Should the West revert back to Monarchy? Anyone tired of seeing petty politicians fighting each others?

Should the West revert back to Monarchy? Anyone tired of seeing petty politicians fighting each others?

Attached: A26C732F-CD11-418F-8B17-A71E744DE427.jpg (1390x1975, 2.38M)

No

You can't have monarchy without religion.

I'm for a monarchy, but the kings have no saying in political matters, so it doesn't really matter if it's a king or president.
To make a difference it would have to be an absolute monarchy.

Why do guys in old paintings always stand like faggots?

Femboys were unironically considered attractive

Monarchy can work with the right ruler, the problem is that down the line you end up with a powermonger, an incompetent, a money grubber, an overly naive ruler, a decadent ruler or a retarded man child that fucks everything over.

There’s so many potential pitfalls down the line. Succession wars are also a real bitch. Then there’s the question if we are talking about absolute monarchy or feudalism, there’s tons of issues here as well.

Personally, if we were to ditch democracy I would preferred a form of oligarchy where the ruler is selected based on meritocracy

Brave New World shows us the best system.

> a retarded man child that fucks everything over.

So basically Chris-Chan becomes the king of your country. Hard pass

Attached: Terry_A._Davis_2017.jpg (640x480, 114.26K)

Any system that gives jobs and enough money to raise at least one child to everyone is fine in my book. In our present day system there aren't enough jobs for everyone and men with no social skills or contacts are totally unemployable.

>Implying monarchs don't spend most of their time engaged in petty sqaubles with other family members and other monarchs, and all the shit that comes with it.

Unlike you burgers, people used to not be too fat to stand up straight

Definitely... and the clothing should revert too.

Attached: ATJ overflowing milkers.webm (1920x1080, 2.97M)

You've watched too much TV. City nobles squabbled like politicians but real land owning nobles generally had their own shit to deal with. One of the reasons there were so many short and small scale wars was because land owning nobles liked to just attack when an issue popped up without stewing on it for decades.
TV has a heavy democracy/republic bias. Read history rather than watching the TV series.

Cannot stomach period TV programs so no. Stop assuming, you know what that does

>One of the reasons there were so many short and small scale wars was because land owning nobles liked to just attack when an issue popped up

So you are freely admitting my point then. Thank you.

You don't spend much time on a single battle retard.
>10 days march.
>5 days preparing and executing the battle.
>10 days home.
Oh no 20 days is all year like a politician squabble. Look at Brexit. How long has that shit been going on? A quick battle outside of London would have solved it years ago.

To add to this, they would usually have very small armies of maybe a few thousand men. All of which were professional soldiers (of their own will), and civilians generally did not have to fear being dragged into these wars in any way.

What we have currently is Feudalism with no Monarch, the worst of both worlds. Billionaires are running the world hoarding all the resources and leaving scraps for the rest of us.

Fuck Monarchy
Fuck Communism
Fuck Anarchism
Fuck Capitalism
Fuck Fascism
Fuck

No. I firmly believe in the way we (New Zealander btw) did things before 1989 - we had a county system where basically the counties, towns and cities had their own council and ran affairs on their own without hardly any government oversight. The government was really there as a enforcer rather than a regulator if that makes sense?

>t. 12 year old with a period fantasy fetish

Imagine actually beleiving this is how it worked in history. If you think somethig like Brexit could be solved by a battle out side London and that would be the end of it you are a retard.

Enjoy your Knight larp though, I'm sure you're a really badass tin man on the battlefield and not a paraplegic faggot who struggles even in the battle not to dribble.

Attached: 20200423_132443.jpg (1060x1289, 513.57K)

I'm tired of watching politicians shaft people cycle after cycle and the people lying to themselves that it's going to change without their interaction.

See. You've watched too much TV and not read enough history. Insults are cheap but real knowledge is hard to come by.

What do you mean, revert?

Then impart some you absolute scholar you.

Oh what a surprise, an israeli tries to undermine all systems of order in the West...

forgot:
Fuck Democracy

>Who should be King of England?
>Three battles over 2 months.
>William of Normandy is the King of England.

this is such a reverse and clueless way of seeing things
it's not a switch which you can turn on and off, monarchy or similar highly hierarchical political systems are the product of a certain worldview, when such worldview ceases to be held, these forms are like fishes out of water, they aren't bound to last, and if they do, they do so artificially and in limited forms(de facto castrated by parliamentary power) like a fish in a small tank dependent on the food you give him
the rise of secular humanism and plebeian arrogance, not without faults from the ancient Regime, pretty much destroyed the worldview necessary to uphold monarchy in any real form; needless to say I don't consider the castrated monarchs still alive and spared the guillotine to be anything but puppets and vestigial organs at the the leash of bankers and popular bowel movements, also known as votes

My sides...
Imagine using the 11th century as an example of why absoloute monarchy would work today. Did it ever occur to you that there were only three battles in 2 months because the time it took to travel back then you fucking dingus? Not to mention lack of navigational technology and population differences.

Also read a fucking book. The march of 1066 is filled with discrepancies. It's arguable if they could have even travelled that far in the time they did and very little from that time is set in stone.

Are you one of those kids off school who is prepping for a history GCSE and thinks he's some kind vault of knowledge. Because that's the vibe you are giving.

Attached: y2uNb2I.jpg (645x729, 77.32K)

>Absolute monarchy.
Avatar posting is against the rules.

So no refuting of the point then. Thank you for conceding.

Perhaps, but it will take a true Augustus to make it stick. I would love to see the anglosphere or the west come under one rule, unfortunately that would be in America so unless the enfranchise all westerners he's going to have to be American on top of it.

Attached: AVGVSTVS.jpg (1500x2250, 457.59K)

>Hurr durr we simply can't know what happened back then.
>Hurr durr absolute monarchy.
>Hurr durr population matters for solving differences using elite warriors.
>Hurr durr the simple example literally everyone has heard of was too simple despite that being the reason it was used.
The picture was perfect for your post but like I said avatar posting is against the rules so you should refrain from doing so in future.

Only if I get to be the king, otherwise no

That's one ripped baby