Monarchy

You have 10 minutes to explain why I should be ruled by some faggot simply because he was related to the previous king

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=anb7BKIujtI
youtube.com/watch?v=mfHrMnl1uLo
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

cant

Because it's good to have a stable factor above the government. And its classy af

>Traitorous Yanks would rather have outdated farming equipment run their shit for 8 years rather than a Monarchy.

?

Don't mind a single person as state figurehead.
It's all the scrounging hanging on bastards like dukes and others all after my money

Monarchy is literally for cucks

Fascism is good but if you're going to base your government off of worship rather than logic then you're a fucking idiot

>stable
were you dropped on your head as a baby by accident or on purpose?

LONG LIVE THE QUEEN

>You have 10 minutes to explain why I should be ruled by some faggot
FTFY

They own the land and there's no estate/death taxes to take away what previous generations earned.

The Royal Family don't have any real power, they keep up relations with other countries.

In the old days, princes were the only ones who had the time and ability to learn law, economics, philosophy, history, diplomacy, military tactics, and politics. Kings were necessary to maintain a country because they were the only ones with enough knowledge to be able to manage it, by being able to put specialists where they needed to be to make sure the country continued to run smoothly.

These days, thanks to information being more accessible, a republic could be considered a better form of government, but without a central head the end result will always be too many chiefs and not enough Indians. When you start focusing on the quantity instead of the quality, that's where issues arise.

just watch this you ignorant cunt

youtube.com/watch?v=anb7BKIujtI

Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

Coz he god on earf

The only postive i tried to use justifying a monarchy, is that it concentrates power in one place.
So you only need to worry about protecting one thing,and if the power is too corrupt for your liking you just need to remove one thing.

Its alot easier to depose tryants when they work alone,
But if the nation is ruled by a group of tyrants is harder to up root injustice.

Kings raising kings is the best way to get high quality rulers.
We need a king who loves not only his country, but the people of his country to teach these same values to their heirs.
With a proper king shit actually gets done.
Democracy is shit. The majority is just a bunch of retards.

Liberals could elect someone like Trudeau to lead your nation

divine right

Because he's going to care more about the country than anyone else, and has the most to gain from making sure it does well, in addition to being the one person trained most for the job.

You have ten years to explain why a popularity contest staged by the media among the banks to give a puppet mandate over the plebs is better.

Because you're a dumbass pleb and the only way you will ever achieve anything if it's under a boot
Someone needs to wear the boot

The land belongs to the Royal family. Invade/Buy it off them if you want a republic.
I quite like the Royal family. Gives a Ye Olde feel to castles.

for every faggot lunatic king, there were 100 bred and raised for the job. so if you think you can just elect a superior ruler out of the uneducated, unwashed mob, well ..., i thnk we can just take a look at the modern world and see why that is the bigest mistake human kind ever made.

they have a plan desu, it's coming to fruition soon. If you manage to survive you might enjoy the next 50 years

you are most likely an american, therefore you will never understand what its like to respect your monarch

>Gives a Ye Olde feel to castles.
As opposed to the modern art feels the French and German ones have?

Because blood is a thicker bond than money and fame and good monarchs have been groomed and bred in order to rule effectively. In addition to this their own prestige and worth is tied directly to that of their nation.

Monarchism is the ultimate red pill. Democracy is the structure which enables manipulating sociopaths to rise to the top.

Property rights.
The country was his family's property, and now he inherited that property.
And then the enlightenment view was that a monarch's property could be restricted through the will of the people. And now the same arguments are being used against large corporations, and even individual property.
So ask yourself: are you against the principle of private property?

when you have so little faith in your party system it is sometimes better to have someone who is on paper above the party politics being head of state if only to prevent the parties from gaining complete power over the country. also its good to have them as they can dismiss parliament if it becomes too fucked

>Royal fantastic have no power meme

They a huge amount of land on this planet legally and the military and police forces where they are head of state, the puppets of parliament are for us to believe we have power.

Why the fuck do we need one? They oppressed our people for hundreds of years and threw us into pointless wars and we're supposed to respect them?

Keep thinking that they somehow represent our diminishing British pride and demographic by all means though, hum god save the Queen whilst you do nothing to actually save your culture but post on Japanese image boards, myself included.

They own a huge*

>They oppressed our people for hundreds of years and threw us into pointless wars and we're supposed to respect them?
Well said. Time to get rid of Parliament and have absolute monarchy.

I was thinking of making a thread similar to this one.

The best argument I've heard is that a strong bred and raised leader will more effectively lead a nation with consistent morals, political ideology, and virtues.

Someone raised to lead will lead more effectively because they're specialists in leading a nation.

On the other hand, limiting it to descendants of kings could produce spoiled brats that become tyrants.

I think a more effective solution would be to have a parliament/republic backed by a strong authoritarian figure in the form of an emperor whose lineage goes to a vote among children looking for the most merit-able, moral, and intelligent children, who then gets to be raised by the previous emperor in learning to rule a nation justly. It's sort of an in-between between a King and a President.

The roman empire had emperors anyways, and they were still a republic.

>Outdated farming equipment hahahaha

you are a pleb, you are going to be oppresed no matter what, the only difference is that the king as oposed to the president has more incentive to not fuck up the country because he leaves it all to his children.

>goes to a vote
So it's controlled by the banks or the media?

>britbongs thinks his constitutional monarchy "oppresses" his people
Come here and i'll show you what oppression looks like.

>britbong*

One caution though: if people are allowed to vote for a child to become emperor, I suspect it'll be like a beauty contest except appealing to emotion on who seems the most moral by saying things to appease the gullible (but just how evil or dumb can little shits be?). And I'm sure many parents would try and have babies for a chance to have their child become emperor (but at least it would potentially increase the white birth rate).

If it's a democratic vote, pretty much. And media would probably highlight kike-backed children, but at least it's a step up from having a monarchy subverted by nobles that are kikes like Rothschild.

If we could have IQ tests determine eligibility for emperor status, followed by some kind of moral test, a committee could vote for/the current emperor could appoint a child that seems the most merit-able.

I'm just wondering if the child's family should be allowed to stay in the equivalent of the white house, and if they should be allowed to dually raise their child.

>If it's a democratic vote
Any vote.
>but at least it's a step up from having a monarchy subverted by nobles that are kikes like Rothschild.
A proper monarchy couldn't be, though. Since they would always have more power than the kikes. Sorry, but the system you're proposing would be more susceptible to subversion/being puppets, because the (((bankers))) would just get their chosen candidate into power, as they do now.

Britain isn't a an actual monarchy, and it hasn't been since the 17th century.

Saudi Arabia on the other hand, is an actual monarchy with power. Thy actually make rules and have say on where their nation is heading.

Britain, Spain, and the rest of the other monarchies in europe, are just LARPing cucks.

Then just have the current emperor appoint the next one. It's the same as kingship but avoiding spoiled brats.

But I don't think indirect votes would harm as much as you think.

> Ruled by some faggot

Comfy life, stable civilization, live with close-knit family and kin 100% of the time. Ethnic and cultural homogeneity.

And the kicker?

Ruler is a direct competitor to the Jews. Will likely banish them from the realm and steal their Jew gold on the way out.

> Downsides.

Peasant farmer for life.

Farming is a good life, user. Why do you hate farming?

You can be my peasant user. I will take care of you and your family. I will rule with a strong and firm hand, allow you the freedom to earn your own gibs, as long as you spend an hour or two a week farming my gibs.

It is a good deal, user.

Because their life is basically nothing but being trained to be a statesman.
They definitely BTFO of your average democratic politician

>Then just have the current emperor appoint the next one.
But then you're still losing the generational incentive.
>But I don't think indirect votes would harm as much as you think.
Anytime you can pretend that someone chose something like that is dangerous.

Theoretically a king in Britain could become a tyrant. If I remember correctly the monarch's can change laws if they really desire it.

Fun fact did you know that a king/Queen of britain could impeach a prime minister from the commonwealth.

>generational incentive
Care to elaborate?

The current emperor could stay as emperor until he dies, and if the elected/appointed new emperor dies before he can take the throne, then the genetic descendants of the emperor could take over seeing as they'd be the only other people raised for the task (but hopefully this doesn't encourage espionage like in the middle ages).

>then the genetic descendants of the emperor could take over
Note: Only if the current emperor doesn't die before he can raise another future emperor.

>Care to elaborate?
As in, the main reason the incumbent has to do well is to pass it on to his kids. If they won't be inheriting that, he'll be in a position where he's better off siphoning off as much as he can to them to take elsewhere.
You're treating them like a politician, basically.

>outdated farming equipment

But most elected politicians don't get to rule for life, which means that regardless of what they do, at least they are allowed to be emperor to the end of their life if they don't become disabled or incapacitated.

>fifteen minutes into symbolic monarchy and degenerate and he gives you these lectures

youtube.com/watch?v=mfHrMnl1uLo

Look at those sick pedophiles. I wonder how many mass graves they have on royal land.

>But most elected politicians don't get to rule for life
They can in some countries, though. Like here, as long as they get elected, they can keep going.
>at least they are allowed to be emperor to the end of their life
But after that is the problem. If their child is the one next up, then odds are they'll have been setting their children up anyway, potentially to the detriment of the nation they're ruling.

>Sup Forums recommends the movie
>Turns out to be liberal propaganda, with one nice speech, if taken out of the rest of the movie

Also, technically his kids could also be eligible for being next emperor, they just need to pass merit tests of intelligence and morality, which can happen easily if the emperor raises his kids right.

Just have to make sure that the emperor doesn't decide merit, and that parliament or other aspects of the republic do. The most likely time that the emperor's kids shouldn't be considered for emperor-hood is if his kids are spoiled brats or too dumb.

So then this little function of government for deciding the next emperor is just an anti-tyrant function.

Because his lineage derives power from God. There is no better way to rule a country other than a legitimate king that cares for its people.

Eugenics and gene therapy are still preferable.

At least a king has a duty and self interest to preserve their nation.

Should that not be the people themselves? Either way could be manipulated, but at least a manipulated majority populace are acting for themselves, rather than a small aristocracy pretending to serve people while stabbing them in the back.
As in, if it's not worth shedding blood for, perhaps the monarch ain't so bad, and there can be other solutions.

nice meme

Well not when you still get tyrants that do stupid things like go against the church just because they want to get remarried, and then establish their own church.

Also, that 'committee' I mentioned for appointing the emperor could be the Senate. The separation of powers could still apply, only that the role of the President/Prime minister is supplanted by the emperor.

>atheist in 2017
nice meme

So you're contradicting your point about media deciding the next emperor in a democracy?

Also, if the Senate elects emperor, then more attention would be paid to electing the best Senators.

>He thinks i'm an atheist

>Well not when you still get tyrants that do stupid things like go against the church just because they want to get remarried
Hardly a big deal. His wives hadn't produced an heir, so really he should have kept going until it happened. The pope was being a fuddy-duddy.
BUT then he shat the bed by destroying historical buildings like the monasteries, which is where the problem arises.
>Also, that 'committee' I mentioned for appointing the emperor could be the Senate.
Aye, (((elected officials))).

Don't get me wrong, bro. I understand your position and see the merits. But i just don't see it being different to now, and is still too vulnerable to all the (((wrong things))).

A bit, yes. But you can't exactly legislated against rebellion. You can just ensure that it's used to best fertilise the soil of the nation.

You're not ruled by a monarch, you're ruled by a parliament.

excerpts from King Harald's speech:
>Norwegians have also immigrated from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Poland, Sweden, Somalia and Syria
>The place we call home is where our heart is - and it can't always be placed within national borders
>Norwegians are girls who like girls, boys who like boys, and girls and boys who love each other
>Norwegians believe in God, Allah, Everything, and Nothing
>My biggest hope for Norway is that we will take care of each other
>That we will feel that we - in spite of all our differences - are one people
Monarchists BTFO

Monarchs are biggest cucks

Don't have to be atheist to think that divine right for kings is a terrible idea. In a small theocracy like the Vatican, it's fine. But if you can't justify your governmental without invoking the almighty, it might just be flawed.

No, just Norway btfo. Get your shit together, Scandinavia.

>implying the British Monarchy has any modicum of power.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

because your a faggot.

For wanting smaller government with less involvement? I think you've got things backwards, Bulgar.

At least with more emphasis paid attention to electing senators, people would have more power to elect their representatives than an entire nation, because the senator only resides in the local region where a smaller number of voters reside.

With more local control over senators, and the fact that they're decentralized means media would have a hard time trying to put into power many of (((their))) key people.

Because royal families are literally bred to rule.
These people find themselves in the world of politics since the very beginning of their lives.

That badass king who ruled a strong centralized state for 40 years passes on rulership to his son who a) inherits many of the same genetic traits b) has been trained most of his life for this position. Also, stability, culture and nationalism is all much easier with a monarchy.

I think that I specifically should be the king.
Nobody else, I'm the best for the job.

Democracy is a false God. Learn it or continue getting stepped on in your life.

entire nation's president/prime minister/emperor*

>With more local control over senators, and the fact that they're decentralized means media would have a hard time trying to put into power many of (((their))) key people.
Just can't agree there, bro. As in, even here, we have a great local system and it still gets gamed by (((Murdoch))).

If you can take and hold the position, then yes.

That faggot was educated from birth on how to be the best possible ruler.

Well you wouldn't ever have a black man ruling white workers and destroying white ethnic culture for one thing user. Plus the monarch only gains his power from the Lords who support his claim. The monarch is more of a figure head of an Ideal (insert National Cultural Identity Here) Country. The people still hold the true power and can behead him should he fail in his destined birth mission of guiding growth and ensuring wellbeing in times of war, famine, chaos. He also is held accountable for delivering Justice as his people see fit. Fine line between tyrants and benevolent kings. The greatest fortune to a king who has no concern for wealth as an aspiring goal is to be forgotten in due time after serving the people nobly. There are many great kings who lack the recognition that infamous ones get. Or ones who put their names on translations of Bibles.

Does your local media report on your equivalent of Congress? Like, when they get elected, does Murdoch's media specifically highlight all of the shills that they want elected and broadcast per region?

Have you heard your queen saying something against immigration?

Yup. They comment on everything in every region, and i'm in quite a rural area. You don't realise how insidious it is until you start looking.

No, it would be a constitutional breach if Her Majesty commented on politics.

Riddle me this

Monarchy gets it right to rule from Divine Right of Kings, but if less and less people in Europe are religious what basis do they have to keep a Monarchy? It makes no sense, so either you stay religious and keep a Monarchy or you become irreligious like now and abolish the Monarchy

>tfw I will never live in an absolute monarchy
>tfw I will never live, breathe, and fight for the beloved royal family and for the strong admired king
>tfw I will never ride alongside my king into battle for glory
Feels fucking bad man.

Sheeeit.

So your local media can't compete with the (((MSM)))?

Because you are a goyim

>Monarchy gets it right to rule from Divine Right of Kings
Nah, doesn't need to.

It got bought out by (((them))). Our shitty local fishwrapper plays the party line to stay afloat, and our tv is wider region based.

So basically the wider region based media sets the tone for the masses' thinking, while the smaller local media has no choice but to support the wider region's thinking to stay economically afloat. That's fucked up, bro.

If it doesn't get it from the Divine Right of Kings then what makes these people more worthy and better than me to be the ruler? Why should they get my money and giant castles

Because they're inherently better than you, peasant.

I can't. One retarded monarch can fuck up a nation forever or even get it destroyed.

Oh i know. Any rival newsletters and the like develop bugger all following without being branded as fringe. Plus, no one reads them to begin with.

>then what makes these people more worthy and better than me to be the ruler?
Being bred for it. Being trained from birth for the job, and having the most incentive to pass it on to their son in the best condition possible.
>Why should they get my money and giant castles
I mean, traditionally people get payed for harder jobs, or by creating value. Same reason a CEO gets paid more than a rock breaker.
But like for our monarchy, they pay for themselves, and then pay the country £300m each year for the privilege of staying out of politics.
There's also the concept of ownership.

Well at least in our system, even with MSM (which doesn't really report on local congress members), people like Ron Paul and Rand Paul can get elected into House of Reps. and the Senate respectively.

They literally own the country. Parliament rents the land and royal family gets a salary.
It's not ideal no; just too much of a hassle to remove it.

True of any leader, or governing body. Monarchy is historically safer in that regard.

Oh aye, we still have that. Like even the Motoring Party get a seat or two in our senate. But by and large if you don't vote the two major parties, you're seen to be voting to have your electorate ignored.
So like here, i hate our righter wing party (LNP), and at least our lefter party (Labor) has no chance of getting in (though they currently have the state, but that'll change soon), but the party i'd rather vote for (One Nation) is comprised of dickheads who get actively worked against by the majors.
So it's better to go with the LNP, because our MP is an absolute gem who uses her party power to benefit the electorate all the time, as opposed to One Nation, who have all their electorates either ignored or shat on by the two majors.