MONARCHISM THREAD

What's your excuse for not taking the monarchist pill yet user? Now's your chance to get in here and discuss the best ideology that stands the test of time. ITT we also discuss how to push monarchism into today's times, such as debating on how to depose bad monarchs while not ruining the monarchy as a whole, as well as any other ideas that are points of interests.

>But monarchy is literally cuckolding!
Wrong. Corona Chan has proven that republics can take your rights away when it's convenient, they only do so with the false pretense of people having a say in the government.

>Monarchies are oppressive!
More often than not leaders voted in who obtain new power who don't know how to use it are the biggest cunts. It's the same reason why people who win the lottery almost always end up poor again. Monarchs are put into a high position from birth and so they are good leaders.

>One monarch can literally just ruin everything!
That's a pretty big what if and a rare one at that. Surely a system where the son of the leader being trained from his birth by his father and his loyal advisors to be king is far more stable than the poorly informed voters deciding who to rule through a popularity contest? Here there is an important distinction between monarchies and dictatorships, as dictators seize power after the next dictator, like Stalin seizing power at Lenin's death despite the fact that Trotsky was supposed to rule.

>But my vote counts!
Except it doesn't. Suppose that you are a well read intellectual. Now watch as Tyrone and his gang's vote are just as equal as yours. NOW watch as the wealthy oligarchs who rule you hardly care for shit that doesn't benefit them.

>Monarchs are kikes!
Most expulsions of jews were under monarchies. Meanwhile the U.S loves daddy Israel, because republics are open to foreign intervention from people like glowniggers as a result of being unstable.

1/3

Attached: Monarchy.png (1513x904, 192.1K)

Other urls found in this thread:

m.youtube.com/watch?v=PzAtszsW7WU
instagram.com/p/B-2YHleqp77/?hl=en
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Democratic leaders spend the first part of their term adjusting to their new position, and then later getting cucked by Congress until they spend all their time campaigning again. The leaders of a republic are not accountable to their actions as a single man is and they do not care for the long term health and prosperity of the nation, while monarchies must. Take Napoleon III as an example, he remodeled Paris into a modern city and fostered tons of long term projects such as railroads and parks that benefited France tremendously. There is no way this could have happened under a republic, as politicians stuffed into office by the mobs through a popularity contest would be too indecisive and their final term would be the end of any vision they had for France even if their work was approved by the congressional body, as the newly elected head of state could simply decide to do a complete 180 in policy.

Monarchies are extremely stable since there are no 180s every 4-8 years and the people will always know who is next in line to become king. And speaking of Kings, they are trained from birth from their father and his loyal advisors to ensure greatness for the nation. The monarchy is entwined with the history and culture of the nation in many countries, and they can inspire nationalism and a sense of unity between the people of a country, and thus to take monarchies away is like destroying a country's culture. It is not wrong to say that deposing a monarch is like taking the father away from a family, as his people is his children.

Attached: Final Pill.png (1141x1493, 1.44M)

Now here's some quotes, although admittedly a lot of them are more so anti democracy than actually pro monarchy.

“The best reason why Monarchy is a strong government is, that it is an intelligible government. The mass of mankind understand it, and they hardly anywhere in the world understand any other. ” - Walter Bagehot

"Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes, or film-stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison." - C.S. Lewis

"The president of a republic is as though you pick a player from one of two teams and make him umpire." - Czar Simeon II of Bulgaria

"Democracy is the counting of heads, not what’s in them!" - Padraig Deignan

"Democracy… while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide." - John Adams

"Democracy is more vindictive than Cabinets. The wars of peoples will be more terrible than those of kings." - Winston Churchill

"When America set out to destroy Kings and Lords and Masters, and the whole paraphernalia of European superiority, it pushed a pin right through its own body, and on that pin it still flaps and buzzes and twists in misery. The pin of democratic equality. Freedom. There’ll never be any life in America till you pull the pin out and admit natural inequality. Natural superiority, natural inferiority. Till such time, Americans just buzz round like various sorts of propellers, pinned down by their freedom and equality." - D.H. Lawrence

And of course, many other philosophers like monarchy, such as Aristotle.

Now here's a video
m.youtube.com/watch?v=PzAtszsW7WU

3/3

Forgot pic

Attached: Mussolini.png (949x438, 253.88K)

how to monarchy if in our case they were colonizers.

Attached: cris.png (265x258, 89.8K)

Isn't there a restoration movement in Brazil that advocates for the heir of the Brazilian imperial family to be monarch?

Attached: Pedro II.png (740x903, 1.02M)

As Hoppe said, if a state MUST exist, the monarchy is preferable to democracy.

I don't understand why people think monarchies were so authoritarian. If anything, monarchs were much more hands off than modern nation-state democracies. Their taxation rates were way lower. And in most matters of law, people did not defer to the monarch but rather to local arbitrators, bishops, etc

People seem to think monarchs ruled with an iron first, but rather under monarchies there was a very complex system of hierarchies, so people were mostly concerned with what was going on in their own town and didn't feel the presence of the monarch much in their lives. And because everyone knew the monarch was a private owner, there was no misconception that they were doing anything for the "public good" so they couldn't just make laws as they pleased without being blamed

Monarchy and fascism are VERY different though and have very little in common. Fascist like Mussolini are interested in controlling most aspects of the nation state; in a sense it was still "for the people". Monarchs on the other hand were mostly just concerned with improving their own resource acquisition and enriching their monarchy, so often had a very hands off approach toward their subjects. Nationalism was not needed because wars involved fewer soldiers and didn't recruit everyone.

a small one like all the separatist movements and shit, but here the "Brazilian imperial family" is seen as portugueses and so the colonizers.

Hi, I’m the Duke of California. Please instate the nobility so we can build environmentalist techno-castles and eject the spics.