Give me legitatimate arguments against having an absolute monarchy that involve narcissism

You can say I am an absolute monarchist because I am not satisfied with having a democracy or a republic. Opponents against monarchies proclaim that because they didnt or couldnt vote for a king and that they may have their individual liberties trifled because of a "bitch king". I would argue to say that deposing a king is probably the most narcissistic and selfish acts a human being can do, a king is more than just a ruler, a king represents a nations culture, values, and tradition.

The very fact that the American terrorist colonists revolted agaimst king george when the American colonies were prospering economically further illustrates that the colonists were terrorists that just wanted land, enforce their protestant heresy unto the lands they imperialized, and pursued their greed.

Also, having a monarchy does away with the bullshit a republic or democracy goes through as having electors and senators just takes away the culture of ruling a nation. If men are inheretly corrupt and selfish by nature then what does letting a nation to vote do? At least with a king who looks after the nations welfare and interests it would be difficult to argue against.

Based monarchy where there strongest most fit to lead works
This filmsy ass, blood drinking, baby eating monarchy we have now is embarrassing

>Based monarchy where there strongest most fit to lead works
>This filmsy ass, blood drinking, baby eating monarchy we have now is embarrassing
Actually come to think of it, in the media and movies and even in your text booms and schools you never hear of any good monarchies youre always told about the bitch and bad monarchies that oppressed their nations, I would like to know some good monarchies to aspire to.

only valid monarchy is God's Kingdom, with Jesus as our King.

> (OP) (You)
>only valid monarchy is God's Kingdom, with Jesus as our King.
Right, but "hey zoos" isnt here to be our king yet so I propose we choose a wise and intelligent and based King.

He is, in Heaven. Alive for ever.

Dude I think at this point it's pretty clear the French Revolution was a bad idea

> (You)
>He is, in Heaven. Alive for ever.

But were not in heaven now, were on earth so we need to focus on that.

No need to be in Heaven.

>
>Dude I think at this point it's pretty clear the French Revolution was a bad idea
Well it was sort of legitimate, they had a bitch king who did not care for the french nation and had to be deposed, but the french should have gotten a different monarch of the same blood who would better care for the nation rather than turn into a bunch of frog niggers that napoleon had to deal with.

A human domination will always fail. Because the next king/PM/President get into power and can change anything the previous one did.

an absolute monarchy is inferior to a republic or a democracy because it gives all the power to one individual.
this takes away the responsibility of the citizen and turns him into a dump sheep.
furthermore there have hardly been any monarchs who were capable and if they were they would most likely act on the backs of the citizens

The king was a famous philanthropist - so was his wife who was famous for trying to get the nobility to be more charitable - that's not even counting the fact that the economy was on an upturn

A monarchy is about holding.g to the natural order - if what the previous monarch did.was against the natural orde then it should be changed

>Give me legitatimate arguments against having an absolute monarchy that involve narcissism

Unless I'm the King I don't want to do it

but monarchies like you envision were never the order atleast among white people

Maybe not in Germany but we had them for hundreds of years (in England)

And just because it wasn't done perfectly in the past doesn't mean it can't be done better - it just means it's really hard

An absolute monarchy puts top much power in the hands of one individual who may not be suited to lead. Also there tends to be succession issues. I'm starting to think that perhaps some kind of constitutional monarchy with a powerful king but a legislative body may be the best balance. Voting rights must be heavily restricted to only land owning males as well. One vote per household.

thread

Also fuck that fucking Jew.

Monarchic families are prone to delusions of grandeur and to run away.

Hardly any monarchist believes in a single application of monarchical principles. Case in point I'm a high feudalist but any form of monarchy has its advantages and situational applications

So are the citizens of democratic countries

This is why fascist or at least just authoritarian countries are better.

>Case in point I'm a high feudalist
You're a fucking douchebag larper. Islam has monarchs and they're shit.

Isn't the Vatican a monarchy, though? It should be deposed and all of their congregations nationalised, I.M.O.

well the island of england did not have for a majority of its duration an absolute monarchy.

i understand where you are coming from, but the same can then be said about communism

Because all political systems are larping meant to deceive those who have a natural right to live so that they will waste their energy for those parasite who dont have it.

There is traditional authority, legal authority and charismatic authority. The first two are larping that cannot be sustained without a charismatic authority feeding them (a good king, a good president etc.).

This was the first redpill, the second redpill is that charismatic authority implies that anything less than charismatic is not only tolerated but also owed leadership towards its own goals. That is absolutelly false, the long term toll of not swallowing the second redpill can be seen in whites who are facing imminent genocide the moment they were challenged by tribes who swallowed this redpill.

> (OP) (You)
>an absolute monarchy is inferior to a republic or a democracy because it gives all the power to one individual.

The problem with a republic or democracy giving the whole nation a chance to pick their leader is that though it works the first few times but then eventually it devolves into a degenerate society as we saw from when the roman republic become an imperial empire, and while it may not end that way another way that it goes is that because these systems allow and promote individualism the nation through generations will exponentially become more narcissistic and apathetic to world affairs in favor of themselves.

>this takes away the responsibility of the citizen and turns him into a dump sheep.

And this isnt happening now? People in america and europe always complain that the system is rigged or that politicians are bought and payed for by lobbyers, also americans (and especially canadians) are dumb sheep that vote against their interests because those are individualistic societies that dived into degeneracy and is tryibg to spread that same degenerate culture all over the globe.

>furthermore there have hardly been any monarchs who were capable and if they were they would most likely act on the backs of the citizens

In all honesty, in both our schools and media and textbooks they always portray kings as being tyrannical cunts with no restraint but there are legitimately good kings that arent memtioned in the common public.

>The problem with a republic or democracy giving the whole nation a chance to pick their leader is that though it works the first few times but then eventually it devolves into a degenerate society as we saw from when the roman republic become an imperial empire,
This is what happens when you don't read history. You come off sounding like a fucking black chick arguing history.

Politicians get where they are by being crooked corrupt bastards. All of them. If they didn't play the game of politics, they wouldn't be where they are.
It takes a corrup piece of shit to play that game.

Kings get where they are because they are born there. They didn't have to stab their friends in the back, kiss asses of those they hate, and compromise their alleded principles for the sake of political success.

Sure, you can have an evil corrupt king. It's a possibility. But with politicians, it's not a possibility, it's a certainty.

Inherited power positions by an aristocracy is better imo, but democrazy hotta go

>The problem with a republic or democracy giving the whole nation a chance to pick their leader is that though it works the first few times but then eventually it devolves into a degenerate society
i believe that is the problem of any society in general

>roman republic become an imperial empire
well even then it wasnt entirely absolutist.

>while it may not end that way another way that it goes is that because these systems allow and promote individualism the nation through generations will exponentially become more narcissistic and apathetic to world affairs in favor of themselves.
i would need more examples on that. i believe that a republic/democracy is more nationalistic because it gives people a reason to participate in the political system. with monarchy they are only meant to be ruled.
look how many men the romans were able to muster when they were a republic vs the empire.

>And this isnt happening now? People in america and europe always complain that the system is rigged or that politicians are bought and payed for by lobbyers, also americans (and especially canadians) are dumb sheep that vote against their interests because those are individualistic societies that dived into degeneracy and is tryibg to spread that same degenerate culture all over the globe.
true but this has never happened anywhere. you know (((who))) is behind that one.
also white people have currently almost no say in their government, which makes it similar to a monarchy.

>In all honesty, in both our schools and media and textbooks they always portray kings as being tyrannical cunts with no restraint but there are legitimately good kings that arent memtioned in the common public.
true, but most kings of the medieval ages for example were just cunts who started wars to take the territory of other kings.

>>Be nigger colonists

>>live in an economically prosperous land despite being 5000 miles apart from the king

>>have that kings military defend your free loading ass from the french

>>get taxed to help the king make up the lost money fighting france in the worlds real first world war

>>chimpout like a niggers and assault british guards and establish a failed comfederacy only to have a consititional representative republic that eventually will require taxation

Kek

Also George washington doesnt know that nation means people.

In fairness, the trip to Britain and back in 1770s used to take half a year, though by the 1830s that time was reduced to only a month of travel.

But yeah, now that the issue has been resolved, the United States should go back.

And after the United States goes back, then Washington, D.C. could be declared the new capital of Britain and that London is only a pretender, setting off a civil war that makes the power move without another secession or division.

> (You)
>>The problem with a republic or democracy giving the whole nation a chance to pick their leader is that though it works the first few times but then eventually it devolves into a degenerate society

But say if their was a king who had a socialist mindset and cared for the welfare of his or her nation while at the same time promoting virtues and ethics and fertility, it would combat against degeneracy.

Well yes even though the empire had a senate, the emperor still was able to do whatever the shit they wanted and need I tell you that roman emperors were perhaps the most degenerate people to ever exist

Just take a look at someone frok your own nation for example, could you look at them in the eye and say that they are looking out for the future of Germany so that when you or they have chilfren they can prosper?

Yea, until that nation becomes degenerate and apathetic and idiotic that they vote against their own interests fucking over the caring voters that want to advance their station in life

Was that because of that they were a republic or because they had to have a very strong grip on those territories so they would counter a rebellion like in judea.

Its happening now all over the west, toxic individualism and narcissism and collective apathy has turned western europe and america into cultureless hell holes.

At least with a monarchy with a king of your nation they wont have restarints to meet your nations interest unlike your chancellor

Im sure there are some obscure kings in europe that cared for their nation.

Just look at what happened to all nations after they deposed their king, they either delve into anarchy like the french revolution only to have order restored with someone like napoleon, or they end up becoming communist as you see with China, vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Albania, Russia, and it almost happened to your country after world war 1 with the failed german revolution and the fact that your nation repelled a communist takeover was nothing short of a providential miricle.

>Politicians get where they are by being crooked corrupt bastards. All of them. If they didn't play the game of politics, they wouldn't be where they are.
>It takes a corrup piece of shit to play that game.
>Kings get where they are because they are born there. They didn't have to stab their friends in the back, kiss asses of those they hate, and compromise their alleded principles for the sake of political success.
>Sure, you can have an evil corrupt king. It's a possibility. But with politicians, it's not a possibility, it's a certainty.

Based serb right here

humans adapt to their environment. If the environment is soft the humans are soft.

when an absolute monarchy works it works beautifully but when the leader is a fat soft slob only obsessed with themselves then the whole thing goes to shit. It's harder for this to happen if the power is spread out a bit.

so an absolute monarchy with a constitution would work great. Even greater if the leader is determined based on merit.

...

Who are the apostles and what is apostolic tradition and what are the 5 solas that were never memtioned in the bible or even a though until 1517 AD?

> (OP) (You)
>humans adapt to their environment. If the environment is soft the humans are soft.

Ah but we can modify that with our technology to make it so that even livijg in a desolate desert can be habitable to our liking.

>when an absolute monarchy works it works beautifully but when the leader is a fat soft slob only obsessed with themselves then the whole thing goes to shit. It's harder for this to happen if the power is spread out a bit.

Implying that the exact opposite of this isnt what is going on in all republics, democrocies, and parlimentary where the people are apathetic and careless and no collective care or national pride.

>so an absolute monarchy with a constitution would work great. Even greater if the leader is determined based on merit.

A constitution is just a paper, it can be ignored and broken.

>You can say I am an absolute monarchist
STOP RIGHT THERE!

Don't fall into the sentimental meme of catholic absolutism

The only proper monarchy is decentralized, mixed monarchy which has a monarch, but also aristocracy and all other autonomous estates

Absolutistic monarchy is irrational, because it's imbalanced and the country can't simply rely on its head of state

Literally every monarch that isn't mentionned in (((historical textbook))) in the form of an oppressor of the revolutionnary class is a good monarch.
And even those oppressing the revolutionnaries were good.

Also checked

See Islam

Based French, I thought there were none of you left

>The Imperium under the Julio-Claudian was degenerate
>Implying
Commodus was the turning point and you fucking know it.
Never give your own son power over the most deserving, gents.

> (OP) (You)
>>You can say I am an absolute monarchist
>STOP RIGHT THERE!
>Don't fall into the sentimental meme of catholic absolutism

I follow orthodoxy though

>The only proper monarchy is decentralized, mixed monarchy which has a monarch, but also aristocracy and all other autonomous estates
>Absolutistic monarchy is irrational, because it's imbalanced and the country can't simply rely on its head of state

Is that why after france deposed their king they immediately became a functional nation filled with gumdrop smiles and rainbow unicorn farts? Not to mention every monarchy besides the french revolution that has deposed their king besides americas (which was a failed confederacy at first) and the french became communist later on except for based past germany that deflected the communist meme.

>
>Based French, I thought there were none of you left

Protestants are anything but based

Ultimately this.
Absolutism gave the burghers the opportunity to use the mass as the main lever of power for the first time in History.
Before that the power to oppose kingship was concentrated in the hands of the nobility and the clergy, whom have done excellent jobs before absolutism.

Poland had elected Kings since 1573 and to be honest few of them were suited to lead. Hereditary kings were being prepered to rule since birth.

Best arguments for monarchy: it's based off the natural order (esp. Hierarchical forms like feudalism), there are ordinarly dire consequences when it is thrown out and what is done to the families of the kings and Queens by their once apparently loyal subjects

>Because Islam has monarchs the entire system is a shit

Saudi Arabia, for all its short comings culturally, was up until recently, bangin with the economics system.

This.

Monarchs are a cultural figure at its core, and while I do support them being the nation's autocrat, I still want one to exist to be the nations cultural figure.

Bible says otherwise. "By me kings rule, by me princes reign."

>
>Bible says otherwise. "By me kings rule, by me princes reign."

>A constitution is just a paper, it can be ignored and broken.
yeah but breaking it can be justification of action by others.

in the end might makes right, It's good for a country to have a singular direction under one leader but allowing a constitution and courts to handle civic duties makes citizen life much less dependent on the quality of ruler and allows said ruler to focus on anything they please in terms of the overall direction of the country.