Why are there people who still support monarchy?

...

That's stupid, if somebody does not want to be politically involved, then he might simply not give a shit.

Modern times are interesting user, and even more so is the future. If you're worried about the princes and princesses being spoiled brats an extreme solution could be carting them off to live with the proles, letting them think they are one of them while ensuring a good education and security. Perhaps even an entire body of psychologists monitoring the children, and perhaps monarch, to ensure they are upholding a good lifestyle and morals.

This is not true, since being un-involved goes against your self-interests in democracy.

Mussolini's doctrine of fascism outlines why someone would want autocracy in the modern world.
Sure it's largely self-refuting, unrealistic nonsense but the mindset of a fascist or a monarchist is very clear.

Why not just adoption? The five good emperors of Rome came through that system.

If things run, do you really care who's running it?
(Not rhetorical)

Perhaps, but in democracy if you desire not to be uninvolved, then you're free to do so, while under absolutism if you desire to be involved, then you're fucked.

As far as I can tell, most monarchists nowadays seem to want the "correct" hierarchies restored and enforced by the monarchy, and think that democracy destroys hierarchies or puts the wrong ones in place.

For example, in the US, we have had an effective racial hierarchy for many years. As physical labor trends toward a smaller part of the economy, we now have two groups: The so-called creative class, basically the people who go to elite colleges and work in the big cities, and everyone else. Now, "everyone else" is kind of fucked, but in the grand scheme of things, minorities have been relatively less fucked and white working class people have been relatively more fucked. The loss of relative social status among white working class people causes them a great deal of frustration, because not only are they on the same level as minorities, but upper class white people also look down on them. The aforementioned economic trends also make it much harder for "everyone else" to carve out a role in society and have something resembling a stable existence.

Now, some of these whites start to blame democracy for their problems, thinking that democratic government is being wielded against them by a coalition of upper-class whites and minorities, and what could be better justification for this worldview than a black president? Then they decide that their lives would be better under a monarchy where everyone knew their role in the hierarchy uppity women, minorities, gays and the like were put in their place. Of course, governments actually just tell people what they think said people want to hear to secure votes, and then proceed to pursue ruling-class interests.

i dont know, why the fuck are you posting about it here? go email that idiot moldbug

it's also an oppressive slave state but whatevs

it's also an oppressive slave state but whatevs

Ignatius Reilly is literally Holla Forums.

Bitch, monarchy gave way to degenerate cosmopolitans like Marie Antionette. A monarchical state, based on dynastic sovereignty, is completely opposed to a republic based on national sovereignty.

The wealthy liberals and minorities are the real monarchists. The President is just an elected monarch.

Most of the "right-wing" populists are ardent republicans, nigger. The conflation between liberalism and democracy is quite shocking when it was nationalism and civic republicanism that motivated most of the radical revolts whilst liberalism motivated moderate Whigs who approved of monarchy or a strong executive.

Hell, only a few Holla Forumslacks actually believe in monarchy.

Actual Nazis hate monarchy, with Hitler himself despising it. Fascists were mixed, but ultimately Mussolini regretted working with the monarchy and most Fascists became republicans in 1943. American "reactionaries" fear monarchy most of all and actually base a lot of their ideology on "formerly" left-wing republicanism.

Honestly, I'm fucking tired of the same shit-tier Whig history being spewed out by dumb liberals and "communists". (As well as lolberts and even some Holla Forumslacks.) Read a book and realize that not all of Europe was monarchist or even feudal before liberalism. And realize that politics didn't follow modern "left" "right" boundaries back in the 18th and 19th centuries. Andrew Jackson would've been considered leftist in the 19th century, while Alexander Hamilton, a favorite of modern liberals, would be considered the most right-wing prominent figure in the US in his time.

It was the leftists who stormed the barricades and embraced both Western civilization and nationalism, while right-wingers look to the east and cried about the globalist powers who ran the Vienna Congress being threatened by the left-wing nationalist wave.

Basically, fuck everyone, fuck shitposting on the internet. I'm going to take a shower, eat something, then sleep.

a confederacy of dunces predicted r9k and pol at the same time.