Is there any argument for authoritative governments?

Revolt

Attached: DriKt7eUUAE3yhR.jpg (350x272, 8K)

30 foot tall giants that use us as footstools

HOT

only if form of government is absolute hereditary monarchy

What else are you supposed to do?

I don't like hereditary monarchy. You sometimes get bad seed. I like Poland's form of elective monarchy.

Attached: Jan III Sobieski.jpg (800x533, 229K)

He has nukes and a police force of wild-eyed SJW fanatics who obey his every word.

Attached: 1345858176543.jpg (391x700, 104K)

elect a new king

Attached: holy_grail.jpg (500x390, 19K)

19A

In my opinion no there is not. People should be free to do what they want as long as it doesnt hurt anyone.

> To keep the non-Europeans down or out.

>nuking yourself
>sjws being a threat

Please

Attached: 1538970402959.jpg (540x960, 54K)

An extremely intelligent dictator who genuinely cares about his people can bring about an era of great prosperity thru policies which would otherwise be rejected in a democratic system. Since in a democracy the power is distributed among many individuals - the overall intelligence and benevolence of the decision making group is also closer to the national average, and far below that of one hypothetically brilliant and benevolent overlord.
But an extremely incompetent or malevolent ruler could also create suffering on a scale impossible in the democratic world, as has been demonstrated many times in the past.

tl;dr - the dichotomy of democracy vs authoritarianism is really a question of the optimal ratio of risk and reward.
This is also not a purely binary issue. The size of the ruling body can be scaled to fit whatever you believe is optimal.

An ideal system would consist of a small number of individuals who have been carefully selected to produce the best result - i.e. meritocracy.
The above sounds like a democracy but it's not. The process of democratic election is such that it favors individuals with good social skills or who happen to be good public speakers, which have little correlation with the skills needed to make intelligent and educated decisions when running a country.
In other words - democracy elects individuals who are at the peak of their ability not while in power, but during the election cycle.

Attached: 1535418741491.jpg (692x1024, 125K)

>DA ES JAY DUBYAS
Nigger, it isn’t 2015 anymore.

go back to tumblr you retarded kike

In an absolutely fucked situation sure they can unite or at least keep to people too afraid to revolt. Stalin basically dragged Russia screaming into the modern era and through a war, Chiang Kai-shek and Mao manage to unit a squabbling nation together at least enough to keep japan from completely rolling China, ect ect. In a war or when the nation is in shambles they can keep things together it’s during times of peace and stability that they fuck their people on every possible level and make things just as bad if not worse.

The argument for monarchy is hereditary, because the family is hereditary. Any "other kind of monarchy" is useless.
Your parents pass down genes (blood) and their skills/knowledge and put effort into you. It is the road to perfecting a family just for sole purpose of leading. Bad seeds are everywhere, including in elective.

There is also the argument that you, as a king, own all this domain and have ivested interest in having it prosper and to keep it for your children. Not to have it fail or give it to other family (elective) or to the kikes (((democracy))).

let's see how those faggots will grow crops, build things and protect the country.

With the rest of those god damn ES JAY DUBYAS, right queer? Dude have you seen Ben Shapiro reks those epic libtards compilation #36256?

>Your parents pass down genes (blood) and their skills/knowledge and put effort into you.
In theory yes plenty of examples of the kid just being a fuck up, the family stabbing each other in the back, and the kid comming to power way to early/a regent takes over which could pose a host of problems.

i don’t speak tumblr, just fuck off you stupid ass

US ZOG is authoritarian and our culture is vapid degeneracy

hillary won the popular vote (supposedly)

no he cheated like trump

>you stupid ass
Are you actually a spic lmao

I don’t speak tumblr and you don’t speak english. I think we’re at an impasse.

Democracies rely on bureaucracy to keep the government functioning. These bureaucratic systems start off good and quick as they attract people to work for them and establish roots among the governing people, but that power will later be used against the people. Power doesn't corrupt, it attracts the corrupt and those individuals are usually socio/psychopathic that are skilled in charisma, leadership and manipulation.

When such an individual reaches the top of the democratic power structure, they will fill the other heads of departments with people they can control through power or they know that they lack the ability to move up the structure's power ladder. The heads will either be as corrupt as the one in charge or extremely inept, thus leading to the grinding halt of the system. The heads of this democracy focus on their own needs above the people they govern, soon they will become complacent and overstep their own set limits, sparking a revolution.

Usually the corruption is so extreme at this point, that they only way to clean it is to wipe the system out entirely. Though the truth of the matter is that the rebels will recreate the same system of democracy that will lead to the same destruction as they seek to cement their power. An interesting fact to note is that most empires last on average, about 400 years, including empires built by the rebels of previous empires.

While this post is mainly highlighting why democracies inevitably fail, the same applies to monarchies, communism, republics, dictatorships and faux governments run by usually the most powerful monopoly in the area.

In short, a government is a body and everyone in it is a cell, if all the cells stop functioning together, the body will die. This applies to all governments, no matter how benevolent they are.

>any arguments

pretty much all of them

For the Eyes running shit.

Attached: 1320751972233_xoana12.jpg (680x408, 35K)

>Power doesn't corrupt, it attracts the corrupt
It does both. And not only that, I don’t think you can tell the difference in retrospect.

>When such an individual reaches the top of the democratic power structure, they will fill the other heads of departments with people they can control
It's why we see the push for women and brown people in positions of power. Those people will never question jewish authority or rise up against them.

Yeah I don’t think so, spic.

no u

nice memes, faggot. stop trying to pretend sjws don't exist.

Singapore

Give power only to those that know how to use it

Order.

Attached: 2057238478345.jpg (601x438, 132K)

no, people need to be controlled to some degree

Attached: singapore1.jpg (1920x1080, 281K)

This is the dumbest Hitler quote I’ve ever read. I really hope it’s fake.

Decision making is quick and you don't waste time for endless discussion

Besides - I don't really care about a form of government but about the decisions it makes

Nowadays you have muh democracy and yet you're being replaced by browns

Any call for liberty comes from self-responsibility, demand for mild government, seeking for balance in society and feeling that brutal government trumps your dignity

That last point is ambiguous because on the other hand hierarchy is natural so if you feel offended by listening to orders then you're just oversensitive

But generally you just strive for balance in society which is why you should avoid brutal governments. You want the state to stand on as many legs as possible

Looking for a republican government is natural for human beings

We're wired to support authoritative rule when the situation calls for it. In a liberal world where you're fed feelgood lies, medication, always distracted by entertainment then no argument for it will hold. Just know when shit hits the fan people naturally look to strong leaders to solve their collective problems.

>Pathogens and Politics: Further Evidence That Parasite Prevalence Predicts Authoritarianism
journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0062275

In relation to this article there are others that stress the importance of disease control in order to protect democracy. Really jogs your noggin.

Attached: 1504141238716.png (799x598, 333K)

It's part of a greater speech, I don't know why anyone would quote it on its own.

authoritarianism is a sentimentalistic and romanticist strive for unity, whereas in real world countries are ruled by parties