Is the monarchy the final solution?

Is the monarchy the final solution?

Other urls found in this thread:

westcoastrxers.com/2016/10/22/lockes-adversary-the-patriarchal-kingdom-of-sir-robert-filmer/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Honestly? Yes.
Worked for thousands of years. Jews were expelled by Kings and Queens 95% of the time. Without a single ruler who isn't bothered about fame (they are famous from birth unlike politicians nowadays) and only about the people, dealing with Jews becomes MUCH MUCH harder as the average moron on the street who's completely brainwashed by the Jewish media will never vote against them or take the time to look into history.

That's why the Jews love democracy.

Yes

Honestly? No.

The only solution is totalitarianism. Look at NK for example, their people are brainwashed beyond saving and they all live "happy" lives in their small little world. Happy for as long as they don't insult Kim in any way. Meanwhile look at the western civilisation where "freedom" is exercised to hearts content, people can do pretty much whatever they want, be it eating shit, being retarded, trans, feminist, gay, cuck, brony, fury e.c.t. Truth be told, people don't really know what to do with "freedom", so the majority will regress into degeneracy while telling them selves "it's my choice, it's normal, I love it". This hypocrisy can be best observed with trans people, who are claiming to be happy with their choices while in reality 80% of them commit suicide sooner or later. Rome collapsed from within by the hand of degeneracy... so if the western civilisation doesn't want the same fate, then drastic changes have to be made, moral standards overlooked and changes made.

Why has monarchy worked for thousands of years while all other govermnents can barely hold on for 100 years?

This degeneracy is pushed by Jews, nice leaving that out.

No, it's the fine ol' solution.

Dictatorship isn't the same thing as a monarchy rule

Yes, strong Christian ones.

>The only solution is totalitarianism. Look at NK for example, their people are brainwashed beyond saving and they all live "happy" lives in their small little world.

The episode It's a Good Life from the Twilight Zone isn't a good example of totalitarianism. North Korea in this case.

Because other nations might not like the progress of a smaller country and will shut them down to preserve the geopolitical state. Terrorists can be dealt with, but a nation is on a next level.

Kingship, or specifically Christiran Kingship is the only way.

Kingship died during the 18th to 20th centuries because protestants adopted the habits of Jews during the reformation (lending money at interest, expulsion of moral law from the economic realm). This gave the jew driven countries an advantage over those that were still christian. For example, the English were able to force the French out or Canada because they were only interested in (Jewish dominated) economic exploitation.

So, in order to survive a Kingdom must have a means of securing its existence that compensates for its inherent lower economic activity.

Nukes could provide this

yes, preferably with a strong, traditional aristocracy.

What the fuck are you even talking about? Didn't answer my question at all?

nk is a bad example

What people need is GOOD authority that doesn't allow people to make selfish choices.

I've lived in Christian communes that have lasted decades. Each household has a strong authority figure that basically controls every aspect of people's lives, but in a loving and caring way.

In these communities there is no premarital sex, no divorce, no angry outbursts, no degeneracy of any kind allowed. Everyone works for the good of the whole. They have several community run businesses and everyone shares in the work.

The children loved helping their parents, and were very selfless even from a young age. They were the most respectful, well behaved kids I've ever met.

Monarchy is not the answer.
The problem with a monarchic system: The first king is selected by merit. His conquests and exploits gain him the throne, but his children rarely ever have the same kind of capability that he did, and once he has passed away, the throne's power and influence wanes.

Monarchies are full of mediocre and meek kings and queens who achieve nothing of note beyond being born into royalty. There is no system for replacing a king with someone worthy.

Representative democracies are also not the answer.
The problem with a representative democracy: Special interests are able to control and influence policy decisions by bribing and blackmailing the public representatives. In this way the government is hijacked by special interests and no longer represents the will of the people. While a democracy offloads decision-making on the masses generally, representative democracy re-condenses decision-making to a select few who are not selected for the merits of running a country, but on the merits of purportedly serving the public interest while being controlled from the sidelines by special interest groups.

The real answer is probably a direct democracy.
Under a direct democracy we have a general public who is able to make policy decisions with no "interpretation" by middlemen. There are no parties, there are only issues. You do not vote for a party, you vote for or against an issue. Under this system the aggregate meritocratic potential of the entire population comes to the forefront to make good decisions. The only drawback is access to information - a direct democracy can be subverted by vote rigging and mass media control and mass propaganda operations to limit the truthful information the public has with which to make their decisions. These are also problems in representative democracies however, and direct democracy improves on the situation by removing the representative middlemen who are easy to control and blackmail.

Traditionalism is the best and most fulfilling, most complete "ideology" to date. modern progressive liberals and "conservatives" are merely too proud and brainwashed with modernist nonsense to acknowledge that

those progressives who cry endlessly over the tyranny of the ancien regime have encroached on peopl's rights far more, have taxed endlessly more, waged more terrible wars, have intruded the family sphere more and deeper than any king would ever dream of.

the traditionalist system was paradoxically the most authoritarian and yet the most free.

westcoastrxers.com/2016/10/22/lockes-adversary-the-patriarchal-kingdom-of-sir-robert-filmer/

this is an informative link that demonstrates the wishful thinking, naivety and historical ignorance of liberalism and contrasts that with traditional, tested government

Now, can anyone come up with a system better than direct democracy that goes a step further and by natural elegant design circumvents mass media control and propaganda?

This is such horseshit.

Why have monarchies lasted thousands of years and democracies can't even hold on for shit?

Maybe you haven't noticed, but monarchies are dead

Venezuela is the main exemple of how direct democracy works.
Next.

No, Switzerland is the main example of how direct democracy works

>Why has monarchy worked for thousands of years

No it hasn't... For example Roman Kingdom was at it's power for 244 years until it got overthrown and turned into a Republic. Then Rome lasted a thousand years while in other parts of the world monarchy could barely keep a ruler on their throne. Another example would be Wars of the Roses.

Also it's true that barely any nation can hold on for 100 years, Nazi Germany, Libya, Cuba, Iraq all achieved greatness in very short span of time ... I guess you know how it ended for them.

Thanks to Jews, you idiot.

>NatSoc Germany
>Libya
>Iraq

>What is a Rothschild central bank

Are you 10 years old or just retarded?

Why are you blaming Jews?

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

HOLY FUCKING SHIT