The biggest red pill of them all: Kings and Emperors need to be brought back

None, if both are virtous and wish good for their counter, nothing can stop them from doing good for their country.

No. Our Government works fine. It's only failing is traitors are not purged and hanged. I would support a return to that.

country*

The problem with monarchies are also their biggest benefit, the character of the monarch either makes or breaks the monarchy. If there was a solution to this problem I'd sincerely like to hear it.

Too much democracy in the republic tbh

It's pretty much like the ordinary Muslim in backwater countries supporting the conversion of their republics into a global theocracy. They think they will be socially elevated in such a system, without ever realizing that the elites don't give a shit about them unless they already have power and money in the first place - but if you already have power and money in the current political system, why would you bother with a major political change?

the yearning for god is a yearning for a benevolent dictator

Well none except traitors, infiltrators or defeat in war.

A king's whole life is about ruling the country, from early childhood to their death, or resignation. A dictator on the other hand, is someone who gains the powers of a king by opportunity. Sometimes things blur tho. Kim Jong Un is called a dictator for example ,but he's technically almost a king.

The problem with a monarchy is even if you have a great king he can die early on and then you're left with a child heir or no heir.
Putin has no succession plan. If he dies or decides to leave, Russia goes to chaos.

That's a good one.

That's the whole problem with a monarchy, you're putting blind faith into one man. If he's great, great, but if he's shit than shit.

Dictators last a matter of decades (if they're lucky) before a change in regime and often a regression back to a beaurcartic system whereby politicians enter for their own financial interests rather than those of the people. Whereas monarchs provide stability and promote the traditions and welfare of the people for centuries. Just as you once took the national socialist pill you will take the monarchy pill. Unfortunately I'm just starting to get into Traditionalism / Monarchism myself so I can't give you enough compelling arguments on my own but I really encourage you and other anons to read into it. Julius Evola is highly recommended.

This is why I support monarchy. A great monarch will lead his people to greatness, a terrible monarch will eventually be usurped.

I think monarchy wouldn't work for that reason, monarchy is bound to a family and its goodwill, a nation needs a leader made from meritocracy that can't be coopted.

Modern politician (aka aristocracy) and leaders need to pass a test of goodwill, competence and determination, like serving in the military or something.

That doesn't always work. Plenty of politicians with prior military service see John McCain and Lindsay Graham.

Kek. With democracy, you're putting blind faith into thousands. How will you remove thousands from power when they become slovenly and decadent?
You won't. See current predicament. You can remove kings, lad.

Well user plenty of wise dictators and monarch had have their seat taken by (((usurpers)))

Unbounded meritocracy will always result in hierarchical stratification and the emergence of a god-king whose existence is the fulfillment of the ruler archetype. Essentially, there is someone whose merit is being kingly. Modernist systems all fail due to their denial of this natural course.

As far as the OP, I'd phrase it as "We need to be open to accepting our place within the hierarchy." We can't just choose any random person to be a king because we need one. There has to be a kingly figure, and then there have to be those that support him.

Well in south korea that corrupt cult grew up their president for that role, maybe grow a bunch of children to be somewhat leaders, judge them trough their life and select the best candidates?

This is entry level, every user here knows democracy a shit. The major problem with monarchy is no quality control. A great king is unsurpassed in the good he can do. A bad one can do serious harm to the nation. NatSoc has the meritocratic aspect that monarchy lacks.

Just got to Mein Kampf chapter 3 and he talks about this very argument.

This.

Votes for white (no jews) straight men only when?

this is a joke thread right? how could international jews control politicians through central banks if kings who minted their own currencies appeared and ruled countries making the whole system obsolete?

Do you want genocide? Cos they can do genocide.

Democratic monarchy. A King regardless of how good of King he is, still needs checks.

I'm more interested in a Philosopher-King who channels the will of the people (read: fuhrer) than a traditional king who derives authority from a "holy bloodline". I think the ideal government would have a mixture of monarchy, aristocracy, and republic elements. Really as long as it's a small, intelligent, and morally just group of people who derive their power through the consent of the governed the specifics matter little to me.

For white men, with no criminal records, give more to the govt than they take, or something along those lines

I rarely PR-fag, but even among the blue-pilled normalfaggots they recognize that they prefer authoritarianism over democracy too, they just don't know it. As pic will demonstrate, the citizenry actually likes their presidents and hates Congress with a red hot passion.

If you're a European who wants to return to your cultural roots then that's one thing, but if you call yourself 'American' you disgust me.

"Democracy" worked when it was implemented the way the framers intended it, when free white men were those allowed to vote. You could argue the case for further restricting suffrage to only include land-owners as well, but I wouldn't.

Nope. A voting system, preferably a representative democracy restricted in absolute terms to only landowning white males.

How's that working out for you, democratic cuck?

we need to have the country ruled by representatives chosen by the true people of the country, and they should have an active stake in how the country is doing. It's probably very subjective, but their life quality should be dictated by how well or poorly the country is doing at the time. None of this "take the position and then don't give a fuck because you already made it" bullshit.

This isn't PR-fagging user, this is providing information about the masses

Not directly, conserve the republican essence, when you have a direct representation without something like the electoral colleague the city's get to decide, besides allowing for easier fraud in gral

So something more akin to the Prussian model during the latter 19th century? Where the Kaiser/King has absolute power over the military and civil service but there is also an elected house to handle general legislation? I am definitely behind that.

No interest, seems like a hassle that gets in the way of reading, writing, my family and prayer.

Monarchy is essentially the political manifestation of a religious impulse. A people capable of establishing/reestablishing a monarchy are able to do so because of reasons beyond the political and material; it is in fact inaccurate to say that the people establish/reestablish a monarchy, rather it is Divine Providence who acts to establish such clear, unified authority.

Anyone who calls himself an American instead of a European colonist in the Americas disgusts me as well. Americanism is a false ideal born of liberal reasoning. The very founding of the US was based on the rejection of proper European authority. That the Constitution permits usury yet forbids the establishment of titled nobility tells one all that needs to be known about the folly of Americanism perpetrated by a group of merchants and lawyers.

Sometimes I wonder, whats so bad about 1984? Everything is planned out for you and you don't have to worry about anything.

problem with that is, what if the king was a massive blue pilled faggot?

Then you kill him and replace. If he's that much of a cancer, that's the natural way. There's a reason the feudal system was born out of the complete chaos of the collapse of the Roman Empire.

so we keep killing and replacing until??

Until one fits, obv.

There is, and still exists in the American people, an impulse towards elected monarchy. Remember, the Founding Fathers seriously considered handing Washington the Crown of America FOR LIFE.

It was his own choice to be called President, and to only govern (as opposed to rule) for two terms. It was the temperament of a man who deserved and should have been forced to be King for life, a true servant of his country.

The notion of a monarchical America is not as far-fetched, or without historical precedent, as you may believe.

A pretender instigates a civil war and the stronger leader wins.

theoretically the king replacing the old king will figure out what is angering his population to kill him and would stop doing it since he wouldn't want to be killed.

I-I guess..

Gonna be a lot of chaso until the dust settles with a yuge body count

no that it isnt a bad a thing…

Democracy and republicanism have literally never worked, every single society that implemented them failed in the same way we are today.
Had democracy for a couple centuries then returned to aristocracy. Prominent philosophers wrote on how fucked it was.
Republic decayed in a couple centuries and forgot their virtues, becoming ruled by corrupt and selfish oligarchs who robbed the state until it was replaced by an emperor.
You know how well that's going.

O LAWDY LAWDY

G
N WEEW
A U
KANGZGNAK
U A
EWEW N
G

Wrong

This faggot:>>9274496 gets it. The "People" have no right to overthrow their monarch, a pretender, or those of equal station DO.

My God, it's being played out RIGHT NOW in the United States. It wasn't a Tea Party darling who challenged the wealthy elite, it was one of their own who looked out upon his country men and saw their plight!

Those who can't see that aren't comprehending the situation we're in right now.

Don't put on quartz glasses about Trump. Man loves Israel, remember? You want your white ethnostate, you're going to have to fight and fight hard for it, because a democratic republic will NEVER deliver it.

So then it's not just kings and emperors, but well developed and mature aristocracies. One man is not enough. One man will never be enough. Even kings need lords and nobles to oversee each piece of land in the country.

Feudalism is much older than that, but the singular system became larger and larger as Christcucks invaded and murdered any nobles that refused to submit to Semitic hegemony while subverting traditionalism through the murder of the shaman caste.

The incarnation of true leadership rises to restore the balance, which doesn't necessarily happen in a short duration. In fact, studies on reincarnation have shown that the duration between incarnations is actually influenced by cultural expectations. In eastern traditions where it is both accepted as a norm and seen as occurring within months or years, those time frames are in fact the average that is observed in those with past life memories. In the cucked West where reincarnation is no longer viewed as the norm and the Cucktian concept of an eternal afterlife for the individual exists, the average is several hundred years between incarnations.

Shit goys!
Lets make some one kang n shiiiiiiiit, there is no way that could ever be abused!
Just like gommunizum goy, its never been tried!
I mean, just check history!!
Oh wai….

I think you mean a constitutional monarchy, which is a thing.

...

Void your oaths to democracy.

Bring in the genetically pure lineage of white kings.

Huh. All I see are centuries of stability followed by 200 years of chaos and the most devastating wars in human history.

kek. way to twist words there kike.

Embed or nothing.

Yeah…so look at where the present monarchs took us.

Try it, scum. Die screaming.

even though it is the next part of the protocols of zion?
your plan works if it isn't a fucking kike at the helm.

Joseon dynasty solved this by poisoning the King. Many bad kings did not live very long.

...

So, Bush or Clinton then, eh?

Problem is you have cucked citizenry. Just look at Merkel spending a decade + fucking over everything.

Explain in a matter of principle what is wrong with monarchy. This isn't cuckchan dont bring down the quality of discourse on this board by making retarded comments.

Were they jewed or not? You decide. And the German case is probably a more transparent one, as the status of the 'court jew' was instituted officially.

" Oppenheimer had suppliers and agents in Holland, Poland and Russia (gunpowder), Bohemia, Moravia, Hungary and Silesia (saltpetre), Styria and Carinthia (arms), Kremsier (boots for the dragoons), Salzburg and Bavaria (horses and floats), Holland (cloth), Austria, Bamberg, Mainz, Trier (wheat and corn), Hamburg (spices), Rhineland, Neckar and Mosel (wine) and Siebenburgen (oxen). Most, but certainly not all, of these suppliers were themselves court-Jews, factors, purveyors and the like, and included a number of Oppenheimer’s immediate family in Donauworth, Breslau, Frankfurt and Heidelberg. Oppenheimer also ensured that the emperor and his court were supplied with jewels, silverware, livery and cash loans. State loans during the period 1695–1740 were provided in alliance with the approximately fifteen members of the Oppenheimer circle in Vienna. They included Emanuel Drach, Oppenheimer’s son-in-law, Lazarus Hirshel, Moses Isak, David Lebl, Simon Michael, Moses Lemle, Lebl Pollak. Oppenheimer also acted as ‘front man’ for credits advanced by the rulers of Mainz, Trier and Saxony.
Oppenheimer and his family and associates were not popular. His residence in Vienna was attacked and plundered in 1700. He himself was arrested from time to time and on these occasions the warning bell sounded as far away as Hamburg; brokers on the Bourse refused to deal in Oppenheimer’s bills, as Gluckel found to her cost. An observant and pious Jew, Oppenheimer was refused permission to pray publicly and must content himself with some- what less than a prayer-room in his house – and that only grudgingly conceded. Cardinal Kollonitsch stood out for his enmity to the Jewish presence in Vienna, all the more vehement because of his failure to organize a syndicate of Christian bankers to counter Oppenheimer’s influence. "

Heh. If it was a monarchy and Trump slew them like he did at the booths, they would have zero political power now. They're both still around and working against him, remember?

I hold no delusion about Trump, but manifested in Trump is the possibility and the first stirrings of a noblesse oblige in the elite of this country.

That bodes well.

And yes. Instead of a balance of power between a divided single sovereignty (Executive, Judicial, Legislative) maintained by good will and appearances, it is a balance of power between multiple potential poles of sovereignty, maintained by the threat of violence.

America kicked it's fucking ass and we'll do it again to anyone who tries that shit.

Fuck off kike.

Yup. Are you enjoying your colored masses that were all created equal to you?

(((They))) destroyed the Nobility, which represented the Richest Nationals of a Country, holders of both Economic and Political Power because they needed to infiltrate their agents.
What Democracy did was to destroy the Defenders of the Country and substitute them with Bought Puppets from Low-Birth.
Their "Low-Birth" wasn't precisely the problem, but their lack of Historical-Political Knowledge, and many times no attachment to the Land or its Traditions, but only the care for the Money in their Pockets created the situation where we are now, when a Muslim is London's Mayor and a Genocidal Jew is trying for Germany's Prime Minister.
Also, lots and lots of Minor political positions were subverted and a Net of Corruption and Exploitation of the riches created by the Forebears of a Country got sucked - see all those Hispanic Politicians in California, Texas or New Mexico.

How about sighting a single one that has ever been beneficial and with stood the test of time…
I'll be waiting.

Fucking LARPtards.

Didn't Queen Victoria say she was descendant of King David?

True, I'm really enjoy that immigration act being thrusted upon us.

Easy. A legacy of struggle and conflict wherein men actually had to FIGHT for what they wanted instead of pulling a lever in a voting booth. In short, only the strongest and the best rose to the top, rather than the faggot who said the nicest words.
Say what you want about King George and his taxes, but King George fought to keep indians out in the French Indian War, and your democracy voted to bring coloreds right on in. You even put indians on nice homes and gave them land, while King George just killed them. Liberal from the very beginning.

Nice not answering the question.
Please learn to read.

Okay. King George was better than any crap democracy we have now, and King George was the worst king.
Simple enough?

You mean the monarchs of Europe who were appointed by Cucktian leaders after the actual nobility of the European ethnostates were murdered? The monarchs who were led down paths of Semitic ideology and miscegenation? Yeah, no one likes them, but what does that have to do with the principles of just governance?

The rebels lost every major engagement and were granted independence due to the immense cost of waging a war across the Atlantic (the "unfair" taxes levied on the colonists were in fact to pay for the costs of defending the colonies) as well as the intervention of the French. The Crown didn't lose, it cut the colonies loose because they were more trouble than they were worth.

Where is your lasting democracy? The point of monarchy isn't that it is invincible, but that it is the form most appropriate for men in accordance with the hierarchical nature of our existence. It's the best system as long as the volk adhere to their place in the hierarchy at every level. Any other form of governance ensures that the volk cannot adhere to their proper place by dispelling the modes of living which are best for men. From family (father), to community (chief), to region (noble), to volk (king); the pattern must be maintained at every level.

there isn't any perfect government system. that's why the populace needs to be weary of the threat of kikery and corruption and stamp it out when need be.

Monarchy is the best form of government when your leaders are benevolent and smart. Terrible when they are one and not the either or worse, neither.

I'm guessing user would be playing your game of "watch me move the goalposts". That seems boring. Instead, how about you give us some precise definitions, or better yet, an example of any single government that has been "beneficial" and also "withstood the test of time". I'd love to hear about the colorful history of some benevolent thousand-year Reichs.

inb4 others pointing out I was trolled by an anarchist

Kings and emperors < dictators and underground parties only. The most powerful cartel should be in power officially. This not being the case leads to conflict and less than useful officials being empowered.

Imagine if Columbia was run by the Cocaine / Coffee cartels.

I blame the phonies for economic growth in the developed world being reduced to a mild swelling.

1. Promotes internationalism among ruling class, because they all intermarry with foreigners.
2. Ruling class is distant from the wishes of the people, leading to rebellion.
3. Nobility becomes inbred because they only breed with each other, this causes everything from physical to mental deformities.
4. Lack of a heir leads to collapse of nation, and inbreeding leads to sterility…
5. If no one can question or criticize kings, degeneracy among kings becomes common.
6. Inherited wealth means each successive generation of kings is lazier than the next. Also lack of a heir leads to collapse of nation.
7. Full state control over economy is easily exploited by Jews, as families like Rothschilds proved.
8. Religion is internationalist, over-reliance on religion means the state is tied to fate of other states simply because of their religion.
9. Religion also inveigles itself into law, meaning your laws become immutable and unable to change with changing circumstances. Also a bishop in Rome might control law in Spain, which is retarded.
10. No term limits means any solution to the above can be circumvented, given enough time.

Solutions:
1, 2, 3, 4. Obligate nobility to marry from the commoner class, institute strict line of succession.
5, 6, 7. Put the control of the government purse into the hands of an elected senate.
8, 9. Institute separation of church and state, and ban any religion that isn't fully confined in your borders.
10. Make regicide legal. If his bodyguards can't protect him from mad citizens, a king doesn't deserve to rule.

Well, if I was arguing for a kosher globalist-communist state then, yes, that would be a good example.
An argument for Monarchy mainly comes down to the danger and failures proposed by an ochlocracy. The general public is nowhere near educated enough and is way too apathetic to be trusted with a democratist, ochlocratic form of government. If there is a heirarchical, aristocratic minority then the vast majority of the herd will follow suit. It is only when dangerous ideas such as democracy spread that we get the situation we are currently dealing with. I would much rather have tyranny with a face rather than the illusion of freedom driven by a plutocracy behind the curtain.

Funny, I set clear goals.
None of them withstood the test of time, hence why there no longer applied in any "civilized world".
Was also going to point out how everyone who is for this "monarchy" bullshit, are the same ones who seem to not understand what the rest of Holla Forums understands.
Bu-but goy! Bad kinds get poisoned! It works its self out! Just wait for hitletler… Oh wait, wrong sheet.

Keep larping anrcho gommie scum.

If you have a shit leader in a Monarchy or otherwise totalitarian system there is no way for them to be removed within the system, and if they're competent enough they'll keep competing powers suppressed. At that point your only recourse you may have is unite the plebs and aristorcrats (and possibly other outside actors) to stage a French Revolution-tier revolt against your leader (and hope the power vacuum you create isn't filled by another shit leader). Of course if your leader has such a tight grip on their state that they cripple, condition, and demotivate their populace and keep everyone, aristocracy included, completely in line with their ideas, there's not really much you can do to remove them from power (hi Stalin).

If you have a shit leader in a Democracy the plebs at least have the power of the vote to dispose of them. The shittier the system becomes over time than the more likely you'll see a populist/demagogue that gains enough support to take the reigns. However, not all plebs know what's best for them, so if there are enough (((outside agents))) working to undermine the system - through manipulation of the voting populace or cucking the power of elected leaders that don't work in their interests - you're probably just as fucked under a bad absolutist/totalitarian rule, so the people would have to default to subservience or revolt against the system (again).

Some sort of hybrid is possibly the best solution where the two parts check each other. The leader that claims the thrown should have the majority of the power, but there needs to be checks to make sure their power isn't absolute so they can't absolutely ruin the nation. On the flip side, the system that checks the leader has to be designed and controlled enough so the they cannot just cuck the leader and system through underhandedness. Britain's Constitutional Monarchy was a decent model until the Parliament started accruing more power from the Crown, making (((those))) working to undermine the state more powerful and effectively making the Crown irrelevant.

If it was a pure monarchy he'd most likely not be able to gain enough power to attempt to slay them. In spite of all the things holding him back now, during the election he only needed to reach out to enough Middle Americans and other disposed citizens to get in.

So what stops kikes from killing the king? Any time the king acts again their wishes they have him murdered and face no repercussions.

...

keeping the senate defeats the purpose. Again, I'm not trying to PR fag, but in terms of general populace Congress are the untouchables. The rest look good though.

Since we're all in LARPland here, we're obviously going to make murder of jews legal.

keeping the senate defeats the purpose. Again, I'm not trying to PR fag, but in terms of general populace Congress are the untouchables. The rest look good though.

Since we're all in LARPland here, we're obviously going to make murder of jews legal.

A mafia supported by an overcapitalised corporation is the best form of governance. Besides that governance should be limited to social democracy and national defence. There's a reason why corporations run the government, it's because they're more competent than phoney mobs of officials.

Kings and emperors should for the most part be figureheads that point out when things are too wrong to tolerate.

Slaves aren't as good at inventing as free men are. Your intention is a subject king enslaved to public sentiments.

Having a Monarchy is all great until you have a ruler who is a literal retard like King George VI who had an IQ in the 60s. And then what? You don't want the commen people to know they are being ruled by a downie so the King's advisors start ruling and a fucking bureaucracy was just created

That's what north korea did, and it seems to be working, -ish.

...

If not for jew then you'd had a problem with succession lines, the next one in line kills the king and becomes one himself, or if not the direct successor, just iterate trough the kings

Ideally, if your king's a nincompoop you know exactly who to remove to fix the problem. As it stands, we have to purge a senate and congress to fix things, which means you probably won't get all of them.

Well, yes, that's also the ideal. The strongest king carries the crown, and the strongest king means the smartest king means the toughest kingdom.

Holy shit….
This is some abstract jewing here.

Christ.

Well that's why you don't have your nobles adhere to a system of in-breeding instituted through the adoption of a Semitic religion. Aryan eugenics were so well thought out that even today there are remnant clusters with high percentages of Aryan genes hidden away in the East chanting the same Vedas as thousands of years ago.

As long as they are not jews I'm fine with this

Found the lolbertarian

I didn't say a democratically elected senate, just elected senate.

To vote there are limits, IQ, citizenry, foreign entanglements, ownership of land, no jews…

The kings guard.

Also what would they gain by killing the king? The line of succession spreads through the whole nobility, and partway through commoners as well. Killing the entire royal family wouldn't get them anything.

The Russian Tsars failed because their line of succession was in question.

I thought they failed because they didn't execute Lenon like they should have for being a traitorous little kike.

This, no matter how "perfect" a king is, there's no guarantee his kids will be anything close to what he is. IQ tends to revert to the average over time. And then there's the fact that his children will be spoiled fags who never have experienced any real hardship, and might just be in it for the personal power. That's why Nationalism is better, the strongest and smartest rule, not some jackass who happened to swim out of the right ballsack.

Maybe the king should a elect a successor, not necessarily based on bloodline

No you didn't, faggot. Define "test of time" as a specific minimum time period. If it's just one or two centuries then that's very brief (but is the longest you can point to any democracy that's still recognizable at the end of that term) If it's one thousand years then you've got basically *no* examples of any single government of any form lasting that long. I also challenge you to provide an example of *any* government that was benevolent throughout its existence. You have been called out for your appeal to abstract, imprecise & undefined language. Your argument evaporates because you can't provide an example of a superior alternative that meets your squishy criteria.

Meh. Realistically speaking he's going to choose his kin to rule. You don't go through all the torment of surviving the crown and then give it to someone not even of your flesh and blood.

Isn't this what some of the Roman Emperors did? Appoint a successor by "adopting" them as an heir?

If the holier than thou Tsar haven't gotten into war with his cousins, making the little goy of his land suffer, the kikes couldn't have got a big revolt going.
That was the communist tactic, to use the war and hardship for a fertile ground for revolution. The Tsar somehow played right into their hands.

No no no, the best selection method is a tournament where all the eligible nobles fight each other to prove who is strongest and smartest and best able to lead. Bonus side-effect, it keeps old farts who have long outlived the majority generation from holding too much power because they'll have to have young strong smart successors to compete with the other nobles.

That or just be a total shitwrecking badass 70 year old.

Hmm. Yeah, he wasn't great. He could have handled domestic affairs better, and he definitely should have executed the kikes. Does anybody know about the tipping point for revolution, i.e a point of no return where nothing you do can reverse what's taking place?

Does any one here realize that with a monarchy there would be no forum of constitution?
For by having a constitution protecting the people (not that its not getting shredded to death as it is)
would completly invalidate the meaning of monarchy to little more then a figurehead much like the kike slave of the UK.

Every single one got replaced because they all failed. Much like what said, nothing is perfect…
Even some monarchy's practiced some forum of democracy over time, yet if monarchys have stood the test of time (IE, practiced in anyway other then figurehead today in a "Civilized world") then why are there none around?
Because they failed.

Not going to give up some semblance of "freedom", to be ruled by some failure who coerced enough mindless zombies to raise them to absolute, unquestioning power.
Fucking kike.

He says he loves Israel, while backing down on moving the embassy and calling them not to announce new settlements.

Feudalism is not the only social structure possible in a monarchy.

You need to lay off the animu kid

If your argument is "it didn't last forever therefore not perfect" you win. I haven't seen anyone arguing monarchy was perfect though, so I'm not sure who you won against. I argue that it's a billion times better than democracy because kings have a scope on their heads if they're major screw ups, and we don't have that kind of accountability system in a democracy.

Pfft, I'm a peasant now. Becoming a peasant surrounded by white peasants is vastly optimal to being a peasant surrounded by Paco's and Jamal's.

What's this about? I've never heard this.

He had an IQ of 67 and was completely out of his mind.

Yet debt slavery is somehow different than peasantry?

So your solution is…
Equivalent to a military/civil cou
Because why think for your self goy, or take responsibility in the shaping of your land.
Just wait for hitler goys!

Wew laddy.

Have you even read the constitution you fucktard? Nowhere in the entire document does it say that.

You would get no complaints from me had Washington been instilled as life-long ruler. Most European monarchies had dynasties reaching back centuries and those in that line were descended from great military leaders and conquerors. If we were to somehow implement a monarchy, we have not a single person alive in this country who could be trusted with that role. Who the hell should even take the throne is what you should ask yourself first.

Are Queen Elizabeth and Prince Charles dumb as rocks too?

Exactly. You can remove kings because the power rests in them, a single person to take out. You cannot remove democracies, because the power rests with the people, and when the people become corrupt and decadent (as they are now) you're hosed. That's why you have a Congress that has an 18% approval rating and zero repercussion, since they're just a symptom and not the source of the problem.

No, but the Declaration of Independence sure does and it's waved around in my face everytime someone argues "INEQUALITY."

Here we go again. The worst problems we have now were caused by elitists in the Supreme Court and elitists in corporations. We are where we are because the people were ignored.

it was very different
for starters, peasants had about 150 holy feast days to observe, on which work could not be done
this is where the term "protestant work ethic" comes from, because they did away with the practice

I'd much rather live on a farm with my family than the life of a wage slave.
Why are you libertardian types so terrified of authority? Even when it is being used in your favor you screech that someday someone might use it against us.

Although when I remember how anti-monarchical the kikes are, I do wonder…

So better to live in current day apefrica, venezuela, then America.

If you want anarchy so much, why not get the fuck out of America then, communist garbage.
I hope you find some one to rule over your beta cuck ass, put there boots upon your neck, deprive you of basic human dignity all the while telling you that there way is the best way.

Enjoy your colored masses, be sure to vote for the other party next round, that will fix everything.

I came to this conclusion two years ago. I think you're right, but the criteria for becoming the emperor has to be done right. If it's simply by blood it fails.

Yeah, we've been saying that for a while. Good post though, don't see ti talked about enough

Kek, I always imagined Adolf would be crowned Kaiser in the Volkshalle after building Germania.

Then why not practice what you seek?
Take too the streets and deploy your philosophy upon the masses, see what the fuck happens.

Absolutely

lol, what do you think I am, an idiot? There's a reason I post behind 6 billion VPN's.

Age brings wisdom user.
You don't get young men philosophizing. You only get edgy down with tradition types.

Rome had the Cursus honorum to choose the next Consul. Only those who had held office in important positions (military & administrative offices) could run for Consul.

I think the ethnostate should adopt the same policy for limiting field of those eligible for Consul, with the decisions for who could be Consul (Führer) being decided by the Senate (Aristocracy based on those who had completed the Cursus honorum or some other merit based process)

What's funny is that map came from Cernovitch of all people.

If you're losing arguments because libtards are trying to use it as a weapon against you, point out other things that the Declaration says. Oh, it says that each state is an independent state not bound to some union. Oh, it says that engines are "merciless savages" and that they have no place on our frontiers. They won't be so quick to cite it then.
Clearly, the Declaration is not the basis for how our country operates.

Only the ones who have been improperly raised by Marxist institutions that fill their heads with "down with tradition" every day since they were old enough to read.

Pft, I can't argue it. It's a founding document. This country was built on multiculturalism, so the next natural step was to flood it with more multiculturalism. There's nothing to lose, they're right, the country was liberal from its outset.
Fun fact, when you ctrl+f search the constitution for "God" you get zero results. Deists founded the country, which were just the atheists of the day, and the immigration laws were "white men of good character," meaning german, pole, slav, potato nigger, anglo, it don't matter, flow on in.

Here we go with your shilling again. We are National Socialists by en large. That doesn't mean reactionary. No longer will a few kings and nobles abuse the masses of lower class whites, we believe that everyone has to sacrifice for the nation. The rich cannot simply sit back and watch the poor do it. We can get into the more progressive reforms Germany had about nature and women too, if you want kike.

So fuck off with your reactionary bullshit.

But your way is clearly best way!
Preach it from your soap box in the middle of some white upper class area, the same people you seem to think would be all for kneeling to one god king with the forum of man.
Because you know your full of shit and out side of your little Holla Forums bubble, your ass would get stomped.

I wonder (((who))) could be behind this post?

You're very good at this, continue.

Do it for them.

it is in the kings interest to do right by the people. he rules the people well and in return he receives glory and a lavish life. if he teaches his kids right and grooms a good heir, they will also be able to enjoy the fruits.

How is a discussion about Monarchism shilling? I'm sorry if this wasn't the hundredth Trump post or another "do you think Hitler would like this band?" bullshit.

Only if I'm King/Emperor

No?

Then fuck off.

Hitler hated monarchies and called the old monarchists of Germany like the previous PM "that old reactionary". He laughed at Germany's previous monarch thinking Hitler was interested in restoring the monarchy only to laugh and exclaim "what an idiot!'.

Monarchy's greatest problem is that, it can be almost certain that the first and founding monarch is great, fair, and wise to the points he might pass those very traits onto his son but his son's son and so forth? There's a reason the say wealth doesn't last past three generations exists. It's a generally true fact and observation even our ancient ancestors observed.

C'MON GUISE IT'S 2017

Becuse you made this thread like 3 fucking days ago and everyone told you to fuck off.

The greatest prosperity and moral greatness was brought about by kings and emperors.

Fascism is not incompatible with a monarch in the slightest.

You need hierarchy. Sorry to disappoint you if you believe otherwise.

I didn't make this thread. I was just happy to see something worth discussing outside of the usual shit, you fucking faggot.

Reactionaries are shit. Did you even see the word fascism in my post? Also:
Nice try

How the fuck do normie conservatives even find Holla Forums? I blame Paul Joseph Watson.

By your own definition every form of government has failed. This argument that you proffer against monarchy doesn't work, because it smears democracies, republics, oligarchies, totalitarian dictatorships, etc, equally.

I'm not the one using non-arguments here. Calling someone a kike because you can't defend your flawed argument is straight out of the kike playbook.

And look where it got him.

Claus Graf von Stauffenberg did nothing wrong.

Reported.

Traitors that sold the country out and handed it over to burgers and vodka. Nice job.

Which, if I may add, also doesn't take into account subverted governments actively targetting other government models they perceives as a threat. WW2 is the epitome of this.

England has been a constitutional monarchy since 1689 user… Likewise, the Monarchy is still head of state above the parliament in the current year.

...

No, you're right. That's what I'm saying. White is not a race, and that's why some kikes have white skin. "Free white person" does not differentiate between Jew, German, Pole, Slave, Nord, Dane, Scot, Potato Nigger, or Italian.
It was multicultural from the outset, the island for misfit toys, if you will.

Monarchism is the natural order of every single European peoples as it allows for both a centralized authority in times of crisis and a decentralized rule in peace times.

Fascism is in of itself a reaction. So is NatSoc.

I'd prefer life, let's say 80s Western Europe or USA over those eras any day.

Stupid reply system. This message was meant for

He said multiculturalism and mentioned different European ethnicities. He's not wrong. The US was a melting pot of Europeans

And Hitler's a faggot for doing so. Not that I blame him. The Habsburgs were notorious shitters, unless the Hohenzollerns.

...

No, we don't need a King - there are better systems. Don't confuse the need for STRONG LEADERSHIP with a Monarchy.

The Founding Fathers were wise, even if they couldn't see every contingency - America would never have gotten as powerful, if it has just been a slightly better form of monarchy. The initial Constitution, as written, was very good - especially with a more limited electorate. The country would make massive improvements with a few changes

- Repeal the 19th Amendment

- Deport and divest ALL illegals

- Repeal Telecommunications Act of 1996 (and vigorously pursue ant-trust against the media)

- Change Birthright Citizenship to only apply to those whose both parents are legal residents, or at least one is a full citizen.

- Exponentially limit all forms of immigration. Green Card/Visa only given to high skilled professions (determined on a yearly basis as those which currently aren't being filled by American Citizens). Mandatory class on American culture and government principles. Further, more extensive (multi-week) for all citizen applicants: Equivalent of an expedited senior year US Gov course - with a test at the end.

- Delete No-Fault Divorce, and Marriage 2.0 laws. Return to the situation before 1960, that encouraged men to have families and secure their gains (this will boost the white birthrate, so we begin to repopulate and purify).

The genius of the Founding Fathers wasn't even so much in the specific form of government, but in creating the first one where the majority of the people BENEFITED form it, instead of being USED by it. The essentially invented the idea of a country of the MIDDLE CLASS (Britain had it somewhat, but it was kind of a trial run).

If we have a strong, overwhelming majority white (with allowance for occasional cultural/technological infusions from QUALIFIED ethnic candidates) Democratic Republic with universal male suffrage (taxpayer only voting only) and a required 4 years of government service (military or civil) for all men, we have no need for Kings.

The served us well in times past, but America can do better. This was the ideal Jefferson, Madison, Washington, et al saw: European men being their own masters, but with some governmental framework so that we could collectively become rich and strong.

Hitler did that himself and he drew first blood

The original/actual connotation of the word "reactionary" deals with the people who favored a return to monarchy after the French Revolution.

Unless you then read of their views of certain Europeans and their negative views of them.

The Founding Fathers were no different at their core than the Jacobins of Europe. The first leftists, and I guess one could say the only acceptable ones.
I'd be fine if the liberals of the 19th century were the left of western politics.
But ultimately it's all pathological individualism and it always ends the same way.

With a tranny taking a dump next to your 8 year old daughter.

Liberalism, the Enlightenment, it was all a mistake.

You mean the good guys?

Yeah, I assume some of them knew it was going to be a massive crap show. Unfortunately, just like us here, we can talk about how much we loathe niggers and spics, but at the end of the day, the niggers and spics are still present because the law says they're allowed to be. The individuals you speak of would have been the Holla Forums of their time.

either literally braindead or trolling

Okay? And? Did they do anything at the time to ensure the nation would remain Anglo-Saxon. Franklin wrote negatively about the Germans while they were settling in the country, doesn't refute what i said/

That's your opinion, which is irrelevant to the point i made.

Honestly we should have seen that coming at the time. Anyone who refers to themselves as "enlightened" or hints at it is a giant faggot.

Your argument only works if you suggest all whites are the same race. If so, than the country was not multicultural.

Fine. I'm king. I don't like you, so you die.

Monarchy was done away with for a fucking reason. Hell, the Roman Empire began declining with the Dominate, which should be a strong fucking clue as to the value of totalitarian, autocratic and hereditary power.

So wait, the guys literally beheading everyone that isn't progressive like them, and trying to collectivize everything are the good guys?
Do you realize how fucking horrible the Jacobins truly were?

That is not how this works.

Heck you just mentioned the HRE, a system where the Emperor could rarely get the states to join together if it didn't involve a clear outside enemy such as France or the Ottomans.

Who the fuck cares how we call him. Just make it reality already.

It certainly had nothing to do with the tribe.

Not convinced that not just a myth. And material living was really bad sometimes during those eras.

Meh. I read through the pic. That hinges on the argument that the monarch in question is not corrupt.
Counter point-What do you do when the people who hold the power have become corrupt?
See, as you yourself admitted, you can remove kings. How shall you remove a corrupted democracy and a corrupted people?

I meant as in "monarchists" in general, since you are arguing in favor of monarchism itt.

no shit but kings and emperors make themselves you cant give some jag off a crown because he was related to a guy they have to earn it. In his own way Hitler was the next emperor of Germany and until a new Hitler or Napoleon comes and takes their thrown we will remain kingless.

Kek. Ignore my 31 posts, this is most succinct post ITT.

The Romanovs were ridiculously good looking

Trivially proven false. The consensus is that the decline began under the Principate after the death of Marcus Aurelius and the succession by his son, Commodus. Commodus didn't feel like exerting the effort that previous emperors did to discharge the responsibilities of the princeps.

If there's any question in your mind about whether decline began during the Principate, remember that Elagabalus preceded the Dominate… you know the genderqueer emperor who liked to take it up the ass from his male slaves (at least one of which he referred to as "husband"), turned tricks as a prostitute while emperor, and who offered vast sums to any surgeon who could give him female genitalia. So, yeah, he wasn't exactly the best pilot for the ship of state.

the decorum

Hitler being a fag to the junker class is probably the biggest contribution to him loosing the war

That is exactly how monarchy works. It's why it was done away with. Do you think the US founding fathers came up with the current constitution out of the blue?

The principate Roman Empire (not the Holy Roman Empire, which is a completely different entity) was a two-tiered system of government, split between a non-hereditary military autocracy and a republic which only offered voting rights to citizens, and you should read up on what you had to do to be considered a citizen in Rome.

Basically, the Roman imperial system was not hereditary, was balanced by centuries of military tradition and until the dominate came about, was also balanced by the voice of the senate. Calling it a monarchy would be a lie.

I can't say much more because I have to leave for work, but let me add this: The only people who want to go back to a time before rights are people who are persuaded that THEY will still have their rights while they opponents won't. Look at how liberals are horrified at the powers used by Trump while they gave those powers to the office of president while Obama was in charge.

Please tell me this has a happy ending and somebody murdered him to seize the throne.

Yes, it did, as incompetent emperors ruled, which would eventually bring about the dominate, as incompetent emperors had been ignoring the senate anyway.

I share your sentiments user. I have began trying to set a noble example to the normies in day to day life. I am working on my house sigil. When I own my own home I will proudly fly my banners.

Vid related is worth a watch.
The Superiority of Monarchy
m.youtube.com/watch?v=PzAtszsW7WU

Actually, I just want a monarch so that I can be a peasant surrounded by other peasants of my race, instead of a peasant surrounded by Paco and Jamal ooga-booga'ing.

Yes, including desecration of xe's (haha) corpse. The historical account is worth a read, because it sounds like some modern leftist's wet dream of what a US president would be & do, complete with a slaughterful happy ending:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elagabalus

Yes. The Dominate wasn't all bad though. Diocletian and Constantine the Great are good examples of holding back the tide and Making Rome Great Again for decades at a time. But the shit had already started to slide much earlier.

also this. at this point I would be a serf so long as I didnt have to see niggers and trannies anymore

I think the founding fathers thought listening to faggots like Voltaire was a good idea.
I also think the founding fathers were tackling a completely different situation than European nations, what with the vastly different ethnic make up of American society, even back then, as well as culture and religion.

Also apologies, I misread your thing as Holy Roman Empire.

You want a good sense of what a proper monarchic nation would look like
Look to what little we know of Anglo-Saxon England.

What about an elective monarchy like early Rome where the king was chosen by a sacred assembly?

I'm assuming you're young, because about 5 or 7 years ago, NRx was swinging this hard. All of this has been covered and should be canon, frankly.
Monarchy solves the problem of sovereignty by making it magic. Sovereignty is the chief problem of governance, this is the basis of Chateau Heartiste's Diversity + Proximity = War. Even in a constitutional republic, ((marxists))l can stir up inferiors simply by insisting they possess unenumerated rights which are being violated by the sovereignty of another. Propertarianism solves that to some extent, although at the expense of the collective myth that natsoc (and all fascism, really) insists upon.
I and others have suggested that an initiate aristocracy (evola on the SS) could yield a field of judges which could write law, its not too different since laws already mean what judges say they do. This could be combined with a military autocrat of some sort or not (Prussianism)

the only place marxists were able to stir shit up was Russia and that was during a horrible war with funding from a world power. When they tried that jew shit in germany the underclass put them in the fucking ground

First of all that's an absolute monarchy.
DAILY REMINDER THAT LOUIS XIV BROKE TRADITION AND THAT HE'S GENERALLY CONSIDERED "PROGRESSIVE" FOR SETTING UP THE EVENTUAL SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

...

Not what happened in Rome.

And this is why the US failed.

Top meme.

Which is kind of the point. Returning to absolute authoritarian power is a step in the wrong direction.

Fuck off, traitor. The government is and always will be your fucking enemy.

Hey retard, did you know that ideals change over time? I would hardly call the American ideals of today the same as the ones from the 1800s; in fact, even Roman ideals had changed over time.

Yeah, nah.

...

Interesting. Lots of (((retards))) here. A while back, these kinds of threads would be chalk full of smart discussion, while the idiots would jerk off to the webm threads.

Talk about shilling; hello yid!

Retarded idea.
Kings are not officials. They are simply "born" into power. You lookin for another Louis XIV here?

The president of the US has more power then the king of england. The Revolution was an elaborate tax dodge and the men who fought a rebellion for unjust taxes would put a rebellion down that started because of taxes look up the whiskey rebellion.

Louis XIV put France into the height of its power so yeah I kind of am

Maybe today

You can hardly expect a government to capitulate to every hissy fit the public throws

Aristocracy was just as corrupt. When will Holla Forums learn yet again that humans are fallible and any kind of high civilization we create WILL end? That it will always end in a cesspool of corruption, depravity, and soullessness?

Wrong. I complained about a lack of smart discussion.

Unelected rulers are cancer.

The point is you can shoot a king, you can't shoot a thousand corrupted congressmen, since all men are fallible when given power.

...

Right. But there's a time when corruption > virtue, and a time when virtue > corruption.

...

Louis XIV bankrupted France with his idiotic mismanagement and sowed the seeds of discontent which led to the French revolution 70 years after his death.

*In other words, people just will not give a damn and let their king do whatever, even if he is doing wrong.

This.

These things are only possible with a King… a leader with complete power. You will never get those things accomplished with all the Bureaucracy (jews) in the USA.

USA will eventually crumble because of its jewaucracy and people will look for strong leaders… case and point God Emperor Trump

LA RWDS

That's why you dissolve the monopoly on force, regulate it back to the citizenry, and use local governance.
National trade, local force. 2nd amendment should never have been fucking infringed.

Nobody cares about your complaints.

Hmmmm. I wonder just who was behind that French Revolution we hear about so much. The people, right? That's what I had always been told.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estates-General_of_1789

Fuck off degenerate. People like you need to hang on the day of the rope along with others who try to force their degeneracy on the human race.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_of_Heaven

China did it right 1000 years ago.

Yes, the jews:

Right? And in every case, it went their way and hurt whites.

Stop with the bogeyman bullshit.

to everyone arguing that the King is just one man to shoot, take down, execute, etc.: that also means only one man who needs to be corrupt in order to undermine an entire society, which will suffer for decades before enough people are aware and angry enough about the corruption to do anything.

the US should have given confederacy a shot imo. it would be nice to see a group of 50 states with more vastly varying local governments, all managed by a federal government. like there could be one state with a more classical, hierarchical structure like a monarchy, and then another state with free niggers and women and shit, and then another state with, say, a robotocracy like in psycho-pass. the federal government would only step in to ensure that none of the states are acting malignantly towards each other and have enough of an army to suppress any insurrection. nukes would likely only be in the hands of the federal government for instance.

Draw whatever conclusion you like, user. It's just fun to see that the same instigators behind the French Revolution tended to the exact same professions our greatest allies do nowadays.

Truth is stranger than fiction.

Kind of telling that among the first things the revolution did was give civil rights to kikes and negroes (also desegregating them from their ghettos) and decriminalize public faggotry.

The Greek democracies didn't last 300 years (give or take several interregnums), there's no indication ours will either.

Not really. You should read the history of Rome. The Dominate was an improvement on what the Princeps had become. Sometimes systems can't be fixed from within their own paradigm & context due to lack of political viability.

To give a more modern analogy inb4 some genius points out that this, like all analogies, is flawed, arguing against the emergence of the Dominate is like arguing against Trump's advancement of executive authority because it's a "step in the wrong direction" and the "correct choice" is for us to return to only allowing white male landowners to vote in the USA–as it used to be. Yes, returning to the original constitution would be the ideal fix for many of the current problems, but that will never happen within the current system. Hence Trump is the best next step given the existing context… just like Diocletian was.

first one for

it may not be an organized conspiracy, as you seem to be mocking. that is still being argued. however, historically don't you find it kind of funny that the jews were almost always expelled, often violently? have you ever met a jew? do these things and you see how, at the very least on the individual level, they are self serving creatures

Bow down and worship Princess Sheboon, you monarchist scum. Or whatever you pretentious monarchists call themselves this week. Nrxlgtbfagwhatevers.

>>>Holla Forums

We're talking about the same posters who believe that if we expel Jews and nonwhites now then we'll never have a repeat and that the solution to the JQ is eternal anti-Semitism and an "anti-Semitic ideology (or religion)." These are posters who believe that perfect things are achievable and that if they find the "correct way of doing things" there will never be any major problems ever.

In order:

Nice strawman though. Has anyone in this thread — hell, this board — ever claimed such bullshit as Jews causing the Crusades or caused the Soviet Union to collapse? They aren't a boogeyman conspiracy, merely parasitic, hate-filled opportunists who have existed among Europeans almost since the dawn of European civilizations and thus have expectedly had a hand in every major fucking over of Europeans. Really not that difficult to understand.

Dumbass.

...

That meme did not at all answer the greentext you quoted, particularly because you are the first one ITT to bring up the crusades. Are you setting up your own strawman for you to beat?

So you would have no problem kneeling before King Rothschilds, Baron Soros and Countess Feinstein?

Has there ever been a jewish king over a european nation? There are certainly jewish merchants and jewish politicians over european nations, but I have never heard of a jewish king.

Gnon has no power next to Kek. Take your faggy NRX autism elsewhere.

That's just asking for slow degeneration and eventual corruption.

I prefer a traditionalist Aristocracy, OP. It's difficult to have a functioning monarchy when you lay down the nation into the hands of a fool, it would inevitably collapse and (((revolutionary groups))) will rise from the old empire ashes to bring """freedom""" under the tenets of (((democracy))) or worse, bolshevism

Do you know what's worse than murdering a strawman? Murdering a family of strawmen.

By that standard the revolution was an unjustified hissy fit

Monarchy will only work if genetically engineered super humans are invented. Monarchs in real life are degenerate faggots.

do you even meme bro

You seem to have a general misunderstanding of monarchy. When someone wants that crown, they are going to seize it; it's not going to be voluntary. If they are going to be monarch over a European nation, they sure as deuce won't be a poo in the loo Pajeet, unless you believe a Poo in the loo Pajeet has the brains to outsmart an entire European nation. It won't be a Jew either, I can guaranteed it, because, historically speaking, Jews have never had the crown because they don't have the stuff for it.

At the end of the day, only Europeans become European monarchs, which already puts it a step above a democratic republic.

No, I'm just not that interested in replying to you. It's just that I saw that specific portion and just had to post that.

I mean we could spend all night arguing, with me trying to source what I say and typing it all out on a fucking phone. I mean I've done it before. All that happens is that when I point out no jews were involved, suddenly it's crypto-jews and shabbos goys. As in "The jews were there, you just couldn't see them!" Then when I point out that clearly many jews aren't involved, it's quoting scriptures.

Yes, jews were expelled many, many times from many, many European nations. So were many other religious groups. And yet the bullshit keeps going on and on, without stop. It's almost like the jews had nothing to do with it. It's almost like it has more to do with greedy, power-hungry and short sighted upper classes. It's almost like the problem is complex and can't be explained away by blaming a bogeyman.

That's a lot of text reply for a "not interested in replying to you," mate. If you can objectively prove Jews WERE NOT involved in the French Revolution I will concede the point, because a cursory glance gave me a lot of circumstantial support for my theory, and your disproof of my circumstantial evidence has been "You're just a whackjob conspiracy theorist" which would fall under the category of "ad hominem."

..marxism as egalitarian technology
muh racism and muh white supremacy are marxist 2.0

same shit, white people's intra-racial social capital is what used to be the, 'means of production' in the economic materialism of pre-industrial marxism

its not if its ideologically integrated into its population. its just a question of which way the ideology flows. i think a state that generates ideology is more focused and energetic while the plebs doing so is probably more stable. obviously either way can be degenerate but if the plebs do it and fail, in the end its because they didn't deserve it

Yay! Someone else knows of Esoteric Hitlerism!

We're already piece of shit peasants, you peasant. Pic related.

Pic didn't take with unrelated embed.

/r/ing a pdf of this

>>>/polarchive/ would probably have a copy. If it's not there, you can definitely find one on Ironmarch.org under their "Religions" tab in one of the subforums.

Thanks, lad.

All men are created equal was refering to the differences between kings and commoners. As in genetics. Not that all humans on planet earth are some how equal. But that a king can be an idiot and a commoner can be wise. Which is why the USA ended up with the republic it did, with a very limited pool of people able to vote.>>9275040

Total shitwrecking badass 70 year old … like Trump :D.

They already are.

Only if it was Roman style where the Emperor-elect was adopted. Hereditary rule is degenerate.

The issue with monarchies is that it's only as good as the head of state. There are many examples of shitty heads of states. But I do agree that a good monarchy is easier achievable than some communist wet dream.

LotGH had the best approach regarding meritocratic autocracy and the danger of bloodline inherited power, by thumb rule a monarchical lineage loses its momentum after the very first generation. Other than that Rudolph did nothing wrong.

Not really. We do need heavily armed militias back something fierce though. We are long overdue for many nationwide Athens Tennessee.

My passed family was composed from barely high class smalltime landlords, doctors, teachers and full blown peasantry and most of them were royalist to the bone.

Only lolbergs (aka "idiots" in greek) perceive politics as a mean to promote petty personal materialistic goals.

Your "evidence" is a screenshot of a Wikipedia entry stating merchants were involved in it, namely that rich merchants tried to use the revolution as an opportunity to seize powers. You then append "This means jews did it" to it.

And you thought that was long? A well sourced reply would take about six posts, each twice as long as that, to describe all the different sides vying for control during the french revolution. Before the fall of the Bastille, several noble, merchant and military families were already planning on deposing the king and taking control of France. Then the Bastille happened and shit hit the fan. Hell, heard of the "Terror"? It happened specifically because one of those factions, the Jacobins, managed to seize power and used it to begin eliminating political opponents everywhere. They were initially a populist left-wing movement which got hijacked by Robespierre, who was pretty much a late 18th century SJW.

You want to know what the jews were doing back then? Spreading lies about the French and American revolutions in England. It's why half of Thomas Paine's "The Rights of Man" is a rebuke to those accusations and a description of the events of the French Revolution. Rich and powerful jews are bankers, and bankers lost a lot in both events. That's how you knoe whether jews are involved: If it's bad for banking, jews aren't behind it.

Hereditary rule is a method of eugenics, the problem with it this far is that it's not closely monitored and purely ceremonial, also stratigraphic social immobility enforced by nobility trying to protect their monopoly of power and bourgeois decadence result in long term catastrophic consequences and eventual upheavals of repressed talent like the (((French Revolution))).

hownu.ru

Can you back that up?

How would you structure the court to prevent hereditary rule from becoming degenerate? When I look at history I see too much political upheaval over it. I look at the Romans with their Pax Romana and see that they had adopted rulers. Perhaps it is coincidental that they had 200 years of peace?

Philosopher King theory, mate. Scientific monitoring and autistically technocratic institutions should always have a saying in the political life, the trickiest part is to keep those institutions un(((subverted))) from self-proclaimed intellectuals for (((intellectualism's))) sake.

Adopted heirs was a good measure but it was by definition mild cuckery and therefore a violation of natural law and often a breeding ground for ambitious usurpers and opportunists. See Brutus.

i expect that rather than some late-republic period happening, corporate interests will attempt to buy national sovereignty. so like a king, but jews.

yes
jewishvirtuallibrary.org/french-revolution
now fuck off

i think evola was on the right track with a society of initiates. if an artificial aristocracy isn't degenerate to begin with, i think its the best bet to keep a course. any various structures of power could draw from a pool of those considered ideal.

You import a new people, just like is being tried today.

Not all monarchies only have power coming from one source, the king. There are usually other estates that have their own level of influence as well, merchants, nobility, clergy.

I have been saying this for years but so many faggots on this board would attack me endlessly. When will these faggots realize the collapse of the west is due to the collapse of religion. Religion was brought down by the rise and criticisms of atheistic science.

Monarchy is the natural form of governance within human society and it goes hand and hand with religion and ethnic identity. Monarchy has collapsed and the capitalist class runs society to its detriment. No loyalty to kith and kin and no loyalty to morality and tradition.

What about a fascist monarchy?

You know, forms of government are not like tumblr genders. You can't just mix em up like that.

...

Please don't do that.

That is why I specified "atheistic science" as opposed to non-atheistic science, which is not a detriment to western civilization.

I already posted the black princess of Liechtenstein.

You have a retarded child's view of monarchy. The world already has monarchs. Sorry, princess. This isn't a Disney movie with Prince Charming to sweep you off your feet. Your monarchs are globalist, race mixing pedophiles.

What? Jews are very clearly and explicitly mentioned aiding the Muslims in their conquests. Opening the gates of Toledo, for instance.

>>>Holla Forums

Wrong. Here's how you tell: If it's bad for whites, Jews are heavily involved.

Fascism's implementation in Italy had a monarch. Just saying.

The main thing I don't like about feudalism, is how strict and unchanging the hierarchy is. It should allow for some mobility for those of merit to rise up and replace those who have failed in their roles. A natural hierarchy that accounts for future evolution and growth, and decay.

There needs to be a way to replace not just the king, but also nobles, merchants, and clergy who are failing in their roles.

A good king relies on all of his estates working efficiently together towards a common and united goal.

Mussolini's Italy maintained the monarchy, and Franco's Spain was highly monarchist leaning (monarchy declared soon after the war but no king was appointed plus Franco left the state entirely in the hands of the monarchy upon his death).
Fascism and monarchy are not mutually exclusive by any stretch of the imagination.

Not necessarily. Sure, smaller, more primitive kingdoms like Alfred's Wessex go hand in hand with Saxon identity, but the very nature of succession compounded with the international aspect of noble families marrying into each other across states lines makes a multi-ethnic polity almost inevitable. The dual crown of Hungary-Croatia, the Angevin empire, Spain's possessions in Italy and the Low Countries, the North Sea Empire, etc. Plus there is the problem of a foreign nobility ruling an otherwise relatively ethnically homogeneous kingdom, like the Normans and Hanoverians in England.
That's not to say that monarchy isn't a valid system, but that monarchy does not go hand in hand with ethnic identity by virtue of the system. Special succession laws would have to be in place to prevent a multi-ethnic polity and a foreign dominated nobility in order for the monarchy to go hand in hand with ethnicity.

...

here is your (You) 2/10 i replied

I wish we had given confederacy a longer shot too, if not just to try it out. The articles of confederation is older then the constitution. The US was a confederacy for about 10 years then a full fledged republic.

But some questions, who would make up this federal government? They would likely have to be born from one of the states, which would mean they would naturally have a bias towards something. Where does the federal government resign? Do they essentially have their own state?

Plenty of monarchs have sided with Jews as well too user. Usually for their money. Many upstart kings were funded by Jews to usurp the old king.

The most anti-semitic monarchy off the top of my head is probably the Rurikovich and Romanov dynasties of Russia. A long, almost unbroken tradition of keeping Jews from meddling.

It's on /pdfs/ actually, /pdfs/ is the very first search engine hit for "miguel serrano pdf" and that's how I found the board… I didn't even know we had that.

the real question should be did we ever stop having emperors?

youre a fucking biological dead end, you and every other rope dodger here that posits monarchism, all the monarchies and empires turn to yiddish horseshit as they expand beyond their means. Fascism is the ultimate successor to all forms of statehood, if youre here and dont know that, then you should immediately climb into a oven where you belong

Monarchs are supposed to be perfectly envisioned representatives of their people, country and culture.

How do you suppose we instill a king in a country so ethnically diverse and mixed? And even if we did, how would he realistically reign over a country void of a singular identity?

I suppose such a king would just have to make it less diverse.

That's rich coming from the guy so flustered that he types like a nigger
The most succesfull form of government in our civilization up till now, although it doesn't come without it's downsides and corruption as other anons here mentioned, there is no perfect form of government and all forms of government are suspectible to corruption others more others less. But yeah keep rambling fucking nosense.
Fascism is inherently a monarchy or an oligarchy at the very least. Follow your own advice.

...

Monarchy is actually what held Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire together. There just needs to be a system balancing the interests of all the ethnic and religious groups like the millet system.

Helpful reminder that fascism and authoritarianism can happen under monarchy. Mussolini and Tojo served under monarchs, and today Prayuth rules under the Thai king too. Just instead of an elected prime minister, you have a military/single party state leader handling the everyday business of government on behalf of a monarch who focuses on ceremony.

Also helpful reminder, that while monarchs sometimes worked with the Jews, almost all the expulsions and confinements to ghettoes happened under the Ancien Regime, while Jewish emancipation was one of the legacies of the French Revolution.

Pathetic.

next youll be suggesting multiculturalism and fractional reserve banking as "red-pilled"

They are completely incompatible with monarchic systems one of which is fascism which you so much love and i find pretty ok as a system of governance. Please continue displaying your stupidity.

Every non-monarchist in this thread. Defeatists.

Both of you, what i meant was the following :
Putting Monarchy infront of Fascism isn't really needed. Technically there can be Oligarchic implementations of Fascism but it is mostly implied and working as a Monarchy, so it is basically redundant that Fascism is a Monarchy. That's what i meant with my post.

...

Wrong. We need Führers. Kings were servants of the Jewish bankers.

I wasnt being sarcastic. You just made that up. Pretty slimey of you or should i say pretty jewish of you. Nice projection there Shlomo. I wasn't sure before but i am now.

I think you will find that this also is a form of Monarchy.

Perhaps multiple kings?

Holy shit maybe. An old-fashioned constitutional monarchy with a bill of rights attached could be quite effective.

Human nature demands there be only one.

And have a despot rule everyone? You have to think about it OP, there are absolutely no reason for a Monarch to be benevolent in the modern day. With the overabundant technological spy systems and tools, people have absolutely no chance to keep in check a King who goes rogue and decide to go against the best interests of his kingdom. Anyone or group committing wrongthink to overthrow someone who goes full kike once in power can be discovered and killed even before he leaves his house. By installing Monarchy, you're asking to install a despot or, if you prefer, USSR on steroids.

...

It totally does though. At least someone, at some point, did have to have the charisma and intelligence to get into the aristocracy in the first place. Not saying that it can't become a corrupt circlejerk, because it DOES, all the time, but to say it has nothing to do with merit is incredibly wrong.

That would be an oligarchic system of governance which defeats the purpose of a "king" in the first place. You could unite white european ethnic groups under the banner of european colonialists and expel niggers and kikes and then form a kingdom or an empire. Or you could go with fascism which would help on purging niggers and kikes faster. Or you can start with fascism and after that fascism can evolve to a kingdom or empire by picking nobles through their militaristic or scientific achievements, that acompanied with an ancestry test i think can give a start to that. The inherent problem with that and lineages is that there is going to be a problem of degeneration after the third generation at most so a different approach can be debated to bring things up to speed.

It only has to do with merit because the average peasant is kept in the dark. Think about it if you will: Aristocrats would have access to the internet, meanwhile peasants would barely have access to books, only those who are vetoed by the clergy to use in schools, to make sure they stay in eternal servitude.

...

Not even just human nature, centralization is a common universal theme, found in biology and even chemistry.

Bodies have brains, galaxies have suns, moons have planets, ants and bees have queens, lions have patriarchs, elephants have matriarchs. There's even a theory that the universe itself revolves around a central point.

At one point in time, Rome would have two consuls in charge of armies. I'm sure you can imagine how devastating that would be in terms of planning.

There can only be one.

Two or more just means things get torn apart, pulled into different directions by multiple stronger forces.

...

It's over, don't make it worse for yourself, just stop posting.

Well the thing is that things cannot be as simple as they were before. Our current technologies would require more than peasants and masterful craftsmen along with a handful of aristocrats and nobles at the top.
So you can't really bring "peasantry" back either.

...

I beg to differ, Look at the sheer amount of pajeets and SJWs able to do tech and go into STEM. You can easily have trained idiots who are still kept in the dark about the real world, while being able to do modern jobs. It's an advanced form of peasantry.

...

The few specialists who learn to do quality work in those fields will be reserved to the aristocrats if feudalism comes back.

I love you guys so much.

Even though it will propably never happen. A man can dream.

Piss off sperg >>>/cuckchan/

Thing is even with all information being infront of them right now, most normies are willingly kept "in the dark about the real world" and are drinking the koolaid, if anything things are going worse. A "modern peasant", would be a lot more different and fulfiled person than it used to be before or even today, hell even the upper castes need changes due to problem of degeneration via lineage. Without the kikes meddling this could play out nicely if we figure out an answer to the problem of nobility or aristocracy.

real intelligent thought there

Sad display. I should probably just filter your miserable existence to save you from further humilation.

But how do we prevent a greedy fat piece of shit tyrant though?

...

This is the big problem here. Degeneration via lineage. Perhaps if there were more than one line compatible for the throne it could raise competition and extend things till the inevitable collapse and rebuild up to a point

...

Keep in mind that royalties of the past were inbred as fuck.

I think that is something that can be dealt with these days. The biggest problem is what you said before. Which i am trying to think of a solution for.

Nations with an already existing royal family, would have to get rid of the old line an create a new line of royalties. How would this be done?

The reason i'm saying this is because the current royal families of nations such a England, Sweden, Norway etc. Or my country Denmark. Are so fucking corrupt and impure at this point, that there's literally zero reason to keep them around.

Our fucking crown prince married a chinese. She's the duchess of Frederiksborg, which is one of the biggest castles in Denmark.

They're seperated now, but the whore is living a life in luxury at the expense of my people.

Isn't one of Luxembourg's princesses a nigger?

They are talking about bringing back Feudalism, what'd you expect. There won't be millions highly-qualified people under a Monarchy, just like there weren't tens of thousands in the aristocracy back then. A modern day Monarch would know better than to want a million people able to sabotage his plans.

Not that i know of.

The problem with Monarchies is that decedents tend to regress (or progress) towards the average center line. Appointment is the best way, but not (necessarily) through hereditary means. I have been toying with the idea of appointment by some sort of trials, mental, physical, and moral, with a strong traditional background in the backdrop as some sort of bureaucratic fail-safe. The idea is still in its infancy though.

Or a Shogun.

The democratic system is literally made to be smoke and mirrors. Democracy does not exist, it's shadow oligarchy. The idea that democracy makes everyone equal is so stupid I have to wonder if Jews aren't right in the term "cattle" since so many normalfags buy it. Democracy means that whoever has the most power to shape the views of the masses is king, meaning the end result is an oligarchy, but a much nastier one than those of the past. With democracy, the oligarchs are not held responsible for their rulings, as they shape society's flow and who the masses elect, they rule by proxy through the politicians. The politicians are the ones taking the flak while the actual decision makers can get away scot-free from the consequences of their decisions. What's more, the feeling of guilt is pushed onto said masses as well, as people think "well he was terrible but WE should have known better than voting for him!" (which is true, but they were playing a rigged game from the start) and away from the ones actually responsible.

On top of that, democracy causes infighting. It creates an "us vs them" mentality INSIDE of the community instead of the notion that you are all in the same boat. Suddenly it's not about your nation and people, it's about a vague nonsensical (modern normalfag political ideologies are basically that, they don't tackle actual problems) ideology and "tribe" (which is just determined by what brainwashing channel you watched on TV growing up). This greatly weakens nationalism, especially since these non-ideologies are global and create a false sense that there is more division inside of countries than between them (which is true, but these divisions are artificial illusions in the form of non-ideologies).

Also the people at the top don't own anything. It's not THEIR people, it's not THEIR country, they just direct the masses in a way that will net them the greatest personal gain. They have no interest in bettering the county and its people, because it's not theirs. Mind you, the kind of people that are at the top of this game likely wouldn't give two shits even if they did own the country.

Democracy is the biggest fucking scam in history.

That's not true in my eyes. In my eyes, Jews seek domination. They seek power. The reason why they take control of banking is because banking increases their power. Money is just a means to power, not an intrinsic good. If the revolutions, albeit weakening the banks, ultimately weakened the populaces and made them easier to control then, in a sense, it's "worth the price".

You mean like God Emperor Trump?

This comment was so good it went into my physical folder of based Holla Forums comments.

Very well put. I think it's safe to say most Holla Forumsacks were attracted to Holla Forums for having this sentiment somewhere in the recesses of their minds.

They're out there if you really want to find them. The hardest thing is to convince them.

Mate human nature causes infighting. We just try to mitigate it the best we can with government and culture. Don't fall into the lefty trap of "without ___, we'd have utopia."

Democracy tends to bring out infighting because it prioritizes the individual over the collective, or on an even more fundamental level, it prioritizes chaos over order. An individual's right to self-determination trumps the cohesion of the collective.

And lest you forget, without democracy, Trump would have never gotten into power. Hillary was THE establishment candidate, the only thing that blocked her ascension to power was the will of the people.

Yes we are ruled by proxy by oil barons and ancient families that have no right to wield so much power over us but democracy is, currently, the only thing keeping us from being completely under their grasp. It gives us a tiny voice to fight against their megaphone, where previously, we would have had no voice at all. It's an imperfect system, but it is better than the ones we had in the past. That being said, pic related would be amazing.

And yet people have widespread access to internet today and are still uninformed about the world.

You just need to look at how centralized the office of the Presidency has become today to see that the average citizen wouldn't have too much of a problem with a single ruler. As long as the plebs have food, TV, and jobs they'll be pacified.

An excellent point.

Should we hope to serve a church built by the hands of God, no by man's, so would I strive to serve a nation built by God.

Capped and saved

I've been reading philosophy since I was like 15 years old. Never once picked up Marxist books.

If monarchs get murdered, monarchy isn't working well, is it?

So another good point as to why monarchy doesn't work. Corrupt the king, the whole thing goes down the shitter.

See above regarding corruption.

U wanna be a KANG, faggot? You think you have what it takes so that your subjects don't tear you from your bedroom at night and burn you alive? You think you're that good of a person?

I laugh. Heartily. Fuck I'd even endorse you just to watch you fail miserably and see your incredulous face in the flames.

I am amazed at the number of Americans that do not understand this.

The USA was formed as a Republic, and NOT a Democracy, although our form of government is democratic by necessity.

What's the difference?

Republic:
Sovereignty lies with the individual

Democracy:
Sovereignty lies with the (((group)))

(((They))) obviously love and pitch democracy for the control it provides them.

seems to me that most good and all great monarchs rise in war time. i'm not convinced that its in any way more natural any more than how egalitarianism is thought to be more modern by communists. while triangles are intrinsically better than squares, but a cohesive population shouldn't need absolute stability

a tiny voice on subjects you mostly don't even want to waste your life thinking about so that millions of other tiny voices can have the opportunity to badger you into millions of tiny arguments.

Democracy is pointless, perpetual, low-level warfare.

ffs, you should know something about it. ignorance is no virtue. marx defined the political discourse that we still use. even if you want to use a different paradigm you'll end up having to translate from marxist discourse.

The west hasn't collapsed yet, you stupid wannabe KANGZ fuck.

Yeah, like when the King declares himself to be God?

You fucking wannabe KANGZ pushing your agenda. Maybe you'd have more luck on Reddit lol

>With the overabundant technological spy systems and tools, people have absolutely no chance to keep in check a King who any type of government that goes rogue
FTFY. It's already been demonstrated in the USA that the president can order the extrajudicial killing of a US citizen, via a secret legal doctrine that the administration refuses to disclose, and the federal courts will throw out lawsuits brought by the targeted citizen's family seeking to stop it. thanks, Obama How's that for "checks and balances" in a constitutional republic?

And how about our NSA panopticon of monitoring of our own citizens? All the other "democratic" governments wish they had that level of domestic spying… they just try as hard as they can to emulate it. Are these tools being used to stop radical Islamic terrorism, or rather to give the government enough material to character assassinate white dissidents?

No form of government is inherently resistant to this kind of insidious destruction of privacy, as evidenced by the lack of governmental declarations worldwide that these tools are toxic to liberty.

Well, I see what could have been an intelligent discussion has regressed to the typical ad homs of our herdist "NatSoc" brethren. Pity, there were a few good points made too.
Oh well, I guess I'll go back to shitposting. That's the only thing this site is good for anymore.

I know about Obama making it legal to assassinate someone but was it actually used?

but who's going to build the roads???

Oh well, I guess I'll go back to shitposting. That's the only thing this site is good for anymore.

You added NOTHING to the discussion except for your "the west has collapsed" bullshit.

Go shitpost Reddit with your crap.

The main merit of aristocracy is not that they somehow are born better than others, it's that with an aristocrat, you KNOW, right from birth, what role that person is going to have in the society. With that knowledge, you can prepare said person for his role all his life – a prince can prepare himself for the day he inherits the kingdom his entire life, learning all the relevant skills from an early age, ensuring a certain degree of capability. In times when, for one reason or another, the monarch ends up NOT being capable and unwilling to abdicate, other people such as higher nobility or advisors take the reins for the duration of the monarch's indisposition (leading to something akin to a temporary oligarchy). Inheritance by bloodline then prevents any conspiracies and machinations from usurping the country – not even the jewiest jew can change who is going to be born to the royal couple.

The goal of aristocracy is not to ensure a genius sits on the throne (great if it actually happens, but that's not too often), but to maintain stability. The person sitting on the throne is likely going to be of average intelligence (which can, however, be positively changed if the royal family adopts an eugenic approach), but one who knows all there is about politics, diplomacy, economics, and all the other things needed to govern a state, who is motivated to maintain a strong, healthy country (after all, he knows that he will be there for life and that it will be his children who take over after him, so long term gain outweights the short term), and who, for better or for worse, is always a bit of a wild card, as there is no way of knowing just what kind of person will be born next.

So no. No ruling bloodlines. Not Even Once.

You people don't seem to realize that the whole monarchy concept has been tried countless times and it fails miserably. Every time. And you want to try it again to see if it'll work this time around…that's fucking insanity.

It's obvious that you all spend a great deal of time thinking about this shit. Can't even one of you have an original thought or concept? Are we doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past?

I picture some of you as being filthy rich and wanting to be a KANGZ. Go ahead fag. I dare you. I look forward to watching you crash and burn.

except it hadn't.

Monarchy is a fire that cannot be extinguished. The nation state concept will fail, tribalism and monarchy will return. It's inevitable.

Oh, you mean existing monarchs like Queen Elizabeth II? Or maybe those of the Middle East?

You're argument is a joke. The Queen's been a running joke forever. And the Middle East is nothing but war.

Please educate me, using real world examples, on how exactly a monarchy is good in the long run?

Pro Tip: You can't, because they have no lasting power. They get subverted, replaced, insanity from interbreeding…the list goes on.

Poof

Oh look. the flame went out.

This reddit spacing meme seems more and more credible with each passing day. What an awful post.

A man cannot serve two masters.

To believe in "democracy" one must necessarily believe in one of two things:

It's because most rulers have delusions of grandeur and that they have to "do something" and "leave a legacy." Great leaders by necessity require great disasters for them to lead through, but ideally good governance should lead to the opposite (i.e. not disasters), thus leading to the paradox that if we have the best leaders for the circumstances they find themselves in we should have, most of the time, leaders who do relatively little (good leaders for disasters solving the problem, leading to no problems, leading to rulers who do not need to solve any). This, of course, is odious to most who find themselves in positions of rule (and most especially to those who work their way there) and so we end up with rulers who look for disasters to make themselves great.

It's because of this that most of the time we really don't need great rulers. In fact, great rulers would probably be detrimental, since their considerable skills would go completely to waste were they to do the proper thing of doing little.

As opposed to which system that never gets subverted or corrupted?

you already have aristocracies created within rich families, trump is a modenr version of it. Heck, we don't elect anyone who is not coming from a certain circle of a person who has few million dollars behind him and different blood connections to other rich folks who also work in the government.
Modern democracy was captured by private moneyed interests that turned them into oligarchs - we use that trm for rich Russians, but in reality oligarchs run the West as well.
The problem starts when a Caesarian figure like Trump decides to fix things and shakes up the system.

Monarchies have a lot of pros and cons, but the institutional problems of monarchies aren't that different from presidential systems as all of them rely on personality of the executive. The difference with a monarch is that he is responsible for a country his whole life and thus is far more invested in the running of the country, as well as the cabinet he has and the court he holds.

Monarchies however enforce natural hierarchies and provide social stability to the extent that normal democracies were never abel to generate and thus were easily subverted by the moneyed classes. Arguably, with monarchical system respecting bloodlines and inheritance laws even more strongly than other system, Jewish influence would be expunged from the ruling class and eugenics would become far more acceptable. Meritocracy need not be abolished, as people with achievements can easily be granted nobility and those who fail to uphold their honour can be made commoners again.

Thank you. Then my point was made.

The fact is, monarchy is nothing more than a tool used by fledgling societies as they mature into something more sustainable.

I'm not saying that what we have now is sustainable. I think we're still looking for that. But I do know that going backwards isn't the answer.

Faggots

Emperor

The Council

The Order

Cycle through all three continually. Forever.

The Emperor has a kin or no more than two in a row and for a generation or after it transitions into a council (oligarchy) for several generations, then an Order which is rule through Republic/Democracy as passed down by the Council and First Emperor until another Emperor Ascends.

How is any political system "backwards" or "progressive" unless you're a duplicitous lefty fuck?

We haven't found that yet, but we're searching.

I do know that going backwards will just reintroduce the same issues that were dealt with hundreds of years ago.

Humans need to evolve into a strongly militaristic society with extremely strong male patriarchal bonds. One wife, multiple (infertile) concubines, many children. Each family produces one officer who works for the state which excavates and explores space.

Risky jobs and military exercises and strict order create a powerful government. While the private sector is open and each man is to have shares of the Republic through the corporations.

Rather than a vote, each man has shares of a company, those are his votes

If any kike shit is pulled, the Emperor drafts his soldiers and the military to crush anything.

There's that meme again. Go home, Holla Forums.

You don't seriously believe that perfection is attainable for mortals in this universe, do you? I notice that nowhere have you actually advocated for any particular system of government, nor have you qualified what you would consider to be a "failure" of government meriting the system never be used again.

It's backwards because it was tried in the past and it failed.

We're supposed to look to the past and learn from it. People here seem to want to try it again and see if they get different results.

They won't. It has no long term stability.

You don't need to worry about Jewing if you kill all Jews.

...

constitutional monarchy is just democracy, the Queen is a figurehead, not a monarch

Learn basic grammar, dipshit

Monarchy is what we used since ancient times, and it had been monarchy that led to the development of most of humanity's achievements. Democracy was brough by liberalism, which now kills the West like cancer, not to mention Democracy being the kike's dream system, where he can easily put whomever he wants in power through (((media))) and lobbying.

in all but the oldsest forms of monarchy, insane monarchs were always forced to abdicate or at least cut off from power, see my previous post

Nice meme you have there, schlomo.

The 1000 year "trial period" of monarchy only ended in failure when Jews were allowed to secure influence.

Beaver does some decent theorycrafting. Guess what pizzagate will irrevocably do to the masses? "You were really fucking wrong about everything to the point that your leaders were having you live in an alternate reality so they could freely rape your children and consume their souls. That's how fucking wrong you are. We will never let your wrong-about-everything normalfag culture forget this."

I want it imprinted on their minds and monuments made until no disaster would be large enough or erosion complete enough to make them forget. They were so utterly wrong they cannot be allowed to forget. Once their conscientious ignorance fails, it's time to move in and fix the normalfag overmind.

So amaze me with this entirely new, never tried before system that you have come up with, if we're to scrap everything that was tried in the past.

I hope you aren't an engineer, because you'd never get past the prototyping stage. Your line of thought is so narrow it's almost disturbing. The trick is to know when to abandon a design and when to tweak it and reimplement it for version 2.0.

Normalfag detected.

Considering all available historical evidence, monarchies have the most long-term stability of any known governing system, so what are you on about? Just off the top of my head the British monarchy existed in a meaningful sense for over seven hundred years. Can you name me another system that lasted longer, because I honestly can't think of any. All the longest-lasting polities in history I know of were monarchies. Roman Empire, Byzantine Empire, various European monarchies…

About the longest-lasting alternative I can think of would be either the US or Roman Republic, but those both do not come anywhere near close to the "long term stability" historically exhibited by monarchies.

Criticize monarchy all you like, but you could at least make a criticism that made sense.

Nope, never said that. Still searching for better answers though.

Nice try, fag. It's not about what I think works, it's about the fact monarchy doesn't work.

Oh, alright, you're one of those "everything is shit but I have no suggestions" faggots. This discussion is pointless then. Nobody constructed anything based on knowing what didn't work, so either suggest something or fuck off.

And you have yet to quantify what this "failure" you keep talking about is. Sage for pointless discussion.

So whats better, a king, or an emperor?

The REAL redpill is if you aren't intelligent/strong enough to make it in business then you have no place in the world and should die/be a servant. That includes whites who are pathetic scum who sit on chan boards complaining instead of actively studying/working to improve their lot.

You know that I'm 100% correct.

Love it when worthless fuckups project their self-flagellating attitude onto otheres. Nice sage.

What the fuck?

I think i found a solution to the problem of degeneration via lineage at least on how to select a king. So this is how i think a king should be selected.
This needs work but i think this could solver our problem. It would also be broadcasted live to the whole country and the internet.

The sage is to trigger you into proving my point that you care more about an imageboard than real life lol.

Lazy and pathetic.You deserve to be replaced by immigrants tbh.

Worst trolling attempt I've seen in a long while. At least put effort into your shitposts.

No, really. For once in history Europeans find themselves unable to apply barbaric violence to solve their problems and they don't know what to do. You're being killed with kindness (fastfood and netflix and cuck porn was all it took, kind of ez)

Anime wins again.

Such resentment of Europeans. I think we have a shitskin on display or a kike.
Be careful because Europeans just runned out of that kindness. The tide is turning and you are going to drown pretty soon. You can be all smug on the way to the hangman. Makes no difference to me.

All ruling and former ruling noble families are globalist scum

The royal Dutch family are the founder of the Bilderberg meetings.

The British royal family are circumcised globalists, ask Prince Charles. The late princes Diana prevented the circumcision of their children, after her death William and Henry let their dicks being cut.

The Habsburg family are the heads of Kalegri-Coudehoven's Pan-Europe movements.

The Spanish Bourbons did sell out to the globalists after Franco's death, despite inheriting all of his power.

German ignoble families were the centre of a treasonous plot against Hitler. They sold out Germany and received a handsome payout from the internationalist post war occupiers of Germany.

The ruling elite is shit, we should have another kind of ruling elite, one the people dosent elect. The feudoal system is shit.

You're on the right track, but here's the true redpill:

We need a global government with an elective constitutional monarchy, operating under a federal system with semi-democratic representation of the world's population through a tricameral parliamentary body. Lower house is for the elected representatives of the plebs, middle house is for the nobility and landed elite, and upper house is for the cabinet officials serving under the ruling monarch, who I've rather taken to calling 'Emperor'. The economy should be run on a mixed-market system, both rewarding free enterprise as well as providing only enough welfare for the impoverished to allow survival (but not to provide comfort). In the event of dealing with a foreign body, such as extraterrestrials, all trade shall be done on the basis of mercantile commerce, ensuring that all trade deals are for the benefit of the human race.

Now, here's the most important part to ensure this doesn't become a globalist multicultural wankfest.
Each federal district will be assigned on the basis of cultural and/or ethnic background. Those who do not belong to the majority culture and/or ethnicity will be returned to their ancestral homeland. For example, African Americans will be sent back to one of the many African federal districts if they prove to be incapable of assimilation, and the same goes with Mexican immigrants being sent back to the Mexican federal district, both legal or illegal. Enshrined in this government will be the principle of "Africa for Africans, Asia for Asians, Europe for Europeans", ensuring that each federal district will and ought to be totally homogenous.

Furthermore, to cull the impurities from human society, those with physical or mental disorders of significant impact (such as autism, homosexuality, Downs syndrome, etc) shall be sterilized and unable to bear offspring of any kind. They may, however, still find loving relationships with others of their choosing, but they will not be able to produce or adopt children in any circumstances. Those who agitate on behalf of these groups for greater liberties, or in opposition to the previously mentioned project of ethnic and cultural homogeneity in each district, shall be labeled as committing 'Crimes against Nature and Humanity' for inciting rhetoric that is considered to be detrimental to the common good of humankind. This means that all jew-funded projects like Antifa, as well as the kikes who fund them in the first place such as Soros or the Rothschilds, shall have their assets seized and their persons incarcerated for life with no chance of parole. A taste of their own medicine, if you will.

All of this shall be done in the spirit of encouraging humanity to be the very best it can be, for we are the greatest species in existence, and our Emperor is and shall always be the greatest of our species.

Elective Monarchy?

I don't even know from where to start with this. This post is probably the most jewish post i have red in a long while. In my huge merchant folder, i can't even find an appropriate merchant to match this.

What if you brought back real aristocracy and out of their sons only the best can rise to the title of King. Testing those children every step of the way for intellectual ability, old European virtues like bravery, cultivate a genuine love for their people from a early age. Like a furnace for the best

I can refer you here. You can help me improve this one.

The Emperor rises, heretic, and with his rise comes also the rise of humanity and the end of Jewry.

The answer comes from vidya
pathofexile.gamepedia.com/Trial_of_Ascendancy

Short Version:
Basically an ancient kingdom that since died because it went to bloodline transfer of power (It used to be THE power, the Eternal Empire)

Basically there was a big ass labyrinth that was designed to kill you. The emperor could change things to make it killier or add more sections, OR build a new one. Never allowed to be less killy though. The first fucker to get out the other side alive and kill the previous emperor (provided he was still alive) got to be the new emperor. Strength ruled, and they were powerful.

This 100%.

Just as Hitler said it.
Im not sure wether there is a version of this video with English subtitles.

Wew thanks user.
A (you)
for you.

Fine you wanna go, it's on faggot. You asked for this.

You globalist scum, no i am not leaving my roots for your rootless globalist society.
So basically a disorganized shitfest that will degenerate via lineage, in the upper castes and you don't even say what each of the castes will elect or do , and what power each of the representatives of the lower caste and the noble caste respectibly have. Also who is your noble caste ? Along with that
We see how good that is working right now.

It already is one.
WHY WOULD YOU EVER DO THAT
Also about Asians it is debatable which you let live Nipps get a pass because honorary. This is a multicultural wankfest. Congratulations.

I am ok with this as long as people don't start inventing imaginary illnesses to perform another white genocide in this multicultural shithole that you have built.
Which will eventually devolve to "hate crimes", "thought crimes". How fucking wonderful.
If kikes live to fund that by the time you have implied this YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW FUCKED UP YOU ARE.

Yeah yeah and singing and dancing and unicorns and rainbows.
Please i beg of you. Tell me this is some kind of shitpost. Tell me that this is a ruse by some masterful Aussie.

Traditionalism is silly tho, just less stupid than a few others.

Yep.

Go away jew

I'm just going to stick with trial by strength selection. Each and every new leader must pass it.

IQ and history test, military service and motherhood cross (5 children minimum).

Yup.
imdb.com/title/tt0093894/
(The Running Man)

In a way, the Fuhrer was a kind of king - a benevolent, popular pseudo-monarch.

Most anons justifiably object to the hereditary side of monarchy in that there's little guarantee each successive ruler will be as good as the last. If potential successors had to earn their kingship through great feats like masterful statesmanship or a great military career, then I think a lot more of us would be comfortable with the concept of a literal King.

The problem with inhereted succession to the throne is regression to the mean, even if The king is effectively a GOD EMPEROR, his sons will in all likelihood be joe normalfaggot the First, second, and Third. If you solve this problem by allowing the throne to be transferred to a suitable successor who has proven himself, then you just end up with National Socialism.

The lower house will represent the interests of the common people and make them known to both the middle and upper house. The middle house will represent the interests of the regional governors in charge of each district (regardless of if they are elected or appointed by hereditary rule, they will usually be given honorary titles of nobility. It is up to each federal district to determine how they wish to select their governor, whether it be by democratic election, hereditary rule, or whoever can beat up the other person.) The upper house will represent the interests of the Emperor. The Emperor shall always have the final say, so the two lower houses are mostly advisory in nature. Also, the Emperor may only be elected from the European or North American federal districts due to proven skill in imperial administration throughout history (the empires of Rome, Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, Germany, USA, to name a few examples).

I'm not saying it would be a carbon copy of the British Parliament or, god forbid, the United States Congress. This body would only have as much legislative function as the Emperor would allow them to have, and the Emperor could pass decrees at any time without the consent of the three houses. If they would want to overturn the decree, they'd have to all vote together against it in a super-majority.

They'd honestly be treated more like animals in a giant nature preserve, rather than an actual political force in government, much less an actual presence in civilization.

The Emperor would hold oversight over any medical or psychological institutions, especially those operating as an arm of the government itself. Before a new disorder can be added to the list (or removed from the list, as was the case with homosexuality after their terrorism succeeded in cucking the psychologists at the conference) the Emperor would need to determine if there is enough evidence to support its incorporation or dismissal as part of the DSM.

If they're targeting whites, you're damn right they're hate/thought crimes.

Right wing death squads.

Tell me where I mentioned slavery in my post.
The federal district system was designed specifically to allow for multiple cultures to exist in this scenario.
Accountability prevents tyranny, which is why the monarch is elected.

The inherent problem of a king is the inherent problem of any government:

The person who desires absolute rule over everything is not going to possess the virtue and wisdom required to become the absolute ruler. George Washington was an amazing leader and vital founder to the United States, and his complete denial of any power or post beyond that of the Presidency is proof to his character. A lesser man would have accepted such a position.

In every place, in every time, the people who seek after power will be those least deserving of power. And the children of such people will rarely possess even that degree of virtue, leading to the decline of the nation which marks the great flaw of a hereditary government.

(checked)
The problem isn't the scientists themselves, but the popular opinion on what science is and what goals it serves. In the minds of most normalfags science is aetheistic and exists to dispel the "myths" of religion (like the hierachy of men and women, the inferiority of races, the need for community). The problem we face is this meme that science is inherently anti-religion, and guess (((who))) forced that meme upon us?

NO
The laziness of the aristocracy enabled the rise of the jews. Instead of managing their land and people on their own they rented it out to the jews. All monarchists must hang.

Read Hobbes' Leviathan for a succint criticism of democracy.

A King may be bad, but politicians are all but guaranteed to be bad. A King, at least, cares about the future of his society, whereas some elected politician can fuck off 4 years hence. A King may be greedy and corrupt, but one man may only steal so much. In a democracy, a whole army of politicians is there to steal from the people. A King may make bad decisions, but at least he has advisors who can try to steer him. A democratic body, however, is paralyzed, not only because of the many disagreeing people whom it contains, but also because of the impossibility of good advisors to convince a single person.

On top of all that, a King at least knows that he will be overthrown if he oppresses his people to severely. Democratically elected leaders, on the other hand, can endlessly defend themselves with the excuse that they were elected and that the people can just elect someone else. Of course, this only results in one inept leader after another.

The problem with monarchy in an age of modernism is that God has been killed in our collective unconciousness and subsequent culture. Thus there is nothing higher than man itself, no higher principles to transcend to, or get objective values from. What is left is either nihilism or the worship of the state in modernistic terms of pure ideology, which has no objective value except power to control the masses.

That's why we will not see any Charlemagnes, Frederick IIs or any Holy Emperors of the Ghibelline ideal in our age, as then their authority was in the domain of the sacred, it was from above and it was absolute. People thought of them as a temporary manifestation of God on earth, as they have spiritually trancended beyond normal men.

What is left is either to slowly change the pendelum and change the collective unconcsiousness, which is already happening through shitposting memes, or to adopt a hardened discipline to cope with the modern world and pass this knowledge as far as possible to generations to come, so when the collapse finally occurs, people who have been long waiting can rise up to assume power. Not because they want to, but because it will be necessary.

Either way, monarchy will happen again as that is the organic way on how hierarchy is created among men, not mechanical as it is today.

Video related.

This is why the uninfringed right to own guns should be the norm in every country

NRx go home. America is a fucking republic and we don't need Kikebug's bullshit. Get rid of the lesser sub humans, kick out the kikes, and we can have the Republic our forefathers envisioned.

Speaking of monarchs, did he do anything wrong Holla Forums?

I'm ok with this as long as I get to be king.

Are you some kind of cuckold? A leader needs to prove himself worthy by some objective measure. You can't inherit greatness.

Likewise, Democracy works too, so long as the people who are voting also meet some standard of character. Of course, you could argue that if the people are willing to hold their leader responsible for his actions, then there is no need for democracy. What it comes down to is that the farmers and factory-workers need to have the resolve to remove criminals from the government, because the government will never regulate itself. This is what Thomas Jefferson said and it's as true today as ever.

They do if the crown oversteps the bounds of his divine responsibility. The right of kings is only so long as he is just, once he crosses the line the rightful King is the own who restores the divine mandate, see justice done and the kingdom restored, even by blood.

It's been that way since at least the Magna Carta.

I think you're confusing the Divine Right of Kings with the Mandate of Heaven, friend. European monarchism had no concept of kings being accountable or illegitimate except if they directly went against the word of God, e.g: Converted to a heretical/heathen religion.

Here God isn't god. It is based on the highest ultimate sense of honor and duty to your people and country. If you disrespected that (as a monarch) then you lost your right to rule. Some Catholicucks will argue the heathen religion side but this keeps it simple.

This.

...

This is complete bullshit and you know it. There's no hurr durr "atheist science" that all of sudden disproves God. The questions that the athiests ask today are the same ones that have always existed and been asked. Neither Darwin, Godel, Einstein nor anyone else's scientific work can serve as a strong proof against the existence of God. The downfall of the church is because the church has turned away from God and no longer teach his message, but they parrot around this idea that "oh it's these dang athiests". And when these communist, homosexual, and jewloving so-called priests have to answer for the destruction they have unleashed upon society there is no doubt they will say it is the result of science, as if science has not always existed.

not so fast britcuck…

OP confirmed for dumb peasant. Go shovel some horseshit you dildo.

Why not some sort of hybrid?

An elected King that serves one 10-year term and retires to a membership of a sort of Council of Rulers, who themselves' only job is to reign in the power of the presiding King.

absolute monarchy is outdated, the once noble and good blood lines of kings of old is now tainted and worthless, better to go for what monarchies evolved into, fascism

eduate yourself, fam; see webm

low energy, moshe

Is there a Jewtube channel associated with that webm?

...

It's only a favorable idea if they align mostly with your side.
If this had been posted in Obamaland it would be saged to hi heven

The only problem with fascism is making sure the dictator is competent. A lot of self-proclaimed fascists were blowhards who acted selfishly. For every Hitler or Ghaddafi there were at least five Mussolinis.

...

And what precisely are you right now, lolberg?

It was the monarchs that sold us out to the jew in the first place.

The essential value of a democracy is that it allows transfer of power without needing violent revolution.

Yes, a good king is better than a good president. But a bad king is much much worse than a bad president.

Pic related, carlos II, the special needs king of spain.

Yes, democracy causes infighting. Conflict. It may seem like a bad thing, but it's not. Competition is essential to breed strong men. Conflict is essential.

The point is that we've let democracies get really bad and there's a couple of reasons for this.

1. There's been peace for a long time, which produced weak men and complacent population. This has let us slide back quite a bit.
2. You need an average IQ of 100 or higher to have a functioning democracy. The large amounts of low IQ immigration is destroying democracy and rampant race mixing would be the bullet in the brain.
3. Power corrupts. It's biological imperative that once you get power, you use and abuse it to get as much resources for your family and kin as you could. It's really uncommon for dictators and such to not become bad. Hitler would have become corrupt, he just didn't live long enough to do so. He's like Kennedy and Alexander in that regard. Now, considering how thoroughly our democratic institutions itself have been corrupted with electronic voting and such, it's still functioning somewhat, or you wouldn't have gotten trump in power and we'd have lost net neutrality a long time ago.

There's no value in democracy, the U.S.A. was a republic.

I'm using the word democracy as a political system where there's suffrage for most or all citizens. Under that definition, a republic is a form of democracy.

If you're understanding democracy to mean something else, please elaborate.

Hitler likely would have put the Hohenzollern's back on the throne once his job was finished, look what happened in Spain after Franco.

Unlikely. He despised and distrusted the monarchy. He goes at length on his opinion of the Habsburgs early in Mein Kampf. Here are two excerpts from Hitler's War expressing this as well.

Finally a good thread.

Women were banned from universities. They received Housewife Training instead.

I will never bow to another man. I will not kiss a mans hand. I will not subject myself as lesser to any other man living or dead.
I would sooner join the suicidal self hating left than to ever acknowledge a monarchy.
Not to mention that if you had them today they would either have to become defacto share owners of all international corporations that operate within their borders and the CEOs or they would be pawns for the same.

...

Reminder that shitskins and women can still vote.

King Louis XVI was one of the greatest leaders of humanity. He was responsible for the creation of laws against miscegenation and created the french high culture. After his death, negro slaves were freed, feminism and egaltarianism spread over the world.

Yes, so an oligarchy. Which is a natural result of an ochlocratic form of government like Democracy.
Who's to say a monarch would be against the will of the people? Historically the purpose of the King was to provide protection for the lower class from the actions of the nobility (who I need say could conspire to overthrow the monarch themselves). Plus, a monarch has it in their own best interest to provide stability in their kingdom rather than the chaos that results from a change in government every 4 to 8 years. A monarch has to plan with future decades in mind, whereas democractically elected politicians aim to push their short-sighted agenda through during their term, damn any future ramifications.

Notice how laws that prevent people from muh dicking their way through life tend to be at the root of a stable, high society, but once that falters anything goes. The rise and fall of all nations, kingdoms, etc. is in miscegenation, and where once great peoples lived, now remains a hodgepodge of degenerates who think nothing of sexuality, and so it dominates them.

Men who have tempered their drive build worlds to match. Men without such temperance build Africa and the Middle East.

In Rome, when politics were gridlocked didn't they allow for a dictator who would eventually reliquish power?

Yeah, rome didn't last forever, but 1,000 years is longer than anything else we have ever known.

And also the modern, pornographic world.

The ideal was always the "philosopher king." A wise, benevolent dictator in other words.

Which is why I'm surprised there were so many replies sperging about "muh democracy" on a board that supports authoritarian governments such as fascism and natsoc. Many here clearly want an authoritarian regime, but for some reason see a monarch as "extreme despotism." Okay.

This never happened, you're thinking of a quote from Batman
There was a dictator who seized power during the second Punic war, but Scipio Africanus was out doing all the heavy lifting, so he was basically capitalizing on hysteria
then Marius took control of Rome during the Social Wars to btfo plebs, and Sulla crossed the Rubicon with troops to BTFO Marius and institute his reforms
Sulla was the only dictator to seize power and then relinquish it once he felt like his job was done
after Sulla it was Julius Caesar, who turned the Republic into an empire
So no, you have no idea what you're talking about

The "philosopher king" was a greek invention from Plato. Some described Marcus Aurelius as a philosopher king, but that was over 100 years into the Empire stage

Republics work if you surround yourself with those who are of a similar culture to yours. Once you import other cultures they vow to rise and take of said republic which is what we currently have now. The monarch of now will support you but just like the republic the different culture will attempt to subvert and take it over just the same. Republic you can stop it by voting compared to having to overthrow by force.

Rome, Germany, Britain, France, China, Japan, just about every country ever?

Democracy is a fast track to globalization and oligarchy. Need proof? Look at this country right now. Democracy leaves control to the people but what quality control is there for the people? People can be persuaded and subverted to do anything, again look at right now. The average king or emperor is not going to be persuaded so easily. It doesn't mean it's impossible and it doesn't mean there weren't shitty rulers but democracy is a flawed system as it implies we are all equal which if you believe that then I ask what the fuck are you even doing on this board?

There are several exceptional Kings and Emperors who would outperform most democratically elected leaders. There's a reason King Arthur and Knights of Round are still a popular story.

The problem is that a single shitty King can undo what the rest of his Dynasty took centuries to build and there has been found exactly no solution for this in History.. King Henry XVIII, Louis XVI-XVI (these last 2 ones angered the population enough for French revolution, speaks for itself).

Also Monarchy in the most Traditional sense implies the King answering to a Higher Cleric. In Old Europe, Kings had to bow to the Pope to keep their right as Kings.

There's examples of excellent Kings who helped the country overcome almost impossible odds and Kings that made the country crash and dynasty die even when everything was on Easy mode. There's a lot of risk involved.

It went from Kingdom to Republic. After 250 years, it became Empire and Western Part Fell.
French Revolution that spread equality pozz loads that can be felt today
Dynasties fell and they ended up Communistic with Mao Tse Tung
Shogun is de-facto ruler, and the institution has been abolished. The Emperor is the Shinto Spiritual leader more than being a direct King.

I'm not saying "hey guys monarchy is le evil" but lets not Romanticize it too much.

Until now with Eugenics. We can make genetically superior kings with intelligence to rival that of most genius level people alive today.

OP is always a faggot

You are implying that intelligent people are inherently better rulers than dumb ones, this is not the case.

Its the nature vs nurture dilemma, both play their part on how you end up as adult, a high 160 IQ king will end up a self-centered, limpwristed pancy if he is pampered from birth, meanwhile a dumb king might just pull his country back together if he was raised right and developed the desired personality traits of a good ruler, strong-willed, charismatic, etc.

So then you raise them right too. Mandatory service in the military for all kings.

I'd disagree with that. Friedrich the Great, the greatest Prussian monarch, was also the third Prussian monarch, not counting his predecessors in Brandenberg and the Teutonic State. Other examples can be found of great monarchs who didn't found their dynasties: Aethelstan of Wessex, Peter the Great of Russia, and more. Shit, even in LOGH, there were at least two really good Goldenbaum kaisers after Rudolf. A better rule of thumb is that every really great king is followed by about dozen successors who are pretty much decent on average, and one successor who's either evil or incompetent enough to fuck everything up until either another great king can unfuck everything or the old dynasty is swept away.

That said, there are historical precedents for monarchies that aren't completely inherited. In Scotland, for example, the king would choose his successor from among his vassals, and it was considered bad form for him to choose his own sons. In this way, the throne would pass hands between the houses of regional lords in an effort to ensure that the kingdom was ruled as efficiently as possible. That said, Scotland was ultimately defeated by the inherited monarchy of England.

...

Going thru military service doesnt make you a better ruler, ofc it gives you a different perspective to grasp instead of being raised in the confines of royal palace, its a mix of being born with good, healthy genes, and developing the "right" view of yourself in relation to the world.

If your born as manlet with lets say a lisp and clubfoot, you have VERY hard time earning the respect of others.

But if you have good looks, and a good personality, people accept you more easily.

Compare William and Harry of England, William has the right physique of a respected leader, but being a softspoken country club stereotype he lacks the "oomph" in the personality side, meanwhile Harry, a ginger manlet, lacks the physique, but has the proper balls for a good leader.

Also, the massive inbreeding was a major problem the inherited monarchies of europe had, genetically engineered kings would just make it worse, i mean ffs, czar Nikolai II of Russia, George V of England and Wilhem II of Germany were all related to each other.

YEHEEEEAH, THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING! BRING BACK COURT JEWS AND BAN EUROPEANS FROM BEING ALLOWED FROM LENDING MONEEEEEY WOOOOO!

¡GO JEWS! GO KANGZ AND QWANZ!

Italians landed money, too. Usury is a bad practice and we now have models that work without it altogether.
Court jews are useless now that everyone is educated and you can find capable people fairly easily.

Things have reasons for being.

Loaned *

Transfer of power can NOT be peaceful unless the people that hold the power relinquish it voluntarily, which almost never happens. You call it a transfer of power, but there is no transfer of power, there is just a transfer of scapegoats. The people that actually rule a democracy are not affected if you vote in a new president, their power has not been touched, you simply changed the puppet their strings are attached to. Since there was no actual transfer of power, it could happen peacefully as there was no real opposition (useful idiots whining is not real opposition). That's why democracy is peaceful, the power is never actually transferred (it is between individuals but those individuals are always of the same group).

Life without conflict wouldn't be much, but democratic infighting is not actual conflict. You may argue with a coworker, you may go to the voting booth to vote for your party, and you complain on the internet about parties other than yours. That however is not the conflict you are thinking of, unless the country ends up in a civil war. Democratic struggle which consists of arguing and signing a piece of paper does not breed strong men.

You are right on your three points, democracy can work for a short while, but democracy is built from the ground up in a way that allows the ones with power to manoeuvre as they wish behind the curtains. While you can, in a very good situation (see the US in the early days), create a decent democracy, as soon as you do the subversion will start working to corrupt it into what we have today, and eventually we'll be back to our current situation. You also need to remember that the mass immigration, universal voting rights, and excessive political correctness all spawned from our democracy, which is why democracy is a self-destructing system.

Power corrupts everyone, the difference is that in a democracy the ones being corrupted with power are not held responsible for it. If a king grows corrupt he bears the responsibilities for his actions and, if replaced, said corruption will go away with him. In a democracy that can't happen unless the populace wakes up to who actually holds the power (which is extremely difficult, nobody on Holla Forums can point out exactly who holds the power, people on the street have even less of a clue). Trump is a case where things didn't go fully to the expectations of the stringpullers, but Trump isn't much more than a bump on the road. Even if he had the will, he does not have the power to overthrow the ones pulling the strings, and, assuming they don't manage to remove him (by impeachment or assassination) before the 8 years, once he is out of office everything will be brought back "in line". It's great that Trump got elected, but he can't fix the social disease that has spanned centuries even if he were to be elected for life. It needs to be a fundamental societal change that will take decades at the very least, simply electing someone will not suffice. The only real way to fix this quickly would be someone getting elected with the right ideas and having the backing of a populace that is ready to fight (not post on Twitter, actually fight) for him, and in that case it will be a civil war most likely, which is not a clean method.

You can't expect to fix 200+ years of cancer in a few years.

That sums it up.

Source?

Does that mean the US won Vietnam?

Platon: The Republic
The part when they talk about the 5 different ruling systems.

Thank me later.

preaching to the choir here

NRX died a few years ago pal, I know there is a bit of resurgance in upper eschelon schools at the moment but let it die. Blue blooded idiot ivy league fucks think they can transform their oligarchy into a monarchy. Fascism is the future, inbred families and their bullshit politics are out the window.

Wasn't gaddafi well liked by his OWN people?
youtube.com/watch?v=GkrHY-SMNho

Thanks, great reply.

Palaiologoi were at best a mediocre Dynasty under the Empires' hardest times.

Constantine's political, military and diplomatic competence and full blown heroism might have saved face for the name of his family but ultimately it did not save his life, his subjects or the Empire also the rest of his family in life benting their knee to Mehmet and reverting to Islam in order to protect their titles and wealth practically shut on his marble gravestone.

How sure are you about this statement user?

This is the essence of the "Sword of Damocles" fail-safe mechanism built into Monarchies which absolutely doesn't exist in Democracies.

Please tell me you write blogs in your spare time. This is well written and clear to the point. I hope you spread your ideas user.

Having Obama as king would be amazing, right? What about Bush? Maybe Trudeau? No, fuck them all, and everyone like them, and everyone who proposes this, because you have no fucking way of keeping people like them, or George Soros, or the Rockefellers and Rothschilds, or any else out of this position of power. Nor do you have the ability to keep them from being a puppet to another. I don't want to be ruled, because when your ruler becomes corrupt, you're powerless.

You're already powerless, the US is the HQ of the kikes.

Neither does anyone else. Unfortunately human nature leads to some form of governance, the two flavors being oligarchy (the inevitable end product of popular rule) or autocracy (monarchs, emperors, and fürors) without much in between.