How do we get back to a Monarchy?

I think we have seen enough evidence to know that democracy/Democratic Republics are simply trash and that the Monarchy is a far greater system.
How do we get back to the glorious days of Monarchy? Who gets to be the monarch? Do we have an epic war and the conqueror becomes the new Emperor? Should a charismatic leader gain influence and fame from the start advocating to be a monarch and get enough supporters that they can start a Coup?
How likely do you think it is for a Monarchy to be reinstated in the next 10 years?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=U4T4wroXMQU
youtube.com/watch?v=PzAtszsW7WU
strawpoll.me/12962461
cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/polish-bishops-and-president-duda-declare-christ-king-poland
youtube.com/watch?v=k12teOokSqM
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>i want a monarch because I don't want to make my own decisions

I am fine making my own decision, it's the fact that any fucking idiot who's over the age of 18 can vote that I have a problem with.
Monarchs are superior in general
youtube.com/watch?v=U4T4wroXMQU

youtube.com/watch?v=PzAtszsW7WU

We don't, the end game as it's looking now is something like Technocratic Quasi-Authoritarian Communism/Fascism.

So we need to do something now. A monarchy is far better than what you have described.

Just wait long enough. Globalism and amalgamation of international company's. Eventually will lead to one family as kings of the world. Powerful enough to overrule any parliamentary system worldwide.

Kill ys faggot

It will happen in any civilisation with a large enough population.

Step 1) kill all the jews

...

I'll be your king if you guys want.

move to Saudi Arabia

1. Take over a country
2. Declare yourself monarch
3. ???
4. Profit

>he thinks he makes his own decisions in a Republic

Human beings need leaders. That's just the way we're wired

Monarchs are objectively the best leaders in history. Since liberal democracy we've descended into degeneracy incredibly fast

I thought we kicked all the loyalists out to Canada. Where do you live, bong-banger? I will deport you myself

Mate, I'm fairly certain that you do not want a Monarchy. Democracy allows you to choose your leaders, it even allows you to become a leader. In a Monarchy you are born into. It doesn't matter if you are a blind autistic transgender polyamorous apache attack helicopter rediteer, if your dady was king, you are king. Also all nations underneath of Monarchy have collapsed. This is surely a joke, because there is no way you can be an American who wants a king...

You have to go into Tradition cultural tree. Take opener, then Oligarchy, next Legalism, then you can take Monarchy.

...

>he never heard about elective monarchy

>Democracy allows you to choose your leaders, it even allows you to become a leader.
This attracts power hungry people, not true leaders. A true leader is a leader whether chosen or not. Look at George Washington, who did not want to be leader, and compare him to today's leaders.

>In a Monarchy you are born into.
Which means you can be properly prepared your whole life to lead a nation.

>It doesn't matter if you are a blind autistic transgender polyamorous apache attack helicopter rediteer, if your dady was king, you are king.
that's complete nonsense

>Also all nations underneath of Monarchy have collapsed
incorrect, we're actually consistently at the top of those HDI reports

elective monarchy defeats the purpose

A democracy is the worst form of government, apart from all the alternatives.

This is what Christ is for. We must find Christ and make him king. This is what Hitler meant when he said:

"I know that some Man capable of giving our problems a final solution must appear. I have sought such a Man. I could nowhere discover Him. And that is why I have set myself to do the preparatory work; only the most urgent preparatory work, for I know that I am myself not, the One. And I know also what is missing in me. But the other One still remains aloof, and nobody comes forward, and there is no more time to be lost."

This.

show me the success of democracy

Monarchies are shit, m8

Constitutional Monarchy with direct democracy.
Aristotle's wet dream.

... you chucks had a monarchy and you lost it, monarchy is kinda like your virginity you never truely get it back but if you leave it alone long enough your hymen may grow back. So stop fisting yourself with republic politics and wait.

monarchy poll
strawpoll.me/12962461

Rothschilds still owned the kings. We're still villagers we just have ipods now

>Constitutional Monarchy
yes

>with direct democracy.
what the fuck why

>anarchist societies that worked the last 10,000 years

This isn't the internet, dumbo, there's real life outside

The problem with democracy is that kikes always corrupt it and turn those states into Israeli puppets
look at literally every western country

and communist uprisings and absolute social degeneracy with a widespread abhorrence for tradition

MY VOTE MATTERS! I'M MAKING MY OWN DECISIONS, WE LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY!

The average voter is not a fucking idiot and knows who he should vote for! Media doesn't influence my voting behaviour and corporations don't buy my candidates!

Let's say you want a change implemented quickly.
Are you going to wait until the globalist puppets implement it and berate them once every 4 years if they don't, or are you going to seize the opportunity and procure the necessary signatures to produce a vote?

That's the difference.

Ulfric is the true high king, it will be decided at the moot.

Not pointless scots did it for a while, and the pope is essentially an elected king.

It's honestly hard to tell whether the Monarchists are just LARPing or are genuinely stupid enough to believe in the idea of "Benevolent Tyranny".

First of all, you need to find a benevolent tyrant. Good luck with that. Second of all, any notion of a democratically elected monarch will probably disappear after the first one you elect. Afterwards he'll either undo the democracy you put in place because you idiots didn't think this through and gave one guy ultimate power, or he'll use his power to keep up the pretenses of "democratic monarchy" like in North Korea where of course everyone votes for him and his offspring, because no one survives if they do otherwise.

If anyone could be a king they would and democracy won't stop them. The fact is that most people don't want that shit and autistic retards like OP do nothing but mentally jack off to history. Protip: historical narratives are only attractive to you because they eliminate the uncertainties of life which you are terrified by.

You'd be so much more irrelevant if Franco didn't reestablish the monarchy when he kicked the bucket. Your elected officials on the other hand a corrupt as fuck.

Only in the 19th century for most of human history bankers bent the knee to the monarchs like everyone else. Especially now with open information the monarch can declare all bankers be hung, and everyone will know who they are so they won't be able to run away. The Rothschilds had to duck and run between countries all the time because whenever a monarch wouldn't do what they wanted they'd risk being executed.
I think with modern tech a monarchy would be the greatest government system.

No... You aren't getting my point. Let's list some historical examples; Russia, (by extension the soviet Union, which however was not a monarchy, was most certainly not an elective system.) Monarchies have always frustrated populations because they just do whatever the hell they want. Great Britain was a monarchy.
(We all know how that worked out. Taxation without representation.)
Often it leads to power hunger, not the other we around as well. By the way, the Netherlands is not a proper monarchy. It doesn't even really control itself, which is a problem unto itself (EU) but that is for another discussion.
For your third point, no. It is not complete nonsense. To list an example, King Henry VI was said to have been mentally ill, and still lead the country.
I agree with you on this point.

Irrelevant discussion as long as long as liberalism and cultural marxism rule. If it's to come back, the ruler will probably be chosen by some military figure.
most people don't deserve the right to vote

It might sound almost like democracy, but it isn't. A king is a king nevertheless; he is there for his whole life, and is absolute. It actually worked pretty well for several countries.

the only reason you're allowed to even say that is because of democracy...

Will the kings body guards retain the right to kill and replace the royal family if they become to inbred and incompetent?

Elective monarchy has been in place in many places. It's massively more realistic as well. Who truly gives a fuck if a king is a son of the previous king, it's quite unlikely that a good king will forever have sons good enough to be a king. That might have worked in simpler times, but nowadays a dumb king would just get bought by the bankers. Rather an elected king with a golden soul of any blood than a lousy king of ''noble'' blood.

Remember that any monarch must be styled "of America" and NOT "of the Americans" or whatever your country is. The former states that you rule the land and your power was divinely granted by God. The latter means your power comes "from the people" and those tend to be weak, essentially powerless constitutional monarchs as most 19th century ones were.

>t.RepublicANO

Great Britain is still a monarchy, Britain did also have a mad king. Mad King George, parliament put his son in charge as the Prince Regent, problem of mental problems solved. This era is known as the regency. The question lies in separation of power, not in what system or who has the top job.
Absolute monarchies still exist today including the Vatican, Oman, Brunei, Swaziland and Saudi Arabia

>hurr surr I don't know what Poland-Lithuania was
First, there are plenty of royal families, very educated ones in matters of economy and governance across Europe and even the Americas, we can choose among them.
Second, that's why there is a parliament, which limits this issues and controls them, of course I'm talking about old ones, not kikeminster like modern ones.

Defective royal members could be excluded from succession by law.

>It might sound almost like democracy, but it isn't.
Except for when it is. It has all the flaws of democracy, and very few of the benefits of monarchy.

Voting needs to be limited to married couples with at least one child.

this could fix a lot of problems

So then it's not really a monarchy, or rather the absolute one that even half of the "monarchists" in this thread actually want.

A parliament who can exert checks and balances on the monarch? Huh where have I seen that before? Pretty reminiscent of democracy.

Not memeing here, could you explain to me how that has any significant difference in how the country is run from a democracy? What prevents the parliament from becoming as bloated and corrupted as our current system? It honestly seems to me as if the same issues would creep up over time.

Wow~! You sure convinced me pal! You just named some successful, powerful, total not terrible and inhumane countries!
I'm sorry, but if those are your best examples, then your argument is totally cucked.
BTW, it's not even called Great Britain anymore. It is called the United Kingdom, and is not a monarchy. It is called the UK now because GB COLLAPSED.
They have an entirely elective government. The queen is just for show. Like the pope.
What century do you live in?

show me the success of free speech

any form of election attracts power hungry people
i've already discussed this in a previous post

we want a leader to be determined as early as possible so we can raise this soon-to-be leader as a proper leader

just because i want a change implemented, doesn't mean it should be

>How do we get back to a Monarchy?
You don't. Monarchs are so inherently inbred that half of them is outright crazy. Ivan the terrible, George III, Ludwig of Bavaria, etc. etc. etc.

The only people that still have kings and queens were too much of a pussy to get into revolution. Now they're stuck with the bill for a royal household that does nothing but waste money and costs billions.

Fucking Limey Dago Viking twits!

Not a parliament in the modern sense, it would be something like a council of nobles that works with the monarch and establishes some control regarding his actions, I mean that they should advise him and, if necessary, limit any action by his part that could harm the stability of the country. I wasn't talking about an elected one btw, and maybe I am expressing it wrong, English is not my first language and sometimes it's difficult to express concepts as I want.

>Three names
>half of all monarchs
Also, Ivan was called "the Terrible" because he #rekt his enemies. He was actually a pretty good Tsar.
> Now they're stuck with the bill for a royal household
Not usually. Most monarchies pay for themselves because they've built up income over the centuries.

most monarchists want enlightened monarchy, not absolute monarchy

ruling every aspect of society is too much for a monarch, what you do is you give them certain important powers, much like how your president functions

the true fundamental principle behind monarchism is that leadership can not be elected, it has to be taught. so even an every day monarch will be a better leader than an elected politician, because they have been raised to be leader, they didn't just train their whole life to win a popularity contest

>what is the Bundespresident
>lolol fucking Danes wasting money on useless queen
They practically do the same thing Hans

>By the way, the Netherlands is not a proper monarchy

I agree and I think it should be a proper monarchy

But even castrated western modern liberal monarchies are in a much better position overall than any other system

>hurr muh inbred monarchies guys

have any of you considered that the reason monarchies were inbred is because people in general were pretty inbred?

travel was not as advanced back then as it is today
yeah, you'd end up mostly breeding within a local gene pool

this is not a problem in a globalized world like today's

besides that, inbreeding was also a result of the feudal system, where marriages were arranged to secure alliances

again, not a problem for modern monarchies


so, >muh inbreeding is no longer an argument

Fuck you
We are still going to inbreed
Austrian tradition never dies out, Josef Fritzl being the most recent example

Alright now I somewhat see the merit of what you are suggesting. Having a leader (and likewise, his council) groomed from early childhood to lead would be a good idea, as it would circumvent the issue of modern elections being popularity contests. However, what I wonder is how the common person would be able to hold incompetent leaders accountable when they don't have the power to even speak out safely. It's not a stretch to imagine the king and his council of aloof nobles agreeing to silence legitimate dissent against them since they benefit from the system.

there would still be a constitution preventing certain actions from being taken

Trump can't silence his dissent either

we offered kingship in 1908 to the prince of hessen but he declined

you want a king?
i'll volunteer

i'll put Spurdo on the flag

Nah, the problem is that voting needs to be restricted to those who show an aptitude for long-term thinking and planning, show some degree of intelligence and ability in their community, and who have ties in the future of their country or region where they will vote.

There was a reason why voting was restricted to Free white landowners.

are you worthy of this

>There was a reason why voting was restricted to Free white landowners.

and now it isn't, because of how some free white landowners voted


some times i sleep 18 hours on a day and don't take a shower when i wake up

Absolute monarchy > Rest

>why should this guy be in charge?
>uhhhh... his dad was?
>ok lol

monarchy is fucking retarded for the modern world and only fit for subsistence level farmers who think god appointed their head of state

>cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/polish-bishops-and-president-duda-declare-christ-king-poland

Based Poland

>why should this guy be in charge?
>because he was raised from childhood to be leader and has inherited the lands as his sovereign property
>ok lol

Let's elect a dumbfuck instead!
Will surely work!

Well guess what faggot
>majority of people are fucking retarded

>why should this guy be in charge?
>Uhhh, because he's been raised from birth for the job, he can't skive out of it, and all his own success is tied to making sure the nation does well. He also doesn't have to pander to one group over another, but can do what's best for all.

A popularity contest is fucking retarded for the modern world, and only fit for private groups.

I don't think that's completely fair

a more accurate and fair statement would be
>the majority of people are easily misled

Would a monarch infringe on muh freedumbs? I don't want some nigger sending a cryer to my town square or whatever and telling me that I have to turn in my weapons and that taxes are 30% higher because he wants to build a castle. Sure the castle will be beautiful and whatever, but what about me and my livelihood? Do I get to enjoy that castle? Absolutely not! Why would the king allow a lower class plebian inside his estate.

I'd rather have a Libertarian Monarchy with a strong constitution limiting the powers of the king to a cap on taxable income and absolutely no infringement on any weapon or weapon related accessories

look up Enlightened Monarchy

>Would a monarch infringe on muh freedumbs?
Probably not.
>Do I get to enjoy that castle?
Do you get to enjoy the Abrams tanks your taxes are paying for?

>American royalty
Yes please. I would fucking love a Clinton royal family, or a Rockefeller. How about a Gates?
You are so stupid

the problem with a monarchy is for every great leader, you get ten inbred retards. With no checks and balances system and every person with a high birth brown nosing, it leads to terrible decisions, what we have now isnt perfect either though...

I don't think people can conceptually understand the purpose of a King without going muh freedumbs. It's funny how when I tell people we should have a monarchy and ask why not, I usually just get "Are you kidding me ?!?!? It's the current year" type responses. Funny how they can never explain beyond that

>america only means United States of America

retard

Because the media has told them that it's outdated. Like actually. Look at how it's portrayed. Bad guys are monarchies. Good guys are republics. Real subtle.

That's why you have a formalized aristocracy that are fearful of a bad king. A bad king = the people riot =go after the land owners etc

>do you get to enjoy tanks
I get to enjoy to safety and security they provide
>huurr wars for Israel
OK, I get it. But asume Israel wasn't a thing, in WW2 I enjoyed the safety the Mustang airplanes provided me and my people from the Japanese threat. Same with the Russians. Also, that's a fucking fallacy.
>Lel you can't enjoy a tank so let the king enjoy his billion dollar 3rd castle

Give me a basic gestalt. Also explain why the French Revolution happened under a monarchy. I mean, u thought they were the good guys.

Can you enjoy the white house? The presidential yet? Are you benefiting from the president traveling to Japan? No, of course not, you are talking about a fucking basic question. Of course the head of state, whatever it is has privileges.

Oh even better. How about a Carlos slim, or a che' Guevara? Or or! How about a Trudeau one! So many shitty options to choose from
>Inb4 comparing shitty royal families to Democratic parties
Listen, at least with democracy we have the slight chance of electing someone willing to enact change no matter what, Trump for example.

No I know, (((they))) imply that it's """"settled history""" and going back to a monarchy is like breaking laws of physics or stopping the march towards muh progress

youtube.com/watch?v=k12teOokSqM
Watch this and read his newest essay on aristocracy to monarchy to democracy

I don't get where this smugness of le outdated comes from either. Democracy wasn't invented in the 1700s, its old. Many democracies have fallen as well, many even had democratically elected dictatorships. I forgot who said it but the saying goes something like this
: monarchies are replaced by democracies. And democracy is replaced with dictatorships.

sounds good on paper but in reality another french revolution isnt going to happen.
A system where LANDOWNERS votes counted more than non landowners, or people on social welfare dont get a vote would be better. it has been shown people will vote for their own agenda rather than the common good

>lol I'm a fucking retard who still doesn't know that America is a continent and that there where monarchies in it

Don't even dare to talk to me again ignorant inbreed