Should we restore the monarchies?

Should we restore the monarchies?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=jdUzM7PIvNw
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Yes, democracy is a mistake and it is exploited by those who do not have their countries interests in mind. A monarch is a personification of a country and for them, improvement of the country is equivalent of personal gain, whilst general politicians often seek personal gain at the expense of the country.

It's more democracy than what we got now.
It's a lottery where everyone born has the potential of becoming the ruler.
So on average, it will be an average human being (with a odd childhood).

"Democracy" is a coalition of psycopaths manipulating the people through media.

Democracy only works on a smaller scale where everyone can meet face to face and have a discussion. When discussion dies, so does democracy.

>assuming politicians aren't already monarchs

You can't have monarchy without strong religion. Once Islam fully takes over, maybe.

Had this thread the other day. Democracy has failed since suffrage has been given to everyone. Many of the prime ministers of the 19th century were very effective, yet the 20th century was quite different. Sure, our country had characters like Lloyd George and Asquith, but they were pretty ineffective in some areas and lay foundations for some shit policy making later on. Many consider Churchill to have been very effective (which I agree with) yet he is remembered for his time as a war prime minister. In contrast, we have had some incredibly effective monarchs and surprisingly few god awful ones. Obviously life could be shit if you were catholic at one time or Protestant in another but in the world today such an issue isn't a problem.

Here is a quote from one of our greatest fighting men:

"I hate rebels, I hate traitors, I hate tyranny come from where it will. I have seen much of the world, and I have learnt from experience to hate and detest republics. There is nothing but tyranny & oppression, I have never known a good act done by a Republican, it is contrary to his character under the mask of Liberty. He is a tyrant, a many headed monster that devours your happiness and property. Nothing is free from this monster's grasp. A republic has no affection for its subjects. A King may be ill advised and act wrong, a Republic never acts right, for a knot of villains support each other, and together they do what no single person dare attempt."

Yes. An absolute monarchy would be best.

(((democracy))) is anti traditional and anti European, and its responsible for the degeneracy and social decay of the west. Ever since it's been introduced, the West has been on a slow cultural and moral decline.

An absolute monarch is raised and trained from birth in how to be a strong and good ruler, whereas a politician is only in it for the money for 4-8 years. They don't commit, and they don't see the consequences of their actions past their term limits. A king should work to preserve racial and cultural purity among his nation and prevent degeneracy. Monarchy is that natural state of man.

would america or should america go back to being a colony of england in this case?

What is also interesting is deciding what role advisors/appointed parliament should play as well as how one becomes monarch (hereditary laws and whether it is elective etc).

On a side note, how effective is the Roman Republic's government considered?

there is none among you who deserve the title of King.

I'm not quite sure, because America is a new country that has no real tradition of long periods of monarchy, unlike the old world. Maybe it could have its own monarch descended for George Washington or something. Voting, if there would be any, would be restricted to the landed gentry, and the well educated.

We should put the best and the brightest in our government and only allow the smart educated people of society to vote.

Yes. But only if they have the power to kick out the Jews and muslims. I really don't like our current king. Maybe he's secretly based, I wouldn't know.

Monarchs were typically wealthiest people in their regions, so no, because I don't want Cuckerberg or Bezos as my overlord

As a side note, democracy is a system that can easily be bought into (and thus corrupted by) Jews, globalists or corporations that don't have the nations best interests at heart.

Democracy was maybe a nice idea in the 18th century, but it's clear now that it's failed the West and needs to be removed. Monarchies lasted millennia upo millennia for a good reason.

There's only one form of government that we need to restore.

>implying Jews were ever allowed to be royalty in Europe.

Absolutely

Nah, just nobility and in charge of the finances lol.

Yes

A monarch became a monarch due to his bloodline and ancestry. He inherited his wealth. People like zuckerburg would never be able to be a monarch - just because you've made a load of money does not mean you're fit to be a king

did think about Washington blood line but wont happen man if Washington put a crown on his head that would have been great also how do you deal with the degeneration of the dynasty do you do like the Romans and adopt and name your heir

Democracy only works on a local level. You can see examples of this in the US where some small town elects a dog as the mayor and everything continues on just fine because the people in the town all know each other and so on. Plato said you need to have close ties with the people you are voting with (blood, marriage, kinship, ect). There are also so many different forms of voting that can influence an election and how it plays out. I support democracy on the local level, but nothing further.

female dominated monarchy?

Something like that.

Thread theme

youtube.com/watch?v=jdUzM7PIvNw

Have to restore those usury laws.

Yes, but get rid of the British one. None are based enough

Nice trips, also, you do have a king - Jesus.

cant really have a monarchy without the religious element. best we could hope for a nationalist dictator

Yeah, I agree with this. If there was to be any form of democracy, it need to be kept in small, high trust, ethnically homogeneous communities. Democracy is not suited for the national level, however.

One cannot simply "restore" something like a monarchy, at least not in any meaningful way. Modes of government are more of a reflection of the underlying society. Demuhcracy in its various modern forms is what the west deserves given its decadent antihierarchial status.
If you want to have a meaningful monarchy again you have to restore many more things first.

>I support democracy on the local level, but nothing further.
>You can see examples of this in the US where some small town elects a dog as the mayor

ffs user you couldn't have used a better example perhaps, a dog being elected as mayor is an example of something you support and that illustrate how democracy works on that level?

There are four pieces of government that a good kingdom relies on and needs.

>church
>king
>nobles
>people

Without one the rest falls apart. Therefore each needs to be given a voice that is proper for its sector.

Yes, and that's why we have to regain His ancestral homeland from the usurpers.

.. and being X's offspring makes you qualified to rule a country? Kay...

To Jerusalem!

The town functions with or without the mayor as the 'head'. That was my point, because the people of the town create the value of it, not the mayor. They could have elected a rock and it wouldn't have changed the outcome of how the town functioned.

No. We need to devise a new system of government.

Depends. Times today would breed ruthless Monarchs just to fix failed theories of dogshit liberal tolerance.

you don't 'restore' a monaracy. all those lines are dead or polluted. I mingship is won by strength of arms, new kings must rise if you want that.
you'lll regret it though

...

This

Go read up on the French revolution and the six coalitions that fought against the recucklicans.

"France is a nation full of "thieves, murderers, oppressors and infidels".

t. Nelson (a hero and killer of French filth). GOD BLESS NELSON!

in the past the people where more loyal to the idea of kingship, rather than to the king itself. You can't just nominate someone king and pretend that people would immediately follow and love him, even if he is capable. A nation have to first embrace the idea of have a king as the "father" of the entire nation before he can accept him as ruler.

Yes

>One cannot simply "restore" something like a monarchy
"One simply CAN", the French did it with the Bourbon restoration when they realised being a republic was just failure and cuckoldry. Of course that failed because Louis Vitton was executed. Sad days.

you forgot the "in any meaningful way" part
>the French did it with the Bourbon restoration
>Of course that failed because Louis Vitton was executed. Sad days.
there you go
how's your monarchy doing to protect your country and interests? given the recent news, they don't seem to be doing you much of a favor

Not sure.
I think we need a small group of arbiters around 10) that are periodically elected and have the sufficient merit to retain the position. Not mere politicians. But also not people disconnected from the lower classes. People that mediate between both.
That period needs to be larger than 10 years.

Government services need better communication with each other. The CIA are nearly at war with the FBI nowadays. That's very inefficient.
Government inefficiency is a huge issue.

never forget Vendee

Our entire aristocracy and the Kings of England for 500 years were French. I mean, we can still hate them, but it seems weird in a thread glorifying our monarchy.

Actually the anti-napoleon coalition forced the return of the monarchy. French people never accepted it and and eventually managed to overthrow the Bourbons, forever

>It's more democracy than what we got now.
The thing about a monarch is that he is only persuade by his own direction.
He has to be a mediator of all society as a matter of function of his position.

Otherwise he loses his head.

i want anarchy in germany

Democracy and monarchy both have flaws.

this

>Ancient minoa
>proceed to sacrifice society for the gods

There's a reason why matriarchy doesn't exist anymore.

Monarchs can be corrupted or the (((media))) can make them seem evil.

Fascist dictatorship is more natural. The strongest man should always lead.

Tbh this looks more like an argument for ancapism than for democracy here.

Direct democracy through social media and an organizational AI?

This. It's much more easier to fight a drifting monarch than a perverted system in which the majority continues to believe no matter what.

That's because our monarchy has almost no power anymore. She's just a figurehead. Reinstate absolute monarchy, so it can have the power and incentive it needs to protect and guide the nation.

Shh.

This is taboo in the French Republic.
Don't try to rewrite History now; will you.

The French shall burn in a pit of fire for eternity and you shall agree with me.
Actually the anti Napoleon coalition raped Napoleon and laughed at his small penis, Austria was desperate to have the Bourbons placed back on the throne of France, no one cares what French people think, they are smelly and smelly French people have NO rights!
The French fucked up, the only reason they had a revolution was to stick a knife in our back (good job with that you pathetic cuckolds). Their parliament fucked up by aiding and abetting criminals in America and what good did that do the monarchy? The downfall of the French monarchy was Louis, Danton and Robspierre and look at what happened to all three. All three ended up under a guillotine. HAH!

French people were a mistake.

t. Allah.

Barbaric Germany?
What could go wrong..

There hasn't been an actual democracy in a long fucking time.

But how can be sure than another one strong enough would follow? Dictatorship without some form of a succession line often degenerates into oligarchy, like in Ussr and China

In the end it boils down to who controls the people (the narrative) and the army (the gov/judiciary).

In the old days, feodal lords held a lot of power power, but monarchies were stable as they competed with each other.
Monarchy has been the most stable form of government for the last 2000 years in Western history.

That is... until gold and silver were replaced with paper notes that could be manipulated by banks, and in the modern era, entirely produced by them.

indeed, but that was the main essence of my point, that given the state of things in the west, it was basically a natural consequence to have either a complete overthrowing of monarchy or in your case at least a sort of castration in favor of populist/democratic movements
the same happened as Japan westernized, the Emperor is still there but has more of a cerimonial function

and it doesn't look like things are going to get any better in that regard

Exactly this.

Assuming we use fascism in the memetic sense, that's just monarchy without legal claim of legitimacy. Perhaps you find that more candid, but the likely outcome is either regular civil wars (or the power not going to any strong figure but to the administration acting as deep state under the pretense of avoiding civil war).

>mfw Sweden invented the first Fractional Reserve bank

>mfw Sweden and Russia begged the UK for help which led to the signing of the Treaty of Orebo because Napoleon had his little Mexican dick balls deep inside both your junkyard countries holes.

HAH! The pair of you will come begging again, you jam the knife in us and join in with the rest of Europe harming my country and then when they turn against you we are the first ones you run to and beg for help.

We should let you rot this time because you faggots will come knocking on our door for help, just like the Dutch did, the Russians did and everyone else does constantly. Our people have bled enough for you ungrateful fuck cucks.

Also, each time the dictator dies, there would be a bloody power struggle for a new ruler if no clear successor had been outlined. A nation cannot survive if every time a dictator dies the country edges closer to a civil war. There would have to be some stable outlined succession law.

The best Polish historian, Paweł Jasienica, wrote the last book of his life about the Vendee war. Very personal, as he was a partisan who fought against both nazis and soviets, it was really important to me so what you're saying makes me sad.

Yes.

Everything is better under monarchy.
Faith.
Law.
Order.

then we wouldn't have any problems with immigrants.

Monarchies worked great in the past but democracy is the way to go. Personally I believe our system of government works pretty well at stopping idiots in the cities from destroying America. Mass democracy without some control like the electoral college is madness

Absolutely! We will live under the reign of the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, Jesus the Messiah, for all eternity and it will be utopia

We never got rid of them, we just need to give them back more power

the Roman tetrarchs model could be a good one: when someone becomes dictator/king, he must nominate a successor who would ascend immediately after him

Was there ever a time that we were NOT planning on restoring a white, pure blooded, Christian or Pagan backed monarchy? I'm a fucking burger and I'd rather be a colony of Bongland than deal with this Jewish run shit.

Monarchies don't mean shit when our society is degenerate and cucked as fuck

First we need to eliminate degeneracy, liberalism, jews, modernism, etc.

Then and only then, should we give a fuck about monarchies

Would societal collapse reverse these trends? Or is there no way back?

We need more power given to the Monarch, Cromwell was a mistake, fuck that puritan trash. Also fuck France, they are to blame for a lot of this shit, fucking salad dodging cunts.

Girondists I can understand, but the revolutionaries were the antifa of their day. Rabid left wing dogs that should have been put down permanently.

Yes. But we should all get a new nobility most of the old families are cucked or they did became globalist.

and this

>to go. Personally I believe our system of government works pretty well at stopping idiots in the cities from destroying America.
Hurr

Fpbp

I vote to put Austria in charge, you're cunning and get away with a lot of shit.

You read books?
I'm gonna have to stop this conversation right now; especially if you back your claims with sources.

Have a rare Taurus.
Two more and i would make a cross; we don't want that.

So you're okay with the idea that with the strike of a pen you can lose all of your rights? At least in a democracy you have a chance to fight
I know a guy Steve who i suspect stole my pen on the 3rd grade, if i was the king Steve would be dead now or at the very least drafted and protecting Antartica. Are you sure you wanna give me that much power?
Democracy is the rule of the people and those in power represent the people (usually) Isn't it possible that the culture has shifted? Isn't it possible that the previous generations were brainwashed in colleges and whatnot? For as long as i was in school there was little to no mention of American exceptionalism and lots of American self blaming and American guilt, the constitution and our founding fathers and their ideas were rarely talked about. Don't you think that will mess up with peoples heads somehow? Might that be the cause for the wets submission, to fix some perceived wrongs while ignoring all the good?

We are condemned to live under the (((Freemasons))) rule. France is today the most atheist country in Europe.

That's why you put a muzzle on the media.

You post that picture without realising that it was an absolute monarch that granted you the tools, money and forces needed to kill those German Hessian's on Christmas day.

The same absolute monarch that bankrupted France and caused a revolution you cuck slut. You should be praising monarchs, sucking their dicks with gratitude. Not prancing around insulting them, slug.

well, I guess it depends on who you ask, but many would say that we have reached a point where a full reverse is just impossible, we're just too far gone for this cycle, it will have to collapse
I don't know, guess this is the case, after WWII the processes already taking place 100 years ago accelerated immensely and spread elsewhere
even east Asia at this point is following that route, they are probably just 50/100 years behind, depending on how they handle the situation, although perhaps their nature will led to a different outcome

Monarchies, specifically a Constitutional Monarchy would probably be the best thing for Europe. Wouldn't work here in the USA, would be really going against our Founding Father's

What is today; what is tomorrow.

Here is an educative read for everyone:

"The origin of the all-mechanical escapement clock is unknown; the first such devices may have been invented and used in monasteries to toll a bell that called the monks to prayers. The first mechanical clocks to which clear references exist were large, weight-driven machines fitted into towers and known today as turret clocks. These early devices struck only the hours and did not have hands or a dial. The oldest surviving clock in England is that at Salisbury Cathedral, which dates from 1386. A clock erected at Rouen, France, in 1389 is still extant, and one built for Wells Cathedral in England is preserved in the Science Museum in London."

Trinity posting.

Constitutional Monarchy exists in UK, Belgium, Netherlands, Spain.

Fuck ((((((((((Constitutional)))))))))) Monarchy.

Okay, then a monarchy where the citizens own guns in case the monarchs get out of hand. Would that work?