>1000 years of monarchy>become the best empire in history>100 years of democracy>get replaced by browns and blacksWhy does anyone still think voting was a good idea?
>>534054475I think I agree with you.
>>534054475How do you explain America imperialism then you dumb cunt?
>>534054568well known to have lasted over a 1000 years
>>534054774No monarchy has lasted over 1000 years. The kingdoms were always rising and falling.
>>534054914no american imperialism has lasted over 12, presidents are always rising and falling
>>534054914no dynasty, I don't know but the system yes. In France is lasted well beyond 1000 years.
>>534054475Because people are mentaly retarded obviously. Wich is the reason the ones in power want democracy, it allow them to control our countries and destroy it. You simply have to take control over informations, culture, educations, then create multiple party for many differents ideologies, and put the ones in power they need to do what they wish to do. It make them able to stay hidden in the shadow, destroy our country, and have no responsability when people are angry, they can simply change their puppet in place to another one. It is the safest way for them to destroy our countries and stay in power
I agree, the Spanish Empire was a fine thing until the mercantilists crypto Calvinists Bo*rbons came into power
>>534054475You are still living in a monarchy. Just the richest people rule now.
>>534054475Monarchy is the natural way of government. If the king owns all the land he will take care of it. If you put (((elected))) people do to that, they will try to steal as much as they can in the few years they are in power
>>534056862That's not a monarchy, that's a plutocracy, which with the development of techno feudalism is evolving into an oligarchy
>>534054475>descendant of serfs praises and extolls virtues of servitude>why don't you want to be more like me?Because some of us actually forged ourselves into beings of worth, cuck.
>>534054475It was the other way around in Britain. Cromwell came to power and promoted the most deserving people. British army and navy were overhauled, quickly become overpowered. Commonwealth Britain defeats premier powers Spain and the Netherlands and seizes massive amounts of territory.Monarch restored and keeps all the reforms. Occassionally indulges in nepotism like the other monarchic powers and disaster strikes. Back and forth between nepotistic disasters and meritocratic successes shape the next 300 years of history.Today we live in the worst of both worlds. Full on aristocratic nepotism which demeritocratic policies intentionally supplementing the trustfund babies with completely unproductive women, blacks and indians while productive small businesses have the life drained out of them with crippling taxes and beaurocratic red tape; while illegal foreigners and violent gangsters are intentionally allowed to continue to make money and not pay taxes (because it would be 'dangerous' for tax men or police to show up unannounced, so they inform them before hand so they can fraudulently cook their books), and all the while the nepo banks and businesses that fail due to poor leadership are bailed out with taxes that are now extracted from that over burdened and ever shrinking core of productive middle class small business owners.
I'm on board with monarchism but I reject absolutism.>The Jesuits opposed the Divine Right of Kings. Only the Church could claim authority from God. Princely authority comes from “the people” or the commonwealth. While Jesuits readily admitted that their view exalted ecclesiastical authority vis-à-vis civil authority, it did not mean, as critics charged, that secular authority was subordinate to papal authority since the prince obtained his power from an entirely different source. Roman Law located imperial authority in the people. Well-established within the scholastic tradition, this view was bolstered by the fact that all commonwealths have a “people” yet not all legitimate polities have monarchs. Juan de Mariana argued that it was the experience of civil society, and not the pre-civil “state of nature” of the contract theorists, that established the need to place limitations on political leaders. As Höpfl points out, the tenure of public officials in any legitimate regime depends on their willingness to abide by the legal restraints of the original constitution. I'm not surprised the Jesuits were a torn on the side of the Bourbons
>>534054475until there is a tyrant monarch that likes to fuck every woman on the night of her wedding and then randomly shows up at your place and decides to fuck your wife and daughters at the same time while you hold a candle.
>>534054475>king decides you've wronged him in some way despite zero evidence>get beheaded
>>534057565Just so people know this never happened in Britain. The film Brave Heart is WILDLY inaccurate.
>>534054475Yeah I've been wondering the same thing myself lately.Downside, could you imagine Trump/Biden/Obama for your entire fucking life?
>>534057733I think everyone with a brain will know. It's needlessly cruel and a good way to encourage peasant revolts, and neither the monarchy or the church would want to disrupt the natural order of things
>>534054568>Whites operating more than 3000 miles from any other White countryA real mystery
>>534054568The USA had a civil war pretty quickly where the good guys lost. The founders wanted a Whites-only country and are the least-White country founded by Europeans.They should have made George Washington monarch. I am fine with the rebellion because parliament was already a problem in the UK but they made the mistake of founding a left wing country (republic) instead of a right wing one (monarchy).
>>534054475Explain why every white monarchy is cucked then genius.
>>534057733how do you know, retard? are you the one writing history books? I bet that kind of shit happens all the time with monarchy. your fucking Prince Andrew was banging little kids and murdering them on Epstein Island. NAH BRO, SHIT LIKE THAT NEVER HAPPENS IN BONGLAND!
>>534057030Brazil was doing great under their monarch, it would seem. The anti-monarchist forces have destroyed every beautiful civilization.Democracy is like a south indian monkey trap. We have to let go of voting but everyone thinks voting gives them personal power. You can take anything from a voter. Their safety. Their prosperity. Their children's future. As long as you let them cling to their vote they let you do anything.
>>534055682Technically the same French dynasty ruled for 1000ish years in France. The main branch just died off at one point and the cadet branches just took the main lines place on the throne.
>>534058064Monarchs have the highest level of accountability of any form of government. Everyone know who has absolute power. Anything that goes wrong is blamed on the king. He can only give orders he is confident will be followed.It's like a reverse panopticon. All eyes on one man. High incentive to never betray anyone.
>>534059679>The USA had a civil war pretty quickly where the good guys lost. The founders wanted a Whites-only country and are the least-White country founded by Europeans. The south was and still is to this day full of niggers. The reason why the north won was because it was filled with white European immigration.
>>534060094America was supposed to be based on consent of the governed. The southerners were kept by force, thereby creating a fundamentally new country. The USA as it was founded was a flash in the pan.The right to bear arms was also a stupid concept. Like giving the right to dogs to keep and bare teeth.
