Honestly wtf are you doing, monarchy is the only legitimate form of government
The Monarchy Pill
John Reed
Jaxon Ross
If you want to live in one, be my guest. Just don't be upset when you become a serf with no rights.
Julian Miller
Yes and no, yes monarchy is a good form of government if the monarch is good. But thats exactly the thing, the monarch has to be good.
Most monarchs still around are all blue pilled virtue signaling cucks, pro-immigration while they sit in their 24/7 guarded mansions disconnected from the world.
Evan Myers
>having a de facto monarch and a piece of paper means I have rights
Noah Mitchell
if monarchy was so good why did it get btfo by every modern form of government?
Julian Brown
I'd take it a step farther and argue that monarchy was only ever viable when there was enough resources due to technology limitations to reasonably educate a small elite portion of the population.
Once random farmers or grocers' kids could go to school the nobility was living on borrowed time.
James Wilson
Fascism*
Samuel Collins
So, who's gonna be king?
Austin Stewart
so basically if monarchies are to be brought back we need new monarch families
Kevin Thomas
> new monarch families
> impying
Nicholas Ross
>the serfs had no rights meme
>implying everyone was de facto a serf
>implying serfs couldn't own their own land eventually
Believe me, you wish you lived in the feudal system rather than in ancient Rome slavery or in the Liberal delusion.
Jaxson Taylor
If your leaders listens to and holds the opinion of a perverted, sex addicted, pretend magician then ... maybe you are not "gods" choosen and your bloodline might just be like everyone elses garbage.
Robert Gomez
>he thinks monarchy equals feudalism
Thats not our place to choose
a country gets the monarch it deserves
Grayson James
See: The Britmutt monarchy
t. Republican
Samuel Robinson
>So, who's gonna be king?
Henry Young
>Honestly wtf are you doing, monarchy is the only legitimate form of government
Venerate the God-Emperor.
Owen Hall
been gobbln that pill for years m'lad
Gavin Williams
(((democracies))) are too retarded to think long term and the entire concept of rabble politics via popularity contests is moronic
Adam Parker
last time i checked the Saudi kings weren't very pro immigration
Nathaniel Gomez
What about that fancy new city they are building that they want to fill with wealthy westerners, or all those Indians they bring over to build all this crap.
John Diaz
It's nice to see this coming from a burger. Have any ideas about how to get burgers interested in European history? I figure that's part of the reason why they all believe constitutions and congress are needed to stop the 'arbitrary' king from killing everyone. The story of rebellion against the tyrannical king is nested pretty deep in your country's lore, and personally I found it upsetting to read accounts of what actually happened during the american revolution. The loyalists seemed pretty reasonable to me.
Jeremiah Cook
most indians are being deported as the oil runs out. they want arabs to take their jobs instead. the fancy cities they are making is to attract foreign in investors and tourists mainly because the previously mentioned oil is running out
Matthew Roberts
>they want arabs to take their jobs instead.
Meh, they hate Palestinians. However, they do allow them to work as indentured servants in the oil fields and pipelines. In fact, no arab country like Palestinians. They considered trouble makers and their numbers are strictly limited.
Caleb Lewis
The Loyalists did nothing wrong, the founding fathers were only in it for themselves. There's honestly no way to get burgers into history, im in college to be a history teacher and the average person is functionally retarded here
Connor White
There should be a different monarchy in which taking the king down is sorta easy If the population wants
Carson Taylor
yeah that's true, but they only hate Palestinians because they escaped to the surrounding countries in droves after the arab-israeli war. They are pretty much the Syrian refugees of the middle east, which is the main reason so many countries support a Palestinian state, to get rid of the massive population they have
Asher Flores
No Brazil, thats just called mob rule
Andrew Gray
>implying you are not serf right now
>thats why you share your opinions on anonymous forum
Adam Adams
It has to be an absolute monarchy without prime ministers. Our king is applauding jews who say Swedes have no culture and that meatballs are Italian and that we are all immigrants.
Logan Campbell
both of our royal families can't speak Serbian properly
why would I want these people to rule over me?
Hudson Gutierrez
>le ebin serfdom rite guys
Monarchy =/= serfdom
Heres your dole dippers
Colton Wright
You're not even a real country. You just be a serbian province
Levi Kelly
the future is a monarchy held in check by a parliament. with no one being in absolute power. the voice of the people and the voice of the monarch (descended from jesus ofc) united as one.
it will happen.
Aaron Rivera
Sad to hear it. It seems to me the founding of your country is a sort of historical event horizon for the burgers. They're all citizens of the great experiment now, and what happened in Europe is in the distant past that they 'liberated' themselves from. For example I often hear burgers exolt their virtues in writing the constitution and setting up a system for responsible citizens, but the way they tell it it's like the constitution fell out of the minds of the founding fathers, who themselves were the first American citizens before there was an America. England? Bunch of oppressive kings.
Easton Green
Bump
Bentley Nelson
>they want Arabs to take the jobs
Yeah right like those goat fuckers are willing to risk breaking their nails working
>to attract foreign investors and tourist
Yeah really sounds like they are trying to keep people out
Logan Richardson
Most people have no fucking clue about anything outside of america. I gave some people a blank map of Europe and they couldnt even name 5 countries right. Everyone I know has an irrational hatred of Britain because "they didn't repay us for ww2" or some shit. Its almost comical
Adrian King
could all of this have been prevented?
Juan Jackson
Yeah that makes sense. Maybe it's a good idea to work on a historical literature canon for people to read that is not just political theory and philosophy like most reading lists. For burgers I would say a comprehensive history of England is essential for example.
Samuel Hernandez
No, America is europes toilet
If you grew up in America you would notice something here. Most people literally cannot think of nuance. Everything is either super awesome or "literally hitler" there is no inbetween. Everybody has their own little world where things make sense to them. Mental illness is very high here
Liam Williams
Sounds scary, but not having seen it I feel inclined to believe those people are victims of a shitty education system. That's not to say ours are much better these days, but for some reason people here seem more willing to at least be interested in history up to the reformation. Unfortunately everything before that is covered in the 'dark ages' meme of mongoloid kings and feudal abuse. I've been trying to assemble some good books about the medieval times to counter the memes but it's not easy. Maybe getting burgers interested in actually reading both sides of your revolution and civil war is a good start, and to get them interested in it you'll probably first have to convince them they've been fed propaganda. People who don't want to read are not going to read so the reading list would only be for those interested, same as with other reading lists. There are JBP fans right now reading about fucking gulags in russia instead of their own history. It's crazy balls.
Justin Flores
I like you, Danebro. This is more or less my picture of a eutopic European nation.
Leo Brown
Theres the funny thing about the education system, I believe most Americans have a decent iq, but the educat System is more catereed towards being a daycare for niggers that there isnt an outlet for actually intelligent kids. Learning about the different sides of the civil war is a no go zone because if you even hint at the confederates having a point you're done being a teacher. People here also just assume somebody is smart because they "read books" it doesn't matter what book though. Reading harry potter means ur smert
Angel Jones
>daycare
Yeah you'll have to try and save individual souls from the sterile memorization of facts and narrative, go above and beyond what the school expects from you. It's sad but the kids might be grateful for life.
>if you even hint at the confederates having a point you're done being a teacher
Better not do that then, and keep preparing them for the standardized tests and all that. But there might be students that seem terribly bored, and who you could interest by challenging them to read the evil books.
Kevin Cox
>american education
whenever I hear about it, it sounds like some kind of cult indoctrination center rather than school.
youtube.com
Ian Nelson
When I become a teacher im going to try to foster a love for history in the kids with souls. Most people just to be over and done with school, but when i heard some middleschoolers argueing about the differences in panzer 3s and panzer 4s, i feel hope
Christopher Adams
>a serf with no rights
Sounds like America. Unless you're a banker.
Cooper Clark
>middleschoolers talking about ww2
what it's really telling you is that all they've been learning in history class is how bad hitler was and how cool america was for beating him. of course the german war machine is pedestalized so america looks even more awesome instead of being the cleanup crew for the soviets.
Owen Adams
Kids are always and everywhere the hope for the future. Godspeed, and for what it's worth I've had some success in getting redditors to read amazon.com
Benjamin Edwards
They were talking about tank cannons and armor, no politics involved. They almost were idealizing nazi germany
I just read some fucking Kierkegaard, im all exhausted in reading philosophy and hermeneutics
Liam Nguyen
The first book is not philosophical but historical, and deals mostly with myths and ideas about the 'dark ages'. The second is philosophical and against the Enlightenment, very relevant for this thread. It's also not tedious like existentialists such as Kierk, and was taken seriously enough that the great Locke himself felt he had to respond. It was also written in a time of great conflict so there's some juicy historical background to the argument between these two.
Ryder Rivera
Are you aware serfdom ended before absolute monarchy was a thing you american twat
Josiah Clark
That really depends on where you're talking about.
Aiden Gomez
Well of course I wasn't talking about Russia, in western europe it pretty much ended because of the black plague
Hunter Diaz
Mason Peterson
The good thing about monarchy is less about the benefits of autocracy and stability of rule and more about the elimination of political strife. Is a monarchist state left-wing or right-wing?
Fascism is the reintegration of the positive aspects of the left and the right under a national state empowered to solve what problems it might face. It's monarchy for the modern age.
Asher Sanchez
Monarchy is not left or right wing. It is the natural form of government . Fascism is a product of the french revolution, therefor it is inherently left wing
Samuel Price
you won't. Monarchy doesn't automatically mean feudalism.
not really. It is a bonus if the monarch is good but the monarch just have to maintain law and order
>why did it get btfo by every modern form of government
It hasn't really. The USA forced the European countries to accept democracy after WW1. After then democracy has basically been semi-functional for the last hundred years leaving us in the mess we're in now.
the ones that prove himself. A king rises when his nation is in peril and he is granted leadership of the land by his action. So anyone that wants to claim himself king can, you just have to prove yourself.
Sebastian Gutierrez
Fascism is an attempt to repair what the French Revolution shattered and render it more stable.
Monarchism in the modern world is, in a sense, worse than liberalism. Liberalism is the perpetrator of the modern problem, but monarchism refuses to admit that modernity happened. We can't go back.
Oliver Myers
Modernity happened, but soon nature will take its course and kings will rule once more. Fascism is a bandaid on the larger issue. It cannot replace the god given place in a mans heart for a holy leader
Brayden Hall
Also why the false dichotomy that fascism and monarchy are incompatible. Most fascist states grew from monarchical countries
Camden Wilson
Might also mention Hobbes -
Leviathan for this thread though it's not really historical gutenberg.org
Landon Howard
I'm supportive of a monarchy in countries that have royal families, and even of the king exercising his powers, but I associate monarchism per se with medieval absolute monarchy.
There's also the problem of the fascist government and the crown being at odds, like with King Carol and his Jewish mistresses.
Connor Johnson
>American flag
>Supporting monarchy
Literally traitorous
Camden Cooper
King Carol was a fuckup on multiple levels, screwing a jewess is just icing on the cake.
Would you be against a normal monarchy that just naturally happens to have fascist policies?
Daniel Wood
>American flag
>supporting traitors who went against our godly ordained king
Luis Thomas
this. People always complain "but da windsors, da windsors are race mixers and Jews." Harry isn't even a true Windsor, and the queens uncle was a known Hitler supporter so unless you're saying queen elizabeths mother was a Jew, this is retarded. What we need is fascist monarchism.
Nicholas Adams
Monarchy is the penultimate expression of private property rights, the right to bear arms, freedom of religion and free market enterprise.
Republics on the other hand are the definition of socialism, suppression of the individual man's rights and heinous idea that the plebian mob knows best.
Oliver King
Because communists and jews pushed it, along with the meme that is rights. Always to gain more power in the government.
A mix between a meritocratic and aristocratic monarchy meant that they couldn't parasite their way into a country's command chain.
Case and point, if Britain would have been a true monarchy, and not some constitutionnal puppet, at the end of the Napoleonic era, you could be sure that the Rothschild would have never taken hold of the country as it did with the bickering and low-attention-span Chambers.
Jack Harris
I'm not against monarchy in general, really. Saying you're worse than liberals is rather too harsh. I just think that unless you're a restorationist behind a serious claimant it's tantamount to "waiting for the Kali Yuga to end."
Leo Morales
The last user is right, fascism, and national-socialism, are only an imitation of the god-given right to a rulership mandate, the charter system for the corporations, and the canalization of nationalism for national and international purpose.
Jack Scott
The windsors were famously antisemetic, just google their private letters to eachother. Maybe the queen is crypto redpilled but cant show it
Gavin Hughes
>I associate monarchism per se with medieval absolute monarchy
Yea, (((they)))'ve done a good job with propaganda.
Connor Ramirez
Of course she can't show it. The preservation of the Crown comes before personal whims otherwise you end up like Cousin Wilhelm or Uncle Nicholas.
Joshua Morris
Whatever happens, both monarchy and fascism require a new aristocracy to be established. Fascists tend to award rank according to military concerns, but it's not unthinkable that some other mechanism might create new nobility, and ultimately royalty. It seems a bit much to me to accuse monarchists of liberalism for supposedly not acknowledging the Enlightenment, when fascists have to balance the (natsoc?) vision of their leader with popular consent. To find another fascist leader also features a fair amount of waiting, and the structure in which he rises to the top is democratic politics for now.
Henry Bell
ultimate redpill Sup Forums reffuses to take it
Connor Thompson
> Reads too much Mein Kampf
> Unironically says that republics are socialistic and monarchies stand for free enterprise
You don't know what you're talking about. There's a reason we left monarchy behind. Why? Because as gloriously aristocratic as it is, it allowed for the tyranny of a few to oppress entire nations.
Republics are only as good as the voting constituency. This does mean they can be corrupted, but Hitler was wrong in saying they are tools for socialism. If you have a well-educated ethnostate with western morals, they work quite well.
Julian Scott
Just because a country is 100% white doesnt mean government suddenly starts becoming less corrupt. Ethnostates are a pipedream
Luke Williams
>Republics are not socialist enterprises
The problem is that Republics are not just tools of Socialism, the sole rationale for the existence of a Republic is Socialism. Its legitimate existence hinges solely on it servicing the masses without which you invite endless Revolution as its failure to adhere to Socialism de-legitimizes itself.
A well educate ethnostate with Christian morals doesn't need to be a Republic. It can be whatever system it wants to be and it would still prosper.
Cooper Ortiz
> If you have a well-educated ethnostate with western morals, they work quite well.
Ever since parliamentary democracy became all the rage in Europe, Whigs and their descendants as well as the French have dreamed about education the populace to responsibility. This optimism was in fact so strong in the early days that people seriously argued that democracy itself would 'uplift' the people into governance. They believed this for centuries as they watched the level of discourse in parliament drop like a rock, and the quality of general education with it. Democracies were to be restricted by elaborate constructions of balanced power, but nowhere did the general public become better informed about governing as time went on. If you want to make the case that good education and western morals can be achieved in a republic, then you have to explain how this is to be done and what went wrong the past few hundred years. This corruption you speak of, how and why did it work? Burgers always want to go back to a new constitutional republic that fixes the old mistakes but what are the fixes?
Jaxson Richardson
>monarchy btfo
>posting this comment from a commonwealth nation
>Elizabeth II is literally your queen, and is featured on your money so you know it to be true
The anglosphere remains under the influence of an existing monarchy, although that influence has waned in recent years.
Hardly btfo. Attenuated, certainly, but not irrelevant.
Justin Peterson
>it allowed for the tyranny of a few to oppress entire nations
As opposed to a republic? You know that's the one where (((politicians))) and their owners are in charge, right?
Jack Robinson
Agreed, the constitution was written under the assumption that the average person is an intelligent actualized individual. Most people are too stupid to file their taxes on their own let alone decide how to run a country
Brody Evans
whatever crazy asshole is capable of inciting and surviving a successful fascist revolution really quick
Jaxson Smith
>this is a 10/10 in monarchy
Xavier Ortiz
>tfw spain actually experianced growth economically and in land with a literal retard on the throne
Jayden Thomas
I started wanting to live under feudalism after reading The Once and Future King. The way he describes living under Sir Ector sounded like the most incredible life imaginable. The serfs all have homes, jobs, community, protection, food, and they get to see their families all the time. I know it was just fantasy, but it sounded like heaven.
Lincoln Jones
>t. jealous chinlet
Tyler Thompson
Theres a reason why the middle ages are loved so much in fantasy, we all secretly want to go back
Nathaniel Diaz
Fair enough. In my mind, the rationale for a republic comes down to tyranny of the few vs. tyranny of the many. With the former, you get aristocratic corruption time and time again. History has shown that monarchies run economically inefficient countries, and oppressive regimes, because the aristocracy becomes corrupted. With the latter, you still have corruption and inefficiency, but the power is more spread out. The idea is that it's much harder to have an isolated aristocratic elite when their constituents could just vote them out.
That said, it's clear that things went wrong. But they didn't go as wrong as people claim they did. In the last few hundred years, we've gone from medieval living to space age technology. It's not a coincidence that much world-changing discovery came from the US. But here's what went wrong and what we need to do:
With a republic, you have to have a unified ethnicity. You have to have a strong cultural heritage. The West has flushed that down the toilet by allowing worldwide immigration. If you have too many minorities in your republic, you will end up with identity politics and socialism. You'll end up with politicians trying to pander to all the different groups to get their votes. Constitutional republics need strong ethnic protections/immigration laws written in their constitutions. That's one of the biggest changes, right now most republics see it as a policy issue, but it should be a constitutional issue.
The issue with education is related to this. There's no such thing as objective education. For it to be effective, it has to be part of a larger cultural/religious framework. So you couldn't have effective education in a multi ethnic republic. Assuming you have an ethnostate with a strong tradition, you need a world-class educational system that fits within that. This is a bit more complicated to implement, but it could start with openly ethnocentric educational standards.
Benjamin Price
A tyranny of the few is easy to remove and replace witha more sensible government
A tyranny of the masses is nigh-impossible to remove. The masses won't recognize their tyrannical tendencies, and those manipulating them from the shadow will make sure you can never oppose them at their own game.
Zachary Jones
>Came from the U.S.
Most of the Space Age technology you talk about came from German Scientists living under monarchism and national-socialism.
Ideology has nothing to do with technological advancement.
The why behind the U.S. technological leap is the militaro-industrial complex that eats away more than 60% of your federal budget since the days of the Great War.
Matthew Powell
How is a tyranny of a few easy to remove? They have the power to push ignorance and superstition for generations, while keeping a separate society for themselves.
Isaiah Russell
>grumble about globalism and world governement
>monarchs of every European nation are relatives
Nathan Cox
I really don't think ideology has much to do with technological progress. The soviet union was right behind us and sometimes outclassed us with space tech. Its all willpower
Xavier Baker
At the dawn of the XX century
John White
It does. Because of the freedom and prosperity of the US, entrepreneurs and scientists were able to change the world. Yes, the Soviets did do some impressive things, but they also had an unsustainable system that *unsurprisingly* collapsed. In the long run, freedom yields better results.
Joseph Sullivan
>With a republic, you have to have a unified ethnicity
A monarch can also be a supranational uniting force. Representing the living embodiment of the nation.
Only real dynasty with any claim is either Elizabeth II or Francis II of Bavaria (via the Stuarts)
Brayden Jones
Because a coup, a revolution or a simple assassination, depending on the situation, can undo centuries of corruption and superstitions, while a tyranny of the many cannot be physically removed, as at least the majority of the population actively engages in it and has interests in keeping it alive, even if it is nefast for the entirety of the population.
Look at your own damn revolutionnary war. You removed some redcoats from lands, and then the king could do jack shit against you. Now look at the possibility of a hypothetical revolution in the U.S. Here on Sup Forums, everyone know that it's a loss for both sides from the very start, whether you're the establishment/corruption/deep state or the reactionnary/constitutionalists/[insert political ideology here] revolutionnary, because, from the start, more than 50% of the population will be engaged in it from both sides, as per the Second Amendment.
Logan Rivera
When most royal families are exiled or executed you dont have a lot of options except for inbreeding and the few families left you fucking moron