Fuck fascism and communism. Support Monarchy and traditional republics

Fuck fascism and communism. Support Monarchy and traditional republics.

> republics

into trash it goes

>Monarchy
Enjoy your inbred royal families.

monarchy is cool.

rate my suggested form of monarchy

the last legitimate state was the republic of venice

SPQR

0/10
Jewish shit.

how is that jewish?

hue hue hue

So what happens if the monarch nominates useless cunts in exchange for favors? I would rather make the monarch one of the steps to go through independently

Looks like your standard non-noble constitutional monarchy as was the initial intention of the French Revolution. That just raises the question of what the fuck the royal court is, why they should nominate an heir and on what standards, and why this system wouldn't benefit from just having a president rather than a monarch. Another big question is what legitimizes the monarch, and whether the supreme court is appointed for terms or for life.

Bogdanoff Duality is the only true unfallible system

I would like to live in a monarchy that is heavily Nationalistic. I wonder what Britain was like for the average British man during the peak of their empire. Or France under Napoleon.

Then he must be getting something I'm return that expands the power of the crown.
You have to trust that the king looks out for his best interests, which, as one of his subjects, it's also in your best interest.

>So what happens if the monarch nominates useless cunts in exchange for favors?
how else would you nominate them? the parliament?

because a monarch is tied to the nation. a president has no ties to the nation, it has ties to the party and his reputation for the next 4 or maybe 8 years.
monarchs have to think about the long term since their offspring will be the future rulers of the nation

>because a monarch is tied to the nation.
In what sense? What stops a monarch from simply being interested in his own well-being and simply enriching himself and throwing lavish parties? This isn't something that hasn't happened before.

>a president has no ties to the nation, it has ties to the party
You mean despite being directly elected and imbued with popular sovereignity? The fact that he is fallible and his term limited (as opposed to a king who is often infallible and usually has no term limit) means he's subject to the scrutiny of the people if he does not act in the interest of all, or at least the majority.

>monarchs have to think about the long term since their offspring will be the future rulers of the nation
In the long term for the stability of their throne, not the good of the masses. These two interests only occassionally intersect, especially when the monarch rules by the grace of God rather than by popular sovereignity.

You still haven't explained how the royal court and their nomination of heirs works though.

We would have been shitposting in teahouses and in journals instead m8. Some things never change.

>In what sense? What stops a monarch from simply being interested in his own well-being and simply enriching himself and throwing lavish parties? This isn't something that hasn't happened before.
what stops any leader from doing so?

>You mean despite being directly elected and imbued with popular sovereignty? The fact that he is fallible and his term limited (as opposed to a king who is often infallible and usually has no term limit) means he's subject to the scrutiny of the people if he does not act in the interest of all, or at least the majority.
Is this why the American Presidents of the past decades have been so amazing and wonderful?

>In the long term for the stability of their throne, not the good of the masses. These two interests only occasionally intersect, especially when the monarch rules by the grace of God rather than by popular sovereignty.
The stability of the throne relies on the satisfaction of the people, which means they always intersect.

>You still haven't explained how the royal court and their nomination of heirs works though.
It's just a reference to different methods of succession. The royal court is just the royal family.

>Monarchy

>implying Germany wasn't infinitely better off under monarchy than any other system of government

the final redpill is anarcho-fascism vs primitive transhumanism

The bottom two are unironically the only good forms of political spectrum, and Monarchy should be understood to stand in the center of the triangle, but above it on a 3-D axis.

>implying we were a monarchy in the 30s

>what stops any leader from doing so?
The threat of impeachment and/or losing the elections and/or their party plummeting in popularity? Political parties have basically died for less.

>Is this why the American Presidents of the past decades have been so amazing and wonderful?
Can you name example of how horrible American presidents have been over the past decades? And I don't mean shit like "they did things I personally agree with", I mean them shitting all over the constitution and/or the will of the peple.

>The stability of the throne relies on the satisfaction of the people
Since when? Especially given the fact that kings are not elected and cannot be dethroned except through violence. The only interest of the king is to make sure that the masses don't rebel, and bread and games are often sufficient for that goal.

>It's just a reference to different methods of succession. The royal court is just the royal family.
My assumption is correct then that we're dealing with an Ancien Régime monarchy rather than a popular one.

German Empire > Third Reich

>Can you name example of how horrible American presidents have been over the past decades? And I don't mean shit like "they did things I personally agree with", I mean them shitting all over the constitution and/or the will of the peple.
m8 you're kidding right?

>and bread and games are often sufficient for that goal.
if the people are fed and entertained, then what's wrong?

>if the people are fed and entertained, then what's wrong?
And here we see the underlying ideology of the monarchist: as long as the masses are kept happy enough not to enter open revolt, the monarch is justified in his being and actions.

...

but how am i wrong though

Fuck monarchy and republics, imperialism is the only logical way forward.

Hail Caesar!

It's the same exact fucking shit as with our own society, you nigger. Most people have their bread and circuses now, so they'll just let our governments' kikery slide

the Senate will have your head monarcuck

>constitution
kys

How do you remove a bad monarch?

How do you criticize a bad monarch?

...

You're not "wrong", but it's an undesirable system in which the monarch can grow as tyrannical as he pleases as long as he can weather the consequences.

That has more to do with their indifference rather than having only "sit down and do nothing" or "open revolt" as possible options. For example, do you know why Poland refuses cultural enrichment? Not because their government is "kike free" or whatever, but because Polish politicians know that the electorate will fuck them sideways if they bend the knee to Brussels. Mass migration is in the most literal sense unpopular in Poland. Now imagine if Poland had a king who saw some benefit for the ruling class in mass migration, what could the masses do against his open border policy except revolt, kill the king and install a new regime (which is an incredibly radical and disproprtionate solution to the problem)? They can't vote for a different king.

Especially if you're worried about kikery, you should be worried about monarchies. In a monarchy, only one person needs to be jewed to jew a country. In a republic, the entire electorate needs to be jewed. Or just the political class, who will then take measures to rob the electorate of their vote (prime example: Netherlands. The coalition system means parties like the PVV can be put in a cordon sanitaire, the new cabinet already has plans to abolish referenda (which already aren't legally binding) and because the prime minister isn't directly elected the masses cannot even express their discontent by voting for a Dutch Trump or something).

> people elect parliament
>elect
>parliament

cuckstitutional "monarchy"/10

>not realizing fascism is a more modern implementation of monarchy

Dios...

No it's not you stupid pleb.

Probably not at all how you're imagining it. They had their own lives and problems to worry about.

Monarch has no power. Feudalism is the only real white political system

Monarchy >

...

may'd me fink.

Monarchy is only valid when the monarch isn't too far removed from warriors who seized power. Once firearms came about then it became a matter of money which leads us to our Jewish overlords.