Why does monarchy feel so innately appealing? In some ways...

Why does monarchy feel so innately appealing? In some ways, I feel like we have to force ourselves to accept things like democracy or any other public system of government. Monarchy just feels naturally appealing.

Other urls found in this thread:

royalcentral.co.uk/europe/37-percent-of-young-russians-want-to-restore-the-monarchy-in-russia-79065
theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/06/russia-revolution-tsarist-school-moscow-nicholas-ii
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>Kekarchy

Less monarchy and more of the idea of balancing hereditary rule with competent leadership.

It's the reason people craft elaborate predictions about when Donald Trump Jr will run, or even farther into the future Malia Obama and Barron Trump growing up to become legitimate (or better) rulers than their parents.

Democracy always descends into mob rule, so it's always a double edged blade

this should be our flag, but with frogs in between the triskelion instead of that other design

Kek heard you

Because it absolves you of any responsibility. Responsibility and planning and executing everything in order for it to work out the way you want it to is very, very hard.

And if one part of that process fucks up, it's discouraging.

Isn't the opposite more true? In monarchy the government is more hands off and not really a part of your life, but in democracy everything becomes about public participation in government

because you ahve come to realize the biggest flaw with democracy

the people are ignorant and stupid...many vote for petty shit and ignore the big picture

a king who is wise would do whats best for the country,rather than having to bow to the ignorant masses

Because it's the best form of government. It can cover anything pending what suits the nation, and it's best way of pushing out the jews.

This.

>In monarchy the government is more hands off and not really a part of your life
Except for the pact the country is literally property of the king and he can do as he wishes. That of course unless it's a constitutional monarchy, which always ends up weakening the monarchy part further and further. The point of democracy is to elect temporary kings that can't fuck up too bad because of their short terms.

>The point of democracy is to elect temporary kings that can't fuck up too bad because of their short terms.
And can't do anything good, because of their short terms. Mostly, it allows the plutocrats to run shit for themselves behind the screen, whilst people pretend the elected officials actually matter, or were even elected.

>Mostly, it allows the plutocrats to run shit for themselves behind the screen
That really depends on who you vote for, though.

But these "temporary kings" have absolutely ZERO incentive to care about the country's long term success. No wonder democratic leaders always rack up crazy amounts of debt...

wut

When the US started only land owning white males could vote. That WAS working democracy. This is dog shit.

>Why does monarchy feel so innately appealing?

It doesn't, you cuck.

Either way. If we pretend voting actually matters, you're still going to end up with someone there only whilst they're popular (or until the term runs out) as a face for the party. They don't actually matter.

Monarchy is shit because it's susceptible to too much abuse, but pure democracy is shit too since most people are too stupid to vote in their best interest.

>Monarchy is shit because it's susceptible to too much abuse
How? The monarch is the one who is accountable. In any elected government, the buck can always be passed around, and wherever it stops, the person holding will just be replaced with a clone.

because deep down we know that """teamwork""" and design by committee fucking sucks. At some point you want someone with some balls to tear it to shreds and design something with vision and class.
Problem is few monarchs are even good enough to do that, either.

>ZERO incentive to care about the country's long term success
Not true. If you're a citizen or a rich citizen you have no interest in killing off the golden egg goose. The quality of a person is completely independent from their upbringing, there've been terrible kings and terrible presidents. It's retarded to be loyal to a king rather than the country. Gonna go full /his/ for a second and tell you about Darius III, the last Persian emperor. His army had all the advantages and was holding out alighr, yet broke down and fled twice when they saw him run before Alexander the Great.

Because the king becomes a symbol of the nation, a rallying cry for its native people, and a cultural landmark that guides the country into oneness with itself.

FUCKING KILL YOURSELF JEW WORSHIPER! Your slave cult must die.

>The monarch is the one who is accountable.
What systems are in place to prevent him from abusing his power?

>The monarch is the one who is accountable
To no one. You can jail a president but can't touch a king. If you're going to say they have their heads to lose, that's applicable to any head of state, and it's much better for a country's stability to impeach a crooked leader or just wait a couple years until he goes, rather than have violent revolution to depose him every time he fucks up because he intends to stay in power until his natural death anyway. That's the kind of shit that fucked up Latin American countries since their inception.

It may be appealing if you're a cuck.

>why do I want to be dictated to how I'm going to live my life by threat of violence by some other random worthless fleshbag?
Good question OP. It's probably because you're subhuman.

Why would he do this? Are Jews that persuasive?

because you are loser american looking for an alternative to the society you can't succeed in particularly one that doesn't put as much emphisis on personal choice so you wouldn't feel that you'd let yourself down as much but are also dumb and haven't looked around the world to the countries that still have a monarchy that are worse off and more cucked than your country

Popular uprising.

>To no one.
To his people.
>You can jail a president
Which achieves nothing. You're cutting one head off a hydra at best.
>but can't touch a king.
Why not?
>nd it's much better for a country's stability to impeach a crooked leader or just wait a couple years until he goes, rather than have violent revolution to depose him every time he fucks up because he intends to stay in power until his natural death anyway.
Why? Either shit is so bad that he needs to die to fix it, and people will have to get off their fat arses and do something, or it's still salvageable.
Complacency works in the (((plutocrats))) favour. That's why pretending to let you vote is just active enough to stop people asking questions.
If i a king fucks up so bad that the palace is stormed and he's decapitated, then odds are the heir is going to do what he can to avoid that.

imagine you live in a country with a monarch system, king is Trudeau and queen is Merkel.
now you dont want monarchy as a system anymore.

It looks appealing but in constitutional monarchies there needs to be a special kind of caution or the politicians will be corrupt as fucking shit.

It's the only way. The only thing that's wrong about it is when a cuck son takes control of things, a sort of psuedo monarchy where whoever proves himself worthy can become the next king would be the best

because you're a cuck who wants to worship another male and give him all power over you.

Because people like to give up responsibility and rather prefer to be herded by a monarch than to take blame for their actions.

Paraphrasing Yang Wen-Li who said it best on why Rudolf gained so much power with so little opposition. Oh LoGH what a great chinese cartoon you were

>If you're a citizen or a rich citizen you have no interest in killing off the golden egg goose.
You would if it brought more gain. It could be more profitable for them to fuck everyone over and bugger off.
A monarch doesn't have that luxury. They are the nation, and can only prosper while it does.

>People find them to be shit.
>People leave
>People kill them
>They learn to fix shit instead
As opposed to a democratic system where the media tells people that Merkel got 51%+ of the votes, so ya'll just have to deal with it until next time, when guess what will happen.

but what incentive would a monarch have to destroy their country like merkel?

Popular uprising? That means a new sovereignty would form every so often. That means instability is inherent. Are you retarded? Go suck on King Henry V's cock bro

>but can't touch a king.
>Why not?
Because he is the king and by definition is not subject (lel) to the same laws as commoners or even nobles. You might again say elected officials aren't either but their advantages really aren't comparable.
>Either shit is so bad that he needs to die to fix it, and people will have to get off their fat arses and do something, or it's still salvageable.
Killing off a guy instead of removing the system that put him in there will not solve anything, you said it yourself.
>That's why pretending to let you vote is just active enough to stop people asking questions
The point of a democracy is not to stop at the vote and keep involved in the issues that will ultimately affect you and your country, it's retarded citizens that chose not to, but the means and tools are there, it was a movement of people using those which got Trump elected, for example. It's actually much easier to stay complacent if it's all the king's responsability.
>If i a king fucks up so bad that the palace is stormed and he's decapitated, then odds are the heir is going to do what he can to avoid that.
Are you trying to bait me or just this naive and dumb? Ask the French or the Spanish how that turned out for them.

>Because people like to give up responsibility and rather prefer to be herded by a monarch than to take blame for their actions.

In most monarchies the presence of a monarch was pretty must absent from private life. It's not like they would visit your village and tell you how to plant the crops. Meanwhile in democracy the public "herds" everyone around all the time. I think you could very well argue that villages/towns have far more autonomy under monarchs than democracies.

Because you are a lazy shit head afraid to take responsibility for yourself.

As if public governments don't provide far more welfare than monarchies.

at least in a monarchy people can revolt and remove the leader. In our current "democratic" system the media chooses our candidates for us and we fight each other over which preselected cuck we think will make a difference.

Imperial Germany had decent public assistance programs and introduced shit like compulsory public education, credit where credit's due.

>allowing yourself to willingly be cucked

Do you seriously think a country can prosper if you have a civil war every time an armed group (because uprisings where everyone is behind the same cause are very rare) is not happy with what the government is doing?

>>The monarch is the one who is accountable.
>What systems are in place to prevent him from abusing his power?

Parliament, and this is why a constitutional monarchy is best

>That means instability is inherent.
Only if they fuck up beyond repair. Otherwise it's the most stable form possible.
>Go suck on King Henry V's cock bro
I'm good. But I bet Soros is waiting for you to warm his.

Cheers, was about to post that.

>Because he is the king and by definition is not subject (lel) to the same laws as commoners or even nobles.
Where does it say that in the instruction manual?
>You might again say elected officials aren't either but their advantages really aren't comparable.
Why not?
>Killing off a guy instead of removing the system that put him in there will not solve anything, you said it yourself.
I didn't, though? Removing a king will have far greater effect on the successor than impeaching an elected official. The latter is merely an inconvenience until they can sod off elsewhere and enjoy the spoils of their pilfering.
>The point of a democracy is not to stop at the vote and keep involved in the issues that will ultimately affect you and your country, it's retarded citizens that chose not to, but the means and tools are there,
Maybe in an ideal utopia. But as of now, you really only get to do what the politicians let you. Sure, enough fags might protest trans toilets into being mandated, but they aren't the ones doing it. It's the politicians throwing a bone.
>it was a movement of people using those which got Trump elected, for example.
You're adorably naive.
>It's actually much easier to stay complacent if it's all the king's responsability.
Except everything isn't the responsibility of the king. There would be far less bureaucracy. Kind of libertarian in that sense.
>Ask the French or the Spanish how that turned out for them.
What's your point? They kept fucking up beyond deposing the monarch.

Yes. Because either there's enough support for the civil war, in which case it will happen. Or there won't be, and it will be quelled.
Better than not being able to have a civil war at all.

I do, assuming that outside powers don't finance military coup removals of leaders who are against their global agenda

An elected house is only fine if the franchise is severely restricted.

Yes when the kings ruled Europe,Europe was still European

>Yes. Because either there's enough support for the civil war, in which case it will happen. Or there won't be, and it will be quelled.
Nigger, have you heard of Syria?

Constitutional =/= Parliamentary
They're just unfortunately commonly linked. Parliament is a bad thing anyway, as it just keeps (((elected officials))) in charge, whilst relegating the monarch to a ceremonial status.

>What is a proxy war?

Public participation under the guise that each of us has the faculties and moral integrity to do make the correct choice and do what must be done. We know this is very much not the truth, at all.

But that happens every single time, even before the modern era the countries around those in revolt tried to influence the result of those wars. You're stepping into ancap meme territory senpai.

Something that can happen if two stronger countries take advantage of your constat revolutions.

this is literally how my hair is. it's not a fro. but it's not limp. it's stiff, wiry hair. it hangs flat and dense and loose if it's wet, but when it dries, it literally multiplies in volume by close to seven times. it's unmanageable.

am i a bog?

should i have kids, if i may pass this curse down?

am i even white?

>Something that can happen if two stronger countries take advantage of your constat revolutions.
Protip: It can happen anywhere anyway. And why would revolutions be constant?

Per your system, every time the king does something to displease a strong enough group he's getting axed. Nigga, are you even reading what you're typing?

>less monarchy
kys

Because you were made to serve a just, wise King

Nope. Only when he does enough that there's no coming back from.
What you're thinking of is a democracy, where if they do something everyone doesn't love, they're out.

because you have daddy issues

Man desires to be ruled over by a perfect king. Unfortunately, he refuses to accept that the only perfect king is the King of kings, Jesus Christ. Thus, he foolishly settles for pathetically cheap imitations in comparison.

That is, if you could compare earthly kings to Christ.

>whilst relegating the monarch to a ceremonial status.

This isn't strictly true, the monarch has overriding power over parliament if need be, the monarch assents laws, a new PM cannot govern unless appointed by the monarch, she monarch can dissolve parliament, our Royal forces are aligned to the monarch etc.

The Monarch keeps watch over Parliament whilst Parliament keeps watch over the monarch

For all intents and purposes our Parliament is Her Majestys parliament

Kek

>Nope. Only when he does enough that there's no coming back from.
Who's to determine that, though? If you check and balance the king's powers enough you end up with him as barely more than a figurehead like Britain or Japan.

Predatory societies only do well when they prey on weaker ones, not on themselves.

>Who's to determine that, though?
The people. If they're not starving and cold in houses made out of their own shit, odds are things aren't so bad. But no one is going to kick out a monarch whose worst failing is not letting poofs roger each other with wedding rings on.

His kingdom is not of this world.

This user gets it. Constitutional monarchy is GOAT-tier

Correction, his kingdom IS this world, it has yet to be created though. Once he touches down, the world will be cleansed of the sin and cancer on it, and the dead shall rise, until then though, it's not.

Because monarchy is easy and you're a lazy faggot.

Democracy is hard, you need to be informed, you need to follow the issues, you need to PARTICIPATE.

In monarchy, some faggot with a crown tells you what to do and you do it, or you're arrested/executed. Because you aren't a strong person, you are naturally subservient, so someone making decisions for you is much more appealing than making decisions for yourself.

Happy?

You do realize the Luciferian death cult pedophiles originated from corrupted monarchy right?

Why would you repeat that which led us to this horror now? How do you think the jews gained power? Depraved aristocracy.

>How do you think the jews gained power?
From being able to influence politicians who are easily bought.

>In monarchy, some faggot with a crown tells you what to do and you do it

I keep seeing this in the thread but I just don't get it. Seems like in monarchy, the monarch is almost totally removed from your private life and the number of laws and regulations were fairly lax. Whereas democracy creates mountains and mountains of laws and regulations and codes.

Cromwell let the Jews back into England.

Exactly. After monarchs had kept them out.

But it's not just you that democracy demands robustness from and not just your personal responsibility, it's the idiot masses.

I'm using it as a metaphor for obedience.

I'm not trying to argue that the monarch is monitoring your bedroom activities or legislating your daily regimen. But if a monarch suddenly declares one day that all men must shave their beards, you have to do it. You don't get to vote or make your case as to why you should be allowed to keep your beard.

Mountains and mountains of laws and regulations are a symptom of living in a more complex society rather than government system. Every country today regardless of government type has mountains of laws and regulations compared to monarchic societies of the past.

While I recognize the issues with democracy, democracy is the best possible form of government unless you can somehow have an infallible, immortal monarch that makes the objective best decisions in every case. The mistake we made in this democracy is giving women and non-white non-land owners the right to vote.

The founding fathers understood the importance of voting restrictions for people who do not have the ability to make informed decisions and we betrayed their vision. If only white male landowners could vote, we would be living in a utopia right now.

>Democracy is hard, you need to be informed, you need to follow the issues, you need to PARTICIPATE.
At which point you become a sheep who gets pats on the head when he thinks he's actually doing something.

...

>Why does monarchy feel so innately appealing?
because you are a cuck. seriously, monarchy is just accepeting that you're worthless

soldiers of the king would fucking wipe the entire nation out in a matter of weeks with todays technology and weapons.

>Soldiers, kill your families for some reason
>Sure thing, boss!

As opposed to choosing regular plebs to be better than you and decide your life?

And how did that start?

From satanic larping monarchs.

Monarchists should be executed along with jews.

You're fools, going back to the past will only set us on another inescapable trajectory towards the present.

>And how did that start?
From politicians who let jews back into the country, contrary to what the monarchs wanted. They let them have position and power.
Remember, it was monarchy who kicked jews out, but politicians who welcomed them back in.

the idea isn't about this particular case, it's more general, a monarch is harder to remove , using democracy you can become a part of the system then take over like YOU KNOW WHO did.

BS. Democracy is easy simple-minded bullshit. It's also completely at odds with reality, and hence why things have gone to complete shit since we adopted universal sovereignty.

Soldier. Kill this fuckhead for speaking.

>using democracy you can become a part of the system then take over like YOU KNOW WHO did.
Yes, as soon as you're a billionaire, you might be allowed to placate the masses in a staged position, whilst the actual people in charge keep doing as they like.

look at dictatorships like Assads regime or the one in north korea, both killed members of their own families for the sake of the throne.
>inb4 but muh secular republic system

see

Monarchs are cannibal pedophile as well. They're like jews pretty much. They can die alongside the qabbalistic jews they follow.

>Muh "Assad is an evil tyrant!" meme
Did you hear that one on CNN, or can you actually prove that Average Joe Mohammad ventilated his mother in cold blood for Assad?

>Monarchs are cannibal pedophile as well.
Source?

The issue with soldiers killing huge amounts of the populace is that such a thing is possible in a monarchy, but not possible in a democracy.

In every monarchy, there is some sort of divine status granted to the monarch to justify their rule. If them monarch is not believed to be divine, or at least special in some way, why should anyone follow their rule?

Since the monarch is granted a divine status, a cult of personality will inevitably develop around that person.

If Obama suddenly said "we are at war with far right extremists, I need the military to go into several large southern areas and kill as many people as they can to quell this extremism" during his presidency, the soldiers wont follow his orders because hes just some dumb nigger who was elected by half the country who holds office for 4 - 8 years. The generals won't take his order nor will any other decent military person. Something like 85% of the military would desert.

Now if your King or Emperor, whom you believe to be divine, gave the same order, everyone would follow it. This has happened before many times in history.

Russia is way ahead of you

royalcentral.co.uk/europe/37-percent-of-young-russians-want-to-restore-the-monarchy-in-russia-79065

theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/06/russia-revolution-tsarist-school-moscow-nicholas-ii

Also, people talking about revolting against a monarch system is easier, if people would actually revolt against such a shit king , the same people would vote a redpilled president instead of a cuck in a democratic republic system.
but no, the problem remains, bluepilled faggots who think niggers and mudslims are a huge advantage culturally and economically.
its an infinite pit of shit, Sup Forumsacks.

>The issue with soldiers killing huge amounts of the populace is that such a thing is possible in a monarchy, but not possible in a democracy.
Fucking source? Or have you not learned about the American Civil War yet?
>In every monarchy, there is some sort of divine status granted to the monarch to justify their rule.
That's not in the rulebook, bro. It just happens in places like China, but hasn't been the case for a long time.
>If them monarch is not believed to be divine, or at least special in some way, why should anyone follow their rule?
Why should anyone follow a president's rule? The monarch is there to be the best person for the job.

>let's just have a king with absolute power we need monarchs and dictators
You people are like watching a documentary of millenia of failed states and cultures played in ultra fast forward

People just would like to be in totalitarian space.
We have to prevent them from it.

My quads confirm get fucked monarchists