Sell me on monarchy

We have princesses. Actual, princesses. Like, beautiful, respectful, classical, princesses who provide good examples to women to rise to.

Democracy has kardashian pleb whores who retard civilizations and create examples of degeneracy for women to sink to.

cool monuments and statues even if the monarch is shit

Your influence on politics is the same as it is under democracy, nothing
If someone fucks up you know to blame the king or one of the people under him, instead blame being shifted between groups of elected officials
You have Blue Bloods and an Aristocracy ruling instead of the Plutocrats and Merchants

and under democracy you're granted the opportunity to die in a war between the competing interests of bankers

pro: you get Marcus Aurelius

con: you get Commodious immediately after

/thread

under democracy you at least get the choice to decide which aristocratic faction you want ruling over you, and not all aristocratic factions are equal. If one constantly wants to send you to war and one wants to give you free healthcare and education, you can choose the least worst one rather than being stuck with a miserable cunt until he dies.

> If one constantly wants to send you to war
I live in america, so that's both of them

worst possible example

>free healthcare and education
Nothing is free, you dumbass.
Literally do as we have all said a million times: Read Hoppe.
riosmauricio.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Hoppe_Democracy_The_God_That_Failed.pdf
If you come in being open to the idea of monarchy, instead of already having your opinion and knowing that you could never change it, you will come out a monarchist.

Democracy leads to corrupt politicians who do nothing but give empty promises and are in the hand of corporations. The monarch embodies the nation, he has an obligation unto his people and can force decisions that are beneficial. Granted, there are many bad monarchs, but there are just as many bad presidents. The monarch provides the country with stability and a figurehead to rally around, he is a keeper of tradition. People need heroes and a monarch is a better example than "degenerate" singers, the currently trendy sportsman etc.

No shit dumbass. I shouldnt have to explain that to you.

OP instead read Tactitus and you will understand why Monarchies are retarded and Republics are 100% better.

i want war. we love death more than they love life, we will win.

Good goy

read this
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_(book)
the actual book. not just the wikipedia article.
Hobbes actually does make a convincing case.

Its funny because Hobbes supports the main problem with monarchism, namely that you should remain loyal to a king that is crazy, evil etc.. and never question him. You have already signed the "social contract" by crowning him. But In Hobbe's warped view the King needs not uphold his side of the bargain after he is crowned, but the people are not allowed to remove him. The textbook definition of a crowncuck. Hobbes would probably be the guy crying in the corner over Caligula getting stabbed, then be the first one to take a pickaxe to his bust.

It's like democracy but with much less accountability

>only one faction is a warmonger
>(((free healthcare and education)))
4/10 bait.
made me irritated enough to respond
here's your (you)

woah
woah
woah
we have accountability?

Consistent government that doesnt change every 5 years turning the country into tribal fucktards arguing which corporate puppet wont fuck them over the most hint:NONE they all will fuck you over. The very fact campaigns are financed by elites who have agendas to pull shows that our democracy is a sham nothing more than a way for the rich to rule the country in secrecy while we bitch about their puppets like Reagan, Clinton, or Trump they laugh at us as they are untouchable and our rulers.

A monarch would be more likely to try and leave a prosperous country behind for his successors. That's quite obviously not the case for western democratic rulers.

FDR /Thread. Lasted longer than most Crowncucks.

>The very fact campaigns are financed by elites who have agendas to pull shows that our democracy is a sham nothing more than a way for the rich to rule the country in secrecy while we bitch about their puppets like Reagan, Clinton, or Trump they laugh at us as they are untouchable and our rulers.

you act like this same thing hasnt happened in every monarchy that has ever existed.

also the people have someone to blame. With countless influencers behind our politicians actual power has become invisible to the people.

>le napoopan III was bad meme
Made France great again for the last time of her history.

where did the noble lines begin?
If I become big badboy chief of my tribe will my descendents get to call themselves King?

historically they came about through either military or administrative service to the king

>The monarch embodies the nation
He doesn't. Monarchies were the enemies of nationalism and the nationstate until people overthrew them or they accepted the new reality and made half-arsed attempts in order to defend their kingdoms or gave up all their power altogether so they could at least lead luxury lives for the rest of the century.
>he has an obligation unto his people
Unlike other systems, there's nothing written down about it
>can force decisions that are beneficial
Sure he can, but so can any authoritarian system and even democratic ones
>Granted, there are many bad monarchs, but there are just as many bad presidents.
Presidents are produced by the establishment and groomed for politics. So are monarchs if the kingdom is mature enough, but unlike a president, you're stuck with the idiot. How is a kingdom preferable to a stable republican establishment that keeps producing at least average leaders and doesn't invest the future of the country so much into one person?
>The monarch provides the country with stability and a figurehead to rally around, he is a keeper of tradition.
Basing stability on someone who is going to be dead in 70 years isn't the wisest moves, as plenty of post-leader death collapsing dictatorships and kingdoms have taught us.
>People need heroes and a monarch is a better example than "degenerate" singers, the currently trendy sportsman etc.
There's no difference. When the leader isn't conquering and giving your enemies the middle finger people going to think he's an asshole who takes their money no matter what system you have.

Monarchs were the descendents of the most popular leading family in the tribe.

How do we return to Monarchy lads?

you'd have to wait until the current system shits itself even harder then what its already doing

what does it say about monarchy if republican governments have to be so shitty in order for a return to monarchy?

*tips fedora*
I bet you were a wandering swordsman in a past life.
>not reading "Democracy The God that Failed"
it's a defense of monarchy as much as it is an argument against democracy.
Monarchy has less corruption because government is not public property but has been privatized (this is in relation to democracy).
I guess we'd need to establish a point of reference.
Monarchism I would argue is superior to any system we currently have.
Firm leadership, a human face on government, leadership by example, no plutocracy, no technocracy, no quasi-communism with public owned government.

monarchy has less corruption because it's less competent at governance overall, so there's less to corrupt

That will work.

G-D

>have to be so shitty in order for a return to monarchy
because that's every form of government,people will put up with dysfunctional regimes, as long as its not too bad
its only when most people have their backs against the wall that they'll actually fight to overthrow the government

Every argument that can be made against monarchy can effectively be made against democracy.
The difference is that in a democracy the leople in charge arent responsible for anything and can run their countries into the ground with impunity until reelection time.

A king and his appointed nobles on the other hand have to worry about direct upheaval since there is no way to placate people without a few more years.

Also accumulated experience is a plus.

and having state policy flip flop every 4 to 8 years is beyond retarded.

>this is what monarcucks actually believe

>Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's

Monarchs are chosen by God.

Good, informative thread

When the king is wise, strong, and prudent, the country flourishes.

Countries rarely have such types of kings, and rarely have two in a row.

>being this idealistic

not to mention when a king dies without an heir civil war is inevitable. Most western democracies havent had a civil war in a hundred+ years.

There is a theory that argues that that is one of the reason europe got an edge over the middle east in agriculture. Whilst europe had feudal, succession based lands everyone did their best to tend to it so their family would remain strong and prosperous for generations.

In the ME however, lands were distributed by the caliph and returned at any time, so everyone who was awarded land maxmized profits from it and left it to rot. These were the places called the cradles of civilization, with lands so fertile that you just had to settle down. All ruined by greed.

An modern example would be Ethiopia, where the government owns all the land so farmers don't produce anything above what they need and the government demands.

Bastard of a whore and her cucked husband, no relation to based Napoleon I.

So capitalism/private property is superior to feudalism, got it

>monarchy has less corruption

>under democracy you at least get the choice to decide which aristocratic faction you want ruling over you
Do you decide who runs the banks? Who controls the resources?
>one constantly wants to send you to war and one wants to give you free healthcare and education
They can be the same one, you know

>you act like this same thing hasnt happened in every monarchy that has ever existed.
It would happen. Then the Crown would just kick the (((internationalist elite bankers))) out for trying to subvert too much power away from the Crown.
A democracy is controlled by individuals with no intrinsic claim to authority and thus perpetually needs the (((international elites))) to finance their campaigns and help them win the elections which grant them authority, and thus will be perpetually beholden to (((them))).

A monarch which derives his authority from his intrinsic status as the monarch can overcome this need to be financed by (((monied interests))), even though as you point out, sometimes even monarchs become beholden to their (((creditors))). This is merely the sign of a poor monarch though and an individual weakness. Whereas even the greatest statesman in a Republic/Democracy will always be vulnerable to this subversion, an institutional weakness.

>>The monarch embodies the nation
>He doesn't.
Tell that to Louis XIV

>>he has an obligation unto his people
>Unlike other systems, there's nothing written down about it
What are constitutional monarchies?

Bad republics

>He doesn't. Monarchies were the enemies of nationalism and the nationstate etc.
We are talking from a modern perspective, so I think my point still stands. However, it does not have to be a nation of course, that was bad wording on my part. The monarch embodies his state/country/subjects/nation.
>Unlike other systems, there's nothing written down about it
A monarchy can have a constitution as well
>Sure he can, but so can any authoritarian system and even democratic ones
Democratic regimes can barely make necessary decisions without facing repercussions. It's true for the authoritarian one, but they too often depend on one specific leader, and if not, are almost like a monarchy anyway.
>Presidents are produced by the establishment and groomed for politics. So are monarchs if the kingdom is mature enough, but unlike a president, you're stuck with the idiot. How is a kingdom preferable to a stable republican establishment that keeps producing at least average leaders and doesn't invest the future of the country so much into one person?
Because they're not at least average and in the worst case scenario monarchies have the ability to get their monarchs out of power (see Ludwig II of Bavaria being removed from actual power and his uncle becoming Prince-Regent)
>Basing stability on someone who is going to be dead in 70 years isn't the wisest moves, as plenty of post-leader death collapsing dictatorships and kingdoms have taught us.
70 years is hell of a long time for stability, so I think the pros outweigh the cons.
>There's no difference. When the leader isn't conquering and giving your enemies the middle finger people going to think he's an asshole who takes their money no matter what system you have.
The monarch needs to be active of course, but he would be anyway when actually governing. And if you say no matter what system, why is this a criticism of monarchy and not of people?

nation and state are too different things, thats why we have nation states, for then those concepts are combined.

fair enough

Our Father who art in heaven,
Hallowed be thy name.
Thy KINGDOM come.

Done.

do you legitimately believe any of the bullshit you just spewed?