You gays suport monarchy?

You gays suport monarchy?

Literally fought a war to keep the king of England out of our face

Of course, monarchs derive their power directly from God (as proven in various battles and duels).

So you admit that your country is Satanic?

Yes.

>keep the king of England out of our face

Except when you need to measure something right? And then you'll reference the size of his fucking foot. Lol

Yes
Hail Pedro II of Brazil and the Brazilian Empire

I'd fight for Kate :3

monarchy is better than the new world order

Monarchism = Mafia.

Literally fought a war so that the 18th century version of Al Sharpton could keep smuggling and avoiding taxes. The American Rebellion was an illegal tantrum

Monarch best archy.

No, to keep the parliament out. The king wasn't bothering you.

Good GW didn't care what we fought for. He still put down riots and rebellions against his own government, along with other presidents. Nothing changed one bit, shit is still shit no matter what.

Against the mafia. Monarchism = Mafia.

Then it's no different from Rep*blicanism in this sense.
Republicucks BTFO

I'm not a Republican but that doesn't change the fact that Monachism = Mafia.

Sure, say it again, maybe I'll start to believe you. But I won't because you don't know what you're talking about and your rhetoric depends on an equals sign.

Brainlet doesn't know what Republicanism means but wants to argue against monarchy

You are why the West is just a teat for niggers to suck on

Monarchism is the ruling over an area by a Family who offers protection services for a fee.

The Victorian or William of Orange model is ideal but even modern constitutional democratic monarchy is preferable to republ*cism.

No, they're as bad as the communists for us.
All these cunts want to do fuck all and live off the back of the working class.
Kings,fascists,commies,whatever they all have some lazy scroungers at the top.

I know what Republicanism means and I'm not an advocate of a Republic.

OH wow, you can identify an effective chain of command. Now Military = Mafia, Corporations = Mafia, the Catholic Church = Mafia! You're just an average Whig, a member of the howling mob that puts civilization itself on the guillotine.

You have poor reading comprehension. I did not say a chain of command = Mafia/Monarchy, I said that the ruling over of an area by a Family who offers protection services for a fee is a Mafia.

ABSOLUTE BRITISH EMPIRE WHEN?

If I actually have to spell this out for you. Mafia are illegal, monarchies function around legalism and the rule of law. Monarchies are predictable, mafias are not. Literally any government in the world is going to be (Something) ruling over an area in exchange for a fee. If you think your preferred system is different, you are deluded.

>mafia are illegal
>this negates their relation to the system of monarchism

Braindead.
>Monarchies are predictable, mafias are not.
>both are ruled by a Family offering protection services for money and to seek expansion of their Family power

Is this difficult for you to grasp?

...

>legalism
Also, the Italian Mafia in the United States was ripe with concepts of Legalism. They would often hold extensive meetings to discuss specific rulesets and codes of conduct within the Families.

all states are mafias. It is a question of whether you are still blue pilled enough to think democracy has done anything to temper that. In truth democracies create political entities that are a worse form of mafias, filled with demagogs and internationalist traitors. The ethnic stability of white societies were never in danger during monarchies, in democracies western nations are crumbling.

Good job ignoring the last two sentences I wrote

I did not advocate for democracy, I was advocating against Monarchism. In my opinion, both lead to decline and offer nothing but treasonists and egoists a platform to rape the land and the people.

>Mafia are illegal
It's a stupid comparison, but he's not entirely wrong. Just missing the point.

Let me guess, you're a NatSoc/fascist who thinks that isn't synonymous with democracy

>Literally any government in the world is going to be (Something) ruling over an area in exchange for a fee.

But Mafias and Monarchies share the similar quality of a Family ruling over an area offering protection services for a fee. Your following sentence is just an ad hom without merit so I'm not addressing it.

What is missing the point? Both systems of government operate on the same exact basis. One is just more open with its intentions than the other. Both were willing to get their hands dirty to ensure power and both were willing to use cut throat tactics to maintain their Family power.

I would love to hear how National Socialism is synonymous with the concepts of democracy.

How about an Aristocracy?

>Aristocracy
You're getting closer to practicality.

No, retards aren't welcome here.

>Both systems of government operate on the same exact basis.
Similar, aye. But by definition, a mafia is like a state within a state, and thus illegal (generally). And a monarchy can be bound by a constitution holding them accountable. I'm not sure of any mafia which operates that way, where they can be laid low by the people they serve/draw from.

Do Natsoc states even disallow hereditary based appointment of rulers? What prevents established leaders of the head of state from having their kin hold various offices?

>a mafia is like a state within a state
Agreed to an extent.

>And a monarchy can be bound by a constitution holding them accountable.

Can the same not be said of a mafia? The Five Families in New York for example had specific codes of conduct and rules to follow to ensure a sort of checks and balances. They are essentially the same exact concepts when in practice. The main difference is that yes, a Mafia is a state within a state but that doesn't negate their governing structure and its relation to Monarchism. There's a reason they called themselves "KINGpins".

What of it?

jews. Super practicallity achieved.

>But Mafias and Monarchies share the similar quality of a Family ruling over an area offering protection services for a fee.
You keep saying that over and over because you refuse to read any of what I'm saying and you've never actually learned anything about monarchy outside of high school. I've already said the difference, but I'll let you read the thread again and try to get those wheels spinning.
>One is just more open with its intentions than the other.
Which is exactly the point.
The main principle of any democratic society is that the government rules in the name of the people. Calling it the "volk" instead doesn't change the principle.
Fascist states were mafia states.

How is the dictator chosen?

>Can the same not be said of a mafia?
Yes, but to a lesser extent, since they are generally operating without of the law of the state. The people of their "fief" have little to no recompense within their structure, and are forced to go around it.
>There's a reason they called themselves "KINGpins".
Aaaand you ruined it.

>There's a reason they called themselves "KINGpins".
You argue like a nigger.

The real king was exiled for supporting Hitler

no they failed because incest

just look at the spanish empire
how stupid do you have to be to stay in a place for 300 years and not bring woman there

>What prevents established leaders of the head of state from having their kin hold various offices?

Nothing. There was no rule preventing this. However, there was no point in doing this because ultimately you would be potentially threatening the nation with egoism and you would have to justify your appointment to the Council. Hitler didn't make any relatives the Fuhrer when stepped down, he chose a high-ranked official with a surefire background: Karl Dönitz.

>you refuse to read any of what I'm saying and you've never actually learned anything about monarchy outside of high school

I have responded to you and you told me I haven't read what you wrote. You have yet to prove the difference between Mafia and Monarch rule.

>How is the dictator chosen?
In Rome it was through a Council. In Germany it was through appointment. When Hitler stepped down he gave power to Karl Donitz. He was named the Successor of the State. This was widely agreed upon with members of the NSDAP so no issues followed.

>without of the law of the state
Who defines the "law of the state"? In a Monarchy, the Ruling Family. It's effectively a Mafia seizing control of a State similar to Sicily.

>You argue like a nigger.
At least I am presenting an argument unlike yourself.

no , we support our local Waffen - SS in oder to get rid of niggers like you

>The people of their "fief" have little to no recompense within their structure

Which was similar to what happened in Sicily and why Mussolini made it a point to physically remove the Mafia.

>You have yet to prove the difference between Mafia and Monarch rule.
I said you didn't read my posts because I did already, you fucking idiot. You're a boring LARPing Nazi high schooler.

>I said you didn't read my posts because I did already, you fucking idiot. You're a boring LARPing Nazi high schooler.

That isn't an argument.

Reddit-spacing high school Nazi wants me to retype my arguments for him so he doesn't have to read the thread

Still not an argument.

No

>permanent oligarchy based on inheritance
no.

Exactly.

Fought to keep the king away.But is happy to be controlled by israel and be flooded with mexicans

Did you honestly think that post was supposed to contain an argument? Underage

You haven't presented an argument because Monarchism is an idiotic system that is Mafiatier.

You can only talk and think in memes, no wonder you think NatSoc is a good idea lmao

Still waiting on an argument.

No
Our king is literally a closet faggot, and those inbred fucks cost us way too much money

You're an entitled cunt and everyone can tell you came from reddit

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

>mfw immigrant to the UK
>mfw sworn loyalty to the royals in an official capacity three times and about to do so for a fourth
Anglo aeterna.

>Nothing. There was no rule preventing this. However, there was no point in doing this because ultimately you would be potentially threatening the nation with egoism and you would have to justify your appointment to the Council. Hitler didn't make any relatives the Fuhrer when stepped down, he chose a high-ranked official with a surefire background: Karl Dönitz.

In general such checks were present in monarchies in various ways in the form of competing families and aristocrats that preyed upon monarchs who failed in their duty and risked losing support from his principality and other high status friends. This effectively the same process as you could describe in a fascist state, the bureaucratic process and party politics you cite as method of tempering the system from abuse is mostly fluff, what controls these types of governments from abuse is power dynamics amongst competing politicians who keep each other in check. That is the way politics works. The fact that you think a NatSoc state has no risk of being a "mafia" is laughable, what makes a state good for the people behind it is it's philosophy. Natsoc supports the nation and its race, which is good, but somehow fears the embracing of full hierarchy which in the Monarchy is what makes the best of the race make their claim.

>In Rome it was through a Council.
So a democratic process. Just with fewer demos. Either way, there will be politicking, which is ALWAYS bad.
>Who defines the "law of the state"?
The state.
>In a Monarchy, the Ruling Family. It's effectively a Mafia seizing control of a State similar to Sicily.
They were still within another state, though.

Bang on, bro.

The only two advantages I see with Monarchy are that heredity monarchs are trained since birth for leadership, and that because the King's wealth is tied to his nation, thus he can focus on the long term prosperity. As opposed to democracies where every politician is focused on short term gains. But cons outweigh the pros. With that said, I wouldnt mind an immortal God King. Good luck finding that though.

absolutely

It is a similar logic to why people witch families are far more trustworthy for the role of statecraft, as opposed to childless non married people. Their highest principal is their children's and their nation's children security and prosperity.

i glad the entire Russian monarchy got BTFO after defeating napoleon by running away. those faggots deserved the rope and every bullet they got.

>immortal God King
god emperor

bump

I’d support an actual British monarch who could generate their own personal wealth because they’re successful and intelligent enough to do so, give royal holdings back to the taxpayer and make revenue off them from tourists, while taking Westminster by the balls and having them stop acting like nanny state chickens with their heads cut off.

Anything is better than the German-Greek mongrel tabloid celebs we have now.

Yes, it's the most stable system to date.

>Most stable
>Mostly doesn't exist anymore

And yet almost none of them fell by revolt, but rather referendum and a peaceful phasing out. Name me another government type which goes away without violence.

I believe in the Roman Republican system now fuck off

This is such pop-history nonsense. The war was propagated by a group of pamphleteers, businessmen, and agricultural landowners who didn't want to bear the burden of taxation to help pay for a war they helped start with the French. While the founding fathers were brilliant men and I'm glad that they succeeded, the King at that time had very little direct power compared to the houses of Parliment

Hail to the king

Soon

>Gets cucked by a fucking monk.
JUST!

...

And replaced it with executive powers that would make George III cum with delight.

Or for refusing to drop a twice divorced harpy. But yeah, ed did seem to enjoy Hitler quite a lot...

In the 50s, prince Bernhard was supposedly involved in plans for a coup to institute a royal/military dictatoreship, with the ultimate goal of exterminating all commies and pacifying Indonesia.

of course i support the fucking monarchy. Everyone that doesn't is a fucking degenerate traitor cunt that needs to get necked.
The Queen is the ultimate defender of the constitution. the final arbiter of the soul of the people.
We have a house of commons, which is our elected representatives, who have "legislative power"- that is, the ability to create laws. So the people we choose to make laws, make the laws based on what they have promised to make laws about and which of those promises we chose. So we choose which people will make which laws.
Then you have the house of lords, whose job is supposed to be to scrutinise the laws which the commons have suggested, and to make sure they do not contravene the common law rights and freedoms of the people, or the position of the monarch or her heirs, or the system of government.
Then above the lords you have royal assent, a final block on any laws passed by both houses. So if a tyrannical communist government were to gain power, and pass a law saying all white people must be killed, then the queen would have a final ability to strike the law down, with no legal counter argument. The reason the Queen is given this power, is because her only job is to protect the common law rights and freedoms of the people of this country, and to strike down any law which passed parliament which contravenes those God given rights.
Royal assent is never used, and so the queen appears to do nothing, but the very fact she is there as a supra governmental entity, whose sole purpose is to defend the common law rights and freedoms of the people (as she swears in her coronation oath and all mps swear their oath to protect her position) prevents governments from even attempting to subvert the constitution as if the queen were to permit it she would de facto have broken her oath and no longer legally be queen.
Also why to attempt to remove the queen is TREASON, because you are attempting to remove the final defender of common law.

This

No, to keep the king ACCOUNTABLE TO THE PEOPLE AND TO THE LAW, as our common law rights have demanded since before the foundation of this country.
in 1066 the faggot normans weaseled the crown after one fucking battle, and they believed in ruling by divine right, so they spent the next 600 years gradually trying to convince us they were kings like in europe and the rest of the world that ruled like pharoahs. So we killed them. And brought in a new king who swore to return to the ways which our country was founded on.
During the 600 years we lost sovereignty, there were 6 distinct rebellions to counter the claims of the king that they were all-powerful.
British kings are not gods, because british people are not slaves, they are free men.

Well put.

It's better than communism. So if the choice is between those two, than obviously I will support monarchy as it's more likely to keep me out of the gulag.

sorry i caps locked you bro, i was trying to highlight the importance of that sentence rather than shouting at you.
Kind of looked unnecessarily angry, apologies

It’s a simpsons reference ya mongs

Constitutional Monarchy is the best form of government. Only an idiot or a dictator would want the ceremonial and political leader to be embodied in the same person. Recipe for autocratic rule.

oh right

Sure. I hope Baby George is redpilled and shit posts on twitter once he's off age. He needs to be a strong king.

How can any other monarchy compete?