Accurate?
Pretty much
No because monarchs historically have been worse than even dictators. The only thing keeping them back from Hitler maxing was their lack of technology.
>>18481451You mean the dude who didn't have judicial supremacy and let his subordinates a large degree of autonomy?Stalin or perhaps Mao was more an autocrat.
>>18481448I'm confused.Where does meme get the idea of liberal democracy having state worship and absolute obedience? If that were the case wouldn't he not be able to make this meme?Also where does he get the idea that only liberal democracy had "more taxes"?Also also how is immigration authoritorian?Also also also where does he get the idea that absolute monarchies wouldn't have vaccinated their citizens if the technology existed back then?I'm just very confused. Am I missing something?
Monarchies only work in three situations. Massively repressive shit holes like North Korea, weird petro states where they can throw money at discontent, and constitutional monarchies that are just liberal democracies with some pretty window dressing. The first two absolutely are worse than liberal democracy and the last is a liberal democracy. Further, with pic related, ‘making trouble’ has included complaining about starvation, objecting to pointless wars that you’re being taxed for, having the wrong religion, living in a place someone wants to put a hunting lodge, and having the wrong pet. The result of making trouble can include but is not limited to execution, torture, indeterminate prison sentences, being sold into slavery, or having any of the above done to your whole extended family.
>actually, being ruled by an plutocratic pedophile shadow state is a GOOD thing>t. democracytards
>>18481483constitutional monarchies where the monarch is still in control of the military and is provided a clause to dissolve the constitution at his leisure and oversee the drafting of a new one is the best desu
>>18481488Holy checked & keked. Even in the aftermath of Epstein and ethnic replacement, these tards can still only think of money and smart phones. Boomerism won't die out with the Boomers.
>>18481448I posted this same image on this board was banned for a long time for it, I would be surprised if they don't ban you as well
>>18481522I need a break anyway. I wouldn't be surprised if they haven't banned me yet - despite my openly National Socialist sentiments - because they're collaborating with my local police waiting for me to implicate myself.
>>18481491I dunno. Don’t those typically function the same as a democracy because if the monarchy tried to overturn the constitution it would just end the monarchy? Since sure. Otherwise we’re just back to nork/Saudi shit.
>>18481448"In October 1685, Louis XIV, the grandson of Henry IV, renounced the Edict and declared Protestantism illegal with the Edict of Fontainebleau. This act, commonly called the 'revocation of the Edict of Nantes,' had very damaging results for France. While the wars of religion did not re-ignite, intense persecution of Protestants took place. All Protestant ministers were given two weeks to leave the country unless they converted to Catholicism and all other Protestants were prohibited from leaving the country. In spite of the prohibition, the renewed persecution – including many examples of torture – caused as many as 400,000 to flee France at risk of their lives."https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edict_of_Nantes&oldid=1351234621#Revocation1. Group of people with different opinion about metaphysics lives next to subjects nearly 100 years.2. Absolut King says, "Let's make an end to it".3. Thousands of otherwise innocent people need to fly the land or face terrible torture, not because they have committed any crime, but because of the beliefs they hold. In addition, their forerunners have believed in those same principles without causing any visible harm to the country.So, no. Your claim that liberal democracies are less tolerant than absolutism is either an embarrassing error or a bold lie. Maybe, there were intolerant in fields you don't care about. Yet, if you would have lived in this time, you WOULD have cared.>>18481475 Some ideological bullshit. Some writers have correctly noted that nationalism and democracy occurred during the same age, which happened to be the age of mass propaganda by the printing press (and later other means like radio, TV or cinema!). Therefore, they believe it to be justified to conclude that there must be a connection. Either by sociopsychology, e.g., because liberal democracy needs mass mobilization, or because of some link in the history of ideas.
>>18481711I grant that there is some plausibility in the idea that mass democracy, like we saw and sometimes see in the West, needs a mobilization of great numbers of voters. This seems very plausible.What those ideologues failed to note is that, even a monarch or leading council can be overthrown by a rebellion. Therefore, most rulers make use of some propaganda to legitimize their claims of ruling over others. For instance, the Roman emperors claim a deistish rank and force a cult of the former Caesars as a god, while at the same time maintaining the state of a primus inter pares within Rome and the Senate. Its a double strategy, in which they hide their role during their lifetime and plant the idea of a metaphyical legitimation of their ruling at the same time.
>>18481488>>18481561>>18481506What would hide a absolut ruler back to replace parts of the population or make terrible things in his palacs?Did you ever heared about CALIGULA or some accusitions of Louis XV.?Let's imagine that America, for whatever reason, gets a new monarch. An imperial lineage that the American people somehow accept as legitimate.If we assume this realistically, this new monarch would most likely be either left-liberal or woke, and opposing immigration would, in his or her eyes, be a tasteless opinion of those of low social status.
>>18481448Louis XVI had to raise taxes because he blew all his money helping the American RevolutionMonarchs are shit at spending
>>18481448that is an interesting turn of events, but I generally see this as a consequence of stuff like the enlightenment.the reason why you need to have all this things inspite of your "freedom", is that well, someone crunched some numbers allegedly and it was decided to be either a "necesary" action or a net "positive".I feel like monarchies under a similar philosophical framework ,from the enlightenement would work similarly , because humbleness is a sin, under that framework , is being weak , dumb and a coward. not to hate on the enlightenment necesarely.
>>18481488>republics destroy themselves like they always do>democracy gets blamedYou'd think this board, of all places, would be able to remember that there are no elections in a democracy.
>>18481475The creator is intentionally ignoring the drawbacks of monarchism because he's very silly
This board is too brown for monarchism. Even Jews often boast about their future with a holy divine Rabbi King in control
>>18481451Lol
>>18481448Monarchies had less laws than democracies but far more draconian punishments.
>>18481448It's because it was never intended that uneducated rural people be allowed to vote.
Monarchy died in the west between the late 1600s and early 1800s when it became clear that it favored inbreeding and dysgenic rulers like Charles the 2nd and George the 3rd were quickly taking over Europe. That's what lead to Revolution in the American Colonies and France. The Revolutions were a reaction to leaders like King George being retards who were barely coherent by the end of their life because of their tainted bloodlines.
>>18481448Yes.Lol.
>>18481451Literally every modern nation state is more centralized and holds more power than any feudal ruler. The key point of feudalism is that power is super spread out and regional, beyond paying taxes and military support most fiefs operated as semi-sovereign countries. Any modern nation state with only one government is vastly more tyrannical
>>18482318>>18482245>"duuuh democracies have more laws than monarchies dooo!"Okay but the laws in a Democracy are in service to the state itself and not an individual ruler and their family. Also not all laws are equal. In a Democratic Republic many laws are actually to the benefit of the people, in a Monarchy, even laws benefiting the peasantry were at best token gestures meant to prevent them from rebelling or to keep the monarch legitimate in the eyes of some Church. If you were in favor of no laws then you wouldn't be a monarchist, you'd just be an anarchist. What a lousy strawman of an argument this is
>>18482324And what does this have to do with my comment? I said that monarchies had more draconian punishments despite fewer laws, indicating that it is not more favorable.
>>18481448Top is also “and no loligagging” but basically yeah
>>18481448>Chimping out about vaccinations*Sigh* Americans....The term quarantine literally comes from the fucking Middle Ages, when they'd kill you for daring to break quarantine and step out of a plague ship to endanger everyone else, it's an old practice. If they had vaccines they'd 100% have enforced them too. The whole appeal of there being a strong king or other authority figure is his capacity to implement harsh but unpopular policies for the greater good of the polity. The powerful sovereign wouldn't waste his time listening to screech about "muuuh choice!!" when he wants to save his subjects from disease.
>>18481488>actually being lead by an mentally ill retarded incest baby is a GOOD thing>t. monarchy-shills>>18482242>>18482318^^
>>18481488Monarchy is the same thing but out in the open instead of in the shadows
>>18481488>actually, being ruled by an plutocratic openly pedophile state is a GOOD thing>t. monarchytards
>>18481448just look at actual absolute monarchies like brunei, UAE, Saudi Arabia, and you will see that they are just as dystopic as liberal democracies. oman seems like a cool place though
I'm british we are doing both. Wales and Scotland are about to secede to get away from it.
>>18482878Just as? Those Arab shitholes are probably the most soulless countries on the planet, an awful combination of slave-based economies and so-called piousness that makes them No Fun Allowed (unless you're rich).
>>18482236>This board is too brown for monarchism.Name a single white country that has a real absolute ruler monarch and not just a figurehead living off tax dollars while parliament/congress does all the real state management.
>>18482236The only absolute monarchs left are in brown nations retard. Brunei and Saudi Arabia just off the top of my head
>>18482931So like actual monarchies? You’re not gonna be a lord bro you’ll be a dung farmer
>>18482089They had fiscal problems and terrible harvests. Meanwhile all of our democratic governments spend into massive debt, and a lot of that spending is in order to bribe their next set of voters
>>18482878They're brown though. How about some real societies?
>>18481488Blessed get.
>>18482324>Okay but the laws in a Democracy are in service to the state itself and not an individual ruler and their family. Yeah, that's bad thing NIGGER. Read some Hoppe
liberal democracy is 100% evil, I'm glad all zoomers are antidemocratic chuds
>>18482236Swaziland is White.
