RESTORE THE MONARCHY!

The western monarchs were retarded since they gave their power away willingly. Or were beaten into submission by "democratic" countries and were overthrown by "democratic" rebels.

Scared of a bit of royalty?

the elected representatives

>pic related

If monarchy was so good why isn't it still in real power?

Pressure from Republics, and general Autism.

Wut? What has Catherine Cambridge got to do with anything?

Three guesses. Clue: (((Who))) can't do well under a proper monarchy?

>The Monarch only cares about his children and his dynasty so therefore he would care about everyone
The entire population could be squabbling in poverty, working in hard labour and his family would still be able to live lavish safe lives.
>If he doesn't take care of everyone then he will be overthrown
If the government system relies on the majority of the population to remove it's leader every once and a while, then it isn't monarchy. Just a violent unorganized form of democracy.

Monarchs have to worry about revolution and execution.
Democratic Rulers only have to worry about the peasants checking off a different box.

I think you mean fascism, it has been historically proven that a great king is unsurprisingly odd to find.

>everything is actually a democracy

Only if I'm the monarch. Otherwise I'll just butcher the monarch and then someone will butcher me and then someone will butcher them.

Thus goes a monarchy.

>The entire population could be squabbling in poverty, working in hard labour and his family would still be able to live lavish safe lives.
That tends to not be sustainable.
>t. History

the problem with monarchy is that people are greedy and all want real power or at least what they think is real power
when democracy come along all the plebes think i or my children can be the president not knowing that it is big corps that win and have no loyalty to the country
and just want to put wages down so they bring PC to your county so all your county dipsticks let all the shit skins in not realising that they are killing themselves and there children

Fascism is the retarded nephew of Monarchism

If it involves all members of a country making a decision to select a new leader then it is a democracy. How you go about this doesn't matter. You can decide in an organized and non violent way by hosting elections, or you can go full pants on head retard and create a system that necessitates a massive civil war everytime a new leader is needed.
Not that I even claimed everything is a democracy.

Literally the entire medieval government system was an incredibly small minority of nobles lording over the hard labour of serfs and peasants.

>or you can go full pants on head retard and create a system that necessitates a massive civil war everytime a new leader is needed.
Why is that so absurd? If it requires such an act of force and will, it would probably be more worthwhile and long lasting than just, "The other guy promised more gibs. I'll check that box."

Yes, and? If you think it was a Game of Thrones style tyranny all day erry day, then your history classes were located too close to the USA.

Serfs usually had fairly safe lives since their liege didn't tolerate his property being harmed, as well.
It was a symbiosis, not the cruel dictatorship that you're told in school. Both sides realised that they needed each other and both sides also understood their place in the world. The chain of command was very well-established in the Medieval world as well - a high lord wouldn't interact with the peasants directly, he'd use a smaller lord for that, who'd in turn use a village/community elder to rule over his lands.

man the current system is so corrupt

be a lot better if some dude had absolute and unchallengeable power

It's almost like you Autists have never heard of a Constitutional Monarchy.

>monarchies work in Game Of Thrones so it has to work in real life!!!!

There's a reason why the American, French and Spanish, Russian Revolution happened

I'd rather have only one guy everyone knows to kill than who knows how many unknown when it comes down to it.

all ready posted my opinion on

>Why is that absurd
People don't want to fight a war everytime they want a new leader. A system that necessitates wanton bloodshed, murder, warfare and destruction is not a system that anyone but an edgy fag like you would want.
You seriously think that after the French Revolution all the revolutionaries said "Good war everyone, now let's install a new monarch so we can do it all over again next year." (happened anyways lmao but not by their choice) Or did they immediately implement a system that swapped brutal violence that a basement dweller like you couldn't fathom the actual horror of because you actually think it's cool, with a peaceful and actually organized voting system.
>inb4 you called me names so all your points are invalid

I guess your concerns are legit. I wouldn't trust an American either.

>monarchies work in Game Of Thrones
Have you not watched the show?
>There's a reason why the American, French and Spanish, Russian Revolution happened
Yea, there is, (((you))) historical illiterate.

I actually haven't gotten around to watching Game of Thrones yet, It's been in my backlog for a while now.

Sounds like you're cucked.

>Constitutional Monarchy
We have that here in Canada. It's not necessarily all that great.

>I want to submit my entire life to a guy whose only qualification is that his daddy had the job first
Is there a more cucked ideology in all existence?

How are the Great Houses of Westeros not monarchies?

They run the City of London.

(((You))) are unlearned.

> Monarchism

> Cucked

You fucking wot?

You have severely missed the point, my millennial friend. It should be a hard thing, not some simple matter where (in theory) the scientist and the fool have equal say, so that whenever the greater number of fools get bored, they replace the government. A monarch who can only be removed by force allows for far more consistency. None of this media driven feels bullshit. He'll only be deposed if he's doing such an awful job as to be considered irredeemable by enough people.
Tl;dr: (((democracy))) is for the ADHD age, and monarchy would be for those who prefer to fix what they have over buying something new.

They are, but they clearly don't work too well.

>City of London.
Are you referring to that /x/ tier bullshit? But either way, it would reinforce my point. Monarchs kicked Jews out. Elected leaders brought them back. Jews can buy votes.

okay, but in theory the monarch has ultimate power, and is free to disobey the constitution or parliament. otherwise, what are you complaining about, you have plenty of monarchies. also monarchism in the current year is the most autistic ideology possible.
truuu, but the monarchs can and have been bitches to higher authorities
lol, leave it to an abo to actively WANT to be cucked by a king/queen. while the current system sucks, we will never be so desperate as to want a king. such an ideology belongs to the brits we twice kicked out.

Thats because the eternal Trudeau wrote a clause in our constitution in 1982 that says any section can be revoked if hurts somebody's feeling's ;(
Literally no matter how much the government tells you we are a constitutional democracy, a constitution isn't a constitution if it specifically gives extreme lenience to overrule any given rights. At that point it just becomes a law the government can overturn any time it likes, instead of being a god given right that shall not be infringed.

Leafs usually fuck up most things though.

> I want to carry on and uphold my family legacy

Oh so that's cucked now?

>and is free to disobey the constitution or parliament.
>American education

>WANT to be cucked by a king/queen
>More (((American education)))

>the brits we twice kicked out.
This is just getting sad now. I'm surprised your media/government even lets you see threads like this where other ideas might be discussed.

>Monarchism
>Get a decent leader
>Marries some cunt he's closely related to
>Have some autistic inbred child that inherits the rule no matter what
>Fucking retard takes over and does retarded shit
>This retard also marries some first cousin or some shit, has another retard inbred baby that's even more retarded than himself
>Rinse and repeat

No thanks.

How do monarchists hope to change the world to their system when monarchies greatest strength is now the greatest strenght of republicanism?

>what is elective monarchy

The masses rise against and murder/imprison the retard, and it'll be pretty easy, it's not like retards can defend themselves.

>a guy whose only qualification is that his daddy had the job first
You mean the guy who has been trained for it his entire life with the best resources for doing so?
Yea, that's crazy. Better to choose between a real estate mogul who felt like getting the job on a whim and a career politician whose best qualification is not being the other guy.

Protip: That never happened as much as people like to pretend it did. Charles II was quite an anomaly.

How so?

>he thinks he'd get to be king

Nah, I've got to much Autism for that job.

>the king has been trained to act in the best interest of his subjects

nothing i said was wrong. if the monarch is privy to a piece of paper, then they become trivial ornaments to the nation. just look at any constitutional monarchy and you'll see they are no less cucked than republics or democracies. but lemme guess, "those aren't real monarchies!" how does it feel to be on the same intellectual level as a communist?

monarchsim is a retarded ideology. monarchism is not some enlightened ideology, but is the natural state of things. monarchs are merely the people who managed to acquit that position. and just because it is natural way of things, doesn't mean it is good. If that were the case, you should to the noongas for inspiration, not charles martel.

Swinging a club and writing a ballot can both easily be done by fools. All your point about a civil war being harder than voting means that the leader would have more leniency with mistreating the masses before they rise up. While voting being easy means people can easily contribute to changing more negligible things and leaders are held to a much higher standard.

We've assembled the electorates!

>Our government has problems
>So let's tear it all down and let a single inbred retard dictate the laws for 300 million people
I swear to god Cred Forums you guys post some stupid shit sometimes

>How so?
Cultural inertia and acceptance by both the rulers and the ruled.

The enlightenment was a mistake

That's correct.

>nothing i said was wrong.
Lel.
>just look at any constitutional monarchy
You're confusing constitutional monarchy with parliamentary ones. Constitutional monarchy is fine, but (((parliament))) are the ones who ruin shit.
>but lemme guess, "those aren't real monarchies!"
If the monarch isn't the one wielding executive power but an elected group is, then yea, bit hard to call it a real monarchy.
>just because it is natural way of things, doesn't mean it is good.
Agreed. I've always hated that expression.

>All your point about a civil war being harder than voting means that the leader would have more leniency with mistreating the masses before they rise up.
As in, things would have to be irreparable before being acted upon? Great!
>While voting being easy means people can easily contribute to changing more negligible things and leaders are held to a much higher standard.
That's such an adorably doe eyed thing to say. It's somewhat true in Switzerland, but not in your normal western "democracy", which is just "representative" (meaning that politicians can make up A and B, then when you choose between them, it's pretending you had a say).

>single inbred retard
Even if that were true, he'd be better off than the American voter.

Ah aye, fair point. The brainwashing has quite the root there.

This Aussie deserves a crown, bravo on the work so far.

I'd take a ducal one. We already have a crown here, but if there was a more local one, Prince Henry should be wearing it as Arch-Duke.

im really getting to end point here i swear
i already got a idea in my head

>As in, things would have to be irreparable before being acted upon? Great!
If things become irreparable before being acted upon then they are by definition not able to fixed, you colossal mongoloid
>That's such an adorably doe eyed thing to say. It's somewhat true in Switzerland, but not in your normal western "democracy", which is just "representative" (meaning that politicians can make up A and B, then when you choose between them, it's pretending you had a say).
I never claimed that every elected leader is perfect. Both Monarchies and Democracies are likely to create a bad leaders. The point is how do you deal with a bad leader? In an democracy you just choose not to elect them next term, or in worst circumstances have them impeached. In a monarchy you'd literally have to commit to a massive civil war that would cost countless needless amounts of death, misery, and general inhumanity.

>Ah aye, fair point. The brainwashing has quite the root there.

How would monarchists overcome this?

I like constitutional monarchy, like what we have in Australia.

One race with self determination using true democracy is the only correct way to run a country. Kings are not smarter than a democratic parliament of a high race like the Germanic race.

Just gotta watch out for (((them))) and other subversion.

What is the French revolution?

Holy fuck it's real
Holy shit
We need a king or emperor to wipe out some degenerates

Just like the monarchies of old did. By not giving their people access to free education :^)

>If things become irreparable before being acted upon then they are by definition not able to fixed
You typed that out, and somehow I'm the idiot? Either shit could be made better (with input from the monarch), or it couldn't (them being unwilling or incapable for whatever reason), so they get the haircut and the next guy tries to fix it. Is that clearer, genius?
>Both Monarchies and Democracies are likely to create a bad leaders.
Monarchies less so, as it's more consequence based and has a greater training period. A democracy only has to replace the leader with the next popular chap. They don't have to be better or different.
>In an democracy you just choose not to elect them next term, or in worst circumstances have them impeached.
Exactly. You kick out John Jackson, so you're then made to elect Jack Johnson who isn't actually different, and has no reason to be.
>In a monarchy you'd literally have to commit to a massive civil war that would cost countless needless amounts of death, misery, and general inhumanity.
>needless
If it was needless, it wouldn't happen. The easy way isn't always the best way. We can't improve or grow without suffering of some kind. If a nation is willing to rend itself like that, then the next guy (the heir, presumably) is going to realise that the previous shit was unacceptable.

Education, mostly, and an unbiased media (pipedream there).

How do you plan on wresting control of education from the state?

Have you considered that your goals of education would fail for the same reason the early utopian socialists did?

>You typed that out, and somehow I'm the idiot?
lmao almost had to acknowledge your argument but turns out you made a typo, better luck next time kiddo
>You kick out John Jackson, so you're then made to elect Jack Johnson who isn't actually different, and has no reason to be.
Except everyone doesn't vote for the candidates they don't like and they don't vote for candidates who run on similar platforms. Stop getting your political views from Futurama.
>If it was needless, it wouldn't happen.
You are incredibly right about this. It is needless and it doesn't happen because people immediately did away with the monarchic system after the first revolution.

Yeah, sure, Plato's republic would be great. Too bad it's never going to fucking happen because there is no process to make sure the great king is and stays so wise and benevolent besides like... democracy.

youtube.com/watch?v=IfpuVfoRcO8

Didn't say it was part of a plan. Just making the point.

>lmao almost had to acknowledge your argument but turns out you made a typo
What typo do you think i made? (and why would that mean you don't have to defend your idiocy?)
>Except everyone doesn't vote for the candidates they don't like and they don't vote for candidates who run on similar platforms.
Also very hopeful there, and it sounds like you've been watching too much American politics, because shit like that happens all the time here and the UK.
>Futurama
Thanks, it was driving me crazy trying to remember what it was from. Thought it was Simpsons.
>It is needless and it doesn't happen because people immediately did away with the monarchic system after the first revolution.
Well, no they didn't. They invited the monarchy back in. Twice. Seriously, did you learn history in Texas or something?
But the point was that such an act wouldn't be a petty one, or based on a different politician promising (delivery optional) a healthcare reform which will actually screw everyone. Or a slightly different tax. It would only happen when it was really needed. Prior to that, things could be worked out peacefully.

i don't have the time or patience to debate you australopithecus bitch ass, but just know, there will never be another monarch established in the white race. whites will vehemently oppose the idea, and they will thwart any attempt to establish a king. you are hopeless, we jews will rule over you forever, and our moschiah will be your king, and you will lick the dust from our sandal, goy. how does it feel loser?

we will win, you will lose. feel small yet? it will only get worse for you, goy. LOL!

...

Monarchists are scum. The Bolsheviks had the right approach. With rifles

Corbyn or Paki?

Yeah, be prepared to work as a slave in palace construction sites, while you live in a mudhut, bloody peasant

Isn't that talk technically treason in your country Bong?

Who /stannis/ here?

Corbyn

>What typo do you think i made?
I was mocking you disregarding the fact that you literally said it is good when things become irreparable before they are acted upon because of a typo.
>Also very hopeful there, and it sounds like you've been watching too much American politics, because shit like that happens all the time here and the UK.
What a meaningless opinion that can't actually be proven. Unless of course you actually have a chart showing "Amount of People who Elected The Wrong Person By Year (Wrong Person as Defined By Me :^)"
>Twice. Seriously, did you learn history in Texas or something?
Yes they call it the Coup of 18–19 Brumaire because Revolutionary France invited Napoleon :^).
>It would only happen when it was really needed.
You continue to act as if people having less control over how their leader effect their lives is a good thing.
>Prior to that, things could be worked out peacefully.
But in a democracy things work peacefully 24/7

Yup, see >I was mocking you disregarding the fact that you literally said it is good when things become irreparable before they are acted upon because of a typo.
Yea, wasn't a typo. Or we're both reading from different books.
>Unless of course you actually have a chart showing "Amount of People who Elected The Wrong Person By Year
Never said the wrong person was elected. Any election is wrong in the sense that you're choosing between kosher picked candidates who are fundamentally the same due to the party structure.
>Yes they call it the Coup of 18–19 Brumaire because Revolutionary France invited Napoleon
Protip: There are other nations in the world.
>You continue to act as if people having less control over how their leader effect their lives is a good thing.
It is a good thing. The government should just be a guide, not a national pastime like it is now.
>But in a democracy things work
Nah.

I'm certainly not in favor of a monarch...

But what are the chances that any royal monarch would be dumber and more self-destructive than the average American voter?

I think we should limit the ability to vote to people who meet some criteria for intelligence and national investment, and then a constitutional democratic republic would work a hell of a lot better.

But barring that, it would be extremely easy to find a powerful leader that is more intelligent, more knowledgeable, and more loyal than the average American voter.

Yeah, Jewish subversion of the power structures proper to human society.

If there was a way of making sure we had a strong and capable leader, I would gladly give up all of my rights and live as a serf in a monarchy.

>I would gladly give up all of my rights and live as a serf
Not really a requirement of monarchy any more than most other government systems.

i always wanted a dictator, no lie

300 million is too large for a single nation. It has already proven to be impossible to write a single constitution that 300 million people are in favor of. The USA should be broken into smaller units.

>Didn't say it was part of a plan. Just making the point.

If theres no plan or doctrine about achieving this then your ideology starts getting into mental masturbation territory

Welcome to Cred Forums, a forum for discussing ideas!
But seriously, in places like Aus, it's a matter of electing loyalist politicians. Something we actually have a chance of doing, unlike in republics like the USA. Even France has a decent chance because of their history.

Heil Hitler

>But seriously, in places like Aus, it's a matter of electing loyalist politicians. Something we actually have a chance of doing, unlike in republics like the USA. Even France has a decent chance because of their history.

You know when people laugh at socialists for thinking they can vote in communism or trigger a revolution by flogging shitty newspapers? You are the otherside of that coin albiet less organised.

Australia tried to introduce a monarchy/gentry here before and it failed horrifically.

>for discussing ideas
The transition is the most important question. Any yobbo can criticse society and any progressive can imagine a better one.

I agree. Liberal Democracy always leads to gay rights.

Monarchy enables semitic involvement

>Australia tried to introduce a monarchy/gentry here before and it failed horrifically.
When..? We have a monarchy and gentry...
>You know when people laugh at socialists for thinking they can vote in communism or trigger a revolution by flogging shitty newspapers?
I'm not defending the lack of planning, but we are on better footing here. Many politicians are active monarchists (Tones being a biggun), and the people are in favour of the monarchy.

Historically that hasn't been the case, whereas all others encourage it.

Monarchy has a Great track record. I'm down for it

Why would you ever set a King over you?

The Quebecois still despise the Anglo.
Liberty or death. The monarchy is a corporation.

MAGNA CARTA -
THE CROWN OWNS THE WORLD

Why would you set Trudeau over you?

The monarchy is the country.

It's not /x/ tier bullshit.

You goyim (muggles) don't know anything and that's how it is deliberately set up.

The banks own you and in 5776, you still think political activism can protect you or what not we have bought and paid for EVERYTHING.

Power of the dollar.

The Monarchy will be restored.

November 4th, our new Monarch.

DONALD J. TRUMP

Historically the Jews controlled kings you uneducated assuie.

>It's not /x/ tier bullshit.
It really is.
Based on misunderstandings of the law.
>The banks own you
Well i agree there.

>Calling me uneducated
Oh the ironing. Kings regularly expelled the Jewry. How could they possibly control them?

>When..? We have a monarchy and gentry...
Im not talking BS constitutional stuff Im talking proper aristocracy. During the struggles between the Emancipists and Exclusivists in the 1850s where they were pushing to introduce a formal landed gentry and titles in Australia, a group mockingly referred to as teh bunyip aristocrats.

>I'm not defending the lack of planning, but we are on better footing here. Many politicians are active monarchists (Tones being a biggun), and the people are in favour of the monarchy.

You have horrically misread the situation in that case, they are constitutional monarchists. The closest we had to an actual monarchist was Menzies and even he was nowhere near.

Saying people like Abbot are Monarchists is like Saying Bernie Sanders is a communist and Trump a national socialist.

>Historically that hasn't been the case
Given how little you know of even your own countries history I would be slow to criticise others knowledge were I you.

I did not set him over me, that's the point.
You're not making an argument, democracy is a sham. All central governments who steal the bread of labour are corrupt and inauthentic.
Canada belongs to the citizenry, not the politicians. All of the political class are goofs and thieves.

The land and the people of Canada are the Sovereign, elizabeth and her kin be damned to Hell.

Dieu et mon Droit.
Je me souviens.

>n the 1850s where they were pushing to introduce a formal landed gentry and titles in Australia
Ah, right. At least a few of them have stuck.
>they are constitutional monarchists.
Yes, and?
>Saying people like Abbot are Monarchists is like Saying Bernie Sanders is a communist and Trump a national socialist.
Well no, Tones is a member of the AML, and has did bring back knighthoods (a step towards gentry).
>Given how little you know of even your own countries history I would be slow to criticise others knowledge were I you.
I know plenty, bro. You're the one seemingly keen on semantics.

>I did not set him over me, that's the point.
You do, with your elected government.
>The land and the people of Canada are the Sovereign
They really aren't. Her Majesty is the sovereign of all Canada, my traitorous friend.
Albion go bragh.

Can you validate your claims as to where the law is misunderstood?

The Crown, as defined in the Magna Carta, de jure through "British" and "Canadian" law is the proprietor of Canada and they don't care about muggles. Jewish-Khazar banks and Anglo royalty have been bedfellows for a long time. City of London is the seat of the Crown. If being a cuck shill for the Duke of Westminster and his lot is your aim, just accept the narrative (((they))) feed you.

Do you know what the common link is hinter der feindmachten?

The elites love the occult in theory and practice. So did Hitler.

It's plain to see that you are no more than a pawn of Elizabeth. She doesn't give a fuck about you. You? You are not a traitor because you esteem the Queen of Britain over your countrymen and this land.
You are nothing more than foreign vermin which will soon be no more than dust.

Nemo me lacessit impune.

>They're sort of forced to care about the country
That has never once been true.

>Can you validate your claims as to where the law is misunderstood?
I can't remember the case, but the argument about the "City of London in the city of London" being sovereign is rubbish, as were claims of the monarch needing permission to enter and other such tosh.
>Jewish-Khazar banks and Anglo royalty have been bedfellows for a long time.
Cromwell wasn't that long ago. And the banks are more concerned with keeping the monarchy down and (((their))) parliament up.
>The elites love the occult in theory and practice.
Not as much as they should.

>She doesn't give a fuck about you.
Why would She?
>You are not a traitor because you esteem the Queen of the Commonwealth
FTFY. She is my queen, and your queen. Saying otherwise makes you either foreign, or a traitorous cur, void of all moral worth.
Jacobites are long gone.

Family needs a father, good or bad. Not abusive, of course.

If usury is so good, why is it ruining our world currently?

>Ah, right. At least a few of them have stuck.
They failed to get a formal landed aristocracy introduced here it didnt stick.

>Yes, and? Well no, Tones is a member of the AML, and has did bring back knighthoods (a step towards gentry).

In australia that means keeping the status quo politically with some monarchic decoration. Abbott and Co. Just look at how cucked the AML is they dont want Elizabeth or the GG to start ruling or doing anything that aren't doing now. At best they will get some cosmetic changes but nothing more.

Take a look at the comparisons I made they went random. Those people have some policies which are part of the extreemes who support them but they stop far too short and are the kind of people who would gladly crack down on those types should they have power in order to be "respectable"

>I know plenty, bro.
Just fuck all about your ideologies history in your own country.

>You're the one seemingly keen on semantics.
Says the person who thinks the AML are monarchists and not just another group of conservatives.

>Why would you ever set a King over you?
>having a father is cucked now
Kill me, for I can not kill these times.

>That tends to not be sustainable.
Monarchs tend to not care.
>t. History

>Monarchs tend to not care.
>>t. History
Monarchy ended with leaders who did care. Both in France and in Russia. Plebs need the whip more than they were prepared to give.

Monarchies are great for the king and the nobility, who also write the history books.
They are not great for illiterate serfs like Cred Forums.

WHO /ANARCHO-MONARCHIST/ HERE?

Yeah, why not. Just look at the romans: they were a democracy and then they decided to have one man to rule the entire empire. That ended well for them.

>Monarchies are great for the king and the nobility, who also write the history books.
Socialists have written the history books for past 60 years, though.
>Swedish rule was the golden age
>under Russia, we were poor
Yet we managed to build the railway network we can't upkeep today...

Lies and slander, all of it. France had its revolution because the king applied the enlightenment ideals - increasing food prices.

Jews had it bad under monarchies because monarchies kept the people relatively safe, and the kikebeast was caged in ghettoes, where they couldn't steal and pilfer everything.

The queen could have stepped in at anytime and stopped the genetic displacement of the anglos

wtf I hate autists now

or smo like our God and Emporor Vladimir I Putin

>unchecked quads

>Jews had it bad under monarchies
Jews were in bed with several monarchies. Not the Russian one though, that's why they were instrumental in the rise of Bolshevism to wreck it. I hope you don't actually believe the common man had it good under the Tsars though, that's some ludicrous historical revisionism to fuel your nostalgia for anything that is different from what we have today.

Ok, I am the king now

we already have a crypto jew monarchy

remember what happened to the last people who tried to overthrow them?

They're people were genocide-d, they got blamed for a fake genocide, and their leader is now a literary figure of pure evil

You have to be over 5'8" to be king, lad. Sorry. Stop denying natural impulses.

>Jews were in bed with several monarchies.
In Poland, mainly. Or between warring factions. Jews in general, though - not just the biggest noses.
> I hope you don't actually believe the common man had it good under the Tsars though
"Jews din du nuffin'". Cry some more, it isn't historical revisionism. Tsars didn't go around killing tens of millions of Russians just because they were butthurt.

I remember the historical texts about agitators, moving from village to village preaching propaganda - atheism, socialism, communism, revolutionary spirit. Vile beings.

Source?

Do you not care about your properties?

>They failed to get a formal landed aristocracy introduced here it didnt stick.
On large scale, yes.
>At best they will get some cosmetic changes but nothing more.
Didn't say it was perfect.
>Just fuck all about your ideologies history in your own country.
Still disagree.
>Says the person who thinks the AML are monarchists and not just another group of conservatives.
>Australian Monarchist League
>Not monarchists
Are you thinking of ACM? Because they're pretty damn tepid.

This is going off a handful of bad leaders, you mean?

Why would there be serfs, and why would they need to be illiterate?
Your conception of monarchy seems to be similar to cartoon villainy.

>I hope you don't actually believe the common man had it good under the Tsars though
Russia was quite backward, but the Tsars were far better to the people than the Reds. Alexander II and his predecessors were doing real good for the people. Just that Alex III fucked it over so much that Nick II didn't have a chance.

youtube.com/watch?v=X1yON7-6VK8
youtube.com/watch?v=KNWPYQjXSYA - watch the entire series.

How good are times for us now, though? We can't even read "200 years together" in English or Finnish...

I'm not saying Jews dindu nuffin. Bolshevism is literally the worst system in the world, though its goals were noble.

>I'm not saying Jews dindu nuffin.
>though its goals were noble
Thievery is not noble. "Its casus belli sounds good" is better.

>Bolshevism is literally the worst system in the world
Just one aspect of judaism.

I agree, having a king will solve a lot of problems, like having a better relationship with the Kremlin

the glorious revolution was a mistake

the american revolution was a mistake

the french revolution was a huge mistake

who should be the absolute monarch of USA?

>implying worked so well before
It wouldn't last
NatSoc is the way to go! One race, one nation, one leader. He had charisma but near the end,Adolf Hitler was a feeble minded old man who wasn't fit to lead, but had some great minds within the governmental and military structure that could have led the Reich into survival. Hitler's biggest mistake was fucking with Joe Stalin before he was done fighting on the Western front. Another good thing to do would have been to advise Japan not to piss off the USA. Had the National Socialist movement been given enough time in America, it could have worked. By the time the fleets arrive from across the Atlantic, they would be welcomed by the support of a strong Nazi rebellion helping them win against Roosevelt's government

>Had the National Socialist movement been given enough time in America, it could have worked
enough time AND supourt
It's sad because this is now the best hope we got for the movement in America. They've been proven to be little more than a race based street gang, too

Donald J. Trump

What we need is an elitist democracy. The biggest mistake was giving women and niggers the right to vote, but there's a lot of white men who are nigger-tier as well.

The best solution is to only allow people with 130+ I.Q. the right to vote. If one or two niggers qualify I have no problems with that.

The fact is that people with high I.Q.s are more superior at reasoning and analysis... by definition. Some of your brainlets are going to argue against this because it pisses you off, but it's true. If you have a 100 I.Q. you are closer to the average nigger than someone with a 130 I.Q. If you haven't experienced this it's because you're one of the brainlet low-niggers.

No.

>On large scale, yes.
Where did it succeed on the small scale?

>Didn't say it was perfect.
Are you saying it is adequate?

>Still disagree.
Then why did you have no knowledge of our previous conflicts over monarchy here?

>Are you thinking of ACM? Because they're pretty damn tepid.

No the AML, go to their website and see their stated goals go to thier about us section

We need a divine mandate, with a leader who is strong, powerful, wise and immortal. Make humanity great again

>Nick II didn't have a chance.

Yeah he was forced to go to war with Japan, he was forced to threaten Austria with war in the Balkans, he was forced to end the Stolypin Reforms, he was forced to close down the duma again and again, he was forced to go lead from the front and leave the court to his wife and Rasputin, he was forced to reject the numerous warnings from his advisors to abdicate or leave the country before the liberals would arrest him. He diddin do nuffin

>Where did it succeed on the small scale?
There were three or four like Robinson of Adelaide, and Bruce of Melbourne.
>Are you saying it is adequate?
I'm saying for the moment there's little else.
>Then why did you have no knowledge of our previous conflicts over monarchy here?
I did have knowledge. I think conflict is just the wrong way of putting it.
>No the AML, go to their website and see their stated goals go to thier about us section
Aye, it is weak, but the magazine has a bit more backbone. Sadly, coupled with even more bitching and moaning.

>Yeah he was forced to go to war with Japan
To get a warm water port there, yes.
>he was forced to threaten Austria with war in the Balkans
Kinda.
>he was forced to end the Stolypin Reforms
What? They largely worked.
>he was forced to close down the duma again and again,
Kinda. They were a shit.
>he was forced to go lead from the front
Of course. A leader should.
>and leave the court to his wife and Rasputin
That was a mistake, aye.
>he was forced to reject the numerous warnings from his advisors to abdicate or leave the country before the liberals would arrest him.
Also a mistake, but the more noble path. Would have been wiser to send his family on holiday abroad, though.

>There were three or four like Robinson of Adelaide, and Bruce of Melbourne.

Those mere awards and purely cosmetic and not even hereditary

>I'm saying for the moment there's little else.
At best theres a forum with some Australian monarchists rather than mere conservatives.

>I did have knowledge. I think conflict is just the wrong way of putting it.
You wouldnt decribe the hostilities between the emancipists and the exclusivists as a conflict?

>Aye, it is weak, but the magazine has a bit more backbone. Sadly, coupled with even more bitching and moaning.

Mate even Stalinists manage to do better.

What lessons have you learned from Australias past when it comes to implementing monarchism here?

>To get a warm water port there, yes.
Rubbish they wanted all of Korea in their sphere of influence and refused to negotiate with the Japanese. If all they wanted was a port they would have got that easily. Instead he chose to ignore the Japanese and hope they would do nothing whilst he amassed a large army in the East so he could get more than a few ports in the East.

>Kinda.
How so there was no alliance between the two nations?

>What? They largely worked
Thats the point he stopped them from progressing.

>Kinda. They were a shit.
Not at all they werent bootlickers but they weren't so hostile as to break his promises and make them a consultative body even after constant dissolution.

>Of course. A leader should.
A leader leads his country generals lead soldiers, a man who has demonstrated a serve lack of military understanding - so much so that Russia became the first European country to loose a war to east asians since the Mongols invaded.- has no place on the battlefield, especially in an autocracy where the monarch is a central figure in the bureaucracy and management of domestic affairs.

It was wholly unnecessary and disastrous for his popularity. He abaonded his country and this role of leader to gallivant around uselessly in the west.

>That was a mistake, aye.
Which is all Nick managed to do during his rule. An autocracy needs an autocrat.

>Also a mistake, but the more noble path. Would have been wiser to send his family on holiday abroad, though.

What is noble about being pigheaded and railroading your country into ruin. This was noble in the same way the charge of the light brigade was "noble" or the Battle of Iswandwala was noble.

Rome started out as a kingdom though. Moreover, the Roman Empire lasted ~1400 years compared to the 500 or so years of the Roman Republic (which wasn't even a democracy).

What's your point?

>not even hereditary
They were. They just ended up extinct.
>At best theres a forum with some Australian monarchists rather than mere conservatives.
If there is, please let me know.
>You wouldnt decribe the hostilities between the emancipists and the exclusivists as a conflict?
Not a relevant one.
>Mate even Stalinists manage to do better.
Oh, I'm painfully aware.
>What lessons have you learned from Australias past when it comes to implementing monarchism here?
That we already have one, and if we want it stronger, the UK would have to do so first?
>Rubbish they wanted all of Korea in their sphere of influence and refused to negotiate with the Japanese.
Po-tay-to/Po-tah-to. They didn't want to look weak in the negotiating.

>Thats the point he stopped them from progressing.
I'm not an expert on those reforms, but did they keep working up to WW1? Like, people kept moving east and shit?
>Not at all they werent bootlickers but they weren't so hostile as to break his promises and make them a consultative body even after constant dissolution.
Issues with the Duma were ongoing, though. As in, it was problematic well before Nick 2, so the "Drop the Duma" button always had a button held over it. Really, they just needed a new system.
>has no place on the battlefield
Agreed, but it's a perception thing.
>What is noble about being pigheaded and railroading your country into ruin.
Going down with the ship? And the Bolsheviks had taken too deep a root by the time he took power anyway, it was inevitable without great foresight or the kind of leadership he wasn't in a position to provide.

There are two types of political leadership; monarchy and oligarchy.

You choose.

Yes, there (((is)))

1000 years of inherited rule in England has produced exactly how many retards?

The first monarch might be a good one, but after that they will all be little shits.

Fuck off reactionary cucks, fascism is the only true answer for the West. Monarchs are inherently fucking cancer. Their is no guarantee that a monarch will care about his nation or his people. Also the whole dice roll aspect that comes with hereditary rule can land literal retards into complete and total control of a nation. The merit based values of fascism can carry a nation forward like no other ideology and all you cucks who want to live under the boot of some inbred cunt who's better then you because god says so are truly disgraceful.

Inherited rule OF England would be a better way of putting it, since there were kings prior to Billy the Bastard.
And Henry 8 was probably on the spectrum. Or at least an honourary tard, given his actions.

Good post

>dice roll
Eugenics, brah.
>Their is no guarantee that a monarch will care about his nation
Do you not care about your property or income?
>live under the boot of some inbred cunt who's better then you
But you're advocating fascism? That's like actually bootlicking. And how do you decide who the Glorious Leader is? Vote or hereditary?
>because god says so
Divine Rule isn't really a thing anymore. Mandate of Heaven is fair, though.

>They were. They just ended up extinct.
Are you sure when I looked up that page it seemed only a very few of them were hereditary and even then it was only a title.

>If there is, please let me know.
royalcello.websitetoolbox.com/?forum=54055

They might have changed thier forum a bit since I last visted (or simply shut down) as its a tad different from when I last was there.

>Not a relevant one.
What would you describe it as?

>That we already have one, and if we want it stronger, the UK would have to do so first?

What do you view as "stronger"?

>Po-tay-to/Po-tah-to. They didn't want to look weak in the negotiating.

Hardly, if it was only warm water ports then why was control of Manchuria and its coal and iron deposits so serious? The first proposal Japan offered Russia would have given them their warm water ports yet Russia rejected this. It wasnt not wanting to show weakness it was overconfidence and thinking Japan could be bullied into surrendering its interests in the area.

>I'm not an expert on those reforms, but did they keep working up to WW1? Like, people kept moving east and shit?

Yep and they were ended in 1914 although I cant recall if it was before the deceleration or after.

>Issues with the Duma were ongoing, though. As in, it was problematic well before Nick 2, so the "Drop the Duma" button always had a button held over it. Really, they just needed a new system.

There were no Dumas before Nick. Through his bungling he managed to at once make enemies of socialists and the moderate captalists who were the rising force over the old land based aristocrats.

What new system would you have suggested.

>Agreed, but it's a perception thing.
It was more than that, he didnt just go visit to boost morale.

>fascism is the only true answer for the West.
t. burger

>the brits we twice kicked out

Ameripublic "education" everyone.

>
>Going down with the ship? And the Bolsheviks had taken too deep a root by the time he took power anyway,

Completely false, it was the liberals who took over in Feburary and who arrested the Tzar and forced his abdication.

The communists at this time were a dead force, look at the July Days where they tried to rise up and get absolutly BTFO by Kerensky and the liberals. Lenin was even forced to flee to Finland.

>it was inevitable without great foresight or the kind of leadership he wasn't in a position to provide

He was literally being begged by relatives and constantly warned by his staff. A brain dead Hapsburg would litterally have been able to keep the monarchy intact.

Thats what is so bad about nick he didnt just passively let the monarchy die he actively wrecked it.

The Britbong Monarchy has been neutered since the "glorious" revolution, the eternal Anglo despises his Norman Aryan superiors, hence their inclination towards republicanism and crypto-republicanism.

>Are you sure
Reasonably sure, from memory. It just seemed non-hereditary because all but a few went extinct.
>royalcello.websitetoolbox.com/?forum=54055
Cheers, bruv.
>What would you describe it as?
A colonial caste issue.
>What do you view as "stronger"?
Reduced power of the politicians/media, and more control by the monarch (or delegate, such as an Arch-Duke).
>Hardly, if it was only warm water ports then why was control of Manchuria and its coal and iron deposits so serious?
Who wouldn't want a bit extra? But yea, also overconfidence. I'm not saying they were justified, just that the goals weren't unreasonable.
>Yep and they were ended in 1914 although I cant recall if it was before the deceleration or after.
Either way, the war would have messed it up a bit.
>There were no Dumas before Nick.
Sure there were. Peter the Great kicked the shit out them.
>What new system would you have suggested.
Given knowledge at the time? I'm really not sure. It'd need to be something taking away powers from the dickish boyars, but somehow not causing them to rebel.
>Completely false
My bad, I should have just said the seeds of revolution. Enough of the urbanites were becoming rallied to it by then.
>He was literally being begged by relatives and constantly warned by his staff.
What would you have done in his position, though? Considering the volatility of the time.

>Reasonably sure, from memory. It just seemed non-hereditary because all but a few went extinct.
Ill take your word for it.

>A colonial caste issue.
Or class conflict.

>Reduced power of the politicians/media, and more control by the monarch (or delegate, such as an Arch-Duke).

I see this as a large failing on modern monarchists and one which fails to handle the nationalism question.

>Who wouldn't want a bit extra? But yea, also overconfidence. I'm not saying they were justified, just that the goals weren't unreasonable.

Bullying and snubbing a key regional power who is allied with one of the most powerful European countries is very unreasonable and shows diplomatic weakness.

>Either way, the war would have messed it up a bit.

Not enough to cancel it. Remeber there was literally no treaty with Serbia this was a discretionary war %100, not even the warm water ports meme applies.

>Sure there were. Peter the Great kicked the shit out them.

Boyar Dumas dont have much relation to regular Dumas when it comes to national legislation and policy.

>Given knowledge at the time? I'm really not sure. It'd need to be something taking away powers from the dickish boyars, but somehow not causing them to rebel.

IE a Duma.

>My bad, I should have just said the seeds of revolution. Enough of the urbanites were becoming rallied to it by then.

Ok.

>What would you have done in his position, though? Considering the volatility of the time.

Assuming you arent talking about after his arrest but during the heat of WWI, the same thing all the other monarchs did pass the buck to a parliament and let them be the scapegoat. If he did this early enough he could have gotten way as a consitional monarch or at the very least saved the lives of those who depended on him.

>Relying on inbred fucktards
Go back to bongistan you fucking traitor

it wasn't reallly a roman kingdom, well it was earlier colonists who had mixed with locals had formed a kingdom then during a second wave of colonization from greece that group of kings somehow moved south and formed a interesting system of representative democracy most importantly and what we need desperately, is Roman Republic had 8 or 10 Tribunes of the Plebeians to go kill representatives not doing their jobs. One for each century of tribes (basically family groups) that were the basis of the original governent. Patricians came from the families of the 8 kings of the pre representative democracy and "gave up their power" but not status

>which fails to handle the nationalism question.
How so?
>Bullying and snubbing a key regional power who is allied with one of the most powerful European countries is very unreasonable and shows diplomatic weakness.
And a lack of self/enemy understanding. Sun Tzu would be ashamed. But that's like the history of warfare.
>Boyar Dumas dont have much relation to regular Dumas when it comes to national legislation and policy.
They were the precursor, and they were arse-pains too.
>IE a Duma.
Too much power to the people. A stronger monarchical hand would have been better, with an advisory driven petitioners court.
>the same thing all the other monarchs did pass the buck to a parliament and let them be the scapegoat.
Certainly a better plan. But would it have worked?

>inbred
Every time.