>2016
>not finally accepting that monarchism is the only practical, although by no means perfect, form of government.
Good luck getting that working now
>>69720765
the current democratic republican structure is unsustainable in the long term
>>69720702
I like UK desu
>>69720765
You already have a king dummy
Monarchy is the best form of government, however in the modern day to re-establish one to it's former glory you would need a crisis akin to that of the depression pre WW2 in Germany.
A nation is like a family, without a father how are it's children expected to be successful?
>>69721151
COM
>>69721501
PLACENT
>>69720702
>tfw he will never be king
>>69721151
>you'll never fight in the Loyalist army alongside people of many faiths, creeds and ethnicities in defense of liberty and justice under the rule of his majesty king George III against those patriots
Here is a map of Cascadia, which I am quite sure many of you are familiar with at this point, a bit over extended, will upload another map which is related.
Yeah enjoy your degenarate and retards.
>>69721712
This is Nootka territory, it was land "claimed" by Spain, I only reference it however because it did take into consideration geographic borders and such.
The purpose for which I introduce these maps is in hopes of a monarchy, but the establishment of a proper monarchy, not from Europe, but from North America itself.
Cascadia shall bring itself legitimacy and provide an example to follow in abolishing democracy in the west.
>>69722031
It didn't upload for some reason.
>someone was telling me to vote yesterday
>"people died for that right, anon!"
>answer "yes, you're right. people died so that the british monarchy couldn't impose a teensy weensy tax on tea... oh, that didn't work out in the long run, did it?"
>>69721151
Queens should have no power at all, giving a woman who's thought process is already irrational control over a country is retarded.
>>69722135
>>69722213
Queens are okay as long as they subject to a more powerful male leader. For example, a protectorate that is governed by a Queen in the absence of a competent male leader but ultimately swears loyalty to and emperor by whose grace she governs her own limited sphere.
![_75245196_felipenewgetty[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/0rCTNC4.jpg "_75245196_felipenewgetty[1].jpg")
>>69721955
>Not liking our own personal Assad and the royal cunny
s.m.h. fäm
>>69721688
Marco Rubio?
>>69722135
It disgusts me how far this entity that is the US federal government can so swiftly and without apology remove the liberties and personal freedoms once guaranteed by your founding fathers, but you know what they say.
Benjamin Franklin — 'It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority.'
What a time to live in, where individuals like these are insulted, deemed as lunatics, not protectors of freedom.
>>69722219
Probably even less than 1 to 2.5%, considering they were all deliberately dodged.
Just try doing that in Freedomland nowadays...
>>69722555
I see you yogi amigo.
>>69722820
>anarchism
I kinda like "anarcho-monarchism", basically combining the anarchist criticisms of authority in general and monarchist criticism of non-monarchical authority. I think any anarcho-capitalist should probably be more disposed to monarchy out of all forms of possible government.
>>69723261
Monarchy is just an outgrowth of the family, as Robert Filmer elucidated. Even in an anarchical state, we would still have families.
>>69722423
No a gay couple would make a better government than a straight one. Im no advocating for gayness but just saying that you cant trust the female mind at all.
>>69723261
Fucking anarchists. Anarcho-monarchism? I know for a fact you can not define that or come up with any plan for how it would actually work.
>>69722031
>The purpose for which I introduce these maps is in hopes of a monarchy, but the establishment of a proper monarchy, not from Europe, but from North America itself.
America doesn't really have a native aristocracy though that isn't just an extension of those from Europe or the Orient, unless you count the native american chiefdoms.
>>69723261
I understand what you're saying, but ultimately there must be a submission to authority, just like any healthy minded individual would respect their father (as long as he was a good father himself).
But I do agree that there must be the criticism of authority, in case of a clueless or tyrannical prince taking throne once he becomes of age.
The only problem that arises is toxic individuality. If there is too much criticism there will be a lack of submission.
It is like a child throwing a fit refusing to acknowledge the authority and wisdom of his father, thinking that his emotions are a better guide to life than many years of experience.
>>69723734
He was alluding more to mentality than anything, it is healthy to have a mind of your own, even when you pledge complete allegiance to the crown or your King.
>>69723261
>Anarchy can be combined with anything and it stays anarchy
This is why anarchists are retarded.
a leader has to do what is best for the people
in a monarchy a king can terrorize it's people and make decisions that can end up being terrible (forcing war of foreign soil, see charles the 12th)
in a national socialist system the government can do what is best for the people, and if the people disapproves it can change the leadership without drastically changing the political landscape (like the french revolution)
>>69723570
Ideally a Kings wife would have nothing to do with the administration of the government, she is only there to provide a healthy portrait for the ideal family and to support her husband in his decisions whether good or bad, Queen Victoria was a perfect example of this.
Pic related is Queen Victoria's view of Womens suffrage and desire for equal rights. Be warned I could not find a direct source for this quote but from reading many of her writings and studying her actions you would know these words align with what her beliefs were.
>>69723522
Good point.
>>69720702
A Roman Style Republic will always be superior to Monarchy.
>>69720702
>wanting your nation's leader to be an inbred child
absolutely pleb tier
>>69723756
The idea is to create something completely separate, this was the original intent by the founding fathers, it was original intent of the pioneers that sought out life anew.
Perhaps this is nothing more than false idealism, but the only way I see this happening is having a strong patriarchal leader who will help build tradition and identity.
If you were curious I am heavily supportive of the idea of secession, particularly of Cascadia. Not of the movement in it's current state, as it is filled with Marxists and empty minded liberals. I am trying to usurp the movement at this time.
>>69723734
>I know for a fact you can not define that or come up with any plan for how it would actually work.
It's basically anarcho-capitalism or syndicalism which favors monarchy above all possible forms of government. That is, the desire may be for anarchy in that sense of "I don't want anyone telling me what to do and want to be responsible for just myself and my own", but if there's any form of government that is most tolerable to the human condition, it is monarchy because like this kind of anarchist drive, it is the most "natural" form of government, as it is founded upon principles of individuality and family.
It's pretty much a form of philosophic anarchism that combines the ideas of critics of the French Revolution like Edmund Burke and Joseph De Maistre, the mutualist ideas of Proudhon, the libertarian capitalist ideals of Murray Rothbard, the anti-modernist rantings of the Unabomber, and the hipster contrarianism of Salvador Dali (who called himself both an anarchist and a monarchist and saw his art as sometimes expressing this dynamic on a philosophic level)
the way I kind of understand it is that it is referring mainly to a cooperation between these two forces (anarchy and monarchy) against collectivism, far leftism and extreme modernism in such a way that is most suitable to one's individual circumstances.
>>69724554
In a monarchy if the King becomes tyrannical or against the interests of the people, they kill him.
I am not against National Socialism one bit but lets say somehow Germany had won WW2 and then started to kill it's own citizens (this is extremely unlikely but follow my explanation), the German people would not have been able to rebel because of the loyalty of the SS to the fuhrer, not the volk.
pic unrelated.
>>69725434
Anarchy can't favor anything you potato as Anarchy means no government which means there is no ruling body to favor shit.
Monarchy is a form of government. Anarchy is the lack of one.
DO YOU SEE THE CONTRADICTION YOU POTATO!?!
>>69724814
That only happens when your entire royal family is larp tier and thinks they are related to Jesus Christ.
>>69720702
>BEING A FUCKING BOOTLICKER
>>69724688
This. A Republic with the provision for dictators to be appointed by the people in times of national emergency is the superior form of government.
>>69724982
>I am trying to usurp the movement at this time.
Northwest Front
Yeah, American white nationalists are way ahead of you there.
>>69720702
>>69725632
In an anarchy there are no laws and there is no order at all it would be humans doing whatever they want, basically current sub saharan Africa.
>>69720702
>An American monarchist
Lad, I'd hate to break it to you, but monarchies generally only work in ethnically homogeneous societies plus it being a historical symbol of nationalism and pride.
America was formed and shaped directly against that and is essentially a nation immigrants, all of whom, hold no nationalism or pride for the British Crown.
Don't get me wrong, monarchism can work elsewhere, like in Europe or loyal post-colonial nations like Canada- it's just it will never work in the United States for it's founding reasons, shared national values that have existed for near-centuries, and it's vast cultural differences and ethnic backrounds.
I do definitely support monarchist movements in Europe, though. Something was right when they were ruled by royalty at least partially.
>>69720702
>>69725895
Northwest Front is a honeypot and I'm half Asian :^)
>>69720702
Reminder that Orthodox Monarchy is the only government approved by the Lord.
>>69726016
Do you need to be given a strict set of rules for everything you do? Do you need government orders to tell you which groceries to buy, which friends to keep, which career to have, what you want out of life, or which sexual fetishes to enjoy? If not then I reckon your life must be complete chaos! How are you supposed to figure out how to live peacefully and independently without federal arms pointed at you constantly?!
>>69720702
>wanting hereditary rule
Like any non-idiot, I'm against democracy, but if you get a genetic inferior as a monarch, you're fucked.
>>69725632
But "anarcho-monarchists" seem to acknowledge the contradiction and usually quote Tolkien in this regard:
>My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning the abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs)—or to ‘unconstitutional’ Monarchy. I would arrest anybody who uses the word State (in any sense other than the inanimate real of England and its inhabitants, a thing that has neither power, rights nor mind); and after a chance of recantation, execute them if they remained obstinate! If we could go back to personal names, it would do a lot of good.
>The mediaevals were only too right in taking nolo episcopari (I don't want to be a bishop) as the best reason a man could give to others for making him a bishop. Grant me a king whose chief interest in life is stamps, railways, or race-horses; and who has the power to sack his Vizier (or whatever you dare call him) if he does not like the cut of his trousers. And so on down the line. But, of course, the fatal weakness of all that—after all only the fatal weakness of all good natural things in a bad corrupt unnatural world—is that it works and has only worked when all the world is messing along in the same good old inefficient human way
Tolkien came from a tradition of what has been called the "Tory Anarchists" who in principle supported the british crown but in many ways agreed with basic anarchist social ideas. Again, Anarcho-Monarchists in the same fashion can be seen as people who aren't saying that the two are the same, as communist anarchists might say about communism/anarchism, but that the two, despite some contradictions, are both better than any of their alternatives.
>>69720702
mfw when my parents were too closely related
>>69726957
encourage them to marry high IQ /fit/ people then.
>>69720702
Constitutional monarchy is probably the best form of government for humanity
>>69726957
What if you get genetic inferiors as the voting class, voting in genetic superiors against their own interests while they believe it is in their favor?
Sheep voting in either sheep or wolves. Not great either way.
>>69720702
any ideas to bring monarchy to my country again?
pic related:these are the descendants who getting raised in europe
>>69726583
>that pic
Pretty accurate tbqh, although socialism can be a road to the red pill as well(mussolini was a socialist before he was a fascist). Part of step 3 is knowing you took a wrong turn in step 2. Libertarians are the ultimate good boys.
limited suffrage + bill of right + cenate + hardcore lider
is the formula of the good government
>>69727150
This, if the despot is benevolent and enlightened. Frederick the Great is probably the best example of Plato's 'Philosopher King' to have ever come about.
>>69726696
Traditional Catholicism is best Christianity.
>>69720702
Monarchism is worse than mob rule and it's adherents are literally dumber then liberals
>>69726435
>Lad, I'd hate to break it to you, but monarchies generally only work in ethnically homogeneous societies plus it being a historical symbol of nationalism and pride.
Um, no. Monarchies existed before there was any real concept of nationalism and for the most part conservatives and nationalists were opposed because the nationalists believed that national identity was what was important and transcended class divisions. Monarchies were mainly justified by way of aristocratic privilege and appeal to religion and monarchs' domains extended as far and over as many diverse peoples as they could either conquer or secure an oath of loyalty from.
>>69726798
Most people do yes. Freedom is a stallion not many can handle (n-no homo).
>>69727203
Their interests don't matter, obviously. The average person in a monarchy should only exist to enable the elite to do great things.
But a genetically inferior monarch who rules poorly might destroy the country and incite a revolution that brings about democracy or something worse.
>>69726957
Maybe the citizens should do a vote of who your first son marries, would be top bantz.
You obviously wouldn't use her eggs, meaning she would be a surrogate, but it would definitely appease the majority.
>>69727345
>cenate
What?
![Ayşe-Gülnev-Osmanoğlu-Issue[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/Sss8hto.jpg "Ayşe-Gülnev-Osmanoğlu-Issue[1].jpg")
>>69727227
fuck wrong pic
anyway democracy was mistake, and Atatürk was kinda dun gofd by abolishing the monarchy now we need it back more than ever
>>69727611
>turks
I don't believe it. They look Germa--!
Carry on, Mehmet.
>>69727567
Most citizens should not vote at all, even in a democracy. 95% of citizens are not smart enough to make decisions that affect the country, and will only act to undermine the ruling class. An IQ test should be required for voting.
>>69727402
>Traditional Catholicism
Too bad that's basically not even a thing anymore. You would have had an argument 50 years ago maybe. Orthodoxy is the true faith, Monarchy is the true government.
>>69727150
>>69727350
The problem for you guys, is that sovereignty cannot be restrained or shattered.
Checks and balances are historically complete failures. Written constitutions are jokes. The only thing that can restrain the Monarch is custom. It was the one thing not even Alexander the Great could go up against, and he was worshiped as a god in his time.
OP is right. Everyone should agree with him
>>69720702
George III was an useful idiot of the Jesuits married to a mulatto.
Let that last word ferment in your thought process for a moment.
>>69727350
Despot usually has a negative connotation and doesn't fit well in the context, autocrat would be a better choice.
Indeed, I too admire Frederick the Great
>>69727753
Yeah I was shitposting, nobody should be allowed to vote.
Honestly I think what would be best is having something similar to the Roman Republic but modified to be a monarchy, ie: a group of "advisors" (this would be the senate) that make decisions for the state but ultimately the King has the final say as a fail safe. Rule by aristocracy can be quite successful.
Not to mention if something terrible happens, a King can blame it on an advisor and kill him in public as punishment.
>>69727722
iirc their Father is English businessman and their mother is came from Ottoman royal family
also it seems they did matrilineal marriage since kids keeps their mother's surname
>>69728107
I don't think heir to the thrones can come from mothers lineage.
>>69727829
SSPX.
>>69727482
>The average person in a monarchy should only exist to enable the elite to do great things
Then what is wrong with our current system? The elite are pretty fucking well-off lately, don't you think? Most people either don't know they're slaves or they don't care. Furthermore, do you support globalist visions like the NWO?
Lastly, if the elite are supposed to do great things then why don't they do things like try to enlighten their fellow man? Set us dumb fucks on the right course by teaching us the greatest truths slowly and not, you know, using us up like ragdolls and killing us?
Also, today's elite are causing the annihilation of white people worldwide. Should we just get on board with our most worshipful masters already?
![Ayşe-Gülnev-Osmanoğlu[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/UKKaFwz.jpg "Ayşe-Gülnev-Osmanoğlu[1].jpg")
>>69727722
>>69727611
oh and their names are (from left to right)
Prince Lysander Cengiz, Princess Tatyana Aliye, Prince Maximilian Ali, Prince Ferdinand Ziya, Prince Cosmo Tarik
and pic related is their mother (Ayşe Gülnev Osmanoğlu)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osmano%C4%9Flu_family
>>69728408
Those are some fucking ugly names.
>>69728209
technically her kids are eligible for throne since they born into Ottoman Dynasty
>>69728397
They might vote in someone who tries to change the current state of affairs, and they demand too many concessions from the elite, who have already been far too kind to them.
The common man is too dumb to be enlightened because of inferior genetics. In an ideal society, breeding below a certain IQ threshold would not be allowed, and robots would occupy most jobs until people only capable of labor are bred out of existence.
>>69728468
what, i liked the Maximillian Ali and Ferdinand Ziya one
>>69727978
>George III was a Jesuit puppet
Protestants actually believe this.
>>69728614
Mixing European names with Arab/Turk names. Ew.
>>69728309
Only a matter of time before they go full schism. And schisms are never good. Besides, there are other Roman heresies besides Vatican 2, so SSPX isn't really doing themselves by being stuck in 1962.
>>69728397
No national heritage, no pride, everyone depressed and victims of ethnic violence. Literally no hope. You have to give people hope and solitdarity, shit even a jew knows not to kick a capital producing agent when they are down otherwise production goes down.
>>69728713
iirc mixing name was pretty common in aristocracy
lets say Maximillian Ali becomes monarch
he will be known as "Maximillian I" in west, while "1.Ali" in the east
>>69727227
There are three steps I think to restoring monarchical domination in the Middle East and other Islamic countries that have been historically monarchical:
1. The restoration of traditional, folk forms of Islam against the tide of fundamentalism, which is itself a vehicle for the modernist values that, at least in the Muslim context, are very anti-monarchical
Islamic fundamentalism is often characterized by a very technologically modernist, pro-"democratic" and anti-monarchist ideology that draws probably much more from Vladmir Lenin than it does the prophet Muhammad ibn Abdullah. Read Sayid Qutb when he talks about creating a classless, stateless Muslim society created by a vanguard of pious mujahideen. It hardly sounds like something any Muslim thinker in Ottoman Turkey during the 1600's would have agreed with. And even in Saudi Arabia, the biggest threat to the Saudi royal family are the very Wahhabis they're patronizing, which is why they send them to destroy other countries like Syria.
2. Those Muslim monarchs in exile should realize that secularism and democracy are antithetical to all forms of Abrahamic religion and are anti-monarchical in essence and that any form of monarchy that excessively indulges in such things will shoot itself in the foot sooner or later. This is what happened in both Iran and Turkey. The start of the fall of monarchy in these regions began not with the Young Turks and the Revolution of 79. It started with the Tanzimat reforms and the Constitutionalist Revolution
3. Muslim monarchs in exile should at least try to put on a superficial show of being traditional Muslim monarchs. By that I mean, they should realize that a Muslim monarch does not wear a "crown" but a "turban". Iran's monarchy is a good example of how one monarch can't dress like a European king and expect to undo 1200 years of Islamization, upon which all monarchs before him depended to justify their rule over a people who were 90% Muslim.
>>69729198
You Turks long to be European yet make yourselves the enemies of Europe.
Cunts.
>>69727611
One in the middle looks very regal.
>>69726435
The Habsburgs ruled over many nations over many centuries. Nation states weren't really a thing before the 19th century.
>>69720702
>a guy's son is going to be just as good as him
>>69729496
Electoral monarchy it is.
>>69720702
>2016
>Not facing the fact that Fascism or Statism is the only practical form of government.
>>69723261
>anarcho-monarchism
>>69726798
I dont but you seem to forget the majority of humans need people to tell them what to do or they come completely feral, all the pedos here would kidnapping kiddies and raping them even though this ruins the order in society.
The point of governance is to provide order and structure in the tribe really, your family is an example of government, the mom and dad provide structure and order to your life without them you are a wild card.
Do humans need governments to function?
HELL YES.
>>69724814
Monarchs are bred from clever people who are born to lead and in some cases ordained by the Pope and by extension God to lead.
Daily reminder that "the people" you republicans are so fond of are pretty much fags, jews and women who have no grasp on the art of statesmanship. Leave ruling to your betters.
>>69728608
>and they demand too many concessions from the elite, who have already been far too kind to them
You're saying today's elite have been far too kind to the general public? Care to elaborate?
> In an ideal society, breeding below a certain IQ threshold would not be allowed
That's ideal? The selfish, short-sighted, and ethically impoverished elite getting control over who can and cannot breed? I can't see that going wrong at all.
When you say "ideal", don't just assume I know what make up your ideals. A completely different picture comes to mind for me, one in which low IQ people can live freely without bothering high IQ people because there is no monopoly on law to be manipulated by any social class and private property is the supreme law of the land.
>>69729219
Basically, in short my Turk friend, you will not be able to restore the Ottoman Empire until you restore "Ottoman Islam"
>>69729761
That poor human being.
>>69729907
Also destroy world Jewry.
>>69730002
Because Israel will need to be destroyed.
>>69729674
thats better
>>69729812
Yes. They've agreed to things like shorter work days, health care, and so on, to stave off a violent revolution. The welfare state allows poor people to survive and keep breeding, which is bad.
>>69728397
The problem with democracy is that it preys on the human mob mentality, you have political parties creating propaganda in the media to slowly condition idiots into voting for them all the time. Its not about the best interest of the country its all about how they cater to the idiots to get their votes.
This was a great thread and I enjoyed it thoroughly, thanks everyone.
>>69729766
If I were in a post-apocalyptic scenario with my children and someone tried to rape them I would shoot them. I imagine my friends would too, without any laws and without saying a word.
Unless you fancy yourself highly above-average by your own standards (and I'm certain you do), or you are not human, then you'd have to apply all of that shit you said about humans to yourself as well - meaning you need the government to tell you what to do in order to be okay. Is that so? If not, what makes you so special? How do you know most others don't have the same abilities to make choices as you do?
Furthermore, do you really think the law is what stops most people from killing their kids when they misbehave or from beating strangers in the streets? Perhaps fear of retaliation from other non-government forces plays a role in keeping people in check. Perhaps love does as well.
"Good people do not need laws to behave ethically and bad people will always find a way around the laws" - Aristotle
>>69730230
They try to stave off revolutions as an act of kindness? Lol
>>69730400
Morals are evolution's way to keep humans civilized, I dont need to read something is bad to know its bad but most morons who cant regulate their animal impulses need to.
>>69730268
You're right. That's why I am an anarchist.
>>69730504
Do you have mastery over your animal impulses?
What are some essential /mon/ime?
pic related
>>69730500
So that the monarchy isn't destroyed by the moronic masses. Also, where did you get the idea that the monarchy should be kind to its people, in general? It should do just the minimum to keep them placated or terrified.
>>69730570
No because thats impossible, if one could do that they could stare at a naked women without ever becoming aroused at all if they are heterosexual and if they saw another human they would feel absolute nothing because there is an instinct in us that allows us recognize humans are special beings.
Now I do have great self control as I have no criminal record.
I am an atheist but I realize that christianity is needed to keep idiots from acting like wild animals.
>>69730754
Monarchy is essential private government, as to opposite of democratic government which suffers from the tragedy of the commons.
The capitalist restaurant works for the benefit of the owner, the communist for the benefit of the people. But what matters is which one has the best food.
>>69720702
>not consulate technocratic fascism
Monarchs are faggots.
Democracy lets the jews take over.
Regular technocracy is jewish heaven.
Facism causes rebellion.
>>69730754
I believe in absolute truth, which means I believe in absolute morality by extension. That being the case, my opinion is that one's ethical development is incomplete until they can learn to respect every type of person and to put the future of all of humanity before their own narrow, illusory interests.
That doesn't mean egalitarianism, it means altruism - the building block of Western civilization. Those with power should seek to lead, not simply rule. Otherwise, their reign is a pointless sham and I see no reason to respect their authority masquerading as sovereignty.
>>69730809
I bet you have a very limited scope of knowledge about theology, human psychology, and politics.
>>69731306
Yes
>>69731451
I appreciate your honesty.
>>69729907
>"Ottoman Islam"
closest party to Ottoman Islam is Meral Akşener from MHP
also Tanzimat reforms were kinda necessary since Empire was really backward during that time
however in 1908 Empire was able to get back to its feet but then italo turkish and balkan wars happened
>>69730531
I would say I support some "anarchy" within the context of a largely monarchical society, in the same way that I'm not opposed to a "republic" in the sense of the aristocratic republics of ancient greece or the Italian merchant cities, so long as of course such republics ultimately swear loyalty to a crown and never once fancy themselves totally unanswerable to kingly authority
I would support "anarchy" in the context of maybe a frontier region that is inhabited by nomadic tribes who live in a relatively symbiotic relationship with more settled peoples, or maybe giving a very extreme form of local autonomy to peasant villages who manage their own affairs in a kind of anarcho-syndicalist fashion. Ideally, the peasants should never once have to see anyone directly associated with the royal family nor should they ever see a tax collector wearing the insignia of the royal house itself, that they should never feel afraid of their king, but the nobility should ALWAYS be afraid of their king. the way I see it, the peasants deserve more freedom than nobility. Anytime the nobility of a country gets an inch, they take a mile. Peasants are often content with what little they can get and will not do anything to jeopardize their freedom or financial security, unless the nobility or the merchants somehow tricks them.
>>69727611
They look that way from all the beautiful blonde concubines the Sultans had, right?
>>69732232
actually mother is turkish and father is brit
>>69724554
>implying that charles XII was the aggressor
>>69731871
>closest party to Ottoman Islam is Meral Akşener from MHP
There's the Naqshbandi as well
>also Tanzimat reforms were kinda necessary since Empire was really backward during that time
Whether the Tanzimat reforms were necessary evils at the time doesn't change the fact that they were evils with regards to the health and vitality of the Ottoman monarchy. If there's a reason the Ottomans needed the reforms in order to "progress" it was due to the pressure of a rapidly modernizing West, but of course, had the West not fallen for the satanic beauty of modernism itself, the Ottomans and many other dynasties of the East, including those outside the Islamic world such as Russia, Japan, China, etc could have afforded to remain a little "backward" for longer. Ultimately, I think the rejection of modernism needed for the restoration of world monarchism involves shaking off these mental ghosts of "progress" and "backwardness". This I don't think means a rejection of science and technology per se, but a rejection of the modernist paradigm
>>69731003
this, to be honest senpai
Yes. Long live the King.
>>69735944
What is the Swedish king like? Does he have any public presence at all or do the socialists throw a hissy fit when he does?
also, for all those interested, here are a couple good monarchist blogs:
http://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/
http://anarcho-monarchism.com/
http://royaltymonarchy.blogspot.com/
>>69736043
The king himself is a bit... odd. There has been a few scandals etc and he is suffering from dyslexia which doesnt make him the greatest speaker. However the king and our monarchy is actually liked even by most of the people, even the blue pill faggots. There are so many strong arguments for our monarchy both economical (we have a cheap monarchy) but also democratic ones. And the fact that our monarchy is a thousand year old tradition is something most value. The fact that none of the royals has any official power makes most liberals and socialists dont really care.
>>69737619
>There has been a few scandals
like?
>>69738236
Photos of him being at a strip club (not confirmed though, I think its just media hype) connections to the maffia and a few other small stuff such as not very though through sayings. Not the whole world but since he is our king and head of state is big stuff. Also the media loves writing about royals.
But at the same time he is doing a great job representing Sweden and he is a funny and clever guy. He is important and valuable to our kingdom.
>>69720702
Monarchy is an outdated iteration of the type of government you want. In order to work properly in requires a form of social structure that not only no longer exists, but is not optimal. The modern version would be military rule.
>>69720702
Constitutional monarch/replacement for a monarchy like the US president is the best form of government as proven by history.
>>69722213
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_I_of_Denmark
I beg to differ you fucking pleb.
>mfw based Margaret the first put the whole of Scandinavia under Danish control
>mfw Margaret the Second rules Denmark as we speak (direct descendant)
New Joisey is named after us because of our loyalty to the King
anyone who isnt a monarchist is a leftist to me.
>>69726696
I'm not sure if I'm a fan of Caesar-Papism, but if it works for Orthodox, it's not my place to tell them they shouldn't have it
>>69739183
Military dictatorship and monarchy are kind of like apples and oranges. A monarchy can exist without much military at all, as it rests solely on the mutual acceptance of the monarch's privilege. The amount of military characteristic of many republican governments today would be shocking to many monarchs of the past who mostly relied on a more private reserve of troops and limited conscription. When people are inclined to accept that God has given you authority over them, you don't really have that much need for huge militaries or police institutions as people will be likely to marginalize anyone who doesn't share to some degree in the love or respect given to the royal family. Military dictatorships don't rely on privilege but on brute force and must be ever wary of someone else with more military power and influence deposing them. It is true that many monarchies arose out of military orders, but the difference is that monarchs, whether military men or not, relied on recognition of divine right and aristocratic honors as well as tribal custom, while military dictators usually have to rely so much on military strength alone because they are not normally of such rank and status that could justify their power any other way. A man of noble blood doesn't need a huge military to justify being ruler over those of lesser status than himself, but a pleb who is jealous of the nobles' privilege certainly does
>>69739901
A man could have done better.
Did the yanks just say they want a monarchy?
will be right over chaps!
>>69740540
Pls save us, Britannia, we're sorry
>>69740325
nope. Women are generally inferior to men but royalty tend to even out.
A Queen is a regent of royal blood. It matters not what genitalia she was born with.
but an uncultured sweine like you would never understand that.
>>69740154
You are focusing entirely on Monarchy after the point that it's failure was assured. The Monarch is the head of the nobility and the nobility is the military class of society. The heavily armed knights, skilled warriors, and military commanders come from the nobility, and are augmented by larger numbers of conscripts. Divine right was a concept invented to justify the continued existence of the social order after it had fallen apart, caused by technology's advances enabling standing armies of professional soldiers a practicality, and driving the nobility from the field. The reason Napoleon was so well loved is because of the fact that he was something of a return to that form of social order, following the failed monarchy. The military is not used to quell the populace but defend them. The majority of modern military dictatorships have essentially been power grabs, but that does not mean that a military dictatorship must necessarily be antagonistic and brutal to its own populace.
>>69740707
what?! we was relying on you guys to save us lol
trump and brexit is when we turn the tide,hopefully things will start looking up
>>69740881
please England, show the way to crash the union with no survivors.
>Brexit NOW
>>69721712
you're a retard, all of the cascadiards are jeffersonian democrats
>>69733731
Man if only we kept the caliphate
Middle east would such better place now
Soon
Also objectively best king here
>>69722820
not an argument
>>69722820
>Communism
>even ok
>>69724586
you realise Queen Victoria was the sovereign right? In Britain a non-Brit cannot be the monarch. her husband Albert was a prince not a king. she was the one calling the shots not just sitting for portraits. like today Queen Elizabeth II is in charge not Prince Philip her husband.
>>69724688
yeah that worked out well, wasn't repeated civil wars or anything. the roman empire was its strongest under an emperor. all the senate did was bitch and scheme and stab each other.
>>69740819
>The reason Napoleon was so well loved is because of the fact that he was something of a return to that form of social order, following the failed monarchy.
You're forgetting that that failed monarchy lasted far longer than the revolutionary republic managed to before it was replaced by another (albeit less traditional) monarchy.
>that does not mean that a military dictatorship must necessarily be antagonistic and brutal to its own populace.
what I was pointing out though was that military dictatorships today rely far more on force than even absolute monarchies, because they depend far less on the traditional means of justifying rule. Syria is far more a military dictatorship than the Napoleonic Empire was. A king may be a kind of military leader, but a military dictatorship is not a monarchy proper and quite often military dictators are more likely to style themselves as "democratic leaders" whose authority is based on the consent of the people of their respective nation. Napoleon himself probably limited his own power by declaring himself emperor, as it opened himself up more to censure. Beethoven dedicated a symphony to him, and then scratched out Napoleon's name immediately after Napoleon declared himself emperor and ceased to be a "champion of liberty," but technically Napoleon didn't wield much more power as "emperor" as he already had before then, but as soon as a military ruler declares himself king, everybody becomes suspicious of his motivations and his power becomes limited, which is why you'll notice military dictators would rather be just "president" or "leader" than king. Probably the first rule of being a good modern dictator is never call yourself king, and you'll have more power than any king ever dreamed of.
>>69722820
Anarcho-capitalism is pretty much monarchism, just with modern business practices and economic theory.
Any successful future for the West is going to resemble a blend between capitalism and traditional monarchism.
>>69724554
>there could have been a peaceful transfer of power in totalitarian Germany
Stormfags get out, please. Maybe Goebells could have taken over, but another transfer and it would have been mayhem. The problem with you fascists faggots is you believe that everyone will have the exact same opinion in your little utopia.
This may shock you, but the leftist cancer also believes they are doing "what's best for the state."
>>69744056
Which is probably why the infant anarcho-monarchist movement is probably the most logical end of anarcho-capitalism, unless you're an atheist
>>69744133
Goebbels was actually chancellor for one day.
>>69726435
that's a rose tinted view of why America revolution happened. I'm not surprised I'm sure its taught that way in your schools.
but america was not formed because a diverse population held no loyalty to a monarch, as the several thousand American loyalists who fought can attest, the revolution was driven by the greed of the merchant class and them riling up the people over imagined tyranny.
the best bit? the tea tax was a fraction of what British citizens paid and it was raised to pay for the seven years war that was waged to protect americans from the French and Spanish.
>>69744204
>>69744056
Why bother with the "anarcho-" part?
What distinguishes "anarcho-monarchism" from regular monarchism, that makes it substantially better?
>>69729674
>>69729674
>>69730183
>60 years of Obama
>>69720702
/servile-cuck/ general
>>69741809
There are some other alternatives for Muslim monarchists I think
1. You could try converting members of established Western dynasties
or
2. You could try setting up micro-monarchies among either migrant or convert communities
but I doubt any of these could successfully acquire what is needed to take the title of "caliph"
>>69740154
>I'm not sure if I'm a fan of Caesar-Papism, but if it works for Orthodox
That's not what it is, look at the Byzantine flag
>>69728209
they can provided the father is of a different nationality. Look at the British monarchy Prince Charles gets his right to the throne through Queen Elizabeth II not from Prince Philip (whos greek)
![march-2004 [1600x1200].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/8Joetlq.jpg "march-2004 [1600x1200].jpg")
>>69744204
I want to say something about Tolkein on that note about anarcho-monarchism.
Tolkein was based as fuck. His mythological platform has been spread throughout the world and serves as the thematic and aesthetic structure for a huge portion of media consumed by the newer generations.
It isn't entirely insane to suggest that pol's rebellion against modernity is informed largely by the Tolkein mythology and it's derivatives like the warhammer 40k universe.
It's a theory I've had for a while that basically the modern western world is mythologically empty and the Tolkeinite derivatives are basically serving a therapeutic purpose for many young men in the west.
It's more than just nerds being nerds, I think it is a deeper and socially significant dynamic.
>>69720702
I agree a lot with this. I way to easy to kill a king, yet, not to kill the entire senate if you need a change.
Democracy is just not working and i dont believe it would work ever.
But when you talk about monarchy everyone start screaming "Muh freedoms" and shit.
England is the only good monarchy in the world and they are fine as you can get.
positive most of you people shilling Dictatorship and Facisim would not last a fucking day in that system
>>69721688
>tfw he is the Grandson of Franco
Carry on his bloodline, France. Do it.
>>69739492
citation needed
>>69744056
>Anarcho-capitalism is pretty much monarchism
this
>>69743468
William and Mary are the counter-example.
>>69727578
Senate
>>69744426
Looking at the website www.anarcho-monarchism.com, the owner of that site has posted quite a bit about his own interpretation of the term:
http://anarcho-monarchism.com/2012/06/07/anarchomonarchism/
By his own admission though, he confesses that he has encountered several definitions of the term. From what I understand, anarcho-monarchism is not a full fledged system (yet) with anyone who yet has any real authority to define it for others, but rather seems to be mostly a set of philosophical positions of certain members of the "right-wing anarchist" communities of a libertarian and/or romanticist persuasion who seem to interested in exploring how an individualistic form of anarchism, coupled with socially conservative values, might be compatible with certain forms of monarchy or who simply feel like "if I can't live in a monarchy, I'd rather live in anarchy, democracy can take a hike" What specifics are involved in either of these approaches seems to vary depending on who you're talking to, though a common preference for free markets, respect for private property and the importance of religious and romantic values seem to be shared by all of them.
its all great when you have a good king but youre fucked if you have a shitty one.
>>69740786
Male primogeniture is best primogeniture though.
>>69721688
An Emperor would be better.
>>69724688
>400 years of corruption
>200 years of civil war
>2 dictators for life
>eventually abolished because of its inadequacy
>>69720702
if it was then it wouldn't have failed
>>69741873
a united Anglosphere, maybe then we could drive out the degeneracy.
>>69748331
Uh no you can stay away
God Save The Queen.
A like Monarchism :3
but always with complemented with a democracy
>>69720702
Renounce citizenship, Torey.
>>69746524
William of orange? that's a little different since they were changing the monarch to kick the catholics off the throne. Mary was the tie to legitimacy since she was James (the king they supplanted) daughter. in a continuing dynasty it works the way I described. Anyway they were co-monarchs until she died
>>69748385
alright Quebec settle down. Queen Elizabeth II is your head of state even if you are a smelly Frenchman in disguise.
>>69747661
People who repeat that have not read a single book regarding this topic.
You're thinking of a despotic state. As defined by Montesquieu, a monarchy has fundamental laws ("constitution") and intermediate powers (ex. nobility, independent magistracy, local democracy, trade guilds, etc) all of those limiting the damage a "bad" king could do.
Good systems are ones that have counter powers. If sovereignty holders (be it a single individual - monarch - or an elected group of people) can do what they want at whim, then it's a despotic state.
Relevant
>>69745413
I don't think it's just Tolkien, you could say that about a lot of forms of fictional myths.
What we need to understand is is that while fiction always existed in every society at every period, the sheer dominance of fictional stories and characters in our lives today, whether it's the work of Tolkien or anime is something unprecedented at other points in history. Sure, you had fictional campfire stories to warn children to be good and books of poetry and fictional novels which expressed political or religious beliefs, but the rise of fiction to the point where you will probably find more people who know more about Star Wars lore or Game of Thrones or Tolkienverse stuff than say the Bible is something that doesn't really have that much precedent in any other period. The closest would probably be the latter days of ancient Greece when the hold of religion began to wane.
But really, people throughout most of history didn't need to live vicariously through fictional mythologies that merely imitated the "real" myths they believed in. If fiction existed, it existed mostly as a compliment to it, a means of further illustrating truths to be found in those "real" myths for those who maybe didn't get it the first time.
And I think that while there are many young fedora tippers who love Dawkins and hate religion, these Magic the Gathering playing "nerds" probably do deep down wish they lived in a world where all these mythical creatures, gods and spirits were real. Men in the days of yore generally believed they did live in such a world and so had less need for fictional myths to fill that void. And I also think that no matter how much a fedora tipping reddit-tier atheist you are, that kind of worldview probably does generate a feeling that man is very much "alone" in the universe for all practical purposes. Sure, there are plenty who believe in aliens, but UFOlogy has really become a new mythology itself.
>2016
>thinking monarchism is better than dictatorship
Kill yourself, the heir should not be the muppet son of a muppet father, but rather an appointed competent dictator by the pre-existing appointed dictator.
Of course what I describe will fall within centuries at most, even if the original and truly unquestionable dictator takes very countermeasure to prevent it, because eventually the order of power will return to an incompetent dictator who makes poor and outright unconstitutional decisions from the perspective of the first and true dictator.
The first dictator will seize power by his own hand naturally, and not be appointed, if he is good he will rule the country to the greatest reaches it has ever reached, if he is bad he will just be another stupid dictator.
>>69720702
Monarchism is good, but dictatorship is better, the roman republic was better than the roman empire
>>69749572
"if someone is good at something they'll be great at it, if someone is bad at something they are bad at it"
wew lad
*Tips fedora you fucking virgins
>>69722135
You do know that the UK at that time wasn't really a true monarchy right? It was more of a democratic hybrid.
>>69749866
That's exactly my point you retard, you can't have a good civilization without impossibly unlikely events taking place for it to happen.
>>69750256
its called a constitutional monarchy.
>>69721508
radish?
>>69726798
My life is complete chaos.
>>69730400
Yes, that is how things used to be, then those same men that protected their children set up laws to govern the children of other men, and their own grandchildren if something went wrong, so that there would be no need for blood.
>>69750310
do you have a point? or do you just like spouting meaningless tautologies?
also there have been many great civilisations throughout history, coming about in a number of ways. "impossibly unlikely events" simply isn't true.
So what should the requirements for voting be?
In my opinion;
>23
>Citizen
>2 years of public service (Primarily military but civil service counts too)
>IQ above 100
>Have a net wealth above $0
>Paid income taxes in the last year
>An extremely basic questionnaire on the voting ballot which basically just asks questions about what you're voting on and If you fail It your vote is invalidated (Questions like Who is the leader of Party X and Y, what party is in power, Is [Policy] part of party X or party Y's platform. etc)
And I say this as someone who is not 23 and hasn't done 2 years of public service
>>69750730
If they were great they wouldn't end up in degeneracy like they always do. My point is obvious and meaningless indeed.
>>69750741
in my ideal world puberty is a sign of adulthood; 'children' would be fully employed so 16 or so
>>69748988
But William made all the command decisions and was a King in his own right just by being married to the Queen.
>>69750256
King George III's predecessors set certain precedents for the British crown, especially William of Orange who simply let everyone else do everything for him instead of bothering to learn English so he could run the country more himself.
The Patriots' victory didn't just affect them, it also influenced the course of development for Britain. Britain's monarchy itself would probably be a whole lot different today had they lost or had the revolution just never happened.
>>69750879
makes no mention of degeneracy.
suddenly conversation was about degeneracy all along
still doesn't change your idiotic tautology
nice try. you said something stupid, got called on it and are now desperately peddling bullshit.
>>69751321
all documents decrees etc had to be signed off by Mary also. until of course she died. so he wasn't really a normal king that held sole authority.
also explained by the whole supplanting previous king due to sectarianism. William and Mary are the exception not the rule.
>>69751669
What do you propose ruins socities? I skipped the middleman and just called it degeneracy for short, in addition I did not even defend any of my points so I wasn't desperately peddling anything. Why do you use the word tautology when it does not apply in any sense?
>>69750365
I think he refers to the parliament.
Monarchies always have "constitution" (laws that limit the power of sovereign), for example, laws that regulate how the crown is passed on, otherwise it's, by definition, a despotic state. For example, French Kingdom was never referred to as a "constitutional monarchy" but always had fundamental laws.
>>69749572
That's one of the main arguments for democracy though. Any leader has to be able to run a campaign, or build support within their party, so there's a minimum bound on their competence.
>>69720702
Democracy, the God that Failed
>>69752046
saying that something that is good is good and something that is bad is bad is a tautology dipshit.
the point you made was never about what does and does not ruin a civilisation you were promoting picked dictators over hereditary rule. but you made a fucking stupid statement. now youre flailing wildly to distract from the fact you sounded like an idiot.
>>69752136
I think this may be a problem with the term "absolutism" in general. Really, there is technically no such thing as an "absolute" monarchy in the sense of a monarch with wholly unrestricted authority as even if monarchies don't have an actual constitution limiting their authority, the monarchs quite often choose to limit themselves because it's more practical to do so. Also, even if there's nothing set in writing saying "the king can't do this," there are lines they know they should not cross. Not to mention that in societies that are religious, usually the "constitution" setting the limits of the king's authority are the central holy texts of that religion.
>>69752136
No its called a constitutional monarchy. that's the political system where there is a monarchy but the running of the country is handled by a parliament with a Prime Minister. that is true for any state where that situation exists its got nothing to do with constitutions its just what its called. France was never a constitutional monarchy all the kings were absolute monarchs. so France had whats called an absolute monarchy. Britain for example doesn't technically have a constitution but its still a constitutional monarchy.
>>69750741
What about student loans? People can go 100k+ in debt by the time they're out of school, but its an investment. Or would student debt not count towards that?
>>69752527
based Hoppe
>>69752908
What I originally said was that a dictator chosen by a dictator is superior to just giving ownership to the son of the ruler, I then went on to say that even this is unlikely to hold on for long and that it only works if the original dictator is inhuman in his qualities and morality.
You are again pushing a narrative that makes no sense, trying to impress onlookers no doubt, because it makes no sense otherwise.
>>69720702
FUEDALISM!
>>69753905
Ideally student loans wouldn't count, student loans would be issued by the Government with interest tied to inflation and you would only pay it back when you're earning money (This is how Australia does it), that being said I don't think student loans should be offered to humanities and arts subjects, you either get to those via scholarship or by paying up front
the perfect form of government is a theocracy
eventually we'll make something everyone can agree is close enough to god that we'll follow it without question and everyone will be happier for it.
>>69753324
Do you even know what the role of a constitution is? Explain to me how the fundamental laws of the kingdom of France are not the same thing as a constitution. (google translate: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lois_fondamentales_du_royaume_de_France)
Even at the height of "French absolutism", Louis XIV's testament was broken for it didn't respect fundamental laws (he tried to add an "illegitimate" son as a potential heir).
Tell me, what is an absolute monarch, according to your own definition?
>>69753965
So to speak.
>>69754450
what about theocratic monarchy?
>>69754123
>if he is good he will rule the country to the greatest reaches it has ever reached, if he is bad he will just be another stupid dictator.
I never made any remarks about your picked dictator theory. stop trying to change the issue of our debate. I referred to that statement you made. which is, despite your denials, an empty tautology.
>>69720702
A semi-powered autocrat that rules parallel to a semi-powered democratic Head of Government is best.
Long-term thinking and grand strategy alongside mass representation and division of powers.
Us in the Commonwealth pissed away our great setup by drinking the Yankee Koolaid and deciding nobody should have any power if they weren't chosen by a mob of tribalist special interest groups.
>>69754623
It's not tautology, it's a very simple statement I made as to say "of course my idea is useless if the dictator is useless", nothing more. It applies to a king too, a good king is of course good but it's less likely that his son is good which leads to instead appointing someone else dictator and not his son, the king would theoretically abolish monarchy in this scenario.
It's hard to avoid "changing the issue" when I hardly know what you're talking about half the time.
>>69754525
its not my definition. you realise there are laws in absolute monarchies right? its not like biblical times where the king literally had to do everything. the French monarchy was an absolute monarchy. that is how history and political science define it not me.
the point about the constitution is however irrelevant since it has nothing to do with determining what is and is not a constitutional monarchy. Most will have a constitution due to the fact that parliaments tend to make them but it isn't what determines it as such. Britain is an example as we don't actually have one yet we are a constitutional monarchy. I didn't come up with the terms so I'm sorry in the fact it has constitutional in the phrase confuses you.
>>69754820
So basically Constitutional Monarchy/Parliamentary Democracy
>>69755006
so a bad ruler will be bad. so a universal truth in formal logic. that is a tautology.
I never made any mention of your picked dictator theory in any post except to point out that I wasn't talking about it. I referred to and even quoted your stupidity. so I have to say if you couldn't figure out what I was talking about you are truly stupid.
>>69755081
You didn't even answer the question, you merely reiterated your assertion, using the same meaningless words you don't even understand yourself.
>>69755762
You're making arguments out of nothing. I literally just said that if the theoretical person is great, great!, if he isn't, sucks!, it's really not a big deal. It's still not tautology, me repeating myself in different words to re-word my original statement while you shout tautology is also not tautology.
>>69754587
he's pretty good defender of monarchy for being an an-cap
>>69755991
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_monarchy
look at number 1 on historical example.
>>69756163
I didn't make any arguments, I made fun of your stupid statement. you got butthurt and started an argument which by your own admittance you didn't understand what it was about. you are just very stupid. I don't mean that in a mean way but that is a tautology. that's the only point ive made and you've argued with me for ages about it without ever offering any assessment to why you think I'm wrong.
>>69757439
Your argument is "it's tautology", my argument is "it's not tautology". Your argument is "you're mad so my time was worth spending", my argument is "you wasted your time on this so my time was worth spending".
>>69757641
I never made any arguments. I just made fun of you. you got butthurt and started an argument. which you couldn't even decide what it was about and now youre just out and out denying the truth because you have nothing else. I even gave you a definition which your statement fitted perfectly and you just refuse to accept it. its like pointing to a dog and saying its a cat and just telling anyone who corrects you that theyre wrong without offering any supporting evidence to why you think the dog isn't a dog.
>>69758407
I'm pointing at a cat and calling at a cat, but for some reason you want to call it scat.
>>69759673
so you have literally run out of things to say.
what were you guys arguing about again?
>>69760463
Well you did make a couple of arguments, which makes one of your statements wrong. My initial statement was not tautology.
>>69762850
"if someone is good at something they'll be great at it, if someone is bad at something they are bad at it"
wew lad
that's my original post. no arguments are made. so actually my statement stands true.
and yes for like the fourth time you stated a universal truth in formal logic. that is a tautology no matter how butthurt you are.
>>69725580
>In a monarchy if the King becomes tyrannical or against the interests of the people, they kill him.
And if the military supports the tyrannical king? What if other powers are using the king to accomplish their own goals and refuse to support these actions? Charles II of Spain died of natural causes despite the fact that he was a mentally disabled cripple who was allowed to rule for 35 years. Caligula and Nero were able to rule Rome for 3 and 13 years respectively despite their tyranny.
There is a reason that uprisings against monarchs tend to end with the monarchs being executed, and there is a reason monarchism dies even when it is reinstated (see Spain and Bourbon France).
Why would anyone want to be a monarchist? Royalty are reptilians.
>>69723261
That's the biggest oxymoron I have ever fucking heard
>>69722820
I like the idea of Monarchies and I consider myself a monarchist but seeing how Belgium, Netherlands and UK are cucked beyond belief I think it's impossible for it to work now
>>69727150
Ya just look at the UK and how great it is
>>69763478
What you've described sounds more like a king being used by tyrants than a tyrannical king.
A lot of times, people started revolts under the pretense of liberating their king from the control of others (see the Peasant's Revolt in England which was not an anti-monarchy revolt but an anti-aristocratic revolt).
With revolts like the American & French Revolutions, the kings were pretty blameless at the end of the day and it was mainly parliament and the nobles being jerks and letting the king take the blame. The Americans for a long time, even up until the last years before Revolution, still saw themselves as loyal subjects of the crown, their main beef being with Parliament whom both the radicals and moderates blamed for much of their grievances. It was the lack of immediate aid from the king against Parliament that gave way for the radicals to gain support, but this can either be seen as impatience on the part of the colonists or negligence or inability on the part of King George, depending on your point of view, but many times when a king has been called a tyrant, he's been called so more often for not doing all people thought he could have done to end the tyranny of others, not so much for anything tyrannical he himself did. Genuine tyranny rarely occurs among monarchs and even what we normally call tyranny today for which we condemn the monarchs of old wasn't always considered tyranny by the majority of the people under his rule at the time.
>>69763478
>Charles II of Spain died of natural causes despite the fact that he was a mentally disabled cripple
Isn't it weird that the guy who supposedly was so frail he couldn't even attend school because of exhaustion participated extensively in hunting and shooting?
>>69764460
you couldn't be a king back then and not go on a hunt, it was like an unwritten rule.
>>69727066
Dylan Klebold?
>>69763946
Too bad she had her problem glasses on.
>>69720702
>having a king
the most cucked thing in human history, sometimes literally
>>69764836
>referencing something that only happened in 19th century romance novels.
>>69747283
>it's all worthless social signaling
Cool.
