Democrazy is shit, monarchism is the future

...

>Greatest philosopher
Considered by whom?

>didn't shop Stirner's face onto the bottom head
3/10 apply yourself

>tfw too intelligent for government types

Everyone that matters.His impact is greater than that of Kant

>tfw too intelligent for not being a monarchist

kek

>Everyone that matters.

Such as?

>His impact is greater than that of Kant

In what way?

Monarchists are just cucks that want the best bull they can get.

>the people who don't believe what I believe are nor human
Jesus fucking christ dude, chill.

Behold, monarchy defeated in a single image.

not true monarchism

> No true Scotsman

You sound like a commie.

Remember that time when we got to kill all of the communists through fascism and then get a monarchy after all was said and done..

Using fascism as a tool to genocide communists is extremely effective in establishing a monarchy.
>Inb4 autistic Veeky Forums starts screaming Faggot!Alt-right!Pol!Nazi!

>this line of inbred landowners should have absolute power because god says so

Remember that time it economically stagnated and collapsed immediately after his death, leaving his country as one of the most radically left places on earth?

OP BTFO in one image

fascism + monarchism = god tier

Fascism is the future, user.

kek

Protectionism and autonomy is often a economic system which fails when competing against the international free market. But its not like Spain had much of a choice given that the allies essentially branded them as "the bad guys" and shut down trade - it was done out of necessity

Fransisco Franco actually favored a more free market long before his death and while combining the free market with protectionist economic policies which involved heavy investment into state owned factories/companies spain entered one of the largest economic booms it had ever experienced. "The success of the stabilization program was attributable to a combination of good luck and good management and the impressive development during this period was referred to as the "Spanish miracle". Between 1959 and 1974, Spain had the next fastest economic growth rate after Japan. The boom came to an end with the oil shocks of the 1970s and government instability during the transition back to democracy after Franco's death in 1975."

Political instability is poison to advancement - but the graph above should show the idea of spain being some exception of poverty is largely a meme.

>This.
Never has there been a more fashionable system of government.

>capeshit
no thanks

Ummm 'scuse me shitlord? It's 2016. Who are we to impose heteronormative cisscum norms on our dear king?

I'm literally shaking right now I cant even.

Spain was at no point "the bad guy" to the west outside of leftism. They served an important role during the cold war as an anti-soviet ally.

Didn't Venezuela print money until their economy collapsed? Or was it simply the drop in oil prices?

>muh perfect dictator = perfect system
Any system that relies on a perfect element is a bad system.

A middle-class(the majority) populace will just vote for who those who promise them tax cuts.

The preferred term of government is authoritarian elitist where the most intelligent people rule with an iron fist.

Only problem is that power corrupts.

It mostly happened because Franco chose treacherous Monarch who was secretly liberal as a heir to please Monarchists.
Funny thing is after Franco died the "Spanish miracle" of economy collapsed the next 2 years.
And Spain had to rely on gibs.

Pinochet was an illiterate redneck

Perfect element?
Not the user you were replying to but what do you mean?

Dont get me wrong the allies definitely didnt look as harshly at Spain as they did at Italy or Germany. They were a strong ally in the cold war because they literally just finished genociding 400,000 communists - but at the end of the day most western civilizations couldn't really trust a foreign government who embraced fascism rather than democracy.

>implying the average monarch wielded truly absolute power

point worth repeating: most monarchs were at the complete mercy of their aristocratic backers.

You think democracy has a problem with moneyed interests tilting the scale in their favor? With monarchies it's a million times worse and the population has no way of making it go away.

>Illiterate
>Wrote 2 books
>Went to university
Ohkay.

Pinochet definitely wasn't an intellectual heavyweight.But that is the entire point : he was the champion of the common man and working class, he despised shitty pseudo-intellectuals who sat on their asses drinking brandy rather than actually work with their hands to improve their country. Hitler was the same way, even referencing in his speeches that the opinions and loves he had adopted were not found in the banker, the professor, and the elite but rather the German factory worker and German farmer. This is why fascism usually works better as a populist force when compared to communism, its relatable.

Monarchy is only good when you have godly rulers because then the nation is blessed by the LORD

"Monarchy is only good when you have godly rulers because then the nation is blessed by the LORD"
>Referencing the book of Romans mah nigga.. Just when it seems there's no hope for Veeky Forums I see a post like this. Its great.

In that you are succesfully being trolled right now

Yes, but from what little I know, they weren't subject to an embargo or anything. I was mistaken in saying their economy stagnated (that came after he was gone) but a lot of post-war economies experienced rapid recovery due to the requirements of rebuilding.

Putting all the authority in the hands of one man requires that man to be relatively perfect for the system to be relatively perfect. A system that requires an element to be virtually perfect is not likely to long succeed.

Yeah, you may have that one ideal dictator who selflessly serves the state and its people, but history tells us how long that works.

The Dictator's Handbook sounds like a good read.

monarchy is past and depents on one person to be capable. meritocracy and technocraty are the only logical and efficent form of gouvernment

I don't know user, Italy was pretty shit.

Pinochet was neither fascist nor monarchist.

What a shitty thread, Christ.

You're telling me that the opportunistic faggot that killed the Falange by incorporating into an amalgam of opposing ideologies is a "fascist"?

Spanish fascist opposed him: es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oposición_falangista_al_franquismo

No.

>America's neoliberal puppet
>fascist
"Everything is fascist if I want it to be", amirite?

I like his way better

>tfw too powerful for non-government types

Then we get monarchs who cannot run an entire country themselves. They can either delegate to people they appoint, or to a bureaucracy that assigns positions by merit. The people they live under will have to be able to signal their desires to the government, so they will want representatives.

At a certain point, and we are well past this point, a monarch is a useless appendage to the bureaucracy they need to run a country.

> "At least the trains ran on time"

1: they didn't.

2: we know where the trains were going.

3: you think they do because their propaganda worked.

That is true but the division of power makes a government dreadfully inefficient at solving problems. I agree it is extremely risky in placing all of the power in one politician or leader but there are ways around that such as embracing a technocratic foundation of industry and agriculture ensuring no matter who is "in power" they will be unable to fuck up critical issues like the core of the economy and food while at the same time being able to react quickly to crisis.

what with current events, we might very well be living in the era where the institution of democracy is undermined and abolished

but I think this just highlights the reality that democracy is an influence on power instead of it's machination, regardless in which way popular sentiment is expressed.

>monarchism is the future
>literally the past is the future

>thinking fascism is dependent on a lack of free market.
When it comes down to brass tax it really doesn't matter weather contemporary political scientists (or Veeky Forums posters) declare that Pinochet and Fransisco are "Muh REEEAAAL fascists" or just "Totalitarian socialists with a tendency for the free market" I am always wary of the "no true Scotsman" falicy whenever I hear stuff like this - and besides if the entire country were under the impression that their government was a fascist entity and the government declared itself so - and books were written about how it was. Its good enough.

OK, retard.

> Any fact that I don't like is a result of propaganda!

Come on user, no need to get so salty.

This one is.

The trains running on time was claimed by fascist propaganda, and didn't actually happen under fascist rule.

Nigger fascism was FOUNDED on the principle that it's against both socialism and capitalism. That's like, it's main defining feature. Pinochet's regime was capitalism on steroids.

Ignorance is bliss.

It's founded on the principle that the leader is the nation. Sometimes it uses capitalism and socialism to help the leader.

>>I don't take the greatest philosopher of our lifetime seriously

I mean Stirner's face over the bottom guy's face. You don't need to touch the recurssion.