Monarchism is the ideal government

Democracy always leads in Plutocracy. Monarchs are better representatives of the people.
And I mean actual Monarchy not the crap northwest europe has today

It wouldn't work just to call each state a kingdom. Looking at the HRE there was only a few Kingdoms and the same with the German and Austrian Empires.

Who would be in the right to lead? When dynasties were established in Europe the founder did something to establish his line as the legitimate ruler.

Also would the Emperor have a considerable amount of land outside of the states to establish his independence from the Kings?

Fuck off. Go suck a monarch's dick, faggot.

If monarchy is so good then why did we get rid of it? Checkmate faggot.

>Monarchs are better representatives of the people.
Literally are not representatives of the people.

Democracies are slow, have inner corruption which monarchies don't since power is guaranteed for life, monarchs don't abuse money as once more, they'll have everything they need and want. Democracies have to deal with 2+ party systems, legal battles, and often times are very slow and inefficient . Monarchies and Empires automatically get rid of this by having an autocrat in charge that makes the laws he/she feels is necessary.

Monarchists are also the ones that have made the largest, wealthiest, and most influential countries in history.

we didn't get rid of it

(((they))) got rid of our monarchs

You really believe monarchies aren't corrupt and don't engage in nepotism?

Democracy, while an ideal, is a product of civilization, not of evolution. Go slowly! select carefully! for the dangers of democracy are:
1. Glorification of mediocrity.
2. Choice of base and ignorant rulers.
3. Failure to recognize the basic facts of social evolution.
4. Danger of universal suffrage in the hands of uneducated and indolent majorities.
5. Slavery to public opinion; the majority is not always right.

All systems are oligarchies, but democracies at least require the oligarchs to provide bread and circuses to the people to maintain power, whereas monarchies are only accountable to a few people in high places while the rest can be oppressed and killed without consequence.

>nepotism

Not at all, certainly relatives and such are kept alive and well in order to maintain the monarchy while in democratic governments in order to keep friends closer and such there are legal loopholes for people to jump through. There's no need for corruption when you're a King or Queen as you hold all the power.

the only power a monarch should have is veto

SAGE

Republics lead to a level of organization that makes it impossible to stop corruption. Besides only the upper class ever becomes politicians meaning you still are slaves to the aristocracy no matter what you do democrafaggot.

Anarchy is the ideal government.
And I mean actual Anarchy, not the over populated crap Somalia has today.

What I like about absolute monarchies is they had the power to fuck over rich people and take all their money. I feel like we need some of that in today's society with all these banks and corporations getting out of control

In a perfect world, maybe. Unfortunately the world isn't perfect. Just like communism it's too corruptible.

But the upper class still relies on the votes of the lower class in order to stay in power. A politician can lie, bribe, and corrupt all he wants, but if the country takes a turn for the worse while he's in charge then the people are gonna replace him with someone else.

>insitutionalized nepotism is the ideal political system

There are always tasks common to all that democracy is ideal for.

Right on cue, the fucking commie makes it class warfare.
>you still are slaves to the aristocracy no matter what you do
>what is the nomenklatura
>what is an apparatichik
All fucking commies must fucking hang

Yes they will replace him with another aristocrat.

in the last election cycle we nearly ended up with the 3rd bush or the 2nd clinton in a relatively short period of time, and you're bringing up nepotism?

Why do you take any flag here seriously?

No it's not, consular technocratic meritocracy is

The person who replaces him will be basically the same. The selection pressures of democracy lead to dishonest and corrupt people gaining power in massive disproportion.

>implying democracy isn't just as bad

fascist republic ethnostate ftw

That is the nature of politics. Nobility always rules, whether it is by blood, money, charisma, or position.

Why do you use a memeflag when they're for faggots?

>Nobility always rules
Which is why it's better to have a local noble family tied to your own country instead of an everchanging political class being financed by God knows who.
At least it should be harder to buy the loyalty of a monarch.

The noble family isn't tied to your country, they're tied only to themselves.

Tell that to napoleon, alexander the great, friederich the II.

You're fucking retarded, sage

Okay. They don't disprove anything I said.

>themselves
And their wealth is their country. Which is why there are so many kings and emperors called "the Great".

The problem you both have is that either system is bound to fail in a very large, very ethnically diverse country- be it Brazil or the United States. This is true of all government systems.

Republicanism and monarchism both function, but they only function well in small nations. If the US were to break apart into fifty new countries, or more, either system could be sustainable. Montana could be a viable republic for centuries, while Manhattan island could be a monarchy (perhaps each NYC borough becomes its own monarchy?) Meanwhile, out in the plains of Kansas and Nebraska the little counties could potentially be fully democratic, like the Swiss cantons, while perhaps Pennsylvania and West Virginia become fascist ethnostates.

It's not black-and-white. Many different systems work, the problem is that none of them work in cumbersome superpowers, where the ruling class is easily bought and is loyal to no one but themselves. The big nations must be broken up if we want a hope of any of these systems working.

Literally are meant to embody the culture of a nation and manifest the ideal Man and wife while adhering to Christian morals to keep power in check. Did some become fools and tyrants? Sure. But many of the ones forgotten in time were true proletariat role models.

...

>Which is why there are so many kings and emperors called "the Great".
Yet few that were actually great. The Roman empire lasted for some 1,500 years yet only 5 emperors are considered good by modern standards.

Monarchism is shit

>patrilineal
Fuck your son. I'd be okay with monarchy if they adopted their (otherwise unrelated) heir like the early Roman emperors.

Monarchy is the strongest form of goverment

If ethnostates, tradition, and social cohesion were so good, why did we get rid of them? Checkmate faggot.

Republics have no culture though compared to monarchies.

Most retarded thing i've ever seen.

>muh ebil class society

Explain the Roman Republic, retard.

Romans copied the Etruscans.

>Facism
>Republican dictatorship
>Monarchy
>Democracy
>Tribal Confederacy
>Republic
>Merchant Republic
>Communism

Fascism is the best for representing the people followed by a Republican dictatorship. A republic dictatorship is the people vote on a ruler who leads for life with absolute power. After the death of the dictator, they elect a new one. The worst government by far to represent the will of the people is communism because of its ties to globalism.

> 99.8% of the adaptive genes that have ever been invented are extinct

> therefore, they didn't work in the environment they were created as a response to

Poor argument and also untrue

Did early Rome have no culture? Athens? Sparta? I know in antiquity there are no true "republics" by modern standards, but there are prototypes. Regardless, even up to the 1940s and 50s the European republics still had culture.

Culture isn't contingent on government structure- although it most definitely becomes more or less vulnerable to outside subversion depending on the type of government.

Replace rich people with jews and we got a deal.

More than just the Good Emperors are considered to have been good rulers, but what does that tell you. Only a small number stood out as being good rulers and yet it kept chugging along for a millenium and a half.

I am the king of whites.
They call me Jesus.

The Etruscan Civilization weren't the ones who became an Infamous world power during ancient times, were they?

Exactly, so if they can keep on chugging along with so many bad rulers imagine how long the republics will chug along with pretty consistent good rulers.

>be it Brazil
Except that it didn't fail here. All the spanish colonies broke down, meanwhile Pedro I and Pedro II kept Brazil as a single nation. The later could have opposed the milliary coup, but he chose to not start a civil war.

We share the same religion, arguably the same culture, same language, same territory(except Cisplatina). There isn't as much diversity in colonial nations as you think, not even close to Austria-Hungary or the Ottoman Empire. If anything, there are people who'd rather make our nations more culturally diverse, only to divide and conquer us.

>Republicanism and monarchism both function, but they only function well in small nations.
The smaller and less diverse the nation is, the easier. I agree.

>loyal to no one but themselves
My problem with republicans is that they usually have way too many ties with foreign forces when compared to other forms of government.

I'd still rather have a ruler who isn't on Goldman Sachs' paycheck. Republics are way too volatile and easier to corrupt, you may have put Trump into office but everyone else is still doing their best at tying his hands.

you do realize that all dynasties start through feuds right? The throne must be contested through bloodshed ala war of the roses. But then again, dynastic monarchy is trash. A blend of Aristocracy, elective monarchy, and Meritocracy would be better for everyone

So many un-american freedom haters in this thread.
COMMIES OUT, REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

The United States Constitution was designed to unify three notable forms of governance: a king (the president), the aristocracy (the senate), and the people (the house of representatives)

We should ask ourselves: Do we feel that these three are out of balance today?

If so, why?
Is there another source of power that is throwing this otherwise seemingly balanced system out of wack?

>Monarchies put a stop to predatory Jewish bankers for centuries
>Jewish bankers devise scheme to get white man to overthrow his own government
>Whites are now so dumbed down and retarded they think that being de-centralized and diverse is strength while simultaneously desiring Jewish elites to sit at positions of authority over them, incapable of being criticized.
Hard to say you know anything about history or how white power was consolidated, be white, and not desperately wish you still had a monarchy.

Taking a look at the demographics of Brazil it looks like you're pretty evenly split between whites and mutts, with a percentage of nigs almost comparable to the US. Since racial homogeneity is a must for a stable country I'm not too certain about your assertion that Brazil is homogeneous. Having the same culture, language, and religion definitely bolster the chances of a country succeeding, however, even in spite of the pressing race differences. My question is, when Brazil was still a monarchy, were the demographics like they are today, or was Brazil more racially homogeneous? That might explain why the monarchy succeeded then, whereas it would likely fail if it were re-implemented tomorrow with no other chances. Also, what was Brazil's population then? Most definitely lower than today's 200 million I'm sure.

Obviously I'm not a Brazilian and you know more about your own country's affairs than I could ever hope to, so please if I look like an ass with this, point it out to me.

I definitely agree with you that vanilla republics do tend to get tangled up with foreign forces, which is why I'm in favor of an authoritarian republic, similar to the pre-civil war USA and also to Nazi Germany (basically, where the government is small, but strong, and adequately able to defend the people and culture from subversive cultural influences)

>republics
>pretty consistent good rulers
fuckin lmao
They select for shitty rulers due to how people gain power within their structures. They also aren't some new innovation in politics. Usually they don't last more than a couplr centuries tops. Lastly, the Roman Empire did not have mostly bad rulers; it had mostly reasonably competent but not outstanding rulers. Only a couple are remembered as being truly bad, but that's probably mostly because they caused massive butthurt and the records we have are form the #resist of the time.

And don't forget that the milicos that ousted Pedro II kept the imperial infrastructure and bureaucracy, which for a group as power hungry as those milicos were, there was no way in hell we wouldn't end up with some form of authoritarian government at some point. Under Pedro II, the Brazilian press was one of the freest in the world, which Deodoro da Fonseca promply scrapped. Hell, Canudos was a Sebastianist loyalist movement at its core, which is probably why it still hasn't been coopted by the left in academia.

>My question is, when Brazil was still a monarchy, were the demographics like they are today, or was Brazil more racially homogeneous?
more racially homogenous though with less whites.
>That might explain why the monarchy succeeded then, whereas it would likely fail if it were re-implemented tomorrow with no other chances.
depends on what branch of the royal family is put into power, but even the more trad side would be leagues better than what we currently have

the problem with whatever kind of authoritarian or libertarian or any form of government predicated in an alternation of power, even within members of the same party is that you'll never have the same allocation of priorities by those in power as if power remains in the hands of a single family.

>If so, why?
Mainly the "free" press, who is free to shit on anyone except for their masters.
>Is there another source of power that is throwing this otherwise seemingly balanced system out of wack?
You just need to follow the money.
Who are the majors players financing the media and artificially shifting the public opinion? And the political parties?
From my experience, they're
a) big players that want to ensure their profits. Namely bankers, but there are probably others like arms sellers and shit.
b) groups with similar ideologies. Be them globalists, communists (very common in South America), zionists, all kinds of NGOs.
Usually it's a mix of both.

Recently the Communist Party of China endorsed a leftist presidential candidate, Ciro Gomes (PDT) since they fear a potential anti-China candidate. It was even featured in said party's website, but everyone ignored the illegal implications of this, including our so called Judiciary.
There's no hope here.

This guy gets it.

>Taking a look at the demographics of Brazil it looks like you're pretty evenly split between whites and mutts
Pretty much. While we are more shitskin than you guys, our media isn't as gung-ho about weaponizing these "minorities" for political gains, so decent people get along pretty well regardless. They are trying though.
>My question is, when Brazil was still a monarchy, were the demographics like they are today, or was Brazil more racially homogeneous?
Probably not because there was a pretty huge influx of people after WW1 and WW2, which did whiten things up.
>That might explain why the monarchy succeeded then
It's just that the republic was instantly warped by oligarchs. We weren't as lucky as you guys with your rulers.
>Also, what was Brazil's population then? Most definitely lower than today's 200 million I'm sure.
It was way more manageable.

fuck off kike
monarchy would be good for 2 monarchs on the outside the 3rd or 4th would fall to the kikes temptations and blackmail.

lol what is this shit?
>sleep 10 hours a day
>write mopey poetry
>t-try to be happy ;_;

>I definitely agree with you that vanilla republics do tend to get tangled up with foreign forces, which is why I'm in favor of an authoritarian republic, similar to the pre-civil war USA and also to Nazi Germany (basically, where the government is small, but strong, and adequately able to defend the people and culture from subversive cultural influences)
I'm probably just a reactionary since I dislike globalization, but I don't think simply changing our government would help that much. As long as people remain gullible it doesn't matter if you have Jesus as the Head of State, said (((foreign influences))) will still find a way to stir shit up.

>kill the monarch
>feuds start
Yeah sure.

>advocate for leading a quiet life of balance and solitude
>still hates the jews
>kek

All those lives who died in the name of Democracy, and to separate from the snake of Monarch life for retards like you. I hope to see you on the day of the rope, but me on the lever and you standing on the trap door.