Monarchy is the best form of government

>A strong leader
>An inspiration to the people
>Less corruptable by (((them)))
>Can unite nations
>Stable
>Doesn't need the people's voice to make bold decisions.

Give me 1 reason why monarchy isn't the best form of government.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rokosz
youtube.com/watch?v=YEDy3vEX8Ms
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

>enslave people with absolute rule
>wastes national resources to build nice palace like louis 14
Its damn nice but imagine where that wealth could have been allocated

...

Exceptional and strong men are rare. Why would you choose a form of government where it's statistically unlikely you'll have someone worthy in power with each generation?

Because if you're not the king, you're the slave. If you're the king, you're the most likely to get murdered by all those around you.

I get your point but compared to other forms of government it is much better. (((Democracy))) is a ticking timb bomb. We will eventually go into a dictatorship. Communism doesn't work because everyone isn't created equal and is absolute garbage. We have proof that monarchies are very sustainable. When we gave democracy to the sand niggers they broke down into dictatorships rather quickly. Fascism could work but we haven't saw what a fascist state hasn't had enough time to fully develop(for all we know there could be a huge drawback that we haven't seen). This is why I think monarchies are the most sensible and sustainable form of government. Another thing not every ruler will be perfect its just a risk you have to take.

Basically this. When you lack perfection you build an ensemble. Democracy is the most extreme ensemble.

This is true and to be fair I think that this would be the hardest obstacle to overcome. The truth of the matter is unlike in democracy where the majority has the loudest voice(this is dangerous because you can just mass migrate another group of people and they will become the new majority). If one person has control then there is less likely a chance he will be against his country and this entire crisis wouldn't be happening if this were the case. A monarch represents pride, unity and power. Not only this he also provides protection for his people from foreign invaders by fighting.

A monarchy under a strong, wise and just man? Yes that type of government would entitle what you green texted. The problem often is and was that the following king or whatever is not fit to do the job or wants to trump his father by doing things out of vanity.

I'd contest that because power is entirely central and men are imperfect, monarchy is just as easy to sway and corrupt.

In my mind, something akin to a technocracy, a panel of people trained and educated to make specific decisions according to their field, would be a more suitable form of government. In which case, the policy makers are watched with scrutiny by civilian organisations, and it's only democratic in the event of large policy changes or in the face of new threats and social change.

that is not how royalty looks.
>pic related

Monarchy evolved as well as the notion of statemanship

i agree, but there is distinctive set of problems for monarchies that doesnt appear in other forms of gov

1 - how do you pick dynasty/ruler - where the 'right' comes from in mostly securalized modern world

2 - i dislike democracy to the great degree, but the worst that can happen in democracy is revolution
> (i'm not counting inviting milions of muslims... i still don't get why you guys did that, not elites.. but why people would agree)
revolution - chances of which are lower than danger of civil war in monarchies - the same point again, in the old times the 'divine mandate' would prevent most of this shit, but in our modern secularized days it would be more common

You are very much right mate. Its a risk we have to take. A risk most people dont want. Id rather monarchy over democracy too but shit can hit the fan real quick if people revolt or are under martial law. I agree masses shouldnt rule (democracy) and facism is too hawkish which would bring its own demise, a ticking bomb like democracy. It all comes down to the king in power, if they are benevolent its the best system. Democracy minimizes the risk by sacrificing potential.
Google Mad Monarchist and NRx. If you wanna get into some more esoteric stuff you can check out evola, perennialism, Hussein Nasr (the Traditionalist school of thought basically).

the difference between a corrupted monarch and a corrupted democratic leader is people killed corrupt kings all the fuckin time. no one kills elected leaders, no matter how corrupt they become. everyone just waits it out til the next election.

You said that strong and exceptional men were rare. Why would I want a country that is ruled by those kinds of individuals?

fair point

some countries had it even pointed in their laws that they can gather to beat the living shit out of a ruler, and the terms in which it is legal
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rokosz

*pointed out

Bhutan is a fine monarchy.

It's true, only if tyhey are Catholic to free the goverment from jewish interference

monarchy = fascism but more religious and stupid

Frankly speaking? Nobody cares. The only ones who give a fuck about Christmas are those who'd gladly cog themselves to turn capitalism. They're people who have no self respect and dignity. If that's ok with you, then fine. Don't bother asking me for any help. You're inevitably be going into trouble you yourrself dug yourself into. This will happen, mark my words. Every Christmas, you're digging a hole lower and lower till the wholee hole can collapse into you, cog.

>Monarchy is the best form of government
ok Solomon, Monarchy is basically communism lite
>Its damn nice but imagine where that wealth could have been allocated

exactly, the fucking wasted potential spent keeping niggers in poverty and ripping off shit you don't even need is retarded,

basically the only reason this is happening is because all the true royalty died during the plague and we are left with the descendants of royal housekeepers who ascended to the throne only because everyone else died and they happened to be there.

you can see this is true in the way they treat others, basically conquer them by any means possible, instead of turning them into tech enabled space faring super soldiers able to conquer other planets, fucking disgraceful

anarchist government would have produced space marines 400 years ago

>Catholic to free the goverment from jewish interference
and whom do these so called jews work for again?

isn't Rothschild the official papal banker?

I agree with this but a technocracy could be very complicated to implement. People have bias and this is clearly the biggest problem. We humans have biases and in a technocracy this bias could change the shift of our species. It could work but it would be extremely risky.

I responded to the wrong post by accident

>strong leader

I never said my monarch was a strong leader did I. Also great evidence backing up your arguement against monarchy

>Hurr durr elizabith 2nd a women, old and physically weak so Monarchs bad. Duh

Truely you are gifted with your godlike levels of "debating"

i would be so made if i were next in line for the throne and this dusty skeleton woke up healthy day after day

a wise and just man knows how to give an upbringing to his firstborn son so that the son will also be wise and just. The problem is that no such great man exists. That is why the absolute power belongs to God himself.

It does work often for 2 or 3 generations but wisdom fades over time.

You have better odds following heredity than public opinion

I agree and want Make Brazil a Empire Again

>Monarchy is basically communism lite

Someone photoshop this image with trump!

BRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP

Ethno city-states ruled by a militant aristocracy is better.

>monarchy
>needs one intelligent guy, and he is raised to be
>democracy
>every nigger faggot can have as much influence as you
Fuck every fucking democracy loving jew !

Incest and chromosomal diseases

Who wouldn't be

>judging a traditional form of government by its "usefulness" in maintaining a modern materialistic society
kill yourself

Flag related

Happening this year

hey ! I reconise that pasta !

Well we could set up a thing where we could preserve fertile "brides" for the monarch. Obviously they have to be a virgin. Honestly you can fix this issue with a simple system where you can just marry a noble it isn't difficult.

No. Protectionist-Traditionalist One Party Republicanism is.

Also fuck your slutty queen, and fuck her family. More importantly, fuck the UK

>"Monarchs often lose potency in their old age, which can lead to infighting among their heirs, lack of confidence in them as personifications of the state, and an inability to quickly and effectively make policy decisions."

Does that work for you Heathcliff?

user, just...no. Monarchy works efficiently when the ruler is competent and virtuous, but it's perhaps the worst form of government when that ruler is incompetent. The thing is, the key principle here is merit, so why not just avoid rolling the dice each generation and institute a meritocracy?

Give me an example of 10 monarchs who destroyed their country and then give me 10 elected leaders who destroyed theirs. I bet you can find 10 elected leaders in the last 100 years. I bet you can't find ten kings in 1000.

The trouble starts when monarchies start importing and exporting royalty as a diplomatic tool. Pretty soon you have the situation where nearly everyone in line for the throne, often down to the level of mid-level nobility, is closely related by blood.

Yes it does. Also simply put a retirement age for the king 70 years old seems about right.

Jacobite restoration when?

Autocratic governments like China are the best.
>Pass to a high level university, how to go through grueling exams and tests.
>Has to have decades of experience in politics and economics, understanding of peoples wants
>Elected by your peers who are also experienced in politics and gone through the same experience. Could be from a rich coastal province or poor inland province.
>Gain support for the different parties inside the Communist party, enough to compromise and be seen as a representative to most people.
>Once elected, allowed to guide the country with your gathered wisdom with little opposition. Infrastructure projects built without a hitch, use earnings to compensate poor farmers which in turn use infrastructure, pay taxes and increase revenue.
>Turn the country from a third world communist shithole to the 2nd largest economy that can compete with western nations in standard of living, science, education in the span of 40 years.

I hope you're not counting dictators who rose to power during violent revolutions (the same way new royal dynasties start, how about that) and who then retain power through mock votes as elected leaders.

Why do you faggots do this, waste your time like this.

Makes sense, but good luck getting the sovereign to agree to that.

I never thought of this. Obviously dating a peasant is out of the question. Honestly this is tricky. I'm sure someone could figure out some way to get around this.

>a leaf complaining about shitposting
And they try to tell you the word isn't going nut

youtube.com/watch?v=YEDy3vEX8Ms

Not even the scots supported them, their most famous poet Burns clearly didn't.

>compete with western nations in standard of living, science, education

Choose 1

The monarchy IS (((Them))) doofus
They're already corrupt af

I don't get it

Yeah I think that would be the problem. Say god commanded it? That worked in the past.

Are u guys actually retarded or what. Look at countries that have monarchies in today's world. They are scum of the earth. Places like morocco are not in any way shape or form better

Great men come in every generation and if you think about it, you can't be a racial realist if you don't accept a monarchy and hereditary aristocracy.

Who judges merit?

>the country that voted for the refugees welcome party after 2 terrorist attacks killed 300+ fags

Lmao.
Don't bitch about countries because a couple of tabernacs and VPN shitpost, frog.

my dick

>Comparing niggers to whites

Yeah theres your problem right there. If it was a white country running it then it would work 12x better

What do you mean? Chinese infrastructure is top notch, high speed rail and smooth roads. Chinese clinics are clean and modern (watch serpentza thats where i get info about china). PISA exams show chinese as highest ranking, cheating culture is a meme and exaggerated by asian tiger mums because of their focus on education and theres a growing number of chinese scientists winning noble prizes and contributing to science.

It sounds like you want a pseudo-monarchy. You clearly want some figurehead to whom a nation pledges fealty and who has near total power, but it also sounds like you want there to be very strict laws governing what the ruler can do, how and when they can do it, and in what ways they are allowed to pass their power on. Unfortunately, any monarchy where those things can happen is not a true monarchy.

Please explain how if moroccans were whiter than they are. They would be 12x better

But you have to understand that the reason those violent dictators rise, is because of the weakness of the people. With an absolute king, you know who is ruining the country, with an election based system, you don't. So then brother fights brother. With a monarchy brothers kill the corrupted father.

The problems are
a) your child is not you or your spouse but a synthesis of the both of you
b) hybris resulting through status without any own investment (and I don't mean pride in your ancestry pushing you to be worthy of them)
c) status marriage is pushed over eugenics (or was in the past)

We would need an immortal god emperor and Monarchy would be the form of handling things.

Yeah. This is because it is mainly the best way to govern a country. It makes sure your ruler doesn't completely fuck you over if there are limitations. Not to limited mind you after all he should have around 95% of the authority imo.

Its all fine and well until you end up with some inbred half-mad hemophiliac who only gets erections from random beheadings.

>Monarchy is the best form of government

If the monarch is tricked by a Jew, ZOG leeches on instantly gaining infinite power. Another problem is if the monarch has poor leadership skills or becomes a libshit, they can end up destroying a society easily. A less corruptible government would be something more akin to a Roman republic where citizens can keep fire arms and certain individuals can be granted emergency powers. That way, if Jews infiltrate the senate, the other senators can grant someone emergency powers, if that individual is compromised or is a Jew, the people can fight back and if the people are compromised with negroids, the senate won’t have to cater to them and they can all be kicked out.

Look at the IQ gap. Also white are far more cooperated than niggers are. Just look to the past.

>the counry that voted
>the country
the country not me, also if you niggers didn't follow an actual retard like Marine, maybe the nignogs loving jew would have had such an easy win, leaf

>Monarchy is the best form of government.

So the English monarchy immediately after the Magna Carta was signed

imagine if usa was a monarchy, you faggots would already be in a civil war

> white are far more cooperated than niggers are
LUl, he says while forgetting about the fact that the only reason there was a semblant of order was because of violence and the murder rape of anyone going against monarchies that established themselves with wars, extra KEK britbong

Soon.

even the greatest and best monarch of all time wille bite the dust someday, and when that happens, his spoiled shithead retard son will take the crown and fuck shit up.
als long as we dont have an immortal god-emperor of mankind as monarch, monarchy is doomed to be as much of a failure as democracy or communism

>Give me 1 reason why monarchy isn't the best form of government.
You need to be more specific on that one. Because there are different forms of a monarchy

You have a very gross misunderstanding of how china works. In china the wealthy protect thier grip on power by banding together into a single party. All those "grueling exams" are ruthlessly cheated on and theyre only being taken by the wealthy children of the elite who basically purchase thier children a position from the party after sending them through mostly worthless mock degrees.

The US colleges have ruthlessly sold thier position out from under them and cheapened thier degrees values and a 5 year chinese degree is STILL only worth a 2 year associates from the USA. And thats even by chinese standards. Why else do you think thier elite pay tens of thousands in bribes to send thier kids to even a shitty hayseed US college?

>saudi arabia poster
How's your monarchy actually? Honest question, is it as bad and degenrated as pol wants us to believe?

It's interesting that you'd bitch at me, and associate me with the rest of my "country" (even despite what I previously explained), then bitch about me doing the same to you.
Frogs lack any consistency.
Take some more Mtumbo dick,faggot.

The fact you'd need to ask that proves you're a blue-pilled retard that can't think for himself.

No. The Bank of Vatican is now rulled by Opus Dei

You will need Portugal for that

Nero

>monarchy
Absolute Monarchy is at the same time both the best, and worst, possible form of government. It all depends on the individual.
History shows this, good kings are immortalized and remembered fondly, while bad kings remarked upon with derision, if remembered at all.
As society and technology improved and education levels increased overall (at least in western countries and colonies), the individual became empowered much more so than any time in history. The type of individualism that in this country at least led to the rise of Rugged Individualism, but I speak more broadly for now - vassals served and were protected in turn. With a decreased need for protection from others, by others, both due to improved quality of life/reduced foreign aggression and the improved individual ability to defend oneself with a firearm (which finally overturned once and for all the defense>offense paradigm of many centuries), and in some areas a string of bad kings, populations have installed for themselves a different form of governance, based somewhat on the past, and somewhat on their ideas of the present and future. A government with decentralized power and many ruling members instead of one, or one family.
It wasn't a bad idea on paper - in engineering terms it should be more robust, having redundant backups and interlaced power structures, so no one part (person) could fail and bring the whole thing down, and the propensity for ALL of it/them to become broken/corrupt is low. However the increasing complexity also brings complications, which turns to the care and feeding of the ever-growing beast...

why you so mad nigger, why you so mad on the internet ?

>An excerpt from 'Liberty or Equality' by Erik Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

>Monarchy Compared with Democracy
>pic related
>We have to preface this section with the observation that the individual (as individual, not person) is, within the historico-politcal perspective, practically powerless. We have said before that the democractic principle of 'one man, one vote,' viewed against a background of voting masses numbering several millions, only serves to demonstrate the pitiful helplessness of the inarticulate individual, who functions at the polls as the smallest indivisible arithmetical (and not always algebraic) unit. He acts in total anonymity, secrecy and irresponsibility.
>The articulate (and "original") person, on the other hand, has a great or small a chance to exercise his political influence under EITHER form of government. The effective influence of men such as Leibniz and Voltaire, Hobbes, Stahl, or Wagner on monarchs was as least as great as the persuasive influence of other thinkers or writers on the political masses. Yet since the educational standards of monarchic rulers are usually above average, the persuasive efforts of intellecutals, for better or for worse, have greater chances in a royal framework. One would therefore expect in a democratic society to see the thinker depreciated on account of his ineffectuality. Who can doubt the Swiss nation is far less affected by the writings of Burckhard, De Reynold, Amiel or Vinet than was the French eighteenth-century aristocracy by the philosophes?

>makes a post about brap
>gets angry about a flag
>writes a paragraph about jews loving niggers or something in broken english
>calls other people mad.
Faggot, suck your Mtumbo dick like a pacifier and shut your autistic ass up. Only a shame you weren't killed in any of the last 30 terror attacks you had in the past 2 months.

>And now to the points of comparison.
>Monarcy is BY ITS NATURE dissociated from party rule. Only in the 'constitutional' (parliamentary) monarchy are royalist parties imaginable; yet in a sound, organic monarchy all parties accept the common monarchic denominator, and the opposition is thus "His Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition."
>Democracy is BY NATURE party rule. The President (or PM) is a 'party man'. He lacks originally - and often permanently - GENERAL backing.

>The monarch is the political AND social head of the nation.
>The President of the United States, on the other hand, is decidedly not a 'social' leader, even though his wife figures as the 'first lady'. The monarch can, unlike a republican leader, rule not only through the mechanisms of the laws but also through his prestige - an 'endogene' force.

>Even a monarch of mediocre talents and natural gifts has the advantage of having received an education for his profession. A democratic leader can only have the hasty technical training of those with a 'late vocation,' and in most cases he is nothing but a dilettante. Yet this harmoizes well with the general tenor of democracy, whose raison d'etre is not truth, efficacy, reason, study, and reflection, but volition pure and simple. Some apologists of democracy, in order to arrive at an intellectual justification of their theory, propose an enormous increase in general education which will enable all citizens to judge the important issues of the day. Yet the goals they set can only be reached by small fractions of highly gifted individuals. Caught between the Charybdis of intellectual qualifications for the franchise (which is plainly incompatible with very elemetary democratic principles) and the Scylla of an orgy of emotional irrationalism, they steer their course towards the noble goal of education and 'brains' for all. What they do not take into consideration is the hard fact of human inperfection, of original sin.

- Don't want to pay for an elite family
- Weak offspring can still be crowned

ahah you're actually mad, holy shit are you 5 ?

even the weakest of royalty off-spring still gets more training and shcoolarity than many of the people, including the fucking nobles

I agree with the IQ thing but I also would argue that higher iq would actually lead the moroccans to give up on their monarchy settlements and turn themselves off from degeneracy. Either way monarchies don't work.