What are some arguments in favour of monarchy?

What are some arguments in favour of monarchy?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepalese_royal_massacre
youtube.com/watch?v=TYwcgQfh49k
youtube.com/watch?v=nuL6T5Dc2LI
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Keeps the stupid people occupied. Just look the DM.

*at

Right or left?

i have two good arguments.

Over my fucking dead body you mutt

Aesthetics.

u wot m8

I want them to kiss and cuddle. Then id slip my dick in left and make the other watch.

No pedo.

right

If the monarch family is pure-bred whites with good values representative of the nation then they're a good symbol for the people.

Who are these people

Yup.

my future wife.

Spanish and Dutch princesses.

plutarchy.

That they are mine :^)

There are no arguments in favor of monarchy, my fellow American. Tyrannicide is the duty of every good man who loves the rule of law and the freedoms of liberty.

...

>Blonde
>"Sofia"
>Cross
Literally too perfect for this world.

What are some arguments in favor of the planet Mercury? Or the Grand Canyon? Or the Pacific Ocean?
You see where I'm going with this? Your opinion about these things are completely irrelevant.
Who the fuck do you think you are anyway?

Oh, those degenerated teeth.

Traditionalism, conservatism, family values.

In the case of the UK they add to diplomatic clout and help bring in tourism money.

qt princesses

just in case you wanted a serious answer...
a good monarch, educated and bred to rule, will always be better than a democratically elected ruler. however, to be an exemplary king requires one to possess near god-like qualities, and very few individuals have achieved such perfection. only Charlemagne comes to mind.

A princess shouldn’t be so fat

so cute... Pierre ! bring the guillotine

No one questions killing French kings, though

So, the King has a vested interest in all his land. In his nation. In his country. He is the King, and shall be the King until he dies, at which point a new King shall be elected to the Throne by a Parliament or his son shall inherit the seat. The King has an interest in his country, nation, and land, because it is his. He is not a temporary ruler. In a Democracy, politicians are elected -- through demagoguery -- and only occupy their seat temporarily. In that time, the Democratic politician seeks to loot the government, because it isn't his government and he knows his position of temporary. He doesn't need to look forward to the future, because he has not to bequeath to his posterity.

So, to summarize: Monarchies are superior in that they are based of low time preference, vested interest in the past, present and future, and those in power do not seek to loot their own possessions. They take care of something, because it is theirs.

Democracies are high time preference, they care only for the present, and Democratic politicians will loot the country, nation, and government.

Chubby, not fat.

This ami de la liberté understands. Sic semper tyrannis.

...

France still ended up with a dictator, so you failed commies.

Looks like a fat version of Ivanka

>aesthetics

>help bring tourism money.
Does the tourism money even pay the cost of the crown?

hot

one the one hand democracy is a bad meme when women and shitskins are allowed to participate

on the other monarchy can lead to being stuck with shit leaders more difficult to rid yourself of

With Democracy, you have to worry about millions of idiots, but with a Monarchy you only have to worry about one

154967552
>France still ended up with a dictator, so you failed commies.
That dictator almost won them the world

>Does the tourism money even pay the cost of the crown?
the crown estate pays for cost of the royal family

>mfw subhuman French republicucks think they got all the royals

The girls are descendants of Tupac Yupanqui.

>monarchs are tyrants by default because LOL reasons
Absolutely plebeian

tbqh that looks like money laundering
some politicians/businessmen must be getting big bucks

Amalia is gonna be a THICC version of her MILF mother in the future.

Id fuck that. Shes young so all the fat is just tight and juicy. Mmmmm yeah. Love young fatties.

...

>Shes young so all the fat is just tight and juicy. Mmmmm yeah. Love young fatties.
of course is an american who is fantasizing about fucking fat people

Stop posting those things, what's wrong with you.

Thomas Hobbes, dawg.

I have no doubt that monarchists are sex weirdos.

you are all a bunch of degenerate subhuman scum

u jelly you have no royal family anymore

t. faggot

Tyrannicide is the proudest tradition of Western Civilization.

western civilization was created by monarchies
and now republics are killing it

Hans Herman Hoppe argues in favor of monarchy in the first chapters of "Democracy, the god that failed."

Basically, the superiority of monarchy boils down to the following points

1)A privately owned government cares both for current income and asset values while a publicly owned government only cares for the former
2)Based on the previous a privately owned goverment is more likely to rule, tax and legislate in moderation
3)A privately owned government respects pre-existing private property law because its very existence depends on such law
4)A privately owned government means a developed "class consciousness" among the ruled, which again encourages government moderation
5)A privately owned government allows for economic calculation and improved resource allocation
6)Democracy ensures that ONLY liars and demagogues can rise to the top
7)Democracy can only work in assuming people will act with the best intentions. Monarchy works even when rulers assume nothing more but self interest.

Finally, today's blind belief in democracy rests on the false and largely unchallenged assumption that the feelings and opinions of the mass are always an indicator for what is true or right, which is of course blatantly false. Wisdom and knowledge have always been the privilege of a select few.

Monarchism is the final red pill.

> western civilization was created by monarchies
Athens: democracy
Rome: republic until taken over by a tyrant, at which point it indulged in decadence and declined
America: republic that threw off the yoke of British tyranny
The best of the West comes from freedom, not from tyranny.

Nothing only thing we got from monarchy was 12-14 hours daily power cut and poverty

He forgot the point
>have media pick the royalty like Kardashians to spread degeneracy throughout the culture
>Have aristocrats who socially shame each other for acting like a prostitute, Giving a public face to the country of class, something to emulate.

>Athens: democracy
people that gave rise to and practiced Athenian democracy left us almost nothing but criticism of this form of regime + ionly a small part of the population was allowed to vote
>Rome
the height of roman culture was during the empire
>America:
America is a soulless consumerist country not a representative of western civilization
>The best of the West comes from freedom, not from tyranny.
you dont know what tyranny means do you?

didn't the heir to crown killed everybody ?

Our isabella and charles 2 were very good aswell

But yes some of them become arrogaant and chosen for god wich mades them unavailable

This is what Gods do to you for killing cute Bourbons

A Fascist Monarchy would be pretty cool.

No the one you're talking about is Royal massacre.Unluckily his brother came into power which led to popularize Nepali Maoist movement more eventually leading to Maoist victory.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepalese_royal_massacre

Also it's very popular theory among us nepali is that his brother did all that planning to come into power.Literally everyone nepali supports this theory

More freedom then 2017 democracy.

>Tupac Yupanqui
whoa, how?
No, we need more ropyals.

qt virginal princesses

> Athenian criticism of democracy
Only a few Athenians criticized democracy, and they were mainly of an oligarchic, not monarchic, bent. Plato was one of the most famous critics, and among his students were numbered many tyrannicides. Plato's Republic was not so much a political ideal as a shape for the human soul.
> Roman empire and culture
The Romans constantly looked back to the Republic as the height of their culture, and especially to Cicero as its greatest practitioner.
>America is a soulless consumerist country
America is the land of invention and innovation, of progress built on science, and of the best traditions of the West writ large.
>you don't know what tyranny means do you?
I know what it means in Greek and in Latin, and I can tell you how Thomas More applied it to Henry VII (yes, not VIII) or how Seneca the Elder dangles it around every time he mentions Augustus.

There are quite a few. You can usually idenify them when they have the great in their name.

Monarchies are a hereditary institution which act as a repository of national history and custom; in effect because the royal family's history is entwined with the the past life of the nation they can symbolise the historical consciousness of the national community and can immanentise its past to its constituent members.

That would be our princess if we were a monarchy and not an UE's slave

youtube.com/watch?v=TYwcgQfh49k

This video made me think that monarchism is more than just a meme

More kinga

If the leader is a good one, he will rule well for the rest of his life and hopefully pass on the leadership skills to his offspring.

More

>youtube.com/watch?v=nuL6T5Dc2LI
i miss hoppe threads

Cutest queen passing through

The individual ruler who happens to temporarily inhabit a position of political authority and whose entire legitimacy is derived from the arbitrary process of electoral arithmetic, has no long term concern in the wellbeing of the nation. It is the monarch who inhabits an institution which acculturates him into a disposition of statesmanship who can only act truly in the long term geopolitical interest of his kingdom and ensure its internal stability, not only because he is invested in the success of his country from an individual perspective, but because his family itself resides at the heart of the nation.

you can always go back
we did

Your guys are really into the blood and soil argument. So that's a good one. Corruption can be reduced to minimum thanks to massive centralization. You can stop wars and make alliances with a simple marriage.

However, just only one bad king can fuck up everything. Democracies tend to be more resistant to bad governments.

> spits aside
plebeian, and re-married
no

>4:05 """Eastern""" """Germany""" was occupied by Poland
thumb this shit down

What happened to the athenian democracy? It was corrupted by the will of a few oligarchs, if I remember correctly.

>implying
we are talking about absolute monarchy here, not the cucked version

>the height of roman culture was during the empire

You've to be fucking kidding me, for romans the Empire was a fucking disgrace but necessary due the huge influence of the army & a slavery economy.

That's because oligarchs are expected to act in a corrupting way within a democracy. In fact, in assuming the best in people and in not providing any real incentive to not corrupt, democracies have set themselves up for corruption. Absolute Monarchs, on the other hand, have no real incentive to be corrupt and will want to protect their estate against subversive elements (read oligarchs). While monarchy may at first sight appear as deifying and placing blind trust on the monarch, it is really built around the mistrust of human nature.

Checks and balances to the executive, never letting either have total power.

For example our military swear allegiance to HM not a government or constitution. The prime minister may sack generals but they may only be appointed with the consent of the monarch.

HM or her her armed forces may lawfully remove the government but an election MUST follow.

The monarch must also assent to all laws (she has denied 13 during the reign) other than those fucking EU directives.

You have a 2nd ammendment we have an army that the government may fully control.

GOD SAVE THE QUEEN.

Ugly.

...

Monarchy has a pretty good track record. However, my problem with it is that the aristocracy becomes insular while also mixing with other aristocracies from other white nations. In this way, the ruling class becomes disconnected (both culturally and ethnically) from the population they rule over. Similar to how our current democracies are controlled by a pseudo-aristocracy who are either kikes or shabbos goyim like the clintons, bushes, etc. The fundamental problem is that issues arise when you have rulers who do not feel any resonance with or care for the populations they rule.

Not really sure how to square that circle. The best rulers are the dictators who arise as men against time, like Adolf Hitler. But that doesn't solve the issue of what happens when the current dictator/monarch steps down and needs to be replaced. Do you just go down the bloodline, thus leading to the same problem of the aristocracy as we've seen before? Or do we figure out another way to pick new dictators who still have the people's best interests in mind?

...