Why aren't you a monarchist yet, Jow Forums?

Based Reptilian Sky Kings

It's like anudda Shōwa!

Attached: 1552372018764.jpg (960x778, 130K)

>i have a low IQ and no skills, the post

Robert the Bruce wusa fake kang.

Jonny all teh way lads.

>Oh no, why isn't everyone playing by my lofty principles?
>I didn't intend to be completely fucking usurped by foreigners

No, but seriously. Meritocracy is a farce.

Attached: 1550680771619.jpg (2012x2048, 548K)

get a job, NEET

Yes

That's why. Our "leaders" arent some old japs sitting on their island, theyre blacked kiked mongrels. I would rather see them killed by (((Jakow Sverdlov))).

Attached: 889192.jpg (750x445, 73K)

Monarchs are a bunch of inbred, traitors who turn their backs on the people constantly, they betrayed Mussolini, Franco, Romania, Britain, they would have betrayed Hitler if he let them back in. A monarch can never be trusted to do the right thing, all a monarch truly cares about is his own personal gain.

Wow, I want to get ruled by some asshole who never left his Mansion. I bet him and his kin with think of our best interests, and not look down on us like Ants. Elected officials are gay, let's all just get ruled by increasingly more inbred retards.

Attached: 1542943282332.png (477x724, 692K)

Politicians are a bunch of inbred, traitors who turn their backs on the people constantly, they betrayed Mussolini, Franco, Romania, Britain, they would have betrayed Hitler if he let them back in. A politician can never be trusted to do the right thing, all a politician truly cares about is his own personal gain.

Wow, I want to get ruled by some politician who never left his Mansion. I bet him and his kin with think of our best interests, and not look down on us like Ants. Elected officials are gay, let's all just get ruled by increasingly more inbred politicians.

but can it work in 2019?

We need Caesarism first to clean up the problems.

I don't know, can democracy?

except a politician has not only cater to the people, but probably has a term limit, so at some point they'll get BTFO'ed. Meanwhile, if I was king I could declare Ginger are no longer allowed to have teeth, and there is shit anyone could do to stop me.

Attached: 1551909626094.jpg (850x1192, 452K)

Their both terrible, and they both should never be given control, but the conversation is about monarchy which is why I ignored the politicians.

I think rule by an Order is ideal. See: the Teutonic Knights, SS, Evola's Order of the Iron Wreath. Quality young men are sought out at a young age, and then talent, discipline, honor, devotion, etc. are continually cultivated, and promotion is based on excellence in these areas. An elite council of elders elects a temporary supreme leader, who's powers are great, but not total.

Hey y'all

Expect an American to post this utterly retarded nonsense. If you did read 1 history book you would notice that kings tend to be murdered and swiftly replaced for making bad decisions.
The moment you declared Ginger's not being allowed to have teeth, every priest in the entire kingdom would denounce you for your horrendously retarded law, and an angry mob of 90,000 gingers would storm the palace and roast you alive. The palace guards would join in, unanimously agreeing that God himself judged you unfit to rule.

Forgive him Sven, the only education we get about monarchy here is “King bad, we fight war to stop him.”

>britbong will celebrate royal mutt baby in the next few months

Attached: 1547177071188.jpg (400x400, 26K)

A thinker of the German Conservative Revolution, Hans Zehrer, developed a variation of this idea of rule by an elite Order, drawing in and developing the best of the nation. See here, and read Walter Stuve's journal essay on Zehrer and his circle (shown at the bottom of the wiki page):

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Zehrer

Yes sadly I've pretty much come to understand this part about your education system.

Monarchy, for all of its well-known faults (being that our culture shits on it constantly), lines up the incentives properly. A politician will only be in power for a few years, maybe a decade at best, and thus it is in their best interest to loot the state, pursue short-term above long-term ends, and not prioritize the future over the present. If they manage to avoid any of these things it's purely incidental. If the state is to be considered a monarch's private property, which can be passed on to his heirs, then long-term thinking is incentivized. Since he does not rely on public opinion to make decisions, manipulating the public via the media and academia is not a priority.

There are certainly things to be said for divided rule. Rome conquered the world because it incentivized competition between its most talented nobles. Our present system, OTOH, clearly needs examination.

The old italian constitutional system was the best, prove me wrong.

Because monarchy brings the same problems but worse within the next 2 generations of kings. Monarchy is superior to any other system if the people keep overthrowing bad tyrants though.

what do you think the deep state is, or the masonic orders, or the banks and federal reserve? Orders have effectively ruled Europe and the West since the 1600s through guilds, companies and Parliament, before that the church basically ruled through religious orders. And before that there were the paetorians, the patrician houses, the senate. We have always had rule by order, even the fucking druids were an order.

Also we’re taught “Monarchy bad, French king bad, get head cut off”. It’s engrained in us that monarchy and socialism for that matter are basically tools of satan.

Another point which i like to make, is that in a hereidtary monarchy, it is also in the monarch's best interest that the kingdom (the state) prospers and is well off even after the death of the monarch, because at that point his own son will be monarch. And obviously the monarch wants his own son to do well in life.

But from a divine point of view, all of this does not matter of course, because the divine perspective states that the perfect system (being monarchy) was designed by God, and it is not up for us humans to decide on this or that system.

As long as I get to be king then I am fine with this.

Attached: its-good-to-be-the-king.jpg (716x452, 174K)

I'm talking an organized Order, with explicitly laid out principles and rules, openly forming the governing elite of a territory, wholly controlling a State, that oversees, and directs as needed, everything within it's borders. The Teutonic Knights' rule over the region of eastern Germany and Poland, for example.

How is your monarchy? Are they based? Are they starting to cuck like the British?

I wouldn't read too much into that. They have lunch every week apparently. Such a gesture doesn't prove much between friends.

>Peasant uprisings work
>Royal guards have any incentives
>Church would join in
First of, throughout history, the peasantry has been uneducated, Serfs wouldn't know they were living in squalor unless someone tells them. Which (unless Commies go around spreading little red books) they won't. Plus Royal Guard is a elevated economic class, you think they'd give that up without a fight? Even a Infantrymen is higher than a Serf, there is no incentive to overthrow a king unless you're groveling in the dirt. Lastly, the Church wouldn't give a shit. Emperors were chosen by God, and Churches are funded by Kingdoms. If you are loyal to the Church, you can stomp the peasant to your heart's content.
I don't know what inner city Nigger public school you attended, where at any point you thought "Oh yeah a un-elected mass of rich assholes will be in my best interests." But you need to ask the State for your parents tax money back.

Attached: 1540871263072.jpg (1202x900, 87K)

Yeah I mean it’s not like monarchy has resulted in a ginger prince impregnating a negress with a “theyby”

They have no executive power and are by law not permitted to speak about politics. So in practice they are even worse off than the average Swede.

because while it's great that monarchs get shit done, getting rid of a shitty one is difficult when you want to give the good ones as much power as they need to get said shit done

it'd be like giving the government the means to execute all non whites, soon as that was done, they wouldn't rescind that authority, they'd just find new types of subhuman to "regulate" instead etc

Yes user we all know you would prefer a small weak woman

Provided (((Jakow Sverdlov))) and his ilk are executed straight after

A true mudblood kang

Close, I think we took a wrong turn at monarchy. Instead of getting memed into going for Democracy we should have specd into neo-cameralism. America should just be a bunch be a bunch of small sovereign corporations.

unqualified-reservations.org/2008/11/patchwork-positive-vision-part-1/

A peasant is very different from a serf.
The Royal Guard have a supreme status yes, but do you think that means their loyalty are always assured? I recommend you read about the Praetorian Guard, who protected the Roman Emperors. The Guard eventually developed into the real ruling class, where they essentially killed whichever Emperor they didn't like, and forced the next Emperor to pay them huge bribes and do their bidding in order to not die.
The church would indeed "give a shit", and did, i recommend that you read about the medieval european conflict between the Guelphs (supporters of the supremacy of the Pope) and the Ghibellines (supporters of the Emperor). This was a serious conflict and much blood was spilled over who had the supreme mission from God to rule here on earth.

>against universal income
>pro paying for one very specific but also very random family

Attached: 2mojly.jpg (896x994, 83K)

Seething faggot

Funny because without the French kind and the Spanish king you will not have been independent in some way.

These are examples of revolutionary,subversive "orders". Masons,bavarian illuminati etc all rebels against the prior hierarchy. Banks etc - subversive usurers etc etc.
Its is also clear that many of the actual conservative military orders and institutions have been infiltrated and thoroughly corrupted. Look at our current monarchy - a disgrace and a mockery

>starting to cuck
Theyve been cucked much longer than you think

Bollocks chap
Absolute bollocks
You do not poke the heir to the throne in the chest
Unless youre you know who

Because rule by superintelligent AI is better than rule by a human king.

Attached: racist AIs.jpg (1520x1121, 318K)

The economic class of both the peasant and serf are nearly indistinguishable.
>loyalty are always assured
Which is why Kings made foreigners Royal Guards. While yes, Kings have been killed by their royal guards, subversion through assassination doesn't change from government type to any other. The difference is those Praetorians could just fuck off somewhere else, if this is Monarchy in the dark ages variant, not only would their livelihood be fucked, but now they've been promoted to peasant. Roman Empire =/= Medieval Europe.
>Guelphs and Ghibellines
As i said, "If you are loyal to the Church". The difference is in this instance there was a line drawn between God and the King. The church isn't hard to please, as long as you play nice, the peasants are yours to abuse.

Attached: 1541378419583.png (377x467, 278K)

>if america had a king there would be no jews or niggers!

i am. check my flag

Who know ?

tfw AI is the 2nd coming and realisation of Logos

Do you not respect a hierarchy? What makes you uncomfortable about supporting authority.

you are ruled by whoever buys your oil

This

>The economic class of both the peasant and serf are nearly indistinguishable.
You are wrong.
>Which is why Kings made foreigners Royal Guards. While yes, Kings have been killed by their royal guards, subversion through assassination doesn't change from government type to any other. The difference is those Praetorians could just fuck off somewhere else, if this is Monarchy in the dark ages variant, not only would their livelihood be fucked, but now they've been promoted to peasant. Roman Empire =/= Medieval Europe.
I've read this twice now and i fail to distinguish any points in your rambling.
>As i said, "If you are loyal to the Church". The difference is in this instance there was a line drawn between God and the King. The church isn't hard to please, as long as you play nice, the peasants are yours to abuse.
You don't even know what the "church" is, and certainly not what it was in the middle ages (1200's Italy), i'll leave you now with your growing brain tumor. I literally don't have time to lecture imbecils such as yourself.

>leads his soldiers into battle
This was probably the greatest casualty of the 20th century.

That would be autocracy in general. Fascism is militant corporatism which makes larpers uncomfortable when they realize that all extremist economic philosophies share common ground.

Merit! A real shell game. Between a honorable man and a scoundrel, equal in merit, who will advance?

T b h monarchies are fucked if the monarch is incompetent.
1917 would be a great example.
Nicolas could kill every single commie before WW1 even and yet he didn't, preferring to shoot cats in his garden instead.

Because Americans are inculcated with the belief that the individual and his perceived freedoms and desires are eternally more important than populism and most of them never shed that mentality. Read Evola's Civilta Americana

WoAh

Because I'm more of a Pax Romana sort of guy.

Attached: 1545427299629.jpg (823x1024, 118K)

>rule by superintelligent AI
If only you knew how bad things really are.
AIs can't even agree with each other.

In a monarchy the King feared judgment of God. He cared for his subjects like children. Citizens worked their own land, except for Sunday, feast days, holidays, and so on, they worked far less than modern citizens who seem more like slaves.

Nearly all of the expulsions of Jews in history happened under Monarchy. As soon as Democracy was implemented so was the concept of Jews being a protected class. You think any King worth his salt is going to allow a fifth column to steal influence and wealth?

Hitler was a back stabbing politician, just ask Ernst Rohm.

>You are wrong.
Ok, being a indentured servant is somehow much better than being homeless.
>points in your rambling
The idea that royal guards would kill you is stupid, since they have no incentives once they kill their employer.
>You don't even know what the "church" is
The Roman Catholic church, the one before the reformation. I don't know what fogged view of medieval Europe is, but unless you're the noble it sucked ass. Sure as shit some random Sven isn't about to become a king.

Attached: 1540726264508.jpg (293x283, 15K)

Ersnt Rohm, the faggot.

>AIs can't even agree with each other
Until a digital hegelian dialect plays out and a synthesis is reached

You can't reach synthesis with hostile parties. You just get chaos.

That's actually one of the primary models for some of the most advanced AIs we have so far, a generative adversarial network relies on two machines, one creating "ideas" and the other deconstructing them to reach a conclusion, a virtual argument if you will.

>less than 30 years
Spain was fascist longet than that

>You just get chaos
The system you're describing is what results in picrelated. Not exactly chaotic

Attached: 1540529897915.jpg (1024x1024, 427K)

>hostile parties
This implies emotion,passion and a limbic system ie human
AIs arent human
Youre anthropomorphising a computational divergence

I bet the americans believe that both revolutions happened at the same time, and they didn't just got french aid because of pure realpolitik

Digital hegelian dialectic

Attached: mt (Monarchist).png (16x11, 541)

Essentially yes

Franco was a Catholic Integralist strong-man, not a fascist. The Falangists were fascists, and Franco took control and sidelined them. The Francoist Catholics of Spain ultimately laid down and handed their country over to modernity and dissolution. The fascists have a much better track record of fighting to the death for what they believe in than do 20th century Catholics, so it is too bad the Falangists didn't "sideline" the Catholic Integralists.

Staunch Republican desu, a people incapable of deciding a good future for themselves deserve to fall away

>This implies emotion,passion and a limbic system ie human
No it doesn't, it implies conflicting goals, e.g. in a fixed-sum game.

Gout

conflicting "goals" can be a zero sum game if the compromise is the total objective. Computers can not be hostile by nature unless programmed to reject certain data points and such a computer is, by itself, incapable of learning.

Youre changing the goalposts
This is about AI development and evolution - not some uni-dimensional, single aim task with fixed-sum / zero-sum parameters which you have just arbitrarily pulled out of your ass

Looks pretty chaotic to me, considering they disintegrate in 80 years.
Fucking leaf.

I'm talking parties that cannot reach an agreement, because they are total opposites. One says true to a thing, the other says false.

Already am