Why aren't you a monarchist yet?

Why aren't you a monarchist yet?

Only to a certain degree. Augustus was right, user. You have to balance monarchy and republic for ultimate zen.

I'm a monarchist but I'd like to be the king though.

It would be like Germany on crack.

You'd get executed for speaking the wrong thing.
I hope you don't get a leftist in power.

And won't it be fun if a king decides to punish a whole region like the Irish potato famine or Stalin starving entire cities purposefully?

Totalitarian Republic is best form of government.

oh but I am

Lmfao, monarchy is the antithesis of the left though.

Monarchy is the pinnacle of the right wing, the left is literally anyone who is a liberal or has spawned from liberal thought, so fascists, nazis, commies, nationalism, the philistine republican state of the USA, which hasn't been a republic for the past hundred years anyway.

Most tyrants in recent history have been left wing....

Im not a cuck who wants to be a slave to a tyrant.

Because every imaginable monarch with total power would turn into a piece of shit just like normal politicians, only you can never get rid of monarch without revolution.

Script SCRIPT!
Monarchy is also gay. Do as i say, be as i am. FUCK THAT!

>you can never get rid of monarch without revolution.
Pretty good incentive for the monarch to not piss people off.

He says while worshipping unelected bureaucrats.

Because I'm not a traitor to my people.

I bow to no one!

Zionist, eh?

there is no guarantee for the competence for the heir

>Why dont you want to be a cuck bond servant
pathetic

More of a guarantee than with an elected politician, since the heir will be trained for the job every day of their life.

He would look pretty good if he had black boots on, the sneakers really make it hard to take him seriously

But revolution against monarchy is impossible. Whereas in a representative democracy the illusion of power and choice prevents that kettle from ever boiling over.

but I am?
only niggers and plebs do not live in a monarchy

>not only do you get ruled by Hillary Clinton and Angela Merkel
>But it's for life
>And their descendants keep doing the exact same thing
Fuck off. A monarch has literally zero reason not to do exactly what liberal democracies are doing now.

>But revolution against monarchy is impossible.
Is that a joke?

See above.

So a Constitutional Monarchy then? Honestly I find it brings the best balance. Since you'll have somebody who's job since birth is to be the Head of State. This comes with preparation through education as well as preforming acts of charity and service to the nation in order to serve as a symbol. While the Legislation head would do most of the work, they are kept in check by the Monarch in case they do something retarded. The only problem I see with Monarchism is the event the Heir-apparent doesn't want to be the King or Queen. It's hardly a life where you get a choice.

...

>there are regicidal brigands browsing Sup Forums RIGHT NOW

No, it was a typo. Revolution against a monarchy is possible.

why would I want to be a cuck?

Once you're past a certain threshold, modern enough technology and connections will ensure that you're not going to be disposed in revolutions from within or sponsored from foreign powers.

See North Korea.
Small pathetic country, but has nukes, and its neighbors China and Russia will make sure that the USA will never lay a finger on it, no matter what the frog emperor of Mar-a-Lago tweets about.
King Kim-Jon-Un will live to a high age, beget a few heirs, die as an old happy man, and things will go on.

I prefer to suck big, uncircumcised cocks.

Literally everyone does

My bad, should have figured.

Only if that technology allows you to replace all your population with robots to do their jobs.
And NK is really not as bad as the USA wants people to think it is.
But yes, foreign powers are always a threat, regardless of government. But even then, monarchy gives you some kind of national locus.

Stupid fuck the states of Britain Canada and Australia show what monarchy is. You're fucking serfs that rents land, can't own weapons, thought policed, etc.

America even under assault by the whole machine is fighting back.

Long live the Republic. Death to Monarchists.

>You're fucking serfs that rents land, can't own weapons, thought policed, etc.
Pretty sure we have more land rights than the USA. Hell, you can't even harvest rainwater without paying Nestle.
But at least you think they let you have your toy guns, so that keeps you complacent while they rob you.

But who was it that put the weapons laws and thought crime laws in the first place? Democratically elected officials. The Queen never ordered it. And there isn't much she can do since they're elected on that mandate.

Because my country btfo'd tyrant invaders twice.

>Twice
Whose White House did you burn down? And why do you prefer tyrant invaders if they're from Palestine?

Pretty much. All that benefits only politicians, not monarchies.

Nice Dodge cuck. Enjoy King Tyrone fucking your wife

>white house burned down
And america has been part of the UK since then oh wait..

Lol cuckistan believes that. How odd all monarchist countries are doing it without pushback by the monarchs.

But Trump Duerte hell even France and Austria are beginning to rebel

Because there's literally 0 reasons that the son of a great king is a great king himself. He can be a cuck and still be the most powerful person in the country.

Why would that be the case, 56%?

Why would you prefer to lick the arse of some elected negro?

Except that wasn't the aim. The USA invaded British Canadian territory, and got BTFO. Just like it got BTFO by every army it went against without foreign help.
Mexico is really the only enemy it's done okay against.

I didn't fight a good monarch.

Seems the countries staying cucked love the Muslims and BBC and monarchs. Almost like their the subs to others Dom's.

Prove me wrong. Trump fights back but your faggot monarchs haven't.

>American education
Most monarchies are actually more democratic than your Jewocracy, and that's why they face so many problems. The monarch is usually kept shackled by the (((politicians))). Very few actual monarchies left.

>Because there's literally 0 reasons that the son of a great king is a great king himself.
Except for training, legacy, and self interest.

Who polices the police ect.

I don't want to have to start a fucking revolution to avoid 50-60+ years of some wacko fuckwit ruling me wrong.

Why can' t humans paint like this anymore?

Lol regresses to the 56 argument when it's pointed out no monarch has pushed back though they could.

Americans are American by their willingness to bleed for God given freedom, not some racist landlord pedophiles.

The sons of kings are most of the time spolied, arrogant and narcissistic little cucks. I mean one cuck is enough to ruin a whole country, that was built by 5 great kings.

you mean painting pictures for ants?

Lol makes excuses for his cucks. A cuck defending cucks. Reddits calling.

>Stalin was The Tsar.
Obviously bad things can happen under any form of governance. Power corrupting and all that. However, what's happening under (((democracy))) in the west is worse than anything that happened under monarchs. George III never made you Mexico 2.0 for example.

Monarchy is, in my country, a foreign institution that helps prop up the anti-English and British order of things. I reject all foreign Kings.

I have bad news for you user...

how does that even work

Because I'm cooler than any king, or god. Sorry monarcucks.

>Trump fights back
Is this satire?

>I don't want to have to start a fucking revolution
So it mustn't be too bad, if you're not willing to do something to change it.

Because we don't have a monarchy, genius. They're not in positions to push back, because (((parliament))) is where the actual power rests, and that's the problem being discussed.
>Americans are American by their willingness to bleed for God given freedom,
Might want to read the manual again, because I don't think He gave you anything like that. Your bank owned armies do that. Only it's not really freedom, but distraction.
>not some racist landlord pedophiles.
One of your lords is just being done for rape and shit right now, you ignorant 'tard.
And lol@"racist", as if it wasn't already obvious that you were a negro.

So you agree you're btfo on the political front? Jolly good.

Training doesn't do anything. It's the blood and the soul that are most importnat. Most noblemen are inbreds, and their ancestors are the worst scum on the planet. Thieves, tyrants, kid killers, etc. Atleast there's a chance that a politician's ancestors were farmers and fishermen and other good people, not like a King who has a bloody and evil lineage.

>A Christfag AND a monarchist
How can one man be so wrong?

Bin that plastic knife monarchist. Also keep paying for pedo tv.

You lame cucks. Those monarchs can't shut the fuck up on all climate change and diversity but haven't once censured actual evil.

We will ship you all the shitty welfare recipients we have as they already vote monarchist.

Smart man.

Spanish-American War

Because the monarchy consists of other humans, who may or may not be smarter than me and I don't know which of those two options is worse

It's tough being a monarchist without being a christcuck. Kings need a divine mandate to rule.

I would be the best king though. So good and so benevolent that the deep state would murder me in public.

But I would be immortal in the eyes of my people and my son would grow up, deliver justice to the fiends and bring balance to the force.

Only in America will you hear, spoken in all seriousness, that black are more American than most of us.

All those words and not one intelligent thought. Guess a queen like you needs her queen to dictate it to her.

Most monarchies are pretty libertarian, letting people go about their business, only stepping in where the business of the realm needs it.
That only changed with the introduction of politicians needing bureaucracy.

>Training doesn't do anything. It's the blood and the soul that are most importnat.
Man, you would make a terrible doctor.
>Most noblemen are inbreds
They aren't, actually. Hapsburgs being the notable exception. Inbreeding was often specifically not desirable (title claims), as well as against the law.
>and their ancestors are the worst scum on the planet.
Sounds like tall poppy syndrome from an unaccomplished peasant.
>Atleast there's a chance that a politician's ancestors were farmers and fishermen and other good people
Yea, that sounds helpful, and will prepare them for the job.

>Bin that plastic knife
>pedo tv
Both instituted by your beloved politicians.

Fair enough. Guess Hispanics in general are just useless.

>Kings need a divine mandate to rule.
Not really. That's a bad basis for a government, because anyone could just claim they have divine right instead.

but I am

>All those words and not one intelligent thought.
Sorry, do you need someone to translate it to Ebonics for you?
Clearly you can't understand, otherwise you might have attempted to refute. Or perhaps you know you can't. Either way, GG republicuck.

Bonaparte or Orlean?

>Why aren't you a monarchist yet?
why would you bow to the descendants of the servants who took over those houses after the plague killed the rightful monarchs?

The UK's monarchy has no political power. Do you think OP is advocating for a tourist attraction rather than a political system? Retard.

You understand separation of powers, right? It was memed at you in high school, right? A King as an executive with discretionary power represents the State, while elected leaders are the government. The elected representatives draft up legislation and act as a, get this, representation of the people's will but they are not entrusted with executing the state's authority. Why? Because politicians are shitty ideologues who will doom their country for 3 extra points in a campaign run-off.

A strong constitutional monarchy with divine right where the relation between sovereign, free men and the state is clear is the best system.

>Private ownership means PRIVATE ownership.
The king can't walk into your house uninvited. He can't tax you for owning land either.

>Right to bear arms comes with no stipulations, no ifs or buts.
There is no knife binning or gun confiscation that politicians force onto free men.

>Not really. That's a bad basis for a government, because anyone could just claim they have divine right instead.
And what good basis does monarchy have? "Uh, well, royals are just better than us, we deserve to be owned by them"?

>most monarchies are pretty libertarian
then why were most monarchies super shitty for the lower classes? If they were libertarian, peasants should be able to rise up the socioeconomic ladder pretty easily, right?

I would like if Papa Kim is leader of United Baltic empire.

Feudalism =/= monarchy. Lords enslaving citizens beneath them is not the only system in existence.

>SOON

Then how much power should the king have?

If the king acts in an exemplary fashion he can bring great psychological health to the nation. It might even be the optimal organizational paradigm for the collective consciousness, and the collective unconscious. But if he acts un-lordly, then it will have the opposite result, and he should be executed in as painless manner as possible by the subjects. The same goes for any political organizational system.

because fascism is monarchism 2.0

no, fascism is absolute monarchy 2.0, not constitutional monarchy.

>constitutional monarchy with divine right
you're not an American

Well first of all, some people are just better than others. Equality is a false God.
But secondly, it's about a centralisation of power. It doesn't really matter which house is incumbent, the point is that a monarchy has a more vested interest in seeing their nation do well. They have more reason to actually fix shit and find cures, instead of prolong shit and give treatment so that they can gouge the population and escape after a term of government for the next guy to do the same thing.

They actually weren't. Popular history now paints peasants like perpetually squalid and suffering people, but they actually had things pretty good. Easily comparable to now, except they had more free time.
Very little did stop social rise except for the feudal system meaning that most things were already owned (again, like now). But sufficient industry could see more privilege. Just that as always, most people are quite average, and happy to stay in their comfortable rut, rather than work hard enough to climb out.

>Lords enslaving citizens
They weren't necessarily enslaved, and very few periods had serfs treated as property. It was often revoked quite quickly.
But a lot of people basically chose indentured servitude, because it was really more beneficial to them. Like asking a lord for investment in them as a business.

ITT we show our Kings preparing for battle

But I already am

>actually had it pretty good
>starving constantly
why do you think they revolted so often? The only reason they didn't kill themselves was because their religion forbade them from doing so.

Does not mean liberal. You know this, too much authoritarianism. No value of individual.

I think monarchs (not necessarily Kings) should be restricted by clear, robust constitutions that outline their relationship with free men. Like I said earlier, I don't even think monarchs should be allowed to tax you for owning land, let alone piss on your head.

The exact form and limits on each monarch will depend on his nation's history and needs. For instance, Brazil's best years were under an Emperor with large access to state funds and clear authority over governors, but he had clear limitations in what he could coerce others into and there were no feudal lords. Nobility was bestowed upon individual's who proved their worth and was not hereditary.

It worked well for them until the masons overthrew them and plunged the country into the racemixed darkness.

>being American is an ideology and not a nation
This is why your shit sucks. America is dead, and we'd all be better off if this ZOG machine died so we can balkanize into actual nations based on soil and blood. I don't know how you can post on Sup Forums and think this country should continue. We've exported degeneracy and neoliberalism globally, corrupted each nation's values as willful servants to Jews.

Granted, I'm not opposed to same of the nations formed post-balkanization to be republics, but I would rather live in a monarchy.

She pretty hot but I think Leonor better.
Are there like holidays when you can go and see the princess and give her presents and kiss her feet? If there isn't then what good is a princess?

>Americans aren't allowed to have freedom of thought
I thought Nazis weren't 'Murican either?

>starving constantly
They weren't. Just that they grew their own food for the most part, so really it was on them. Towns/cities often throw off the scale.
>why do you think they revolted so often?
They didn't. Just that when it did happen, it was notable. But it does go to show that it's possible.

>Brazil's best years were under an Emperor
Might happen again, with a coup brewing there. Apparently their Pretenders are pretty popular, too. But the USA probably won't allow it.

but constitutional maonarchy is gay

>But secondly, it's about a centralisation of power.
Which is not a good thing.
>a monarchy has a more vested interest in seeing their nation do well
No, they don't. They never have. They have an interest in seeing THEMSELVES do well. They couldn't give a shit about the nation.

I guess the starvation + plagues and other dangers of medieval society weren't the fault of the monarch, but the result of primitive technology. That being said, what if the royal bloodline produces an incompetent heir? With all of the inbreeding, its a fairly common occurrence.

>Might happen again
Unfortunately, they were offered this opportunity in the 70s and refused, saying they wanted the people's approval instead of the military's. Extremely noble of them, and it shows how much love they have for the nation. Hopefully, they do not let the next chance go.

I became really interested in the idea of a New World nation having an intact royal bloodline with divine approval from the Papacy and looked into them. Right now, they are pretty popular but not yet the majority of huezilians.

>USA probably won't allow it
Satan's Jewish golem.

How are they going to do well if their nation is shit, dumbass? Who do they collect taxes from? Is the King of a nation with a happy population, strong economy, and healthy families going to be better off or worse than despot with a dying country?

Oh yeah and that incentive worked so great in for example France.. Idiot.

>Which is not a good thing.
It is, because you don't have to have the country fighting against itself. Plus, it means shit can actually get done.
But also, if things turn pear shaped, you know who to blame (kill). Unlike with politicians, which is just cutting off the heads of a hydra.
>They have an interest in seeing THEMSELVES do well.
Exactly. Can't do that if the country is out for your blood. Think of Charlemagne.

>weren't the fault of the monarch, but the result of primitive technology.
Largely, yes. They just didn't have the means or know how to offset things like that.
>That being said, what if the royal bloodline produces an incompetent heir?
That is the biggest worry. It's unlikely, what with natal screenings, and developing genetic therapies. But ultimately a king who does little can still be a good king. It's only if they're actively breaking shit where they'll need to catch a bullet.

>Unfortunately, they were offered this opportunity in the 70s and refused
Aww, that's a shame.
But yea, would have to see how it plays out if it shows they have enough popular support.

don't you already have a king?

Yea, but that's more to do with the people being bitches. They blamed him for the weather, for America being Jews, and for trying to make allies rather than enemies. Then even for not wanting to be killed.
Some times you just can't win.