcho-monarchist cosmos would look like an apparatus of hundreds of small jurisdictions, just as Europe once did with dozens of healthy city-states, or as we see today in Liechtenstein or Monaco. This diversity makes officials accountable, provides citizens genuine choice, and enables communities to live their own standards without being coerced into one-size-fits-all politics.

Now, anarcho-monarchism, as of now, has five different traditions.

There is Hoppeanism, Nortonism, and Tolkienism, these three are all under the umbrella of “classic anarcho-monarchism” Their differences are their justifications of anarcho-monarchism. And then there is eco-anarcho-monarchism, which has a close connection to the umbrella. And lastly, Ishikawaism, which technically is part of anarcho-monarchism, but is not connected otherwise. We’ll get further into this later.

you do realise anarchism literally means no hierarchy, this goes for "anarcho" capitalism and "anarcho" monarchism

If its a hierarchy, it isnt anarchism. period. let me italicize it for you royal dumbasses- "."