[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k] [s4s] [vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/pol/ - Politically Incorrect



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: queen-victoria.jpg (31 KB, 564x423)
31 KB
31 KB JPG
People cannot be trusted to govern themselves and history has proven that. Monarchy unites the people by giving them a supreme leader to look up to and in turn the leader has incentive to do whats best for his or her loyal subjects. No farcical shames like elections and all that crap, just a simple king or queen who has the last word on everything. You know it makes sense.
>>
>>144379362
It isn't. Your kid could be a completely retarded psycho that shouldn't be in control of a microwave.
>>
Too bad it got btfo by every current political system
>>
EVERY PATH TO POWER IS JUSTIFIED
>>
>>144379507
Where as the current system ensures that the only people in power are disingenuous sociopaths who lie their way to the top.
>>
File: continental-colors.png (15 KB, 900x600)
15 KB
15 KB PNG
>>144379362
life's hard as a southerner who sympathizes with the monarchy. Still, king George would've cucked us out of manifest destiny.

I forget which king it was, but one of them said Americans were the "most English of the English" for revolting against the tyranny of a German king. Of course our leader at the time was a little shit and said "you can no longer call us brothers" or some stupid shit like that.

Feels bad man.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8E5WWX_40gs
>>
>>144380048
USA really should be balkanised with separate monarchies.
>>
File: king.jpg (1.37 MB, 1948x1093)
1.37 MB
1.37 MB JPG
>>144379507
its easier to raise a wise king than raise a wise citizenry.

trump is king material,he should have the throne of america but you keep up being a republicuck rather than take the monarchy pill.
>>
File: 1503329637174.jpg (96 KB, 513x669)
96 KB
96 KB JPG
>>144379362
Constitutional Monarchy with an adversarial Parliament committed to the national interest is better m8
>>
What's the most natural form of monarchy? Hoppean absolutist monarchy or the autistic Anglo version where we have a civil war every 70 years because our king's a faggot?

>>144380189
hnnnnnnnnnng we even have a king already

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jJf-p6RYvo
>>
>>144380193
>trump is king material
Dude, no. He's the lesser weevil, but he's still a petulant child which no good leadership qualities.
>>
>>144380189
it was in a way

east coast was WASP

middle america was native land and french

and the west was spanish

the wasp part conquered the savage part and also bought the french land in the louisiana purchase thus merging kingdoms just as wessex and mercia kickstarting "england"

and then they went to war on aztlan and won thus unifying all the realms and forming the usa
>>
>>144380326
>it was in a way
Yea, i mean that it should be divided again, rather than imposing the foreign tyranny of DC (overtly) onto peoples who really don't belong to it.
>>
>>144380300
hes getting shit done,has charisma,the dow jones is highest its ever been,even foreigners to the usa would take a bullet for him due to commanding such respect

he is king material,he is a champion of the people not just a president but a vassal pinned their future hopes and dreams on he is like some mythical hero who rose just when the world needed one in a dark time.

he is the new washington.
>>
>>144380290
>mfw we get to btfo roundheads every 70 years because they can't handle strong independent
>>
>>144380296
Hoppean absolutism
If the people want freedom, they'll have to fight for it!
The only rights that exist are the ones that you can protect, and unless they are backed with the guns of patriots, they are just ink on a paper
>>
File: Slug.png (583 KB, 1196x974)
583 KB
583 KB PNG
>>144379362
>flag
constitutional monarchy is best tBh, they give neat speeches at the end of the year and don't mess with the political side of the country, yet still have some semblance of authority
>>
>>144380477
damn drunk attention span

*can't handle independent subjects loyal to their king
>>
>>144379507
it only happens to goyim who let their kids watch tv all day and indulge in degeneracy
>>
File: 1498607133403.jpg (197 KB, 1600x1024)
197 KB
197 KB JPG
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMt8qCl5fPk

Nixon knew what he was doing

But in seriousness, a restrained tyranny is not that bad. I definitely like constitutional monarchy.
>>
>>144380477
You don't have much understanding of the English Civil War if you think that's how it went. Although, I wouldn't expect a burger to really comprehend the intricacies of European history.
>>
>>144380468
>hes getting shit done
He's not there by himself. There's the whole government doing thing. Crediting him with everything is as foolish as when liberals blame him for everything.
>has charisma
Arguable. He's mostly just rich and brash.
>he is king material,
He's too childish. Can never admit when he's wrong, and is just a stooge for other (((businessmen))).
>he is a champion of the people
Are you taking the piss? What people has he benefited?
>>
>>144379362
>being ruled by a bunch of inbreds of """noble blood""" who got in the position to rule trough no merit of their own.
No, thanks :^)
>>
>>144379362
Since I was born and realized I'd only have to off about 382 heirs to steal the big chair.
>>
>>144380730
>t. Prefers to have a jewish run popularity contest which they don't even have to listen to you about, but still tell you it's what you wanted
>>
File: IMG_4810.jpg (36 KB, 315x467)
36 KB
36 KB JPG
>>144379362
(((King David)))
>>
>>144379362
The strongest and most intelligent shall rule. Nature is the only king.
>>
>>144379362
false. warlordism or strongman dictatorship. basically any system where the leader has to work and struggle to take over leadership, but then has absolute power on behalf of his people once he achieves it
>>
>>144380559
1) I'm drunk
2) it's a meme
calm down egbert

>>144380730
>got in the position to rule trough no merit of their own
that's a plus my dude. The whole point is that they don't have to shill their own legitimacy or the legitimacy of their descendants, but instead can concentrate on the prosperity and general welfare of the nation as a whole, because not doing so will all but guarantee some sort of revolt in the future.

Things become much more sensitive when dealing with an empire and not just your own native territory.

>>144380961
kikes confirmed kangz
>>
>>144380193
you want king jared?
>>
File: jesus loves you.jpg (70 KB, 321x480)
70 KB
70 KB JPG
>>144380193
it really isn't, dumbass. your no-chin royal lines are even more inbred than my jew ass. therefore even a great monarch's line isn't likely to only regress to the mean but actually push it backwards
ffs a strict russian monarchy couldn't even beat a bunch of 5'4 jappie gooks whose emperor traditionally stayed out of politics and even that was over a century ago
>>
Too risky. I live in a monarchy, and some of the younger and lesser "royals" are totally degenerate.

In England, only chance put Harry second in line, otherwise the future queen would be an actual nigger.

Do you really want that ?
>>
When I read HHH
>>
File: palestine.gif (4 KB, 432x216)
4 KB
4 KB GIF
>>144381096
shut your mouth you filthy kike and never speak ill of the crown ever again!
>>
>>144380987
Traditional (Greek) Tyranny.

>>144381096
>inbred
That was never much of a concern (consanguinity laws), and is certainly not a problem any more.
>ffs a strict russian monarchy couldn't even beat a bunch of 5'4 jappie gooks
One shit army couldn't beat another. Shocker. They also got flogged by Finland, and you sure can't blame the monarch for that.
>>
File: 1488533465917.png (219 KB, 572x637)
219 KB
219 KB PNG
>>144381173
why not, you bellend fuck? when was the last time great britain was remotely great?
>>
>>144381303
The latter of those countries didn't exist when the first ones did. Awful meme.
>>
>>144381303
>when was the last time great britain was remotely great?
June 24th 2016. Maybe March 29th of this year. That' when it became great agan.
>>
>>144381303
you existence is owed to us,we stood against our own brothers for you,we liberated your land

if it was not for the british you would not exist,your ancestor would of eventually been shoahed by hitler and israel would never have existed without us

keep going kike.

also we never stopped being great,RULE BRITANNIA
>>
>>144380879
Nope m8 I didn't say that, I despise modern "democracy" as much as I despise monarchy
>>
>>144381510
It won't be great until the Thames overflows with the blood of saracens.
>>
File: currentempire1.jpg (168 KB, 782x476)
168 KB
168 KB JPG
>>144381635
and god save the queen!
>>
>>144379362
Monarchy isn't that bad, but it has its flaws.

PROS
>Leader has skin in the game, so incentive to do well
>Resistant to corrupting influences
>Decisive decision making
>Clear path of succession
>Screw up badly and you don't lose an election, you can lose your head

CONS
>Leader may be terrible or crazy with division of power or checks and balances to limit damage
>High chance of tyranny
>>
>>144381096
>it really isn't, dumbass

>tfw my country went from 90% White to literal near third world tier in 5 decades because "representatives" decided it was a good idea to literally replace the entire motherfucking population of my country.

Fuck democracy, fuck you, and fuck anything that separates a country's leaders from the men tied to the land. Blood and soil. Nothing else.
>>
>>144381681
What's your solution, then? And why hate monarchy? Just tall poppy syndrome?

>>144381738
The Thames is polluted enough. Shouldn't put more toxic waste in it.
>>
>>144379362
That thing can't be humanoid.
>>
File: 1507180157161.jpg (69 KB, 960x648)
69 KB
69 KB JPG
Democracy is bullshit because it allows the uneducated hordes to vote for what they perceive to be in their own personal interest. This results in the absolute raping of the public purse through welfare and the importation of debt free foreigners to try and turn their slave labor into pensions which is completely unsustainable and outright criminal to our future generations.

Monarchies can work so long as the king has both unlimited power and the unlimited responsibility that comes with it. They must allow their population to not only be fully armed but have unlimited free speech so that if their king doesn't act in the national interest they can be deposed and a new leader put in their place. If they're a good king and loved as a result they'll never have a thing to fear and in death their reign will become hereditary because the population will want avoid a power vacuum and the civil war that could result in trying to fill it.

Really though what we really need is national socialism the way Hitler envisioned it.
>>
>>144381954
she was the height of the empire,most powerful woman to ever exist.
>>
>>144381954
>Shittalking monarchs
Is this a game you really want to play, Habsburg?
>>
File: youre a traitor, brit.jpg (154 KB, 401x640)
154 KB
154 KB JPG
>>144381635
son, seeing you spout that garbage makes me cringe about as badly as you likely do when you see someone talking about how evil and genocidal the nazis were
we've started resettling here around 1880, when the sovereign here was the turkish sultan. even Tel Aviv gained a municipality status here at 1909
after world war 1 you actually used your mandate here to gain leverage among arab nations by repeatedly fucking us over.
your entire balfour shit decleration was a blatant lie, ffs you published the White Paper which outright banned jewish immigration into palestine at 1936 because the arabs demanded it and you thought they'd be better strategic allies against the germans because jews were few
as a result hitler was stuck with us, and since you didn't let us leave europe he had to find pther solutions. the irony is that you even banned jewish holding of handguns where arabs were literally raping and cutting down jews in hebron. whatever the muslim pakis do to you and your daughters, you fucking deserve fully
>>
File: et.jpg (72 KB, 663x597)
72 KB
72 KB JPG
>>144382117
not so nice being backstabbed eh?

sure muds are a problem here but its paradise compared to where you are,try and not get stabbed schlomo
>>
>People cannot be trusted to govern themselves and history has proven that.

Aside from a handful of situations throughout history people have not been able to govern themselves - remember when you chose to make Australia a multicultral paradise or choose which policies a political party actually implements?

> Monarchy unites the people by giving them a supreme leader to look up to

As does a theocracy, presidential republic or any system with even a hint of authoritarianism in it.

>the leader has incentive to do whats best for his or her loyal subjects

Was it in the best interest of the Russian loyal people to die in their millions to preserve the independence of foreigners or the subjugation of Manchuria?

A monarch is necessarily removed form their subjects by their opulent lifestyles and massive bureaucracies.

>No farcical shames like elections and all that crap, just a simple king or queen who has the last word on everything. You know it makes sense.

Except when you have to actually consider practicalities like -

-how would you implement this system for countries with no aristocracy or a country without an accepted one?

-The greatest stabiliser and garuntor of liberty under a monarchy was tradition; however tradition now gives that same benefit to republics, how then can we have stability and liberty without tradition?

-Where would the monarch derive their power from, what would prevent coups or subversion by the wealthy?

-How would you stop stealth cucks like Juan Carlos I from destroying the system.

ect.
>>
>>144379362
until the incest starts you mean?
>>
>>144382117
>where arabs were literally raping and cutting down jews in hebron
So are you Muslim or pretending to be Jewish?
Either way, clearly not a "chosen people."
Besides, isn't that how "your" people operated through all history?
>>
>>144382055
>uneducated hordes
I guess you consider yourself not to be part of those hordes right?
>>
>>144380559
In his defence the English Civil War was a pretty big cluster fuck even by Euro standards.
>>
>>144382486
>>
>>144382055
hear hear!
>>
File: ultimate jew defense.jpg (24 KB, 350x235)
24 KB
24 KB JPG
>>144382553
wut
jews were rapists? we sheared coins but never cared much for physical violence. not until 1947 anyway
>>
>>144379362
Monarchy works. Christianity doesn't.
>>
>>144382499
>-how would you implement this system for countries with no aristocracy or a country without an accepted one?
All countries have one. We just call them different things now. Or they could adapt naturally, per the rise of the king.
>-Where would the monarch derive their power from, what would prevent coups or subversion by the wealthy?
How could the wealthy subvert them? The monarch would have literally everything. The power is derived from the people. As always.

>>144382525
Why would it need to?

>>144382757
>jews were rapists?
Biblically, yes. But there were always cases of Jews abducting and murdering Christian children. Surely no one would be surprised if they weren't killed straight away.
>>
>>144379362
I thought so too until Nicolas II happened and half of the country was lost. At least he was there for people to assign personal responsibility to, a final merit of a failed system. With democratically elected leaders don't have this luxury.
>>
>>144382693
MOAR
>>
>>144382055
You sound extremely gay friendo
>>
>>144379362
Though certainly better than the current political system I prefer merit based dictatorship to ensure a mad/weak/tyrannical king isn't born into power.
>>
File: Templars Betrayed.jpg (356 KB, 952x956)
356 KB
356 KB JPG
>>144382863
yes yes we were just terrible. the templar were terrible too, which is why you blamed them for satanic worship, burned them at the stake and by sheer coincedence confiscated their enormous wealth. christians can certainly clain jews are sneakily cheating people out of their wealth, but that and 4th crusade shows that you have a history of straight out murdering and robbing them

anyways, how many cases of biblical jew rape you've seen?
not shitposting, genuinely curious. I can only recall one off the top of my head and even that was inside David's family which was judean
>>
I have a new respect for monarchy now that I see the church was a regulating force, and the monarch and church kept each other in check, and scripture was like the constitution.

Some new era version of hierarchical hereditary govt. would be vastly preferable to the shitshow we've had since pre WW1
>>
>>144379362
When will you realize that Royal in OP pic was most likely trans?
This person sold have been a man
>>
I bow to no man
>>
>>144379362
When I realized what leadership is.
It's something you can cultivate and that those without leadership can't recognize.

This means two things:
First, democracy cannot lead to the election of good leaders, since good leaders are not recognized by the electorate
Second, in a hereditary system, the heir can develop their leadership in preparation for the accession to the throne

There are also other problems with Democracy, for example, the fact that a true leader would not lie and cheat their way to victory, whereas a power hungry liar would, resulting in the election of many liars and no honest leaders.
>>
>>144383187
>the templar were terrible too, which is why you blamed them
That was just (((Phillip la Bel))). The church found them innocent of all crimes.
> that and 4th crusade
Which was caused by the (((Doge of Venice))).
> you have a history
Aye, two incidents is certainly on par with thousands of years of Jewish behaviour.
>anyways, how many cases of biblical jew rape you've seen?
Lol at the phrasing. Anyway, whenever a city was conquered, mostly.

>>144383433
You will.
>>
>>144380048
>>144380189
>USA split up into smaller monarchies but remaining in union similar to the Holy Roman Empire
>>
File: Neil_Armstrong.jpg (1.85 MB, 2340x2381)
1.85 MB
1.85 MB JPG
>>144382677
No sane man will ever conclude from any logical evidence presented before him that he is worthy of discerning noble from commoner. We leave that to the men lacking knowledge of one's own limits.

I suppose this is the same logic behind the "the only man worth ruling is the man who wishes not to"

>>144382685
ffs I'm drunk(drunker than before now xD) and was memeing. Pls do not defend my ramblings. Let them stand on their own. it was my fault for not putting a coherent argument for Bert(or is he Ernie? we may never know...) to attempt to disassemble without rendering his own mind useless sludge.

>>144383211
what is your opinion of the protestant reformation, as well what's your opinion on the great schism of 1054(roman catholic vs eastern orthodox schism)??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9I51JXpcLwk
>>
>>144379362
>what qualification does our leader have to run the country?
>ummmmm their mum did it lol?
>but what if he's actually really dumb?
>idk lol muh tradition
>no but seriously what if they fail?
>idk just have a bloody revolution that gets millions of people killed

yeah great idea and would really work in modern times
>>
the rule of cousins caused wwi
>>
>>144380504
>putting the powers of the executive branch into the hands of the legislature
fucking hell no

what you need is separation of powers and the executive lead by the king
>>
>>144382863
>All countries have one. We just call them different things now.

So these wise and enlightened characters of yours are going to be drawn from the ranks of the Bushes, Clintons and Reinharts?

> Or they could adapt naturally, per the rise of the king.

Something that happened thousands of years ago when wealth was tied to control over land and not ephemeral capital.

Or perhaps you refer to military strong men as in the past 300ish years? Something which all collapsed after the death of the founder.

>How could the wealthy subvert them?

The same way they did to literally every single monarchy on the planet that wasnt overthrown by communists - via their wealth to influence organise, bribe and fund. How many lasting societies do you know of now or in the past where the people who rule it do not control the wealth?

>The monarch would have literally everything
>would

Tell us how is the new monarch going to get "literally everything" do you think the wealthy and political elite will just merrily hand over everything they have?

> The power is derived from the people. As always.

For someone who talks so much about history proving things it seems odd that you would buy into such silly left wing propaganda.
>>
>>144383519
Exactly. Everyone gets proper national representation, and realistically, trade will continue as normal.

>>144383564
>what qualification does our leader have to run the country?
>He's lyk ttly popular!
>Really?
>No, but we're told he is!
>So you agree with everything he's doing
>No, but he was voted in. I guess we have to do with it.

>idk just have a bloody revolution that gets millions of people killed
If it's not worth shedding blood over, then it's not worth doing, and they must be salvageable.
>>
>>144379362
Four years ago, when I looked at politics and saw that the masses were incapable of voting their way towards a better future.
>>
>>144383531

I think the protestant reformation led societies away from solid political structures but assisted in the development of solid economic structures, althou Martin Luther hated jews for other reasons than shiesty dealings

The protestants were less sophisticated, taking everything so damn literally and empirically yet in doing so freed people up in other ways,

I think the problem was the church and the monarch cannot work in corruption together, only one can be highly corrupt at a time, so I guess the protestant reformation was analogous to reforming the constitution of the time

Led to crazy Pentecostals and evangelicals tho
>>
Isn't a monarchy in the US the best scenario? You have the second amendment right?
You can just shoot him if he becomes goes too far being a tyrant.
>>
>>144383735
>So these wise and enlightened characters of yours are going to be drawn from the ranks of the Bushes, Clintons and Reinharts?
Wise enough to be there, all the better if they start having reason to be good to the nation.
Assuming you'd have an aristocracy like that.
>Something that happened thousands of years ago when wealth was tied to control over land and not ephemeral capital.
Arguable. And that doesn't really prevent monarchy emerging.
>The same way they did to literally every single monarchy on the planet that wasnt overthrown by communists
Indeed. All because they willingly gave away too much power. That would have to be stopped.
>Tell us how is the new monarch going to get "literally everything"
Because it will be their country.
>do you think the wealthy and political elite will just merrily hand over everything they have?
That will depend on how they rise to power.
>For someone who talks so much about history proving things it seems odd that you would buy into such silly left wing propaganda.
How is that left wing? The people have never not had the power. Especially now in the age of mass communication.
>>
>When did you realize that hereditary monarchy is the only sensible form of government?

pretty sure most of the monarchies throughout history were irresponsible and tyrannical.
you basically raise a spoiled child to rule an entire country, how that a good idea?
>>
File: IMG_4814.jpg (501 KB, 1288x1919)
501 KB
501 KB JPG
>>144383564
Contrary to the memes Charles II was not a bad ruler since he knew his retardations made him unfit and delegated roles accordingly.
>>
>>144382863
see:
England

diana and middleton are the saving graces of that bloodlines dna
>>
File: catholicucks.jpg (1.4 MB, 3968x1632)
1.4 MB
1.4 MB JPG
>>144379362
Actual royalists are the most infantile fucking historyless retards out there. You're even more pathetic than the nazi larpers.
>>
>>144384207
England wasn't real big on consanguinity, even before the Spencer whore.
>>
>>144383952

A monarch caste system with class mobility through "noble deeds in service to the crown" and gauranteed self protection rights would be optimal

I think some people don't understand classic monarchies were ownership systems as well, King was steward of God's granted domain, nobility ensures proper economic utility as steward of smaller plots under king, serfs work land under nobilitys guaranteed protection.

Better than jews owning everything
>>
>>144384017
>pretty sure most of the monarchies throughout history were irresponsible and tyrannical.
>most
Pretty sure you mean a handful. Most were average. Which is ideal.
>you basically raise a spoiled child to rule an entire country
Because that child is going to be the most qualified person in the nation to rule. Far more than any politician.

>>144384246
>historyless
How ironic.
>>
>>144384527
Yeah you're a shielded fucking faggot shitposter who never read about european history, you know nothing about kingdoms or their history, you're probably just an underage faggot raised by a single mother
>>
>>144384503
I think that's why feudalism is so misunderstood and daemonised. Because it's easier to control people if they think other systems are bad. Especially the good ones.
>>
>>144384246
>>144384612
Powa' to da peeple!
>>
>>144384612
What absurd allegations.
Sounds more like the lady doth protest too much. Otherwise you may have had actual arguments, my Somali friend.
>>
>>144384612
i'd take any king from european history than what you have today svenni boy.
>>
>>144384660
>yes daddy I need to be ruled!
t. delusional american virgin
>>
>>144379362
Like last year when I was declared king of the jews
>>
>>144383564
>idk just have a bloody revolution that gets millions of people killed
better than importing almost 50 million non-Whites(both legal and illegal) to replace you while the media constantly propagandizes that your people shouldn't be reproducing due to "global overpopulation"

I'd take a revolution any day of the week. Pax Britannia and Pax Americana were the worst things to have ever happened to the greater White world. The Anglosphere took over the planet in 1945 and we did fuck all with it while the kikes were busy jerking their little dicks at the propaganda they were sending out. We reap what we sow. Krautniggers are right in blaming us for our destruction.

Feel free to blame my country. God knows it's not likely to hold together for much longer.

>>144383874
>I think the protestant reformation led societies away from solid political structures but assisted in the development of solid economic structures, althou Martin Luther hated jews for other reasons than shiesty dealings
iirc the primary seed of the protestant world's economic success was the lack of an explicitly anti-usury policy post reformation.

>The protestants were less sophisticated, taking everything so damn literally and empirically yet in doing so freed people up in other ways,
I am of the opinion that this specific behavior is celto-germanic in origin. celtboos may disagree, but germanofags know their own autism when they see it.

>>144383874
>I think the problem was the church and the monarch cannot work in corruption together, only one can be highly corrupt at a time, so I guess the protestant reformation was analogous to reforming the constitution of the time
maybe. I'm personally of the opinion that it was a theologically flawed revolt of northern Europeans who didn't want to be ruled by spaghetti niggers.
>>
File: 1484500315805.png (242 KB, 530x530)
242 KB
242 KB PNG
>>144379362
It's probably over for monarchies. The royal families stopped being politically active.
>>
File: Płaca Minimalna.png (374 KB, 495x459)
374 KB
374 KB PNG
>>144379362
I did. Thanks to Hans Herman Hoppe and Christopher Cantswell.
>>
>>144384708
You will always be ruled, and you're delusional if you think otherwise. Best to have the most beneficial system of it, instead of one actively seeking to fuck your mouth.
>>
File: 1485220056431.jpg (10 KB, 250x250)
10 KB
10 KB JPG
>>144380048
>fucking ruler of britain, a nation matched only by spain in terms of how much shit they colonized en-masse with force, wouldn't have let burgers manifest destiny all over the natives
>>
File: 1200px-Georgeiiofgreece.jpg (227 KB, 1200x1655)
227 KB
227 KB JPG
>>144379362
"The most important tool for a king of Greece is a suitcase"
>>
>>144384960
Yeah and having a king selected by birthright is just a roll of the dice, literally even just a plain old dictatorship is a better system.
>>
>>144379362
This aussie is right.
Representative democracy doesn't work, just do a constitutionnal monarchy (guaranteeing free speech and guns) where the king can consult the people by referundum on important question and it will outperform the corrupted governments we have now.

>>144383519
A HRE structure would work really well in USA because there are no centralized powers like France, Austria or Russia to mess with it thanks to the oceans.
>>
>>144379362
>hereditary monarchy
Gross. Adopted monarchy is best monarchy. The Roman Empire consistently went to shit whenever someone let their son take over (Commodus, Caracalla)
>>
>>144385095
>Yeah and having a king selected by birthright is just a roll of the dice,
Perhaps, but the dice are loaded, because they'll be born of the most educated and well funded people in the nation. They'll have the best schooling, the best healthcare, and the most incentive to do well out of anyone.
>literally even just a plain old dictatorship is a better system.
You mean with an elected leader? Doubtful.
>>
>>144385106
Would just turn back into elected positions, or the Praetorians killing and crowning who they felt would be their best bitchboy.
>>
>>144383952
>Wise enough to be there, all the better if they start having reason to be good to the nation.

So in other words you want to somehow to give ultimate power to the people who plauge the current system based on the hope that giving them even more power will give them a change of heart?

Doesn't that strike you as a bit Utopian?

>Assuming you'd have an aristocracy like that.

See my original post - Juan Carlos I was handed that power and did not like it so much he restored the Spanish Republic.

The old and often impotent remnants of the aristocracy hasn't been kept in a time capsule.

>Arguable. And that doesn't really prevent monarchy emerging.

You ignored the next and most important part of that issue - the fact that it isnt actually arguable

" How many lasting societies do you know of now or in the past where the people who rule it do not control the wealth?"

>Indeed....That would have to be stopped.

How though they have all the cards, monarchs didnt give power and wealth away they lost it.

>Because it will be their country.
Thats rather utopian

"mr Bolshevik how will we stop a dictatorship of the party?"

"Oh easily because the workers will control the means of production"

>That will depend on how they rise to power.

The million dollar question Ive been pushing to see you answer and one which I think you wont in this thread.

>How is that left wing?

Its as left wing as it gets to hold that all power lies in the collective.

>The people have never not had the power. Especially now in the age of mass communication.

The bulk of people are passive and just want to be left alone. The Bolshevik party of 20 thousand individuals managed to cobble together an army of 3 million through propaganda and forced conscription and took over a country of 166 million.

Likewise just a handful of ultra nationalists were able to end democracy in Japan.
>>
>>144384628

Exactly.

If there could ever be a marriage between the social health of Monarchist feudalist property governance yet retain the incentive to increase social standing through ones efforts or decrease otherwise (nobility obligated to protect region, serf families can elevate family standing through military service or economic development of land)

Bring back pride in family history and legacy, the single mothers are stuck in serfdom and rightly so, every generation has a chance to climb social ladder, die trying, or settle for climbing within /class
>>
Anyone who thinks royalty gives a single fuck about the commoners is a delusional retard. The European royalties giving up on their peoples and nations and instead trying to form a unified globalist european government is the ultimate proof of their treachery and self-serving nature. Like I said you're all historyless retards who built your whole ideological outlook by reading mass produced jewish textbooks, or books derivative of these.
>>
> the leader has incentive to do whats best for his or her loyal subjects
Not true... Look at the Tudors, for example
>>
File: DIORAMA 2 2.jpg (214 KB, 827x550)
214 KB
214 KB JPG
>>144385214
>Would just turn back into elected positions
Literally the opposite happened.
>Praetorians killing and crowning
Mistakenly letting the Praetorians have too much power was one of the things that killed the empire; they should have rotated the guard out between guarding the capital and campaigning. >>144385176
>because they'll be born of the most educated and well funded people in the nation
And yet they could still be fucking retarded and shit at their job. I'd much prefer a system that involved at least some form of proving yourself, like the King chooses among his sons or something.
>>
>>144385176
With or without an elected leader.

>Perhaps, but the dice are loaded, because they'll be born of the most educated and well funded people in the nation. They'll have the best schooling, the best healthcare, and the most incentive to do well out of anyone.
If you think this produces good character then you really are retarded. And no they don't have incentive to well in the eyes of the people at all, all they have incentive to do is to not upset the people to the point where they decide to come up to his castle and decapitate him, that's all the incentive that is built into such a system.
>>
>>144385235
What makes you think democracy was unable to provide that social health you seek especially considering that it was able to do so in the past?

>incentive to increase social standing through ones efforts

feudalism was literally based on preventing this from happening.
>>
>>144379362
about 2 years ago

AVE IMPERIO
>>
>>144384994
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Proclamation_of_1763
>The Royal Proclamation of 1763 was issued October 7, 1763, by King George III following Great Britain's acquisition of French territory in North America after the end of the French and Indian War/Seven Years' War, which forbade all settlement past a line drawn along the Appalachian Mountains.

;_;

it was not meant to be, brother.
>>
>>144380987
It's a recipe for perpetual civil war like Rome and ultimately a disaster.

>>144381096
You are mixing monarchism and aristocracy, the first doesn't need the second, there is nothing wrong with a king marrying a commoner (you just have to make a new noble anyway) if the commoner is worthy.
>>
>>144384796
Time has come random and frequent jew sniping gloabally. Alt Right sniping jews in street all over US. They trying to kill us for 50 years nonstop, time to shoot back.
>>
>>144384246

Actually good swedepost here. Fuck the monarchists.

Not saying a phony populist democracy is that great, but goddamn its a HELL of a lot better than having some manchildren seize the throne for their petty feuds at the cost of everyone else.

And those saying that the 'populace' are a bunch of idiots unfit to rule a democracy, what makes you think some spoilt aristocratic brats with absolute power are that much better? And by God, have mercy if they happen to have any sociopathic traits.
>>
>>144385647

Though fuck i did forget to add, there have been numerous monarchs with an impressive repertoire. But even so, they were few and far between. No thank you. I'd still take a fucking incapable bunch of twats in parliament over taking the chances of a monarch.
>>
>>144384796

>iirc the primary seed of the protestant world's economic success was the lack of an explicitly anti-usury policy post reformation.

Only through mass usury can you spend the uncreated wealth of future unborn children in the present, kicking the growing can down a road to ruin, instead of building actual wealth in healthy manner for sustainable economies

>I am of the opinion that this specific behavior is celto-germanic in origin. celtboos may disagree, but germanofags know their own autism when they see it.

I am 50/50 Celt/Anglo genetically and i can see some of that. Germanics have the engineer style autism, Celts are just stubborn and unruly, less OCD

>maybe. I'm personally of the opinion that it was a theologically flawed revolt of northern Europeans who didn't want to be ruled by spaghetti niggers.

Flawed absolutely, it was a successful cult because the orthodox was cocky selling sins and the people weren't literate enough to understand the political element of self governing belief structures
>>
>>144385220
>Doesn't that strike you as a bit Utopian?
Very. But i'm not arguing for an aristocracy. I was just extrapolating based on your question.
>" How many lasting societies do you know of now or in the past where the people who rule it do not control the wealth?"
None, of course. And i meant that it was an "only thousands of years ago" thing as arguable. Anyway, a good enough ruler only needs control of the basic supply chains to stymie any kind of fiat tampering. It wouldn't be pretty, but it'd be doable.
>How though they have all the cards, monarchs didnt give power and wealth away they lost it.
They kinda did, with overextension, and letting others get too powerful around them. Or more specifically, letting them get too powerful without foils, or incentives not to be shit.
>Thats rather utopian
It's just how monarchy works. They're the physical embodiment of their nation.
>The million dollar question Ive been pushing to see you answer
I couldn't give a single answer. They could have a military coup. Some kind of popular revolution. Corporate takeover. Etc.
>Its as left wing as it gets to hold that all power lies in the collective.
Righto. Doesn't stop it being true, though.
>The bulk of people are passive and just want to be left alone.
Agreed. But then you pointed out how they can be discomforted into action.
>>
>>144385647
netherlands royalty is especially bad and closely related to setting up the european project and bilderberg, they give absolutely no fuck about the average dutch, or even their own nation state, only about furthering their own dynastic power
>>
>>144379362
>in turn the leader has incentive to do whats best for his or her loyal subjects
lol nah
>>
>>144379362
Not really monarchy sucks. Monarchy is only good when monarchs don't have political power. But if they do, then the Kingdom would be worse off in contrast to non monarchies.

Besides, monarchies are created by power hungry generals who wanted to consolidate their power over their own territories. In contrast Democracies are formed by people who wanted to give the citizenry a say on how and what things should be done. In democracies, government is divided among three branches who have equal powers. In monarchies that is not constitutional, there are no separation of powers.

In democracies there is a short term incentive for elected representatives to perform well or convinced the electorate to perform well. There may be incentives for monarchs to do that, but that is mostly long term. Humans are more driven by short term incentives rather than by long term incentives.

Removing a stupid or incompetent or corrupt politician only requires for their term to expire, to be impeached, or to be voted out of power. Removing a stupid or incompetent or corrupt monarch only requires for either assassination of that monarch or a bloody civil war that would wreck the kingdom.
>>
>>144380048
>"most English of the English"
You're not English, you're not the "true English". Stop trying to discredit our identity by claiming you're the real English. fucking hate this bullshit REEE!
>>
>>144382117
Jews of the world either pay $5 trillion in gold as reparations for 911 and rebalance of power or we will genocide you. Thats at current price of gold in US.
>>
>>144385310
>royalty gives a single fuck about the commoners
They will if they want success. Like every good monarchy in history. The bad ones ignored or scorned the people, and brought ruin.
It's the same as a business. Treat the employees well, and the company will flourish. Treat them poorly, and profits will plummet, because you're making the people on the inside work against it.

>>144385235
It's just funny how people would rather serve a multitude of masters who hate them over a few who would have need of them.

>>144385412
>Literally the opposite happened.
I meant that emperors could now be bought off to choose someone as their heir.
>Mistakenly letting the Praetorians have too much power was one of the things that killed the empire
Agreed.
>And yet they could still be fucking retarded and shit at their job.
But it'd be hella unlikely.
>I'd much prefer a system that involved at least some form of proving yourself,
They prove themselves in the job. It's a meritocracy, but in reverse.
>like the King chooses among his sons or something.
Tanistry could be bought out or sabotaged easily, too.

>>144385425
>If you think this produces good character then you really are retarded
You sound like a butthurt pleb with a grudge against people better off than you. Besides, character is less important than results. If they want to do well themselves, they'll do well in the job.
>And no they don't have incentive to well in the eyes of the people at all, all they have incentive to do is to not upset the people to the point where they decide to come up to his castle and decapitate him
Same thing. That's still an incentive to keep the people happy, and far better than what we have now with elected leaders.

>>144385647
>hat makes you think some spoilt aristocratic brats with absolute power are that much better?
Training, attachment, and legacy.
>>
>>144385429

Democracies have elected officials without children. That proves immense failure right away.

I was speaking of a hypothetical hereditary fuadalist system retaining incentives. Perhaps similar to national socialism in production and service economic sectors, and feudalist only in land?

I understand feudalism was often eternal servitude for peasants back then, there would have to be a 2nd amendment or some regulating feature to prevent abuse.

But I don't consider the 'ideal' social standing strictly related to control of resources as it is now. In monarch feudalism, king owned it all by birthright, esoterically gods steward.

Democracy can't produce social health, when every citizen votes strictly on self interest, free market sorts out issues, markets have no spiritual moral element
>>
>>144385874
>Very.
Thats the issue, utopianism of any kind is generally intellectual masturbation.

>None, of course. And i meant that it was an "only thousands of years ago" thing as arguable. Anyway, a good enough ruler only needs control of the basic supply chains to stymie any kind of fiat tampering. It wouldn't be pretty, but it'd be doable.

It would help but controlling supply chains isnt enough to provide the kind of influence that comes from actual wealth. Likewise you would need your country and not just your monarch to be debt free.

If you ever want to see what this kind of economic warefare looks like see the Battle for Chile - its long but it shows you the power of wealth and how the US was able to crush communism in Chile without sending any troops or getting popular support.

>It's just how monarchy works. They're the physical embodiment of their nation.

Careful you are starting to conflate reality with theory just like Mr Bolshevik in my example. The dictatorship of the proletariat works in a simmilar way.

>I couldn't give a single answer.

Well given you can at least admit this, I know you aren't a troll so I apologise for the derision and sass in my posts.

That said if politics is your interest look into this question seriously. It was this that cured me of my communism.

>Righto. Doesn't stop it being true, though. Agreed. But then you pointed out how they can be discomforted into action.

Even then its not really the people its just a small armed minority who wield the power.
>>
>>144385429
>feudalism was literally based on preventing this from happening.
Sounds like you don't understand feudalism. It was simply the system of vassalage, where you agreed to do work for perks. The better work you could do, the better perks you were given.

>>144385836
>But even so, they were few and far between.
Aye, because they were remarkable above and beyond the rest of them, who were good enough to not need mention.
>I'd still take a fucking incapable bunch of twats in parliament over taking the chances of a monarch.
Is like saying you'd prefer a guarantee of shit over 10% chance of shit, for no good reason.
>>
What if there is a binding document stating a right to bear arms.

What makes you think a monarch is any more oppressive than a parlament.
>>
>>144382117
At current value darkweb mercinary account paid anon in bitcoin $5000uS per random jew-kill. Any antisemite can fund it anon.
AT 30 million jews is only $150 billion to crowd-fund genocide of the jews.
When you did 911 you should have known to make sure my brother wasnt in the towers I can effectively write code this manner like a killer bot will fund your genocide. Like silk-road but the march of death
>>
>>144379362
i feel myself being pulled towards monarchism the past couple years. reading through the d'artagnan romances has probably had an effect simply because of athos. his passionate defense of royalty in twenty years after makes me warm inside. Royalty is the spirit of god
>>
>>144386388
>Democracies have elected officials without children. That proves immense failure right away.

Does the conduct in the past 50 years nullify all the good from the past 250?

>I was speaking of a hypothetical hereditary fuadalist system retaining incentives. Perhaps similar to national socialism in production and service economic sectors, and feudalist only in land?

You might want to look into the system of the Tzars of Russia towards the end where they had a system were skilled bureaucrats could become nobles. Still had a lot of crazy troubles though.

>I understand feudalism was often eternal servitude for peasants back then, there would have to be a 2nd amendment or some regulating feature to prevent abuse.

Creates the difficultly though where the only way to remedy any situation whether minor or large is civil war.

>But I don't consider the 'ideal' social standing strictly related to control of resources as it is now. In monarch feudalism, king owned it all by birthright, esoterically gods steward.

Trouble is you are going to need more than divine sanction to get the power that birth right grants.

>Democracy can't produce social health, when every citizen votes strictly on self interest, free market sorts out issues, markets have no spiritual moral element

What about democracy with a limited franchise?
>>
>>144386499
>utopianism of any kind is generally intellectual masturbation.
Anyone is going to sound utopian when discussing their preferred system with someone who prefers something else. We don't often argue for known flaws.
>It would help but controlling supply chains isnt enough to provide the kind of influence that comes from actual wealth.
I think this is more of an economics argument. Because by supply chains, i mean the basic necessities to keep people happy and safe. So a really rich banker couldn't subvert a monarch who can provide food to his people and arms to his soldiers just because of a financial system. In fine, the monarch can issue currency to prevent external manipulations like that.
If that's what you're referring to, that is.
>If you ever want to see what this kind of economic warefare looks like see the Battle for Chile
Yea, kinda what i mean. They were too preoccupied with outside involvement over working from the basics upwards.
>Careful you are starting to conflate reality with theory
I disagree. The purpose of a monarch is that they hold title to the land.
> I apologise for the derision and sass in my posts.
Blimey, don't ever do that. Arguing isn't fun without passion and insults.
> look into this question seriously.
I have, but i just think it's getting of ourselves when discussing the system in general.
>Even then its not really the people its just a small armed minority who wield the power.
Easy to look that way. But that armed minority comes from the people. It'd be pretty unlikely for them to shoot their own family and friends just because they're told to by their bosses, when at the same time their family and friends are giving them reasons to shoot their bosses.
And then on the majority side, one man with a machine gun would still lose to two men with a knife when he doesn't know they're his enemies.
>>
>>144386247
>English with with a proud history of revolting against tyrannical leadership completely opposed to what the magna carta originally intended.

God dammit bong don't make me cry. You and i share the same blood. We revolted against tyranny time and time again and time again.. We are brothers whether you like it or not. We are the ones left, the ones who actually believe what your acenstors believed. A man should not rule over you who does not deserve it.

;_;
The only man who deserves to rule over you is a man who earns it. Don't just take it leafs! You're better than this! Reisist! The true monarchy will come. Just keep waiting. Just a little more time. Just hold on. :_:


hold on Anglos, they will come
>>
>>144386519
>Sounds like you don't understand feudalism. It was simply the system of vassalage, where you agreed to do work for perks. The better work you could do, the better perks you were given.

I do, it was far more than just a contractual exchange of work for perks.

-Peasants couldn't marry without their lords permission
-They couldnt leave the village to go else where without that permission
-They had no legal recourse for abusive of power or privilege

In bad cases were there was serfdom they could even been brought, sold or leased to other nobles

>The better work you could do, the better perks you were given.

Only at your lords discretion
>>
>>144387190
>I do, it was far more than just a contractual exchange of work for perks.
Depends on the case. The ones you listed weren't the uniform rules for everywhere, and i concur that they were some of the lousier ones.
>In bad cases were there was serfdom they could even been brought, sold or leased to other nobles
Honestly feel that's not as bad as your above examples, but yea, that one in particular rarely lasted very long when it popped up.
>Only at your lords discretion
Replace lord with manager and you have the same thing today.
>>
People should take responsibility for how things are, instead of looking to external authority. If you can't do that, you don't deserve any rights, as you are a puppet.
>>
>>144387141
We may share the same blood, but you are not the superior brother and neither am I. We are equal, nothing more, nothing less. If you can't accept that, you ain't my brother.
>>
>>144385102
>A HRE structure would work really well in USA because there are no centralized powers like France, Austria or Russia to mess with it thanks to the oceans.
Not really, Mexico, Canada, and Cuba could mess with it. If not them bigger powers within that such as California, Texas, and New York could mess with it.
>>
File: Alexis.jpg (58 KB, 565x640)
58 KB
58 KB JPG
>>144379362
>>
>>144387190
>-They had no legal recourse for abusive of power or privilege
yes they had abusing the peasants was against the the feudal contract
>Peasants couldn't marry without their lords permission
lords had no say in who the peasants marry
>They couldnt leave the village to go else where without that permission
only the serf couldn't leave the village without permission
>>
>>144387419
>
My brother, I wans't even assuming superiority I'm m merely asuming an equality. You don't understand how badly I wish we were tyruly equal.. I geneuinely don't think you understand how much it pains me to be landloncked by these peoople. Dear god ther eitgoes again.:_; help me
>>
>>144384876
>The royal families stopped being politically active.
Tell that to the monarchs of the Middle East such as the Saudis.
>>
>>144387419
>We are equal
Sounds like you need to wake up to reality. No one is equal. Some are better. Some are worse.

>>144387688
>Not really, Mexico, Canada, and Cuba could mess with it.
They really couldn't. None are powerful enough to cause any kind of issue.

>>144387740
There were rare cases where those rule were in effect. But of course, they didn't stand for them long.
>>
>>144379507
Which system is easier to overhaul? Just kill the shitty Kings. That's how you get good Kings. Like a reroll.
>>
>>144387822
^ Non white detected.
>>
>>144387190
>In bad cases were there was serfdom they could even been brought, sold or leased to other nobles
no you can not buy serfs ,serfs are bound to the land so you could buy the land and get the serfs but you cannot buy serfs they are not property
>>
>>144387882
Funny, i thought it was only the browns who argued for equality. I mean, if you consider yourself equal to them, then odds are you're not worthy of that flag.
>>
>>144387822
France wasn't as powerful as the HRE and they still messed up the HRE. Also, the anon whom I replied to also mention Austria which was a state within the HRE. I mentioned three states within the USA which could mess it up if the US adopted an HRE style system. These states are California, Texas, and New York.
>>
>>144387941
Equality among anglo*
>>
>>144387950
>France wasn't as powerful as the HRE
Literally when?
>I mentioned three states within the USA which could mess it up if the US adopted an HRE style system
Oh aye. I concur there. But they do that already.

>>144388083
Even then, disagree. Better than the rest, but still folly to claim equality. Besides, Briton > Anglo.
>>
>>144379362
I realized it when I found out it was after WW1 that most European countries had income tax, which came after the dissolution of most it's monarchies. Under Monarchs most of Europe was actually economically free and there was little in regard of gun laws. Under Monarchs we were actually free, we could utilize our money better, start businesses easier, own guns, have and hold private property. Under democracy we lose more of our economic freedom and more of our property rights. In terms of ideals, sure democracy sounds better but in terms of the actual effects democracy is infinitely worse. If you look at a lot of the African countries where aid isn't going you notice a pattern of dictators resmbling the behaviour of early european monarchs, vicious in their pursuit of retaining power but over all not concerned with over taxing their populace or over regulating them, passing gun laws, etc. The people in these countries are often more economically free, and what we can see is a similar transition in terms of productivity and knowledge build up that we seen in Europe after the collapse of the Roman empire. These countries are being pushed to establish democracies by western powers which is idiotic because it disrupts these transition by transferring power from wiser more intelligent people with long term goals to stupid masses electing short term thinking charlatans.
>>
>>144386966

Limited franchise, as in ownership of land? That's similar to nobility. Obviously representative republics with restricted franchise seem so far seem to work well until franchise is expanded. And it likely always will be, this is the problem. It's doomed to the same self determining civil war issue every 150 so years it seems.

The problem is that democracies and republics can only stand the test of time if the ethnic and ideological population base is tightly managed. Otherwise it will always inevitably over time succumb to subversive notion of equity, leading to extended enfrachisment.

There needs to be a heirarchy, a caste which is not determined strictly by market resource aquasition nor by gaming the constituency with benefits.

There needs to be an esoteric form of rule for social health over time. Economics should not be the ultimate measure of success, it's a vain pursuit, it leads to corruption and the psychopath advantage in competition.

A right to arms self regulates almost any govt form aside from a despot police state. The question is what is the best heirarchy of rule and class to preordain to maintain a healthy esoteric spirit and bond the citizens together?
>>
>>144388179
During the Ottonian Dynasty
>>
>>144386285
>They will if they want success. Like every good monarchy in history. The bad ones ignored or scorned the people, and brought ruin.
>It's the same as a business. Treat the employees well, and the company will flourish. Treat them poorly, and profits will plummet, because you're making the people on the inside work against it.
Haha you're literally fucking retarded holy shit
>>
>>144386285
>You sound like a butthurt pleb with a grudge against people better off than you. Besides, character is less important than results. If they want to do well themselves, they'll do well in the job.
That's what you got from what I wrote? You fucking worthless subhuman sack of shit
>>
>>144386519
>Sounds like you don't understand feudalism. It was simply the system of vassalage, where you agreed to do work for perks. The better work you could do, the better perks you were given.
Hahahahahaahahaah
>>
>>144388332
Oh please, it wasn't even real France and the HRE at that point.

>>144388515
Welp, can't argue with such perfect and well cited arguments like that. Or is that you admitting you have no idea what you're talking about. >>144388609 Oh hey, it was. GG.

>>144388563
You're on welfare, right?
>>
>>144388641
You will never get what you want you delusional psychotic underage retard, thank fuck for that
>>
>>144386285

>Training, attachment, and legacy.

I would personally explore the option of a pure meritocracy. One purely based on the achievements of those who are experts in their craft, chosen upon their achievements and capability to rule (if, training required). What if our entire government was ruled by the brightest minds a country has to offer? I'm not saying i'd be among it, but i'd be a hell of a lot more confident than the current state of affairs.

Secondly, say we did elect a new monarchy to rule with a fit, wise ruler that gets shit done. What says that their legacy might not be? What if their children aren't receptive to reason and morality?

Maybe i'm just spouting nonsense or unrealistic ideals, but if we're discussing alternative forms of popular government, i might as well just chime in.
>>
>>144388737

Confident in government than the current state of affairs*

Goddamnit, i ought to look over my comment a bit more before posting.
>>
>>144388707
>You will never get what you want
Always do. And i guess i hit on the money, peasant.

>>144388737
>I would personally explore the option of a pure meritocracy.
It is a lovely idea, but honestly, how would you even begin with something like that? Or protect it from corruption? That's where i think hereditary monarchy has the edge (as previously stated).
But i wouldn't rule out the system entirely, as it might be a good ground work for advisory positions (which i imagine would function similar to a Cabinet now, with reps for medicine, agriculture, etc).
>What if their children aren't receptive to reason and morality?
Then they lose out, and the nation might lose out til either the kid dies, or is overthrown and replaced with the next one.
>Maybe i'm just spouting nonsense or unrealistic ideals
It's a /pol/ thread on governmental types. A sounding board for our crazy ideas so that we might work them into something reasonable is the best part of the place.
>>
>I would personally explore the option of a pure meritocracy
meritocracy does not and cannot exist
>>
File: 1332527348054.jpg (80 KB, 551x800)
80 KB
80 KB JPG
>>
>>144389183
>>144388737
>>
>>144379362
>posts one of the worst monarchs who helped set the precedent for continued reduction in effective sovereign power
>>
>>144387920
>Bourgeois were allowed to own serfs 1721–62 and 1798–1816, this was to encourage industrialisation. In 1804, 48% of Russian factory workers were serfs, 52% in 1825.[17] Landless serfs rose from 4.14% in 1835 to 6.79% in 1858. They received no land in the emancipation. Landlords deliberately increased the number of domestic serfs when they anticipated serfdom's demise. In 1798, Ukrainian landlords were banned from selling serfs apart from land. In 1841, landless nobles were banned also.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom_in_Russia
>>
>>144379362
It only ever works when power is shared by a democratically elected parliament, that way the people are ensured a voice for their concerns, and the monarch is restricted from absolute, maddening power.
>>
>>144379362
Putin is immortal anyway.
>>
>>144379362
Sure, look at Spain
>>
>>144389727
You mean like we supposedly have where government have coopted the monarchs powers? Great.
>>
>>144379514
Except the Queen is still head of state in all common wealth countries.
>lel no she isn't
She hangs in your courts, on your money, your armies are named after her. List goes on.
>>
>>144379362

Yeah let's just put a modern nation's fate and destiny in the hands of someone who may or may not end up being a warmongering tyrannical buffoon much like Wilhelm II of Germany, right? Modern warfare combined with dynastical blood feud shenanigans, etc. Surely that couldn't go wrong, never has.
>>
>>144389967
>your armies are named after her.
Man, i wish we had things here like "Prince of Wales Own Regiment" and so on.
>>
>>144380539
>There were no bad tyrannical rulers before the invention of tv
I know the Polish are retarded but at least try and hide it.
>>
its called a "great dictator" a single person who gets an entire country to godhood but that all goes to shit when the person in charge dies due to a absolutely massive power vacuum.
>>
>>144390026
>Yeah let's just put a modern nation's fate and destiny in the hands of someone who may or may not end up being a warmongering tyrannical buffoon
#USA
>>
>>144389688
well i am assumed you were talking about serfdom in western and central europe , i dont know about russia
>>
>>144390053
I once read a book that claimed even the US of A is owned by the queen. That in the early days of founding it, the post master general or something wrote off debt to a private America themed company and the queen bought it.
If anyone knows what book I'm talking about I'd love to hear it, I forgot the name almost a decade ago.
>>
>>144390085
What's wrong with that? Is it really worth denying our true potential for greatness for the sake of avoiding hardship?
>>
>>144379362
When I discovered the British monarchy is actually German mulatto.

pic related
It's Victoria's grandmother.
Victoria was a hideous quadroon.
>>
>>144379362
Hereditary monarchy has fucked up a lot too. If the monarch is incompetent he'll fuck the country up if there isn't an heir to the throne then there's a civil war over who gets to be the next king so the country is fucked up

Spartans had the right idea have the military be in charge and have the military be made up of every single citizen
>>
>>144390097
fair enough
>>
Here is a thought.
You're better off having a large government with oposition. The beacruccy may be time consuming but if everyone is doing their job that just means people are fighting for your best interests. Unfortunately some are fighting for their or someone elses best interest. But at the end of the day, I'm happier knowing people are arguing and taking the time when it comes to decisions that will effect my life, i just hope the outcome works in my favor.

And I'm pretty sure history has already shown what a monarchy does for it's people so fuck off with that.
>>
>>144383519
>holy
>Roman
>empire

Copying that is an absolutely terrible idea
>>
>>144379362
Mother do you think they'll drop the bomb?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAh1jH5F_i4
>>
>>144384527
>Far more than any politician.
and hows that?
you don't learn anything by eating grapes and listening to Beethoven all day
>>
>>144379362
There only acceptable form of government is no government.
If you think it acceptable to be rules by your inferior, very well, but don't force it on the rest of us.
>>
>>144379507
Idiot kings don't usually wind up ruling through, usually they either get killed or a bunch of ministers actually do the job while they eat grapes all day and shit. Basically moron kings rule the same way 7 year olds who inherit the throne rule, which is to say they don't.

There are exceptions, the system is far from perfect, but its better than vox populi vox dei
>>
File: 1484373452784.png (68 KB, 1102x1100)
68 KB
68 KB PNG
>>144390549
>>
>>144390097
It was very different in Russia. Like, always at least 300 years or more behind compared to the west. Not even as an insult, it was just such a big and isolated nation.

>>144390302
>I once read a book that claimed even the US of A is owned by the queen.
Yea, there's a lot of nonsense out there by people who don't understand law and sovereignty.

>>144390422
>You're better off having a large government with oposition. The beacruccy may be time consuming but if everyone is doing their job that just means people are fighting for your best interests.
That is literally what we have now, and it's shit. There is never fighting for the people's interests with politicians.
>And I'm pretty sure history has already shown what a monarchy does for it's people
Cares for them, and leaves them to their own devices rather than stripmining?

>>144390462
>and hows that?
Because they know the specific job they'll be training for, and can afford the best in tutors and practical education. Not to mention that they probably won't be taking the seat as wee lads.
>you don't learn anything by eating grapes and listening to Beethoven all day
Agreed?
>>
>>144390437
if kept secular, it could be a stable way of having an empire
you could even invite canada to break up into smaller monarchies as well
>>
>>144390549
>by your inferior
>implying
>>
>>144390636
Fuck off statist
>>144390691
Most certainly is my inferior
Fucking slaves
>>
>>144390650
>It was very different in Russia. Like, always at least 300 years or more behind compared to the west.
Damn, i wish you were right. Being 300 years from where (((west))) is now is a being in relatively good place. But unfortunately difference is no more than 30.
>>
File: boi.jpg (3 KB, 122x125)
3 KB
3 KB JPG
>>144379661
>>
>>144390680
I'm more in favour of a military government system where the head of state or "monarch" if you will is also the highest ranking military official and takes his place via military promotion which means to advance that far he is a highly proven fit and competent leader.
>>
>>144382486
this british flag>>>>>>>>current british flag
>>
>>144390837
>Most certainly is my inferior
Why are you so pathetic then? The man keeping you down?
>>
>>144390992
and then you get corrupt military industrialists raising taxes more and more for "necessary projects" like the F35
>>
>>144390992
In this scenario the military is the citizens and all the citizens are the military (though most would have a "supporting role" in day to day life all men would be trained in and fit for combat)
>>
File: inbred1.jpg (54 KB, 602x724)
54 KB
54 KB JPG
>>144379362
>Monarchy unites the people by giving them a supreme leader
>>
>>144390549
>There only acceptable form of government is no government.
Because it leads to being conquered by the next person to come along?
>If you think it acceptable to be rules by your inferior
No. Democracy a shit.

>>144390837
>Most certainly is my inferior
Certainly not intellectually.

>>144390858
I meant more in the pre-1900 sense. In terms of infrastructure, government organisation, social relations, military setup, and so on.
Right now, ya'll are ahead in many ways.

>>144390992
Sounds nice, but it'd be a helluva way to court regular military coups, or an absurd focus on militarism.
>>
>>144391118
so you just end up with a democracy, but with mandatory service

you should move to switzerland
>>
>>144391079
There is no private industry everything is run by the military. The military is the state and the state is the military. War profiteers would be severely punished
>>
>>144391138
How's that Democracy working out for you?
>>
>ITT:
>retards thinking their system is perfect
>niggers who want to be docile fucks in their democrazy
>the usual "fuck gov dudeeee" retard
>>
>>144391213
>War profiteers would be severely punished
no, they'd be in power
>>
>>144391199
You could maybe call it that however the leader wouldn't be chosen by the general population but by a council made up of the highest ranks of the military
>>
>>144390335
whats the point of trying to build a great nation for the moment you die the entire system you built goes to shit.
>>
>>144379362
Main purpose of ruling dynasty isnt even actually ruling - it is being something like anchor for power. Power tend to focus in very small amount of hands, so you intentionally let it focus in hands of line that is of same race with their subjects, proven itself to be benevolent and has its fate tied with fate of nation they rule. It is extremely hard for (((subversive forces))) to seize power when ethnic aristocracy is present - notice that any major nation in history got jewed only after nobility was killed or ousted, ot if there was no nobility at all (case of USA). In comparison, jew thrives in polarized (((democratic))) societies where nation turns on itself in fight for whose talking head gets elected, while (((they))) divide, conquer and rule.
>>
>>144391271
Don't forget the guy that keeps replying to everyone with simple minded "one up" replies.
>>
>>144391395
You should check out the black nobility Anon.
>>
>>144379362
Yes we should give absolute power to monarch who suffers from down syndrome. It worked great for the habsburgs.
>>
>>144391232
Democracy doesnt really work,but democracy is more safe than having monarchy
>>
>>144391388
Nothing's permanent. With that attitude nothing's worth doing.
>>
>>144391353
So you'd only need to bribe three or four people to have complete control?

>>144391500
A bad monarch will die eventually. What can you do to a bad democracy?
>>
>>144391500
>doesn't really work
>wants to remain in it
>>
>>144391500
democracy is a guarantee for corruption
what you need is a constitutional monarchy, not like the modern ones which are ceremonial, but a monarchy where the monarch has some limitations so he/she doesn't have absolute power
>>
>>144391580
at least inbred people dont control countries in democracy...

>>144391576
when you give much power to one person,he will not really care about his country
>>
No. Only thing that works is when everybody points their guns at the politicians/government, and as soon as one looks the wrong way you shoot him dead.

AS SOON AS ONE LOOKS THE WRONG WAY, never mind plundering money, starting wars or doing anything remotely against the people.

We need to enslave them, make them work for us for minimum pay, etc.
>>
>>144391782
>muh all monarchs are inbreds meme
inbreeding is a result of a rigid rule of nobility anyway
just do away with the idea of only a select few being able to be nobility and inbreeding is no longer a problem
>>
>>144379362
>all monarchies in history were retarded and frequently destroyed by other monarchs
>get dragged into pointless wars because muh king wants so
>its the best system
ok
>>
>>144391576
yes but the bad monarch would have destroyed his country already
>>
>>144392030
plenty of countries have survived bad monarchs though
>>
>>144391948
>just do away with the idea of only a select few being able to be nobility
Undermines the whole concept.
>>
>>144391782
>when you give much power to one person,he will not really care about his country
True in some cases. But is that country IS his power, then he's going to just have to care.

>>144391948
>inbreeding is a result of a rigid rule of nobility anyway
Not even that, it was all about having claim over other titles. Do away with that part (ie, titles are patrilineal only) and you'll fix it.

>>144392030
And the democracy wouldn't? Besides, one man would have a lot harder time wrecking a nation than an army of bureaucrats with your mandate.
>>
>>144391992
Yeah fascists never drag their country in to wars or anything.
>>
>>144391827
>implying people can't be controlled
>>
>>144391388
>the moment you die
What if you don't have permission to die?
>>
>>144379362
Absolute monarchy is the worst format of government aviable, just look at Tsarist Russia form end of 1800`s to before the Russian revolution. Absolute failure in bringing any sort of viable social,economic or other type of reform.
>>
>>144391948
>just do away with the idea of only a select few being able to be nobility

Which is really the whole foundation of the system; that a particular family or bloodline is ordained by God (or are gods themselves) to rule and subjugate their fellows.

Spoiler alert fellas, it's a shit system, we've been there and done that and it doesn't end well.
>>
>>144379362
Once I learned about Nero and Caligula.
All it takes is one retarded kid to fuck an entire nation and end a dynasty.
A dictatorship monarchy would be better. Think of the 5 good emperors in Rome or how Augustus Caesar passed the throne afterwards.
>>
>>144392068
Greece's monarchs only caused trouble and were against greek interests....
>>
>>144392291
>just look at one example which wasn't that bad, it just neglected to deal with insurgents and left a vulnerable monarch open to attack
And you're ignoring the benefits.
>Absolute failure in bringing any sort of viable social,economic or other type of reform.
They were working on it. Just that the Duma was shit. It was literally the same thing as pre-rebellion France.
>>
>>144392327
>we've been there and done that and it doesn't end well.
Worked longer than your country has existed.
>>
>>144391570
doesn't matter what the attitude is its an entire country which under the premise of a "Great dictator" is meant to expand and inevitably collapses at the dictators death which can only bring in more death and violence than if the dictator wasn't in power before hand.
>>
>>144392327
>Which is really the whole foundation of the system; that a particular family or bloodline is ordained by God (or are gods themselves) to rule and subjugate their fellows.
Nah, that's nonsense. Like yes, religion is important in society, but a monarchy can be in power simply because they're the best for the job. It's a tautology, but it's one which can be put into proper motion.
>>
>>144379362
My breakthrough redpill was Moldbug.
>>
>>144392454
Those social and economic reforms had already failed the moment secret police started to stop even reformist social democratic trade unions.
>>
>>144392341
nero was not really that bad
>>
>>144392510
What a pathetic fearful individual you are. Happy to wallow in mediocrity for fear of greater suffering. You're exactly why democracy is a failure from it's very onset.
>>
>>144392657
They failed the second the aristos felt like they might lose some power. And it's not like the trade unions were some saintly crowd. Or even as good as they were in the UK and USA. Hell, they were kinda like they are now; to the benefit of the union leaders.
>>
>>144392852
Depends on what country you live on. Trade unions in continental Europe have been very successful in pushing 8-hour work day, higher wages and holidays for workers. Unions in America are indeed unfortunately ponzi scheme, partly thanks to right to work laws and federal workers unions.
>>
>>144392997
Aye, it is a shame that something so necessary is always so corrupted. But it was the same way with the guild system, where they often hurt members just as much as they helped.
>>
>>144379362
we have a king, his name is above all names, the anointed one, the root of david, jesus of nazareth
>>
>>144379362
Tested for 1300 years here. Not worth.
>>
>>144392676
>most likely burned Rome to expand his palace.
> tried until succeeding to kill his mom because she thought he wasn't fit for emperor.
> bankrupted Rome to finance his luxury palace.
Raised taxes to pay for his palace, making the economy plummet.
Started secretly devaluing the money by using less minerals or cheaper ones, which led to Roman currency not being trusted.
> passed laws to take the inheritance of the wealthy, and when they didn't die fast enough he started killing them.
>pissed Britons that they revolted and killed thousands of Romans and nearly cost Rome Britain.
Yeah, dude was utter shit.
>>
File: Niccolo_Machiavelli.png (175 KB, 250x321)
175 KB
175 KB PNG
>>144379362
Monarchy is only stronger than democracy at the surface level. Once conquered, it is anihilated (see: The Romanovs). You can't conquer democracy, you shoot a president and nobody gives a fuck. The biggest flaw however is that the left can bring the enemy in through the back door, but even this cannot conquer a democracy, because it will always be opposed by the strong.
>>
>>144394050
That doesn't make it stronger. Just more insidious.
>The biggest flaw however is that the left can bring the enemy in through the back door, but even this cannot conquer a democracy, because it will always be opposed by the strong.
Pretty naive, bro. Because the back door enemy will wind up being the strong. Or at least the ones they say provide 51% of the votes.
>>
>>144392510

why would you make a great nation? to see it last the ages and ensure the safety of people thousands of years into the future.
what's the point of having ONE great leader for 30 years to only get a power vacuum made upon their death which will destroy the nation they built.




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.