Is Sup Forums monarchist?

is Sup Forums monarchist?

Ironically, unless they're retarded.

>Monarchism

What did he mean by this?

No, fuck you and them.

Only if I am the King

>fuck me?

you liking that open border there republicunt?

No

implying a pussy ass fag like you could even lift a sword, not to even talk about risking your neck every day

republicans were always stupid af
reasoning with them is like reasoning with an ape

Only for countries with a recently modern history for it. Wouldn't make sense otherwise

>Croatia
/reply

Right, I'll correct myself since you're retarded, I want you to kill yourself, fucking degenerate defending the aristocrats. You're a disgrace to your country, leaf.

Absolutely.

> republicans are stupid af
> thinks he can go back to absolute monarchy

I know there are autistic people here, but this is too much.

This.

you didn't answer my question, how's that open border working out?

the one who should kill himself is the cunt that doesn't see who's destroying his country. Although italy was always shit having very little monarchism in its history but you can still observe the modern effects of republicanism on all white nations

Only countries with A monarchy can reply to this post

It's preferable to communism/socialism

How's that open border working out? Like your mom's border.

This is what traitors of the Republic deserve.

>your mom

Monarchy master race

It made you aroused? Typical of an amerifat, getting aroused over something that simple, I bet you're a redneck.

Monarchies are the only system which don't always destroy themselves.

Fuck democracy!

what's up with all those american royalists ?! did I miss something ?

...

Oh no a wild republican democracy nigger appears.
>hurr durr kings are mean!, powur to the peeple!

They never really tasted an absolute monarchy, if you don't count the english.

This is fucking ironic coming from a royalty, where nobles and monarchs were degenerates who even held hellish clubs to commit any kind of degenerate act while starving the people. If it wasn't for the French Revolution and it's ideals, you wouldn't be here on a computer, rather you would be in a camp working to death just to feed your family.

Weve seen the ass end of the (2nd) worst political system of all time for our whole lives. Every day our politicians make insane decisions putting our future at risk and squandering our wealth. Almost every democracy is in debt, and falling apart die to marxisim and immigration.

Then we look at monarchies and see. 18 of the top 20 wealthiest countries being monarchies. Most of them without debt. And most with approval ratings double our leaders.

I hate democracy.

No, were Americans.
But I'd bow down to Princess Leonor and kiss her feet while she calls me a filthy peasant. Is there a time like a festival or something where members of the public can kiss the princess' feet? There should be.
Also does anyone have a video of her speaking? I want to hear her voice.

Hahaha.

Yes without the guys who chopped of lavosiers head, we wouldn't have science.

>democracy good, duuuur!

Leonor is cute

Yes because king george taxing us 3% of our income is oppression.

Obomber and (((trump))) taxing me 40% is freedum.

The nobles and the church were busy keeping their power to think of any progress, also it's funny coming from an american, without those ideals you would still be a bunch of english colonies.

Yes, applying economy on different periods is smart.

Yes we would. And I would have no problem with this.

We weren't oppressed anymore than puerto rico is oppressed today.

The industrial revolution started in Britain whilst the monarchy was still in charge. How do monarchies hold up "progress"?

It is a constitutional monarchy... it's not the same thing as an absolute monarchy.

Which is of course why monarchies today still have lower taxes than democracies. Some such as monaco dont have income taxes.

If you are going to make the argument that its due to changing times, they wouldn't need to not still have lower taxes.

They were still making executive decisions in the late 1700s and early 1800s

A "constitutional" symbolic monarch isnt a real monarch.

It'd be interesting if Virginia declared independence and became a Monarchy, under
>Prince Ernst August of Hannover, current head of the house of Hannover

It's the only state where it would really make sense, as there was no particular ideological reason for it's founding other than $$$$

Literally living in a constitutional monarchy. It's a pretty well run paradise desu except for immigration and the housing bubble.

Then explain the starving Thrid State, also Monaco is again a constitutional monarchy, where royalty has no power.

as long as a monarch has the loyalty of the army, any limitations on that monarchy are artificial
as long as a monarch lacks the loyalty of the army, any powers granted to that monarchy are artificial
a monarchy that strays from what the people will lose loyalty

these are the things constitutional monarchists, and critics of absolute monarchy forget
a monarchy's constitution is a mere ceremonial item. it is effectively meaningless

Also theres not such thing as a pure "monarchy" theres always been different rules and traditions limiting their powers.
"Constitutional" in practice means a parliamentary democracy with a vestigial cheerleader on the side.

That isnt true.

If anything, it just shows how the brits were ahead of the time.

I would be a monarchist if I was native to a country that traditionally had a monarchy like the UK

Care to elaborate?

Monarchist masterrace reporting in. Carl XVI Gustaf is by far the most aesthetic regent alive.

Monarchies have proven to be the most stable form of government. I wouldn't mind a monarchy but that would never go over well considering our country was formed by rebelling against monarchy

We might be able to unite under a sovereign, but I don't see a path to monarchy.

Democracies never had starvation?
Is Africa composed of kingdoms?

Frankly, I'd support a monarch that would protect personal liberties (freedom of expression, self-defense and the right to bear arms), fight corruption and guard social cohesion.

Unfortunately such a monarch must have legitimacy through either heraldry or consent of the govern (in so far that they're ok with him in power). In today's world there are either Constitutional Supermodels or military dictators.

This isn't to say that I endorse Monarchy above Democracy, but rather my disilussion with the state of Bulgarian Politics and the abridgment of rights that come from the E.U.

>but I don't see a path to monarchy.
Balkenization.

No, I want an emperor.

Seems like hes in charge.

I would support our president being a monarch so we won't have to worry about the liberals taking power. Trump is the most qualified person in history for Monarchy.

I got enough swedish blood in me that I could probably immigrate if a monarchy takes off amid the current chaos

Yes

I never said they didn't, but the nobles had no problem about starving the common folk, you were shit, you were worth nothing, those in charge never cared about their people, and didn't even pretend to do so. Also, I would hardly call Africa an example of democracy and republic.

>Canada telling anyone how to run a border

As long as the king is only head of state without aby kind of power and isn't an inbreed it's a good tradition and prestigous.

WE

I suppose that could work. The way our cities are organized, large stretches of flat farmland between cities, could provide a good environment for monarchist city-states to arise if the federal government collapsed

Monarchies are invested in the well-being of their country.

Democratic overseers are invested in looting as much as they possibly can before their term is over.

That being said, while I don't like the idea of being cucked by a monarch, I concede that there is strong evidence to the benefits of a monarchy.

Also the best part of a monarchy IMO is that if something bad happens you will know exactly who is responsible, unlike in a Democracy where if you get fucked you have no idea which of the faceless hordes of politicians and bureaucrats needs to hang.

Furthermore, in a monarchy it doesn't take 10 fucking years to make a simple decision such as "should we keep letting Mexicans buttfuck our country"

>Historically, the princes of the ruling House of Grimaldi were autocrats of an absolute monarchy until the first Constitution of Monaco was adopted in 1911. A second constitution was granted by Prince Rainier III on December 17, 1962, outlining legislative, judicial, and executive branches of government, which consist of several administrative offices and a number of councils. The Prince as head of state retains most of the country's governing power; however, the principality's judicial and legislative bodies may operate independently of his control.

Straight from wikipedia.

Even if we ignore Africa the most stable countries in the middle east are monarchies.

The wealthiest and least refugee fucked parts of Europe are monarchies.

Taxes in the American colonies immediately were higher than they were before, by 1800 being about twice what it was under Britain.

Democracy sounds good in the vague abstract ramblings of enlightenment philosophers. But in real life it just rots any country tgat practices it.

Like starving the commoners and repressing every protest with guns and armies? There's no such thing as blue blood, stop reading tales about royalty.

I would only be willing to follow a Robo King who is basically immune to corruption and retardation. Though he would have to be checked and balanced by a human parliament

>Democratic overseers are invested in looting as much as they possibly can before their term is over.

I'm much more worried about the long-term looting, a.k.a gibs. Essentially to guarantee votes more benefits are transfered to certain segments. What happens when the system is overloaded and collapse?

In essence, the "welfare state" should have been kept to a bare minimum, however in democracies that is impossible.

Give it 60 years and America is going to look like Europe.

Wuz!

No. Nick Land is a blowhard; silicon valley NRx are just Lolburgtardians through a glass autismally.

Saudi Arabia stable? They all live in fear, you say one thing about the corrupt and decadent royal family and your head rolls. England is a monarchy and yet it's main city is now mocked and called Londonistan.

So you like throwing away centuries of tradition and social stability so a bunch of niggers and fags can take western civilization and turn it into a gayer third world?

Tsardom of Bulgaria under Simeon II when?

>Monarchies are invested in the well-being of their country
No, a monarch is invested in his own well-being, peasants can eat shit.

Ehhh, more feudalist than monarchist really.

Wowee! This is some top notch discourse!

Increasingly, every day.

There's this book called "the Dictator's Handbook", it basically explains that monarchies are the most stable because essential 'keys to power' (aka generals, elites, other influential people) always have an easy option for replacement for the current ruler if they fuck up. That being their kids.

That's what allows even fucked up lineages like the Hapsburgs to stay in power.

The king went crazy? replace him with his son.
The son went crazy? replace him with his son.

So he can undo thier decisions or not?

He can veto any decisions they make and dissolve them if he sees fit.

Hes in charge. They have power too, ill give you that.
But hes the leader. And he has the ability to prevent them from doing stupid shit like open immigration.

Wow, you really do believe (((their))) lies

Monarchy does not equal to tradition, and for social stability, it's simple, do not encourage degenerate laws and degenerate society, which is what most european countries forget.

I personally like the idea of a monarch. However, I dislike hereditary systems. I think the people should elect a monarch for life. If the monarch is incompetent, the people kill him. This system should feature a strong aristocracy, strong enough to oppose monarchs attempts to stay in power and form a dictatorship but weak enough to not grab power.

Saddest part is that he's probably the most competent Prime Minister we've had since the fall of communism. He just fucked up by overhyping himself and people expecting one man to fix everything.

Utterly pathetic...

"Ceremonial" monarchy.

I don't want shlomo's "progress"

How about this, a monarch appoints several successors. Campaigning is absolutely forbidden. The successor is chosen before the death of the monarch?

That's what the text says, never been in Monaco and I guess you didn't as well. I have no idea. You don't need a monarchy to keep immigrants out of your countries.

No, it takes one retard son to fuck up everything.

>What happens when the system is overloaded and collapse?
pic related

>In essence, the "welfare state" should have been kept to a bare minimum, however in democracies that is impossible.

You nailed it my friend. I can't find the quote right now, but I believe it was Bastiat who talked about how a man who has nothing but a vote will inevitably use it to enrich himself, because he perceives it to cost him nothing.

Next thing you're gonna say is that Napoleon was a jew.

So why do pretty much all democracies seem to have a degeneracy issue?

Is it because a politician who doesn't care about the long term sees no reason not to let people do whatever they want?

If im trying to get elected and promised gay marriage for example. Every homo will vote for me. So it makes sense to give it too them.

If im a king, and see a behavior or new policy as damaging, i wont allow it.

>Saudi Arabia stable?
Yes, very stable. The harsh laws can mostly be attributed to their shitty religion and shitty culture. European monarchies 500 years ago were much more free than Saudistan.

>England is a monarchy
In name only, the queen doesn't have any power. That's like saying best Korea is a democracy

KANGZ

An aristocracy is very important. Probably as important as the monarch himself.

I am a Monarchist
Long live the king!
Lang leve de koning!

WILHELMUS VAN NASSOUWE BEN IK VAN DUYTSCHEN BLOED.

>Prince Ernst August of Hannover

>He was photographed urinating on the Turkish Pavilion at the Expo 2000 event in Hanover, causing a diplomatic incident and a complaint from the Turkish embassy accusing him of insulting the Turkish people. He successfully sued those who published (Bild-Zeitung) the photograph for invasion of privacy, obtaining an award of 9,900 euros, although the paper had previously published a photo of Ernst August urinating outside a hospital in Austria.[21]
>In 2004, he was convicted of aggravated assault and causing grievous bodily harm after supposedly beating a man with a knuckleduster.[22][23] He has demanded a retrial for the case on the basis of false evidence. His lawyers have publicly stated that he has never owned a knuckle duster in his life nor held one in his hand.[23]

Definitely /ourking/

Which western democracy doesn't have a refugee problem?