Why is Veeky Forums so anti democratic?

Kebab is great

...

>diplomatically conservative
How exactly is gunboat diplomacy and interventionism conservative? TR would have been a liberal in day IMO.

>prostituting your country and family for tasty treats.

pls try to withhold ur autism

>owns land
sure you do serf

plug into your pleasure simulator, prole, there's too much suffering in the world.

It's conservative by modern USA standards.

I've become so disillusioned I cant even say which political ideology I align with.

I'm not a centrist though.

>has no political opinions, is illiterate, has only gone within ten mile radius of where he was born, is essentially no better than an animal
>if he happens to be extremely naturally talented or intelligent, doesn’t matter, he “knows his role in society”
>funds expensive monuments to Christian God who disdains material wealth with the very little money he has. Pays indulgences so his relatives can get out of purgatory.
>will march into battle with a pitchfork and get killed by an armored knight with a sword
>has eight children, at least one of whom is on the verge of death at any given time, with ugly bitch wife his parents decided he would marry when he was 5.
>breaks femur in accident, can no longer provide for family, frequently enjoys famines
>may own land, or may be bound to land as a serf with no right to property

sounds great desu

>responding seriously to a meme post

Its pretty tasty desu.

The Kebabmakers in my town are pretty chill people. They give out deals all the time for loyal customers.

1. Kebabs are delicious
2. They (and dildos) aren't the only things for sale.

>owns land
lmao

Contrarian edgelords and /pol/ psyops

>economic, cultural, and gunboat diplomacy domination is a better method than outright annexation.

Bullshit it is.

While Jordan has had a line of incredible kings, you also get Mswati and the Kims(they are a dynasty don't kid yourself) or fucking Charles of Engerland. The Hashamites are a string of mangnificent luck.

Give me ONE negative to annexation other than "you piss off the international community"

You piss off the locals and they turn your occupation into a living nightmare. Idiot
.

*sigh* if only we had an absolute monarch who agrees explicitly with everything I believe we'd have the perfect goverment... of course (((they)) would never let us

>You piss off the locals and they turn your occupation into a living nightmare.

Clearly you're not doing a very good job with your occupation if they're rising up against you.

I can't think of an occupation that actually worked in recent times except Kosovo. And NATO were their supporters. Japan and Germany but that was neutering not annexation. I can list dozens of fuckups and those weren't even annexations.

All of those things were germinated and fostered under expansionist imperialism.

>tfw unaligned, placing personal & familial welfare above ideology
I just want to be more successful than my parents and for my children to be even more successful than me.

Because we realize just how new the democratic world order is. We've also been exposed to what it was like prior to republicanism and democracy.

That's why you go oldschool. Fucking stamp out their whole culture.

>stability of democracy

We are aristocrats in every sense of the word.

Ι sometimes dont even want to have my own kids anymore.
I just want kids in general ta have it more correctly than me.

Name a single functioning democracy

>better to kill your self at 40 due to depression than to die at 40 due to malnutrition in your sleep

>radical centrists
But that’s literally hitler

>MAGA
>Alt-Right

>deals for loyal customers
Implying that's not one step closer toward Arab tribal nepotism and the fall of civilization.

>unironically calling it engerland
>implying Charles I wasn’t the last throw of the dice to strengthen the monarchy
>implying without Charles I we wouldn’t become constitutional monarchy

>ywn be a simple peasant tends to his farm and plows his fields and his qt blonde 15 year old with who you already have 3 children and planning to have more with each year with your own seed.
Modernism is such a bother...

We recognize the superiority of the Natural Aristocracy, even if we aren't a part of it.
According to a poll from a while ago, a quarter of us are monarchists and another quarter are either classical liberals or libertarians.

Switzerland

>radical centrist
>believing in spooks like international jewish conspiracies and master races
choose one

>*sigh* if only we had an absolute monarch who agrees explicitly with everything I believe we'd have the perfect goverment... of course (((they)) would never let us

Almost all of them, because democracy by design is built for deadlock, extremely slow change, and a constant change of power. It's actually very stabilizing in that sense as little actually changes.

>Charles will never become absolute monarch and restore neo-feudalism to britain
Why must world be so unfair...

As much as I dislike Charles, the reality is that of all legitimate accepted heirs to the throne, he genuinely is the best shot at keeping monarchy even simply as it currently is from completely collapsing.

As a non-Brit, I want to ask why he's so disliked. Is it because of Diana?

Because they're useless losers.

china

Democracy is cancer it turns the media into a psychological weapon designed to divide the population into meaningless bullshit.

That really wasn't a thing before 24/7 news networks

that's a problem with modernity. mass media has nothing to do with democracy. it has to do with the technological revolution of the 19th century when communication. I suppose though that an authoritarian regime could easily get rid of tabloid media and some sort of state monopoly on media is also possible (much as it was before the late 1980s in most of the West). Mass media became exponentially more cancerous when it got privatized in the late 1980s and it increasingly became monopolized in the hands of a few huge private media corporations.

Well that certainly didn't help.

Wrong. I literally only care about two things

Well, soon to be three

It wasn't a state monopoly in the west, it's just that the news organizations had no one to compete with so as Obama said of that era, "they were fat and happy"

It's good to be British

they were more heavily regulated by the government though, weren't they?

Not really. Noam Chomsky wrote about this and it's interesting, but the profit motive is so powerful in the current media climate that it makes them even more deferential to authority than what is found in some countries that have literal state-run media.

He's never really been a man of the people. He has a very posh voice, a very aloof demeanour and his attempts to connect with average people often comes across looking like someone desperately trying to conceal their true feelings, which appear to be a sort of baffled contempt.

While Britain is trying to modernise he still comes across as a guy who hasn't found anything funny since the Goon Show stopped broadcasting and only likes music if it's older than he is.

It doesn't help that the issues he seems to really care about don't connect with the people at all. While many of his subjects are struggling to make ends meet and concerned about big issues of the day, Prince Charles is really, really concerned about modern architecture which he loathes and despises. Instead of getting passionate about the state of public schooling or the something that affects people's day to day lives, he gets worked up because someone is designing a building he doesn't like. He's also concerned about the fact that scientific based medicine that has been tested and found effective takes precedence over homeopathy in the NHS. Something that hasn't endeared him to the medical profession and a lot of other people.

And of course there's Diana, who to many is something he can never be forgiven for.

He actually wasn't always that way. When he was young he was considered the most desirable bachelor in the world and came across as "Bruce Wayne, billionaire playboy" than the prince. But the Diana affair soured all that.

>tfw British
>tfw too young to remember Diana in any detail
>tfw everyone over a certain age won't stop crying over her memory and how she was the most beautiful, purest fucking human who ever existed and there'll never been another one like her
I'm sick of this shit

Because, just like in Paradox games, democracy is extremely boring.

It was more that she was such a shining star as it were, and Charles cheated on her with Camilla, a woman that couldn't outshine a light bulb.

My parents loved her too. Everyone loved her, even internationally. She was just so kind to everyone, she felt more like a disney princess than an actual one. You half expected bluebirds to fly around her as she sang. It's really hard to understand the adoration of her if you weren't part of it when she was alive.