852a4c No.5465514
Meet Doña María del Rosario Cayetana Fitz-James Stuart y de Silva, Duchess of Alba.
Is Monarchism better than Democracy?
How could we revert back to it?
04a71c No.5465835
>>5465514
I think monarchy can't work effectively in our modern culture and economic system. What do they do to make their country great? Why should they care when they are personally wealthy. I don't like how monarchies are passed down to descendants wether the heir is fit to rule or not. I prefer it to be chosen by elders or nobles based on merit. I also don't like monarchs marrying people from other countries because it leads to messy wars and emotional detachment from the country they rule.
7ca1e1 No.5465997
Monarchy works fine, and it is no less infringing on democracy as much as democracy is on monarchy.
/thread
731f87 No.5466261
>Is Monarchism better than Democracy?
In many cases yes but it's not like it's black and white and the systems are completely uncompilable, I think that a constitutional monarchy with a strong ruler that does not have his rights curbed is ideal.
Democracy is pretty okay in small scale with a highly educated population
>How could we revert back to it?
Your choice of words here is really poor, nobody ever wants to 'revert' or even likes to 'revert', instead I would say, modern ideas and principles should be applied, or at least kept in mind and a new type of monarchy ought be formed, as times change the governments and political systems should change in accordance to them, they should progress not 'revert'.
In essence what I am trying to say is that we should not regress but progress and modernize and take a new stand on the system of monarchy if we ever want to achieve anything concrete.
045631 No.5466297
ed0fe1 No.5466347
>>5466261
Wouldn't work in the current global climate.
The potential for corruption is always there and considering how big of a power gap there is between multinational corporations and governments, it is inevitable that they will use their influence sway policy. Corps are more powerful than governments because they transcend them.
26199e No.5466463
>>5465514
Monarchism is fine until the interbreeding between the rulers becomes so bad you get OP's pic
731f87 No.5466497
>>5465835
>What do they do to make their country great?
There are plenty of great monarch throughout history some recent ones include Freddy from Prussia and Vicky of England however there is not one democratically elected leader ,apart from maybe Hitler, that lead the country to greatness (territorial expansion, prosperity, etc.)
>whether the heir is fit to rule or not
The heir, from his birth is destined to be ruler and undergoes education fitting for one, he is largely the one who deserved to rule the most as his existence up to the point of him taking the crown has been to prepare for taking the crown. If the heir, is in fact bad, then it's nothing vassals or the other influential people in the country can't congregate and make him step down.
Being king or even royalty isn't all sunshine and flowers you know, those people actually take part in politics local and international and have to keep their country stable, prosperous and so on. If they don't do their job properly they might as well resign or the likely outcome is being hanged by peasants.
>>5466347
>Wouldn't work in the current global climate.
Well how come
>The potential for corruption is always there and considering how big of a power gap there is between multinational corporations and governments, it is inevitable that they will use their influence sway policy. Corps are more powerful than governments because they transcend them.
The potential for corruption has always been there, in fact I'd say that a king would be much harder to bribe than politicians as his career, life and the lives of his family are dependent on his actions as a ruler, if he does sell out then the people will be angry at him. It wouldn't be like now where they can say "Oh, we voted for him so it's our fault" if you piss off the peasants enough you'd get a party like it's 1789.
The king must not sell out if he wants to keep his job, while seemingly he has power over the people the people also have a lot of power over him.
I do however agree that the lack of moral standards these days has lessened compared to before and that may make it harder but you shouldn't think that people, at any point in time were actually moral and as soon as a "'good"' monarch would come into power a concrete policy would be enforced and it wouldn't be so wishy washy like in our modern socialist utopia.
a765ea No.5466522
Goddamn, and I thought Barbara Bush was scary.
731f87 No.5466573
Her son looks fine though
ed0fe1 No.5466584
>>5466497
See what happened to Russia's Tsar, he fell afoul with the Rothschild and then you have a foreign led revolution to overthrow him.
You are thinking in national scales when you should be seeing global, because that's where and how corporations work. With multilateral organizations such as the UN and EU to being there to consolidate power and maintain corporate benefits under the guise of nationalism.
cfe371 No.5466626
Monarchy is better, but long term better.
You might get a bad King, you might get a really amazing one.
The thing that sucks is they last for the most part, a lifetime so you won't really be able to see another one to see if he uncucks your country.
Democracy is slow change, but I think it's better to have fast acting change which acts for better or worse. IE Make the Roman Empire great again, or loose it in the first place
cfe371 No.5466641
>>5466626
*lose
Another thing to add, absolute power absolutely corrupts, a man is a man and prone to being subverted by kikes.
It's at least best to have something like a senate
731f87 No.5466647
>>5466584
Just because you get sponsored by some Jews to do something doesn't mean they support your cause, in my opinion Jews due thing ultimately and only to achieve profit, they supported Hitler, they supported Lenin, they supported everyone who was willing to buy whatever they were peddling.
I'm just gonna say it but the Jews aren't conspiring to destroy us, or anyone, downfall, decadence and destruction is following in the path of their insatiable lust and greed as they continually take and hoard and take and do not care for consequence of their money making
d517a2 No.5466713
>>5465514
I thought she died awhile back.
000000 No.5466719
>>5465514
>Is Monarchism better than Democracy?
Nope. It's actually worse.
In it, leadership isn't earned through works or service to the people, it's granted at birth.
>How could we revert back to it?
We shouldn't.
cfe371 No.5466744
>>5466719
I agree, the only way ahead is forward. Democracy will be replaced with a new idea most likely.
c68371 No.5466753
>>5466626
Justinian isn't the best example because he was severely cucked by his wife Theodora (if you believe Procopius), and as soon as Belisarius began having significant victories, he had incredible jealousy and began fucking with him. Hell, right after he oven'd the Bulgars, Justinian had him thrown in prison for 'corruption.' It's also disputed whether or not he was blinded after this particular incident.
9702b0 No.5466764
>>5465514
>How could we revert back to it?
Vote Trump
5d3f63 No.5466765
Absolute Monarchy? No. Too easily corruptible.
Constitutional Monarchy? Yes. These have a system in place to help prevent, or at the very least minimize, corruption.
Corruption is the true evil in politics, and democracies/republics are very prone to it when done on large scales, which is what all countries that matter are.
000000 No.5466777
>Democracy will be replaced with a new idea most likely.
I'd prefer a one-party state (in a White-only country of course) where the right to vote and run for office is earned through service to the people.
cfe371 No.5466790
>>5466753
Shit I didn't even know that, ha.
I was just referring to his land gains and such
000000 No.5466820
>>5466777
Whoops. That should've linked to:
>>5466744
ed0fe1 No.5466823
>>5466647
Agreed, but a collision is inevitable plus right now they made sure to have enough political clout to secure favorable policies and to avoid any interference in their business interests.
However the more dangerous ones are those whose power has become so consolidated that it is now part of the political process. This notion that they somehow operate on a catch an release basis is wrong, it is just that they don't have loyalty to a cause or to men but merely seek to influence the status quo and to become its replacement.
9702b0 No.5466837
>>5466719
>>Is Monarchism better than Democracy?
>Nope. It's actually worse.
Nice try, Chaim.
Remember it was democracy that brought the world Goldman Sachs, Hollywood, gay pride parades, feminism, and open borders.
Kings through the Jews out, democracies make gods of them.
>In it, leadership isn't earned through works or service to the people, it's granted at birth.
Leadership qualities are largely genetic. And children who grow up as sons of kings are raised to rule, have great knowledge of statecraft, and know all the other people in power.
Democracy empowers liars and plutocrats. It's only ever lead to lying merchants running everything. Saying it's better than monarchy is like saying poison is a better drink than water.
Drink your hemlock and die, Shlomo.
9702b0 No.5466884
>>5466765
"Constitutional Monarchy" is retarded. Documents don't limit people. People limit people. And if the people think a document's going to do the limiting, they're already too stupid to limit anything.
"Absolute Monarchy" was rare and never really fully implemented. Every king, even ones who legally have all the power, depend on other people for their rule. The peasants can always rise up, their generals rebel, etc. This happens with some frequency in history.
5d3f63 No.5466907
>>5466884
>"Constitutional Monarchy" is retarded. Documents don't limit people. People limit people. And if the people think a document's going to do the limiting, they're already too stupid to limit anything.
Do you know how CMs usually work? They normally have groups like a parliament and other things to help with stopping corruption. The document is just a set of principles.
b0cc2f No.5466909
>>5465514
That is one inbred bitch
b492a6 No.5466913
>Is Monarchism better than Democracy?
It has merits, without a doubt. As we've seen for the past nine presidents, installing puppet rulers in a democratic system is beyond easy in a democratic system. The monarch has to worry about his children, and thus can rarely afford to actively be a bad ruler unlike our current presidents and prime ministers. The horrible rulers, the Neros, the Commoduses, we are oh so often reminded of in history stick out because they were in fact quite a rarity.
Another huge perk is that the citizens are not overtly concerned with politics because, well, it's not their place. Instead of one-in-five students on your college campus being a marxist ideologue or a lolbertarian, the only time you have to be concerned with politics is when your ruler is clearly fucking things up and and sentiment for an abdication gathers. I'd sure as hell love to not have to be on /pol/ right now, scared to death for the future of the West.
>>5466647
>I'm just gonna say it but the Jews aren't conspiring to destroy us, or anyone
xD
>>5466719
>In it, leadership isn't earned through works or service to the people, it's granted at birth.
Neither is it in Democracy. The farther we get from aristocracy, the more one's power in the sytem is based on ability to provide gibsmedats. It's how Caesar rose to power, it's how Senators assured their position in the senate. You can't gib dem datz forever.
c68371 No.5466924
>>5466790
Sadly his gainz were largely because of Belisarius being one of the greatest generals in human history, and he made those gains in spite of Justinian, not because of him.
000000 No.5466946
>>5466837
>Nice try, Chaim.
"I DON'T LIKE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, THEREFORE YOU'RE A JEW!"
>Remember it was democracy that brought the world Goldman Sachs, Hollywood, gay pride parades, feminism, and open borders.
I never advocated for Democracy.
>Kings through the Jews out, democracies make gods of them.
And Kings also let the Jews back in.
Also…
>cherry picking
>Leadership qualities are largely genetic.
In races, yes. Not specifically in single family lines.
>And children who grow up as sons of kings are raised to rule, have great knowledge of statecraft, and know all the other people in power.
And yet haven't done a thing to earn that power. Oh and if you disagree with that, the king has the right to kill you without question.
>Democracy empowers liars and plutocrats.
And there's never, ever been a liar and plutocrat as king, right?
>It's only ever lead to lying merchants running everything.
And kings have never, ever been Jew lovers, right?
>Saying it's better than monarchy is like saying poison is a better drink than water.
You literally do not have a single argument that does not revolve around your personal feelings and logical fallacies.
>Drink your hemlock and die, Shlomo.
Eat my shit Kingfucker.
oh wait…I get it…you actually think you'd be the king…from your basement!
ROTFLMAO!
>>5466913
>Neither is it in Democracy. The farther we get from aristocracy, the more one's power in the sytem is based on ability to provide gibsmedats. It's how Caesar rose to power, it's how Senators assured their position in the senate. You can't gib dem datz forever.
"THE ONLY CHOICE YOU HAVE IS BETWEEN DEMOCRACY AND MONARCHY!"
You know, you really need to come up with a better argument in favor of giving all your rights and power away to some stupid family line.
731f87 No.5466957
>>5466744
You do realize that democracy is older than feudal monarchism?
Democracy wasn't a new system, not the American one nor the European one.
>>5466823
I get what you are saying and I agree, just wanted to point out that it's slightly harder to bribe a king yet he is not an infallible creature either.
>>5466913
>xD
Don't make me meme you!
31b909 No.5467008
>>5465514
Before you can have a Monarchy you need Meritocracy.
I would also like to add that Monarchy has proven to be highly susceptible to corruption. Descendants of the ruling royalty soon become weak and isolated from their people which
opens the door for Jews and degeneracy. This happened all over Europe, especially in Britain.
>Is Monarchism better than Democracy?
At first, yes, because Meritocracy will put the the best and the brightest in power. After some time passes however it will become corrupt and infiltrated by alien interests just like Democracy.
But I think it would be easier to overthrow it because the people are far more united in Monarchy. Though this could give a rise to the mob rule -> Democracy.
The final summation here is that both are shit as witnessed by history.
Meritocratic Authoritarianism is the best bet here in my opinion.
cfe371 No.5467010
File: 1458444677385.png (2.76 MB, 1107x1370, 1107:1370, maketheromanempireokagain.png)
>>5466924
Absolutely sick physique.
>>5466957
Of course, but you can't deny that government types come and go?
b492a6 No.5467065
>>5466946
>Leadership qualities are largely genetic.
>In races, yes. Not specifically in single family lines.
Please explain to me how you can believe both of these things at the same time.
>And yet haven't done a thing to earn that power. Oh and if you disagree with that, the king has the right to kill you without question.
Who've spent their entire life training for that role knowing the weight of millions, their House, and their legacy is on their shoulders should they fail.
Should you disagree with it, you are calling for a civil war, and then the deaths of millions. You should damn right be killed for it.
>"THE ONLY CHOICE YOU HAVE IS BETWEEN DEMOCRACY AND MONARCHY!"
In this thread, yes.
>You know, you really need to come up with a better argument in favor of giving all your rights and power away to some stupid family line.
You know, you really might want to not argue against the monarchy strawman that you have in your head.
731f87 No.5467068
>>5466946
>ROTFLMAO!
>buzzword
>projection
>arguing like you are 12
You know, even if you're baiting this is too obvious, do you even know what cherry picking means? In case you are actually as retarded as you sound from your posts then I'm sorry for you son.
>>5467010
>government types come and go
Well that's true but there is no reason to abandon something that practically is proven to be successful, instead we may rethink and modernize the idea.
Undoubtedly, things must change and adapt, governments included. And I agree that we can not take something directly from the past and apply it in the present.
9702b0 No.5467235
>>5466907
>They normally have groups like a parliament and other things to help with stopping corruption.
A large bureaucracy like parliament is more susceptible to corruption than a single monarch.
But parliaments existed in Britain and France long before the idea of a "constitution" came about. Written constitutions are horrible ideas, they're never followed exactly and their presence implies the masses of people really do believe a document will some how magically save them from bad politicians (see the United States).
731f87 No.5467312
>>5467235
>But parliaments existed in Britain and France long before the idea of a "constitution" came about
There were parliaments in barbarian lands before 350BC? :^)
995cdf No.5468102
>>5465514
Oh look, another one of them.
Daily reminder that the guy who shot that pastor was right about everything.
a008cd No.5468205
>>5465514
Forget the face, what the fuck is going on with her arms?
9ed607 No.5468233
>>5465514
yeah, yall are mocking her face, but you're secretely jealous that she's one of the extremely few people who is allowed to be dressed in white during a papal audience and also has the right to enter a cathedral riding a horse even when an archbishop is talking
4c756f No.5468237
>>5467008
This. Top quality post, mate.
901bd1 No.5468279
>>5466946
>In races, yes. Not specifically in single family lines.
You don't understand this hereditary thing, do you, Chaim?
>And yet haven't done a thing to earn that power.
Look at all those rich people who inherited their parents wealth! And they haven't done a thing to earn it all. Quick goy, implement communism, it's only fair.
>Oh and if you disagree with that, the king has the right to kill you without question.
In your own private fantasy world where every monarchy is the instantiation of liberal anti-monarchical propaganda, sure.
>And there's never, ever been a liar and plutocrat as king, right?
>plutocrat
>king
Again, you talk about things you don't seem to understand.
>And kings have never, ever been Jew lovers, right?
Some kings were fooled by Jews, the answer is clearly Jew-dominated democracy.
>you actually think you'd be the king
Here's where the Jew reveals his naked lust for power. He can only conceive of monarchists as all wanting to be monarchs themselves. The idea that we want to be lead by someone else, whose better than us, never occurs to him.
He's consumed by his petty ambitions. And thinks everyone must be as well.
Typical kike logic.
901bd1 No.5468301
>>5467008
>Meritocracy
Never works.
Power structures are based on trust. It's always more about who you know than anything else, and rulers would rather take a qualified guy whom they know they can trust than an unknown who's a little bit better.
Every attempt at creating a meritocracy gets swamped by leftists entryists. People who have technical skills but no morals and who only care about promoting themselves.
Because the door's open to anyone, these people flood in. Once they get into power, they make sure only likeminded people do the same. Their family, friends, ideological brothers, etc.
That's just how humans work. The right have been trying to avoid facing it for years, the left meanwhile embrace it, and succeed.
Meritocracy fails because it doesn't take into account that there's more to humans than their abilities. There are also morals, personality, desires, etc. and meritocracy doesn't filter for them.
With meritocracy, you ultimately end up being ruled by highly competent, highly immoral people with defective personalities, as for example Jews.
995cdf No.5468343
>>5468233
She's dead.
Me : 1
Her : 0
d771f4 No.5468363
>>5466713
Yup, two years ago.
d57a19 No.5468690
This is why inbreeding is bad.
333cd6 No.5468731
>>5466261
The thing is… if your populace is highly educated, they are all going to vote the same way anyway. There are objective truths on how to run a country and so there will always be mass consensus.
Democracy is DESIGNED to be subverted.
0bc376 No.5468807
5c5f58 No.5468859
Monarchy is absolute shit.
Someone born out the right cunt gets to rule the people? Nah, don't think so. Let the best man rule the people.
000000 No.5469815
000000 No.5469824
>>5466957
>You do realize that democracy is older than feudal monarchism?
Shlomo, plz…
The oldest known democratic regimes were in ancient Greece, and were established after literally millennia of hereditary monarchic rule. Then, barely over two centuries after democratisation, millennia-old Greek civilization ceased to exist. What a coincidence!
db2add No.5469831
Inbred degenerates. Nothing good left in the old world but the resources.
338f53 No.5469838
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>5465997
RIP redpilled kebab man
75b98a No.5469842
e0948a No.5469855
>>5465835
>Why should they care when they are personally wealthy.
People say the same thing about Trump..
731f87 No.5469893
>>5469824
When the ruler is literally gods chosen then it's not secular monarchic rule,nor a feudal monarchy as I specified, as that is what most people mean when they say monarchy. The notion of monarchy is a more modern concept which likely originated with the fall of the roman empire and the birth of a feudal then a constitutional monarchy
a highly authoritarian state =/= monarchy
and lastly Greece back then was not only a democracy, Sparta had two kings and a tyranny was considered a valid state of government, the Greek Polis was each ruled differently and democracy was only part of some of them.
8b3fd5 No.5470138
>>5468859
Or you can vote, and end up with a right cunt instead.
Either way, we are heading for Neo-Feudalism.
6f7d8b No.5470167
it got corrupted in Europe when the monarchs became disconnected from their people, and you had a pan-European aristocracy that traded lands and titles like it was just a game
plus you had stuff like Habsburg inbreeding, and jewish subversion etc
b82c3a No.5470271
>>5465514
Spaniard here, she is alredy dead. In that pic she looked like that because of bad esthetic surgery and because she had more years than Monthy Burns.
731f87 No.5470430
>>5470271
she was actually pretty ok before
7adfb8 No.5470443
>>5469838
>>Iranian royalty
>>Kebab
Check you memes.
731f87 No.5470447
964034 No.5470540
File: 1458483940566.jpg (11.41 KB, 232x346, 116:173, Democracy the God that fai….jpg)
>>5465514
This says all you need to know.
8df7f8 No.5471027
>>5470443
this, Persians are Indo-Aryans, Turkroach kebabs are Gokturk-semetic Rape Babies
55fb60 No.5473783
>>5470430
That necklace in the first image looks familiar. Was it Queen Victoria's?
f6dc03 No.5474444
>>5467008
You say that like "the best and brightest" is so easy to determine. As >>5468301 said, power is based on trust so a meritocracy inevitably degrades into cronyism, it's just a matter of when. "dude just choose the best candidate lmao" is about as retarded as the socialist economic policy of "dude just distribute resources perfectly lmao". Human greed and human error always triumph in the end, so a system must be chosen which minimises the negative effects of these.
Hans-Hermann Hoppe goes over it in this book >>5470540. An hereditary monarch may not necessarily act in the best interests of the nation, but neither will an elected official necessarily act in the best interests of the nation. The difference is that the elected official is elected because they are popular while an hereditary monarch is there by birth. An elected monarch just has to steal what they can when they're in office and so they're incentivised to act in the short-term and neglect the long-term, while an hereditary monarch is incentivised to continue the success of his line (which is dependent on the success of the nation), and so is incentivised to act in the long-term interests of the nation.
Modern monarchs typically have little or no power, and so they have no incentive to do anything and so they basically just sit and do nothing. In countries where hereditary monarchs actually have power (e.g. the arab world), you'll note that they're usually more stable and prosperous than those where they have "democracy". Morocco, the UAE, Qatar, Bahrain (to a lesser extent since the ruling dynasty is sunni while the population is shia), Jordan are all much better than their neighbours. (I exclude Saudi Arabia since it has seniority succession and so the royal court is constantly rife with competition between clans to get their own clanmembers into government).
I still support my local monarch, in the hopes that one day she or her descendants will once again assume more power and bring prosperity and stability to the nation.
082287 No.5474589
>>5465835
>I think monarchy can't work effectively in our modern culture and economic system.
I agree. Modern culture and economic system need to go.
d79e12 No.5474665
>People confusing democracies and republics again
964034 No.5474891
>>5474589
Actually some of the richest places in the world today are monarchies. Monaco, Lichtenstein, Qatar.
45b76b No.5474960
>>5474891
Yeah, but Qatar is still a shitty place.
964034 No.5474977
>>5474960
A monarch however talented and however capable their system is still limited by the quality of the populace. It's how much of this potential the system can bring out whilst keeping down the worst elements.
cf03b7 No.5475205
>>5471027
Some of them are Aryans. Some. I have an Iranian acquaintance who says he is Persian but he is a hairy arab.
06df61 No.5475225
731f87 No.5475235
>>5475143
Hey anon.
Who is your favorite 2hu and why do you hate kikes
>>5468731
>The thing is… if your populace is highly educated, they are all going to vote the same way anyway.
I disagree, people however smart, may still have differing beliefs.
>There are objective truths on how to run a country and so there will always be mass consensus
As times change those 'objective truths' must change as well, you government methods may be okay for your century but incompatible for others.
1d8254 No.5475328
>>5475225
Ah yes, rabbit natsoc wanting to outlaw interracial marriage as if it were worse than murder.
Julius Evola (who doesn't even speak for all traditionalists, but is one aristocrat from 20th century) wrote about three races - of body, of spirit and of soul - and postulated that we musn't reject all men of the other physique because by works they may be greater than many regular people. By not discriminating against other races; for example a north Italian not automatically rejecting a Sicilian for being lower scum; country would become more stable and all men would get an equal chance. It goes without saying that philosophically walling off your own race as perfect and enough to itself leads to complacency and degeneracy and that most men of the other physical race will naturally fail to attain standard and wall themselves off. However, you're a fucking faggot because you're thinking like an idelogical retard no differently than any other communists did. They're the other? Fuck 'em.
Rethink your life.
cf006a No.5475357
I think this picture shows the advantages of monarchy and democracy.
With democracy, the potential for damage is restricted because the leader is only in power for a few years and can be removed easily at the next election, but their ability to get things done is also limited. Democracy decreases the power of leaders to prevent them from making bad decisions.
With a monarch, the person is trained specifically for the role and has an investment in the future of their country because their children will rule it. Due to the amount of power they have, they can make some very bad decisions, but also some very good ones. Monarchs are people who can create and destroy great empires.
Overall the potential for gain depends on how much is risked, but also the potential for loss.
d9b756 No.5475366
Fuck monarchy, I don't want to be ruled by some asshole just because he was born from the right cunt.
1388f5 No.5475369
Dude, that whore died years ago.
t. Spaniard
cf006a No.5475372
Actually, raise the height of the democracy peak and lower the monarchy one.
6d705d No.5475811
I think Monarchy would've been far more effective if we understood what we know now about genetics.
Having the wife of the king being chosen based on IQ, lack of genetic disease, height, and other inheritable traits in addition to beauty and family relations, the ability for the monarch to choose among his heirs, and allowing children of noble men and their commoner wives (selected for their good stock - Kate Middleton for example) to retain their titles of nobility would probably have solved most of the historic problems with the Monarchy and Aristocracy.
We did fairly well under Aristocratic rule, 100 years ago, average White IQ was estimated by Lynn to be around 112 through thousands of years of killing off the criminal and unproductive classes in European society at about 1% per year.
It would have to be in the context of a new aristocracy though; the current aristocratic genepool is full of genetic disease and ugly inbreds.
ce78c3 No.5476024
>>5469855
And people still haven't given a definitive answer
342bed No.5476040
>>5474444
>I still support my local monarch
He failed you, Anon. Throw the bum out, crown yourself and reign for all eternity with your qt3.14 wife and children.
342bed No.5476056
>>5475357
Well said. The shorter version is that:
A people with short time horizon will over time be conquered by those with a long time horizon.
ce78c3 No.5476108
>>5475120
>to interfere with your religious belief
Thinking for yourself is interference?
b492a6 No.5476605
>>5475811
I agree with a good bit of what you say, aside from letting the Monarch chose among his heirs. The reason Primogeniture, for example, was so successful, is that it eliminates your brothers as rallying points for discontent. The king is the king because he was the first-born, and you'll have to convince people to break 500 years of tradition and all sense of order if you want his brother instead. It'd be like saying Obeezy should be president for three terms - Obeezy better be a damn fine president for that to happen, and his threatened successor better be literally Lenin.
Its my personal theory that, say, one in 100 men are born with the ability to lead effectively. Genetically speaking. I'm greatly in favor of giving these men authority over both taxation and legality to their local community, have them act as guiding posts for their flock. It's our natural state of being and has been for the past 50,000 years.
2b0804 No.5476764
>>5475811
>>5476605
>Right before Might
The ability to lead is mostly dependent on the ability to personify a vision, an ideal.
Most monarchs have failed in that respect. >>>/quote/52
8e9494 No.5479174
>>5466753
The blinded Belisarius myth is exactly that a myth that arose a long time after Justinian was dead and gone.
He most likely died on his estate in obscurity because of Justinian's jealousy (he had good reason for being cautious with Belisarius).
/his/-history really hates Justinian and says his conquests were overextending the empire and they are right, but they overlook the fact that Justinian's military conquest was going smoothly until the Justinian plague (the fact that the empire survived that epidemic is a testament to his leadership)
02d951 No.5479182
>>5465514
KILL IT WITH FIRE!!!!
KILL IT WITH FIRE!!!!
KILL IT WITH FIRE!!!!
KILL IT WITH FIRE!!!!
KILL IT WITH FIRE!!!!
KILL IT WITH FIRE!!!!
KILL IT WITH FIRE!!!!
KILL IT WITH FIRE!!!!
KILL IT WITH FIRE!!!!
KILL IT WITH FIRE!!!!
KILL IT WITH FIRE!!!!
KILL IT WITH FIRE!!!!
KILL IT WITH FIRE!!!!
KILL IT WITH FIRE!!!!
KILL IT WITH FIRE!!!!
KILL IT WITH FIRE!!!!
KILL IT WITH FIRE!!!!
KILL IT WITH FIRE!!!!
KILL IT WITH FIRE!!!!
KILL IT WITH FIRE!!!!
KILL IT WITH FIRE!!!!
KILL IT WITH FIRE!!!!
KILL IT WITH FIRE!!!!
KILL IT WITH FIRE!!!!
KILL IT WITH FIRE!!!!
KILL IT WITH FIRE!!!!
KILL IT WITH FIRE!!!!
KILL IT WITH FIRE!!!!
KILL IT WITH FIRE!!!!
KILL IT WITH FIRE!!!!
KILL IT WITH FIRE!!!!
KILL IT WITH FIRE!!!!
KILL IT WITH FIRE!!!!
KILL IT WITH FIRE!!!!
KILL IT WITH FIRE!!!!
KILL IT WITH FIRE!!!!
KILL IT WITH FIRE!!!!
KILL IT WITH FIRE!!!!
KILL IT WITH FIRE!!!!
KILL IT WITH FIRE!!!!
KILL IT WITH FIRE!!!!
KILL IT WITH FIRE!!!!
KILL IT WITH FIRE!!!!
KILL IT WITH FIRE!!!!
KILL IT WITH FIRE!!!!
KILL IT WITH FIRE!!!!
KILL IT WITH FIRE!!!!
KILL IT WITH FIRE!!!!
000000 No.5494546
>>5475366
But anon, it's not the cunt that counts, but also the sperm that impregnated it. Monarch dynasties are founded by alpha ass-kicking leaders who took the crown by their own will, boldness and leadership. Then they are succeeded by men who have a high chance of being just as kick-ass by virtue of sharing the same superior genes.
Surely you don't want to be that guy who argues against genetic basis of abilities on /pol/, of all places?
0eb0b9 No.5494658
>>5465514
Why does she have curly hair? Why has she done so many surgeries?
6e4198 No.5495300
>>5468102
It's just cosmetic surgery you fucking tinfoil morons, it's not inbreeding or lizard people. Pete Burns looks totally fucked up, and he's not exactly a major political force.
6e4198 No.5495310
>>5468102
>>5468102
It's just cosmetic surgery you fucking tinfoil morons, it's not inbreeding or lizard people. Pete Burns looks totally fucked up, and he's not exactly a major political force.
6e4198 No.5495324
>>5495300
>>5495310
Fuck, this site's becoming more crippled than the Cripple King himself.
ac9f85 No.5495394
>>5467008
bretty good.
bretty good bringing up britain too.
Best arguments for monarchism: King Henry VII, Ælfred The Great, Elizabeth I
Worst arguments for monarchism: his sons, King Edward II, Elizabeth II, whoever comes after that stank invincible ho
two of those are damn fine examples of deteriorating meritocracies, to boot.
Also Tonga is probably the best modern example. So laid back and [kampfy] that even communists have trouble finding reasons to overthrow it. Their "suffragette revolt" was basically handled like "ok, so you say you want to do this. Can you do (random manual labour task)?" (random masculine-faced he-bitch does so) "Then they'd be fools not to hire you!"
pretty much no psycho lefty advances farther than livejournal bitching because you'd have to be a complete idiot to throw out the royal family. Whatever the people ask for, they look for ways to give it to them. SJ simply don't fly there. You do what you want until you fail, then you go work for someone else til you can get back again.
Only problem there is there's few multi-millionaires, they've been lax so long the culture is pretty anti-competitive, and most regulations frown upon pure free market style competitiveness. It's like focusing entirely on a cultural victory in Civ.
There's a few "pro-demo" lefty shills, but the few times there's been large riots it's been against democracy. Why fix what ain't broke?
Smaller riots are almost always "professional protesters" of the moveon stripe.
Of course, many of them couldn't riot if they wanted to. A naturally over-abundant paradise + modern technology = …eh it's basically the spaceship from Wall-E. Something like a 75% "obesity" rate, and that's from actually eating, not processed petrochemical as food additives.
Surprised there aren't more tongan shitposters roaming the net, really. It's as ripe for 24/7 shittery as finland.