Any monarchists here

I'm a huge fan of monarchy, in that it can check democracy and provide national unity in a way an elected official can't. They transcend the state and become a personified version of the state. Do you want the Hohenzollerns back?

when will this

>"le monarch is less trained to run the country than (((elected))) officials"

meme die

I just want the Kaiserreich back with immortal Bismarck running shit.

Oh, gotcha. Sorry.

One thing I'll grant monarchy, the period of biggest institutionally backed freedom of speech in Brazil was back when Pedro II was around. He was a perfect example of the enlightened monarch. Having a monarchy along the means to ensure personal freedom to the most is the way to go, instead of cucked (((socialism)))

>not supporting monarchies
Monarchies are the penultimate expression of private enterprise, property rights and the free market.

Republics on the other hand are an expression of Socialism, irresponsible politics and tyranny of the majority punishing innovation and rewarding destructive self interest disguised as popularism.

>I love monarchy!
>Monarchies send millions of young men to a pointless death in WW1

German, Austrian and Russian monarchies are worthless anyway, nobody should want to revive them

when it stops being true

>supporting bunch of senile welfare kangz with even less power than your typical crooked politicians

Christfags are monarchist by definition, or should be really.

Serbs killed Franz Ferdinand to ensure his ideas of a United States of Austria wouldn't work. Its a shame there aren't any true pretenders for Poland, though I think the monarchists have picked out someone descended from the Piasts (Silesian female line) or the Bonapartes.

it would be a bit risky to declare a republic in the kingdom of heaven

Reporting in.

Very true. There's a reason Rome went from a monarchy, to a republic and then back to a monarchy. Republics sound good only in theory, after a few centuries they always decline and eventually fall out in favour of a better system.

>Poland
>a failed Commonwealth complaining about Monarchies

Oh the ironing, Polacks forgetting it was the British Empire that restored Poland's existence are we?

>there aren't any true pretenders for Poland
We still have aristocratic families

Anyway what I meant is that german, austrian and russian monarchies were just warmongers and despots. They allowed millions of their own people to be wasted in WW1. Why should you want to revive them?

>it was the British Empire that restored Poland's existence
Britain as a protector of Prussia actually helped to destroy Poland-Lithuania. And Britain wanted Poland to be ruled by the bolsheviks. Lloyd George effectively said that. So I don't really know what was this post supposed to mean

The only way for Europe to survive is to return to absolute monarchies, and put a patriot in charge. In Britain all we'd have do is get rid of parliament, keep Rex v Rex 1649 which stops any tyranny, and give old Liz absolute power.

That's why I see constitutional monarchies as a better choice both the republic and the monarch need checks on their power to ensure stability and rule out stupidity.

Britain is a constitutional monarchy and despite the Queen having immense power, when was the last time she exercised it? Probably her representative in Australia Gov. Gen. Sir John Kerr firing the prime minister in response to a government shutdown, but apart from that, despite having all these powers in theory, she could only put them into practice if parliament were stupid enough, for example, to declare martial law or any Commonwealth country.

She's an excellent check on power, true, and having her makes tyranny an impossibility, but she can't exercise her powers. If she could, we could've flushed out all the rapefugees and re-conquered London.

One thing that made me happy before Brexit was the Queen would truly keep Britain from ever forming into a United States of Europe.

>constitutional monarchies
Constitutional monarchies are impossible in Germany, Russia or Austria. Those were absolutistic countries since at least 16 century. Germans had their first constitution in 19 century, Russians in 20. Both countries have never had any proper parliament. I think in Germany it was put in place only in mid-19 century and in Russia parliament was restored in 20 century. Those have always been countries where rights of individual human beings were never respected and people served only as raw materials to achieve particular goals of the state bureaucracy or royal dynasties. WW1 shows it best. Millions of lives wasted because nobody gave a fuck about some ordinary Hans or Dmitry

I actually agree. The reason our monarchy is successful is because it's so old, and we've had hundreds of bills passed into law and regulations on the reigning monarchs power. All of which happened over centuries, not overnight.

That being said, it doesn't necessarily mean a monarchy would be impossible in those countries.

>supporting monarvhy
>in AMERICA
Y'know, if you want a king to worship you can fuck off to some shithole that has one, right? Nobody wants monarchist scum like you here.
>They transcend the state and become a personified version of the state
You say that like it's a good thing.

>The reason our monarchy is successful
Because enough people were killed during the civil war :^)

>and give old Liz absolute power.

This is the biggest problem I have with absolute monarchies. While I'm for them, all the current living Royals in Europe have absolutely no experience in running a state. While before the knowledge was passed on, the current royals have been living cushy for the past century and neither them or their children could hardly run a country

cromwell was justified though marrying a catholic and bringing idols into the church broke the kings oath to god and therefore needed to be executed

slide thread

Yes, the civil war did change Britain's constitutional history massively, but Rex v Rex 1649 had a much greater effect, and I can name other bills from the 1700s that had much greater effects on Britain's monarchy than any civil war in English history.

But that's an edgy way to look at it.

As I said, there's a reason Rome went from a monarchy, to a republic and back to a monarchy.

Give America a few centuries, the Roman Republic lasted 500 years. You've got a while to go.

I think Queen Elizabeth would be very successful. Her successor, Charles and his successor, probably not so much.

>everything I don't like is a slide thread

End this meme before it gets worse

US constitutionalist but with a monarch not a president is literally perfect.

Prove me wrong

As I said, they will, just give it time.

Just ask pic related.

...

Monarchists are a bunch of reactionary LARPers who somehow found a way to be more fedora than mainstream atheism and the alt-right.

They were possible in Austria but their reforms failed miserably since the nobles were too blind to even care about their subjects. In modern Austria it would work but would never have worked in the Austrian Empire unless they decentralized and created a proto-EU like Coudenhove-Kalergi or other political theorists advocated.

The real question is where is the line in which monarchy and the republic can overlap? Does the republic cede more power if the monarch is deemed competent? Does the monarch take more power if the republic is deemed useless? Its a very interesting political perspective and one that could have been used to protect the EU and national identity but has been flushed out as it offers a stronger opposition to the republic.

HAIL.

Yes.

t. 113 year old man

So to speak.

Well, in theory the Roman Empire was the perfect mix between a Republic and a monarchy. It was the Senate having the power, and the "Emperor" having overall say, whilst serving as a check on power but it was corrupted and gave degenerates absolute power and, of course, they abused it.

The Florentine "Republic" under the Medici was much the same, as in a match between monarchs and a Republic, but in the end, it was the monarch who prevailed once more.

Is there truly a reliable way to mix a Republic and monarchy? A constitutional monarchy could qualify, but living in Britain, it's not all that great so I can speak from experience in saying that's not my ideal form of leadership because of how limited the monarchs powers is.

Imagine a patriot truly in charge of Britain in the last ten years, with still checks on his/her power, what a better state we'd be in.

>life is scary
>I want a big strong man to make all my decisions for me

Isn't that essentially the same logic in voting for Trump or anyone under (((democratic))) systems?
Why would a monarchy be different? Can you make a point against the actual system or are you going to just greentext like a degenerate faggot?

A bigger problem to begin with is that they are all pawns of Judeo-Masons.

Yes.
youtube.com/watch?v=YQtLxYde-rw

Of course. Our country has been a monarchy for hundreds and hundreds of years.

Both of you are talking about current monarchies in practice, and not the system in theory or many of the successful monarchs in history and take in mind they didn't all necessarily hold the title of king/queen.

Who would pick a Jewish monarchy?

Could you give me a source on Rex v Rex? Google isn't turning up anything.

Where is monarchy on political compass ?

Absolute monarchy is objectively the best form of rule.

Nah im not a cuck willing to be a serf slave.

instead you get boris johnson and farage

Obligatory.

mid to bottom right, at the top-middle of the purple square

Constitutional Monarchy?

Of all the people you could have picked, do you really want to start arguing with me?
I simply pointed out a huge problem in the poster's argument.

It's non-specific, relating to a whole series of laws which limited the monarchs powers In Britain, and set terms for the removal of kings/queens. Most between the 16th and 17th centuries.

Try Rex v. Ashton-keymes, Rex v. Aftley, Rex v. Atherton, Rex v. Auftrey, Rex v. Auftrey, Rex v. Awre v. Newnham Aynhoe, Rex v. Aythorp-rooding to name a few.

you'll just vote to be more of a serf than you would be under monarchy?

Its the same as fascism.

You both made the same point, so I included you.

Top right.

Fuck Boris Johnson. What is wrong with Farage? Hell, I hope he becomes king.

No. Fuck that shit. Needless bureaucracy.

A King does well and earns more when his country does well. That's good enough reason for a King to always do the best he can.

Nothing wrong with monarchy.
Democracy and a republic are failed concepts. People are too stupid, foolish, misinformed and emotional to elect people who will get the job done. Politicians lie and do outrageous things just to get votes to stay in power. Government is prone to corruption. The people usually have no idea what they're actually voting for. There will be too much division amongst the government. Changing the ruler so often only results in them changing everything the last one did and so policies and reforms are never stable.

Monarchy is centralized and avoids all of these problems.

Interesting, thank you.

I wouldn't trust an City trader for running a country even if I have to kill myself

Farage would make an excellent Prime Minister, not king, albeit, I'd rather have him as king than say Corbyn as PM.

>Monarchists

Your thoughts about María del Rosario Cayetana Paloma Alfonsa Victoria Eugenia Fernanda Teresa Francisca de Paula Lourdes Antonia Josefa Fausta Rita Castor Dorotea Santa Esperanza Fitz-James Stuart y de Silva Falcó y Gurtubay ?

No

>there are people in britain so desperate to identify with a movement they try to get rid of the royal family

Let that sink in.

Republic here was a terrible mistake.
>tfw we wuz empire and shieet

>the King makes all the decisions in a monarchy

Fucking wew lad.

If anything in a monarchy the people would be just as free or just as oppressed as a (((democratic))) system.

Portugal officially became a cuck state in 1910. I feel for you, user, I'm a fellow lusobro and visited in June. Lovely country, but far too fucking liberal.

>there are countries that still waste a lot of money on incest damaged royals

>I can't do a 10 second google search: the post
>flag

Oh wait never mind Ahmed, carry on.

It is. It's also relevant to this thread to note that Rex v Rex its self established that the ruling monarch was not the Crown. The Crown is the institution in which the Queen or king serves, so you could remove the ruling monarch, but the Crown would stay in place.

Did you know she's a kike?

Reporting in. The renaissance was cancer. Kill the Libtards, God's mandate rules the domain of the Lord. Hail His Majesty the King!

Everything that is non-monarchist is just Socialism in different colors.

Nice argument. Money. I haven't heard that a hundred times.

The Queen does not have to pay tax, but she has been voluntarily paying income tax and capital gains tax since 1972, she heads several charities which rake in millions annually of which none she keeps and do you think people would flock to London for tourism in the numbers that they do (enough to make it in the top 5 of the most visited cities in the world every year) to see a shithole that's barely even a British city any more?

She brings in far more than she takes. As for being incest, fuck off Ahmed.

suave

I will, fellow muslim.

Here i am.

Yeah, okay.

Every day I pray that the Queen will kick Trudeau out of office.

Yeah, considering that is basically what Lucifer tried to do and God decided he was now the ultimate evil, I imagine it wouldn't go over well.

Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libia.... Just to name a few

No, shit government system, great kings are rare.

Ey bro, if your constitution is anything like ours, the GG only has to obtain royal writs, the they can fire the PM/majority party.

Oh look everybody, a colonial terrorist Mason! Let's laugh at the peasant together: Hahahahahab60%hahahahahah!

The fucking French built your nation.
>can't even into swords and armor
>thinks 18th century was "a long time ago"
>Has a fucking president
>doesn't even know what philosophy is
>has no culture
>spawned by indians
>literally a result of pseudo-communism and treason
Wew lad.

Haven't I already covered it in this thread?

The Crown is NOT the king or queen. Kings and queens can be removed and executed, and it would be beyond illegal for any ruling monarch to do that.

America doesn't even make it into the early modern period of the European Renaissance, but think they can analyze good political systems from their own kek.

It's sad how delusional they are. Must be hard to be an American. It's like they try to compensate for their non-country by hating real ones.. Every time.

then there is no point in a "king"

Eu concordo, anão.

Hope you already converted to Catholicism or Orthodoxy.

>autralia
>logical and actually good post
Monarchy really have a divine power.

>a colonial terrorist Mason!
Hey now, only two of three apply.

That will be problem anyway, succession wars are terrible, and revolutions create internal problems.

>Butthurt Europeans talking shit about another corrupted country while their own Kings and Queens are allowing their societies to demographically warp as well.
We're all in the same boat, fags. I'm just pointing out that your monarchies are as helpful to your people as my nigger president is to mine.

Already said it in this thread, but their system is already on the path to complete collapse. I wonder what system they will cling to after. But my guess is Fascism or the very reliable system, if exercised properly, of having a stable monarchy.

Yes there is. Most of all the bills passed under Rex v Rex were established when Britain was a constitutional monarchy, but the ruling monarch held more power than parliament, which is arguably still true but back when those powers were actually exercised regularly.

>people come to London to see the queen except that nobody ever sees here randomly

Clearly nobody gives a shit about London's architecture and city life, they all just want to see the queen. Is this something you're taught in school or why do I hear Brits repeat this all the time?

we have pseudo-monarchies, they have no real power anymore it is just a ceremonial position atm

And we have a pseudo-democracy. Both systems have failed our people.

RARE

I have nothing against you personally, I was talking about the other Americans in this thread who were doing what I said. Analyzing good political systems from their own.

As for European countries dying, yes, as has been the point of this thread if you read. Constitutional monarchy vs absolute monarchy are very different, and absolute does not mean no checks on that power.

My point simply was that the pub I drink at is older than America as a country, thus using a system that's still in its early days as the model, as opposed to very ancient European countries which is what we were doing, is stupid.

They come to see the changing of the guard, the architecture (yes), and what is a lot of that architecture related to? Palaces and royal estates are some of the most visited parts of London.

American education is strong in you. Britania isn't a monarchy. It have a queen for show but it's the oldest republic ever.

For all Trudeau's cancer, he doesn't appear to be a fervent Republican, or at least someone who is going to make any effort to end the Monarchy in Canada.

>britain
>a republic
>the queen
>for show

Pick two.

They hold immense power. Technically, she can refuse any legislation. Her representitive where she is head of state (Canada, Australia, Jamaica etc.) is called the Governor General. If things goes tits up, the GG acts on behalf of the Queen to sort things out.

She can use these powers under exceptional circumstances, but in history, that most certainly was not the case.

Driving licenses are issued in the Queen's name, yet she is the only person in the United Kingdom who doesn't legally need a license to drive or a number plate on her cars, according to Time.

The Queen does not require a passport, as they are issued in her name.

The Queen's consent is necessary to turn any bill into an actual law. Once a proposed law has passed both houses of Parliament, it makes its way to the Palace for approval, which is called "Royal Assent." The most recent British Monarch to refuse to provide Royal Assent was Queen Anne, back in 1708.

The Queen does not have to pay tax, but she has been voluntarily paying income tax and capital gains tax since 1992.

All information about the royal family is exempt from Freedom of Information requests.

While the overwhelming majority of the Queen's prerogative powers are devolved to her ministers, there is one exception that allows her to wield power herself. Only "in grave constitutional crisis," the Sovereign can "act contrary to or without Ministerial advice." With no precedent in modern times, it's not clear what would actually constitute this, but the possibility remains.

The Queen holds the ability to fire the entire Australian government.

As the head of state in Australia, the Queen has certain powers over the government. In 1975, for example, the Queen's representative in the country at the time, Gov. Gen. Sir John Kerr, fired the prime minister in response to a government shutdown.

Literally not a republic.

1972* not 1992 my bad.

>Britania isn't a monarchy
I'm well aware of that. But don't you think it's about time for the Crown to regain its once glorious power. Your republic doesn't seem to have done much for your people other than demographically diseasing them.

If Britain was a Republic, none of us would be speaking English currently, and the countries of Canada, America, Australia and New Zealand wouldn't exist.

Neither would Israel which would be fantastic, but I think the pros outweigh the cons.

>The Queen holds the ability to fire the entire Australian government.

The Queen can't do jack shit unless she is physically in Australia, in which case the role of the GG temporarily reverts to her.

The GG's role as a 'constitutional guardian' is also not settled. Nobody can agree where the boundaries lie. My understanding is that its much the same for the Queen in Britain too.

If this role were taken over by a president the same question would still be there.

Except pseudo-monarchy and pseudo-democracy is actually only one system called republic.
>but in history, that most certainly was not the case
Guess why. Because all this "power" you're talkign about is nothing but a show. I guess you think obama have more power than the jewish lobby too? There is a reason why the president of the biggers nation of the world have to listen to, almost take order from, the president of israel. A little state who isn't even stable.

That's what I said in my last point. She still holds that power though, so what I said wasn't incorrect.

I doubt she ever would, although I wish she would in Canada.

You should perhaps read my posts listing some of the many powers of the Queen. But that's an edgy way to look at the world.

>pls oh pls Mr. King pls rule over my entire life I beg you I'm just a dirty peasant I can't handle any amount of responsibility
Reminder that monarchists are literal cucks

a reactionary of jacobite type and sort of an anarchist here

It's more than just show. If these powers were ever attempted to be exercised, they would ver likely be respected. The sorts of people who deal with and make decisions on constitutional matters take these things very seriously.

The power is real and the fact that it is unlikely to be exercised does not make it any less real.

We went over this you stupid fuck. It's literally the same logic you use while voting for somebody under a democratic system.

If you're going to make the argument that PMs/Presidents don't rule over your entire life, neither do kings or queens necessarily.

They are people who have experience through their family and having been tutored from an early age in the art of ruling a state, and exercise that power their entire lives thus are much more qualified and experienced than any democratically elected leader could ever be.

To add to this, one of the strongest lines of thought about the Queen or the GG in Australia as a constitutional guardian is that they would have the power to step in against any moves to undermine the principle of responsible government, which is the hallmark of the Westminster system; that is, the line of accountability from the people through parliament to the executive.

Let's also not forget that if our respective parliaments were ever stupid enough to declare martial law or any form of tyranny, it would be overturned by the Queen within an hour.

And we wouldn't have a bunch of "muh second amendment" rednecks shooting at each other for the next ten years.

But the second amendment is pretty cool regardless, I'll give the burgers that.

It's called reality. The influence and the networks are more powerful than the so called law. I live in France, you probably know this country. We have a constitution that ensure freedom of speech, yet people goes in prison for talking about the holohox of being "conspirationist". Edgy or not, this is the truth.
>If these powers were ever attempted to be exercised
Once again, think about why they were never.
>they would very likely be respected
Burden of proof and too much trust into the pedorapist of the brittish government. It'll probably not be respected. Your queen have no power and it's not new.

>The Queen holds the ability to fire the entire Australian government.
kek Bogans BTFO

>British empire

Yeah yeah, let's completely forget the USA's involvement. We totally had nothing to do with World War One and Two.

>muh world wars
you didn't do shit in WW1 and the most helpful thing in WW2 was logistics aid

Russia did all the heavy lifting in WW2

Who here Anarcho-monarchy headed by a benevolent AI?

Shut the fuck up, that was far from the point you arrogant shithead.

Canada, and New Zealand too.

I used to be a monarchist, until I realized that other monarchists were just hippy roleplayers.

I'm a feudalist now, because feudalism gives way to monarchy but isn't subjected to state authority like monarchy is.

Anglo nations have always taken the rule of law more seriously than continentals. We don't and can't just ignore our constitutions because it wod be convenient.

If you're going to make this a big Jewish conspiracy theory, then fuck off. The Jews have influence, which they do (too much), doesn't take away from a British monarch having power through a centuries old system that has evolved and withstood the test of time.

Feudalism is fine if you want 90% of the population to be farmers and a noble revolt against the crown every 10 years

The fact you say monarchy is the penultimate expression of absolute property rights tells me you know what lies ahead.

>their own Kings and Queens are allowing
You misspelled (((parliaments))).

evolution stages of a maximal redpiller:
1. monarchism
2. fedualism
3. tribalism

Monarchy isn't subject to state authority because this "state" don't exist in a monarchy.
...but you do. On many levels. Not you personally but the leaders and a lot of the people.

Don't tell us what is redpilled and isn't based on your own opinions. This is a genuine discussion about monarchies, and if you wish to participate you can but that picture means fuck all.

>5
>libertarianism

The state does exist in a monarchy. Read the fucking thread before you comment.

The state is the Crown which is NOT the king or queen. That's what the Rex v Rex laws were which I cited earlier and gave multiple examples of. These are the same laws which allowed for a monarch to be removed or executed.

Non divine right monarchy?
Non incest monarchy?
Sure

Name an event in which one of our constitutions was flagrantly violated

>People are too stupid, foolish, misinformed and emotional to elect people who will get the job done.

What is Electoral college.

>Politicians lie and do outrageous things just to get votes to stay in power. Government is prone to corruption.

As do kings, but you can't kick them out. Unless you put a check and balance like UK did.

>Monarchy is centralized and avoids all of these problems.

Except it doesn't. If anything, it exasperates it. The monarch can be, and half the time is, too stupid, foolish, misinformed, and emotional to get the job done.

Dukes and lords,as well as the king, lie and do outrageous things just to stay in power. Except the king word is law, so if he wants your wife and kids to be raped by big hairy black men, he can have that done (constitutional monarchies are the exception, and thankfully much more common).

You think the democracies and republics are easily corrupt? Well the monarchs are corrupt to begin with. Go through history and you can see all the strife and turmoil under monarchs. Stable for a generations or two, then blam.

Furthermore, monarchs are extremely outdated. With a complex world as of today, most things need to be handled by different people, not one centralized person.

Lastly, changing the ruler often implies that that ruler has all the power. There are checks and balances to ensure this doesn't occur. You're also assuming that this is occurring in a third world country or 18-19th century France. Policy change frequently happens in first world countries, but the reforms are relatively stable despite constant change.

Now don't get me wrong, a monarch has it place. Hell, places like Iraq and Syria need a strong single leader. But that's for poor ass third worlders, not first world large scale governments.

>Waste money
In the UK, the monarchy pays £380-400million in a kind of tax, from which they get £45mil back, which is then taxed as per normal income.

I think you mean saved. Look up the last time it was used.

>Non divine right monarchy
that is just a generic autocracy

Interesting that people ignore the active flaws of democracy and make up fantastical attacks on monarchy, as though they would possibly be allowed to go through.
>Furthermore, monarchs are extremely outdated.
CURRENT YEAR
>With a complex world as of today, most things need to be handled by different people, not one centralized person.
Or maybe we don't need every aspect of life micromanaged? The government should be a guiding hand, not a bureaucratic mess.

Not even the most absolute absolute monarch ever tried to handle everything by themselves, they had the entire apparatus of the state to handle things for them and to who power could be delegated

I was discussing why monarchy is better than democracy the other day on /his/ I can go to the archives if you want to see my answers to the guy's retarded argumentation, but you have to promise me to give me (You)s.

>Monarcucks at it again

>Unless you put a check and balance like UK did.

Which is what most pro-monarchists advocate. Not somebody with unconditional power with no way to remove them. That would be a disaster. It goes without saying there needs to be checks on that power.

>Except the king word is law,
Not necessarily. Laws are approved by the ruling monarch, though they are not exclusively the law.

>You think the democracies and republics are easily corrupt?

Yes. Extremely so. Republics have always ended up corrupted throughout history. Democracy in its purest form which was Greek democracy is a complete disaster, and is the people having absolute power.

A monarchy is not corrupt. What do you mean by that? Isn't that what the whole check on power thing is? Nobody in this thread is advocating a corrupt monarchy, no more than anyone is advocating a corrupt Prime Minister or President, of which we have several of in this world.

>Furthermore, monarchs are extremely outdated
Says who? The American in a 300 year old country? Not a blow, but a genuine point. Who are you to say what's outdated or not? If systems have withstood the test of time, surely that's not the case.

>Lastly, changing the ruler often implies that that ruler has all the power.

This is only the case when the king or queen is literally the state, which again, is a corrupt form of monarchism. The Crown would be the state in an ideal monarchy.

>Now don't get me wrong, a monarch has it place. Hell, places like Iraq and Syria need a strong single leader. But that's for poor ass third worlders, not first world large scale governments.

Again, says who?

You, and a lot of people in this thread, seem to associate the word 'monarchy' with Henry the 8th, or Nero. This is not the case in a functioning, non-corrupt democracy.

sure a monarchy with a good leader but in the world we live in today do you really expect there to be a good leader let a lone a good leader for generations and generations of royalty?

YES!

Good on you, and I agree. But Libertarianism being #5 on that list removes its credibility.

My bet is in oligarchism

Sorry I thought you was talkign about the state as in what we have today. But what's wrong with the crown?
And that's why the church is the most powerful thing in a good monarchy, not the king.
>Furthermore, monarchs are extremely outdated
"Because it's 2016!" - juste un trou d'eau.
>the monarchs are corrupt to begin with. Go through history
You don't seem to understand that history is like 1500 years. Of course there is a lot of corruption. Compare this with 300 years of republic you'll see how much worst republics are.

Yep. It's better odds when stacked up against having to choose many more leaders over the same period.

non corrupt monarchy* not democracy sorry.

Nothing at all. The Crown not being single handedly the king or queen is an excellent system to have. It needs to go hand in hand with other laws to work successfully though.

At very least we could coup d'etat the king if they did bad job then we will get another good king until he dead. It's better than find good president every 5 years.

It is not mainstream, Gary Johnson libertarianism (dude weed, open borders, egalité, liberté, fraternité). If you read Hoppe's Democracy--The God That Failed you will see that he is a radical cultural conservative and destroys democracy. He says democracy is inherently against private property rights andexacerbates society's downfall. Next post will be an image of that the guy said on that thread and I'll copy and paste my reply. Give me a moment.

if he did*

traditionalism has libertarian elements and further you go traditional more libertarian it gets, but espousing a shitty ideology like that makes you no better than a liberal

(1/?)

>1.
Indeed, but it is ridiculous to believe that the State has to necessarily be the only provider of justice. Private courts could easily do the job and, unlike the State, whose forbidding of free entry into the justice market and monopolistic nature mean that the quality of justice will go down as the price increases, a private court would need to be effective and efficient. No compulsory taxation is required.

>2.
The existence of just one (1) anarchist in society invalidates your argument. The fact most people vote is not indicative of consent to taxation or State power, but a mere tool they have to hopefully diminish the State's aggression towards private property.

>3.
The fact that monarchies constricted class movement (as in, it was less than likely that a member of the ruled would ever become a ruler and vice versa) meant that the lower class (read: the ruled) had strengthened bonds and comradeship. The fact they could not hope to ever ascend to a higher social status than a ruled individual meant they had a higher distrust of the State, and therefore the King. The King was perhaps not held legally, but his status as king rested on a mutual implicit respect for private property rights and justice. That is, the King did not, unlike a democratic caretaker, have incentives to plunder, expropriate or otherwise aggress his subjects, on the fear of losing legitimacy at the eyes of the ruled. For this reason, the King's wars were usually funded by himself, and compulsory military service was rare and only reserved for extreme situations. The differences between combatants and non-combatants was also much more rigid than the all-out genocidal warfare that came after the spread of democracy. This happens because under a democratic regime, wars are funded by taxpayers, so the killing and destruction of taxpayers and taxpaying property is not only increased, but encouraged, under the false pretense of "collateral damage."

>CURRENT YEAR
Not an actual argument

>Or maybe we don't need every aspect of life micromanaged? The government should be a guiding hand, not a bureaucratic mess.

Did I say micromanaged? Ok fine, things is extremely vague. Most issues sound good? To be frank, one thing I dislike more then monarchs are bureaucracies, since the latter produces a quarter of the progress the former does, if you're lucky.

True, monarchs do have generals, administrators, lords, advisers, etc. But put a lot the power in one hand can end up with things turning to shit.

Under Henry VIII, everything went into a hell in a hand basket.

Under Louis XIV, he molded a damaged country into a strong power once more.

Well, he's doing God's work in trying to disassociate the word "democracy" with everything that's good in the world, but personally I still don't agree with Libertarianism as an ideal form of government.

...

>trashcan full of ideologies that replaced monarchies

says the guy with a nigger head of state

Some very good points, the part about private courts is funny because in Britain, most courts fall under the jurisdiction of the Crown. Infact, I think they all do besides unofficial Sharia Courts which - yes - Britain does have in some places.

And monarchies have almost always replaced republics, but let's ignore that?

>Not an actual argument
I concur.
>Most issues sound good?
You might have to better define, bro. No one is expecting the monarch to sit on his onesie calculating GDP for a nation. Their will be ministries. You're really only replacing the houses of parliament, and in some cases the supreme court with a single dude. Other stuff will still have governmental departments. Helluva lot cheaper and more efficient.

Action française here so yeah

youtube.com/watch?v=5APVwhCab4A

the translation really sucks ass desu but the song is pretty based

...

The one institution I respect and would die for is the royal family. I want to abolish the parliament and have her majesty appoint the ministers. Whoever thought (((political parties))) should choose the ministers was retarded but not as retarded as the guy who thought the people should be able to choose the parties.

We don't have elected judges, police chiefs, or anything of that sort. All we litterally need to do is replace the cabinet ministers with appointed people. Perhaps her majesty could even appoint a governor general (shit maybe he could even be confirmed by the people via referendum every x years) and he could choose the cabinet. It wouldn't even be that hard to impliment in the commonwealth.

His libertarianism is anarcho capitalism. He simply puts to rest the idea that anarcho capitalism is morally degenerate and excusable of "alternative" (read: non kin centered lifestyles). His libertarianism goes completely against the egalitarian multicultural facade that most modern libertarians believe in. He says those people are noting but frauds and says that people espousing anti private property ideologies (democracy, communism) ought to be banished from civilization. You should give it a readeven if you do not agree with his advocacy of anarcho capitalism. Much of the book is simply a deconstruction of democracy and excuse of most monarchical experiments, he only starts with anarcho capitalism as an alternative to both monarchy and democracy.

>litterally

This is the only monarch I recognize.

Obviously if we go this route it needs to be done democratically. Fair and without violence. I believe the case can be made and won with words and truth.

I may have been a bit heavy handed in my approach to monarchy. I was largely aiming my sights at absolute monarchs.

Constitutional monarchies, with check and balances, is a good base for a country. But same can be said for a constitutional republic.

As for places like Iraq, I was referring to the destabilization of the entire region after US planted its ass there. As brutal of a leader as he was, Saddam Hussein brought stability to the region.

Of course dictators and absolute monarchs differ, but their function is similar.

You know the UK, CA, NZ and AU could basically keep all the checks that are in place, perhaps add a few more, and we'd already have the beginnings of a very stable monarchy because there are so many checks on the Queen anyway that her powers are to remove tyranny from the system, not impose it.

Precisely the opposite. Under democracy, where the head of State is a mere temporary caretaker and therefore not far-sighted, wasteful spending and taxation will only increase.

Moreover, since class rigidity and a clear separation between the ruler(s) and the ruled is blurred (free entry into government), the degeneration of society given to a lack of trust, selfishness, individual hedonism and aspirations to become a member of the ruling class is profoundly increased.

Going back to our democratic caretaker: he merely owns (or rather, "borrows") the current revenue from taxation. He does not own the country's capital stock, and is therefore less interested in maintaining or increasing its value. Unlike a king, who would most likely be the "owner" of the country for life until he passed it on to his heir (which is yet another reason as to why he would not want to plunder or excessively tax his subjects), a democratic caretaker has little to no reason in not expropriating his subjects. For what he does not consume now he cannot consume later. As such, his time preference rate will be substantially higher, his reasoning short-sighted, and therefore expropriation will be increased.

Lastly, a democratic caretaker may very well be interested in aggressing his subjects through erosion of private property rights (non-discrimination policies, open borders, welfarism). Increasing the number of poor, bums, vagrants and supporting the existence of outright rotten characters by not allowing private property owners to freely discriminate creates more "social problems" and more excuses for the continual increases in taxation.

madmonarchist.blogspot.ca/

Amerika, PHOQUE YEAH

Yeah I don't know about the UK because you don't have one but if her majesty was to appoint our governor general and he picked the cabinet I would be happy. Allowing a new (((party))) to choose the cabinet every four years or less is a retarded short term idea that will only lead to ruin.

You did hardly anything in WW1 fuck off mate.

WW2 you can argue your point but even then Russia did most of the hard work

It's not the constitutional part I have a problem with, whether coded or uncoded. Britain has a Christian Constitution to begin with. It's a Republic its self.

A true patriot as head of the Crown, as king/queen, with all the neccersary checks on power, would be ideal in the west today. It goes without saying that they and their heirs would have much more experience than a president or PM incharge of a (((political party))) in the case of parliamentary democracies, or voted in by the people, as is the case in constitutional Republics.

This, again, doesn't mean that every single bit of power everywhere is invested in this figure. Though they would approve most of it.

Can anyone explain to me how exactly Monarchism is better than National Socialism in any sense? All I can see here is a bunch of neckbears jacking off to something they don't even understand simply because muh heritage.

It's not like 99.999% of our civil service isn't appointed anyways. I want the minister of justice to be selected in the same fashion as all of our judges, not via the current system which only looks at what he's donated, how much the kikes like him and/or how much he can promise to braindead welfare muds.

>Spain has loli princesses
>we don't
IT'S JUST NOT FAIR!

Check in

Actually, I'm somewhat on the side of tribalism, but the reason I say I'm a feudalist is because of the structure of feudalism. it predates democracy, monarchy, etc; and in every civilized continent, feudalism has lasted for centuries.

I believe in these tenets:

Morality is a form of communication, like language, and is based on relationships between people. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_ethics

No state or legal system should exist outside of the context of morality; thus no state or legal system should exist at all.

Any entity that protects itself is its own feudal agent (thus, it's a sovereign agent, no matter how small).

A feudal agent ceases to be, if it's sustained by inter-class force; thus inter-class relationships are based on loyalty, not on contracts.

That's not what has happened historically. There are several classes within feudalism. And they never dissolve until things like "Democracy" come about or people get the retarded idea that God wants them to have rights (which is blasphemous to the church).

Both are potentially very good systems which promote national pride, but I lean more towards a monarchy because it has more potential to be manipulated in to creating an ideal system in which tyranny is not possible and there are actually real life examples to work around.

How many times was National Socialism tested?

>All I can see here is a bunch of neckbears jacking off to something they don't even understand simply because muh heritage.

Yeah... no... if you actually read the posts, many people have made some very good pro-monarchy points, and I'd like to flatter myself by including myself in that too.

Take the napoleonnic pill and become a Bonapartist, the best of two worlds. Meritocracy and aristocratic elitism.

not in the east, good job being defeated by nip wooden ships btw

Napoleon called himself an advocate of Caesarism, and there was no greater monarchist than Julius Caesar than perhaps his successor.

On another note, military service should be mandatory for a monarch before they take the title. Most in Britain already follow this, though it's an unwritten rule.

You're in no position to mock military failures kiddo

sup

>a few hundred dead due to poor weather and lack of information

vs

>loosing Singapore, several naval vessels from 'muh best fleet in the world the Royal Navy', abandoning positions across southeast asia, getting BTFO in burma, having to rely on nigger nepalis to fight battles

POL BOOK COLLECTION 1
mega.nz/#F!B4dB2SzQ!h_pMC30v2a_y31iD0dy0sg

POL BOOK COLLECTION 2
mega.nz/#F!LotEVRxT!YE-YrG6SZ54nJqltrYN8Nw

"STATE OF KNOWLEDGE" COLLECTION
mega.nz/#F!0F5GXTjS!oGdz8UP5JbcleNMy6YKLvg!gVZhSQhI

He used his power and influence to spread the decadent, degenerate views of the Judeo-Masons of France.
There was nothing transcendental behind his existence.
He may have been a Freemason himself.

If anyone would like the following Julius Evola books (see my image attached), I can upload them for you.

"Windsor"

>Servitor of the kikes and free masons enabler

Napoleon pill not even once !

No shit. We played a more prominent role in the war. What would you expect?

>many of the successful monarchs in history

Implying America doesn't have its own experience with neo-Monarchism.

You're watching it right now with Hillary vying for a 4-8 year term when she already had her husband in for 8 years. They are the exact same person, politically - and of the same family/bloodline. It's circumventing term limits and the integrity of the republic.

See also: Bush & Kennedy dynasties etc.

Monarchism is shit-tier.

I honestly can't see what point you're trying to make based on what I said. Care to explain?

Caesar is coming.

It's Trump.

Caesar is coming.

Ave Império!
youtube.com/watch?v=6OM20Kd0N2o

>While the overwhelming majority of the Queen's prerogative powers are devolved to her ministers, there is one exception that allows her to wield power herself. Only "in grave constitutional crisis," the Sovereign can "act contrary to or without Ministerial advice." With no precedent in modern times, it's not clear what would actually constitute this, but the possibility remains.
Pls King George, save us

>It's Trump.
Fuck off, that's just insulting

Depends on the authority of the monarch.

I was one. Then I found out how retarded our monarchy is.
Monarchy is the best form of government, but utterly fails when your monarch is a liberal faggot.
Not Liz, she's fine. But William will destroy ivory artifacts because of muh elephants, as if it will bring them back.
Charles wants the NHS to fund homeopathy.

Now God emperor Philip, I can get behind.
The only royal who's death I will genuinely regret. He gives no fucks and it's glorious.

Depends on your monarchy.

>he reason our monarchy is successful is because it's so old,
The reason our entire political system works so well because it has functioned under the same system for over 300 years, there is respect for the authority of parliament.

post your fave monarchs (that actually ruled your respective shithole)

And the monarchy has existed for much longer than parliament, but my point wasn't respect. It was about an ever evolving system that has made the Queen's powers about opposing tyranny, not imposing.

...

>that image

>"useless"

subjective

This.

Are you implying a monarchy is useless?

t. heroically did everything so the Japanese wouldn't capture the Philippines

...

>Unquestionable rule by a line of inbred retards
No thanks.

BEST GOVERNMENT FORM HERE
1889 WORST YEAR OF MY LIFE

Only that's not what a monarchy truly is, as discussed over and over in this thread, you fat fuck.

...

Yes, Loyal to the crown because I'm white

HAHAHA

No.

Monarchists = the ultimate cucks.

You could've prevented this but people fell for the lie of democracy.

4 U

You all are ... you just don't know it.

Long live the House of Habsburg!

lliterally most countries on earth are republics, the majority of which are shitholes, while most monarchies are doing OK

Unfortunately all the Western countires from that map are cucked as hell.

Under a proper monarchy, not constitutional, that would not be the case since traditionally, monarchies are the ultimate source of national pride, and religious pride. Hence why the UK's constitution is Christian.

...

...

You see the fellow Tsar Boris down there? That is our google!

Well, of course they are! The PM answers to the Queen.

The only major criticism of monarchism in a neutral form is "muh unelected leader"

Thread theme:
youtube.com/watch?v=06643umEJZg

Plakaat van Verlatinghe was a mistake

of course he can't

Having a monarchy is the best way to run a country!
Wish are Liz has more power desu.

Do Neoreactionaries count? Then yes, hello.

Hohenzollern homecoming? Romanov restoration? Habsburg hitback?

THEY HAVE TO BE RESTORED

just make it happen already

heil hitler

You mean heil the rightful King of the Commonwealth, electey by the Sejm?