Should Europe have kept their kings?

...

No... They fucked up pretty badly. My ancestors had to kill a lot of people to become kings of their realm in Prussia.

No, we just should've defended our borders against invaders.

Our problems do not stem from the lack of corrupt royalty. They stem from multiculturalism.

yeh but those wars are nothing compared to WW1 n 2

>Population in WWI and WWII was far more than the tiny in comparison population of the pre-victorian era
Wewbvious

because of technology, they would've been just as bad if they had bombs, guns and millions of people back then

Yes, Monarchy is the best and most traditional form of government

Yes

Yes, and the (((French Revolution))) was the beginning of the end.

We tried to get a King. No luck.

The Brit royals don't seem to give a single fuck that their people are being replaced so I'm not sure how having them in power would. Have helped

the printing press ruined everything for the big boys. So BLAME THE PRINTING PRESS

>Best

Probably have never cracked even one history book. In such cases it's best to shut the fuck up while grown folks are talking, pleb.

>The Brit royals don't seem to give a single fuck that their people are being replaced so I'm not sure how having them in power would. Have helped
They cannot say a word, we had our monarch neutered by Cromwell and then further neutered by William III, handing more powers over to government and taking away powers from the monarch, fucking read a history book you stupid prisoner.

Without Carolus Rex Sweden might had been Russia or something today , even if he lived was hundreds of years ago. He's a hero amongst nationalists and even natsocs. Our king today is pointless in some peoples eyes, but it is so important that we keep our monarchy and have a white king these days.

You had.

>not an argument

AYO HOL UP

Was that the German prince who learned Finnish but had to give it up because Germany lost?

I have a whole bookcase full of history books, thank you very much

Finland was Sweden once and had our kings.

If you think Q. Elizabeth and Prince Phillip don't have strong feelings on the matter you're out of your mind.

Books actually require being read to be of any use sweetie.

It is actually, as in if you knew anything about absolute monarchy you would know the ordinary person got the shit end of the stick 100% of the time.

French Revolution was a fucking mistake, the Royalists did nothing wrong, the Republicans realised they fucked up which led to the restoration because Napoleon was a fucking nutjob and a terrorist, he is no hero. The French know this, he was a fucking tyrant and died a cowards death in one of our islands, laying in his own shit and piss whilst France burned.

Fuck them, fuck republicans they are nothing more than Bolshevik kikes, hoarding wealth to themselves with fake promises of distribution.

LIARS AND THIEVES THAT HAVE DONE MORE HARM TO HUMANITY THAN MONARCHS EVER HAVE!

YOU KNOW I'M RIGHT, YOU ALL DO!

Will my fellow Leafs ever bring me anything but shame?

yes
jews would have been banished over and over again

This leaf would sacrifice his own life to gift all leafs with the gift of freedom had I the power.

Yeah, then the Russians fucked you into the snow and took it.

IIRC In 1917 Finland declared independence and asked Germany for a prince to become king.

Then quit posting and fucking do it already

Idiot

Na we invaded them. They burned down their own villages to starve us out, until we where too few. Our king who fought in the frontlines almost died.

No, but the whole west should have done democracy appropriately, by only allowing native men of the land they inhabit above age 30 to have the right to vote. Women should not be voting, ethnic foreigners should not be voting and young people should not be voting and people who have no investment in the country in terms of land ownership should not be voting. Representational democracy can and does work if it's done correctly, you don't need to swing from total cuckdom to empire bullshit, there's a sweet spot in the middle.

Trump is with the Russians.

That was due to technology, not monarchy. There were republics and democracies that lived just as shittily as monarchies throughout history.

No way, man. Obama is with the Russians.

Fuck off. Trump is a Russian shill.

Yes. Republics can only be centrist, but kings can go all the way.

Right on.

You're a faggot. Republics can go all the way too, probably not as far as your sister though.

It's a tradition i respect. Europe has been going down since the French revolution.

I do read them sweetie pie, I don't just put books up as decorations, looks like someone doesn't like traditional hierarchical society

WE WUS KANGS AND SHEEIIT

What is it with burgers being so bluepilled on any form of monarchy?

>Napoleon was a fucking nutjob and a terrorist, he is no hero.
Napoleon did literally nothing wrong, Capets were inbred degenerates. Based Bonapartism

The Romans had that system.

It will degenerate. Soon the pleb masses will want voting rights or want war. Rome couldn't escape that, neither did the USA.

>What is it with burgers being so bluepilled on any form of monarchy?
Well monarchism is what makes Leafs fucking Leafs instead of just Michiganders, so we don't want to tread that road

I'm aware that they have little power, but even a word from them would be helpful
Give some Proofs of their obvious ethno nationalist ways

The kings should have kept more power as the head of state

The Queen apparently opposes the EU and mass immigration but because she's a figurehead she doesn't do anything. Imagine if the monarch told the governments of the commonwealth to stop being cucks and they had to do what she said.

Of course Charles and his kids are apparently cucks so maybe that's not a good idea.

>bluepilled

The monarchs tried to fuck our shit up and then the Revolution happened. The less-retarded way the British handled their later colonies like Canada is because they didn't want more revolutions.

>capets

They stopped ruling france hundreds of years before napoleon

I think it's a better system here where we get 2 pre selected people to vote for and spend our time attacking one and another on which one is better.

It's certainly better than having one preselected person the commoners can freely discuss upon without "team" mentality

>The monarchs tried to fuck our shit up

You mean, tried to get you fuckers to pay your share of the debt for a war you guys helped start

Also:
>Forgetting the only reason the Revolution succeeded was because of two other absolute monarchies.

Yes. Rightful kings > Jewish democracies.

This. Monarchy is the closest system of government there is to the divine order.

Queen and princes or emperor and royal flushes. Kings should be ruling private kingdoms, not national governments. Besides that everyone should be working for the man.

>rightful kings
What exactly makes a king rightful?

Being in charge with the Mandate of Heaven (not Divine Right).

So christcuckery? Got to say that I'm not convinced.

hereditary descendants, the blue blood class is supposed the check the equestrian (merchant) class and are the guardians of morality, the system has run out of control

Career politicians are a better choice? Nope.
You can have corrupt kings leading for long periods of time, but you can also have great kings with a vested long-term interest in seeing their people and nation prosper.
Really this. I don't if we have democratically elected leaders or kings as long as their implementing policies that don't aim to destroy whites through racial miscegenation.

No, that's the opposite of what I said. Mandate of Heaven is a monarch doing well. It's considered removed when they let things turn to shit.
It's a Chinese concept.

*I don't care if we have democratically elected leaders or kings as long as they're implementing policies...

Wouldn't the same concept apply to our current system?
That's retarded. Simply giving rulership to someone because they were the previous ruler's son isn't a very good way to ensure that you have great leaders.

>should Europe have kept their kings?
Yes, the original bloodlines of the Kings. Because Europe's original King's were Catholic and thus appointed by God. Once the Catholic bloodlines were killed off and the countries stopped being Catholic, well, we see the destruction that has happened to the people and countries of England and Europe.

>Wouldn't the same concept apply to our current system?
It could do. Which is why we should ditch the politicians.
>Simply giving rulership to someone because they were the previous ruler's son isn't a very good way to ensure that you have great leaders.
Training someone from birth for a position isn't a good way of preparing them?
Do you really think a popularity contest with little to no mention of merit every few years is better?

>it could do
But this isn't a right to rule for a king or an argument for a monarchy. You're just saying that a weak system shouldn't be able to continue.
>training someone from birth...
No, training can only take a person so far. It's the one in a million person that should take rulership and the chance of that person being the king's son is slim to fuck all.

YES
It was the only system that's worked, and I'm including fascists in that

Countries should elect a benevolent monarch who rules until death prove me wrong.

>But this isn't a right to rule for a king or an argument for a monarchy.
Indeed. Because we don't need something like that. The argument for is that it's the most logical and stable system.
>training can only take a person so far.
Perhaps. But it's still better than no training.
>It's the one in a million person that should take rulership and the chance of that person being the king's son is slim to fuck all.
How is it slim? He's the person with the most invested in his country. He can't just bugger off if it gets hard or people don't like the way he treats moronic protestors.
The chance of the 1:1mil person being the one not only on the ballot card, but actually chosen is even slimmer.

>idiot who believes that democracy is the right way detected

When will Canada grow up?

Trips of truth

But divine right is the foundation of western monarchism, idiot.

From God, all authority springs. A king is anointed at his coronation for a reason.

>as in if you knew anything about absolute monarchy you would know the ordinary person got the shit end of the stick 100% of the time.
False.

It's not something we need rely on, though.

They could have added 13 MPs and shit probably would have died down.

But Tories were intransigent assholes who defended Rotten boroughs and shitty arguments like, "Well Manchester doesn't have MPs either! LOL!"

It was a fair criticism, but it's also pretty sad commentary because that kid of corruption now would be considered pretty fastidious upholding of the law by today's standards.

Well, that just tacks on some of the worst bits of democracy.

A hereditary king is more-or-less elected/chosen by God. Can you really say no to that?

Being the person with the most invested and training doesn't make you a great ruler. What if you get a fuckin mouth breather? What if he's a cunt, and the people/other lords need to "vote" him out? You need to start a civil war to get rid of the cunt. I should point out that I'm not really a pro democracy person either, I just think that giving rulership to a man simply because his dad was king is fucking retarded.
This could be an issue with 70% of your population being agnostic
Also
>christcuck calling me an idiot
Kek

leve Carolus

A Catholic Monarchy is the only true way.

>Being the person with the most invested and training doesn't make you a great ruler.
Better odds than your proposition of nothing.
>What if you get a fuckin mouth breather?
Then he'll probably do bugger all until death, and the country can manage itself, as it should.
>What if he's a cunt, and the people/other lords need to "vote" him out?
What if he's great, and the (((people))) want him out for their own gain?
>You need to start a civil war to get rid of the cunt.
Exactly. It's accountability. Either things aren't so bad, and you can take responsibility for doing better yourself. Or they are that bad beyond salvation, and you actually have to take responsibility to remove the poison and send a warning to the heir.
> I just think that giving rulership to a man simply because his dad was king is fucking retarded.
What's your suggestion, then?
>This could be an issue with 70% of your population being agnostic
A good king could fix that problem too.

I like how that conversation went nowhere and ended with a faggot saying 'idiot' for some reason.

>70% of America's pop is agnostic
nigga give me some of whatever you're smoking over there

leafs.jpg

>
No, you'd have much better odds by actually selecting someone who has been shown to be competent
>
That would be fuckin useful, why not just put nobody as king and let the nation rule itself? You can't list inaction as a benefit.
>
Your just saying that it would be harder to remove a ruler, for better or worse. This isn't a positive and probably leans to a negative as your king will feel that he can push the bar further without consequence
>
>things are shitty and the king is a prick, but I don't mind because it's better than throwing the nation into a civil war that will either end up with me being kill for being a traitor or in a war ravished nation with a new king that could just as easily turn into a prick
How is this a positive?
>
Wow, a king that's going to force a religion on his people. Can't say that that is something I'm gonna support but either way, it's catch 22 as you'll need the agnostics support to put the king on the throne and you can't get their support without already being king for at least a generation and forcing you jew worship onto them.

No. Europe had it right when it was nationalist governments.

Not multi-culti, multi-ethnic empires/kingdoms that gained legitimacy through the christian-cuck-one-race-human-race-we're-all-god's-children church.

>america
We're taking about Europe, mericunt. Pull your head out of your arse.

Bourbons are still Capetians, just like the Valois and Orleans.

It's like saying that the Lancastrians and Yorkists weren't Plantagenets. They're just cadet lines.

Napoleon did a lot of shit wrong. If you honestly believe that then you probably think FDR was a great president too.

Monarchy is more cucked than any form of government. You are putting all your eggs in one basket and hoping it doesn't get corrupt. Very fucking stupid.

>No, you'd have much better odds by actually selecting someone who has been shown to be competent
Ie. someone training for it their whole life, not the best of a bad lot. Or rather, the most popular of a bad lot, who probably isn't the best.
>That would be fuckin useful, why not just put nobody as king and let the nation rule itself?
Without some kind of centralised authority, it'll start eating itself. An inactive monarch is still a lynchpin holding the country together.
>You can't list inaction as a benefit.
Do you really need every facet of your life micromanaged?
>Your just saying that it would be harder to remove a ruler, for better or worse. This isn't a positive and probably leans to a negative as your king will feel that he can push the bar further without consequence
It is a positive, though. Of course, it ties back to the monarch not needed the overwhelming bureaucracy of a democratic government. But it brings responsibility back to the people. Either things aren't so bad, and you can fix them yourself. Or they are that bad, and you need to actually do something about it. If the king "feels he can push the bar further", then it'd be shifting towards the latter.
>How is this a positive?
Most people aren't goldfish. If the new king has seen his father get ventilated for actively ruinous policies, he's probably not going to do the same shit.
The whole point is that the person in question IS WORSE than the civil war, so enacting one is being helpful.
>Wow, a king that's going to force a religion on his people.
If they won't do it themselves, someone has to fix them, my Leb friend.


>You are putting all your eggs in one basket and hoping it doesn't get corrupt.
As opposed to putting all your eggs in the democratic basket, knowing they'll get corrupt, but you can pretend to choose a different pre-selected chicken?

republicanism is more cucked than any other form of government in history

No connection to God, open the people, open to the (((people))), welcoming to change, and encouraging of greed and ambition

I never said it would be perfect, it would just be the best. All political systems have the capacity to fail if stupid people are put in charge. My system ensures that the best people are running shit, it's strong democratic republicanism, monarchism is just as retarded as communism imo.

Yes. Some of us even still have them, although they should make better use of their powers instead of just being figureheads and diplomatic tools.

>My system ensures that the best people are running shit
How do you think we ended up where we are? The gentry chose to put itself in this position, so perhaps your system isn't the best?
And how is monarchism meant to be comparable to communism?

In my view of a democratic republic that has limitations, only the cream of the crop, native born land owning men of a time tested age would be granted political power. I don't think that is cucked at all. I also mentioned that I don't support any form of government that allows foreigners to vote or wield political power in any capacity. This does not leave anyone open to anything. And yes, some degree of change is healthy, the current one is toxic.

>
The leader should be someone exceptional, not just someone who has been trained. Why not just pick a random peasant kid off the street and train him up? He'd have just as much right to the rulership as the king's kid.
>
How is a retarded mouth breather a centralised authority? He's be more dangerous than a goat as people at least can't put words into the mouth of a goat.
>
No, but this argument is in favour of Ancaps, not monarchists.
>
How is it a benefit to have a ruler that can't be replaced without a massive civil war? To say that it's good because thing will have to get absolutely horrendous before its worth taking action is just silly. You'd basically be enabling sub parr rulers
>
If he's still in line to inherit, then his father won the war. The now ravished peasant class isn't going to be keen on civil war for at least a generation and rebellious minor lords would have all been executed. He'd basically have free reign
>
I'd like to see you try that shit, m8. You faggots take this stance then cry when everyone shits on Christianity. What do you expect? Literally cry as they strike you tier.

Might and legacy.

>drinking the US school book cum.

The US represents an error. A revolution, followed by a public state. Washington should have been king. Of course you still be be sucking US constitution cum as your rights and property are voted away by ever increasing amounts of subsidized subhumans who should have never been born.

I say this as a veteran of the US army.

Fuck the constitution, Fuck democracy, Fuck the republic.

Monarchy is the only path to freedom and liberty.

You are pointing out that the system isn't perfect, not that it isn't "the best". Pro-top: there is no form of government that is not susceptible to corruption. The key is to try to weigh out which ones are the least susceptible to it. I am advocating for the early form of democratic republican government that was the United States but with perhaps even more limitations on the democracy. If they vote to piss away their power THEY are voting on that, not me and it is not what I am advocating for. As for monarchy, you don't even get the cream of the crop running the show, just a family and their friends who run it by birth right at the expense of everyone else. It's just dumb. You are handing all your power to a small group and hoping they will have the peoples best interests in mind. You want to spread out the power to the sweet spot, just enough spread out that no one group can horde it and abuse it and just not so much that the idiots are running the show turning it into idiocracy.

>The leader should be someone exceptional, not just someone who has been trained.
Define exceptional in a way which could be applied reliably.
>Why not just pick a random peasant kid off the street and train him up? He'd have just as much right to the rulership as the king's kid.
What is inheritance? What reason would he have for performing well? A monarch has to leave the patrimony in good nick for his son to take over. Family bond has always been a valuable tool for ensuring quality.
>How is a retarded mouth breather a centralised authority?
By preventing others from taking over maliciously. Much like most monarchies now. They don't do a whole lot, but the save the nation from having a (((president))).
>No, but this argument is in favour of Ancaps, not monarchists.
More minarchism than Ancap, as there is still a controlling state. But it's a guiding hand, not a railroad.
>How is it a benefit to have a ruler that can't be replaced without a massive civil war?
Because you can't get rid of the good ones with ease. Not sure how recently you arrived here, but Australia is a good example of governments being dropped on a whim, preventing all long term planning.
>The now ravished peasant class isn't going to be keen on civil war for at least a generation and rebellious minor lords would have all been executed. He'd basically have free reign
You're talking a lot of Ifs, boy. Remember that the Germans who fought in the Spanish Civil War were still pretty keen to wreck Poland and France.
But otherwise, you can't keep people pushed down for long without them pushing back.
I suppose i also failed to point out that in the ideal situation, the present king would be executed, and his heir put in power (as happened quite a few times in history), so no, his father lost.
> You faggots take this stance then cry when everyone shits on Christianity.
Is this a "Sup Forums is one person" episode?

Limiting the base of voters is the easiest way for a Republic to grow corrupt. Career politicians will promise the small voter base all they could want and not serve the general populace.

Monarchs are better because they do not swear loyalty to voters but instead can rule somewhat unrestricted.

I already wrote that I do not support democratic republic that allows ethnic foreigners, women, or young people to weild political power. If the nation of white men votes to piss away it's own power it deserves to have no power. Otoh, if they vote to have a king and give him super powers for life that's retarded on so many levels. What if he uses the army to take away gun rights and free speech, then forces the citizens to do whatever he wants? Doesn't giving a king this kind of power sound a little idiotic?

>As for monarchy, you don't even get the cream of the crop running the show, just a family and their friends who run it by birth right at the expense of everyone else.

You mean dynasty's that consider the state and its people their personal property and responsibility? People who wish to keep power and live off others for generations?

Private state, long term thinking.

Democracy is communism. Parasites who have no rhyme or reason. just trying to milk the state for their current goals. Dumb animals. Its no wonder that almost every satellite nation of the American empire has an insane amount of debt.

"muh white democracy."

People will away vote for the property of others, then, the polically elite who have no concern for the future of the country will import 3rd world voters for their party to stay in power.

All because you are obsessed with "we the people", and public government owned by no one, and used to fuck others in the ass by all.

>I am advocating for the early form of democratic republican government that was the United States but with perhaps even more limitations on the democracy
But you had that. And they chose to throw it away, as you said. At least with monarchy, it has only been eroded due to external pressures, rather than willful suicide.
> As for monarchy, you don't even get the cream of the crop running the show
You literally do, though. Who would be better:
a) Monarch who has everything invested in the wellbeing of the nation, can do nothing else, been preparing for the role from birth, and has to pass it on to their child.
b) Random dude who felt like running for Pres despite not knowing how to do anything relating to it, but at least is popular enough to get 51% of idiots who actually bother voting to put him as #1.
Remember that the latter has no incentive to do well, since he'll be getting a nice pension out of it, or he can be embezzle and be bribed to prepare for retirement.
>You are handing all your power to a small group and hoping they will have the peoples best interests in mind.
Isn't that what you were doing too? Just because they're gentry doesn't mean they'll do what's best for all, or that they know the consequences of their actions.

>Limiting the base of voters is the easiest way for a Republic to grow corrupt.
Exactly. If i was a plutocrat, i'd want to make the job easier of needing to only influence the smallest range of idiots.

What if he uses the army to take away gun rights and free speech, then forces the citizens to do whatever he wants? Doesn't giving a king this kind of power sound a little idiotic?

You mean like how every agency is now? Something that is unbeholden to voters, and creates rules without consent?

A king at least has the common sense to carry out rule in such a way that, keeps the scam going for a few generations.

Democratically elected caretakers do not have this concern. They don't think of things like their grand kids getting killed because of the fucked up voting they did.