Is Monarchism the ultimate red pill?
>Leaders raised to be leaders; not power hungry politicians who got elected based on lies
>Inherently more nationalist
>Inherently more traditionalist
>Can still be combined with a democratic legislature to prevent complete tyranny
How can we combat the ceremonial monarchies who have been completely stripped of power in Europe?
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
This was the only option.
Yeah it's great. But I get to be king.
Yes
>How can we combat the ceremonial monarchies who have been completely stripped of power in Europe?
death to america
>implying it's not your failed Westminster model that's to blame
Is Monarchism the ultimate red pill?
Yes.
I unironically like the idea of a Monarchy
I'm starting to come around to it, especially the idea of leaders raised to be leaders.
exactly
I used to be a hardcore Republican the past few years, but the more I think about it, the more I realize that Royalty are more likely to be effective and loyal to their people, because they are raised to lead their people, they don't just decide one day "yeah i'll trick these suckers into voting for me"
This, it's basically fascism with better succession planning
rejoins nous à l'action française :)
Do you even Plato?
If you are an ape and need an alfa i guess
>leaders raised to be leaders
en.wikipedia.org
what happens when this happens?
Chile was nothing before Pinochet, fuck off idiot
This
HAIL CHARLES MAURRAS
Monarchism does not prevent leaders from being power hungry and craven. Even a cursory glance at European history shows it.
There is more nous to the idea of a supranational/national CEO, or conductor, as envisaged by Land or Moldbug. Attachment to hereditary monarchy is predicated on silly nostalgia.
Unless your king is a cuck like ours
Incest
There is a difference between a Feudal Monarchy and a Constitutional Monarchy
Feudal Monarchies leads to plenty of feuds (eeey), but Monarchist Nations with clearly defined borders and a democratic legislature will not get involved in wars so quickly.
I blame ceremonialism for this
Are you the king of luxemburg? why you mad?
Charles II was a top tier meme tho
But yeah wars of succession and power struggles are a problem
every now and then leader happens to be a fucking retard or egomaniac so no
also monarchs are often inbred due to complicated family relations and arranged marriages
>every now and then leader happens to be a fucking retard or egomaniac so no
this happens with republicanism as well
>also monarchs are often inbred due to complicated family relations
this is mostly because of feudalism
>and arranged marriages
these should be outlawed
I think more importantly the monarch owns the nation so it goes against their own interests to sell it out or damage it.
Concubines.
Search the meaning of it.
Queens are unnecessary, concubines are the best.
how would you outlaw arranging marriages?
and the problem with monarchism is that you can't change the leader, the whole nation has to suffer because of idiotic decisions an idiot makes only because of muh bloodline
>how would you outlaw arranging marriages?
It already is outlawed in most of the western world, idiot
>the whole nation has to suffer because of idiotic decisions an idiot makes only because of muh bloodline
you're right, that's why America is such a great country
Yes, still it happens with ((republics)), I think the average quality of monarchs is better then the average of ((presidents)).
wait, I thought we were talking about arranged child marriages specifically
Arranged marriages of adults don't really happen anymore
this would unavoidably happen because it's simply the bast way of securing an allegiance
do you really want me to name you all the insane monarchs who caused unimaginable harm to both their family and their people?
democracy is a noble idea, sadly it has turned into a shitshow organized by the deep state created to give the people an illusion of free choice
yes
There's one addition I would want to have in modern monarchy. As the world is incredibly more complex than it used to be during the years of hereditary monarchy, your average 100 IQ King would just have no chance of being a good ruler. You can't study to become more intelligent and more adaptable to the everchanging world.
Simple eugenics wouldn't do it either. It's very unlikely that a wise king would have a son as wise as him. So it has to be selection, not hereditary. Ideally the wisest, most knowledgeable, most royal in appearance, and suitable man in the nation should be a monarch. How this selection would go forward, I don't know. Perhaps by the current king, who would usually abdicate in his elder years by his own will to a heir of his selection.
An armed population, that has recieved military training by 1 year conscription, would protect the people from tyranny.
The so called"((deep state))" destroyed almost all monarchies, because they were a pain in the ass to ((them)).
Those atrocities that you speak are nothing compared with the ((equality, liberty, fraternity)) + ((liberalism/ cuckservatism)) bullshit that is destroying ALL Europeans into extintion, don't compare because these monarchies that you speak about did not tryed to make ALL Europeans desapear.