Absolute Monarchies

With or against?
Why?

They're shit tier compared to military dictatorships

Monarch must be, but not absolute. Democracy is an important mechanism to stay in touch with society for the ruler.

The purpose of monarch as part of the nation is to forbid the cancer of importing voters.

they are not excluding ideologies, you can have a fascist monarch
ok, but if you give too much power to the people they will abuse it or make a revolution to reduce the powers of monarchs

>the monarch gets in love with cute jewess that become the real power behind the throne.Now what?

Against

They should be semi absolute ala Britain after the Restoration but not completely absolute (in case you get a real dumbass like James II).

What? Who said that the monarch can't fuck the jewess bitch while having a proper aristocrat or royal wife?

I want the kind of monarchy that built the 13 colonies, and if you consider that to be a constitutional monarchy instead of absolute then at least it will be most of the way, so then give it a chance, but if it still needs more power then I'll help you to give it more juice.

...

But once you have a constitution it can't be violated, or the people would start whining about muh rights and we all know what happens then

I don't really know much about english history, but I supose that is:
Democratic elections for Legislation
King for Executive power
The thing is that that system is unstable, the true monarchies were the ones that persisted the most, the one you mention was borned through instability and caused even more instability

I am for absolute monarchy, though it shouldn't be hereditary.
Limiting the powers of a monarch with a vision for society prevents that individual from completing his purpose.
If you do not have a vision for society you should not be a monarch.

Too much power is power enough to allow anglo to buy votes and destroy national pluralism. This is the main goal to employ monarchy today.

any military dictatorships besides Nazi germany you can site that would be a case study for their superiority?

I'm for non-democratic gov, limited by constitution, which is observed by democratic body.
So against absolutism. Non-democratic state should guarantee certain rights and be limited in what it can do, less it becomes a tyranny, where no law is sure and that can only bring embezzlement and favoritism.
Whether such a non-democratic, constitutional state would be governed by monarch, or president elected for life by the government, is secondary consideration.
However, be it president, or monarch, I think that sovereign should exercise his power through a proxy, like a prime minister. That way, if prime minister makes law that is found unconstitutional, the guilt is only on him, not on sovereign.
Monarchies evolved out of military dictatorships, though.

The people is too conscious these days. Even countries like Portugal and Spain where authoritarian rule worked could not sustain the system after the death of a capable ruler.

Yeah because that turned out so well.

Depends. We probably couldn't work one out here because the royal lines have been lost for a thousand years. The British should probably go back to it though because the House of Commons has been an unmitigated disaster by any conceivable measure.

>Even countries like Portugal and Spain where authoritarian rule worked

lmao it absoultely did not, it was tolerated sure but it left the countries in the sorry shape their in today

Absolute monarchies are finished for good, the jews saw to that. One person in control is too hard to control for them, a bloated bureaucracy has more opportunity to corrupt and blackmail.

The heredetary monarchies was an evolution of the more primitive ones (at least in Spain) of the Visigoths, where the nobles would elect the king, but that system created instability and a fuck ton of revolutions between nobles, which is how the moors could get through Iberia btw

That's actually a good form of monarchy, but what if the prime minister doesn't accept the GTFO. It can lead to a revolution if he has support.

Against. Constitutional Republics are far superior.

I am not a reactionary or for the creation of classes, such distinctions perpetuate disunity within a nation. I am for the promotion of noble values to all members of society.

What do you mean they are too conscious? We are geting blacked and people still think their countries still have identity

The thing is that what defines a royal line is not clear or estated like a norm or to limited family trees, literally any one could become a monarch and it actually did happen in the middle ages

that depends more on the kind of education the future king would recieve

Then you dont want a monarchy, but an authoritarian democracy, where the powers are under one man only, elected by the people

>elected by the people
If that is what's necessary, but I still disapprove of elections and democracy generally, favoring selection on the basis of certain criteria.

Western civilization: 1000+ years of Christian monarchs
Modern civilization: 200 years secularism leading to children confused as to which bathroom to use

Pick one.