Monarchism

they actually went through world war 2, violent colonial secessionists, and now muslims and commies are ravaging the country from the inside while thrid worlders invade las malivnas

yeah because everyone knows the magna carta was around since the beginning of England

Lets look at British history

Conquered by Romans from illiterate Barbarians

Romans and Celts fight wars against Saxons under monarch Arthur

Anglo Saxons fight against each other

Vikings ravage the coast

the Normans arrive and fuck shit up

just a bunch of bullshit until a retarded king ends up signing the magna carta

And there was a king around for (almost) all of it

England was pretty much completely divided until the Anglo Saxons got their shit kicked in by the Normans

The whole problem with monarchy is you need a monarch, and for every Frederick the Great you're liable to suffer through a dozen Leopold IIs.

I agree with Nietzsche though: the time of kings is over. We are not such as deserves a real leader. We deserve democratic mediocrity all this bureaucratic mayhem.

Nietzsche was also right in that we need a radical aristocracy to overthrow the democratic mediocrity

what about an an elective monarchy to make sure the king isn't an incompetent lunatic?

I'll give you that. Monarchs still did stupid things in England after the Normans kicked in shit though

All it takes is a single slightly competent king to rig the system and make sure his son and future grandkids or whatever get the throne.

So why not a Roman style Imperial secession?

The Byzantine Empire lasted for a 1000 years on it's own. Allowing Emperors to appoint their own prepared successor, or allowing the most ambitious capable general to seize the throne.

>Roman style Imperial secession
you mean the one that went to complete shit because some of the emperors decided to just chose their own family? going back to elective monarchy, if the king needs votes then the electors hold all the power making the king pretty much useless, sort of like the early HRE before hapsburg dominance.

But it didn't go into complete shit, there were only a few incompetent Emperors who usually ended up swiss cheezed by the Proletarian guard.

Caligula -> Proletarian'd

Nero -> Proletarian'd

Commodus -> Assassinated

>Proletarian guard
They were all great up until the last Emperor. Such is the glory of Rome, the greatest empire there ever was and ever will.

You could make 1 general text and cp it every time a thread pops up with minor adjustments depending on the context of the thread

that won't end badly lol
The good times that monarchs gave us will not come back, the same way traditional religions won't come back because of the pervasiveness of science and reason in the Western world.

>science and reason
>prevent aristocracies

It wouldn't end badly, in fact that's the treatment the west needs.

Look at our civilization, it's in perpetual decline. It'll continue to fall until the Chinese deliver the coup de grace. Liberal democracy is a failed system. If anything, a radical aristocracy is more suited to the contemporary world. The death of religion is what makes it possible. For the Ubermensch to lead society, and to put the Plebeians in their place.

One of the main advantages of monarchism is that the governmental decisions of the ruler are independent from the people he governs. This may sound like a bad thing, until you realize that the ethnic makeup of the western world is quickly changing, and the new face of democracy is going to be a horde of muslims and/or latinos and blacks making the decision.

Monarchies are actually pretty damn stable in terms of the system itself. Sure, dynasties and kings change, but monarchism itself lasted for a long ass time before it was ever replaced by other types of systems.

And, while monarchy can certainly be violent, it's also an ideology of action. Empires form and grow, spheres of influence spread over the world, weak nations are subjugated and puppeted or annexed. There's nothing wrong with that either, for any nation that allows itself to be weak out of compassion will eventually fall to the nations that are strong.

>why have there been so many monarchy threads, lately?
About 25% of Veeky Forums is monarchist, if the recent poll is anything to go by.

The only benefit of monarchism is that it will eventually lead to the bourgeois revolution which will ultimately lead to the proletariat revolution. I dont support monarchies. There is no chance of it succeeding in a truly egalitarian society. Allowing yourself to believe that a group of people are better than you based on nothing but bloodline is plain stupid. Monarchies are nations of cucks led by one alpha. Republican democracy is where its at.

>ckii art
>basing your opinions on video games

That's not an opinion doofus, that's a fact. Here's the results of the poll, see for yourself.

strawpoll.com/d9w7119p

>proletariat revolution
Marxism is a meme ideology mate.

>radical aristocracy
A jew aristocracy controls America right now.

How so?

Every attempt at it has either embraced authoritarian dictatorship and then fallen apart a few decades later, or been too weak to defend itself.

> "I don't understand the difference between marxism and communism."

Marxism is not what you think it is. Its more a theory on socioeconomic evolution in society.

Tell me, if you were an ambitious noble, would you rather risk everything in a gambit for the throne, just to be hamstringed by the restraints put on the monarch, or would you rather retain your slightly lower status and fuck around with your fiefdom?

Lenin's ideals were state-sponsored whining and pearl-clutching

This day and age? probably not with all this milenials around, they seem to hate any single figure of authority and love materialistic and hedonistic lifes, to find someone among them fit enough to become king would be impossible. They are all pathetic whimps

If we did see monarchism return in the future, it won't come about from the people choosing it do it out of a vote and it almost certainly won't be a return to old royal blood. What will likely happen is the SHTF and nations start crumbling for whatever reason, and the person that starts to put civilization back together (likely using military force) will make himself essentially a dictator. He'll pass on his reign to his son, and that will start a tradition of hereditary rule in whatever society this happens in.

>Monarchy led Germany and France to greatness
>French monarchy so weak and pathetic Lois XIV had to use fashion and personal charisma to forcibly cow the nobility into place with favors and trinkets to gain real power.
>Within two generations the entire system collapses in on itself
>France becomes a Republic and manages to literally become the premiere martial power in all of Europe defeating every major power arrayed against them.
>German monarchy presides over a loose confederation of lords focused on infighting.
>Even post unification, the monarch presides over a glorified federation.

>So why not a Roman style Imperial secession?
You mean the one where the man with most loyal army wins, and can easily result in the total dissolution of the nation if the military is not essentially paid exorbitant bribes to pacify them?

>and manages to literally become the premiere martial power in all of Europe

They have already been that for literal centuries.

>another monarchist retard thread
Time to break out the Yangposting.

Monarchies are too susceptible to the dangers of a bad ruler and the potential benefits of an exceptional one don't outweigh the danger of a bad one. Monarchies are a relic of the past, not in the
>lel its the current year
sense, but in that technology and society has advanced beyond the point where it's preferable or even a good idea. Mass media, rapid communication and transportation, and massive population increases from even a few hundred years ago put too much power in the hands of the people - either directly or indirectly - and populism is the new source of legitimacy.

Monarchists reminiscent of the jacobite / legitimist / neo-bourbonist / carlist / miguelist / (...) sort are doing relatively well and growing in Poland and maybe some other places.

By "relatively well" I mean they have several active organizations with a young, growing membership, most people are aware they exist and many know one or two monarchists, and they are a meme political force (e.g. one Polish MEP is a monarchist).

Pic related is a breakdown of the 2015 Polish parliamentary election; the yellow party with 16.8% of votes among people aged 18-29 is associated with monarchism.

yang had a fake degree and died like a bitch. There is no such things as bad king as per Socrates

Wait so the 3rd most popular party among Polish people aged 18-29 wants a monarch?

Is there any reason why they feel this way? Why are the elderly so against the idea?

>t. (((Terraist)))

The opinions of a two-millenia-old philosopher doesn't invalidate the countless disastrously shitty kings that have ruled over the years.

Yang thought that every problem that could exist would be because of the monarch existing, when these things are not endmic to it or because of it. In fact, imperial regimes typically prevent genocides and are good regimes, as compared by american republics, roman republic, to britsh empire and roman empire.

>Wait so the 3rd most popular party among Polish people aged 18-29 wants a monarch?

It's not particularly prominent in their political program but the leader(s) are explicitly pro-monarchy and anti-democracy and some are members of monarchist organizations. They're basically libertarian in the ancap vein otherwise.

It's a roll of the leadership dice and unlike democracy they can't be voted out of office so while you can get a shitty person in a democracy that shit usually isn't permanent

>good regimes
Except when they're not, and permanently cripple their country after decades of mismanagement

Charles was an emperor as was his heir. Who won his war. Filthy catalans got killed in the process. So it was a win-win despite you judging him for his appearance as his advisors were given enough power by him to modernize the country. Then look at the country as a republic, communists take over an start genociding people to form a socialist state. They lose, and then the place has to be ruled by a fascist. So republics are obviously inferior, and democracies are inherently inferior by definition.

>Is there any reason why they feel this way?
Memes.

>Why are the elderly so against the idea?
They don't go on the internet or to anime conventions (pic related, leader of the yellow party) so they just vote whichever mainstream party their TV channel of choice recommends.

Jokes aside there's multiple sides to this, the basic one being that it's an (other than straight populism) edgy anti-mainstream party in the libertarian camp and the monarchism is just a quirk of the people running the show, a secondary feature of minor prominence.

On a less popular but perhaps more ideologically sound grounding, "serious" movements on the non-mainstream right in Poland are associated with Catholic traditionalism (think Latin Mass, scepticism about Vaticanum II, "modernist" as a terrible insult, etc.) which is naturally tied with Catholic Monarchism.

>u judging him for his appearance
No, we judge him for being the pants-shitting inevitable by-product of a society where one family monopolizes power and the only way for that family to maintain power is to intermarry, producing worse and worse heirs further and further detached from their subjects until the dynasty collapses in a shitshow as people fight over succession.

It happens to every dynasty of every monarchy which has ever existed. These wars are bitter and can ruin their country for decades, if not permanently, such as what Charlie 2 did to Spain.

> his advisors were given enough power by him to modernize the country.
His advisors are the reason Spain is the weak man of Europe to this day.

>Then look at the country as a republic, communists take over an start genociding people to form a socialist state. They lose, and then the place has to be ruled by a fascist.
That's a load of hogwash. Socialist Spain was doing quite fine until the German-supplied and supported fascists started murdering every body left and right while the only country with the balls to stand up to them, Communist Russia, supported the left.

The point of democracy isn't to make the most of good leaders but to mitigate the damage a bad one can do.

And imperial regimes by no means prevent genocides. Hell, of all the genocides in history, the vast majority took place under monarchical or imperial regimes. Democracies aren't immune to them (see Rwanda) but it's a retarded point you're making.

>and are typically good regimes
Only for the monarch and their immediate supporters. Monarchs require a comparatively small base of supporters to remain in power, and the only thing that's in their interests is to enrich themselves.

What the fuck are you on about? A single case study doesn't prove anything. And how is the Spanish Civil War any different from the Spanish War of Succession? Are you trying to say that a three-year long civil war in a budding democracy is somehow worse than a 13 year long, continent-wide war that killed just as many people because the Spanish Republicans had people fighting for economic ideology instead of who's family member was going to sit on a throne?

Besides, the entire Spanish monarchy even leading up to Carly boy there was retarded - they created an unsustainable system that became entrenched in the past and relied on patronage to keep going which caused Spain to stagnate and decline. Plenty of the failings of even Republican Spain are arguably thanks to just how far behind Spain was from the rest of Europe.

This is actually really cool, not even a monarchist. I wonder if it will become a real political party or just disappear in a few years.

And if you want specifics for shitty dynasties, just look at every single Chinese dynasty.
>ruler that unites the country is great
>first successor isn't as good, but still 4/5 would have again
>next successor is either bad enough for a dynastic collapse or the first in the long line of decline
>half a century or so of prosperity followed by centuries of long, painful decline under inept rulers

Monarchies are actually extremely unstable. They suffer constant insurrection and Civil War. Read up any "good" or "bad" monarch and history and you'll see an endless stream of internal and external violence,

if you consider the Polish situation it makes sense to tie in monarchists with libertarians, you don't need to call in jacobites or anything like that

Poland never had an absolute monarchy, so "Polish monarchism" is like a culmination of small government: there's this guy who's king; now everyone go home and do your thing in peace

Incoming Pasta for all you monarchist Cucks

First of all a monarch does not come from "noble stock", his family are simply warlords running a mafia protection racket who killed anyone who did not submit. The only "grooming for leadership" comes from learning how to suppress dissent, not actually running the state well. Secondly the idea that an authoritarian system, whether absolute or oligarchical, is less corrupt or easier to reform than a modern democracy is simply laughable. an authoritarian system REQUIRES corruption in order to function. Let me put it like this, any authoritarian leader maintains his power through the loyalty of privileged groups. In the case of a feudal monarchy it's the landed aristocracy, in the case of a modern junta it's the military. In all cases the authoritarian must serve those groups needs instead of the nations. If he does not those groups withdraw their support and he is overthrown. This means that the state is specifically designed to cripple itself for the betterment of the autocrats supporters over the interests of the nation. In a word, corruption. Thus because the law is not actually meant to address their needs, the population must turn to either illegality or revolution in order to survive, both of which are harmful to the well being of the nation. As for the belief that democracies cannot produce great leaders America alone provides several counters to that claim. Teddy Roosevelt, Lincoln, FDR, Washington, Adams, and more were all able to be strong and powerful leaders capable of both pushing thorough rapid reforms and guide the nation through crises’ while remaining subject to the rule of law and the democratic process. But what about the bad ones? A bad monarch or other dictator can destroy his nation utterly, meanwhile it is popularly thought that Nixon was the Worst president in the past Century, yet the nation was able to chug along without falling into ruin and get rid of him without a civil war or a coup.

>Nixon was the Worst president in the past Century
He was actually surprisingly good. On a grander scale, I'd argue Carter or LBJ were far worse with how much they fucked foreign policy.

>Nixon was a bad president

LBJ may have fucked things up in Vietnam, but he did a lot of great things domestically like Civil Rights and the social safety net or making sure the entire country had electricity and running water instead of living like third-worlders. Inbf /Pol/ says those are bad things.

Regardless, pick whoever you want to pick as the worst president. Now imagine how much damage they could have done if they were the permanent ruler of America for decades, ruthlessly squashing dissident and turning a blind eye to the suffering of anyone other than their financial backers

>Was an outright Criminal
>Made the Republicans the party of the "Southern Strategy" putting this nation in the hands of idiot rednecks who want to burn the country down.
>Started the "War on Crime" which has turned the police into a military with a budget to match, and destroyed the Black community, while putting more people into an expensive bloated prison system for trivial bullshit.
>Used the corrupt FBI of Hoover to attack his political rivals.
But it's okay because he allowed a democratic congress to create the EPA!

Great society was the greatest mistake by the federal government since the new deal

>the government system was bad because there was violence

France had republics going on and off for a hundred years, was that a politically stable or externally peaceful time?

Calling the New Deal, a program that saved the nation from collapse and allowed us to be ready for WWII, a mistake is one of the dumbest things a person can say. If not for the New Deal the U.S would have either fallen to a Communist Revolution or become like so many other Third-World Shitholes.

And other Republics (or republics in all but name) have gone over similar spans without that. One cannot find that in Authoritarianism.

Genetically engineered monarchy trained from birth to lead
>Yay
>Nay

Nay, military dictatorship is better.

Would you want a genetically engineered mob boss shaking you down for protection money?

>Yang thought that every problem that could exist would be because of the monarch existing
That literally was not what he said

What do you propose then? Democracy and republicanism, as we see, are farces. Little more than un-elected bureaucracies moving at their own whims while elected officials act as a smoke screen in political kabuki theater.

Absolute monarchy, at least in the west, ws never truly a thing (even under Louis XIV). Now a monarch can pick bad advisors or sink state coffers into pointless projects while letting other things go to waste this is true. At the same time I don't see much of a viable alternative. Really hierarchical autocracy on some form is the natural state of things with Republicanism and democracy being failed experiments.

>Little more than un-elected bureaucracies moving at their own whims while elected officials act as a smoke screen in political kabuki theater
Yes Minister is not a accurate representation of state departments you know. Elected officials have changed how things work based on their competency

>not real monarchism!
Wow.

Semi-related, why does everyone associate monarchism with authoritarianism? Much of the 19th century had monarchs working in tandem with representative democracies.

Jordan today is an absolute monarchy.

what about elected monarchies where the king/executive elects the heir

Yay. Competence.

I'd say the wars and instability of the past were more a product of the time than the fault of monarchs. I'd rather have a monarch that delegates to advisors and local authorities than an "elected" government that is obfuscated, entrenched, and corrupt.

The monarch who allows others to have power is no monarch at all. He is either a weak ruler who can't keep his country together, or these "Local Authorities" and "Advisors" have just proven that the monarch is superfluous, in which case why have him?

Alternatively AI monarchy? Each updated version is a new heir.

Because he keeps the peace and make sure that things stay balanced. Like a historical fucking monarch

What an appropriate response!

>religion is the anathema of science and reason
Tips fedora

You forgot the m'lady.

Isn't it odd that the fedora meme revolves around chivalry? You know, the thing that might come back under a traditional christian monarchy, which none of the LARPers here have ever displayed in their entire life?

Seems like insecurity to me.

HHMMM-M'LAAAAY-DAY

A figurehead is nice, but an absolute monarchy would blast us back to the stone age

>in the west

>Marxism isn't _____
>_____ isn't real Marxism
Always with the excuses. At least lack of coherency with fascism in various countries can be handwaved away with the explanation that, as a nationalist ideology, it mutates to match the specific circumstances of that state. Marxism is supposed to be universal and utopian though.

>thread on monarchism
>same arguments
>same assertions
>same people upholding the same sides
>anytime anybody tries to have a debate a new thread will be created a week later to continue the cycle

Why do you fucks even bother? Do you want to learn anything from these threads? If yes to the former, why do these threads not read as if any progress has been made in the conversation? Do you have dementia and keep replicating posts you forgot you made at all?

>monarchy is bad cause no monarchies exist anymore
>monarchy good with good king bad with bad kings you get more bad king/you get more good king
>muh succesion wars
>Charles II was bad because the climate became less prosperous, kings have absolute power so why didn't he change the weather?
>let me cite fucking anime as an argument
This one is new though
>and absolutely nothing new was said

>Why do you fucks even bother?
I'm literally just here to call people faggots and post pictures from my gay space prussians anime.

you're a butthomo.

None of those arguments I made were actually from the show I just felt like using a picture to spice things up.

See Marcus Aurelius and Commodus.

Because few would think of the UK, Sweden, etc as "monarchies" because the king/queen has no real power - rather, they're democracies who keep a dinosaur with a golden hat around to cut ribbons and perform ceremonial roles every few years. People generally think of medieval rulers and modern shitholes like Saudi Arabia when the subject comes up, because the monarch has actual central relevance in those examples. Plus, even in the 19th c. there were strong efforts to expand the powers of kings and create more authoritarian monarchical states, see Russia.

Why are some monarchies good while others are terrible? Why is the King of Jordan pretty decent while next door the King of Saudi Arabia is terrible?

It is dum