Do you think we will ever return to monarchies?

>Its media which ruined democracy.
Media, particularly the kind we have at our disposal now, is what makes Democracy viable in the first place. Media allows for the populace to actually be informed enough on the issues to vote. And thanks to things like the internet now, it's harder for a single source to dominate one's intake, so you've got people generally being exposed to more ideas.

>Alfred the Great
>here pictured with his fleur de lys sceptre, Frankish crown and 14th century cloak

Monarchies are great if you have persons raised from birth to be ruler and they aren't autists.

Even better if you have a great person found a dynasty.

However, invariably one of their descendants will be a degenerate or autist and fuck things up.

Like modern China?

Please, remind us about how Germany developed the V-2, the Tiger tanks, computers, ...
The thing is, all political systems have pros and cons.

1917-1919

We're not poor, uneducated serfs with the inability to cooperate and mass so no, monarchy as you wish it to be will never return unless there is such an enormous shift in global paradigms (i.e complete and utter destruction of society).

>it's another introverted neckbeard becomes seduced by Wikipedia articles thread

>but it can also produce greats like Charlemagne, Henry VIII, or Louis XIV
>great

Great for whom? For autists like you who read history books dedicated to the kings alone?

Probably not too great for the peasants who lived absolute wretched and abhorrent lives beneath them.

>Monarchies are great if you have persons raised from birth to be ruler and they aren't autists.
Not necessarily. Though they may be raised from birth to take power, that doesn't necessarily mean that they're going to have the interests of their subjects in mind - just the interests of themselves, their immediate family, and those more powerful subjects with enough power to seriously threaten them.

>However, invariably one of their descendants will be a degenerate or autist and fuck things up.
That's also the big problem. There's not really any competence threshold for holding power in a Monarchy, which becomes a real big issue when you've handed absolute power off to an heir who's literally retarded.

Anarchism is the way of the future. Fuck rulers and kings.

The problem is not democracy per se
You just need some checks to make it work.

Vote is voluntary, not mandatory
Minimum voting age: 25+
Remove women suffrage (this will be hard)
Landowners or businessowners only
People with major degrees only
Similar and harsher restrictions on candidates (full on background check)
Parties and candidates can't receive public (government) or private (lobbying) funding (and crack down on donations from individuals, to avoid loopholes)

Maybe more that I forgot

Modern politics shows us that using a celebrity oligarchy is not all that useful to the citizens.

We can't know if something close to true democracy, where the citizens vote on the laws that affect them, where the citizens vote on the budget, where tax revenue is understood to belong to the citizenry, and where the citizens directly select an executive, we can't know if that system works until we try it.

>Landowners or businessowners only

These are the only people who should be paying taxes, since the state is virtually defined by protecting property rights, and this is not a free service.

But everyone who has to follow the law needs a say in what the law is.

>major degrees only
Well I'm a education major and not and stem so am I not qualified to vote by your standards?

Not a native english speaker so I have some trouble wording some concepts
What I meant is superior education (any degree).
Too many highschool dropouts voting.

Has any form of weighted democracy been 'tried'?

I can't see how minor alterations like giving people with higher education (and this could increment) a vote worth 1.1 of the rest could be anything but beneficial.

>Remioe women suffrage
Hurr durr let's make sure 52% of the populace can't vote

Oh that makes more sense, but what about people who go through trade school is considered same level. I've meet plenty of people who I consider smarter that went to trade school over college.

Trade school is considered superior education here (well, not on the same level as college, but close enough).

Besides, with how things are (job market saturated with unskilled people with diplomas up their asses), those who go to trade school (learn an actual useful skill always in demand) ARE smarter.

>Muh perfect monarch
>Muh landowners democracy
The modern state system isn't perfect but still the best we got in all know history.

I don't get reactionaries who hate modern democracy but love absolute monarchy. Modern democracies are the culmination of a political process of centralization that began with the monarchies. They were the ones who empowered the "majority of people" in order to break the power the intermediary institutions like the nobility, the Church, the family, private proprietors, municipalities, guilds etc. The only reason a "supreme governing force" was able to be formed is because the "idiotic masses" supported it in order to "free" them from their petty oppressors.

Everything the Jacobins did is what Louis XIV would have done, if he had the chance. If you want to be a true reactionary, you should admire descentralizated realms like the Holy Roman Empire and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. But then, these had very weak monarchs. If you really want a "supreme governing force" governing without caring about the "idiotic masses", you should become a leftist.

You're acting like this is an unusual feature of democracy.

Autocracy is the best way of government by having the best candidate with the most skill in power

> not embracing superior AI as your ruler
This is the future, not some old guy with fake crown

>reactionaries who love absolute monarchy

true reactionaries are aristocratic.

Can democracies produce such great individuals?

Of course.

I agree, but a lot of people who claim to be "reactionaries" who "hate modern democracy" have a hard-on for absolute monarchs who crushed the aristocracy. It's like when they defend Western civilization against Islam, fap to the Battle of Vienna, then praise Louis XIV, who collaborated with the Turks while they were attacking Europe.

I blame a lack of historical knowledge. Pic related should be an obligatory read.

He doesn't have the balls to come out of his private sphere and rule the public directly. Fucking Phezanni right here

Yes.

His country still exists. Hitler and Stalin can't say that.

yeah but he didn't have to fight an extended land campaign on his own soil.

autocratic meritocracy*

The USSR did wander on almost fifty years once world war 2 ended.

Also, shouldn't "getting yourself into a war with the whole world" count as an argument against someone's ideology?

...

Ahem.

>modern politics show democracy doesnt work

Gonna need a source on that

Lincoln was literally a fag

Modern democracy promotes cultural stagnation and degeneracy.

Yes, and if anybody gave him trouble, he fucked them in the ass.

And by ass I mean Georgia.

>buzzwords and an anime pic

Yeah, that argument about the uneducated masses is really starting to ring true

The nice thing about uneducated masses is that they typically don't understand how to influence a political system effectively.

The real problem they pose isn't what they do, but what people get away with while everyone is distracted by the retards.

Agreed.
Until a drooling retard comes into power
Then what?

No, the only real problem is the lack of education and the subsequent strong effect of propaganda on those persons.

So, instead of edgy and angsty ideas like disenfranchising 80% of the population, greater emphasis should be given to educating people, in general, in political and economic systems and specifically on the laws being voted about (in a more participatory democracy, swiss style).

He won't because to be able to topple the one in power he need to be equal or greater or crash and die with no survivors.

>random anime pic
neck yourself

>According to me
Democracy would be better if people with no income and people on welfare couldnt vote.

I meant after the godlike autocrat dies.

What do you do if the little glue eating retard won't pay attention to the classes, but shows up on election day anyway?

Honest question, I've been trying to figure out how to stop people from acting like retards, and it's hard.

So why don't Monarchy-fags move to North Korea?

then switch to constitutionalism if the successor doesn't step us his game.

But then it wouldn't be a democracy if you exclude peasants from it.

Don't let him vote.

Only if there's a huge collapse on par with that of the WRE

Feudalism will return in after the fall of the nations

>implying Juche has anything to do with monarchy
>implying

The first step is to realise you're probably just as retarded as they are and stop unjustifyingly stroking your overblown ego.

The second is, as suggested in part, to have some sort of system of qualification (a diploma for participating in the voting process (state subsidised education for it obviously) and a short check to see if the person actually read the law/referendum being proposed.

I cannot wait for techno-feudalism!!

Feudalism became impossible when you needed state-sized economics to arm a modern army.

Make university free and we will agree.

Sure. I'm all for it.
But make entrance exams hard as fuck.

[COLLAPSE]

Republics and other similar systems work best. You need to have a system that has some bit of democracy to it but allows leaders to have a good deal of latitude in decision making. It's like an economy anarcho-capitalism doesn't work but neither does a more pure version of communism.

Agreed.

>without worrying about the idiotic masses.
You are a fucking moron if you think a monarch can simply pass laws at will. Even in the most hyper centralized absolute monarchy, if a monarchs laws step on the toes of the powerful too much and too often, he'll find his head on a chopping block in short order, with his scheming 52nd cousin now sitting on his solid gold chair.

Centralized governments of any type and form all fall prey to the same short falls as one another. To maintain absolute power, absolute loyalty is needed to the state and its institutions. Loyalty is ensured through the doling out of political power and favors and laws to special interests to ensure that when something unpopular or undesirable is passed, the built up good faith of the government ensures that even the unpopular laws are followed.

>the idiotic masses
Your first mistake is assuming the masses control discourse and power. The masses do not. Only a small minority of people, hardened in their opinions, and beliefs, control discourse.

A fanatic with power and influence will not bend towards the middle, but a man in the middle will bend towards the fanatics position because the fanatic has the means and desire to influence the common man, and the middling common man has no compulsion against bending towards the middle.

Even in the most centralized autocratic monarchy, a phenomena which only has one real examplar whose trappings and styles are far and away from whatever ideal your hallucinating about in your head, removes only the common man from the equation. The powerful and influential remain, and they will remain just as fanatic, and they will attempt to influence the course of government, as best they can to accommodate their beliefs and desires.

But Anons, one of the core tenets of democracy is that all people are equal, hence why we give them votes to choose our next leader.
If we limit our suffrage, then does that mean we are not equal? If so, why not just install an aristocracy?

>implying everyone is equal
>implying if that would be true, it would be a good thing

>Remove women suffrage
how will disenfranchising half the population based on something out of their control improve things? Every other reform you suggested makes becoming an elector more difficult but attainable in the hopes that only the educated and wealthy will be enfranchised.

that's not true at all, Stalin was able to become an autocrat because he was both a shrewd player of party politics and a clever assassin. That did not translate at all into him being a good leader, and since he was so paranoid purging thousands of innocent party members to get to the few plotting his downfall didn't bother him one bit and Russia was stuck with that monster for decades.

Autocracies tend to select leaders based on how good of a political operator they are rather than how able of an administrator they are.

>Henry VIII
>Great
Nigger you had best included an extra I in there by mistake or else you just said some FUCKING retarded shit.

>All these people talking about how they want only the wealthy to vote
You are basically saying you want two terms of Hillary Clinton.

The funny thing is the people spouting that shit are just like the Monarchists - they seem to think that they'd somehow be part of that privileged voting/ruling class.

You're thinking in terms of what's best for individuals and not what's best for the nation.

A nation is only as good as it's people you jabroni.

What does the "greatness" of a nation matter if the people are living in squalor?

I chuckle at the anons posting Yang. His death was a catalyst for the Iserlohn fortress turning into a fucking meritocratic dictatorship.

>A monarchy can result in shitty leaders from time to time, but it can also produce greats like Charlemagne, Henry VIII, or Louis XIV. It is high time we return to it.
Actually good monarchs are the outlier. On average, the American Presidency produces better leaders versus any monarchical dynasty.

Not him, but you could argue that if modern civilization actually fell, then the first "vassal" armies popping back up wouldn't need to be at peak technology to be effective in the chaos of a new dark age.

Just my two cents though.

>implying everyone is equal
Democracies are founded on the assumption that everyone is born equal, and deserves an equal voice regardless of station.

Its an idealistic and maybe naive ideal, but idealism is the life blood of democracy.

Prussia under Friedrich der Große should be the gold standard for anyone making this argument. Napoleon and Caesar are also acceptable.

That said, I think anyone can at least agree with OP's assessment of the problem. My thinking on this matter is generally aligned with Nietzsche's, however. Even in his own day, the problem was clear: what justifies a state in which so many wretched individuals can exist? The answer, at the end of the 19th century at least, was the existence (and celebration) of genius.

We have lost both of things, however, which is a problem. We still have all the wretched people, but with nothing to justify them or the state that permits their existence.

More like spooks are the lifeblood of democracy.

I find it funny how the likes of Rousseau are celebrated, yet he justifies his arguments with appeals to the 'General Will' and others Signifiers without a Signified.

The fact remains that despite its many problems democratic forms of government are much more responsive to the needs of the people. Its also a huge benefit that if you end up with a shit leader in a democracy you can just wait a few years and vote him out.

While in an autocratic state if you end up with a complete creep as king you'll need to put up with a few decades of shit until he dies, and then there's no guarantee that his successor will be any better, or you can oust him from power in a violent revolution in which many innocent people may be killed and the economy ruined, and after all that there's STILL no guarantee that the guy you replace him with will actually be any better.

>Remove women suffrage (this will be hard)

Not possible.

>Landowners or businessowners only

Good luck stopping the proletariat rebellion. That will throw half the population up in arms against the government.

Which can be easily fixed by doing what four of the five good emperors did, namely choosing your heir by adopting the most competent man for the job. Just make it unlawful to choose an heir that is kin.

Also try to make sure that the heir gets a couple of years atleast wherein he is co-ruler before the senior one passes the bucket.

If one wants to play it even safer one could put a time-Limit on the office.

Yes, but at least Monarchs, ignoring how you'd go about getting them into power, have the possibility of arbitrarily agreeing with random anons, just by chance. That's the appeal of centralized power.

But we can actually look at what rich people want, and how they vote.

>V-2
Forced to develop it after losing the battle of Britain and failing at the Blitz

>Tiger tanks
overengineered memes mounting a glorified AA gun. Shoulda stuck to Pz IVs

>computers

Allied computers were far more advanced

>Citing weebshit

>greats like Henry VIII.

Great kings are usually better at fucking their wives than fucking their kingdoms.

lotta gay lactating homos in this bread

>not being gay
what are you, some kind of faggot?

So this the possible heir of fascism.
In Italy we have a lot of neofascist parties like Forza Nuova or Casapound but there's no fascist party like this: