When did you realize that hereditary monarchy is the only sensible form of government?

People cannot be trusted to govern themselves and history has proven that. Monarchy unites the people by giving them a supreme leader to look up to and in turn the leader has incentive to do whats best for his or her loyal subjects. No farcical shames like elections and all that crap, just a simple king or queen who has the last word on everything. You know it makes sense.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=8E5WWX_40gs
youtube.com/watch?v=9jJf-p6RYvo
youtube.com/watch?v=dMt8qCl5fPk
youtube.com/watch?v=9I51JXpcLwk
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

It isn't. Your kid could be a completely retarded psycho that shouldn't be in control of a microwave.

Too bad it got btfo by every current political system

EVERY PATH TO POWER IS JUSTIFIED

Where as the current system ensures that the only people in power are disingenuous sociopaths who lie their way to the top.

life's hard as a southerner who sympathizes with the monarchy. Still, king George would've cucked us out of manifest destiny.

I forget which king it was, but one of them said Americans were the "most English of the English" for revolting against the tyranny of a German king. Of course our leader at the time was a little shit and said "you can no longer call us brothers" or some stupid shit like that.

Feels bad man.

youtube.com/watch?v=8E5WWX_40gs

USA really should be balkanised with separate monarchies.

its easier to raise a wise king than raise a wise citizenry.

trump is king material,he should have the throne of america but you keep up being a republicuck rather than take the monarchy pill.

Constitutional Monarchy with an adversarial Parliament committed to the national interest is better m8

What's the most natural form of monarchy? Hoppean absolutist monarchy or the autistic Anglo version where we have a civil war every 70 years because our king's a faggot?

hnnnnnnnnnng we even have a king already

youtube.com/watch?v=9jJf-p6RYvo

>trump is king material
Dude, no. He's the lesser weevil, but he's still a petulant child which no good leadership qualities.

it was in a way

east coast was WASP

middle america was native land and french

and the west was spanish

the wasp part conquered the savage part and also bought the french land in the louisiana purchase thus merging kingdoms just as wessex and mercia kickstarting "england"

and then they went to war on aztlan and won thus unifying all the realms and forming the usa

>it was in a way
Yea, i mean that it should be divided again, rather than imposing the foreign tyranny of DC (overtly) onto peoples who really don't belong to it.

hes getting shit done,has charisma,the dow jones is highest its ever been,even foreigners to the usa would take a bullet for him due to commanding such respect

he is king material,he is a champion of the people not just a president but a vassal pinned their future hopes and dreams on he is like some mythical hero who rose just when the world needed one in a dark time.

he is the new washington.

>mfw we get to btfo roundheads every 70 years because they can't handle strong independent

Hoppean absolutism
If the people want freedom, they'll have to fight for it!
The only rights that exist are the ones that you can protect, and unless they are backed with the guns of patriots, they are just ink on a paper

>flag
constitutional monarchy is best tBh, they give neat speeches at the end of the year and don't mess with the political side of the country, yet still have some semblance of authority

damn drunk attention span

*can't handle independent subjects loyal to their king

it only happens to goyim who let their kids watch tv all day and indulge in degeneracy

youtube.com/watch?v=dMt8qCl5fPk

Nixon knew what he was doing

But in seriousness, a restrained tyranny is not that bad. I definitely like constitutional monarchy.

You don't have much understanding of the English Civil War if you think that's how it went. Although, I wouldn't expect a burger to really comprehend the intricacies of European history.

>hes getting shit done
He's not there by himself. There's the whole government doing thing. Crediting him with everything is as foolish as when liberals blame him for everything.
>has charisma
Arguable. He's mostly just rich and brash.
>he is king material,
He's too childish. Can never admit when he's wrong, and is just a stooge for other (((businessmen))).
>he is a champion of the people
Are you taking the piss? What people has he benefited?

>being ruled by a bunch of inbreds of """noble blood""" who got in the position to rule trough no merit of their own.
No, thanks :^)

Since I was born and realized I'd only have to off about 382 heirs to steal the big chair.

>t. Prefers to have a jewish run popularity contest which they don't even have to listen to you about, but still tell you it's what you wanted

(((King David)))

The strongest and most intelligent shall rule. Nature is the only king.

false. warlordism or strongman dictatorship. basically any system where the leader has to work and struggle to take over leadership, but then has absolute power on behalf of his people once he achieves it

1) I'm drunk
2) it's a meme
calm down egbert

>got in the position to rule trough no merit of their own
that's a plus my dude. The whole point is that they don't have to shill their own legitimacy or the legitimacy of their descendants, but instead can concentrate on the prosperity and general welfare of the nation as a whole, because not doing so will all but guarantee some sort of revolt in the future.

Things become much more sensitive when dealing with an empire and not just your own native territory.

kikes confirmed kangz

you want king jared?

it really isn't, dumbass. your no-chin royal lines are even more inbred than my jew ass. therefore even a great monarch's line isn't likely to only regress to the mean but actually push it backwards
ffs a strict russian monarchy couldn't even beat a bunch of 5'4 jappie gooks whose emperor traditionally stayed out of politics and even that was over a century ago

Too risky. I live in a monarchy, and some of the younger and lesser "royals" are totally degenerate.

In England, only chance put Harry second in line, otherwise the future queen would be an actual nigger.

Do you really want that ?

When I read HHH

shut your mouth you filthy kike and never speak ill of the crown ever again!

Traditional (Greek) Tyranny.

>inbred
That was never much of a concern (consanguinity laws), and is certainly not a problem any more.
>ffs a strict russian monarchy couldn't even beat a bunch of 5'4 jappie gooks
One shit army couldn't beat another. Shocker. They also got flogged by Finland, and you sure can't blame the monarch for that.

why not, you bellend fuck? when was the last time great britain was remotely great?

The latter of those countries didn't exist when the first ones did. Awful meme.

>when was the last time great britain was remotely great?
June 24th 2016. Maybe March 29th of this year. That' when it became great agan.

you existence is owed to us,we stood against our own brothers for you,we liberated your land

if it was not for the british you would not exist,your ancestor would of eventually been shoahed by hitler and israel would never have existed without us

keep going kike.

also we never stopped being great,RULE BRITANNIA

Nope m8 I didn't say that, I despise modern "democracy" as much as I despise monarchy

It won't be great until the Thames overflows with the blood of saracens.

and god save the queen!

Monarchy isn't that bad, but it has its flaws.

PROS
>Leader has skin in the game, so incentive to do well
>Resistant to corrupting influences
>Decisive decision making
>Clear path of succession
>Screw up badly and you don't lose an election, you can lose your head

CONS
>Leader may be terrible or crazy with division of power or checks and balances to limit damage
>High chance of tyranny

>it really isn't, dumbass

>tfw my country went from 90% White to literal near third world tier in 5 decades because "representatives" decided it was a good idea to literally replace the entire motherfucking population of my country.

Fuck democracy, fuck you, and fuck anything that separates a country's leaders from the men tied to the land. Blood and soil. Nothing else.

What's your solution, then? And why hate monarchy? Just tall poppy syndrome?

The Thames is polluted enough. Shouldn't put more toxic waste in it.

That thing can't be humanoid.

Democracy is bullshit because it allows the uneducated hordes to vote for what they perceive to be in their own personal interest. This results in the absolute raping of the public purse through welfare and the importation of debt free foreigners to try and turn their slave labor into pensions which is completely unsustainable and outright criminal to our future generations.

Monarchies can work so long as the king has both unlimited power and the unlimited responsibility that comes with it. They must allow their population to not only be fully armed but have unlimited free speech so that if their king doesn't act in the national interest they can be deposed and a new leader put in their place. If they're a good king and loved as a result they'll never have a thing to fear and in death their reign will become hereditary because the population will want avoid a power vacuum and the civil war that could result in trying to fill it.

Really though what we really need is national socialism the way Hitler envisioned it.

she was the height of the empire,most powerful woman to ever exist.

>Shittalking monarchs
Is this a game you really want to play, Habsburg?

son, seeing you spout that garbage makes me cringe about as badly as you likely do when you see someone talking about how evil and genocidal the nazis were
we've started resettling here around 1880, when the sovereign here was the turkish sultan. even Tel Aviv gained a municipality status here at 1909
after world war 1 you actually used your mandate here to gain leverage among arab nations by repeatedly fucking us over.
your entire balfour shit decleration was a blatant lie, ffs you published the White Paper which outright banned jewish immigration into palestine at 1936 because the arabs demanded it and you thought they'd be better strategic allies against the germans because jews were few
as a result hitler was stuck with us, and since you didn't let us leave europe he had to find pther solutions. the irony is that you even banned jewish holding of handguns where arabs were literally raping and cutting down jews in hebron. whatever the muslim pakis do to you and your daughters, you fucking deserve fully

not so nice being backstabbed eh?

sure muds are a problem here but its paradise compared to where you are,try and not get stabbed schlomo

>People cannot be trusted to govern themselves and history has proven that.

Aside from a handful of situations throughout history people have not been able to govern themselves - remember when you chose to make Australia a multicultral paradise or choose which policies a political party actually implements?

> Monarchy unites the people by giving them a supreme leader to look up to

As does a theocracy, presidential republic or any system with even a hint of authoritarianism in it.

>the leader has incentive to do whats best for his or her loyal subjects

Was it in the best interest of the Russian loyal people to die in their millions to preserve the independence of foreigners or the subjugation of Manchuria?

A monarch is necessarily removed form their subjects by their opulent lifestyles and massive bureaucracies.

>No farcical shames like elections and all that crap, just a simple king or queen who has the last word on everything. You know it makes sense.

Except when you have to actually consider practicalities like -

-how would you implement this system for countries with no aristocracy or a country without an accepted one?

-The greatest stabiliser and garuntor of liberty under a monarchy was tradition; however tradition now gives that same benefit to republics, how then can we have stability and liberty without tradition?

-Where would the monarch derive their power from, what would prevent coups or subversion by the wealthy?

-How would you stop stealth cucks like Juan Carlos I from destroying the system.

ect.

until the incest starts you mean?

>where arabs were literally raping and cutting down jews in hebron
So are you Muslim or pretending to be Jewish?
Either way, clearly not a "chosen people."
Besides, isn't that how "your" people operated through all history?

>uneducated hordes
I guess you consider yourself not to be part of those hordes right?

In his defence the English Civil War was a pretty big cluster fuck even by Euro standards.

...

hear hear!

wut
jews were rapists? we sheared coins but never cared much for physical violence. not until 1947 anyway

Monarchy works. Christianity doesn't.

>-how would you implement this system for countries with no aristocracy or a country without an accepted one?
All countries have one. We just call them different things now. Or they could adapt naturally, per the rise of the king.
>-Where would the monarch derive their power from, what would prevent coups or subversion by the wealthy?
How could the wealthy subvert them? The monarch would have literally everything. The power is derived from the people. As always.

Why would it need to?

>jews were rapists?
Biblically, yes. But there were always cases of Jews abducting and murdering Christian children. Surely no one would be surprised if they weren't killed straight away.

I thought so too until Nicolas II happened and half of the country was lost. At least he was there for people to assign personal responsibility to, a final merit of a failed system. With democratically elected leaders don't have this luxury.

MOAR

You sound extremely gay friendo

Though certainly better than the current political system I prefer merit based dictatorship to ensure a mad/weak/tyrannical king isn't born into power.

yes yes we were just terrible. the templar were terrible too, which is why you blamed them for satanic worship, burned them at the stake and by sheer coincedence confiscated their enormous wealth. christians can certainly clain jews are sneakily cheating people out of their wealth, but that and 4th crusade shows that you have a history of straight out murdering and robbing them

anyways, how many cases of biblical jew rape you've seen?
not shitposting, genuinely curious. I can only recall one off the top of my head and even that was inside David's family which was judean

I have a new respect for monarchy now that I see the church was a regulating force, and the monarch and church kept each other in check, and scripture was like the constitution.

Some new era version of hierarchical hereditary govt. would be vastly preferable to the shitshow we've had since pre WW1

When will you realize that Royal in OP pic was most likely trans?
This person sold have been a man

I bow to no man

When I realized what leadership is.
It's something you can cultivate and that those without leadership can't recognize.

This means two things:
First, democracy cannot lead to the election of good leaders, since good leaders are not recognized by the electorate
Second, in a hereditary system, the heir can develop their leadership in preparation for the accession to the throne

There are also other problems with Democracy, for example, the fact that a true leader would not lie and cheat their way to victory, whereas a power hungry liar would, resulting in the election of many liars and no honest leaders.

>the templar were terrible too, which is why you blamed them
That was just (((Phillip la Bel))). The church found them innocent of all crimes.
> that and 4th crusade
Which was caused by the (((Doge of Venice))).
> you have a history
Aye, two incidents is certainly on par with thousands of years of Jewish behaviour.
>anyways, how many cases of biblical jew rape you've seen?
Lol at the phrasing. Anyway, whenever a city was conquered, mostly.

You will.

>USA split up into smaller monarchies but remaining in union similar to the Holy Roman Empire

No sane man will ever conclude from any logical evidence presented before him that he is worthy of discerning noble from commoner. We leave that to the men lacking knowledge of one's own limits.

I suppose this is the same logic behind the "the only man worth ruling is the man who wishes not to"

ffs I'm drunk(drunker than before now xD) and was memeing. Pls do not defend my ramblings. Let them stand on their own. it was my fault for not putting a coherent argument for Bert(or is he Ernie? we may never know...) to attempt to disassemble without rendering his own mind useless sludge.

what is your opinion of the protestant reformation, as well what's your opinion on the great schism of 1054(roman catholic vs eastern orthodox schism)??

youtube.com/watch?v=9I51JXpcLwk

>what qualification does our leader have to run the country?
>ummmmm their mum did it lol?
>but what if he's actually really dumb?
>idk lol muh tradition
>no but seriously what if they fail?
>idk just have a bloody revolution that gets millions of people killed

yeah great idea and would really work in modern times

the rule of cousins caused wwi

>putting the powers of the executive branch into the hands of the legislature
fucking hell no

what you need is separation of powers and the executive lead by the king

>All countries have one. We just call them different things now.

So these wise and enlightened characters of yours are going to be drawn from the ranks of the Bushes, Clintons and Reinharts?

> Or they could adapt naturally, per the rise of the king.

Something that happened thousands of years ago when wealth was tied to control over land and not ephemeral capital.

Or perhaps you refer to military strong men as in the past 300ish years? Something which all collapsed after the death of the founder.

>How could the wealthy subvert them?

The same way they did to literally every single monarchy on the planet that wasnt overthrown by communists - via their wealth to influence organise, bribe and fund. How many lasting societies do you know of now or in the past where the people who rule it do not control the wealth?

>The monarch would have literally everything
>would

Tell us how is the new monarch going to get "literally everything" do you think the wealthy and political elite will just merrily hand over everything they have?

> The power is derived from the people. As always.

For someone who talks so much about history proving things it seems odd that you would buy into such silly left wing propaganda.

Exactly. Everyone gets proper national representation, and realistically, trade will continue as normal.

>what qualification does our leader have to run the country?
>He's lyk ttly popular!
>Really?
>No, but we're told he is!
>So you agree with everything he's doing
>No, but he was voted in. I guess we have to do with it.

>idk just have a bloody revolution that gets millions of people killed
If it's not worth shedding blood over, then it's not worth doing, and they must be salvageable.

Four years ago, when I looked at politics and saw that the masses were incapable of voting their way towards a better future.

I think the protestant reformation led societies away from solid political structures but assisted in the development of solid economic structures, althou Martin Luther hated jews for other reasons than shiesty dealings

The protestants were less sophisticated, taking everything so damn literally and empirically yet in doing so freed people up in other ways,

I think the problem was the church and the monarch cannot work in corruption together, only one can be highly corrupt at a time, so I guess the protestant reformation was analogous to reforming the constitution of the time

Led to crazy Pentecostals and evangelicals tho

Isn't a monarchy in the US the best scenario? You have the second amendment right?
You can just shoot him if he becomes goes too far being a tyrant.

>So these wise and enlightened characters of yours are going to be drawn from the ranks of the Bushes, Clintons and Reinharts?
Wise enough to be there, all the better if they start having reason to be good to the nation.
Assuming you'd have an aristocracy like that.
>Something that happened thousands of years ago when wealth was tied to control over land and not ephemeral capital.
Arguable. And that doesn't really prevent monarchy emerging.
>The same way they did to literally every single monarchy on the planet that wasnt overthrown by communists
Indeed. All because they willingly gave away too much power. That would have to be stopped.
>Tell us how is the new monarch going to get "literally everything"
Because it will be their country.
>do you think the wealthy and political elite will just merrily hand over everything they have?
That will depend on how they rise to power.
>For someone who talks so much about history proving things it seems odd that you would buy into such silly left wing propaganda.
How is that left wing? The people have never not had the power. Especially now in the age of mass communication.

>When did you realize that hereditary monarchy is the only sensible form of government?

pretty sure most of the monarchies throughout history were irresponsible and tyrannical.
you basically raise a spoiled child to rule an entire country, how that a good idea?

Contrary to the memes Charles II was not a bad ruler since he knew his retardations made him unfit and delegated roles accordingly.

see:
England

diana and middleton are the saving graces of that bloodlines dna

Actual royalists are the most infantile fucking historyless retards out there. You're even more pathetic than the nazi larpers.

England wasn't real big on consanguinity, even before the Spencer whore.

A monarch caste system with class mobility through "noble deeds in service to the crown" and gauranteed self protection rights would be optimal

I think some people don't understand classic monarchies were ownership systems as well, King was steward of God's granted domain, nobility ensures proper economic utility as steward of smaller plots under king, serfs work land under nobilitys guaranteed protection.

Better than jews owning everything

>pretty sure most of the monarchies throughout history were irresponsible and tyrannical.
>most
Pretty sure you mean a handful. Most were average. Which is ideal.
>you basically raise a spoiled child to rule an entire country
Because that child is going to be the most qualified person in the nation to rule. Far more than any politician.

>historyless
How ironic.

Yeah you're a shielded fucking faggot shitposter who never read about european history, you know nothing about kingdoms or their history, you're probably just an underage faggot raised by a single mother

I think that's why feudalism is so misunderstood and daemonised. Because it's easier to control people if they think other systems are bad. Especially the good ones.

Powa' to da peeple!

What absurd allegations.
Sounds more like the lady doth protest too much. Otherwise you may have had actual arguments, my Somali friend.

i'd take any king from european history than what you have today svenni boy.

>yes daddy I need to be ruled!
t. delusional american virgin

Like last year when I was declared king of the jews

>idk just have a bloody revolution that gets millions of people killed
better than importing almost 50 million non-Whites(both legal and illegal) to replace you while the media constantly propagandizes that your people shouldn't be reproducing due to "global overpopulation"

I'd take a revolution any day of the week. Pax Britannia and Pax Americana were the worst things to have ever happened to the greater White world. The Anglosphere took over the planet in 1945 and we did fuck all with it while the kikes were busy jerking their little dicks at the propaganda they were sending out. We reap what we sow. Krautniggers are right in blaming us for our destruction.

Feel free to blame my country. God knows it's not likely to hold together for much longer.

>I think the protestant reformation led societies away from solid political structures but assisted in the development of solid economic structures, althou Martin Luther hated jews for other reasons than shiesty dealings
iirc the primary seed of the protestant world's economic success was the lack of an explicitly anti-usury policy post reformation.

>The protestants were less sophisticated, taking everything so damn literally and empirically yet in doing so freed people up in other ways,
I am of the opinion that this specific behavior is celto-germanic in origin. celtboos may disagree, but germanofags know their own autism when they see it.

>I think the problem was the church and the monarch cannot work in corruption together, only one can be highly corrupt at a time, so I guess the protestant reformation was analogous to reforming the constitution of the time
maybe. I'm personally of the opinion that it was a theologically flawed revolt of northern Europeans who didn't want to be ruled by spaghetti niggers.

It's probably over for monarchies. The royal families stopped being politically active.

I did. Thanks to Hans Herman Hoppe and Christopher Cantswell.

You will always be ruled, and you're delusional if you think otherwise. Best to have the most beneficial system of it, instead of one actively seeking to fuck your mouth.