"It was recently asked of me what I thought of the “strong men” of the right who rose up in the last century, several of which were named, and I thought it worth answering in some detail and adding some names to the list I was given to hopefully present a better picture of my thoughts on the subject. These are those who have come to power in a country with no traditional monarch but who nonetheless remain admired by many on the right end of the political spectrum. As a proponent of “traditional authority”, which is very much out of fashion these days, it can be necessary to support someone who is less than ideal in order to move the needle in a more favorable direction. Some may be good, some may be unsavory but necessary and others may represent no more than a movement of that needle. Sometimes the best that can be said is that they are preferable to the most likely alternative. Of course, it should be obvious to all but I shall say at the outset nonetheless that my first preference is always for the legitimate monarch and nothing or no one can ever justly take their place."
An interesting post from the Mad Monarchist on leaders who today are generally considered unsavoury. I think he is a little bit hard on Horthy. Horthy didn't restore the Hungarian monarchy, but Franco didn't restore the monarchy until after his death either.
I think these dictators were necessary in the days of Bolshevism, before liberal capitalism had got it's act together to mobilize against Communism. I don't think I'd like to see such strong men coming to power today.
I tend to disagree with the Mad Monarchist on most political subjects, but I'm glad he retains his critical stance towards Putin. Too many monarchists fall into the temptation of becoming Putin apologists.