>>18624562
It's just kino.

>>18624562
servile instincts

File: meghan-markle-curtsy-scen(...).png (531 KB, 760x419)

531 KB PNG

the image that destroyed the last lingering remains of e-monarchism

>>18624562
For modern, functional constitutional monarchies: people either don't care or think it's a nice tradition to have. It's not particularly expensive (and much of the expense is associated with maintaining historical castles and royal sites, which is an expense that would remain even after the royal family was removed unless the government wants to bulldoze historical sites) and the royal family can serve as symbols for national unity, diplomats or do charity work. There was some minor scandal or dispute between Sweden and Saudi Arabia which was resolved by the Swedish king writing a letter to the Saudi king, a non-royal Finnish minister doesn't have that kind of sway among people who still value royals.
For the people who want to RETVRN to absolute monarchies: profound mental retardation, most likely induced after 10,000+ hours in Paradox games

>>18624562
It is falling out of fashion. Republican sentiments are dominant among younger generations.

It's like asking why someone wouldn't be a feminist; both stem from the same type of juvenile disorder. Radical republicanism is just feminism for men. Republics aren't bad and can be legitimate, but monarchy is an innately special form of government that signals confidence in a society. Societies which do not believe they have any man capable of wearing a crown are completely right; I do not contest them.
>>18624594
The guys who strongly self-identify as monarchists and promote the degenerated form of Enlightenment-era absolutism do not represent European tradition. Actual monarchists rarely call themselves such and are more disposed towards a decentralized mediaeval system.

>>18624599
>Actual monarchists rarely call themselves such and are more disposed towards a decentralized mediaeval system.
So still profound mental retardation?

Because it's in accordance with the sunnah

>>18624601
I don't think you actually have a point to make; you argue for modern government in the same way one might argue for modern fashion. It's just "in" and therefore we have to accept it. Let me know if you have something substantial to say.

>>18624603
No dancing boys today, Abdul

>>18624608
Decentralized medieval governments fell out of fashion for a reason, they were outcompeted by centralized governments who have the advantage of being able to pool much more resources and manpower at more united goals.

>>18624610
I know that. History is Faustian; our story of trading spiritual excellence for worldly power. Who would doubt that the yeoman-farmer has a far more honourable profession than the business magnate? Yet the magnate will not just win but completely destroy the yeoman's way of life; that's just the way it is. Funnily enough you're actually arguing against democracy here too, so thanks for agreeing with me I guess?

>>18624613
There are merited arguments against democracy, but I don't think I raised them in my post. Democracies won against fascism, they outlasted the USSR and anyone who says they'd rather live in some authoritarian shithole over a western democracy is a liar who should put their money where their mouth is.

>>18624609
Exactly, sharia law should be established to prevent indecent acts

File: 1756914359958853.png (286 KB, 509x399)

286 KB PNG

I feel like people who still support absolute monarchy are the same people who have no sense of object permanence or suffer from extreme aphantasia and cannot picture the apple inside of their heads. Because they are only capable of imagining THEIR ideal monarchy and don't seem to be capable of imaging a monarchy that is ran by a leader they didn't ask for. Most neo-monarchists are Chuds, so imagine them getting the monarchy they so desire only for their leader being a Libtard instead, and it's a non-elected leader that they're stuck with for the rest of their lives. I'll bet they wouldn't be pro-monarchy anymore at that point.

Monarchism actually works and doesn’t turn into a brutal security state.
>I LOVE AI OVERLORDS
you are a slave.
Kings are more like fathers while prime ministers are more like task masters.

>>18624623
A Liberal would make a poor king, but poor kings don’t refute the idea of monarchy.
Also we are ruled by liberals anyway.

>>18624625
Stop trying to make this work dude it's embarrassing

>>18624628
>make this work
???
It just works.
Why don’t you explain to us how we’d be worse of ruled by a noble liberal than by millions of liberal peasants?

I personally think Saudi Arabia is better than Yemen, why don’t you? Shouldn’t the monarchy be worse than the non monarchy?
The hereditary theocracy of Iran is currently beating the ass of boomer democracy by exploiting the weaknesses of democracy.
How is this not an effective system?

Democracy is pretty terrible.
Republicanism is pretty terrible.


Monarchism consistently outperforms both of these.
Why shouldn’t we judge a political system based on its merits?
Why the special pleading?

>>18624633
>This brown oil state is sure better than this brown rump state in a literal warzone
You monarchists sure have high standards

>>18624617
Well I like my country and would've enlisted in the military for it to fight Hitler if I were alive at the time, but I also think life was a lot better in the 15th century even though I would be more likely to die from disease or be malnourished etc. I'm not immune to the promises of the modern world, I just don't think they're everything.

>>18624633
>The hereditary theocracy of Iran is currently beating the ass of boomer democracy by exploiting the weaknesses of democracy.
Come on man. Iran is winning only because the US made absurd objectives for itself and tried a regime change without boots on the ground. It doesn't take a monarchy to beat that.

>>18624637
Why do you think life was better in the 15h century, presumably as a direct result of monarchy since that's what you're arguing for?

>>18624623
One thing you'll notice about the opponents of monarchy is that they make generic arguments that could be used against any system of government and present it as definitive evidence. I would like to challenge anyone ITT to actually challenge the idea of monarchy itself instead of repeatedly saying "but what if monarchy is bad" because then I could just reply "but what if your republic was bad?"

>>18624617
American was the most desirable migration destination in the world even when it was an illiberal racist country where slavery was legal.

File: Screenshot 2026-08-09 at (...).png (193 KB, 374x673)

193 KB PNG

>>18624639
Amazing how well third worldists have hijacked the narrative when the damn war isn't even over yet

>>18624633
>the country whose dynasty was sponsored by imperial powers, and is currently receiving arms, intelligence, and military aid from the global hegemon is a nicer place to live than the country it invaded and blockaded for the better part of a decade
I don't really see your point here, unless it's "being neighbors with an absolute monarchy is terrible" or "you should ally yourself with the world's most powerful liberal democracy", both of which are largely true

>>18624644
That's related to this how?
>>18624643
>what if monarchy is bad" because then I could just reply "but what if your republic was bad?"
If republican leaders are bad they can be voted out

>>18624643
No, none of my arguments apply to Democratic Republics, because Democratic Republics don't feature leaders for life with absolute power. You're not a very intelligent person

>>18624645
Third-worldists think that "real" US casaulties are in the thousands, they also thought Netanyahu was dead and that Tel-Aviv was levelled like Gaza. They're unserious people not worthy of attention except as a cautionary tale.
At the same time it's also true that the US embarked on an endeavor with objectives it failed to achieve. When deposing the regime is an option no one bothers to bring up anymore and your focus is on an economic headache which only exists as a result of your war, you're losing. We don't have to kiss Iran's ass and portray them as a genius and powerful country to acknowledge that. It's a self-imposed defeat by the US.

>>18624648
Because you specifically mentioned authoritarianism as a system which makes countries unattractive to live in. But the truth is the west's streak is simply due to it dominating the industrial revolution's advancement, and in many cases especially in the United States predating its liberalism in the way we define it today.

>>18624562
Because it's less oppressive and corrupt than unaccountable temporary bureaucrats.

>>18624641
Would you say a caged lion has a better life than one in the wild? He'll have better medical care of course, but just look at him.
>presumably as a direct result of monarchy since that's what you're arguing for
Monarchy isn't the main thing, it's just one part of the way we were made to live. Power derived from land is simply the only organic expression of power, and that's not possible anymore, so we get hucksters and freakish social engineers instead.

>>18624659
>unaccountable temporary bureaucrats
>temporary
If anything a full-blown spoils systems under a democracy would be much less oppressive. When an elected leader can't even replace the people supposed to work for him that's how you get a deep state.

>>18624659
Middle Eastern Monarchies are beholden to international oil interests

>>18624664
>Would you say a caged lion has a better life than one in the wild? He'll have better medical care of course, but just look at him.
How exactly are you caged today compared to someone living in the 15th century? If anything you are far freer than a 15th century subsistence farmer in pretty much every regard.
>Monarchy isn't the main thing, it's just one part of the way we were made to live. Power derived from land is simply the only organic expression of power, and that's not possible anymore, so we get hucksters and freakish social engineers instead.
What exactly do you mean by this and why is it preferable to other forms of power? Should it just boil down to whoever has the most arable farmland to produce subsistence farmers?

>>18624648
>If republican leaders are bad they can be voted out
But what if the people are bad? Then you get decades or even centuries of misery, whereas it's all over in a comparative instant with monarchy. You seem to be operating under the assumption that the plebs can do no wrong, which I don't accept. Especially odd since this "leaders being voted out" theory has never manifested itself in reality. Suffrage was expanded in the 19th century to give political parties more power by giving them more gullible voters, the system literally exists for the express purpose of manipulating people who have no business being involved in government.
>>18624649
Democratic Republics feature absolute power over their populace that medieval kings could only dream of.

File: 3y1hde.jpg (10 KB, 250x205)

10 KB JPG

>>18624674
>Democratic Republics feature absolute power over their populace that medieval kings could only dream of.

>>18624674
>But what if the people are bad? Then you get decades or even centuries of misery, whereas it's all over in a comparative instant with monarchy.
If the vast majority of the population are bad then you're probably going to have a failed state regardless of your system.
>You seem to be operating under the assumption that the plebs can do no wrong, which I don't accept. Especially odd since this "leaders being voted out" theory has never manifested itself in reality.
I don't operate under that assumption, retarded or politically apathetic voters is one of the primary arguments against democracy, and unpopular leaders get voted out all the time.

>>18624674
>Democratic Republics feature absolute power over their populace that medieval kings could only dream
Note the shift from a "democratic republic", a state composed of elected officials, jurists, bureaucrats, and public servants that are all accountable to each other through a complex system of checks and balances, to "medieval king", a single individual that is (often) accountable to no one. Also medieval countries were decentralized because of piss poor technology, it's pretty hard to be a complete totalitarian when it takes weeks for even a letter to cross your realm

>>18624686
>all accountable to each other through a complex system of checks and balances
hahaha

>>18624674
>Democratic Republics feature absolute power over their populace that medieval kings could only dream of.
You're going off base dude, the typical monarchist criticism of democracy is that it's often inefficient and bogged down by bureaucracy, not that it's "too powerful". Monarchists want leaders with absolute power because they feel like such leaders run their government more efficiently

>>18624673
>How exactly are you caged today compared to someone living in the 15th century?
Surely you can see the lion is in a strange environment he doesn't belong in? Why should it be any different with us?
>Should it just boil down to whoever has the most arable farmland to produce subsistence farmers?
It's not about "should" because I'm not some social engineer drawing up the "perfect" society, I'm just noting the fact that ownership of land is the only organic basis of civilization and government. No one sat down in a room and decided who should govern in the earliest days of civilization; the strongest ruled, and that was that. But modernity is inherently a social engineering project; to get here a bunch of Jacobins had to sit down and start conspiring about how many people they'd have to kill to reorganize society to fit their ideals; this world couldn't have been born any other way.

>>18624698
As I said earlier, I'm not some boorish Hobbesian who thinks the degenerated monarchies of the 18th and 19th centuries were the ideal; they reigned so briefly because they served the forces that plotted their downfall. Those types may represent monarchy online, but they don't represent the ancient history of the institution. Proper, organic monarchy is an outgrowth of aristocracy, not the other way around. The nobles come first, and one among them is greater than the others. Degenerate early-modern "monarchists" are Jacobins who want to kill all the nobles because they fear they'll stand in the way of their perfect leader. Really you have more in common with them than you think.

>>18624700
>Surely you can see the lion is in a strange environment he doesn't belong in? Why should it be any different with us?
I just don't see the analogy working. You're talking about a period where in parts of Europe you were literally not even allowed to leave your village without permission from your lord, you could not choose your profession or join certain trades. Explain to me how I am less free today, when I not only have access to but a RIGHT to education, to vote to elect my representative on a local and national level, how I have the ability to travel my own country and the entire world through personal or public transportation traveling at speeds medieval emperors could not even dream of, how I am less free when I have free time, disposable income and access to information to pursue hobbies and so on? How the fuck am I more caged compared to a 15th century farmer?
>It's not about "should" because I'm not some social engineer drawing up the "perfect" society, I'm just noting the fact that ownership of land is the only organic basis of civilization and government. No one sat down in a room and decided who should govern in the earliest days of civilization; the strongest ruled, and that was that. But modernity is inherently a social engineering project; to get here a bunch of Jacobins had to sit down and start conspiring about how many people they'd have to kill to reorganize society to fit their ideals; this world couldn't have been born any other way.
You're arguing in favor of a system. 'Should' is what it is about. You labeling something as organic is irrelevant to other people if you don't justify why that is relevant, good or bad.

>>18624709
>You're talking about a period where in parts of Europe you were literally not even allowed to leave your village without permission from your lord, you could not choose your profession or join certain trades. Explain to me how I am less free today, when I not only have access to but a RIGHT to education, to vote to elect my representative on a local and national level, how I have the ability to travel my own country and the entire world through personal or public transportation traveling at speeds medieval emperors could not even dream of, how I am less free when I have free time, disposable income and access to information to pursue hobbies and so on? How the fuck am I more caged compared to a 15th century farmer?
It is beyond your understanding, but you have just described your prison yourself.

>>18624712
It's clearly beyond your ability to justify.

>>18624709
>Explain to me how I am less free today
You are definitely more free than a dim-witted Hindoo or Congoid who can barely count, but many are not. "Bound is the boatless man," but many have "boats" today and their "freedom" is just tourism; as if the whole world were nothing but a theme park. Once it was more alive and filled with potential.
>how I have the ability to travel my own country
Yes, I see my State cruelly murdered by so many plebs practicing this freedom, and I long for the days of serfdom.
>How the fuck am I more caged compared to a 15th century farmer?
It wasn't even about freedom, I was more talking about how unnatural our position is. Anyway, enough of this silliness.
>You're arguing in favor of a system.
But I'm not. I'm not saying the republic I live under should be replaced at all; what good would it even do to proclaim that?
>You labeling something as organic
But it *is* organic, that's why all civilizations in every corner of the world always had these common features despite having no relation to each other. It's natural for lions to live together in their own way, and we have ours ways too. I think the virtues of monarchy are well-known and speak for themselves, it's just that most people would consider them to be wartime measures that are unpleasant and best avoided.

>muh leave your hometown
>muh travel the world
>muh high education
We've seen already how disastrous and subversive that has been. The college pipeline is the clearest example, particularly for women, as it involved both abandoning your locale and high education. Foul poison.

>>18624720
>You are definitely more free than a dim-witted Hindoo or Congoid who can barely count, but many are not.
So I should not be in favor of a system that works for me because Indians and Congolese who live in different systems that don't work for them, or how is this relevant?
>Yes, I see my State cruelly murdered by so many plebs practicing this freedom, and I long for the days of serfdom.
You're entitled to want to be a slave, but don't speak for the rest of us.
>It wasn't even about freedom, I was more talking about how unnatural our position is. Anyway, enough of this silliness.
Farming and civilization is unnatural. Be principled and argue for a return to hunter-gatherer tribes instead.
>But it *is* organic, that's why all civilizations in every corner of the world always had these common features despite having no relation to each other. It's natural for lions to live together in their own way, and we have ours ways too. I think the virtues of monarchy are well-known and speak for themselves, it's just that most people would consider them to be wartime measures that are unpleasant and best avoided.
Then I can simply say that the pitfalls of monarchy are well-known and speak for themselves, and we end up getting nowhere.

>>18624623
Even the most retarded king has an incentive to not leave his son a shithole where everyone hates the him. Politicians have no such incentives, only the incentive to loot the country using their temporary office as fast as possible and say whatever they need to say to obtain their position. It can NEVER produce good outcomes. Monarchy can sometimes produce good outcomes.

>>18624726
>Even the most retarded king has an incentive to not leave his son a shithole where everyone hates the him.
Why? It's not his problem.

>>18624732
Just because you are hopelessly atomized, nihilistic and individualistic doesn't mean others are. The incentive is there even if not everyone feels it.

>>18624733
>Just because you are hopelessly atomized, nihilistic and individualistic doesn't mean others are. The incentive is there even if not everyone feels it.
This also applies to politicians, bucko.

File: Franz_Xaver_Winterhalter_(...).jpg (128 KB, 898x1400)

128 KB JPG

>>18624562
Most people are sheep and need a firm hand to guide them. Democracy can be superior to monarchy if it is technocratic and only allows educated people to vote, but that goes against liberal ideology which dominates the West today.

>>18624737
It doesn't because under a democracy anything goes, even a constitution can be amended. Not only does the politician not know if his children will be in charge of the country, he doesn't know if their religion/ethnicity will still be dominant politically.

>>18624745
>It doesn't because under a democracy anything goes, even a constitution can be amended.
Oh, anything goes in a democracy but not in an absolute monarchy?
>Not only does the politician not know if his children will be in charge of the country, he doesn't know if their religion/ethnicity will still be dominant politically.
Why does this matter, you just admitted people can act in the best interest of other people.

>>18624747
>Oh, anything goes in a democracy but not in an absolute monarchy?
The whole point is the king has sole responsibility over whatever happens, which will carry over to his son. The incentive is clear, but made murky for the politician.
>Why does this matter, you just admitted people can act in the best interest of other people.
Once again showing your ignorant atomized attitude. People like you are the ones who claim state workers would be more reliable raising children than blood relatives.

>>18624750
>The whole point is the king has sole responsibility over whatever happens, which will carry over to his son.
If it's his sole responsibility then why will it carry over to his son? The son can just blame his dad for the bad policies.
>Once again showing your ignorant atomized attitude. People like you are the ones who claim state workers would be more reliable raising children than blood relatives.
Cool non-response, address the question.

>>18624752
>The son can just blame his dad for the bad policies.
His dad is the only reason he is king. The incentive for the dad to leave a state in good shape and popularity for his son is obvious, unless you're so autistically legalistic you don't understand kings always faced consequences for not upholding their obligations(yes, they had obligations! Even if a legal piece of paper didn't "legally" bind them to it)
>Cool non-response, address the question.
If you couldn't even understand from the example I gave then you're truly a deep case of atomized.
If you remove the kinship element, people become unreliable custodians. That is why parents are better than state workers, and why kings are better than politicians. And no "we're all one species/country" is not enough. Blood will always matter most, regardless of how hard you try to erase it.

>>18624756
>The incentive for the dad to leave a state in good shape and popularity for his son is obvious
But a politician has no incentive to leave the country in good shape for their children, and to leave the popularity of their party in good shape for their successor?
>If you remove the kinship element, people become unreliable custodians. That is why parents are better than state workers, and why kings are better than politicians. And no "we're all one species/country" is not enough. Blood will always matter most, regardless of how hard you try to erase it.
How do corporations even function if every executive position isn't filled by a family member of the founder? Clearly you're of the opinion that non-relatives simply cannot take on leadership roles and perform them well to everybody's mutual benefit. Also, how do bad aristocrats even exist if what you're saying is true? How can there be people who have squandered their family wealth hunting and whoring instead of maximizing the inheritance of their children?

>>18624771
>But a politician has no incentive to leave the country in good shape for their children
No, because a politician is not a custodian of his country. He is a cog in the system and never has enough power to properly rule it, even if he is the chief executive.
>party popularity
Invoking parties is even worse than invoking "helping other people". No blood = no incentive.
>How do corporations even function if every executive position isn't filled by a family member of the founder? Clearly you're of the opinion that non-relatives simply cannot take on leadership roles and perform them well to everybody's mutual benefit.
Corporations are not sovereign counties, but even they work better when run by families. The best analogy is in farming(you know, where food comes from). Family farms are the best, while collective farming has led to deadly famines.
>how do bad aristocrats even exist if what you're saying is true?
"Abusive parents exist so children must be raised by the state". Same argument.

>>18624778
>No, because a politician is not a custodian of his country. He is a cog in the system and never has enough power to properly rule it, even if he is the chief executive.
How does that result in him not having any incentive to do a good job? Do you seriously believe that every single politician is a completely amoral psychopath who only seek office in order to maximize personal financial gain at the expense of their reputation while also running the risk of imprisonment by the next party depending on the lengths they go to to enrich themselves?
>Invoking parties is even worse than invoking "helping other people". No blood = no incentive.
Politicians are beholden to their electorate and their party. You do realize that the party itself can and have kicked out politicians from their organization, right?
>Corporations are not sovereign counties, but even they work better when run by families. The best analogy is in farming(you know, where food comes from). Family farms are the best, while collective farming has led to deadly famines.
Farming works best when they're run by competent farmers who want to farm. What happens when the farmer's son is incompetent or has no interest in farming?
>"Abusive parents exist so children must be raised by the state". Same argument.
How about you actually address things instead of constantly trying to imply that I am in favor of the state raising people's children?

>>18624645
>>18624651
who do you faggots think you are kidding

>>18624804
About what in particular?

>>18624635
>stop using irl examples
Would you prefer I compare Germany under the Kaiser to Germany today?
It was much better under the Kaiser as there were less raped and Germans weren’t being ethnically replaced.

It’s also funny that you chose to completely ignore the example I gave which is that monarchy, even in brown town, is superior to other forms of government.

>>18624639
Iran is winning because they have a domestic high production arms industry while the U.S., caring only for the short term as democracies and republics do, has lacks the industrial base to keep up with Iran.
>>18624649
>leaders for life with absolute power
Most monarchies aren’t like this. Also YES DEMOCRACIES LITERALLY BECOME THIS. We live under a permanent bureaucracy that is all seeing and all powerful and is vastly more cruel and vindictive to its opponents than any monarch ever was.

>>18624647
>ally with the liberal democracy
>get bombed relentlessly while your “ally” abandons you
LOL
Saudi Arabia doesn’t border Iran btw. Don’t know if you knew that.

>>18624645
The war ain't over yet, but it sure as hell won't end with an Iranian regime change.

>>18624669
Other way around.
>>18624680
No king ever had flock cameras.

>>18624686
Bureaucracies are far less accountable than kings.
Kings require loyalty to impose their will, so if the king’s authority is undermined he loses legitimacy and if he loses legitimacy no one shows up to enforce his will or fight for him and another can easily take his place.

With a permanent managerial state they can use their sheer weight to crush any opposition and impose their legitimacy through violence which isn’t based on loyalty or authority but upon mercenaries.

Kings who hire mercenaries quickly run out of money and then they fall.
Democracies and republics can perpetually milk the people to keep the mercenaries perpetually milking the people in a cycle of tyranny which has no foreseeable end.
Even if a king did this eventually the king would die.

>>18624815
>Iran is winning because they have a domestic high production arms industry while the U.S., caring only for the short term as democracies and republics do, has lacks the industrial base to keep up with Iran.
Setting aside the fact that damage from the war has been lopsided in the US's favor, is the implication here that with "high production arms industry", the US would have been able to impose regime change from standoff position and with no boots on the ground? You're just tying yourself in knots to make Iran heroic and strong. They got absolutely pummeled, and still won because the US's failure was baked into its objectives.
>>18624816
Oh so you're one of those who think Tel-Aviv looks like Gaza now. Maybe Bin Salman is secretly dead and they're using AI videos to deceive us?

>>18624709
The vast majority of people in Europe were freemen.
This idea everyone was a serf is a myth.
>>18624737
Obviously not based on their behavior.

>>18624820
>it was about the objectives
LOL
With more munitions the U.S. could suppress the IRGC indefinitely and fear no retaliation. The U.S. was defeated on the battlefield. We can no longer intercept their missiles. We ran out of our standoffs.
They can hit us, we can’t hit them.
Thats a military defeat, not a political one.
>tel aviv look like Gaza now
Literally no one thinks lol Israel isn’t even in the war at present.
Also
>implying Tel Aviv is in Saudi Arabia
LOOOOOL

Saudis begged Trump not to strike Iran because they got missile mogged by Houthis an Iranian proxy and they’re out of interceptors.

Iran won because monarchies think in long term.

>>18624827
Yeah your hyperbolic language confirms it. You probably think the US is hiding thousands of casaulties from the public as well.

>>18624827
>Saudis begged Trump not to strike Iran because they got missile mogged by Houthis an Iranian proxy and they’re out of interceptors.
Saudi Arabia didn't support the 12-day war in 2025 but they actually supported this war and explicitly called for regime change.

>>18624562
Because it doesn't matter. You'll reap what you sow anyways.

>>18624594
At times one wonders if semi-constitutionalism would work better with the monarch as a strong executive. UK’s rotation of embarrassing empty suits and total lack of responsibility for governing needs a change. Only problem is it depends on the Monarchs character, for which an incompetent one like Charles would not do well. In the end a strong executive model is America’s government, which unlike divine right gets to be put up to change every 4 years. Euro parliamentarian is in a difficult position right now, an outdated mode of government.

>>18624597
Younger generations don't even have sex so thank God for that

>>18624594
Being retarded increases your SMV

>>18624834
>Saudi Arabia wanted this war
You mean back when they thought it was easy? Yeah so what?
Now they want the war to end because they’re losing and losing hard.

>>18624831
>your language
What language?
>you think
Please tell me more what I think.
I trust the U.S. press releases and the official statements by the Pentagon.
They’re saying we lost and we are more or less waiting on a formalized resolution.

>>18624818
>No king ever had flock cameras.
lmao, are Gen Z really still getting triggered by the concept of security cameras? You do realize those have been around for decades right?

>>18625016
They don't realize the device they're hooked up on like meth addicts is the device which compromises their privacy the most. They just look for something to be mad at

File: 1784506441484465.jpg (23 KB, 337x426)

23 KB JPG

Everyone in this thread and retarded and completely misses the forest for the trrees.

Outside of people who already live in monarchies, "Monarchists" are so because they are usually disillusioned with democracy due to every single democracy in the entire world being corrupt to an ridiculous degree, even in the west. So you've been told your entire life how great democracy is, but then you look at the window and politicians obey "the popular will" about as much as a dictator or king does.

If democracy is a failure, and you don't want to live North Korea or China like a commie, what's left? Going back to what you had before - monarchy. If you're not being represented regardless of what you do, then at least with a monarchy you might luck out with a good king instead of another fifty years of corporate puppet slave circus.

>>18625040
North Korea is a fucking monarchy ffs

>>18625040
>If democracy is a failure, and you don't want to live North Korea or China like a commie, what's left?
Killing yourself would be a good start. The world would unequivocally be a better place without you on it. The entire crux of pro-monarchist rhetoric is just Nirvana Fallacy.

>>18625048
North Korea is objectively not a monarchy

It is a country without internal legitimacy, its forced to rely on the military for power because it has none otherwise. Monarchies have legitimacy. The country wouldn't evaporate into thin air if the army went on a break for a day.

Let me put it this way, communist countries are the only ones that have to actively wall people in instead of out because fucking everyone wants to escape.

>>18625052
Nirvana Fallacy relies on a "good" plan, tell me what's good about modern democracy

>>18625055
NTA but the entire North Korean state is in service to its ruling family. Kim Jong Uns successor is his own daughter Kim Ju Ae. It's a monarchy in all but name

>>18625057
Nothing is anon, you sure showed me, you're very clearly here in good faith and I have no choice but to concede. Now then, weren't you busy killing yourself? I'm sure there's a busy street you can walk into close to where you live.

>>18625055
>its forced to rely on the military for power because it has none otherwise
You just described human civilization, anon.

>>18625064
Is it? If Saudi Arabia's military disappeared, would the country crumble down like a card castle? Maybe if another country invaded, but the nation itself wouldn't suddenly disappear.

North Korea *is* the military. They need constant purges and parades and camps and walls to stop civilians because their entire country revolves around the military. It lacks internal legitimacy.

>>18625073
>If Saudi Arabia's military disappeared, would the country crumble down like a card castle?
Yes? Unless America sent ground forces to save it the house of Saud would be toppled by extremists on day 1 lmao

File: please be patient I have (...).png (288 KB, 530x527)

288 KB PNG

>>18624562
1. Because we need a leader, who represents us and can lead us (especially when we are at war)
2. The alternative is an Oligarchy, but they are simply worse at certain things and have their own interests, which clash with their colleagues, since they are all equals.
3. Democracies don't actually exist, so it's not an option.
Pretty obvious that Kings are necessary through a process of elimination.

>>18625016
>>18625026
>defending flock cameras
Don’t you lefties know you’re supposed to be against fascism?
You can put your phone away, but you cannot escape flock cameras.
>we always had security cameras
We always five cameras on every street corner?
Can you show me a picture of any street where every single corner of every building and road had five cameras on them?
No you can’t.
Another episode of the unique substrain of 4troon gaslighting everyone with “we always lived in an omniscient security state”
Grow up.

>>18625016
>>18625026
>GenZ
Dumb millennials. Boomers were right about millennials.

>>18625063
>no I won’t defend my position I will instead be passive aggressive because you’re a chud
Give us a demonstration and 41% yourself troonjak

>>18624599
>Radical republicanism is just feminism for men.
Explain

>>18624820
>They got absolutely pummeled, and still won because the US's failure was baked into its objectives.
Why does this keep happening? Does every great power drink their own koolaid? >Surely the American revolutionaries will be crushed when we send in troops. Almost everyone is a loyalist anyway!

>>18624594
>>18624599
>Societies which do not believe they have any man capable of wearing a crown are completely right; I do not contest them.
YOU WOULDN'T BE A KING EITHER YOU STUPID IMBECILE, YOU WOULD BE A PEASANT

and just like real life monarchies you would have no rights, your daughters would be whores that the King can come in and kidnap as a sex slave until he gets bored. Your sons will be forcefully conscripted or worse, simply forced to work until they die of exhaustion on some random project the King or Queen desires that month.

You are worthless, you deserve to be killed. You are naturally cattle. You don't understand freedom at all.

>>18625433
>you would have no rights
Saudi Arabia had rights. Jordan has rights.
>your daughters would be whores whom the king can sleep with
1. Daughters are whores today for peasants which is worse.
2. No they wouldn’t. The king can’t just decide to scandalize women, and there are specific examples of this being forbidden by the Church and the Folk Assemblies see Childeric.
>forcefully conscripted
No, that happens today. Forced conscription, otherwise known as conscription is a product of democracy.
See Ukraine or America during its large wars or the USSR.
Monarchies are uniquely awarded the chance not to conscript because they can call upon a personal retinue loyal to the king himself or the retinues of royal land holders and their households, these are volunteers and paid professionals, not peasants of democracy or communism doing required service.

Only a handful of examples of conscription by kings actually exist and when it occurred it was wildly successful ala Sweden and Macedon.

>freedom is when I get fucked in the ass by shitlibs instead of bowing my head once a year to a tall handsome European couple
Fuck off leftroon.
>FREEDOM
you are vastly less free when the ever present mob of democracy governs your life.
You’re going to be ruled by someone, necessarily, true freedom belongs to the animals, you would rather be ruled by the worst of men and many of them. I would rather be ruled by far fewer men and men of much higher quality.

You also are just historically illiterate. Like why comment if you haven’t even read anything on the topic?

>>18625222
It’s universal suffrage for the lowest common denominator.
Like feminism it has been catastrophically bad.
No I infact don’t think we should chain boomers who watch ‘The View’ to control of the largest nuclear arsenal on the planet.

>>18625421
Mainly its lack of professionalism, everyone becomes a temporary worker and paradoxically when you constantly switch out personnel you are selecting against professionalism and long term refinement and those who manage to stay are those who are survivor Machiavellian types, not dedicated self sacrificing professionals who do it for the love of the game.

>>18625939
Every dictatorship has rights, even North Korea (a defacto monarchy). The difference is the scale of rights. Any criticism of the monarch in Saudi Arabia, no matter how minor, will get you a very lengthy prison or death sentence. Don't know about you but I personally enjoy the freedom of being able to call out my president as a pedo without having my head chopped off.

Absolutely monarchies are nothing more than hereditary dictatorships while constitutional monarchies are nothing more than fancy democratic republics. There's truly nothing special about monarchies. If you support absolute monarchies, you support authoritarian dictatorships in general. If you support constitution monarchies, you support democratic republics with a useless family hanging around pretending to be important.

>>18625433
Lmao this faggot is fucking fuming

>>18624562
Just edgelords do that welcome to 4 chan

>>18625208
>Grow up.
You're getting triggered by security cameras anon. I know you're probably underage and all that but you never had expectation of privacy out in public, that's never been a thing. You're jumping on a bandwagon because you saw some editorial on twitter, you're the one who needs to grow up

>>18625951
>criticizing the leader is a huge thing for me
Why?
>it’s a question of scale
Well not really because it varies from place to place however I’d rather be unable to criticize one king than be unable to criticize all blacks or all gays.

Also there’s no death penalty for speaking against the king. It’s a 5 year prison sentence which is less than what they wanted to give Shiloh Hendrix who told a nigger to fuck off.
>it’s le heckin rules man
Fuck off idiot. We are less free than ever and the question of freedom is irrelevant.
We will never be free as long technology yokes us.
Freedom isn’t the question anymore. It’s a question of government efficacy and crowns are superior to lobbies.

Let me make it clear again.
Freedom is gone, regardless of government.
Technology robbed us of freedom.

All that we have to determine for government is what is most effective, and monarchy is the meta, dictatorships are the meta.

>>18626258
>you’re mad
No???
I am pointing out that flock cameras, really a distilled representation of the security state, came about under an ostensibly free democratic republic, not a king.

You’re trying to deflect and turn it into a “you’re mad lol” because you are now acutely aware that monarchies are demonstrably less intrusive and tyrannical than democracies and republics.

all time under monarchs were cool, times under democracies are retarded and gay

>>18624659
>unaccountable temporary bureaucrats.
How do you think monarchs rule? Magic vibes and good feelings? The apparatus of the state wouldn't change under a monarchy. Bureaucrats aren't going anywhere. Only the executive changes. The same shit existed in Medieval China and the Roman Empire. It has nothing to do with monarchy, but rather the state.
>>18624674
>Democratic Republics feature absolute power over their populace that medieval kings could only dream of.
Wow a modern nation state has more central power than a 'state' divided into ruling warlords who pay lip service to a king? China isn't a democracy, much like a monarchy, they are an autocracy, and they have far more coercive power than any democracy against their own citizens.
>>18624691
That's how it tends to work in functioning democracies. Do you live in Africa or something?
>>18624822
>The vast majority of people in Europe were freemen.
During the reign of King John, 90% of men in England were unfree in some way. By the 15th century that number had flipped, but the majority of people remained unfree across Europe. England was an exception in that serfdom became defunct through social change rather than a top down decree.

>>18624581
how so? his family basically disowned him along with prince Andrew for being a degenerate.

>>18624562
Sometimes being a regular cuckold isn't exciting enough so you need to turn it into a whole political system, complete with a king who gets to bring back the right of the first night
it's not a system for free men

>>18624562
thiel psyops in young impressionable internet users

>>18626551
>Bureaucrats aren't going anywhere
The positions aren't, but under a proper system the people staffing these positions should all be accountable. For the past ~90 years the executive branch in the US had "independent agencies" which by court fiat the President was not allowed to fire. Thankfully that court fiat was overruled this year.

>>18626575
Which agencies are you referring to?

>>18626579
Humphrey's Executor in particular was about the FTC, but it pretty much applied to every agency not in the cabinet.

>>18626586
I think you're confusing at will firing with firing in general.

>>18626589
It was not restricted to at-will firings(which would have been ridiculous anyway). The ruling said Congress can by statute block firings from those agencies for any reason it damn wishes. This is unelected executive bureaucrats being protected by the legislative branch via judicial fiat.

>>18626593
>Congress can by statute block firings
>This is unelected executive bureaucrats being protected by the legislative branch via judicial fiat.
Interesting, I had no idea that congress was not actually elected. How do they get their jobs? Do congressmen just get appointed by some random bureaucrat?

>>18626596
So you also think the President should not be allowed to fire any of his cabinet members either. That's your logic.

>>18626600
Wait is there some "deep state" schizo shit where you think that every elected official is just a puppet with no actual legal power?

>>18626603
You didn't address what I said. Should the President be allowed to fire his cabinet members or not?

>>18626607
Yes, the president should have the powers that he is legally allowed to have.

>>18626610
He is right now allowed to fire officials from "independent agencies" too after the recent Supreme Court ruling this year. Is that fine with you as well?

>>18626613
Yes. If congress has an issue with that they can do something about it.

>>18626618
Do you understand how incoherent, unprincipled, and downright schizophrenic your approach is? You worship legal fiat without any bedrock to rely on. You think law is magic.

>>18626622
>wanting the law to be followed is le bad
Maybe your skin has too much melanin to understand.

>>18626626
You support birthright citizenship and you call other people brown?

>>18626627
Following the law is a white man thing, you wouldn't understand.

>>18626633
The white man precedes the "rule of law" and he can only die by refusing to dismantle it.

File: C.jpg (91 KB, 840x560)

91 KB JPG

>>18624565
fpbp

File: kindly showing the pleb s(...).gif (3.5 MB, 1024x435)

3.5 MB GIF

>>18624581
>the image that destroyed the last lingering remains of e-monarc-ACK

A disinherited bastard and a mud whore? Hardly.

>>18624674
I'd rather be free and suffer due to the consequences of my own poor decisions then live in a golden cage without any material worries but without any agency as well.

>>18626736
>POV: your TFR crashes below replacement

>>18626551
Those checks and balances make any positive change impossible, the only way to go is to sink deeper. At least you could get a hearing of some higher up, or you had a specific person you could rebel against, but democracy has become a prison where nobody is responsible for anything and nobody has the right to fix anything.

>>18626551
What do you mean unfree in some way? All people are unfree in some way unless in a state of nature.

>>18624562
high time preference minimized government (it's 1 dude and his team)

>>18626402
>You’re trying to deflect and turn it into a “you’re mad lol” because you are now acutely aware that monarchies are demonstrably less intrusive and tyrannical than democracies and republics.
....because of security cameras?
Are you by any chance aware of the symptoms of Cluster B Mental disorders?

>>18624597
>Republican sentiments are dominant among younger generations.
Doubt. I wouldn't say they are monarchists, but it's obvious the younger generation is skeptical of republicanism, especially the fact that, since democracy favors the older generation, the system is rigged against them

File: Juan_de_Miranda_Carreno_002.jpg (340 KB, 960x1218)

340 KB JPG

Monarchy died in the west because Europe got taken over by inbred, dysgenic retards like George III of England and Charles II of Spain and the peasantry felt like they had no power over their succession while the Crown was quickly devolving into an overglorified Special Ed Class for adult children. For all the problems Democracy has, it at least sets term limits on potentially retarded rulers, gives a peaceful mechanism for succession of power, and has a clear separation of powers within its respective governments

>>18626402
Do you honestly believe that medieval kings if given the technology wouldn't install flock cameras throughout their entire realm. Or the later pre revolutionary absolute monarchs. They would also do it. Hell, go back in time and Hammurabi would've filled Babylon with them. You are misattributing technological development to political ideologies. Modern absolutist monarchies such as the Saudis also track their subjects and have an iron grip on their society.

>>18627073
Charles II was very popular with the peasantry, retard.

>>18627008
>What do you mean unfree in some way?
As in, legally unfree. They did have access to royal courts and were almost all bound to a manor. The Magna Carta specifically does not apply to any of these people. Freemen paid rent and did not belong to a manor.

>>18627249
>They did have access to royal courts
did NOT I mean to say. Royal courts could only be accessed by freemen.

>>18624609
Lol, the Taliban actually bans the dancing boys practice, which was a local custom that predated them. The practitioners were local tribal chieftains and elders. America aligned themselves with them because of mutual opposition to the Taliban, and you can find plenty of documentaries where US soldiers cry about having to silently tolerate the dancing boy shit from their alleged allies.

>>18627235
Huge if true, but I'll bet he didn't spend enough time in public for the peasantry to form a real opinion on him

>>18624562
Because the chronically online retards here genuinely think monarchy today would be just like their idealized medieval fantasies and not just fucking Saudi Arabia at best.

>>18627286
>Imperial Germany was like Saudi Arabia
????

>>18627286
Monarchies lasted until WW1.

>>18627249
>legally unfree
What does this even mean? The majority of men WERE FREEMEN.
>Magna Carta
Magna Carta?
1. We don’t live in medieval England.
2. We aren’t trying to recreate medieval England.
3. There was more freedom under monarchs than under democracy
4. Technology level not government system is what determines freedom.
5. Our sole concern for governments shouldn’t be freedom which government really has no effect on, it should be efficacy. Monarchies are more efficacious than Democracies or Republics or bureaucratic nightmares.

There is no actual argument against monarchy.
>but history
The majority of pre-modern history is a result of time and place rather than institution itself.
Lefties are cargo cultists and so mistake non lefties for cargo cultists, like >>18627286 is doing.

We aren’t trying to imitate the Middle Ages in the hopes based Middle Ages returns.
We simply recognize the system of the Middle Ages was superior to the system we have now and we can prove this because countries which used this system are consistently defeating countries which are not.

>>18627334
>What does this even mean?
Having the legal status of being unfree. It existed as a legal status across all of Western Europe in the Middle Ages.
>The majority of men WERE FREEMEN.
This isn't true at all. If you lived under a manor, you were by definition an unfree man, which in the 13th century was nearly 90% of the population. Even those who rented land had to prove they were not of a servile status. Where are you getting this from that the majority of the were freemen?
>Monarchies are more efficacious than Democracies or Republics or bureaucratic nightmares.
Monarchies are bureaucratic. Unless you're advocating for the dissolution of most of the state, any state will continue to be so regardless of who sits at the executive. What are you even basing this effectiveness on? The only autocracy in the world that outperforms democratic states is China.
>We aren’t trying to imitate the Middle Ages in the hopes based Middle Ages returns.
Don't mention the Middle Ages if you don't want to discuss it. seriously, why do you bring up the status of historical people and then dismiss it as irrelevant when I comment on it? I'm not making any argument about monarchy there, I am just stating that during that period, most people were unfree.
>because countries which used this system are consistently defeating countries which are not.
Most modern autocracies are abject failures. States in the Early Modern World which did not pivot from the previous systems were annihilated by those which did.

>>18627323
Thanks for proving my point. It's all autistic historical fetishism. No, bringing back monarchism isn't going to bring back your idealized fantasy version of [insert special interest kingdom here]. It's bringing you Saudi Arabia.

>>18627327
Wrong, they still exist.

>>18627516
>give an example of a monarchy (White) that wasn’t like other monarchy (brown)
>UHH FETISH!!!
pretending not to understand again.
Thanks for letting me know you’re evil and not worth my time.

>>18624562
People just hate republics, which is understandable as they are the worst form of government. But they don't know of any other viable options. In part because republicans have done a very good job of erasing them. Co-opting the term "democracy" was their most insidious trick.

>>18624562
Monarchy serves important roles in certain political systems and societies. It is not an inherent good or bad, but dependent on its application. In Spain it’s a compromise between the Conservatives-Liberals during the democratic transition. Even Saudi’s serve a role in tard wrangling even more extremist elements in their own society (albeit with many failures).

>>18627361
Unfree isn’t a legal category in medieval Europe.
If you mean “serf” most people weren’t serfs, at least MY people weren’t serfs.
Serfdom isn’t apart of monarchy.
>manors were unfree
Opposite. Manorial system created the midwits and professionals who worked on manors by choice.
This also isn’t apart of monarchy.
From google’s AI
> At its peak during the 13th-century Middle Ages, roughly 40% of England's population consisted of unfree serfs (commonly called villeins). This percentage shifted over time, dropping to roughly 30% to 35% in the late 11th century and gradually declining before disappearing entirely in England by the 17th century.
>monarchies are bureaucratic
Where was the bureaucracy in Scotland?
How many departments did the king of Norway have?
Bureaucracy isn’t apart of monarchy.
You can have monarchy without bureaucracy.
>China
Persia actually just defeated the premier world power because dictatorial forms (spiritual monarchies) are vastly more efficacious than democracies and liberal democracies especially.
>don’t mention the Middle Ages
I didn’t. The Middle Ages was brought up as a strawman and I pointed out monarchy isn’t “the Middle Ages”, it preceded and succeeded the Middle Ages and that even if we assume monarchism is magically tied to the Middle Ages, well the Middle Ages had a stronger run than what we are on today.
>abject failures
You mean the browns are abject failures. No system no matter how good can uplift a failure of a people.
But a bad system can absolutely destroy even a high quality people.
>NOOOO NIGGERS ARENT SOFT LOCKED OUT OF UTOPIA
yes they fucking are.
Maybe you’re not a shitlib, but you definitely argue like one, so let’s just get to the point, Whites can be trusted with advanced and effective forms of government.
Nons will fail regardless of government.
We need monarchy because it is simply the meta.

>>18627671
>pretending not to understand again.

Yes, I can see you doing that. Need I write in smaller words? Put down the CK3 and come back to reality buddy.

File: IMG_5657.jpg (31 KB, 511x749)

31 KB JPG

>>18627772
>The definition of monarchy is Saudi Arabia and can never be different
>why do you keep claiming I’m stupid/bad faith

Please stop wasting my time. I tried to explain where you went wrong. You continually spurn my efforts like a petulant child.
Leftism lost. It’s a 19th century spook. Sorry you had to find out in a thread about monarchism, ironic.

Its for the same reason we still have cobblestone paths and gothic cathedrals around; its all a big museum to draw tourists in

>>18624617
>anyone who says they'd rather live in some authoritarian shithole over a western democracy is a liar who should put their money where their mouth is.
Dubai aint too bad. Russia will become another giant brothel once the war is over and tensions simmer down