Would a return to monarchy be better than what we have now?

Would a return to monarchy be better than what we have now?

Other urls found in this thread:

pri.org/stories/2013-08-30/kim-jong-un-approval-rating-over-50-percent-poll-defectors-finds
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

...

I don't how worshipping a load of inbreds could be better than anything

There is no such thing as the right to leadership and power. This is easy to understand if you have ever worked for a person that is incompetent. The divine right of kings is something you would regret. The only reason it ever worked in the past is because when a monarchy became degenerate they would quickly become conquered by their neighboring kingdom. Also the kikes would have a fucking field day

The Normans are a good example of this if I am not mistaken

Antithesis says no.

Absolutely. I would recommend reading Democracy the god that failed. The author explains in detail why its better with exact comparisons.

In essence, pretty much any ideology that doesn't depend on the masses is better than democracy. Monarchy could work, but the religious aspects of it won't.

Yeah and don't forget the fact we currently live in a shadow monarchy of oligarchs. No, I do not exclusively mean Russian money.

any system we have is going to have flaws inherent to human nature.

the fleeting nature of the presidency, and the money involved, leads to self serving corruption.

but a monarch (or dictator) can be just as bad if not worse

unless there is a strong moral fiber that views the good of the state as a personal issue, both can be terrible self serving assholes.

>Econ 101 pushed him to the right
You must not have been paying attention

>both can be terrible self serving assholes.
The main difference is, the president has several checks in place to ensure he cannot keep or abuse that power too much.

>mannerbund
>reading esoteric homosexual neopagans

You should be on the upper left square (hint: it doesn't mean communism), read Quadragesimo Anno

What you mean the GEOTUS?

we are all under monarch rule, the only thing this time is that the king is hidden from the goy.

This.

Chaplin was the proto-hollywood scum and likely a jew but he was right when he said...
>As long as men die, liberty will never perish
that's why TPTB are furiously exploring anti-aging and transhuman tech

>return

You understand we never had one right?

>Would a return to monarchy be better than what we have now?

If you study history, monarchy is very tied in to a kingdom with serfs/peasants farming the land, knights, the Catholic church and so forth.

Of course a few centuries ago trade and cities began growing, trades began turning into industries with factories, especially in textiles (something everyone needs), Martin Luther nailed his theses five centuries ago and so on. Of course, this was followed by the Dutch Republic of 1581, Charles I's execution in 1649, and the beginning of our modern society.

Back before that, virtually everyone who was not a knight or priest was a farmer - blacksmiths, miners, carpenters etc. were a very small portion of the population. The only question was the number of farmers 4 out of 5, or 5 out of 6, or 6 out of 7, and so on.

In the USA today, less than 2% of people are farmers. So 48 or more out of 50 are now not farmers.

Plus you have amazing upcoming technology like CRISPR/Cas9 to change crop fields, plus self-driving cars and yet even more automation in agriculture. John Deere has machinery now where you practically just push a button and it will do the field.

Now imagine that with IoT devices sending information out to a machine learning cloud running Tensorflow on millions of TPUs, connected to solar and wind powered data centers. Eventually the machines will be making better decisions than the humans. Eventually you may reach the point where humans don't even go out to the farm fields.

Think of this as you click "I'm not a robot" and feed supervised training information into Google's neural networks. Which eventually will probably not need training day (see AlphaGo Zero).

You could have, Washington would have been a good king but Franklin's lie destroyed sowed the seed of your destruction right at the start.

So does the Monarchy.

100% a monarchy is what we need, not some constitutional cuckary. a complete autocracy is the best way.

One person makes all the decisions and has absolute power.

>the monarchy has checks in place that prevent kings from keeping their power
Monarchs reign until their death, what the fuck are you talking about?
>no king has ever abused his power
Hah.

Oh, another user who understands the "I'm not a robot" is actually neural net training for automated cars.

Constitutional monarchy in the classical sense is the best form of government. The modern version of constitutional monarchy is better described as democracy plus monarchy. Classical constitutional monarchy is a system where the monarchy is bound by certain rules but still has wide ranging powers and still has an elected parliament. The elections are however based on a qualified franchise so only people of a specific status can vote (property, wealth or education as an example). There also is a house of lords with specific powers based on hereditary privilege. Each branch of government has their own specific powers, rights and obligations working with each other.

Nah, 100% autocracy is called despotism and is not in our culture, that belongs to the eastern savages. Western civilization, even in its earliest formation was more akin to Western societies favored one leader, but some sort of limit on his power like a council, assembly what have you, or the ability to replace him. This is hyper aryan

They reign in till their death then their kids reign, so its in their interest to run a fictional country were as someone can only serve 2 terms so they try to get as much out of it for themselves as they can before they are forced to leave office.

France and Germany were both states that had a very strong Autocracy and were absolute monarchs at some point.

I think yes and no. It really depends on the form that it takes. On one hand, a Romanesque system where the monarch adopts their successor from the most capable people sounds fantastic. It is the benefit of a benevolent autocracy without the hassle of bloodlines.

But the office must be enshrined by a kind of divine authority, pomp, and symbols beyond simple dictatorship.

I used to think that it would be an improvement, but considering people are useless in most cases it would make things worse.
The best system is the system, in which smart people are actually working to keep governments in check, by any means necessary.

That will just lead to a Roman Empire style election were after every emperors death you get a civil war between people who think they are the most capable people.

The real problem the Romans had was Marcus Aurelius choosing not adopt his successor and passing the title to his son, Commodus, which was when things started to go bad. Prior to that, the system had led to the longest period of stability and success in Roman history.

I think that in our civilizations history the Monarch was a very important position symbolically. Certainly throughout the majority it was a political position too - but around the end it's political powers were supplanted by what we have now. Yet nothing filled the void of the symbol of Monarchy - not even our Monarchy still fills that void today. The Monarch was historically, before the Carolingian period in the West representative of the Strongest Chieftain of the Strongest tribe within the state. It was the ideal man - it was a symbol of masculine virtue. The Men of the Kingdom would look up to their King and that was who they had to become, and who providence dictated they follow. I don't know if we need to return to Monarchy as a political entity - but certainly that void, that cultural void needs to be filled with something. It's in part responsible for how so many have gone astray - there are very little cultural icons today who offer any real positive role models. Our society needs a position like that, and it might have to be more than symbolic for it's true effect to take place.

Might makes right you fucking dunce

so, North Korea?

Western monarchy tends to involve an entire aristocratic class that competes for power; the monarch is the aristocrat who gathers the most power. Japan was like that to some extent too. Despots, on the other hand, tend to lack a noble class that could oust them: think Fidel Castro.

No. But a return to democracy would be welcome.

>Would a return to monarchy be better than what we have now?
Gee I don't know. How about we ask the people who have to live under this guy?

yes. democracy is a failure

No, not really. In the case of America the chances are the royal family you get will be somebody you don't like the family of some kinda megacorporation.

Depends on the Country
Here, sure if we go back to the Democracy/Monarchy mix of a 100 years ago we'll be good

...

Don't forget the part where he worships a basketball nigger.

>USA 56% homogeneous
>Best Korea 100% homogeneous

checkmate!

Yup. A faggot basketball nigger.

>l-let's turn the clock back to 1750
Good luck with that.

>dat ass
I need for her to sit on my face.

I don't see what your argument is. Are you saying that a monarchy requires tradesmen? If so, that's false. Industrial revolution lead to a lot of tradesmen losing their place in society, forcing them into working for those who owned factories. This has nothing to do with the political system.

>>l-let's turn the clock back to 1750

It's ok, the capitalist system focused on wealth and individualism will ensure we return back to the stone age.

No he just wasn't dropped on his head as a baby, unlike you.

Yes. A monarch would implement reasonable social democracy.
>reformed welfare system, the state can force you to do work if you receive welfare.
>socialised and private healthcare competing
>reformed lower education, more nationalists and more focus on practical subjects(ie math)
>return of art and architecture
>return of religion
>lower tax-rate to increase business
>fewer retarded regulations
>smaller bureaucracy
>little national debt
>an actual space program
>no mass non-white immigration
>low unemployment
>big military
>almost no Jewish power or tricks(the jew can only thrive in democracy)
>reformed justice system degenerates will actually get physically removed from society.

>There is no such thing as the right to leadership and power.
No, and they never made such an argument. Their arguments have always been "I am in charge bitch if you don't like it come overthrow me", in other words, will to power brah

How do you prevent corruption and ensure the Monarch is always working in the interest of the Nation and its ethnic people?? In a globalist society we can see corrupt dictatorships in Africa that trade land and resources for personal wealth

Unless your monarch happens to be george soros

...

Hoppe suggests so, although he doesn't advocate monarchy but rather anarcho-capitalism.

>anarcho-capitalism

In Monarchist societies the Monarch is Judged by the people and takes responsibilities for their failures, unlike democracies where no one is actually to blame for anything and the worst that can happen is losing your post. tl;dr the guillotine

I think most monarchs are not going to be kikes
>preventing corruption
You don't. Corruption is inherited to every system, but I can guarantee you that it will be more corruption in a highly bureaucratic democracy.
>working in the interest of the Nation and its ethnic people
Most of the time it is in his interest. Depends mainly on some economic factors, if he has taken up a loan from some kikes that might change things. But for instance, you will never see a monarch take in millions of Islamic refugees.
>Africa that trade land and resources for personal wealth
That is a good way for the monarch to lose his power. Monarchic Power = property

>no president has abused his power
See how that goes you fucking moron? I swear all the peopme talking shit don't know the first thing about it, especially if they have an american flag.

So I guess you wanted the Clintons to automatically stay in the white house with no election. Nice "system" you got there.

>Monarchist societies the Monarch is Judged by the people and takes responsibilities for their failures

Kek, what? A monarchist rules by divine birthright and might. His people are literally his property. I don't mind being the property of another greater being (cannon fodder, a cog in a machine) in terms of achieving the greater good for my people. But I cant' risk it in a monarchy when a single corrupt figure can destroy everything.

A fascist state with a system in place to swap leaders every 25 years is truly the best system.

>You don't. Corruption is inherited to every system, but I can guarantee you that it will be

It is harder to corrupt 500 people swapping every 2-6 years than it is only 1 guy who is swapped every 50-60 years

>Most of the time it is in his interest. Depends mainly on some economic factors, if he has taken up a loan from some kikes that might change things. But for instance, you will never see a monarch take in millions of Islamic refugees.

Not sure I get it? The kikes could just as easily brime him to import millions of refugees?

>That is a good way for the monarch to lose his power. Monarchic Power = property
Wrong, Monarchic Power = POWER. What is the difference between a Monarchy and a Dictatorship? The only difference I can see the interests of person in charge

DAILY REMINDER: All major European countries achived their greatness and were build by monarchial rule. All european countries are declining under democratic rule. Think about that goys and peasants cheated by bourgeous jews.

Wrong, all European powers peaked during Nationalistic rule.

Typical burger bs.
That worked out well isn't it?

See, this is american education. Kings didn't own people, I don't know where the fuck you people find these shit memes.
It is harder to corrupt a king than 500 lying fucks in suits. How the fuck do you think one can corrupt a fucking king?

It's not about farmers per se, it's about the majority of people being dumb and illiterate enough to believe some inbred, often foreign faggot is a representative of God on Earth and has a divine right to rule over them for eternity.
When you teach people to read they start wondering that such system may not be the best for them.

Of course nowadays most of the people are still dumb and are kept content by bread and circuses, but at least elites have to hide their hereditary rule and produce an illusion of democracy.

>the president has several checks in place to ensure he cannot keep or abuse that power too much.
And the Jews then have several protections from the highest authority in the nation, which every other citizen does not have or does not benefit from.

Those countries were usually (with few exceptions like Frederik II:s Prussia) led to glory by competent statesmen who rose to their positions through merit, very rarely by monarchs themselves.

Our royal family is nothing but a liability. I don't want to support them and their literal bastard offspring.

ah yes, removing corrupt rich oligarchs in favor of corrupt rich oligarchs.

A well structured democracy is stable for a long time and is the best form of government at its best, but it inevitably degrades over time and either needs to be reforged or disintegrate. We are rapidly approaching that critical point.

Monarchy, by comparison swings erratically between dearth and plenty for the people under it based on more-or-less chance. Even the veritable philosopher king Marcus Aurelius couldn't confer his wisdom to his fuckup son.

So you're asking if we should abandon our current system near its worst for one that will always be in flux. It's a bad solution for anyone who seeks a lasting system.

>First gay marriage, what next?
>Slippery slope fallacy much? They said the same thing about black people being allowed to vote.
>Slippery slope fallacy much?
>fallacy
>They said the same thing about black people being allowed to vote

What are the liberal's response to this?

Not true or maybe if you think monarchist rule as nationalist.

No one of those states men would have even gotten close to power in democratic rule.

Have you seen the sons of rich and successful people? That should sum up all the problems with Monarchy.

Intelligence is hereditary, but being born in opulence fucks up the offspring.

Only for a generation. The second the throne is inherited, the country will be likely subjected to the son of a top model with 80 IQ.

The only way a monarchy is sustainable forever, is to apply eugenics to it. True rational eugenics, with top notch IQ in mind.

>Have you seen the sons of rich and successful people?
I've seen Donald Jr. and Eric Trump. If the parent bothers to instill good values in their children their is no reason why their children cannot also share those values.

Knew you would come crawling back yanks.

Monarchies also have this nasty habit of dynastic circlejerks because so much wealth, land and political power accumulates to royal families.

The results can fuck up kingdoms when they are ruled by inbred retards of great houses. And yes, people in the old times were aware of dangers of incest. They still did it and fucked their family lines beyond any repair.

They said removing the federal voting standard would be a slipper slope to blacks voting.
>they were right.
They said Blacks voting would be a slippery slope to women voting,
>They were right.
They said women voting would be a slippery slope to women entering the workforce.
>They were right.
They said women entering the workforce would be a slippery slope to the destruction of basic family values.
>They were right.
They were always fucking right.

Yes.
As long as it's not a federal constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary system of governance.

>Hurr, a communist dictatorship is exactly the same thing as a traditional monarchy durrr

t. amerishart educated mongrel

Why not just go to fascism with life long terms of merited ruler chosen by educated party elite then?

Right. At least unlike kings communists give education to their people.

The only reason it worked in the past is that you had elite trained military units tied to a social class as opposed to peasants with a boomstick.

NO! America should NEVER become a monarchy!

It's like going full retard on a state and gov level!

Just work on that republic and drain the swamp. Others will follow

...

What.

Just a tip, don't even bother to reply to american posts about anything not USA related, even then about half of the posts are just plain wrong.

Kim has over 60% approval rating with defectors, people who left the country, obviously, they would approve.

Of course >muh commies!
Nobody possible like someone who is against 'murrica, that's right Kim is the evil heartless dictator the USA paints him, he shoots people with AAA and then feeds them to dogs.

pri.org/stories/2013-08-30/kim-jong-un-approval-rating-over-50-percent-poll-defectors-finds

It's not stable, it's stagnating, not the same thing, although it might look like that.