Monarchy

2+2=?

>oligarchy
>we know that 2+2=4, but it would be against our economical interest to admit this
>the answer is 6, the error is blamed on minorities/external enemy

>democracy
>51% of people voted that 2+2=42
>the answer is 42, and the error is blamed on white privilege

>monarchy
>it is in the best interest of the Crown and the People that the answer is 4, therefore it shall be 4 the answer, it shall be neither 3 nor 5, and definitely it will be 4, so says I, the Holy Governor of The Lord On This Earth
>the answer is 4, the people benefit

Why are you not a monarchist yet, user? It's the only system that doesn't allow degeneracy.

monarchucks will defend this

Monarchy = Oligarchy or Autocracy

fuck off

The best system is a Republic

>mfw this is coming from people who never had a proper monarchy in their countries

Only the monarch can guarantee the people their rights. Constitution can be changed, laws overruled, parliament indicted, but the only way to change the king is to assassinate Him, which is ALWAYS and unlawful act.

>Egypt
>Never had a monarchy

o i am laffin

if only the monarch can guarantee their peoples' rights, why did the people revolt against monarchies in 1789, 1848, 1860?

>implying we've had a proper monarchy
Not since the end of Piast dynasty, the rest were sucking nobels' dicks

But yeah, monarchy for the win! (not sarcasm)

surrendering individual freedom to an autocrat is the ultimate form of cuckery
next thing you'll say taxation isn't theft

I'm in the military and also a monarchist.

It always gets awkward for me when people start talking about how great democracy is or ask me who I'm voting for. Have to hide my powerlevel something fierce and now everyone thinks I'm a fucking democrat.

I agree.

>wanting your entire life to be dictated by a guy whose only qualification is that his dad did the same thing to your dad
Why are monarchists such pathetic losers? Do they just get off on the idea of a big monarchical bull getting prima noctis rights to their wives and daughters?

Every monarchy will suck noble dick you moron because it's the most beneficial thing for him and there's nothing stopping him.

>lolbetarian calling other people cucks
Surrendering nation's interest to an individual freedom is what creates degeneracy and cuckery in the first place.

>Literally arguing against freedom because "well, someone did some weed and put one too many dicks in her"

You should find your local gulag and jump right in.

Your argument is pretty much
>Oligarchs are always corrupt
>The people are always stupid
>The monarch is always righteous
None of those three statements are correct.

In an enlightened monarchy, the commoners don't interfere with politics, and in return the king does not interfere with their private lives. He can, but chooses not to. And before you question the possiblity of such an agreement: this system existed in many european countries in 17, 18 and 19 century, and it was extremely effective.

They were overthrown by socialist criminals. How is that an argument?

That's not all degeneracy is. Look at birth rates, feminism, white guilt, nihilism, modern art, modern media, academia, 8 yr old trannies on hormones, etc

Monarchy is the best system, but it's dead by now. We need something else.

>why did the people revolt against monarchies in 1789, 1848, 1860?
because the jew bankers wanted to destroy monarchy as a system that they incapable of controlling for the most parts.

>and it was extremely effective.
Oh fuck off, everyone hated their monarchies, millions of people went from France and Britain and Ireland and etc etc to democratic America and nobody went from america to autocratic Europe.

Also:

>Declaration of Independence lists at least 20 transgressions by the king
>French Revolution
>19th century was the biggest economic boom in history
>P-P-People liked their monarchs, y'see?!

>19th century was the biggest economic boom in history
Jesus Christ, read Hoppe

I know it, and the prime reason why the 19th century worked was BECAUSE there was minimal government, not because there was a "publicly owned government" like he described.

There wasn't even a central bank in the USA and that's basically the 1st step to statism.

There are quite a few unapologetic fascists at my command, myself included. I redpill as much as I can on the smoke deck.

I'm not sure if this is bait, but I'm gonna assume it's not.

>everyone hated their monarchs
Bullshit.

>millions of people went from FR and UK to democratic america
You are mixing up the times, friendo. You are talking about late 19th and early 20th century.

>19th century was the biggest economic boom in history
Yes, thanks to enlightened monarchy.

I'd also like to remind you that the French Revolution was an absolute disaster and France almost immediately returned to monarchy. Also, the biggest superpowers of 19th century owe their position to their enlightened monarchism (Austria, Prussia, Russia)

>I'd also like to remind you that the French Revolution was an absolute disaster
By what terms? The landscape of France was forever changed, it permanently liberalized and any attempts to reel liberal changes back were instantly overthrown.

>and France almost immediately returned to monarchy
1. Do you honestly believe overthrowing the monarchy was the end goal of the Revolution? 1789 is when the Bastille was stormed, it took until 1793 for Louis XVI to be executed and the monarchy abolished.
2. Do you honestly believe Bonapartism and Legitimism are comparable? They're entirely radical. If Bonapartism was truly a return to the Ancien Regime, there would be no Napoleonic Wars.
3. Do you even know what the Charter of 1814 is? It was a guarantee that all liberal gains made under Napoleon would remain intact in the Kingdom of France. The moment Charles X tried to reverse it, he was marked for death.

>Also, the biggest superpowers of 19th century owe their position to their enlightened monarchism (Austria, Prussia, Russia)
>Austria
JUST FUCK MY SHIT UP. Austria was at that point a zombie empire. Its height was under Charles V, after the Thirty Years War it handed over its crown to France.

>Prussia
Until 1871 (birth of Germany) they were second stringers at best.

>Russia
You mean Europe's backwards cousing that utterly failed to industrialize and was contained by Britain and France (sometimes independently, sometimes together) multiple times?

The true superpowers of the time were France and Britain. Britain, the country where the monarch had been a mere puppet ever since Victoria, and France, the country that was forced back into the Ancien Regime but broke free from it becoming the example of liberalism in Europe.

How about you fucking open up a history book, Pavel? Or did you have to sell your last copy to feed your six children?

>technocracy
>2+2=4

No need to get all fancy about the truth, faggot.

So Britain, France and America were Monarchies and not liberal republics? Are you retarded? And the biggest superpowers were France and Britain who had been able to use all their massive wealth from republicanism to build a global empire, expand their control of europe, and so on. And that's not even mentioning how the industrial revolution started IN BRITAIN, not in a useless empire like Prussia or Austria or the useless Russia that were virtually Satellite states by the end of the century that couldn't touch France and Britain for most of the 19th.

Sure, France was a monarchy for ~30 years but that wasn't even when it had most of its empire.

> It's the only system that doesn't allow degeneracy.

And what if the King is degenerate?

Kings are like the original cucks.

>Sure, France was a monarchy for ~30 years
And for most of that period France was liberal. Let's analyze every post-Bastille monarchy.

>Louis XVI with liberal reforms. He seeks to betray the Revolution (Flight to Varennes) and is killed, monarchy abolished
>Napoleon bases his entire monarchy on popular sovereignity, rules "by the grace of the constitution of the Republic" and is the textbox example of an enlightened despot
>Louis XVIII rules by the Charter of 1814, which guarantees most if not all liberal gains from Napoleon's days (including the Code Civil)
>Charles X seeks to abolish the Charter of 1814 but needs to flee to England as the Parisian mob threatens to tear him to pieces
>Louis-Philippe rules France as the "Citizen-King" but later in his rule goes through a conservative phase. He too needs to flee to England lest the masses turn him into a fine, red mist
>Napoleon III once again becomes a Bonapartist-model Enlightened Despot and even introduces universal suffrage
Every French monarch after Louis XVI at least attempted to present themselves as liberal. Napoleon III was fucking based by the way but horribly underrated.