![00034284[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/LsEYf6e.jpg "00034284[1].jpg")
Why were republics such a rarity in the past?
From Egypt to Japan, the vast majority of civilizations were led by a king or an emperor. Why was that?
The best and the noblest lead the countries of the past. Today the herd and the masses are in control called democracy a disease America is trying to spread
>>75058401
Because Monarchism is the natural form of government. Also the best.
Proof: Look at history, then look at us.
>>75058401
Because democracy is too easily subverted by outside powers or internally powerful merchants and warlords.
Because its easier to control Monarch than people.
You can use the Idol of Monarch to push your corporate agenda. And there comes the church as a tool to establish a hierarchy, which peasants cant escape.
The icon of Monarch is the tool of merchants. Nothing more.
>>75058401
>Why were republics such a rarity in the past?
Republics have always been quite common. They typically don't last more than few decades though. Monarchy is a more natural order with greater staying power.
>>75058401
>Why was that?
Most civilizations have been garbage
There's a reason everyone looks up to the Romans
>Inb4 muh empire babbys try and pretend The Republic wasn't the pinnacle of Roman history
>>75058707
>The best
No
>>75059221
>Soviet education
Top fucking lol.
>>75059525
>No
Yes. Absolutely. This is not opinion, but fact. If you want to see what a republic is, go look at Germany and laugh.
According to Plato you don't have to choose, you can have both (at the same time) and have the best of both systems and none of the negatives, although they never quite implemented it right...
Republics are often too patrician to handle.
A principate is probably the best of both worlds.
