Learn history

>Economic progress is due democracy and republicanism and not due the industrial revolution and scientific advancements

Is fascist close enough?

>being a fascist unironically
But why?

not ripping your country to pieces every couple of decades with a crippling and bitter succession war works wonders for letting a country prosper and flourish

Because dank memes and it's fun being a contrarian faggot

Fascism is democratic socialism from the 1930s. Monarchism is far to the right of it.

>be left leaning liberal
>be monarchist

Constitutional monarchies are a great way to keep conservatism/reactionary spirit in check. Conservatives are the kind of people that want a paternal, spiritual figure above themselves to bow down to. they will elect leaders they see as such, and otherwise be active politically trying to restore society to that proper paternal way.

If there is a king however they get their paternal leader they can respect without that ruler having real power. Conservatives will feel more comfortable with the modern world, go greet the monarch on ceremonial occasions while liberals can do the reforms they want in peace.

It's no wonder that the most liberal societies in the West are all constitutional monarchies.

>Secesionism is not an issue in republics
Lmao how dumb can you be? With primogeniture countries were more territorially stable than how they currently run

At least, back then, the wars were less brutal.
Tell me that you wouldn't have preferred a war a succession over the World Wars.

Everything you say betrays such contempt for conservatives, but in such friendly terms.

>With primogeniture countries were more territorially stable than how they currently run
That's the "o-oh yeah! well at least our countries were too poor to war with each other as much!" argument which is technically true, but ignores the turmoil of the early modern era when western cultures were finally starting to come out into their own, and ignores how much more efficient waging war with our level of technology is

Yes, more efficient countries can wage war more efficiently. I don't know what you're trying to prove by saying that life would be more peaceful if everyone was more poor.

That doesn't stop the fact that succession wars and dynastic succession were common when every regional authority wanted their own family member on the throne, and were willing to tear their country apart to have it.

>replacing monarchy with democracy is what's solving world poverty!

>Hai Guise, you know all the problems caused by rich people having too much power? You know what would solve those problems? Giving them even more power, complete control over the government, and zero accountability

>how republitards can ever recover
Easy, we'll just band together with Other

This.

That chart is disingenuous as fuck.

>Inequality is the source of poverty
>Monarchy=inequality
>Republic=no inequality
Wow is like talking to a moron

O-oh yeah! well so is your chart!

Oh wait, you don't have any charts. You don't have any sources at all to defend monarchy except "muhh strongman"

>Income inequality is the unequal distribution of household or individual income across the various participants in an economy. Income inequality is often presented as the percentage of income to a percentage of population.

>Monarchies and authoritarian regimes enforce a privileged class which deliberately skew capital ownership into their hands and enforce a rigged economy

>widespread adoption of democratic governments ""coincide"" with plummeting poverty rates

>Wow is like talking to a moron
Tell me about your father, user. How old was he when he left you and your mom?

i'm monarcho-fascist
hail mosley and long live the king

Of the top 20 highest GDP countries in the world 6 are monarchies.

You mean per capita?

Arab monarchies are rich because they are swimming in oil. OK, the Emirates are actually kinda clever in how they started diversifying their economy before the others, they are still the least monarchy-like, in that there are several dynasties at work and power is divided by at least the two strongest.

The other "monarchies" in the top ranks are constitutional and parliamentary with basically all the institutions of democratic republics. And most of them are technically under the same monarch.

So, you'd rather we do all that democratically?
Democrats will talk up some grand scheme that sounds good to the stupid masses, get elected, and sign """legislation""" that advantages those who give him money, as well as """legislation""" for higher taxes.
Have you seen the debt of our countries? It's monumentally larger than debt ever got under monarchies. When monarchies went to war, they might accumulate some debts, but they would pay them off in peacetime. What about us? We're just getting more and more debt, in war and in peace.
Why is this? Because democrats don't have to live up to their mistakes. If he can put it off 8 years, he will, because he'll be long gone by then. This debt will crush us. Eventually.

>arguing with monarchists
Just bring the guillotine Pierre

Wrong

>TRIGGERED

>BEHEADED

Most technological innovations came from Britain, Japan and Germany tho

Have you tried being yourself?

t. lives in a country worse than Liechtenstein's sewers

>monarchist
>citing a vote
Oh the ironing.

Democracy is a degenerative disease. Ill take a sovereign king over choosing between donald trump and hillary clinton. Prone to beauracracy, in which the purpose of the state becomes to perpetuate and expand its existence at all costs. At least a king has humanity.

>"Hey guys why don't we just have a popularity contest to see who will do the enormous job of running and protecting our country"

Democracys are retarded

T H I S

>Implying I vote

>Classes r bad

Sincere question: For monarchists not living in monarchies, how do you decide who the new royal family would be?

Mine obviously.

>one bad election cancels out all the others
Now imagine if Hillary Clinton was the crown-princess and there was nothing you could have done to prevent the transition of power, and she had decades to mismanage the economy with no chance of stopping her short of overpowering the U.S Army itself

I said no such thing. The classes much exist in harmony with each other, they must be held accountable to each other. Otherwise you get revolutions on your hand. The goal is not eradicating the classes, but moderating them so that one doesn't run amok and pillage the rest

>So, you'd rather we do all that democratically?
Yes, actually, I like having a say in how my tax dollars are spent.

>Democrats will talk up some grand scheme that sounds good to the stupid masses, get elected, and sign """legislation""" that advantages those who give him money, as well as """legislation""" for higher taxes.
Meanwhile, Republicans are trying to pass tax cuts which will blow open a gaping hole in the budget in order to line the pockets of the uber-wealthy, and your solution is to go back to the days when the uber-wealthy were completely exempt from taxes of any kind

>Have you seen the debt of our countries? It's monumentally larger than debt ever got under monarchies.
Debt in and of itself isn't a bad thing. If you make 75k a year and take out a mortgage on a house that's worth 250k, that doesn't mean you're drowning in debt as long as you can make payments which maintain the good faith and credit of your lenders. The reason monarchies had less debt was because their society was poorer and did not have access to the lending institutions that we have, which completely gimped their economy.

>Why is this? Because democrats don't have to live up to their mistakes. If he can put it off 8 years, he will, because he'll be long gone by then. This debt will crush us. Eventually.
Sure they do: they have their political party which will get crushed and their legacy undone if they screw things up too bad. A monarch can screw things up for decades and have this attitude of "well all we need is more militarized police if the commoners keep getting uppity" because he's not being held accountable to anyone but the people who he is rigging the economy for.

American Monarchist here, anyone who tells you it would be Trump is baiting. In my mind, it would be an offshoot of an existing royal family (presumably the British royal family, language and all) that would be adopted and accepted here in the US. I know that's unrealistic, but one of the reasons why the UK isn't as politically divided as we are in the US is because they have tradition and noble leadership to guide, unite and moderate the people.

>American Monarchist here
Lynch yourself you un-American fucking traitor

>American Monarchist

actually mad

Get out of my country

implying the average person on Veeky Forums has studied history.

A king? You want a king? I never heard of nobody wanted a king.

>American Monarchist
I think it's time to revive a long lost American tradition. Who's with me?

>Monarchism is better because it got the greatest share of the vote!
Holy shit dude

>tfw United States isn't under the domain of Emperor Norton

>Hitler
>fascist
Back to r*ddit, faggot.

>The classes much exist in harmony with each other, they must be held accountable to each other. Otherwise you get revolutions on your hand
You just described integralism.

Veeky Forums is not your safespace, nitpicking faggot.

t. berniebro who descends entirely from ellis island trash

Yeah, and nearly all the rest of them are republics.
So what's your point?

Leave my fucking country you god damn Tory
Besides the only acceptable monarch the US could ever have had was /ouremperor/ Norton.

Whats wrong with monarchy?
Its how humans were governed since the dawn of tribes.

Just because you've been doing something a long time doesn't mean its a good way of doing things.

And monarchs do the same shit, but the money goes to supporting their lavish lifestyles as well. Representative "democracy" was a mistake - it's oligarchy in practice - but an actual king and his court just institutionalizes that problem.

Also just default lmao, monarchies did that plenty as well.

Poverty today is a Capitalist word so that chart is literally MEANINGless LMAO

Nice argument edgelord

>can be Communist, Fascist, Liberal or SJW
>But can't be monarchist.

Thanks. You guys are the reason I don't espouse my view in public and are further proof of why we need a monarch. It works England. It works for Japan. It works for China. It works for every civilized country that ever existed, but no, we are somehow different.

We should have crowned Washington. His modesty ruined us.

Go back to Canada, you (spiritual) leaf.

>can be Communist, Fascist, Liberal or SJW
Commies, fascists, and SJW's routinely get BTFO'd here as well

>It works England
Monarch is powerless there

>It works for Japan
Emperor is powerless there

>It works for China
They no longer have an emperor dumbass

>get BTFO

then why they keep coming?

They come from /pol/ thinking that the board that specializes in history is totally gonna agree with them.

Which is superior guys, divine right or the mandate of heaven?
How do we reconcile them while also being atheist?

>someone actually asked how to reconcile divine right and being atheist
Still makes me laugh

Mandate of Heaven. Divine right is basically "God put you in that throne, so everyone else must obey", whereas the Mandate of Heaven said "The gods/God are giving you authority over the kingdom only so far as you do not become tyrannical and corrupt".

>How do we reconcile them while also being atheist?
by literally creating a constitutional monarchy
it's legislation stating the well defined boundaries of a monarch along with affirming their right to rule
if they pull some wack shit that agree with the constitution, then they aren't fit to rule

>constitutional monarchy
>Rule
heh nice meme. It's not ruling if your "advisors" control how you shit

well for example, a queen in london was able to dissolve the parliament of Canada twice in the past 50 years

You know that Jeremy Corbyn took over labour.

>American Monarchist
Aristocratism in the USA went the way of the CSA, and that was a good thing.

>learn about history
>become a advent Republican
Monarcucks need another Reign of Terror desu

>Switzerland
>United States
>Monarchies
If this isn't pasta is soon will be. You're talking out your ass.

>this is what passes for an argument on /leftypol/
Embarrassing, desu.

he's not wrong, though