Would you prefer a monarch raised from birth to lead your nation over a democratically elected leader?

Would you prefer a monarch raised from birth to lead your nation over a democratically elected leader?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu(dot)be/ojAZjLKhHiA
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Anyway to prevent the democratically elected leader from being bribed to ignore the will of constituents?

That looks like a giant clit

I want thousands of elite children raised from birth as potential leaders and a small group of qualified voters to choose the best one.

Absolute transparency into the lives of political figures

Yes, groom him from a young age in a tightly controlled elite environment with rigorous military AND liberal arts training.

Oh, wait THAT'S A PRINC-

No. That's a retarded question.

...

In theory if they are good, the nation would benefit.
But a bad monarch, is really, really, really, really, really crappy

What could go wrong

A monarch is loyal to the people and the nation and he could be raised to be like Alexander the Great or Marcus Aurelius. There have and could be bad ones, sure, but the good out number the bad. A democratically elected leader divide the people and the nation and play groups and their interests against each other, and these groups can influence and wield power over the leader, that's the nature of democracy.
And then we have to take into account that hierarchies are natural in human nature

I prefer a monarch apointed by divine right!!!
I

f anyone wants some real discussion and topics, happenings and trending come here ..
youtu(dot)be/ojAZjLKhHiA

This episode
>the juden is named
>beast grid system
>the nwo deepstate worships this entity
>manifesting through AI
God and the technocratic elite

Yes

What is this, can't watch right now
Also why dot out a youtube link

Neither. In the white ethnostate, to become a leader you must have served in the military. Some council of senior officials made up of only the most loyal men should vote on behalf of the people. Military service should be mandatory for all men during peace time, and for men and physically fit women during times of war. If the candidate was of the age of 18-50 during a time of war, they must have served in the armed forces in some capacity during the conflict. This keeps pussy career politicians and draft dodgers out of office. Embezzling money for personal gain or to aid a foreign entity while holding any government position should carry the death penalty, with execution by firing squad.

This is how you solve the slimy politician problem.

A cobra leader trained in the art of combat.

I like how you think.

Because military personnel can't be corrupt

you won't have a choice

Check how many neocons have served in wartime nigger, this solves nothing

I want an oligarchy, not a monarchy where you have a single point of failure, like the "just fuck my genes up senpai"-Habsburgs

>2400 years later and people still don't realize that Plato was right from the start.

If it's a perfect AI, then yes

>implying I want my nation to be run by cowardly faggots that are afraid of firearms and need to carry a purse full of chocolates and tampons in case they get too emotional
How are they fit to run a nation if they can't do a fucking pushup? My idea automatically disqualifies almost every kike on this continent.

Read my whole post. They'd simply be shot.

Yes. Democracy holds an initial appeal
>yay my vote counts!
>why shouldn't the most popular ideas become laws?
But as you grow up, you find the majority of people are easily fooled. They are often stupid and very misinformed. They do not have the inclination for a deep study of philosophy and political theory, so they just espouse pop-memes that don't capture entire arguments.
This means that Democracy is Rule by the Lowest Common Denominator.

> Okay, most people voted we must go worship the monkey head on a stick.

Monarchy has issues too, but is a more attractive form of Government than democracy

Depends how inbred they are

>Would you prefer a monarch raised from birth to lead your nation over a democratically elected leader?


Are you implying that monarchs can't be retarded or evil?

Mine kind of /thread
>Raised in special conditions, conditioned to be fierce, just, kind, highly intelligent.
>Let him rule under constitution, but not over it.
>chose a wife for him that will bring to life even better monarch for the future
>Repeat

>Absolute perfection

No

...

>No

Good.

So what was your question again?

Something about the people choosing a leader who might be evil or retarded, or being stuck with a leader that you DON'T get to pick, who might be evil or retarded as well?

Yes. Monarchism is objectively the best system of government.

>Under constitution but not over it

A government in which the people have no say is a government that should not exist. All kings must hang.

>people

>tfw just want a prescient half sandworm God emperor to guide white humanity through the millennia

Anything less than absolute monarchy is left wing faggotry designed to shield the powerful from responsibility for their actions.

No, do not go sail into the seas of full retardation
Every system needs to have its immune system.

Arm the populace the same as your military.
The immune response is "Complete and total revolt"

I would give my soul into eternal servitude, if He wants it.

rare

>Oy goy, let ((me)) help you, this monarchy you have been thriving under for last century is evil. I will make sure you have free gibs, all you need to do is use your weapons against the monarch.

That's why you arm the Royal Guard even more.

Until we guillotine the international bankers what difference does it make?

(theoretically)
(All posts by this ID are meant as satire)

By your vision we would have more guns than the total sum of underpants in our glorious monarchy.

I'm okay with this

That's the ticket.
Gunarchy best archy.

>you let people arm them self, they have to pass exams for it (like drivers licence)
>you institute constitution, guaranteeing human rights and freedom
>you institute army to protect the constitution and those protected by constitution.
>you institute special constitutional court, that will weight the actions of monarch, if monarch steps out of his jurisdiction, he hangs.

>you let communities elect representatives of their area, they in the parliament with the aid of technocratic committee, create laws, monarch has ability to veto the laws, or to submit his own.
>everything is weighted by the constitutional court

Find a flaw?

Mandatory service only works if the nation is unified in belief. If not, then faggot liberals and SJWs infiltrate the ranks and erode cohesions
>tranny soldiers
>commie soldiers
I'm in the military and I do not support mandatory service. Let men with bravery and honor serve, and let the pussies shit up the bottom rungs of the civilian sector.

Do you even know who really pulls the strings in your country?

Everyone should be raised how to lead a nation.

I have no country i live in a meme

Jews buy the court

Did i also mention;
>Penalty for corruption is death.

Hello Evola. But I agree.
Good thread a lot of good points.
But I would rather follow pic related than anyone elected. I mean Jesus is often called the King of Kings. It's in our blood.

depends on who raised him and who he is
if the monarch is hillary for example no ty

I thought that was Aragon

A bad monarch is easy to replace.
A bad democratic government, not so much.

Checked m8
I'd still prefer estates counterbalancing the rule of the monarch, but I see the appeal in absolute monarchy.

There is no good democratic government;
>Short life span, no continuity. Every new government overdrives the decisions of the last one.
>Elected by plebs (Majority is retarded, always)
>Elected only on merits of sweet words pleb mass likes to hear

>A bad mnoarch is easy to replace

Not without countrywide violence and chaos, are you a retard?
>checks flag
oh rite

ALL
KINGS
MUST
HANG

> I do not support mandatory service. Let men with bravery and honor serve
All you'll achieve is having a bunch of mercenaries from the social bottom class and civilians with no connection to the military, like it is now. If there is no distinction between soldier and civilian, nobody would even dare to sabotage the army with progressive issues. Also, it's hard to be an SJW after boot camp indoctrination and bonding with your platoon buddies.

>Countrywide violence and chaos
Only during absolutist mandates
Otherwise nobles just sieged the King's dungeon until he was captured and relieved.
There was no serfs or burghers involved.

ALL
MUTTS
ARE
AMERICANS

"The Return of the King".
....The 2nd coming of the King?

He was a messianic archetype for his people.
I think it was intended.

>look ma, I posted it again!

Prefer democratically elected with the accountability of a monarch

I like this basically set the course of a nation and if you don't agree the gtfo

Democracy is a centrist ideal of compromise

Might is the devine right of kings

...

>putting your faith in a single guy out of millions rather than (what should be) an open democratic process that determines the best candidate

Read the fucking thread you cum filled filth.
We berried the ((Democracy))

Monarchy unless constitutional is prone to coups, power struggles, and outright instability. Monarchies are absolute fucking shit compared to constitutional republics. If you were to tell a person in the 14th century that the US and other places with such a thing has had an unbroken, peaceful handing-over of power for over 200 years, they would be dumbfounded. What we need is the voting age to be set to a minimum of 25, voter IDs across all states, term limits without reelection for house and senate in such case that they cannot become career politicians, and stop the fucking collusion between corporations and government.

On an added note, we should pull out of NATO. Just saying.

No because monarchy is a roll of the dice.

>Would you prefer a monarch raised from birth to lead your nation over a democratically elected leader?
Nope, low resolution is terrible.
I'd rather have a high resolution that's incoherent, than have 1 pixel.

Monarchy sucks, fascism is better.

I'd rather have an algorithm rule

...

This sounds very ğreat

Yes. I would much rather trust someone who was specifically raised to be a leader and treats his country as a family business than some opportunist who got elected by a bunch of manipulable retards.

You've got lead in your brain Yugoslime, non merit-based forms of totalitarian rule has never ever been proven to be stable

anyway to prevent democracy from becoming, "who can psyop, mind rape, lie and condition the global population and pit them against each 100% of the time, the best"

Again read the fucking thread, twat.
Monarchy does not define the lack of meritocracy. Monarchy only defines that you have monarch.
Most of us here advocate for constitutional monarchy, with monarch being specially bred for his life role. Could there possibly be something more meritocratic?

>would you like for any lunatic to be leader by birth
i see your point but birth as history shows us, character is innate, therefore we need an elected leader. the swiss system is the matter looks very efficient.

>(((constitutional monarchy)))

If you raise an average man, from birth, to manage a country, he usually ends up at least decent
Terrible monarchs were rare, most of them were due to medical issues which wouldn't happen today, and besides there could always be a failsafe to push aside an insane monarch

I mean technically there is nothing wrong with democracy but people have gotten so comfortable with "hey it means we always elect the most competent :)))" that we end up with failures like my good ex-president Hollande being unable to speak coherent English in Guyana.
The big political parties chew, and shit a candidate every now and then, that barely remembers what he studied when he was young but clearly remembers that he needs to thank with money and offices those who helped him win the election.

democractically elected leader since monarchism is fucking retarded and rolling the dice that the next in line isn't some literal autist and even if you get a right retard in charge in a democracy they're out in a few years

>((Adding)) (( )) ((into)) ((random)) ((words)) ((without)) ((context))

Go back to your mudhut roach.

Constitutional monarchies do end up rather limp dicked, most end up being hardly Monarch at all.

A monarch needs the authority to enact their will, first and foremost. They can still make a firm pledge to their nation to uphold like a constitution, but the second they get neutered, they're all but relic.

I would prefer democratically elected senate. I like the show.

>Arguments
Oh, how will I ever recover. Who will tend to my wounds, or am I doomed to feel this burn till the end of me life.

No. I would not want a monarch. I don’t even have royalty in my country but every other article is about U.K. royalty, because the ginger maybe prince is literally marrying the 56% mutt meme. I couldn’t even imagine American royalty and I cringe at the thought.

Monarch.
Read Maurras and Hans Hermann Hoppe.

Politics is pro wrestling. Its theater designed to conceal power. They used to say vote early and vote often. Now they say its not the vote that counts, Its who counts the votes.

>(((he thinks it's random words in those)))

None.
Human hierarchy is so boring.
I don't refuse to bow before anyone I just don't care, they are other humans committing sexual intercourse and defecating.
Nobody is special.

forgot pic