Why aren't you a monarchist?

What are Zig Forums's thoughts on monarchism?

If the choices were like a EUIV game, which would you choose?

- Theocracy
- Republic
- Monarchy

Attached: monarchismEvangelionLowQual.webm (320x180, 2.83M)

Other urls found in this thread:


Monarchy. Nothing good comes from (((politicians)))

Monarchy is great until you get to the succession problem.

That's not how discussions work. That's how false dilemmas are formed, i.e. narrow it to a few choices and lead people to your desired conclusion.

Monarchism is a moot point because monarchism ended on a traitorous note. Monarchs were used as puppets by the (((vatican))), because their ancestors pledged loyalty to the vatican who would support them in their claim to the throne; in exchange for money, arms, or manpower, the monarch would pledge to spread christianity and permit (((vatican activites))) by looking the other way. In effect, this means that all monarchs in Europe are descended from traitors.

This issue goes back to what says. Traitorous monarchs would not be a problem if succession was not an issue. Monarchs can still be bought.

Sage for false dillema & low effort thread.

What problem. How many times does this need to be hashed? Hereditary succession isn't monarchy's problem at all, succession is a greater problem in other governments. Monarchy's problem is the role of the king in religion. The state has been ripped from religion, and in a way that's good, as the rabbi needs to go, but a people without a captain leading them in the ritual calendar are morally bankrupt and not a people at all to begin with. The problem is the monarchs quit. New monarchs will have to begin as warlords and reform religion, government, they'll have to build, restructure… the merchants have completely severed the Head. The problem is monarchy is dead in the West, and its only coming back through sheer force of Will.

Attached: alexius.gif (258x208, 28.29K)

Goldbugian Monarchy or Fascist Syndicalism. Either way.

The reason the Kings got weaseled out of their thrones is they became weak and dysgenic. The same way the Japanese Emperor became a figurehead while the Shogun ruled. This will always happen so long as the sovereign line is not subjected to eugenic selection pressure. This is exactly a succession problem.

So, if CRISPR gene editing is a thing, then basically all of monarchism's problems are solved?

I'd argue it's not a false dilemma. There are only so many options that are actually feasible in reality, despite what all of your feminist post-anarcho-syndicalist friends might say. Monarchism, republicanism, and theocracies at least have long-standing histories behind them.

All governments have succession 'problems,' even democracies (c.f. every Latin American country ever). Some have just structured themselves better than others.

Possible but then there's still the problem of determining what constitutes "good" genes. It's the success and power itself which makes the ruling elite myopic. Without constant exposure to the law of nature and mistress chaos, any system will become weak.

Why do you like sucking royal cock so much Shlomo?

Nu-pol everyone

you mean british fascism

Attached: fashy feels.png (712x512, 71.91K)

But succession is where monarchy is best. You know exactly who it's going to, and thus they can be best trained for the job in advance.

Riddle me this; The king has died, leaving two daughters and no sons. The king loved his daughters though and, being king, amended the constitution to allow his eldest to become the queen.
This offends the king's brother who retains the loyalty of a significant portion of the aristocracy and military elite. He amasses a large army in the north composed of disaffected soldiers, mercenaries, conservatives, and ethnic-minority paramilitaries.
However, the new queen is not an idiot and has herself made many connections with the ruling elite and the majority support her. She retains control of the majority of the army and the navy but lacks support in the more conservative north.
Who succeeds the king?

Every Christian monarch has been an enemy of our race.

Firstly, when century is this throwing back to? Because it sure as shit isn't a contemporary problem.

either monarchy or rule by a single fascist vanguard party

problem is a lot of the old royal families of Europe are pozzed

well I'm against chr*stianity too, but regardless of that some monarchs did do good things. like the ones that expelled jews (although expulsion is just kicking the can down the road, the only real solution is to exterminate them)


A monarchy is a merchantman which sails well, but will sometimes strike on a rock, and go to the bottom; a republic is a raft which will never sink, but then your feet are always in the water.

Fisher Ames

Freedom means "Friend Land" in the German roots,
Kingdom of course means "King's Land"

One can have Freedom in a Kingdom, but only if you are friends with the King.

Britain back when it was an "absolute mornachy" had way more individual freedom than it did now, 90% of the population payed no taxes and peasants could own any arms they want.

Howver traditional monarchy isnt really that feasabile in a modern industrial society where the state is required to be much bigger. Also the current royals arent intrested in actually governing and i wouldnt trust them too

Theocracy definitely. There must be a priest caste that is given a position if not higher than equal to political authority. Society should be reactionary religiously, and more progressive in technology, sciences, ECT. With a backbone of religious tradition society as a whole can handle more unstable times and have a good connection with the Divine, which should be the ultimate goal in the first place.

Rule 4. Reported.

it only makes sense if it's merit based, having some ruler be ruler because their ancestor was rich and sucked dick or whatever is lame, monarchy is a death cult

I support Elective Absolute Monarchies where the King is elected based on their skills as both a statesman and military strategist.

Kind of like the Ancient Kingdom of Macedonia or the Holy Roman Empire

Nigger, if you have an army, all you need to do is incarcerate those that do not follow the law and shoot those that do not want him to go. Simple. The state should take care of the people's sovereignty. Thats it. A global 1% tax on everything solves the military issue. All you need.


Attached: `13`123.jpg (800x1250, 295.56K)

But user i am a Monarchist.

Attached: tumblr_p2rlhd7ATC1v1qqh8o1_1280.jpg (745x960, 151.4K)

cant happen


The biggest problem with Monarchy is who is gonna be the one to followup after the monarch dies.
It is pretty easy to corrupt a Royal family by influencing, and money.
Aka the exact thing Kikes have, influence and Money.

That's because we don't have powerful monarchs.

1. There was no abosluter monarchy in Britain.
2. "90% of the population payed no taxes and peasants could own any arms they want." this is wrong. Well technically "owning arms" was possible but sue was heavily restricted. Only knightly class had privilege to carry without restrictions. Nowadays similar tactics is used to circumvent 2nd "you may own but can't carry". So i take your for those backdoor gun control fags.

Alexander won kingdom with his sword and Holy Roman Empire was opposite to the absolute monarchy.

Attached: 3123.jpg (1390x1975, 2.38M)

Well no, as said above, that's the best part. You know exactly who will be sitting in the chair next under hereditary monarchy.

Then it's not a realistic concern yet.

Because they brought princess from another kingdom and marring her you become king of twice more land and serfs. People? Fuck people they are your cattle. Twice more cattle = twice more power. Enjoy.

Attached: eqwe.jpg (900x578, 57.97K)