What do you think of Monarchism, Jow Forums?

Scam, she doesnt do anything

>"Lose wars to camel jockeys"
>"Australian"
Mfw you lose a war against EMUS and tell us we'll lose a war against camel jockeys, fuck off will you?

True but I mean Monarchism where the Monarch reigns supreme

nice digits btw

it fucking sucks
>t.someone living under a monarchy

>monarchist shill threads
How is promoting monarchism shilling?
>Bad rolls can get you where we are today.
Incorrect. Where we are today is because of democracy and parliaments subverting the power of the kings and queens. If Elizabeth wasn't on welfare and was recognized as having rightful ownership of the country she'd do something.

Attached: Democracy-map-website.gif (734x417, 37K)

emus aren't even real you can't prove that you can't prove anything!!

Attached: meanwhile.jpg (620x349, 26K)

what's the criteria for choosing a leader under fascism?

i wish we were one

Even ants recognize the power of monarchy and they are one of the most widespread visible animal species on the planet.

Attached: Ant-Farm.jpg (550x270, 37K)

Queen does nothing but I like the royal family and the royal tradition.

Eat the baby eaters.

its fine when the royal family doesn't sell out and replace their people. she can fuck off forever desu. What a cunt she oversaw the death of the British empire. What a hag - I hope she dies knowing shes a fucking loser faggot queen

A love for the country and it's people.

that's not an answer.
how do you narrow it down to one person?

>that's not an answer
It is, monarchs care about themselves and not the the romantic example of a country and it's people united by the love of their nation.
>how do you narrow it down to one person?
What do you mean? There are examples like Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin...

>14988
almost

Good. But most European monarchies are now glorified republics. It's terrible.
Read some Hoppe.

but i'm asking you for a specific description of how leaders are chosen under fascism in comparison to monarchy or democracy
checked again tho

>hoppe
based

Attached: dropitlikeitshoppe.jpg (412x257, 28K)

Pedos and moloch cultists.

It's up for the leaders of said movements, the charimastic individual with visions for a future. Successors may be selected by said dictator if he deems them fit for the job.

I love monarchies. Europe was at its peak when it was governed by monarchies. That's why the Jewish Bolsheviks killed the Tsar and his family, and forced the abdication of Wilhelm II in Germany. The true redpill is realizing that WWI was orchestrated to neuter the monarchies of Europe.

Attached: Statue_d'Alfred_le_Grand_à_Winchester.jpg (768x1024, 89K)

you're not really selling this to me tbph pastabro

Attached: beloved leader.jpg (471x757, 62K)

digits itt tho

>Bad rolls can get you where we are today.
No, (((1776))) libertarianism and individualism back by democracy got us into this shit.

>why can't she afford to pay her own bills?
She does, though.

works if you expel the jews
doesn't if you grant them peerage

I do not seek to sell it, if that's what you were looking for.

>where we are today.
A world without monarchies???

>I love monarchies. Europe was at its peak when it was governed by monarchies
You mean when Europe waged war at each other?

>That's why the Jewish Bolsheviks killed the Tsar and his family
The same Bolsheviks endorsed by the monarchist germans.

..he was a good King.

Attached: Edward I.jpg (606x341, 36K)

ant queen has a purpose, uk queen is just there "because I said so".
You could pick anyone else to be "queen" it makes no difference.

>You mean when Europe waged war at each other?
Aye, no wars ever under republics or parliaments.

for a minute there i just imagined justin trudeau was the monarch of canada, but then i realised it wouldn't make any difference

That's not the point, the point is that under monarchies Europeans killed each other. He has another view of monarchy. Monarchies don't care about race and country, only that you serve said monarch.

>the point is that under monarchies Europeans killed each other.
Which has never once happened in any capacity under a parliament or republic.

Parliament and republics do not care about a races and cultures.

I think it has failed obviously.

And there we agree. Monarchy is superior.

you're both wrong on this point.
a republic or parliament is made up from it's people, and as a system is just as capable of preserving it's race/culture as it is of destroying it.
likewise, under a monarchy, one ruler might do everything he can to preserve the race or culture of his nation, while his own son could destroy is only a generation later.
neither system is immune to the problems we are seeing manifest today

>a republic or parliament is made up from it's people
If by "it's people", you mean those who were selected by plutocrats and financed to win an election, with no regard to whom the actual person is.
> while his own son could destroy is only a generation later
But that's far less likely, since he would have been learning for several decades on how to do things well, and the importance of the job.

Monarchy only cares about a few Anglo Jews, and gets a few retarded roasties all excited because they have another soapie to follow.

Republic now. I am sick of this family of frauds and their faggot jew followers.

>And there we agree. Monarchy is superior.
But at the same time, it goes back to this postAnd yet all examples of republics and parliaments proved so far the opposite. Why do dictators stay true to their words?

Infact I dislike monarchies.

>Republic now
Why not just go back to yours, Zhang?

>it goes back to this
That's hardly exclusive to monarchy, or really any particular government in similar words.

You can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you.

Attached: 1432675478934.jpg (453x500, 59K)

>But that's far less likely
there are plenty of examples in European history alone of great monarch followed by terrible ones.
i'm not an advocate for either system, but on that basis alone, hereditary absolute monarchy is unstable by it's very nature.

It's all a show anyways, giving the illusion of power to people. But it's fun to play pretend.

An ideal system when the monarch is competent. I personally believe that enlightened despotism is the ideal form of governance but if an incompetent ruler ever takes charge everything is fucked

>implying there's even a bee's dick worth of hope that the Anglo establishment will go wtf i love white nat now

They're about to marry a nigger ffs. Completely useless.

>t. JRR Tolkien
it's an idyllic picture, but as you say, it only takes one incompetent ruler to destroy it all

Dictatorships based on fascism and nazism brag about the superiority of their race, people and culture. Like I said, Monarchies do not care about that, they were just content with having colonizing Africa and importing niggers into Europe to integrate in our societies.

Wtf are you doing up at this time my fellow anglo

If we could emulate the succession type of the 5 good emperors of Rome then we could make system which lasts. If not then we're doomed to a system which will one day collapse.

LatAM is a Fucking Joke
All Republics are owned by Oligharcs

>there are plenty of examples in European history
No, there are a handful. And that's why they stand out. The vast majority were fine, or at least acceptable.
>hereditary absolute monarchy is unstable by it's very nature
Untrue, and there's no excuse for believing that in modern times.

>They're
No they. Just one spare.

>Dictatorships based on fascism and nazism brag about the superiority of their race, people and culture.
Except functionally they don't care about the people. Only that they serve the party and dictator. Remember, there were Muslims in the SS.
>Like I said, Monarchies do not care about that
Except many did, or they at very least can. Pretty much everything up until the 1700s was about hereditary monarchical leaders trying to bring their patrimony to the top of the world stage.
>hey were just content with having colonizing Africa and importing niggers into Europe to integrate
As slaves?

herring gulls are all mating. it's a cacophony.

Better than Republic

Attached: Imperial 5.jpg (2050x3050, 1.57M)

>t.Jihadi memeflag

You know that all Jihadists want a Emirate or a Caliphate, right? And both are Monarchies, right?

tell me about it. Fucking cunts nesting on my roof

Wow, they sound really dumb.

It's alright I guess, could be better.

it wasn't a handful m8. in english history alone, almost every other monarch lost what their predecessor had gained, and then it took their successors to build it up again.
and we've had one of the most stable monarchies in history. the rest of europe was a horrorshow by comparison.

are you my wife? is this your way of telling me to come to bed?

>Wow, they sound really dumb.

I know Jihadists.
They all wait for the day that Erdogan or any other fool declares himself Caliph and is legalized by the Turkish Clergy

>Except functionally they don't care about the people
Dictaroships like absolute monarchies don't, but when you talk about fascism, they do as I said in other posts. And nazism wasn't racist, they just hated jews. Monarchs basically care about their mandate, they care about their sphere of influence, he is in symbiosis with the country, if his country goes to shit, so does he. You said they imported niggers as slaves, look how it turned out for the USA and France, half of their country is black.

That's cool, but no one in your country is human.

>No they. Just one spare.
Please. He was probably instructed to do so so they can get some lefty cred and hang around longer.

So he probably sat in front of the TV for a month to find the hottest half caste he could.

>it wasn't a handful
It was. That's what makes them remarkable. If it were as bad as you imply, they wouldn't have survived for thousands of years in every nation.
>almost every other monarch lost what their predecessor had gained
Such as? All i can think of are the French dukedoms.

>browsing Jow Forums
>being in bed with wife
I can't say which is more beneficial for you but since it 5 maybe the latter

Pasta-Bro, what do you think about Traditional Monarchy?

>That's cool, but no one in your country is human.

I do not care about the opinion of strangers, anyway.
We can conquer the world if we use the resources of the Amazon in the right way

shit, it is you.
ok, i'll brush my teeth and be on my way.
night Jow Forums

A superintelligent AI would make a far better ruler than a human.

Attached: racist_AIs.jpg (1520x1121, 318K)

Bad, you need to go full fascists and some military parades to scare some favela thugs.

Attached: ziobenito.gif (334x251, 1.55M)

The world is already controlled by artificial intelligence, burguer.

An example of this is the Kikebook.

>Bad, you need to go full fascists and some military parades to scare some favela thugs.

>Brazil
>fascist

The maximum we have are Integralists

Attached: Integralism.png (608x1036, 311K)

>Dictaroships like absolute monarchies don't
They expressly do. Because their family is tied to those people. A fascist can leave any time, and a president can leave after his term, but a monarch has nothing without his people, and that's what he passes on to his children.
>, if his country goes to shit, so does he
There we go, now you get it.
>You said they imported niggers as slaves, look how it turned out for the USA and France
I was just pointing out that they weren't brought in to integrate. Elective governments did that.

>He was probably instructed to do so so they can get some lefty cred and hang around longer.
Wouldn't rule it out.
>So he probably sat in front of the TV for a month to find the hottest half caste he could.
Then he did a piss poor job.

>Then he did a piss poor job.
The girl would have to be very obviously half caste, and not just like say Cameron Diaz, who looks white as fuck but identifies as a spic.

I almost feel sorry for him. Good ranga genes gone.

Once Sun Wukong ascends the Brazilian throne, anything will be possible.

Attached: 342683409643.jpg (400x220, 26K)

>Once Sun Wukong ascends the Brazilian throne, anything will be possible.

Nah

Attached: Dom Luiz.jpg (600x600, 28K)

Much better.

Their family can just push a claim on another throne and be done with the current country. They literally have no obligation towards their people.

>There we go, now you get it.
Yeah, but I'm not trying to portray them as positive. Rather as egoistic people. By the way UK is a monarchy and rejected slavery. Constitutional monarchies are cucked, while Absolute Monarchies are mostly corrupt.

How would you bring back the Pedros? Your country seems like the one that's has the best chance in changing governments. Is there any family that could pick up the task?

>uk queen is just there "because I said so"
The UK monarchs used to have an incentive to improve their country. Parliament and the Rothschilds cucked them out.

Attached: 0df998ebe86bbacf8a92d2e718f0aae0.jpg (632x800, 256K)

>Their family can just push a claim on another throne and be done with the current country.
Oh yea, that's so simple. Crazy that they all didn't just do that, huh?
>They literally have no obligation towards their people.
Unless of course they want to prosper themselves. King of a shitpile isn't much of a king at all.
>but I'm not trying to portray them as positive
That's the best part, their own self interest in that regard can still be a benefit to their country.
>By the way UK is a monarchy
Lolno. It's a parliamentary system, and it was the (((politicians))) who rejected slavery.