Monarchy for Germany?

When we say "monarchy" do we speak of real monarchies like the Kaiserreich or meme-monarchies like the UK, where the monarch is absolutly redundant

Attached: 1539696800877.png (2518x1280, 334K)

William II was a retard and the architect of Germanies downfall.

No, we should be republics, fashioned after Rome. Monarchy is garbage

The powerful monarchies of old were doomed anyway, exactly because Wilhelm II refused to reform (except when faced by an immediate putsch near the end of the war) the monarchy became unpopular as the 20th century started and was finally abolished when the oppertunity arose. If for example Friedrich III would have lived a full life, and reformed the monarchy as the liberal that he was, the system might have survived longer or even to this day.

Attached: 9l6o4vshcy911.png (1369x2180, 3.81M)

Well, we should be meme monarchies, because obviously Judaism is the true religion. Eventually Israel will appoint a King of its own who will raise the dead etc. Perhaps 200 years from now.

Besides, the primary role of monarchy should be to serve the nation and the people, and in the modern international environment an absolute monarch (except maybe of a small nation) would be ineffective. Traditional monarchy just isn't cut to solely lead the giant, industrialized and educated nations in which we live in the west today. One person would have too much responsability on the one hand and effectively lack the capabilities to fully lead on the other hand, as monarchical commands still have to go trough the rest of the system which must be cooperative. Only a very exceptionaly dedicated and talented person would be able to do that.

Attached: willy2.gif (270x300, 86K)

I don't think monarchy disappeared in Germany due to Wilhelm refusing to become a cuck.
WW1 was pretty shit so far. The socialists took advantage of the starving population and pretended the Kaiser would have withdrawn.
That the liberal monarchies are still there don't really proof that they are superior, since they are pretty much the same thing as republics.
We can say that the liberal-democraic system survived, but debating why that is so may bring to many redpills at once

>monarchy for Germany
I only support a restored Bavarian monarchy. Kingdom of Bavaria when?

He was killed by a Jewish Doctor

I don't speak of absolute medieval monarchies, but constitutional ones.
Industrialization was invented by the monarchies I am speaking of.
Apart from that, the advantage of a monarchy is that they are raised to rule. I rather be reigned by a leader born to lead than by idk 400 people in parliaments with diplomas in queer theatre science. That is not really a qualification to lead a nation either

soon Ahmed you will get your own Caliphate.

You're right about the socialists, but honestly it's hardly 'taking advantage' when people were actually starving because of an unwinnable war which Wilhelm refused to get out off except on his own terms. Also you should keep in mind that liberal/republican/anti-monarchical sentiments were growing long before WW1 as Germany became more industialized and educated. This pattern could be seen across Europe. And i disagree that constitutional monarchies are basicly the same as republics in every case, and i oppose such a system. Even then, if the monarchy enjoys respect it can still make a difference trough soft power.

look like a tranny

Yes I agree that i'd rather have a monarch over me, but he shouldnt have too much power/responsabilty. All I'm saying is that modern monarchy would require that some of the powers of the monarch are delegated to a democratic system. Also the monarch should only interfere in politics when there is a big problem which the democratic system cannot solve, and using that power too much or inappropiatly would lose him alot of respect.

This is the guy who apparently could've stopped the world wars right?

Real, of course. The first step to ending modernity is stopping with the fakery.

We should have an oligarchy. But not like a senate, I mean about 8 or 9 people.

All political power is in fact oligarchic. The iron law, and all that.

You mean an aristocracy of sorts, perhaps an aristocratic republic, right?

Attached: 1505366.jpg (190x266, 11K)

Maybe we can kinda agree?
What powers would your monarch have?

Wilhelm II was one handsome guy

That's how he is commonly portrayed in popular history yes, and there is merit to it.
Whereas Wilhelm II was very opposed to Britain as he believed it was Germany's destiny to establish a new European Hegemony, Friedrich III always wanted to be close allies with major powers like Britain and France. Wilhelm diplomatically isolated Germany trough his foolish and incompetent diplomacy, and only allied itself with Austria because they were both basicly international outcasts. Wilhelm effectivly doomed Germany when he sacked Bismarck as minister president because after that France managed to ally Russia.

Your system has been tried. It lasts about five minutes. If the king is not sovereign, then he is in fact not a king and will become the pawn of greater powers, i.e., the "democratic" system.

Futhermore, there can be no artificial limiting of power, for that would require a greater power, which would thereby be in fact *the* power, and unlimited.

IMO, the day to day governing of the country and the management of common law should be done by democratic institutions, without much interference from the monarchy. However the monarch should be the embodiment of the state and lead the government in name only. Institutions like the armed forces should be funded by the civilian goverment but other than that completely seperate from it with the monarch as the head of the army. The monarch should have total control over foreign policy, to which the domestic government may mold it's policies. However the most important part of a succesful monarchy is that the monarch is trusted and respected, and doesn't act irrationaly or abuse his powers. This cannot be solidly documented in law but the monarch should try to maintain this respect trough his leadership. And besides a monarch should be able to appoint his succesor incase his firstborn is deemed unfit to rule. The monarch should be made dependant on his nation, and therefore be given a high salary and be forbidden to engage in foreign financial enterprise, to ensure that he has one and only one interest which is the succes of his nation and people.

Wilhelm II was a fucking sperg. He lost Germany an arms deal after he groped his cousin Ferdinand of Bulgaria's ass,
then refused to apologize for it.

The Prince of Bavaria is the rightful ruler of Ireland btw.
Ludwig and Henriette ftw

I should mention that succesful monarchical systems cannot be purely legalistic and that an organicly developed relationship between the monarchy and the nation is basicly the only stable and reliable system.

Under the current system, but under the Irish system, the monarch is a servant to the nation and only works as an arbitrator, if they fuck up you just pick the next best option.

We even had a 3 strike system.

When was this? during the union with Britain?

No, the union happened because they beat us, the french and the Spanish at "the battle of kinsale" our kings left and some still live in Portugal, Spain, Germany and Italy.

The entire rules were preserved and it's very different to modern monarchy.

Friedrich III's masonic ways would have led Germany down the road Britain was going, into becoming yet another de-facto republic of scheming liberal backstabbers. Wilhelm II. being a retard is a meme by contemporary historians.

>Friedrich III's masonic ways
If you look into his biography and still somehow think that he was not wholly dedicated to Germany I cannot help you. He was even present at Königgratz as a soldier and performed gallantly, no freemason could do that. Fun fact though: Frederick II the Great was openly a freemason, and to this day there is an annual freemason ceremony at his burial site.

If you people do not get your shit together and fasten a compassionate (even pagan if you wish) European superstate out of the pieces of your dead nations, then they'll just let Russia have what you failed to keep intact.

He was no doubt a clever man, though not always wise. But yes, he did at least seek to stop Germany going down the liberal-republican path that England sadly took.

>The incident which provoked the affair followed on the heels of a public relations gaffe by Wilhelm II. Briefly, in November 1908, Wilhelm II began a vacation at an aristocrat's estate in the Black Forest. One evening after dinner, chief of the Military Secretariat Dietrich von Hülsen-Haeseler was performing a pas seul dressed in a woman's ballet tutu when his heart failed and he died.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harden–Eulenburg_affair

Shure, aren't we all Westphalian?