Is there anything more cucked than being monarchist...

Is there anything more cucked than being monarchist? Considering loads of these monarchs were decadent degenerates themselves, what was it throughout history that caused them to be supported by conservatives when they failed to personify any conservative values?

I'm not a monarchist but I imagine an apologist would say that the idea is more important than the person.

Spottet the whig poster
>considering loads of these monarchs were decadent degeretres themselves
[Citation needed]
Not all monarchs are roman emperors, at least they were less decadent than current political leaders.
To not forget "degenerate" shits like Zhengde Emperor and Charles II actually accomplishes lots and were beloved by their people, which is hillarious to read about.
Chads can never be degenerate ok

>Monarchy
>Conservative values

Traditionalists get paid the most. With glory, gold, and god. Without them there is no civilization. Because people from republics are literally barbarians,. and there were no white people until the roman empire gave birth to the first generation raised in ivory and gold.

>Is there anything more cucked than being republican? Considering loads of these elected leaders were decadent degenerates themselves, what was it throughout history that caused them to be supported by Jacobins when they failed to personify any Jacobin values?

Also, you don't have to be a conservative or even politically right-wing to support monarchy. Constitutional monarchy as we know it was basically liberal in origin.

Inbreeding is a serious problem for Imperialists (a term I prefer over Monarchist). Also the basic concept is in error, and defending it leads to irrational thinking and behavour, which leads to conflict with rational people. Doomed from the start.

'democracies' are the most flawed government in existence. Tribal anarchists left more of a mark on the world than those degenerates.

>Inbreeding is a serious problem for Imperialists (a term I prefer over Monarchist)

Bad meme (inb4 le chin picture). Monarchism and imperialism are entirely different, one can support monarchy without imperialism.

>the idea of inheriting rule (other than elective monarchies) is somehow less arbitrary than a national popularity contest.
>i don't like monarchy therefore it's irrational

Note the repeated failures of Empires to defend themselves from domestic Republics. America, Brazil, France, Russia, China, Viet-nam, Cambodia, Germany and on and on.

>I don't know why empires fall
being a republic does not help you fight wars, if anything, it prevents you from doing so. Just look at how the USA kept to itself in both world wars until invasions were either planned or enacted on their soil.

All monarchs (king or queen) want to be Imperial (Emperor or Empress), at least in practice. Interesting that no one uses the term queendom.

Empires fall because Imperialism, like militarism (both are closely related) are mental illnesses that prevent its victims from dealing with reality and require treatment and/or isolation. Since both tend to be heavily armed it usually takes a lot of vigorous effort to help them.

I suppose thats when you invade them by force and occupy them and take away all their guns? BEcause you don't like imperialism/militarism?

Are you Neil deGrasse Tyson?

No you take away their guns because they have demonstrated that they are a threat to those around them. As long as they remain peaceful they can left to their delusions until they ask for help. Once they become violent towards those they disagree with they require aggressive forms of involuntary treatment.

No. i googled him and found nothing. who is he?

That literally happend to GErmany after WW1 and they invaded every country around them and comitted the holocaust. China took away its citizens guns and they went on to invade every country around them and oppress them. Taking away a person's current armaments has no effect on their ability to wage war because machines can rebuild them all in less time than it took to take them out of the country. Assuming you just stole them all after the war without payment.

Yes, being a republicuck that values his vote in a system where the election is almost consistently decided by the greatest funding of a candidate.

True, but they did cure themselves of Imperialism. They just needed more effort, time, and drugs to cure the Militarism which is still common throughout the world.

>they had a government and they failed so it's the government at fault

>alternate timeline
>Germany wins WW1
>Executive monarchies persist as a government
>They materially develop similarly to the republics they would otherwise have becom
>In this world most republics are failed south american shitholes
>If republicanism works why are most republics shit? Republicucks BTFO!

'imperialism' just means you conquer people, which is what they both did.

If Imperialism works why has it been in retreat since the 1800's? In fact the Kingdoms that are left depend heavily on Republics to survive.

Monarchism can work fine, the problem is the next in succession. He might be a raving mad lunatic even if he is "trained" for all his life to become monarch.

Monarchists do have better arguments for their position than social conservatives, social conservatives are just authoritarian by definition, which a monarch needn't be.

kings are not authoritarian

>ideologies "fail' or "work"
>there is no such thing as a nuanced understanding of what system is suitable within which context

No, Imperialism means government by Inheritance. Conquering other peoples and countries is Expansionism. The form of government (Republic, Empire, etc.) that Expands itself through force is irrelevant.

Kings *can* be authoritarian, but it's not a prerequisite.

>No, Imperialism means government by Inheritance.

>I have never studied law or political science
okay, sorry for trying to educate you
>I don't know what a king is
a king as it was defined by Socrates is never authoritarian whose concepts came into being in the 1940s.

Any system that succeeds is suitable within its existing context. Any system that fails is not. Imperialism is failing because it cannot adapt itself to changing contexts. Mainly that the world is becoming better educated and more rational.

>dude education is like teaching people to do, like, science, which is really great because it helps us do good things we couldn't do before
>rational means smart

Anyone who takes a class called 'political science' does not know the meaning of the words 'science' or 'political'. The phrase is a contradiction in terms.

look up what the word epistemology is, and you'll understand why Socrates called it that. If I told you you'd start trying to correct so I'd rather not.

A person can be rational or irrational regardless of the level of formal education they have been exposed to. Everyone I know, including myself, is irrational about something. The fewer things people are irrational about the better off they are, and education helps bring this about.

>a king as it was defined by Socrates

Since when was that the definition we all agreed on?

A Republic at least principally provides you with the opportunity to non-violently replace the decadent degenerates non violently. In a monarchy when you get someone incompetent, malicious, corrupt or crazy your only options are waiting until your despot deceases, powerful elites replace him by an usurper that is often dependent on the support of an oligarchical elite, or you have to storm the Bastille.

educatiun make smart
we all BIAS

Already know that word. No need to be so defensive, just exchanging ideas here. defining your terms always helps.

>babbies first critique of social science

Meanwhile, you've probably never read any philosophy of science in your entire life.

>i don't need an education
>but we do need to take a vote for someone to be able to use a word they coined
I can see why you don't like learning, not enough mobs of peasants burning people for making frankensteins. In the most literal sense

Loren Eisley, Josiah Keep, Charles Darwin, Carroll Quigley, etc.

Science requires, among other things, the ability to obtain the same test results, under controlled conditions, the same results every time. "Political scientists', Social scientists', and 'Economic scientists' cannot do this and never have. These things can be studied but they are not scientific.

'science' has never mean't that you follow the scientific method because science has existed earlier than than the scientific method, which is an abject failure proven by Plato thousands of years ago.

>Science requires, among other things, the ability to obtain the same test results, under controlled conditions, the same results every time

Says you. Meanwhile several well-known philosophers of science disagree with you, and have other definitions of what science constitutes.

Just because you have a Philosophy 101 positivistic view of what science is, doesn't mean you're right fagtron.

The problem with monarchs is they aren't accountable to anyone. I'm fine with a Constitutional Monarchy that doesn't necessarily intervene with politics, but if a nation doesn't have one there's no need to force in a monarch for the LARPing of pomp and circumstance.

Let's say an absolute monarch decides to enforce liberalism on a nation and pretty much does what he wants, ignoring the values of said nation, what can be done with him? Absolutely nothing. In a democracy, which has plenty of flaws, AT LEAST you can vote out a candidate enforcing their bullshit (in theory), in an absolute monarchy you're just stuck with the faggot for life.

Actually, the republic came to dominance because it promoted trade and commerce and allowed states to borrow and tax significantly more than agrarian feudal states because they had the backing of the merchants and urbanites. They also facilitated better technological diffusion, fielded better armies (once cavalry was nerfed by firearms), and usually have a superior navy.

People are too caught up on the word 'science'. Something can be empirical and data driven without being a 'science'.

Constitutional Monarchy is fine for its use as a unifying force and a bridge to tradition, monarchists who actually want power for monarchs are retards who forget its all well and good until you get a bonafide fuck up on the throne as happened so often, and you either pray his advisors have enough power to mitigate him, someone gets the balls to off him, or he croaks quickly. At least republics allow you to remove retarded leaders peacefully without the bullshit.

Though lets be honest, your average monarchist just wants to larp in some neofeudal revival where they worm their way into the higher levels of the social order and can order their inferiors around

This, same way many low level nationalist movement want to LARP as neo-hitler.