Monarchy, yea or nay?
yea
If someone wants to rule this frozen wasteland full of retarded leafs then they can have it
We used to host the Catholic Pope, sort of a king.
Now we have bergoglio.
Only if it is not hereditary.
What if it's Trudeau?
Yea. Preferably libertarian monarchy but either way better than democracy.
Austro-Hungary, Germany, Ottomans, Russians all during WW1.
Was it all planned?
isn't monarchy just natsoc governed by self imposed celebrities?
Aye
A bad monarch is better than no monarch.
Trudeau would become MUCH more conservative had he any ACTUAL power in Canada.
Insurrection before dynasty.
Yes.
Based.
yeah
i'm ashamed of being from the same country as that traitor
Monarchy? Sure.
Some fat cunt who is basically a glorified diplomat? Why bother?
Not your fault bro, bergoglio is of Italian origins
Gay.
Bump
Eh... It's complicated.
They still rule
I mean, in concept, it's good. A bunch of people raised from birth to rule their kin as best as they can. Prepared to make the hard choices, to lay down their lives to the cause. The problem is, that as time goes on, they become no better than the plutochrats. The first man in line, the one who killed and sacrificed to rise to the top, has the spirit. His descendants, might be as good, if not better than him, having the advantage of special schooling. However, who's to say that the 5th or the 10th heir, won't be a degenerate little scum? When you have power, it's very easy to succumb to its vices. Especially when you live in the utmost luxury from birth.
Another problem I think, is the sort of "classism" that arises in the circles of barons and lords. The King is above all, sure, but the gossips of the Halls doesn't allow for people to climb the ladder, regardless of their abillities. I'm not an "everyone is equal" fag. I just don't think that some bastard born into the position of baron, who's done nothing to be worthy of it, should think himself superior to some guy who worked his ass off to achieve his status. That only goes for natives of the land however; in a society governed by Monarchy there should be no mingling with other lands, or at least kept to a minimum.
It's complicated and we're at Pg9.
Nay
Political marriages should be front and center.
Nowadays they are all behind the scenes. (Half of U.S. politicians are married to banking or media execs.)
>Political marriages should be front and center.
Sure; between Euros/neighboring countries. Relations shouldn't be created with niggers and whatnot.
>Nowadays they are all behind the scenes. (Half of U.S. politicians are married to banking or media execs.)
Well of course; that's how people consolidate power. I guess I worded it wrong; I was in a haste to get it in before it got archived.
Yes.
But unironically.
get rid of the hapsburg bloodline relatives and install a native as the monarch and maybe i'd go with it, but jews will never let that happen so fuck this stupid idea
another problem is that monrarchies are not stable at all. Monarchies were butchering Europe for the past centuries. Democracies seem to be more stable, and for me more European like. Direct democracy is the most logical system for Europe at least. But this means that we have to destroy the state and the government and return to a more barbaric era
Britain had a powerful monarchy for hundreds of years, yet kikes still managed to gain complete control over it.
Quote from Nathan Mayer Rothschild 1815:
>“I care not what puppet is placed on the throne of England to rule the Empire, ...The man that controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire. And I control the money supply.”
yea
yea, obviously
it's because of that piece of shit rothschild famuly that german jews, who are their cousins, sit on the throne
You've got it backwards. Democracy is necessarily unstable and consequentially de-civilizing.
>another problem is that monrarchies are not stable at all.
That goes for all systems. Eventually the passion wanes, the leaders get comfortable and everything falls apart.
>Monarchies were butchering Europe for the past centuries.
Eh, they were games of power and control. Same things' happening now; just in the shadows.
>Democracies seem to be more stable,
Yeah, in that wars don't happen as often, but it's far easier for the everything inside the country to go to hel,since they're far more corruptible.
> and for me more European like.
Fucking how? Even our Democracy wasn't anything like the shitshow we have now.
>Direct democracy is the most logical system for Europe at least. But this means that we have to destroy the state and the government and return to a more barbaric era
God no. There is no ideal political system; it needs to be mix of ideas. Something new has to be born.
I mean yes ancient Greeks invented Democracy as structured concept, but as an reality its much older.
I good example is the German barbaric tribes. Whey were organized to a small clans and they united when a major thread was looming. (Rome for example)
Aristotle also believed that, he believed that big centralized states were not worthy to a free man. (Whats why he never mentioned Great Alexander's deeds in his works).
I think to come even closer to God are to evolve as a humanity but foremost as the European race, we need to brake down the nature into it's core principles either is it psychics or biology. And our biology says human societies must be form in small numbers with a leader BUT with limited authority, regulated buy the peoples will.
we hadn't wars in Europe for almost a century man
Fascism > Monarchy
Yes
Anyone who suggests clearing the royal house should be shot for treason.
Unironically.
Well, it does have room for improvement, but I'd say that it does come out the victor, if we compare their very base structures.