Communism barley lasted few decades

my point remains.
Monarchies are the most stable political system

Monarchies are literally based on the idea that the blood flowing in the veins of rich people gives them divine right to rule over the plebes

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_right_of_kings

Then america was all, nah nigga, all men are created equal

but some more equal than others

...

tbh monarchy is the most natural form of governance

you mean the country who genocided natives and used slaves ?

men were created equal alright, except their definition of what "men" is is variable.
just take a look on Holla Forums, you'll see that they don't consider other ethnicity as people.

Can we all agree that nomadic tribalism is objectively the best system?

Only because in the historical periods in which they were the dominant form of political organisation there really was no other/"better" way to organise large-scale agricultural societies.

But thanks to technological change, literacy, etc many of the assumptions justifying absolute monarchy have collapsed. I think the Saudis (correct me if I'm wrong) are possibly the only monarchists left that are close to the absolute monarchist ideal, the other royal families are mostly ceremonial

Being a peasant under a decent monarch was probably better than living as a wage slave today

lets face it, democracy is flawed, the massed are stupid and vote based on their feels.
we should either fix democracy, by using a point system, people would pass exams to have the right to vote, and according to the result of those exams (geo politics,economy, etc…) people should have more or less voting power.
thats one way to do it.

monarchies are just a larger tribe.

so this is a false flagging right?

And there's more than enough flaws with the monarchist system.

Yeah, but as much as liberals like to crow that it would stop redneck conservatives ruining ARE DEMOCRACY we all know that certain minority groups would be less likely to pass those exams than whites

Actually, its interesting how right wing assholes in ancient times thought they were superior based on some divine spiritual god given right.
While modern right wing assholes tout genetics and science.
Ahhh, the enlightenment.

Nice satire whether intentional or not, I'll use it.

*ignores that whole american civil war thing

m-m-muh Chiapas muh Rojava

we do ?.

doesn't matter if you're a minority or not, people who have no fucking clue how a country works shouldn't vote, period.

pls, stop using the typical simplistic Holla Forumsype bandwagon "us vs them".
we're not ants, people are individuals.

...

no?

how can a wobbly be against democracy

Yeah, yeah, call me when you find the next reason explaining why the proles haven't overthrown capitalism yet, but don't worry, the revolution is just around the corner comrade!

Good, they're dumber.

support you 100% buddy

A king could imprison you for being too handsome or too tall. A king would kill his own son if he were born autistic. A king could steal your daughter and you'd never see her again. Some kings literally raped their statesmen every day before conducting business with them. At least Bill Clinton had an intern under the desk while speaking on the phone. Monarchy was so awful that even communism became a cause that peasants could imagine dying for.

what

Monarchist Libertarians are the best Libertarians.

...

How about you call me when you manage to read a book?

This tbh. The only reason I'd be okay with monarchy was if I was the king or vizier. Why should some inbred cunt have all the power? What's the justification?

How about you call me when political trends show any indication that any of the predictions you lot make are close to coming true?

We haven't made any predictions other can capitalism will collapse.

Which it is currently doing right now.

thanks OP, I will be sure to use this to piss off liberals when they bring up how communism was "short lived" or "failed"

why not an omnipotent and objective AI monarchy?

let's talk about that ifunny watermark over there

Monarchy is the comfiest system for the ruling class and thus is defended the most vigorously by the de facto aristocracy and their cronies

Everyone wants to preserve the kingdom or christendom or whatever

Therefore it tends to last longer

This has no bearing on whether its a good system

not really, there was no concept of the nation acting as a will for the people, people swore fealty to their lord, and any act of breaking the law was treason against them, not the nation. Tribalist elements were largely removed. Nationalism took that power away from the nobility and installed it into Nation despite it working the exact same way.

i still disagree, monarchy is a clusturfuck of tribes united under one ruler.
this is the origin of countries.
people didn't directly subjected themselves to a king (not at first at least) but tribes did.
as time went by the unified tribes had no reason to exist as separate entities.
only the king remained

Get on my level.

...

Humans were hunter-gatherer's for the longest, clearly we must destroy all modern technology and go back to throwing sticks at deer.

Any cursory look into modern anthropology would teach you the opposite. Hunter-gatherer systems have elected ceremonial chieftains, but most actual decisions are made by leaders of initiatives.

Sounds quite like modern constitutional monarchy to me.

Yeah, if you remove the "elected" part, implement a system of social hierarchies and muh privileges and any sort of face-to-face political process…
Then yeah, besides being nothing alike, they're sorta similar.

Multiple major monarchies started as elective ones form HRE to Sweden.

if only a nigga would

i'd love that

Yes.
In the case of pagan/tribalist Sweden this was largely because Jarls were elected too and the society was largely and egalitarian primitive democracy.

That changed with the implementation of the church and thus with that of state hierarchy, when law was taken away from the people and granted to the state.
And thus you no longer had leaders by initiative, but leaders by (royal) appointment.

So to compare tribalism with feudalism or capitalism just shows a stunning lack of how hierarchy works.

De facto power wasn't held by people, but by demagogues with their folklore. The church was a way to codify belief and prevent sociopaths from "moving the goalposts" and arbitrarily inventing new superstitions. Of course, sociopaths infiltrated the church, but power always attracts sociopaths.

well the quote is about gobbling poison

...

Sure kid. Reminder that Lenin was funded by western Europeans to get rid of the Tsars

Nope, the strongest/smartest men were the ones who controlled the group similarly to chimpanzees. If a beta tried to reproduce he was killed.

are you literally a hormonal teenager

This is factually untrue

Do you have facts to disprove me? There's obviously no writings from back then the only way we can form a hypothesis about how early hominids behaved are through the study of primates. Aboriginals used to act like that. They would geld weaker men and butt fuck them.

Socialist monarchy is possible to be a thing

I gave you an example and there is anthropological and archaeological evidence of this existing

Fuck off

...

Funny enough, cultural practices differ greatly among hunter gatherers

from: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3083418/

Its funny you and so many others bring up abos because they are basically the only ones who do that kind of thing

For basically all other hunter-gatherers peoples it was a one man one woman relationship also polygamy was allowed in a few cases since there would always be more women than men

Who, native Americans. I doubt tribes from 100000 years ago acted the same as ones from 300 years ago.

and you guys claim to be well read.

We never had real communism. But we will.

You're not in a university studying how people work.

Are we being raided right now lmfao

...

You know what else lasts forever.

Just look at those alpha cells just dominating that mouth.

I haven't even read this thread but

You know The Donald went to university as well?

I'm actually majoring in psychiatry and you're full of actual shit. Nobody right now acts like this, this is a high school understanding of human behavior.

We're not talking about right now, retard.

what do these 100000 year old tribes have to do with use now. We are more closely related to the 300 year old tribes. Should we study fish next to better understand our nature being that 10000000000000 years ago we were all sea creatures?

reply to this retard

Don't engage with the tripfag, she's just a troll

P A T H E T I C

Then what the fuck is your point

This whole thread is about how people acted in the past, put your flag back on.

Ok :^>

To inform how we act now. Also there's little to suggest social darwinism existed pre-agriculture.

and also we are talking about medieval humans not Australopithecus

Why don't you post a source, then? You just make your stupid witty remarks and then act smug. Why don't you try adding to the conversation

chill man shes on your side

Even more reason to correct her because she's just going to make you guys look even more retarded.

I know but it annoys me when I post a source and a halfway legit argument and the Holla Forumsack or r9kfag responds I smug tripfag making dumb namecalling posts

Not the first time it has happened either

good point

good man

Monarcho-syndicalism when?

It's funny. Democracy itself collapsed in Rome lasting barely anytime at all yet monarchy made Rome last over a thousand years.

Here's my problem with monarchy though.

1) monarchy can be the best system only if the monarch themself is great, even if the monarch is great kind compassionate brilliant wise genius or some sort, who is to say the monarch's children will be?

2) I'm (probably) not going to be monarch

DNA and proper upbringing. It could easily be pulled off in the modern world with genetic engineering.

Yes they lived as "tribes," but they didn't possess the same type of tribalist attitude because the means for them to do so were not there. I can't speak for the peasants of the middle ages, but I doubt they gave a shit who their lord was since they'd fuck them in the ass regardless. The only type of nationalism that existed prior to the enlightenment were from classical Greece, and Rome, at least for the West.

centralized power is literally everything we fight against, the point of history is to progress not move backwards into a feudalist age.

T h a t ' s n o t h o w i t w o r k s

Oh please.

If we use such a system everyone knows it'll just be Indians, Asians (I'm sure anfem would be happy about this even if the cunt doesn't admit it), and Jews ruling over everyone through their superior ability over everyone including whites like how entrance exams are now.

It would be totally funny in a sense.

So the brain isn't developed based on information encoded in the DNA like everything else in your body?

>egalitarians

lmao

not sure what to tell the archeologists then

No. It's based upon reactions through the course of one's life.

literally read the thread

People in the paleolithic were largely similar to Native Americans, in not necisarily "egalitarian" ways, but in tight knit groups that took each other's advice

You had to work together extremely coherently in order to hunt or gather or survive, even during the late Paleolithic. What we also have in regards to art and culture, point towards a more peaceful kind of existence for these people. Something communal and organized.

This was largely ended during the agricultural revolution in the fertile crescent, at least in the Western portion of Eurasia.

So the brain is some kind of metaphysical enigma and not another organ? Yes experiences have some influence, but it's far from 100%.

It responds to stresses to a greater degree than the rest of the body. It is an organ, built to respond to stimuli. It can be worn down, in various ways. Effected by different chemicals.

Genes do little to shape someone's mind at the end, they provide a blueprint for what the mind is in a general sense.

Beyond that, the material environment effects how a person is developmentally.

Pretty much. The evidence is codified in our very genetic code. All of humanity is descended from only a few men but many times more women. The decadence of capitalism is what allowed disgusting betas like the sissy idpolers that plague modernity that destroy leftism to breed and thrive instead of dying off properly and causing the eroding of the strong masculine workers of the past always inciting for revolution who would beat a pampered bourgeois head in with a hammer.

Evopsych is dead

Communism is what you had before governments even existed. All society sprung from communism so it is the most successful.

Then we end up like Rome and Greece and destroy our Republics and Democracies in favour of Monarchy?

Well, I wouldn't mind being monarch. Just saiyan.

But.. I thought there was never such thing as communism. Now it's a reactionary ideology?