Monarchism is the final redpill

Monarchism is the final redpill.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerva–Antonine_dynasty#Antonine_dynasty
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

>rule by ceo

*fascism

*communism

The best.

WRONG.

not just Monarchism, but Traditional hierarchies, institutions and worldview in general.

to the rest of Sup Forums

read Evola, Guenon, and Ludovici.

What seperates the monarch from North Korea by this logic?

Fascism is stupid because your leader will eventually die a monarchy will carry on and each child will be taught the proper way to rule a country.

*Anarcho-Queerism

>implying hereditary monarchy is desirable

why not meritocratic, groomed autocracy

aka
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerva–Antonine_dynasty#Antonine_dynasty

Monarch Tay?

The amount of pessimism for the fellow man you need to have to believe this bullshit is astounding.

A combination of Fascism and Monarchy would be pretty cool

I agree with this, monarchy is uncorruptable, a constitutional monarchy protecting libertarian ideals is the perfect society

All monarchies have ended in collapse because of incompetence, hereditary rule is an ideological failure. Fascism on the other hand turned Germany from a third world shithole into an economic and millitary superpower, Italy from a failed parliamentary monarchy into one of the richest countries in Europe, and Japan from an insignificant island country into the biggest rival of the USA. Most modern kangs have kike blood anyway.

Your fellow man thought and still thinks that Trudeau is a good Prime Minister.

>says the country who has fucking Trudeau

this

Salazar died and portugal immediately got it's government removed and replaced with a (((democracy)))

now look at it

Personality is mostly inherited
and
>inb4 "5 generations later and the new king is 3% genetically related to the original king"
believe it or no, that's why old aristocrats were so inbred
keep out genes that haven't been shown to work in country-ruling settings

modern solutions could be found instead tho. In the modern world there could be a global network of the ruling class due to easy communication technology, who could all interbreed

>monarchy
>rule by CEO
>CEO

Shlomo Shekelstein, please, this is not what monarchy is about.

Indeed, therefore we should make him king.

What about him?

>parliamentary
>constitutional

absolute or GTFO
any other type is just a façade that accomplishes nothing. The king still controls the army. and it's not like a king under an absolute system can just do whatever, he'd alienate the populace and he'd be quickly removed

besides the whole boon that comes along with a monarchy is how quick it can act compared to other governments. that goes away if the king needs to tip-toe around a constitution or a parliment

>I'll take "realism" and call it "pessimism"
>Governments should assume good in people instead of being pessimists!
>Governments shouldn't be set up to protect people from possible threats, that's pessimistic!
>Pessimism is categorically wrong in and of itself, who cares about results
>I am an emotionally controlled feminine male

A FUCKING LEAF

>implying the monarch actually does shit
The true ruling class was always the aristocracy

No fuck off, most royals are filthy kikes. Fascists actually care about their country and people and the continuation of their race.

it cancels out the only negative about monarchy though vOv that a cunt can get power and ruin everything

just limit his powers so he cant ban breathing or charge 50% tax on everything

Wow your argumentative skills are incredible, I have changed my mind now. We should make Hillary Clinton an absolute monarch!

>2016
>not being an anarcho-monarchist

>anarcho-monarchist

how bout anarcho-fuckyourself

>not being anarcho-fascist

If king is shit, you literally stage an uprising, hang the fuck, and give the crown to his less shitty relative while pointing "you better watch it, bubbo"

>not being anarcho-narco

>this is what he believes

I hate modern monarchy-fags. They watch too much Game of Thrones and believe that the Kings were powerful creatures who could raise whole army or order the death of anyone as they wished.
Not only would this type of government be extremly dangerous, but it wasn't even how it worked.

The French monarchy, who was without question the most absolue monarchy Europe has ever known, was actually a huge, huge bureaucracy with a gigantic administration. In this system, the King wasn't the absolute power ; He was just the ultimate echelon of a giant hierarchy.
If a King wanted to make a new law, he first needed to have the approval of the Council of the King (Exactly like, today, the Prime minister of France must make sure all of his projects are studied by the Council of State ; Only the name changed). He then had to ask all of the local parliaments of the country to register them, otherwise, he had to go through complicated procedures until he used the "lit de justice" (Exactly like, today, the Prime minister of France use the article 49 al 3. Only the name changed).
And I'm not even talking to you about all of the different courts (Prud'hommes, lord courts, regional courts...), of the councils (Like the Cour des Comptes, who watched the budget and warned the King about his expenses and his treasury, making sure he couldn't waste it), of the different "political parties" of the town (The clergy and the nobility had a large influence of course ; But even the common man could and did get represented, and could even openly critize the King and coerce him into changing his politics, through the use of the "lettres de remontrances").

In short : Shut up about monarchy. It is exactly the same system except you don't elect the leader and better pray he don't go insane or end up in a coma.

You speak well, friend
Fear not the foul words (((they)))
They are afraid and will do anything to stop you from the right path

holy fuck i just took a redpill of a eugenic and nordicized aristocracy/monarchy making up the ruling class

ignore my """""""meritocratic"""""" alternative i mentioned earlier

like no like my mind is blown atm, ive got countless studies concerning the inheritance of so many different traits and shit.

So? What's the point of overthrowing a royal just so that you can place his own blood on the throne? It's pointless, not to mention that the realm will become unstable as fucking hell due to the violent and rapid transition. Just convert to fascism Polanski.

>just limit his powers so he cant ban breathing or charge 50% tax on everything
>implying the people wouldn't just usurp him for that shit
>Fascists
>implying monarchy means they can't be fascist,
Monarchy is a government structure. Fascism is a way to run a government

meant to reply to

Monarchy and fascism are incompatible. Mussolini was dumb enough to keep Victor Emanuel III on the throne and look at what happened? Royals are all worthless kikes

that type of shit was because
1 governments got too big and the king couldn't manage it all
2 the King was smart enough to make sure he wasn't about to piss off the populace by doing something

the king can -be- the fascist leader

there is no inherent incompatability

in fact the fact that both rely on heirarchy makes them very compatible

>implying people would just casually usurp the throne
>implying your yank forefathers wouldnt be up in arms right now
>implying propaganda doesnt rape most peoples brains to an extent to which they'll give up anything


>monarchy and fascism cant work together
>what is japan

The Japanese empire exists, yes exists, currently, unlike the third reich and mussolinis rome

Monarchies have a shelf life of about three generations. You get a great man who builds his kingdom, his hand picked trained successor to continue his legacy, then a parade of pampered noble blood bearers squabble for the succession until it all tumbles down from either gradual rot or magnificent incompetance.

So for all you anons who don't plan on having kids anyway, monarchy is prettt cool.

what if the monarch has bad ideas and his descendants are faggots

Except it's a non hereditary hierarchy that understands human nature. The people do not like monarchs and will attempt to overthrow them at any given chance, one day there will be an incompetent monarch that will fuck everything up. be overthrown, and destroy the country due to the newly-established (((democracy))). The people can relate to a common man that rules over them, they can't relate with monarchs.

>what is aksum
>what is japan
>what is most monarchies throughout time

Dicks out for trudeau

>implying people would just casually usurp the throne
the Americans broke off over a fucking stamp tax to pay for the war that protected them
>implying propaganda doesn't rape most peoples brains to an extent to which they'll give up anything
this is more-so an argument against democracy/ democratic elections
>implying your yank forefathers wouldn't be up in arms right now
my parents are immigrants.
i'm 100% portugese

What did Hirohito do? He fucking betrayed the fascist government and became a sissy for the American Occupation Government, the reason the Japanese Empire is still hanging on and Japan is rich is because kikes and burgers gave them money.

>no oligarchy

Opinion discarded

>takes the worst aspects of liberalism
>combines it with the worst aspects of conservatism
>doesn't contain a single drop of sense between the two -isms, thus creating a completely retarded -ism

this is true, but less practical

how would a king pick his heir?
would people send resumes and go in for an interview? doesn't that make it all to mundane?
half of how kings kept power was convincing people they were a cut above the common man

way to dodge the point of my questions, that tax was around 3% nowadays its around 30%


because the fascist government didnt listen to him, started a losing war, used the japanese navy incorrectly to the emporers dismay, and generally fucked everything up

Hirohito was the only sane man running japan

>2016
>not being a paleocon

>way to dodge the point of my questions, that tax was around 3% nowadays its around 30%
then people break away from or usurp the king that does that

Read this.

what about fascism is liberal?
what about conservatism is bad?

yes, just like there is currently a civil war in america

oh wait

Any American in here espousing for monarchism or fascism is a huge faggot to be honest.

t. Egyptian who lived half my life in a democracy and a monarchy.

Monarchy is superior in every way, especially if the population is ethnically and religiously homogenous. King has 60+ years of experience ruling. Passes on wisdom to son. They are usually traditionalist which is a natural defence against leftism.

that's because america isn't a monarchy

people are given a chance to change their government every 4 years

this isn't hard logic to follow m8. are you being retarded on purpose

I agree, Monarchy is the most natural form of government. Government determined by strength and bloodline. Nature wills it, God wills it.

Monarchy has lasted for millenia, fascism never lives longer than its dictator

do you understand that in a monarchy, ideas and thought still exist?

do you understand that through that, "memes" will exist, aka social changes in thoughts and ideas, and so long as that change can exist, people will be able to manipulate it, which is how democrazy exists in the first place

im sorry, I assumed you were smarter

>Good goy, the synagogues know what's best for the country!

yes, social change happens. this is an irrelevant point

how does it invalidate monarchy at all?

Nationalism is a liberal. All values of the French Enlightenment are broadly undesirable. Fascism doesn't shed enough of the Enlightenment to be desirable. Pre-Enlightenment hierarchies and institutions are more desirable than post-Enlightenment hierarchies and institutions.

it invalidates absolute monarchy, because these ideas may impact the monarch, and also because expecting such a rebellion to be possible because of monarchy is silly, it would be just as hard as in the modern day

that's rather vague

what exactly is wrong with fascist hierarchies/institutions?
is there anything inherently wrong in nationalism?

>it invalidates absolute monarchy, because these ideas may impact the monarch,
why?
because the king can change his mind or be convinced of something monarchy goes out the window? where's the logic?

>expecting such a rebellion to be possible because of monarchy is silly, it would be just as hard as in the modern day
there'd be more tension in a monarch. I'm also not saying it'd happen over noting, just that the whole
>"King does whatever he wants and has no consequences :DDD"
isn't how monarchy works. if he sufficiently pisses people off, they'll rebel.

>which is how democrazy exists in the first place
Democracy exists because people are too retarded to know how easy it is to rig outcomes, and are too vain to give up on the idea of having """power""" and "choice"
Voters are irrelevant, only who counts the votes.

Fascism typically advocates for class-cooperation and seeks to mend gaps in inequality. The idea is not so much to perpetually advance society, but mostly to make sure each individual reaches their full potential in advancing the nation-state.

A eugenic monarchy/aristocracy paves a path for which society improves itself through genetic refinement, I suppose you could apply the same practice under Fascism.

Nationalism is absolutely desirable in the current state of affairs Western nations find themselves in, but historically it has been an anti-Monarchical, populist force. Stratified racialism (not mystery meat white nationalism) leads to an even higher quality populace and was the norm in Traditional Europe.

I'd highly recommend reading "Fascism from the Right" by Julius Evola, and the numerous criticisms of Fascism from a further-right wing perspective by Anthony Ludovici.

>because the king can change his mind or be convinced of something monarchy goes out the window?
Yes, because certain ideas are designed to insidiously worm their way in, and a monarch pushing leftism sounds like hell to me

no, thats why democrazy *still* exists

>Yes, because certain ideas are designed to insidiously worm their way in, and a monarch pushing leftism sounds like hell to me
to -do- realize that kings would be brought up from birth being told how to act, how to rule, and why

it'd take alot to convince a king of something

I'll check it out

>legally allowing your king to ruin the pillars your country was made on

No thankyou

constitutions are nice

you act like law means anything to a king

like i've been saying. a parliament or a constitution just puts a façade on an absolute monarchy to make it look different

they all work the same. the only thing the king ever truly answers to is the people. the only thing a constitution or parliament would do in a monarchy is make it more clear when the king fucked up

bump

shitpost levels approaching critical

Abort Mission

Abort Mission

>ausie
calling people shitposters

people that are at the top of the government only are affected by law if they choose to be
this is true even outside of monarchies

How is singapore a monarchy? or basically are you saying a one party state/authoritarian government is the same?