Why aren't you a monarchist yet, /his/?
>>377292
“Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason.”
― Mark Twain
Because our current king is an idiot and more German than Dutch.
>>377301
"Where men are forbidden to honor a king they honor millionaires, athletes, or film-stars instead — even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served — deny it food and it will gobble poison."
~C.S. Lewis
A republic is a fine form of government
>>377317
I agree with the quote, but is it such a bad thing.
Monarchy is by its very nature evil.
Only if it is an elective meritocracy
>wanting to be a peasant
>being THIS much of a submissive faggot
Monarchists are the most embarrassing people I've had the displeasure to speak to in my life
If you're a monarchist I say without the slightest hint of irony you should kill yourself
>>377317
>Honoring people for their actions is overrated. Let's all honor one family line forever, just because. Also let's give them all executive power.
There can be no marchies
They are inherently illogical because only the Imams can rule in a legitimate god-given stewardship
Only "kings" who can claim to be re-incarnation of Ali can be looked upon as legitimate, but need to be pious and very zealous. These are, however, exceptions, not the rule
>>377365
This is correct no matter how much you shitpost
>>377292
Ah! ça ira, ça ira, ça ira,
Les aristocrates à la lanterne!
Ah! ça ira, ça ira, ça ira,
Les aristocrates on les pendra!
Le despotisme expirera,
La liberté triomphera,
Ah! ça ira, ça ira, ça ira,
Nous n'avons plus ni nobles, ni prêtres,
Ah! ça ira, ça ira, ça ira,
L'égalité partout régnera.
L'esclave autrichien le suivra,
Au diable s'envolera.
Ah! ça ira, Ah! ça ira,
Au diable s'envolera.
>>377292
I am.
>>377358
>>wanting to be a peasant
>>being THIS much of a submissive faggot
>Monarchists are the most embarrassing people I've had the displeasure to speak to in my life
>If you're a monarchist I say without the slightest hint of irony you should kill yourself
>monarchy
>plebeian
Republicanism is literally lets have the peasants rule you fucking peasant. Monarchy is the rule of aristocracy
>>377292
Gavelkind succession
>>377383
>gavelkind
>anything but Primogeniture or Elective
Enjoy your constantly fragmenting territory, Charlie.
>>377382
I'm pretty sure we're all peasants here, because most aristocrats are too busy doing rich people things instead of shitposting on 4chan.
>>377375
Why would you say it's correct?
Holy shit, you Europeans are backwards.
>>377501
Merchant republics and patrician elective is the best, senpai
>>377534
Literally everyone knew after Louis the Pious' lands fell apart to his shiteating kids that gavelkind wasn't working, even if they didn't want to admit it because 'muh germanic tradition and pride'. That's why West Francia (later France) and the later HRE began moving to primogeniture and elective systems respectively.
Because it's a horrible way to get good men into positions of power. Representative democracy is much better, though still lacking in its current form.
>>377358
You are already a peasant, it's just called something else. Or do you think that because your nation isn't sustained by agriculture any more that you've risen in class?
What good does it do a country in democracy if the people are not sufficiently educated enough to choose what's best for them?
Elections are held, people vote... And eventually within the next year a lot of people end up asking themselves ''Why'd I vote for this?'' lol
>>377292
I'm not delusional.
>>377562
Right. A proper representative democracy requires a voting class that is educated, interested, active, and well-informed about the political process. For that reason alone I don't think it works for larger nations.
>>377562
No one disagrees with limiting voting to only people who are "good enough".
The problem is deciding who is not "good enough" (easy) and then telling them "no, you can't vote" (hard).
>>377292
I look at the mass outbreaks of armed resistance that plagued almost every historical monarchy on a near constant basis as a bad thing. I'm funny like that.
>>377612
Simple, raise voting age to 25, and get the right to vote after completing military training or university. It sounds like starship troopers, but the people that will vote won't be NEET edgy teenagers who vote for retards like Bernie Sanders.
>>377612
Meaning that the republic way of Democracy, in it's current form, is flawed.
This is the main reason why I'm on the Monarchy team here instead of the Republican side.
Having lived in the USA and currently living in South America, and this specially stands out in Latin America is that real political education within the nation's people is very minimal thus causing a great shitstorm within the country lol
>>377612
Use a test, freely given at regular intervals that any citizen can take. Pass the test, you get to vote. Don't pass, try again next time.
>>377562
Even if the "standard of executives", however you define that, is provably worse in a democracy or a republic as opposed to a monarchy (and the jury's still out on that one), the democracy/republic has enormously more inclusiveness, which means that politically active and involved people channel their urges in ways that don't involve as much violence.
>>377634
You can't discount laborers though.
>>377365
There's a reason why that particular family is honored. It's not because they won a popularity contest.
>>377634
In what world do university grads not vote for Bernie Sanders? That's like 99% of his support.
>>377292
because in 100 kings you'll have 1 excelent one, 5 regular ones at the rest will be utter shit.
power corrupts as everyone knows and when you don't have to respond to anyone but god himself you're on a path to do whatever the fuck you want.
even enlightened despots sooner or later go on power trips... also, courts always attract the worst kind of people: intriguing motherfuckers and scum in general; that will to their best to infect a king with their foul venom.
oh and by the way, if any of those things happens, fuck you because muh divine mandate - insurging against a king is insurging against god and nature itself; so you better go back plowing that fields or else it will be your backing paying the toll.
>Anno Domini MMXV
>Not being subject to the Kingdom of Heaven
>Not being a faithful vassal to the King of Kings
>>377660
>In what world do university grads not vote for Bernie Sanders? That's like 99% of his support.
Yeah, in the US, im from Eastern Europe and most universities aren't filled with leftist cultural marxist professors.
>>377648
True, something like a minimum amount of work experience. But still, i wouldn't let half the manual laborers i live with vote even if they payed me to.
>>377662
>implying that unfair shit doesn't happen in a democracy
>implying that your complaints will be heard by a government in charge
Everything you just said applies to a Democracy style'd government except that they do it with multiple people in a silent, even more corrupt way
>>377662
And how many good presidents/prime ministers do you have in a 1000? 0? Even if you have one, there are huge checks in his power and laws have to be passed by a vote. In a democracy that one good prime minister can't even do the shit that needs to be done.
>>377534
LOL desu lmao same
>>377688
still better than letting some inbreds do whatever because "dude monarchism lmao".
>>377726
Yeah because back in those days a King was god, he did what ever he wanted whenever he wanted. Am i right, dude fuck the tyranny amirite lmao
>>377652
>win a popularity contest once
>family then becomes the de facto winner the popularity contest every year for all eternity
>also they get all executive power
More accurate?
>>377555
Your living standards would be the envy of many a noble, anon.
>brits still defend the monarchy
I'm sure glad we revolted.
Also take off those silly powdered wigs in court. It's the bloody 21st century.
>>377646
>politically active and involved people channel their urges in ways that don't involve as much violence.
This is one of the things I like most about democracy: changing the head of state doesn't usually involve someone literally losing his head.
>>377652
>There's a reason why that particular family is honored
And why is that?
>>377740
It ain't democracy that made it that way, anon.
>>377728
Checks and balances are a good thing.
>>377744
Oh for God's sake it's
>CURRENT CENTURY
>>377302
W I L L E M
I
L
L
E
M
>>377744
>It's the bloody 21st century.
>the current year meme
>bloody
Found the Brit. Evacuate to your nearest commonwealth country, tea sipper.
>>377890
>I'm sure glad we revolted.
How do you come to the conclusion he's a brit? Obviously it's an Amerilard.
But I am, OP.
Praise the King.
>>377901
It's a disguise.
>>377921
Fuck the king.
What you gonna do, sue me for treason?
>>378024
The King's great tho
>>377662
>power corrupts as everyone knows
Except the countless great men throughout recorded history where it didn't.
>>377767
Right, it was liberalism (civil rights, political and economic freedom) and reformist socialism (social reforms, social welfare).
>>378038
Regardless of how nice the spin doctors are, his very existence justifies millionaires living alongside the homeless in the same cities.
He is the face of a system that should be completely abolished by the 21st century.
I don't like the look of this thread
>>378052
>21st century
Great meme!
>>377580
This one.
Unless your country is organized around exporting large amounts of a small number of raw materials, like the Saudis, centralizing control will perforce result in a vast reduction of economic complexity.
>but we could have a monarchy and a market
But the market will be better than the monarchy at everything, rendering the aristocracy redundant.
I very much am. The French revolution, the Bolshevik revolution and the dissolution of Austria-Hungary are some of the most tragic events in human history.
>>377662
>because in 100 kings you'll have 1 excelent one, 5 regular ones at the rest will be utter shit.
>>378096
>implying monarchies aren't so 16th century
It depends.
The problem with the term "monarchist" is that it confuses two very distincts models of "monarchy". The medieval monarchy, for example, was completely different from absolute monarchy that emerged in the 16th century.
Unfortunately, most monarchists are fans of absolute monarchy. They like the glamour of kings, the hereditary succession, the noble heraldries, and with this investment in the external trappings of power they fail to realize that what the absolute monarchy had set out to do, to destroy the power of independent institutions and power centers, a process that began with kings such as Philip IV and John Lackland who fought the power of the aristocracy and the church, who fought the guilds and the independent orders for the purpose of centralizing power, that this historical role of absolute monarchy wasn't stopped by the deposition of monarchs, it was actually continued in a way that couldn't have been done before.
>>378159
That's why I find most monarchists schizophrenics with little historical knowledge. For example, this guy >>378113
The Anjou kings of Hungary were typical of late Medieval monarchs who tried to centralize power at the expense of intermediary corps of society such as aristocrats and guilds.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_I_of_Hungary
>Through his victory over the oligarchs, Charles acquired about 60% of the Hungarian castles, along with the domains attached to them. In 1323, he set about revising his previous land grants, which enabled him to reclaim former royal estates. During his reign, special commissions were set up to detect royal estates that had been unlawfully acquired by their owners. Charles refrained from making perpetual grants to his partisans. Instead, he applied a system of "office fiefs", or honors, whereby his officials were entitled to enjoy all revenues accrued from their offices, but only for the time they held those offices. That system assured the preponderance of royal power, enabling Charles to rule "with the plenitude of power", as he emphasized in one of his charters of 1335. He even ignored customary law: for instance, promoting "a daughter to a son", which entitled her to inherit her father's estates instead of her male cousins. Charles also took control of the administration of the Church in Hungary. He appointed the Hungarian prelates at will, without allowing the cathedral chapters to elect them.
Do you really think that the works of the French Revolution, or the Bolshevik ones, are contrary to his spirit?
Really, people should read Bertrand de Jouvenel, he talks a lot about such things. I actually used to be a lot more sympathetic to monarchy before reading it because I saw traditional monarchy as the antithesis of centralized governments of modernity, but that is wrong, monarchies were the predecessors of modern day tyrannical republics.
>>377612
>deciding who is good enough is easy
please think before you post
>>378159
It depends on culture. Russia and the Islamic world tend to have the most stable and virtuous periods under autocracy.
>>378042
That's the exception that proves the rule you retard. Are you seriously going to sit here and argue that power does not corrupt?
>>378053
I don't like the look of you, dictator frog.
>>377292
How would you even justify the reign of monarch in the 21st Century? Outside aboogaboos like Ayyrabs and some aboriginal tribe?
>>377292
I'm fine with it as long as I'm the monarch.
>>378265
this desu
>>378052
>Regardless of how nice the spin doctors are, his very existence justifies millionaires living alongside the homeless in the same cities.
>leftist commies
>Muh rich people
>muh poor people
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
>>378303
>typing out phonetic laughter
>>377292
it is tyranny, they could decide to treat you like reek just because they don't like your haircut
as much as I admire some historical figures I think we can do without that system
IK WILLEM NIET
>>378230
Maybe that's true about Russia, but the Islamic world has a tradition of somewhat independent civic society in the form of Sufi tariqas that brought some stability and prosperity.
>>378159
Nah, im all about feudal monarchy, the kings power checked by the nobles.
>>378318
Its to show exactly how ridiculous you commies are.
>>378343
Can feudalism coexist with wage labor instead of serfdom? Genuinely curious.
>>378322
>I get my opinions on history from fantasy TV shows on HBO
America: the post
>>378170
>>378159
I'd like to expand on this, you can see a historical point in which countries, although titular monarchies, begin to be coopted by revolutionary ideas and shift towards ideological syncretism. Nationalism for example, you can clearly see the trend with the German empire based on ethnic borders and the source of power are "the people" instead of God, you can pretty much trace this trend to Napoleon.
People like to say that 1918 was when the old world order collapsed, but it was actually in 1789.
Reminder that all of Europe was ruled by monarchies of some form or another and was doing exceptionally well - until World War 1 completely ruined everything forever.
>>377292
because it's literally more of a pipe dream than communism. the people will never, EVER live under kings again after getting a taste of liberal democracy
note that modern day monarchists are only found on reddit and 4chan - because they're all severely autistic, have delusions of grandeur and think being a STEMlord would make them nobility
>>378463
>more of a pipe dream than communism
>monarchism was the norm throughout the planet until relatively recently
>communism was literally never achieved and never will
>>378463
>think being a STEMlord would make them nobility
How does being a STEMlord enter the equation? Are you projecting your own insecurities? In fact meritocracy is a pipe dream almost anywhere outside of the army and many reactionaries realize that.
>the people will never, EVER live under kings again after getting a taste of liberal democracy
Tell that to the islamic world where liberal democracy (mostly installed by western powers) has a history of being a spectacular failure.
>>378353
I don't know, and i don't care tb.h, all i want is to be a militiaman, fighting for my lord in cool armour, then coming home from campaign living a simple life and fucking my qt French wife.
I didn't ask for these feels
>>378530
So you're an escapist roleplayer and not an actual monarchist.
>>378475
>he thinks monarchism was the norm on this entire planet until recently
read a book you fucking autist. ever heard of tribalism? way, way, way more common.
also:
>dieing before you hit forty years of age was the norm until a few hundred years ago
>being helpless against even the simplest diseases was common until a few hundred years ago
>close to half of all children dieing while or shortly after being born was common until a few hundred years ago
all useless statements. useless like your shit-tier post.
>>378365
>fantasy TV shows on HBO
they could and did arbitrarily execute and torture people
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Smeaton
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sporus
>>378530
this post is so fucking embarrassing jesus christ
>all I want is muh fantasies because I'm a failure in real life
you could always just end it, you know
>>378530
Oh God, get back to your X-Box or whatever it is you kids play nowadays.
>>378044
No, it was technology and the war machine.
Administration has made it clear time and agin in the US that they don't care about your rights when it really matters.
>>378542
One line of the Habsburg dynasty being inbred =/= all monarchs were inbred. In fact peasants isolated in villages and procreating with their cousins were notoriously more inbred than the average monarch. You can pick any given ruler from the medieval period and notice he comes from a variety of backgrounds. The typical European king could easily have German, Czech, Polish, Italian, Hungarian, French and Swedish ancestors.
>>378555
>equating progress in technology and medicine with the development of political ideas
>it's more recent so it's better
>I mean it's 2015, come on
>>378546
>from talking to monarchists. they are always autistic STEMlords without fail
Hasn't been my experience at all. I'm not a STEM major either, and in fact many of them tend to suffer from Engineer's syndrome which can easily be coopted by social engineering ideologies like marxism.
>>378568
Technology, in the broad sense, increase the amount of resources available and eased communications.
Obviously, having all this stuff enabled social change, but having more stuff doesn't mean everyone gets more if only a small group has a say on how the stuff gets distributed.
>>378130
I like the quote, but don't talk shit about Nero.
>>378626
What are the positives of Nero? Legitimately curious. Based on both Roman and Christian accounts he seems like a textbook tyrant.
>>378353
it can but it wouldn't be desirable because wages and property rights need some sort of overarching legal authority and the ad-hoc nature of feudalism prevents this
>>378608
>if only a small group has a say on how the stuff gets distributed.
And therein lies the proof that things haven't changed after all.
What do you think the wallstreet movement was about, Einstein?
Why do you think it failed miserable?
Because you don't have any power over them. Private industry is the new ruling class. Your social status hasn't changed.
>>377292
I don't see any reason to be. Monarchism wouldn't solve any problems. The rulers would still be the super rich, their interests will be the same as always, and we'll have the same problems that we have now. The only thing accomplished by returning to monarchism is completely removing what little hope we have now to influence power.
>>378629
He initiated many reforms that helped poor people, including lowering fines, lawyer fees, and taxes. He even set up relief for victims of the Rome fire, which involved housing homeless people in his palace. Check out his compromise with Parthia as well.
Sure he may have been a little insane or sadistic, but he's hardly on the extreme end of those aspects when compared to Elagalabus or Caracalla. His bad reputation stems from the fact that he was deposed during his lifetime, which always involves smear campaigns (hello Richard III).
>>378759
>Elagalabus
I have no idea how that guy is in any way notable, other than being a tranny.
>>378684
I got all my medical expenses paid by the state before I started paying taxes.
My parents started as a lowly blue-collar workers and moved us up to upper-middle class. Not that thriving economically is easy, but you aren't barred from economic sectors depending on your birth.
I benefit from a far extensive, yet inexpensive education.
I'm doing well. How about you?
>>377666
^
underrated post
>>377519
>backward
>Implying forms of government that don't fit your progressive sensibilities are inherently inferior.
>>377519
I like how Americans think that being ruled by a shady oligarchy is somehow superior to a legally aristocratic society.
>>377342
>average monarch
>this is literally the only picture anyone ever has when mocking inbred monarchs
>>378580
>>>/tumblr/
>>378822
they're both fucking awful?
>>378861
HURZ WURZ KINGZ
>>378891
Again, you're posting pictures of the Hapsburgs. Find other examples, come on. I mean, if it's as rife as you say it is then it should be easy right?
>>377317
>>378891
They still got it
>>378914
Exactly. Everything is venerated in America, no matter how inappropriate or how disgusting. Kim Kardashian and Miley Cyrus are role models for little girls, for god's sake.
>>378913
I would put that monster man someone posted in the hideous people thread, but I'm scared of him. I don't remember either his identity, I think he ruled in some minor german realm like Bavaria.
>>378927
There still should be more. All monarchs are inbred. Just type in the name of any monarch he'll more than likely be inbred. Or at least that's what you're making it out to be.
>>378923
and somehow aristocrats and monarchies are better.
>>377292
Because having a hereditary ruler makes as much sense as having a hereditary engineer.
>>378950
Not as common as you'd think. Only a few of them actually had the disease, but of course they're the ones most talked about.
>>378953
If you'd point me toward the British/Danish/etc. equivalent of Miley Cyrus and Kim Kardashian I'll believe you. The people have their royals to look up to, at least they behave properly most of the time and are genuinely embarrassed when caught otherwise. They don't celebrate their filth.
>>378765
My point is that Nero was pretty mild compared to many of the other insane Roman emperors. It was mostly the fault of historians painting his dynasty in a bad light.
Although I support democracies, I suppose one good thing about monarchy is that a corrupt king is relatively easy to bring down. A shady college of elected and re-elected career politicians is not because of its pretense of legitimacy.
>mfw made of glass
>>378987
Exactly. A monarch that acts up is easy to spot and get rid of since they don't have the legitimacy of the popular vote. Democratically elected officialls are usually forgiven more by the public and are allowed to get away with more precisely because they were elected and can hide behind the idea of the vote.
>>378998
>You don't have the same views as me, get out! I want my echo chamber/safe space!
Hello >>>tumblr
>>377292
>Supporting an untalented elite class who's only accomplishment in life is being born
>>378977
>If you'd point me toward the British/Danish/etc. equivalent of Miley Cyrus and Kim Kardashian I'll believe you.
Eat a fat nigger dick you fucking retard.
>muh monarchy
kill yourself
>>379022
/pol/. Just give it up. We've al seen the ironpill comics. We all know you have giant gayboy hard ons for Julius Evola.
And you guys are the last people who should accuse anyone of running a hugbox.
>>379035
I DONT WNA GO TO SCHOOL
I JUST WNA BREAK THA RULES
>bless british monarchy tho
>conservative values n shit
>>378475
But communism/ state capitalism and monarchy did both work, it made their subjects miserable which is why those systems didn't last in the modern world.
>>378977
>If you'd point me toward the British/Danish/etc. equivalent of Miley Cyrus and Kim Kardashian I'll believe you
euros have pop stars and reality tv too.
>its better because they hide their degeneracy
lmao
>>379035
Triggered leftists are so funny. No good arguments there, bud? How about you actually discuss rather than meme/shitpost. I though this board was for discussion and not regurgitating your views.
>>378977
Princess Diana
Prince Harry
>>379061
>no good arguments
You said
"show me the british Equivalent of Miley Cyrus"
I post the british equivalent of Miley Cyrus
are you braindamaged?
I even quoted you you literal autist
>>379044
>muh silencing tactics
If you don't have anything relevant to say, then admit it. Address the arguments. This is how discussion occurs. I know it's a foreign concept for you lefties.
>>379061
We don't have to. You're the one trying to use pop star burnouts as the yardstick of civilization. I'd say you're completely out of ideas.
>>377292
Actual monarchists, what style of monarchy do you prefer? Decentralized medieval monarchy, absolute monarchy, enlightened monarchy, constitutional monarchy, etc...?
>>379062
Harry was a short lived meme.
Younger people don't even know who Diana is.
>>378977
>If you'd point me toward the British/Danish/etc. equivalent of Miley Cyrus and Kim Kardashian I'll believe you.
>People post British filth
>>379061
>I'm just going to ignore everything that doesn't fit my narrative :^)
Charli XCX is just as bad as Miley. You lost the argument. Go back to your echochamber or kill yourself.
>>378977
>The royal family is a great group of people to venerate for no reason so long as you compare them to the worst famous people possible.
Why are we even talking about veneration? There are plenty of examples of respectable human beings to venerate without them having everything handed to them.
And none of this is even a big deal relative to the asshattary that is monarchy as a system of governance.
>>379090
>screams /pol/
You're doing the same thing, bud. You forgot to call me a fascist nazi.
>>>tumblr
Monarchies are for holding together countries with very little other national identity. That's about it.
>>379082
We'll never get nudes, will we?
>>379112
Okay, real talk, /pol/. Would you like to know how I can tell that you're from that board?
It's because you guys stick out like sore thumbs. You have a highly distinct board culture with its own memes and buzzwords. One of which would be assuming that anyone who doesn't like you must be some attention starved tranny from tumblr. The problem with this assessment is that no one likes you.
>>379103
>>379061
>>379035
>>378977
>If you'd point me toward the British/Danish/etc. equivalent of Miley Cyrus and Kim Kardashian I'll believe you.
>still ignoring me
>being this deluded
this is fucking embarrassing, top cu.ckold.
so do you just close your eyes when someone refutes your argument?
do you just yell "I can't see anything I can't hear anything" until it goes away?
you're fucking patheticlmao
>>379136
The cognitive dissonance of your posts is amazing.
>>379013
What the fuck are you talking about? Ancient Regime where next to impossible to ride without a bloody rebellion.
The nobility had a vested interest in keeping the legitimacy of a certain Monarch in place, as long as he wasn't batshit crazy and attacking there heredity rights they couldn't care less.
>>378913
How about House Hanover? George III was a mad craze lunatic, his son George IV was raging alcoholic and George's niece Victoria was a borderline nymphomaniac.
Look I'm not saying every Monarch was an inbred fuck, and to be honest some of them where very fine leaders in there own right, but believing in a system that entitles a certain person to power because they where born in a prominent family is fucking retarded.
>>379034
Self-made, genius dictators like Caesar, Napoleon and Reinhard are perhaps a reason why the best form of government might be a republic/democracy that allows for dictatorship for a certain period of time.
>>379161
How so?
More importantly, how am I wrong? The world can't be split solely between tumblr and /pol/, can it? If it was, life would boil down to a game of "pick your death camp"
>>377688
presidents and prime ministers don't have the impact of a king in people's lives since they don't have absolute power and therefore they can't drastically change the scene that was staged by their predecessors; so even if they change a lot the status quo doesn't change - unless a coup is in order.
kings on the other hand are more relevant throught the ages because they had literally had power over people's lives and they could start/end wars, do drastic changes on all policies, etc and that's why they're so often remembered - unlike politicians who hardly have the power to implement any of those actions and when they do it's a group effort from many people combined and not just the will of a man.
>>378950
yes, hemophilia is also a disease that often appears in cases of inbreding.
see how the first world war started - since they all had family ties they went to defend each other... just look at nikolai II from russia and george V from england.
>>377678
all of that can happen in democracies, but it's easier to regulate, prevent and prosecute; and that's why democracy works with mature people but always fails in under-developed countries
>>378542
The royal family was trained from birth to lead the nation. Presidents and prime ministers are, at BEST, taught politics and college and don't get any real experience until they work their way up.
I'm not a monarchist, but some points are valid.
>>378772
Iran did much of the same thing under the Pahlavi Dynasty.
>>377369
>reincarnations
What are you smoking? Islam is very clear that there is no reincarnation, oh wait -Shia- that's why. Caliphate can be elective or appointed no need for hereditary rulership like an imam.
>>379022
Well he's right that you probably are a liberal in the traditional sense.
>>378889
Nothing awful about aristocracy.
>>378873
How does my post belong to tumblr?
>>379386
How do you know.
>>379316
Yeah, but not in the American sense. Keep in mind that progressives basically stole the word during the FDR years over here.
>>379398
By the virtue of not being a retard like you.
>>377740
I doubt that
>>379386
>I fantasize about being an aristocrat
Whatever floats your boat
How do you all have time to post here when your betters need their slippers put out?
>>379409
Ladies and gentlemen?
The pride of /pol/
>>379409
hot argument senpai
>>379426
I'm way too reactionary for /pol/ and nazism disgusts me.
>>377292
Monarchy with a parliament and hereditary lords in the house with the bishops is best form of government.
Theocracy > Monarchy > Republic
>>379468
Presbyterian detected.
Though I somewhat agree.
>>379467
>this is what britbongs actually believe
>>379288
No they where not, they where privileged.
Ancient Monarchy to a certain extent maybe, for example Philip II and Alexander III...but even then there was a certain ideology ingrained in there head which gave them the perception that there rule was infallible.
>>379082
I'm kind of only beginning to consider myself a monarchist, but I lean towards decentralized medieval monarchy. I think Post-Magna Carta England and late 13th century France models are appealing, but maybe that's just because I've been reading on them lately.
>>379467
>house of lords
Why does this still exist?
I can understand the Royals and as nationalistic symbol and link to your long history etc but why should any unelected faggots get a say on your laws?
>>377328
Its human nature.
Can you expect it to be good?
Be careful how you answer.
>>379417
>I like to project and make baseless assumptions.
>>377292
because I'm not a kek that wants a whole class of people legally above me. Feudalism a shit.
lordship without feudalism is pointless.
>>379499
I believe today it is corrupted as a house of patronage and cronyism. The purpose of a house of hereditary and lords spiritual is to be a break on rash actions from the commons. Lords while not being smarter than the common man are certainly better educated and are non-partisan mostly. While the commons still has the largest share of control the lords can provide an assessment of the house. An elected upper house is pointless and an appointed one is what we have today. Even america the darling of democracy had appointed senators by the states because the point of the upper house is sober assessment not partisanship, the domain of the lower house.
>>379494
Yeah constant civil war and unrest is so appealing...fucking read a book kid.
I used to be a monarchist and then I graduated High School and realized representative government with elected heads of state is awesome. Being able to actively change your country as part of government without being born into it is just the best thing ever.
>>379494
>I'm kind of only beginning to consider myself a monarchist
please reconsider.
>>379499
How does being elected give anyone legitimacy? I literally never understood the logic behind democracy and the idea that more popular = better.
>most popular movie is Transformers
>most popular musical performers are the likes of Nicki Minaj and Justin Bieber
>most popular videogame is Call of Duty
I hope we can both agree that these are all dogshit, why do we hold politics to a different standard then?
>>379082
Whatever the fuck the Hungarian system with a royal palatine and no top-down feudalism was.
>>379494
13th Century France, the country gets annihilated in one hundred years. Burgundy splits off, never-ending wars with the flems. Several every bloody wars with England. Kings incredibly incompetent.
>>377292
>monarchist
....yeah ok.
>>379565
>this ugly fatass
Literal, walking meme.
>>379544
popular leaders must be doing something right, to have their constituents happy enough about them that they got elected, and reelected.
conversely, bad leaders get fucked, because they're unpopular.
of course, there are exceptions where bad leaders are popular and good leaders aren't, but i'd say its a damn better deal than having to deal with one jackass for the rest of your life.
>>379572
Just call him a meme, that'll show them.
>>379572
>ugly fatass
pulled more pussy than a gynaecologist during a crab epidemic
>>377292
Because it's a shitty system of governance and leaving the decisions up to one guy is a crapshoot.
>>379534
>I graduated High School
>Being able to actively change your country as part of government without being born into it
hahahahahahahhahahahahaha
>>379579
>popular leaders must be doing something right, to have their constituents happy enough about them that they got elected, and reelected.
Yeah it's called grand empty promises. The plebs react to populism quite well.
I mean look at Obama, people are judging him based on what he says instead of what he actually does. The same with Trump, he's going to shit talk and meme his way into the office.
>>379544
>How does being elected give anyone legitimacy? I literally never understood the logic behind democracy and the idea that more popular = better.
What's the alternative? Fighting for control? Most of the time, the more numerous side will win, and the rest of the time, when a minority does seize control, their rule will be unstable. Voting allows for might to make right without loss of life.
>>379609
>if we didn't have democracy we'd just kill each other
lmao
>>379619
We literally used to just kill each other. Read a book.
>>379607
>actually believing the trump meme
niggas got no chance when it comes to the moderates needed to actually win.
>monarchies haven't used populist tactics before
this is a new one.
>>379626
We still are. Do you think democracy prevented any killings in the middle east or Africa? Likewise the nazis were perpetrators of some of the worst genocides ever and they were democratically elected.
>>379630
>dismissing trump saying that he won't win any of the moderate vote.
Ok. Even if he doesn't win the nomination he has highlighted the great divide within the GOP. This could result in the destruction of the 2 party system in the US
I like our Monarchy. I prefer it to parliament.
>>379684
But they are terrible at making decisions. Their are no checks and balances, have no constituents to answer to so they are detached from what is actually going on in their country, and they usually end up surrounded with yes-men so they never know when their decisions are wrong until it's too late.
>>379607
>Obama
>promised to close down Gitmo and didn't
>called Bush a warmonger then bombed the fuck out of Libya and Syria and killed loads of Pakistanis with drones
>said he doesn't support gay marriage during his first campaign, then supported it during his second term
>said he will clamp down on Patriot Act and extended it instead
Yet the fucktards that elected him still love him. Democratically elected politicians are like snake oil salesmen, they will promise you the moon while campaigning and then completely forget about you the second they take office. The difference is, if a snake oil salesman cheats you, you can sue him, while politicans aren't held accountable.
>>377292
Monarchs have an odd tendency of being deposed...
>>377678
>democracy and monarchy are the only two forms of government
>>377292
because I'm not a young, edgy, self-declared traditionalist rebelling against his parents and what he sees as a leftist contemporary society by being as reactionary as is comfortably possible
>>379706
>Implying there is anything checking parliament's power
>Implying they do anything but shill for corporations
>Implying parliament actually reflects the people
>>379747
Since we are at ad hominems, what's your political position?
>>379761
Marxism.
>>379640
>We still are. Do you think democracy prevented any killings in the middle east or Africa?
Yes, I am sure that it has prevented vast amounts of killing and that the numbers bear this out. [although it is not so clear that the peace is permanent]
>Likewise the nazis were perpetrators of some of the worst genocides ever and they were democratically elected.
Democratically elected is not the same as democratic government, children know this.
>>379761
Mutualist
>>377292
For the same reason I'm not a hunter-gatherer.
>>379768
Shocking.
>>379761
Anarcho-syndicalist.
>>379726
>The difference is, if a snake oil salesman cheats you, you can sue him, while politicans aren't held accountable.
except for that whole vote him out of power thing. and the two term limit.
>>378990
>he posted the wrong Charles VI
that one would be more >mfw pragmatic sanction or something
>>377292
I have actually grown quite fond of the idea of monarchy lately. Pledging your allegiance to some poor inbred thing whose chief interests in the world are the history of model trains and loafers is something much more sympathic than electing a head of state and does involve you asking to be ruled either. The ideal king would be somewhat like the king of chess; completely useless and yet being the entire game, seemingly only occupying his space so that no other piece can do so.
And hand him the right to shoot any of his viceroys or advisors for a trivial matter such as wearing a pair of pants of the wrong color or because he simply doesn't like the look of his face that particular day.
>>379612
Why don't people ask this question more odten?
>>379674
On one side of the equation.
And then you hand the whole thing to the democrats with that creepy, ant hill unity of theirs.
Why do Republicans justify a glorified popularity contest as a prerequisite for leadership? Why would you want to be a slave to the will of the great unwashed masses?
>>377646
That's the problem, everyone these days fancies themselves a fucking philosopher and half cannot even tie their own shoes.
>>380698
Because there's a meritocratic element to it. Monarchy is a roll of the dice. Sometimes you get Alfred the Great and sometimes you get Wilhelm II
>>378135
>republics are modern meme
>republics are actually older than monarchies
Just laffin'
>>378053
Fuck off.
>>380713
But with the masses you always lose.
>>380528
>you not understanding things =/= them not making sense
>>379735
>republic fags defend Napoleon but he was really just a monarch
Love this. He made his relatives fucking kings and even surrounded himself in the trappings of one. Napoleon was based as fuck.
>>380729
It's more like you get a certain baseline you never go below. Quality control.
The worst US president is still a damn sight better than, say, Vlad the impaler or Wilhelm II Or Genghis Khan. It has also produced luminaries such as Lincoln, Truman, Washington and Churchill.
>>380745
Dice roll > perpetual mediocrity
>>380749
Quality Control > The Golden Horde
>monarchy is bad because lol look at how bad the middle ages were
>>377292
Because Commodus and Nero are historical figures.
>>377369
here comes the SWAT van
>>380528
>implying any of the memeposters were serious, or even the original poster at all
>>378053
god that guys neck was just begging to be popped off look how thick long and juicy it is
Because I believe that even with Democracy's problems, separation of powers and guaranteed rights ala the Bill of Rights is a fundamentally fantastic idea.
I mean, I guess you could add a king on top of that and call it a constitutional monarchy, but is it really a monarchy?
I'm orleanist. Fuck Bourbons.
Monarchism is the only correct conclusion of genuine liberalism.
Democracy is hurtful to liberty and private property rights
>>380812
>Falling for 2000 year old propaganda
>ISHYGDDT
