Monarchy is the best, and Christian/Muslim way of government...

>being this ignorant and uneducated
It was literally Cromwell that cucked out, not the monarchy. After him, the monarchs became nothing but puppets of the corrupt parliament, see Edward VIII's resignation. The British monarchy after Cromwell cannot be compared to any other. Not even the American revolutionaries had a strict issue with the King, but with the British parliament, Washington was almost even crowned King. There is absolutely no other government that is better or more traditional than the absolute monarchy. Republics and democracies of the enlightenment inevitably become absolute shitfests and morally corrupt birthplaces of degeneracy. Dictatorships never work past one dictator either, because hereditary rule is not exercised by them. Not to mention, the French Revolution was literally the most destructive event in history in terms of setting precedent for as many violent revolutions and bloodshed as it did. Lenin was highly inspired by the Jacobins, and guess who funded them in order to overthrow the monarchy? The Rothschilds in Britain. They managed to set the precedent for the violent overthrowing of many more monarchies in the future, see Austria-Hungary before 1848 and how stable it was for example. Destruction of the monarchic institution is only the beginning to the path of (((enlightenment))) values and degeneracy, and the destruction of tradition.
I wouldn't expect a dumb mutt to know jack shit about the matter other than what his Rothschild overlords tell him, though.

We still have a living aristocracy over here, Czech, Austrian and Polish alike. However nothing is stopping a newly crowned monarch from elevating people with merit, wealth and virtue to nobility. That is how much of the current nobility came around, for example.

Saudis should be exterminated.

Also, we live in an oligarchy, not a monarchy and definitely not an aristocracy. Learn these definitions before you use them.
Aristocracy = government of the best
Monarchy = the rule of one
Oligarchy = government of the wealthiest

More degenerate than the average person nowadays? Yeah sure, lol.

A good king is better than democracy but a bad one ends in revolution

>Oligarchy = government of the wealthiest
Uh bro, Oligarchy = government by the few.
Plutocracy = government by the wealthy.

I agree with you to an extent, but I would argue that the majority of Monarchs in history were not corrupt and weren't in it for the power. You really can't say the same for many dictators and democratic leaders, however.

This fuck cromwell

I'm going off of Plato's and Aristotle's definitions, but if you wanna be more specific, yeah sure. Though those two are often interchangeable, I would argue.

The french revolution is probably the worst thing that happened to civilisation

>3 riyals have been deposited into your account

Hi Macron, we know you post on here.

I actually agree

Attached: LuoIyK0.jpg (1166x420, 312K)

Senpai, Macron is in perfect ideological continuity with the revolutionary ideology

Didn't he call the French Revolution a mistake? And didn't he also praise the Bourbons, or the monarchy in general?

gq-magazine.co.uk/article/emmanuel-macron-policies-beliefs-philosophy

No.

And who gives a fuck about him praising monarchy if the way he acts is fundamentally anti French ?

He said that France "needs a king", not that the king would have any actual power.

French monarchists are for an actual king with actual powers, not some parliamentary bullshit. I'd rather have my taxes go to a royal family than to hundreds of parasites

In practice, sure. But i think it's important to differentiate them, because most governments are going to be oligarchical anyway.

Hells yea. I thought he was going to be just another (((politician))), but the granny-fucker is turning out alright.

What the fuck are you taking about ? He just said that decapitating the king left a mark on the French people (the vast majority of the French at that time loved the king), not that the king should have any actual power. (basically a parliamentary monarchy like we had during 1789-1792 but that was utter shit)

Any step forward is a good one. Plus, isn't he quite pro-Catholic?

This, sadly

Attached: 708a2edaf9c62bb5f47795dcddbf2fcb (1).jpg (930x1235, 267K)

And it also necessitates a serf class to ensure that the aristocrats and the monarch have enough wealth and power to manage the state.

Thanks, but no thanks. So long as we're talking about ideal government forms, I gotta stick with a proper republic.

that font should be banned on pol.

>And it also necessitates a serf class
That's any society, though. Doesn't mean it's going to be bad, or even different to now.

He's pro "catholic" because the catholic church is absolutely cucked since the vatican II council and completely compatible with our current regime. The official "catholic" church is basically noahidist (the religion that every non jew needs to follow) : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noahidism

Modernism is currently the leading in the catholic church, and it was heavily condemned by the pope Pius X as heretic.

So no, Macron supporting the current "catholic" church (like Sarkozy did) means nothing

In the French republic there can't possibly be a good leader

Well, there's always a working class. But a factory worker can have a home, a family, real material comfort. In a republic, every man can be the ruler of his own private realm within the republic. A serf is tied to the land, his labor is owed to his master from his birth to his death. Again, of the two, I gotta go with the republic.

The French monarchy was basically built around removing power from the aristocracy so...

It was backed by the Church way more than by the aristocracy. We'd actually need the catholic church to become catholic again. We can create a new aristocracy if needed.

Tbh from a French point of view I'd rather be a comfy peasant from the middle ages than a factory worker from the XIXth century who sends his kids and wife to work.

Also, in France, serfs could have property of their own. There were even serfs who were richer than the nobles they worked for.

Also, modern republics are fundamentally individualistic and are leading to the destruction of the family unit pretty much everywhere they are.

Still no reason to be in the dumps. It's better than a step backwards, or having like Trudeau.

>In a republic, every man can be the ruler of his own private realm within the republic.
If they let you.
>A serf is tied to the land, his labor is owed to his master from his birth to his death
That's feudalism, and it's voluntary. Being a vassal often afforded way more rights and privileges, too. Remember, back in the day, not everyone was a farmer, and there are even fewer now. So it'd be radically different.

>Still no reason to be in the dumps. It's better than a step backwards, or having like Trudeau.

>discussing French politics with anglos

I knew it

>saudi arabia

soon we will nuke your fucking shithole you islamist son of a gay whore

I'm not saying it's the second coming, but it could have been worse, Jean. It could have been a lot worse.

Coming to whoop your ass again, just like 1683

Attached: er25z933elq01.jpg (446x474, 31K)

your carring is noble but americans should be nuked once and for all

Yeah we could have had mélenchon

Totally valid critiques. I mean, I'm certainly aware that there is no perfect form of government, that any system is subject to cycles of growth and decay. I guess it's just a matter of picking your poison, really. My American upbringing no doubt colors my perspective.

>My American upbringing no doubt colors my perspective.

Well you were born in a country that was basically created by freemasons, so yeah of course

Seen your education/marketing system. It's pretty hard for you to escape quite a few biases.

*in spite of.

If you want to get an insight into counter enlightenment you should read Joseph de Maistre and Louis de Bonald, if English versions of their books are available.

A white caliphate would be the ideal form of government. Prove me wrong.

Protip: You can't.

Attached: 1523057398100.jpg (572x829, 53K)

caliphates are unstable and subject to civil war

plus I don't drink camel piss

>caliphates are unstable and subject to civil war
FTFY

A white caliphate would be superior in every way.

Did not in fact FTFY
>*arab* caliphates are unstable and subject to civil war

What, the Ottomans were a bastion of stability? Real great succession system they had.

What the fuck do you have now in America if not a serf class? Don't tell me you're this ignorant of the world around you.

Serfs =/= workers. Besides, we're talking about ideal forms of government here, Czechia.

Lasted longer than your country will.

Unsure about de Bonald, but de Maistre is definitely available in English. Good stuff.

>t. butthurt goatfucker

I guess the better phrasing would be that monarchy needs some kind of strong and influential institution to support it, be it church elite or aristocracy. Ruling dynasties and origins of rulers have changed all over again across Europe, but states and their own institutions remained.

>t. assblasted mutt

Pass.

saudi royal family is the most degenerate and jewish puppeted group of people in the world

Bohemia. Not Czechia.
I'm giving you a heads up here, don't say Czechia in front of a Czech irl if you aren't ready to get your ass beat.
And the majority of America are literally peasantry, but even worse than the actual peasantry because they have no lord to protect them, only the corporate oligarchs that rule over them.

>don't say Czechia in front of a Czech
Why?

Shit name that a couple of politicians came up with a year or two ago that has no historical basis and sounds retarded in Czech, and nobody likes it.
Bohemia is where it's at.

Isnt thia mukhtar the shia king that killed sunnis ? and you still posted this and you are a sunni , are you a cuck?

Fair enough.

You tit. Our Monarchy expelled them for centuries until Cromwell brought them back in. It was "democracy" that brought the Jews back.