What is the appeal of monarchism?
You know how little girls play with dolls? Kinda like that
>>18227838in monarchy, you get bad leaders occasionally. in democracy, you get bad leaders every single election
>>18227838If a ruler will pass down the country to their son, there is less chance they will completely fuck it up, start unnecessary wars and anger their neighbors, fuck over their subjects with inhumane taxes or just completely sell out to foreign interests. All of which are common place in democracy, where temporary officials loot the country as fast as possible.
>Members of the Black Hundred organizations came from different social strata—such as landowners, clergymen, the high and petty bourgeoisie, merchants, artisans, workers, and the so-called "declassed elements". The people yearn for the Based and Tradpilled Fabergé Egg Collector
>>18227838With very few exceptions monarchies weren't generally overthrown by popular revolutions but rather by elements of the elites, which has resulted in some of the pleb believing that actually the monarchs were perhaps on their side
>>18227876>The Vedic-Steppe-Caste rootsWhat
>>18227838Nothing, since absolutists regimes are a bastardization of the concept.
>>18227870A lot of people move to Thailand, Japan, and the UK.
>>18227838Would you rather let your tax money be pooled towards a single –some times corrupt, some times honest– ruler everyone knows about, or towards a bunch of faceless corrupt individuals whose only objective is to get as rich as possible before their mandate expires?
>>18227838monarchy is for fags, we need a benevolent competent philosopher-imperator dictatornot hereditary ofc
>>18228790Philosopher-househusband (your wife works and earns your daily bread while you argue about haplogroups online)
>>18227838It appeals to me because the buck stops at a king. Today, we're ruled by unaccountable pencil pushing faggots who feel no guilt in passing the blame over to someone else.
Right-wing politics are fundamentally based on aesthetics and cool-looking things
>>18228834"What is outside reflects what is inside."Aesthetics are more important at determining the worth of a civilization than you think.
>>18228834The irony
>>18227838Naivete that if only you centralize power enough, the glorious leader- err, umm, king... and his glorious hatchetmen- err, umm... aristocracy can solve our problems.
>>18228839Anon architectural kanging is a hallmark of right-wing thought. Every other racist meme is just mocking Africans for not having fancy buildings. Half of RETVRN rhetoric is just pining for neoclassicist buildings.A decade ago Macedonian chuds in government laundered over 500 million Euro to build overcompensating nationalist tacky TRAD BASED architecture in Skopje. Libtards then vandalized it by throwing paint at the buildings.
>>18227838people saw the decay of the democratic systems, mostly how the average voter isn't the sort needed for it to function. Now they inherently project what they view as right upwards in society.For the gay race communist, bureaucracy that siphons all of society to them.for anyone who isn't that, their historic opponents.
>>18228853>mocking Africans for not having fancy buildingsThey're not mocking because it's not fancy rather it's because it's basically stone age.>TRAD BASED>EU planningare you even trying?
>>18228777notice that the shittiest one of these three also has the most tyrannical monarch
>>18227838Long term stability, and a predictable government that avoids change. Most people don't like change. Most people with support ANY government structure that provides them with their basic needs. Cheap food, housing, protection. Monarchies are so stable that they can often provide that for centuries without issue.
>>18228767He's implying that the Romanovs were the Aryans who conquered india, and that Russian commoners were conquered Indian natives from the Aryan invasions.Don't worry about it.
>>18228966>RomanovsGermans who imported their wives from Germany and Denmark>Russian commonersHordeling serfs
>>18227838narcissists are easily maneuvered. pre-allocated status much simpler to apportion
>>18228028That is how it was in Sweden. Traditionally the Swedish crown was allied with the peasants against the nobility, and it was eventually the nobility that worked to undermine the monarchy and make it into a rubber stamp position.
because they kill faggots and troons. there's no homosexuality tolerated
I just think they were handsome. Nicky was a good looking man too.
>>18229031swedish nobility was also very weak for europe and peasants had decent rightsjust reminds me that there was a guy on /int/ a year or so ago who claimed to be from the oxenstierna line (axel oxenstierna was the greatest swedish statesman who ever lived) and said in typical basement dweller manner that he wished he didn't have to go to family reunions while posting images from their house in the stockholm archipelago which had a fucking helipad on the pier
>>18229170Why couldn't the swedes put their peasants to serfdom?
>>18229173no clue but i suspect it's for the same reasons vikings were generally freer and well-fed from hunting, the harshness of the land probably made governmental oppression more difficult. mongolia, arabia, great plains, scandinavia contra egypt, india, france, china
>>18227838If you get it you get it, if you don't you don't
>>18228834Meanwhile leftist politics consists of ugly aesthetics, ugly ideas and ugly people (both in appearance and character)
>>18229178>Ivan IV established Oprichnina in the more inhospitable North Russia, the commoners were glowies>the southern lands under nominal noble control were then raided by it for food and sport, the commoners were serfs
>>18229173>>18229178Sweden had serious problems with centralization up until Axel Oxenstierna unfucked the central government. and even before that the Swedish rusttjänst system relied on farmer families to fund Swedish cavalry.
>>18229173too aryan, too much favstian spirit, oriental despotism finds it difficult to take root in evropa
>>18228834That is correct. Proper governance is about logistics, not ideology or social justice. If you can build Baroque or Rococo, it's because boxes are moving where they're meant to be, the country is working.Left wing politics can't replicate that, how do you expect modern socialists to build anything interesting if they immediately run out of toilet paper after taking over? Venezuela took over cement production and now they don't have shit. A king could spend his time building interesting projects and cool asthetics, so the private sector could go on in peace, a left wing politician, even those that call themselves "right wing", which is impossible to be without a monarch, spends all their time making sure his retarded ideas are being implemented instead of you know... aesthetics.
>>18227838Order.
I think it's about accountability, at least perceived one. A lot of people have now seen either the first-hand effects of a secularised democratic or tyrannical government, or read about it in the news/history books, and concluded that because the tyrants, dictators and presidents lack any real accountability (both literal and metaphysical) it causes people to turn away from them.With a monarchy, there is belief that the monarch, fearing a violent revolution, may do his best to maintain the country rather than sell it out to the highest bidder or whatever.
>>18227838>absolutists monarchies are so hecking based >looks around the modern world >all absolutists are 3rd world shit tier countries >all pleasent to live in are variations on liberal democracies
>>18227838it's just like skyrim fr
>>18227838Dictatorships but for gay men and women who like their dictators wearing a dress and jewelry. They don't actually care about having a competent or successful state. Otherwise they would be falling to their knees for the Roman Republic or the US.>>18229173Serfdom as we know it in the Middle Ages is a Carolingian concept belonging to the manor system which started under Charlemagne and expanded massively under his son. Continental serfdom wouldn't arrive in England until the place was conquered by the Normans and the local elite totally destroyed and replaced by people who did practice manor serfdom. Sweden was never conquered so implementing such a system would require a complete overhaul of society which was not going to happen internally.
>>18229301They could have just used Russian serfdom.
>>18227838Your dad takes care of everything so you don't have to worry
A common theme in literature across many cultures dating back to the bronze age is the corrupt official and the underdog who reveals their misdeeds to the King. The King was the head of the army and the legal system. If the country was invaded, it was up to the King to impose war taxes and martial obligations upon the nobles. If robber barons were stifling trade, the King represented the interests of the country against general turpitude.The modern mind has an image of a spoiled brat living in opulent splendor detached from adversity, but the little prince was put through an intensive education designed to impress his father long before his coronation or his regency ended. his childhood was worse than the typical middle class modern American's. Modern cynicism is not entirely without truth of course, once crowned he did not need to retain the high ideals and virtues he had been immersed in from an early age, however remember his power stemmed from his ability to serve the common good.When the King lost power, lawlessness would sweep the land, every regional magnate would turn on their rivals, laws meant to curb excesses against the commoners were flouted, trade would grind to a halt. Nobles would have to raise their levies and form little alliances, towns would have to increase the militia, merchants needed to form convoys to defend against bandits, or dissuade nobles from imposing extortionate tolls. People yearned for the King to return or a new King to restore order and when they did they were remembered as a wise and just ruler.
>>18228853Why are european leftists such cultureless trash? Saw this in spain alot too only it would be some 400 year old church
>>18227845FPBPit's just LARPing, all of it
>>18227838It's cuckolding but for politics.
>>18228787I don't want to be taxed at all.
>>18227853All men are equal. “When Adam farmed the land and Eve sewed their clothes, who were the nobility?”
>>18227855>>18228787You are projecting the flaws of capitalism onto the idea that people should choose their leaders. Autocracy replacing a democracy doesn't actually solve the underlying issue of capital.
>>18228966>>18229001What if grandmasters of St. John wasn’t assassination?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_March_of_Paul
>>18229615HEI JA HOHO
>>18227838There is no appeal. Do you think they ask peasants about their opinion or what? Lmao.
>>18227838you get to have a ruler that has been trained to rule since birth instead of some fraud businessman or actor who won a popularity contest that was mostly determined by media companies
>>18229287>t.retardMonarchy/aristocracy has existed for thousands of years, while liberalism only for decades or so.
>>18229615God?Didn't God demand taxes from Cain and Abel?"
Why can't we have a king and choose him by voting him in for life? Then choose the next one like that?
>>18229794https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
>>18229833But I want the aesthetic too.I'm pretty sure there's no democracy where the president is for life, that also isn't a total shithole.
>>18229708>liberalism only for decades or soAre you fucking retarded?
>>18229838>dude but like aesthetics and stuff!Grow the fuck up, only manchildren care about the "aesthetics" of an ideology. Forms of government are not a fashion statement to post on your twitter, they are ways of running society.
>>18227838George Floyd for ortholarpers
>>18227853ThisWith a monarchy, even if you get a mediocre ruler in place, they're often far better at governing than the best elected leader of a republic because heirs are groomed for leadership from birth and they have a baseline competency when it comes to managing people and navigating politics.
>>18229851But aesthetic is extremely important in running a society? There's no movement without its own aesthetic and symbols. It's impossible.
>>18227866
>>18227866>>18229911
The Tsarist elites won in the long run btw
>>18227838The dictator's path is simple. He became president. Stole. Stole. I was afraid that the stolen goods would be taken away. I was afraid of prison. He started making fake election results. He became president til death. He died without leaving an heir. He died without worrying about what will happen to the country and its nation after his death. It's different with the monarchy. For a monarch, the kingdom or caesardom is his home. He will give this home to the most talented of his sons and daughters. The monarch cares for and loves his kingdom or caesardom. A monarch is not a thief, unlike a dictator.Being a monarch is much better than being a dictator.
>>18229979The dictator's path is simple. He became president. Stole. Stole. He was afraid that the stolen goods would be taken away. He was afraid of prison. He started making fake election results. He became president til death. He died without leaving an heir. He died without worrying about what will happen to the country and its nation after his death. It's different with the monarchy. For a monarch, the kingdom or caesardom is his home. He will give this home to the most talented of his sons and daughters. The monarch cares for and loves his kingdom or caesardom. A monarch is not a thief, unlike a dictator.Being a monarch is much better than being a dictator.A dictator never recognizes himself as a dictator, he always calls himself president. Everyone knows that this is a lie and therefore they are hating him. The monarch is treated much better. The monarch is loved more by the people of his nation than the dictator.
>>18227838The monarchy allows you to have knights. The professional social estate of warriors, the class of hereditary warriors. Under the republic, it is impossible to have knights, because only the King or Queen or Caesar can raise man to the rank of knight.
>>18227838Praying for the health of the president's family when everyone knows that he is a dictator is disgusting, and many people do not like and do not do it. Praying for the health of the royal or emperial family is another matter, it is patriotic, it shows love for the Fatherland. Many people pray for the health of the royal or emperial family.
>>18227838It's nice to have a Charles III old guy who wears cool outfits and just kind of goes around being fancy. Mistake is expecting him to govern.
>>18229542ThisAt least in the model of European Kingship, prior to the development of Absolute Monarchy, the monarch was king of the people. His relationship with the estates was that of a social contract; he maintained order in the realm and upheld the traditional rights of the people, in exchange for their fidelity and tribute. And if there should be abuses carried out by the powerful in his realm, he was duty bound to correct them.
>>18227838Monarchy is a boomer remix of a failed system>muh tradition is just cosplay for wealthy inbreds>entire country's fate decided by a sperm lottery>actual god complex: divine right is pre-science cope>flexing on poors with a gold hat while they pay taxes for your 5th castle>history is just them getting checked by revolutions because they always become tyrants or failuresIt's a cringe larp. Democracy isnt perfect but at least we can vote the retards out.
>>18230445>Democracy isnt perfect but at least we can vote the retards out.You're politically and historically illiterate if you think that it's better than a monarchy. You can vote the retards out, but you'll never vote out the powers who placed them in office. It's not a coincidence that democratic style government were being promoted as the ideal government during a time in history when merchants, bankers, and industrialists were becoming more powerful than nobles and kings. It's because democracies are highly susceptible to corruption, and control from the shadows.
>>18227838It’s just teenagers larping
>>18227838Reject gay cuckstian monarchism. RETVRN TO OLYMPIAN-BASED CHADSPARTAN DIARCHISM.
>>18229542>A common theme in literature across many cultures dating back to the bronze age is the corrupt official and the underdog who reveals their misdeeds to the King.truehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxYoFlnJLoE
>>18230445>Democracy isnt perfect but at least we can vote the retards out
>>18230528>actually it's never been real democracy and there's actually a deep state that decides electionshistorically illiterate if you think this. reformers and anti-establishment candidates get elected all the time
>>18228853>kangingKek
>>18229583>the Tsar was just larping as leader of RussiaPHEW, i thought we might have to face the flaws of monarchy.
>>18230637Definitely not. Democracy is based on who is more popular and that's decided via the media. So now instead of being ruled by a king you are ruled by merchants and businessmen
>>18230637You have to be over 18 to shit post on this site.
>>18229911>"We should have have strangled you instead of shooting you"
>>18229851I agree in principal but you sound like a dumbocracy cuck, so L regardless
>>18229221>oriental despotismpeasants had more rights and nobles less in oriental empires like the ottomans and dynastic china THOUGH
>>18229861Indeed. French revolution? Never happened. German revolution? The Jews or something.
>>18228837This is true but not in the way you think it is.
>>18227853Democratic nations have out paced monarchies by every metric for centuries now. Your retarded standards are irrelevant
>>18228790Lets get santa claus on the supreme court as well
>>18230692santa claus isnt real but the benevolent competent philosopher-imperator dictator is real (hes me)
>>18229542>but the little prince was put through an intensive education designed to impress his father long before his coronation or his regency endedYou could say the exact same thing about any career politician>however remember his power stemmed from his ability to serve the common good.Medieval, and ancient justifications were explicitly not this at all. A ruler was expected to be able to dispense justice 'fairly' but as to where their power stemmed from it was from a whole host of other sources. Only Byzantine and Roman Emperors actually had the people as their basis of power, and they did not have hereditary rule and the office of Emperor was open to any Roman who could take it.>When the King lost power, lawlessness would sweep the landYou are only describing the lack of a central government. Not really monarchy related.>>18229861>With a monarchy, even if you get a mediocre ruler in place, they're often far better at governing than the best elected leader of a republicMost monarchs hardly ruled directly and did so through intermediaries by the early modern period. A monarch today is no different from a president, they enact laws and dictate reform and the offices of the state carry them out. The only real difference is you can't legally dispose of one. How they rule is going to be almost completely the same.
>>18229173nobles were seething midwits and the monarch x peasant alliance was an expression of the eternal smartypants x dimwit meme
The funny thing about RETVRNfags being monarchists is that the surviving European monarchical lines are like the biggest globohomo, neoliberal, cosmopolitan people on earth who don't give a fuck about tradition or the survival of the white race or whatever.
>>18230688>democrats and bankers say demoracy works. >look at the graph guys!!!1shocker
>>18227838Its the opposite of communism.
>>18230806charlie's just pretending. he's a crypto-muslim guenonian
>>18228805This too.
>>18228790I'm a component philosopher imperative dictator. Statisically my offspring will have the same traits and their offspring as well. If me and my offspring are so compotent why shouldn't they continue to rule>inb4 but what if one of your offspring is a dudThat's why you have more than one
>>18230855this is not how genetic recombination and de novo mutations work.your kids will surely be inferior. trust me.
>>18228853>so anyways, you can rent this one bedroom commieblock for 5,000 EU or less
>>18230718>Most monarchs hardly ruled directly and did so through intermediaries by the early modern period.Unless the body that's being governed is less than 300 people, all governments function in this capacity. >A monarch today is no different from a president, they enact laws and dictate reform and the offices of the state carry them out. The only real difference is you can't legally dispose of one. How they rule is going to be almost completely the same.False. Monarchs plan long term, they have every incentive to engage in good stewardship of the realm because the realm will be inherited by their descendants. In a democratic system, the political arena is the commons, as elected officials know that their office is temporary the incentive is to abuse privileges and pillage the public coffers. Look at modern day functioning monarchies, they're know for their domestic stability in contrast to their democratic neighbors. >>18230806Because they've been completely cucked out of power through centuries of conspiracies by the merchant and banking cartels. They're completely disenfranchised and have little to no real power over the nations they rule. So if they have no say, why would they care what happens? However, the few functioning principalities such as Monaco and Liechtenstein, have some of the highest quality of life in the continent.
>>18230878>Unless the body that's being governed is less than 300 people, all governments function in this capacity. There is a difference between necessary personal leadership and managed leadership.>False. Monarchs plan long term,Like how every other functioning government in the world works? How do you think infrastructure gets built or how armies have projects, or how decades long social plans are rolled out? >they have every incentive to engage in good stewardship of the realm because the realm will be inherited by their descendantsSo do dictators, and almost every other ruler. >In a democratic system, the political arena is the commons, as elected officials know that their office is temporary the incentive is to abuse privileges and pillage the public coffers.They have the incentive to do as the people elected them wanted them to do so they can continue to remain in power. Monarchs don't because they have no accountability. It is in the interest of a monarch to loot the countries they rule and they do, because they have nobody to stop them or depose them. Your reasoning is stupid and you can easily flip the script because your assumption that any said ruler will be good and any democracy will be bad for no reason.>Look at modern day functioning monarchies, they're know for their domestic stability in contrast to their democratic neighbors. All the examples of 'functioning monarchies' are ones where the monarch could simply not exist and nothing would change. Why don't you use an example where the monarchs actually have real power and control the state, like Eswatini, Saudi Arabia or Nepal? These are all extraordinarily corrupt countries with a perpetual dictatorship ruling over them. They are not known for domestic stability at all. Nepal and Eswatini are more unstable then their democratic neighbours. Saudi Arabia is completely reliant on bribing the population into submission.
>>18230637yeah before betraying their voters lol fucking retard
>>18227838There are only two internally consistent systems: Monarchism and anarchism. Either the common man is fit to govern himself, in which case no government is needed, or he is unfit to govern himself, in which case a government must be established under the control of a superior sort of person.Democracy stands for the absurd notion that people who are not fit to make the choices in their own lives will somehow be able to make good choices over the lives of millions of others.
>>18229919All of these people knew eachother and were related and still they ended up going to war.
>>18227838What is a flaw in a democracy is a feature in a monarchy.People appreciate the honesty.
>>18230650>>18230661>reforms have never ever happened in a democracyamerica was socdem for like 40 years because they kept winning elections after the great depression
As trump cultists. They yearn for it.
>>18231433>Like how every other functioning government in the world works? How do you think infrastructure gets built or how armies have projects, or how decades long social plans are rolled out? That's not necessarily a function of government, that's a function of bureaucracy. Bureaucracies by their nature are cold, impersonal, oppressive, and tyrannic. A bureaucrat will allow 10,000 people to die of starvation so a long as the trains run on time. >So do dictators, and almost every other ruler. Factually incorrect. A dictator has no political legitimacy and their reign tenuous, they know this so they pillage and extract as much from the population and the land as possible before everything collapses around them. Like a thief looting a burning house. >They have the incentive to do as the people elected them wanted them to do so they can continue to remain in power.Correct. But the public doesn't choose who gets elected; the oligarchs do. And that leads to elected officials serving their patrons, rather than their voting constituents. >Monarchs don't because they have no accountability. It is in the interest of a monarch to loot the countries they rule and they do, because they have nobody to stop them or depose them. This is stupid thinking because you don't have a grasp of the nature of ownership. A monarch is the owner of a country, the people are his tenants and vassals. How could a monarch loot their own country if they own everything on it? And as they intend to pass on the property to their children and descendants, why would they destroy it?
>>18231433>Why don't you use an example where the monarchs actually have real power and control the state, like Eswatini, Saudi Arabia or Nepal? These are all terrible examples on your part. Eswatini is an Africa kingdom, there's nothing else that needs to be further said on that issue. Nepal doesn't even have a monarchy and hasn't had one in decades. Their neighboring kingdom, Bhutan is one of the happiest countries on earth. As for Saudi Arabia, they're a bastion of stability and order in the region; so are all of the neighboring kingdoms and principalities like Jordan and UAE. >These are all extraordinarily corrupt countries with a perpetual dictatorship ruling over them.Stop using words you don't understand. There is a fine line between a monarchy and a dictatorship, only a politically illiterate wouldn't understand this. Not all autocrats are monarchs, and not all monarchs are autocrats.
>>18227853If that would be the case, all countries would be monarchies today due to monarchies overperforming democracies. And somehow this is the opposite. In monarchies everything is up to the genetic lottery and there's no way to remove the drooling retard without illegally toppling him, which always has bad consequences due to lack of legitimacy of the new guy in charge.In democracy, any actually idiot that actively harms his country will be either voted out on the first possible opportunity or at least will retire due to term limit. Or in the absolutely worst case scenario - would still be limited in the amount of harm he can do by simply being checked and balanced by others.
>>18227838Every system becomes maximally corrupt as quickly as possible. You might as well pick a system with good aesthetics.
>>18227838Retards thinking that they are going to be nobility by kissing the ass of one man.
You get long term stability as you are able to put in place policies and programs that last longer than a 4 year election cycle. The downside is the end of that long term becomes a crapshoot of I the next guy is a total fuckup with no way of removing him if so.
>>18227838>What is the appeal of monarchism?Being able to "i candu nuffin bout dis" cope your way out of having your own opinions about complex real-life issues.Not needing an excuse to not take the blame when you vote for shithole policy and shithole policy gets carried out.In other words, it's appealing to retarded degenerates who want their life put on a rail.
>>18232743You are naively assuming that the only factor influencing what governments exist today would be effectiveness, completely disregarding ideology, subversion, economics etc. Even if this were true, we are not at the end of history (this might very well just be an unstable exception period in the long history of power structures).But most talk of democracy vs monarchy is already naive anyway since it disregards elite-making. Really, there are only two real structures of power - absolutism and rule by the elites. Democracy, communism and monarchy are just fronts for these two (which oscillate from time to time).So in past monarchies when the king was a retard, the power shifts to the elites. You see this similarly when Joe Biden was in office.The difference I see between monarchy and democracy is how power shifts to the singular. In democracy, term limits, parliament, future elections, lobbying etc. limits the potential for a despot to take control. So you are essentially handing off most power to these elites who's concerns are far removed from the average person - which is why "Cthulhu *always* swims left".This might seem counter-intuitive, since the common critique of democracy is that it "follows the whims of the people". But examining democracies throughout history (not fake communist ones but "real" liberal ones), you rarely ever see culture/policy "emanating" from the people into congress or parliament. Really, what happens is future policy "emanates" from media and academia which is, of course, steered by elites. Sometimes policy changes before the people are *convinced* of them - which when you get protests.What difference does monarchy make then? Well - the monarch has both the time and the legitimacy to crush elites for some hypothetical greater good. Whether that be "turning back the clock", rooting out corruption or eliminating usury.
>>18227838They have in-built check to the oligarchic tendencies that can nuke a democracy. The monarch jealously guards power/influence from nobles and the nobles allow him to retain his position so long as they think they would be alone trying to overthrow him. The people give legitimacy to him and therefore he occasionally does things to placate them and generally tries to make sure they have their needs met. The nobles, meanwhile, have very little care for the common people and do not need to worry about how people are doing since the power they wield is invisible to the average subject. The monarch and the peoples interest usually align on curtailing this, so you get a sort of cooperation between the very highest class and the lower classes. The system has its flaws though, this is sort of just the message I've gotten from speaking with monarchists, not absolute truth or anything.
>>18228956The UK’s monarch is basically a ceremonial position though?
>>18230445You will vote the retards out.. after they have years to enact their retarded ideas compromising your life and millions of others to replace them with another retard backed by.. corporations and lobbies with no guarantee that either of them will see the nation as their interest because they have short term obligations. RETARD! When will you realize it's not "We" choosing top to bottom? Even the options you're presented are handpicked by others.
>>18227838You can't argue monarchism here because the average poster thinks your goal is medieval feudalism or autarchy.Anyways normal people aren't loyal to a fucking state of governance, they just want a safe nation, to be left alone in and to live their lives, having a family without some deranged psycho looming over their shoulder micro-managing their life for them. They will support whatever ensures and promotes that.
>>18229269I wouldn’t actually support a neo-monarchy, but in historical monarchial systems, at least a fuck up king got his ass deposed and murdered. There’s one guy that the buck stops at and the monarchial system was not an authoritarian one where the guy on top has too much power to be assailed—there was an inherent balancing act between the monarch and everyone else. It feels like democracies and dictatorships just have too much faceless bureaucracy and/or concentrated power to hold any one person accountable for the fuck up. And fuck ups in running a country should result in serious to deadly consequences for the person fucking up.
>>18227838They have a lot of the benefits a centralised autocratic government provides, but they tend to be more stable and they have greater legitimacy, both culturally and institutionally. They're also really aesthetically pleasing.
>>18229833>>18229851>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieQTcg_V558
>>18227838It's simple, it doesn't have to deal with bullshit republics have to deal with.Embryo selection will solve the main problem of monarchism.
>>18229301Dictatorships usually exist for 20-40 years lol.
>>18229301why would gay men and women care for that when it's democracies that push them and trannies everywhere while ruthlessly punishing their citizens for being against that? starting to think these guys have no self awareness and just go off vibes.
>>18233861>the people are retarded>except for whoever rises to power, he will conveniently be one of the few people who isn't retarded
>>18227838The openess to worshipping someone just like how we now have people worshipping celebs.
Divine right bullshit aside, I kind of get the appeal of leaders being guys groomed from literal birth to be administrators instead of cunts who backstabbed their way to the top with all that entails.Problem is royals are morons cause living your whole life without hardship makes you one.
>>18234231That's why parliamentary monarchies were invented, if the twit doesn't have absolute power he is no problem.
>>18234235parliamentary monarchies are either just ceremonial (bongistan) or a gridlock generator that paralyzes the state (1920's italy, 1910's greece). You can't have two groups with different goals ruling together.
>>18232707>that's a function of bureaucracy. Bureaucracies by their nature are cold, impersonal, oppressive, and tyrannic. A bureaucrat will allow 10,000 people to die of starvation so a long as the trains run on time.Do you get your idea of what a bureaucracy is from a crack pipe? A bureaucracy is the arm of the state which conducts the policy of the government. >A dictator has no political legitimacyThis is untrue. No different from monarchs, their legitimacy lies with the people and unlike monarchs do not pretend otherwise.> they know this so they pillage and extract as much from the population and the land as possible before everything collapses around them. Like a thief looting a burning house. This is exactly what monarchs do as well. Of course you've constructed a false narrative for monarchy. There were multiple, successful non hereditary monarchies in medieval Europe and often they had no chance of their own children taking their position yet they didn't loot their states. Being hereditary does not make it any more less open to exploitation.>But the public doesn't choose who gets elected; the oligarchs doYou are not describing how any modern western democracy functions.>A monarch is the have owner of a country. Even in the middle ages such rhetoric would be wrong. A monarch does not own a country, he does not the right to do so either. He is the lord of it, that does not mean ownership of it.>How could a monarch loot their own country if they own everything on it?Because they don't own everything. >And as they intend to pass on the property to their children and descendants, why would they destroy it?Same could be said for a dictator.>These are all terrible examples on your part. They aren't real monarchs anymore because you don't like them.>There is a fine line between a monarchy and a dictatorshipIn practice there is none. Only how they present their power is different. Their actual function is equal.
>>18229221Swedish kings had more in common with "oriental despots" they did with the kings of western and central europe
>>18229708>thing is old >therefore it must be good >thing is new >therefore it must be good great debatemanship anon
>>18234782new thing bad*
>>18227838one leader to blame instead of a gang of corrupt politicians
Monarchism makes sense a priori. You have to decide who will rule. Who do you pick:>A guy who was picked by a party that they then put on the ballot who will then be switched out within four years>A guy who was trained his entire life to rule competently and who will be with you until he diesThe average monarch will have more competence to rule a country than the average prime minister
>>18234377>Do you get your idea of what a bureaucracy is from a crack pipe? A bureaucracy is the arm of the state which conducts the policy of the government. Your definition falls short of describing it. The bureaucracy is the state. Elected politicians come and go; monarchs die. But the bureaucracy is forever. It has it's own ambitions and machinations separate from the government. >No different from monarchs, their legitimacy lies with the people and unlike monarchs do not pretend otherwise.This is you not understanding how political legitimacy works. Legitimacy comes from many places, the people is one of them. Dictators sometimes draw legitimacy from the mob, but more often than not it comes from the military which is where the Roman Emperors drew their legitimacy from. And a ruler who rules only through the threat of force and violence, has little power.>This is exactly what monarchs do as well. Of course you've constructed a false narrative for monarchy.I haven't constructed a false narrative. You don't have a historical understanding of kingship and you're hearing the facts for the first time. >There were multiple, successful non hereditary monarchies in medieval Europe and often they had no chance of their own children taking their position yet they didn't loot their states. Being hereditary does not make it any more less open to exploitation.You are factually incorrect that non-hereditary rulers did not abuse their positions, even if they didn't loot it. The perfect example is the Poland-Lithuania Commonwealth; every foreign ruler that sat on the thrown used the crown to pursue their ambitions in their home regions. >You are not describing how any modern western democracy functions.This is how they function. You just haven't been paying attention.
>>18234377>Even in the middle ages such rhetoric would be wrong. A monarch does not own a country, he does not the right to do so either.Factually incorrect, though it does vary from region to region. Do some research on land ownership in England and Spain; during the medieval period the legally the monarch owned all the land. In England, it's still true in a technical sense. >Same could be said for a dictator.The odds of which are low. Roman Emperors and their heirs got assassinated all the time, by ambitions military officers who wanted the office for themselves. You see the same dynamic play out with modern dictatorships. >They aren't real monarchs anymore because you don't like them.I don't know what you're saying and I'm certain you don't know either. >In practice there is none. Only how they present their power is different. Their actual function is equal.Incorrect. Political writers going back to Aristotle will tell you that there is a distinct difference between the two roles and how they execute power. It's pretty obvious that everything you know about how monarchy's function is based on media depictions of them. You don't even know how political institutions work, so how could you possibly determine that it's worst than democratic governments? Politically, you're a baby who doesn't even know his letters from his numbers.
>>18232743The second most powerful nation on Earth is a de facto monarchy. Democracy enjoyed a brief period of preeminence over the past 80 years due to the United States' victory in WW2. Looking at the world today we can see that what we call democracy is crumbling apart. >>18233251Good points despite the reddit formatting. True democracy (rule of the masses) is, as John Adams said, brief and violent and self-destructive. Mob rule. Power, decision making, is always concentrated within a small number of people.
>>18236185but a monarch has no motivation to rule for the people, only himself and maybe other aristocrats, elections and separation of powers at least mean the president can't act outlandishly, although trump might be proving this wrong
>>18227838Accountability
>>18236529I reject the idea that a country's leader should always act in the people's interest. Even if they should, most citizens don't know what policies are truly best for them. Moreover, a democratically elected leader often does not reflect the population’s priorities. In many countries, voters choose a party based on trends or popularity every four years but then ignore its platform. As a result, the gap between public opinion and government policy is wide.
There’s a natural human belief in hierarchy, this can translate to liking monarchies because it’s a natural hierarchy without any sense of confusion or debate like that of an election.
>>18236542A leader that has no reason to give a shit about the people whatsoever is very different from one that at least does tacitly, the government curbs the more embarrassing deprivations if not all of them. It allows ordinary people at least a small surplus which does not have to be acquired by surreptitious means, and any smart among them can invest it in something productive, something overlooked by the state bureaucracy.It is why the Greeks saw a flourishing of mathematics, science and art and later Italian city states and constitutional monarchies. The idea of totally pressing down on the population and viewing them solely as playthings or material objects was the foray of stagnant cultures. Indeed the successful monarchies were those that delegated to "his majesty's government" and where the people paying taxes, collecting taxes and running the state bureaucracy had some influence. Those that did not ended up like Charles I, Louis XVI and Nicholas II.
>>18236630>A leader that has no reason to give a shit about the people whatsoever is very different from one that at least does tacitly,Modern democracies are currently ethnicaly replacing their populations with hordes of arabs/indians or negros
>>18229170Hail, fellow Swede! I am from the Vasa line!
>>18227838things usually stay the same for much longerand because you are told you will literally never have an effect on the world and if something sucks you literally cant do anything to change it you can stop worrying about alot of life and just get on with itlike worrying about the weather.unless you are born royal or noble there is nothing you can do.and even when you have a shit king they have still been groomed to have a high level of decorum and class, as well as having been taught how to be a leader.elected officials dont have any of that.at best they started learning when they were in their late 20s/30s.but just like music, learning from birth and learning once you are already an adult are 2 completely different things.the 5 year old Chinese kid can play better piano than you no matter how hard you train.also you can get more drastic shit done when you have a kingthe orders of a king have more value and weight on the people than the orders of an elected leader
>>18232743>if x is better than y we would only have y but we dont therefor x isnt better than yyou have to be 18 to post here.
>>18228793>honey im home>did you win any online debates today>>yes, this guy hasn't replied to my last comment for 5 hours so its safe to say i won this one.
>>18229919On foot, from left to right: Norway, Bulgaria, Portugal, Germany, Greece, Belgium.Sitting, from left to right: Spain, UK, Denmark.
>>18227838Democracy is an illusion. Literally every choice leads to the same result. How many times have you seen this exact same thing play out in the last few years?>"alt right" candidate elected >media acts like it's the end of the world and he's literally Hitler>proceeds to change not a singular fucking thing whatsoever from the leftist agenda>continues to actively carry out the leftist agenda>is voted out and another leftist continues doing the same thing he was It's fake and gay. Democracy is fake and gay.
>>18229301>US>competentLOL
>>18230528>"In democracy, we can vote the rewards out!!"Did you though?
>>18227838democracy is for schizos. You ever meet a voter? they are mentally ill. >I HAVE AN OPINION ON OUR TRADE POLICY WITH BOTSWANA like shut the fuck up. Women especially are prone to the I HAVE AN OPINION mental illness that is democracy. Monarchy limits this disease
>>18236533One of Woman weakness
>>18227855>there is less chance they will completely fuck it up, start unnecessary wars and anger their neighbors, fuck over their subjects with inhumane taxes or just completely sell out to foreign interestsAre you trolling or just pretending to be retarded?>less chance they will fuck it up Succession was the most common trigger for wars in the medieval era as the sharks smelled blood in the water>start unnecessary wars and anger their neighbors Centuries old feuds over who deserved the right to rule over France and England or Brittany caused a series of wars that are still a blight on the international relations between them. New kings frequently started wars to prove they were manly successors and got shitrekt for it.>fuck over their subjects with inhumane taxesLiterally caused the formation of America as an independent state, put into place by a monarch>completely sell out to foreign interestsForeign nations like the ottomans kept pretenders to European thrones in their court so they could invade, topple the righteous king, and put a literal puppet on the throne (See Vlad Dracul and Radu Dracul). Other nations would keep fake kings with a claim in their pocket to throw out during times of disorder. Every example you have is not only more common in monarchies, they barely fucking exist in democracies.
>>18227845Fippy bippy Anyone who goes on about aesthetics is playing Barbie dolls with history and trying to find the cutest outfit for her syphilis riddled product of incest and cutest Dream House they inhabit.
>>18237942>incestReddit angle of attack
>>18227838If you're in this thread and haven't read Leviathan your opinion simply does not matter about monarchies. Hobbes was too good for this luciferian world
>>18237922
>>18237922>faggot picrel>faggot takes
>>18237944>t. Not a product of incest and thus has no claim to the throne
>>18237954>so butthurt he cant even summon an argument after I dropped a historical TRVTHNVKE>hating on the sexiest android in fiction to bootLmao
In hindsight, it's easy to look at the comfortable lifestyle we in the West have had since the 1950s, and attribute that to free trade/democracy. And, you might be correct.But retrospectively, monarchist in the 19th century were operating from the position of using the monarchy as a bulwark against revolution/societal collapse. Monarchy reinforced loyalty to the state's welfare rather than a locality to a capitalistic class system that democracies operated under.The Germans with Otto von Bismarck is a good example. He attempted to combine universal suffrage/freedom with a strong monarchy as a protection against socialist revolution. Ultimately WW1 and Fascism killed the German monarchist, but yeah.
>>18237966Didn't the french revolution happen because the king was an incompetent and people were living worse and worse? And I think it happened more or less the same in Russia. Kings being incompetent and repressive also create revolutions.
>>18230806>The funny thing about RETVRNfags being monarchists is that the surviving European monarchical lines are like the biggest globohomo, neoliberal, cosmopolitan people on earth who don't give a fuck about tradition or the survival of the white race or whatever.A lot of trad stuff is actually mythical modern stuff, and a lot of things they think are traditional are modern inventions like Scottish clan tartans. Russian trad stuff has been talked about to death, but there's a trend of Russian pop singers getting all trad, and it's amazing because it's not like pop singers existed when Orthodox Christianity as a living religion was a factor in the society. It's just larp but there are political reasons for it. Like what the government is really doing (in reality) is some grubby shit to enrich politically-connected arms dealers so they can buy more megayachts, but you can make that seem more dramatic by dressing it up in some historical costume.https://youtu.be/--HpxiARb5Ihttps://youtu.be/AFcIXxkFxK4>>18230533>RETVRN TO OLYMPIAN-BASED CHADSPARTAN DIARCHISM.Hell yeah brother
>>18227838>Alright so democracy is gay, let's try going back to the previous system of government
>>18234377>Do you get your idea of what a bureaucracy is from a crack pipe? A bureaucracy is the arm of the state which conducts the policy of the government.Unrelated to the monarchy discussion but it's a shame how bureaucracy has been on the same nightmarish tug-of-war for the past 50+ years. Inefficient, oppressive and completely disconnected from the duty of service, succeeded by neoliberal corpo culture which further dilapidates it for the interest of some short-sighted money grabbers who don't actually care for the common folk. What's worse is that many public servicemen responsible for the initial inefficiency will gladly use the neoliberal rhetoric to victimize themselves, as opposed to actually improving their service or, at the very least, recognizing they are actively ruining their cause and ideology by their incompetence. You have no idea how much some of these idiots get paid for doing a shitty job and actively mistreating or despising the people they should be serving and orienting, which further depreciates the reputation of their actually competent colleagues.
>>18227838Monarchies often can get reforms done better, strangely enough. People usually don't like change and like traditions, but if there is a monarch, who is the ultimate authority according to tradition, then that can help people to accept even radical reform. Japan is a good example for that, they modernized quickly because the emperor endorsed it, and after ww2, having an emperor again helped a lot to get people accept a new order.If there is a monarchy, it can provide a continuity and give legitimacy to new institutions as long as the state keeps the monarchy in place. Of course this only works if the country has a long monarchic tradition, so a king of the USA wouldn't work. Neither would it work in somewhere like France or China which have too much of a proud revolutionary history.
>>18227838No kikes, very simple
I understand all the arguments in favor of the monarchy, it gives more stability, etc. But let's forget about theory for a second and talk about reality, what do kings do today?, they have no power, their speeches are even written by the government. They are like celebrities to entertain the people with the marriages, fights inside the family, what type of clothes the queen is wearing, etc. Eventually all countries will turn into republics. You can't live a society that is based in meritocracy and then having a king that inherits his position by heritage.
Monarchy is closer to nature
>>18239818Isn't nature based in the survival of the best?, isn't it meritocracy then? The lion that is stronger is the one that is the lead of the pack, the lioness that hunts better can feed more offspring.
Gayer version of Dictatorship
>>18227838
>>18239824Where do you think the first monarchies came fromThe first aristocrats were the strongest warriors and military leadersstudy the social structure of the chimpanzees (our closest cousins); a militaristic and hierarchical patriarchal social structure
>>18236529>the president can't act outlandishly, although trump might be proving this wrongUS has had several presidents, like Andrew Jackson, act far more outlandishly than Trump, who is pretty tame.
>>18239858Maybe those first kings were truly great warriors and military leaders, in little clans. But not the kings we are talking about that are born in a palace and are rich kids with no experience from outside his palace.
>>18239122>18227838 (OP) #Monarchies often can get reforms done better, strangely enough. People usually don't like change and like traditions, but if there is a monarch, who is the ultimate authority according to tradition, then that can help people to accept even radical reform. Japan is a good example for that, they modernized quickly because the emperor endorsed it, and after ww2, having an emperor again helped a lot to get people accept a new orderThen why isn't that the case for post-WWII Japan over discussing 1868-1945 Japan's history in schools?
>>18228853Macedonian here, those buildings deserved to be demolished, not just having paint thrown at them. It was a money laundering project first and foremost, the neoclassical and baroque buildings and statues were just red meat for an increasingly impoverished populace. Also a lot of those chuds were former commies that only espouse rhetoric while their hands are deep I. Your pockets. "Based" nationalists that were pro communism during the Yugoslavian years and only became right wing nationalists when it became politically expedient for it.
>>18237812>the last few yearsi think that history is a little longer than that
>>18236253>It has it's own ambitions and machinations separate from the government. And is completely subject to those in charge.>Legitimacy comes from many places, the people is one of themAnd said other forms of legitimacy are only recognised because people recognise it as such. Ergo, the only real form of legitimacy is from the people.>Dictators sometimes draw legitimacy from the mobSo, just like a monarch?>You don't have a historical understanding of kingship and you're hearing the facts for the first time. You are making up that monarchs are somehow more benevolent than other rulers for no real reason.>You are factually incorrect that non-hereditary rulers did not abuse their positionsI did not say they did not. I am saying that they did not do so any more than other monarchs. >This is how they function.Do you live in India or Somalia? >Factually incorrectI'm afraid to say that you believe Anglo-Saxon political theory was actually reality in Norman England. No, the king did not in reality, or even theory own all the land. He was owed direct fealty from everyone which was inherited from the Anglo-Saxons. That is not actually holding the land, and English kings acted to increase their own power at the expense of others.>Roman Emperors and their heirs got assassinated all the timeDo you get your ideas of the Roman state from reddit? There were multiple dynasties which lasted generations. >I don't know what you're saying and I'm certain you don't know either. You are now pretending to be stupid.>Political writers going back to Aristotle will tell you that there is a distinct difference between the two roles and how they execute power. The difference was between a tyrant and a monarch. Dictators as legitimate holders of state power and legitimacy would not fall under the category of tyrant, but a monarch instead.>You don't even know how political institutions work(you)
Semiotics, the visuals, the cerimonies and all, the appeal to core values (family values, stability, etc), the idea of a national parent who is really interested in national well-being instead of self serving politicians, religious aspects (monarchies being religious regimes or linked to it instead of purely secular republics).My take. I doesn't mean those above are true but what it makes attractive in mind of some people.
>>18241040Less and less people are religious and people are all their lives studying and working hard to get their job and then see that a kid born in a palace is going to inherit one of the most important jobs in the country. For those 2 things I think all developed countries will turn to republics.
>>18227838Aesthetic. Monarchist larpers won't admit it but that's literally the main appeal.
>>18230647>reading comprehension
>>18227838There isn't any.
>>18238738The monarchy wasn't inherently the issue in the leadup to the French revolution and did try various reforms to restructure and improve France's taxation, but was met with push back at every instance from entrenched elites, mostly aristocrats, Louie the 16th was also a weathervane constantly crossing back and forth on weather to act tough or lenient, and in a monarchy that was so all focused on the monarch to function it wasn't helping, if France had been more representative from the start it could have helped the state with further raising revenue as that's what the whole convening of the general estates were about.
>>18229170I'm envious of people who had interesting ancestors. I never traced my genealogy but I'm probably descended from boring peasants. My only hope is that some of them served in wars which, given my European country's illustrious history, there must have been a few.
>>18240718>And is completely subject to those in charge.They're in charge of their respective bureaus and departments. They fool their superiors into thinking they're the ones in charge. >Ergo, the only real form of legitimacy is from the people.All political bodies are formed by people, but people all don't want the same thing. So this is pointless sophistry.>So, just like a monarch?What are political institutions? >You are making up that monarchs are somehow more benevolent than other rulers for no real reason.Historically they were more benevolent. Their social contract was one of a paternal nature. >I did not say they did not. I am saying that they did not do so any more than other monarchs. And I'm saying that you're wrong.>Do you live in India or Somalia? I live in the US, where do you live a hole? How do you not know the most common mechanisms of a modern republican government? >No, the king did not in reality, or even theory own all the land.Yes, in de jure he absolutely owns the land. >There were multiple dynasties which lasted generations. No more than handful, especially towards the late empire when civil wars, coups, and assassinations became common features of palace life. >You are now pretending to be stupid.I'm responding to a stupid answer. >Dictators as legitimate holders of state power and legitimacy would not fall under the category of tyrant, but a monarch instead.Dictators are by de facto tyrants, it's why the office in the Roman political context was feared and only instituted in times of crisis. You're proving my point that you're baby who doesn't know his numbers from his letters.
>>18241441It’s also this retvrn retardation. They see something they don’t like about modern democracy and just knee jerk back to a period when they think a based and trad inbred would protect them from their encroaching virgin death of alcohol, obesity, and diabetes.
>>18242435never heard of technological progress before? or do you just associate it with social "progress"? we're working on decoupling the two don't you worry
