Is monarchy really that bad?

Monarchy wouldn't work in the United States.

A) We have no royal bloodline, no one can make a rightful claim.

B) A king needs to be recognized by an official church. Divine right is as vital to a claim as blood. Since we have no official church, no one can perform divine right.

99% of the time yes, because most people who want power are incompetent. The other 1% of the time it is great because you have genuine and true Philosopher Kings.
Jow Forums doesn't believe in the Dark Ages.
Despite the fact that the Islamic World surpassed the Latin speaking West, and the Latin West did nothing of value for 1000 years until the Renaissance, at which point a large corpus of Greek works were finally retranslated into Latin.

They'll make excuses and say that they were never in Latin. But that's because they never read Cicero.

Catholics destroyed Greek works for a thousand years, until the Renaissance, that's the Dark Ages.

Yes, some dude gathers a gang of bullies, takes over your town and says I'm king now, give me your gold and best food.
That is monarchy

All government is flawed but dictatorship can either go really good like what happened in Rome or bad like what happened with Hitler

Attached: 7B28A427-F983-40CA-8D26-FDC558824D57.jpg (566x460, 56K)

Jesus Christ is the one true king!

That's not a king at all. That's a warlord or chieftain maybe. A king has to be connected to the land and people by divine right. That's what maintains the royalty of his bloodline.

Why? What changes compared to being a peasant under a president?

That's a theocracy.

>the Latin West did nothing of value for 1000 years until the Renaissance
Which renaissance?

Attached: Capture.png (1159x329, 116K)

no.
And much preferable to our current forms of govt

Ah, the Florentine one which produced all the memes. Why not one of the earlier ones?

monarchy is not the same as dictatorship at all

The islamists had no indigenous science; that was all in the hands of the conquered who had to pay jizya. Christian monks copied classical books for centuries while the Muslims burnt down the library of Alexandria

They didn't pioneer astronomy, math, or science.
The only thing they pioneered was the enslavement of Europeans and their sale to Jews.

Attached: Capture.png (1363x356, 66K)

Did you must put all of romes dictatores under one hat?

Attached: 1399872786062.jpg (367x442, 61K)

Apologetics, and you believe it.
The Muslims housed many classic works of the Greeks in the House of Wisdom until its destruction.

This isn't to say that Islam is in any way good, or anything. It simply was demonstrably better than Catholicism for a long time.

Beside this, there is no "indigenous science" in Christianity. The Bible taught us nothing. The Renaissance, like the Islamic Golden Age, was defined by picking up where pagan Greeks left off.

Could the monarchy faggots shut the fuck up already? All types of government fail, including monarchy. They're all shit. It's shit too.

it's hard to philosophically defend a dynasty having the birthright to rule over a given territory.
on the other hand, monarchies are more historically stable and the notion of a monarch as a sort-of racial avatar which governs a nation-state or something close to a nation-state has an intrinsic appeal to most people whether they are willing to admit it to themselves or not.

well it has the same flaw as any other single leader system, single point of failure

> PHILOSOPHER KANGZ MEME
History proved several times that centering your civilization around personality cults is a bad idea, your ULTRA KANG can die, go mad and have certain weird views that he can't change his mind about it.

Send this man to the stocks

Only if you have a shitty king or queen.
Problem is, that can be kind of easy to have.

Attached: 1529031927261.jpg (250x238, 17K)

PRINCE CHRISTKEK IS MY MAGIC LEADER!

BECAUSE HIS DADDY WAS TOO!

Attached: jesus war death.jpg (958x1024, 293K)

>PRINCE CHRISTKEK
FAGGOT MODSFAGGOT MODSFAGGOT MODSFAGGOT MODSFAGGOT MODSFAGGOT MODSFAGGOT MODSFAGGOT MODSFAGGOT MODSFAGGOT MODSFAGGOT MODSFAGGOT MODSFAGGOT MODSFAGGOT MODSFAGGOT MODSFAGGOT MODSFAGGOT MODSFAGGOT MODSFAGGOT MODSFAGGOT MODSFAGGOT MODSFAGGOT MODSFAGGOT MODSFAGGOT MODSFAGGOT MODSFAGGOT MODSFAGGOT MODSFAGGOT MODS

Christcuck
Christ-cuck
Christc,uck

>Jow Forums doesn't believe in the Dark Ages
most historians don't believe in the "dark ages" anymore either.

It has shown at several instances through history, that enlightened absolutism can produce good results. The problem isn't so much manifested in that individuals lifetime, but rather that of their children or those who follow.

>most historians don't believe in the "dark ages" anymore either.
Deceitful wording.
Some don't.
The historical proof is in the pudding, if Catholicism was so great for the Latin West then we wouldn't have been studying Greeks in the 1300's to finally make real tangible advancement.

This isn't even arguable. They'd have already done all that leg-work a thousand years prior.

I'm very much an unabashed monarchist. For several reasons
1. There is no serious evidence that democracy allows a people to be "represented" in government. In fact, all data shows the opposite. Only the wealthy are represented
2. A monarch allows accountability. You know who the monarch is. That means you know who you have to kill when things go tits up.
3. Stability is intrinsic to a system of monarchy. In democratic systems. The system is inherently unstable.
4. A monarch has no need to raise funds for re-election, no need for foreign bribes or wealthy investors. He's the goddamn king.
5. Monarchs are inherently Racially related to the people. Democratically representatives are not
6. Each prince is raised under the tutelage of a king. So he is guided in the realm of politics. Any retard can be elected under a democracy.
7. Ideally, a monarch would be balanced by a highly armed populace who could kill him whenever they feel so. This means the monarch takes a soft approach. Small government actually works better with a monarchy than a democracy

There are other reasons. This is just the basics

Most of the dark age rhethoric comes from enlightenment age prejudice.
The dark ages were full of marvellous works of art, great cathedrals and knowledge preserved in the monasteries. These things are conveniently overlooked in favour of the cliche of the harsh and dirty living conditions and the plagues. It is true those also existed, but they do not alone make an age 'dark'. The degeneracy we see around us didn't exist then either, that should also count for something.

That's a justification of what I wrote .
Some gang of bullies turn up and say "by gods divine law I am king."
Other peasants lack the ability to stop this happening.

The point of monarchy is not to have the monarchs make all the decisions. In the "dark ages" they had many systems of private law where things were decided by local leaders. The point of monarchy is rather so that a society is fundamentally concerned with its long term interest and where the structure of society cannot simply be changed through public processes. Much like how the owner of this website can be seen as a "monarch" and that this website isn't constantly altered by the desires of its users. Rather due to its single ownership the general course of the website remains the same and authority is delegated to mods/janitors. Its not like Hiro controls absolutely everything and makes all rules and enforces all of them.

The way of life the Gauls and other Celts was superior to that of the Romans, the Greeks, or anyone else.
They may have been clannish to a fault, but they were the true master race.

>Most of the dark age rhethoric comes from enlightenment age prejudice.
Christkike lies.

It came from mass death, global cooling (real kind not fake modern shit), and mass destruction of European history, language, culture, writings, and everything you Jew worshipers did to civilization like Jihadis.

Attached: rome pre jesus christianity.jpg (1316x2067, 926K)

Why were shitskin Arabs surpassing the Latin West in mathematics until the Renaissance?

Pro Tip: the Christian era before Renaissance wasn't as great as you make it out to be

And I cannot emphasize this enough; monarchies of the middle ages did not exercise dictatorial control over their society. Most of the law enforcement was done locally and decided by esteemed members of the community in systems of private law. Kings were not even close to being concerned about the private lives of every citizen. Authority was extensively delegated. If you lived in a village under a monarchy you would probably not feel like you were under the iron boot of a monarch but you lived in your own village/city with its own customs

I've never met a Christian on Jow Forums who didn't get an absolute erection at the destruction of European culture and tradition as it was, their enslavement and subsequent ownership through Jews.

These...are all very good points I hadn't previously considered. I'm personally in favor of a monarchy at the higher levels of government but local government being subject to democratic vote, in order to make sure the common man has proper channels to reach the ear of the higher-ups.

>A monarch allows accountability.
>The point of monarchy is not to have the monarchs make all the decisions. In the "dark ages" they had many systems of private law where things were decided by local leaders. The point of monarchy is rather so that a society is fundamentally concerned with its long term interest and where the structure of society cannot simply be changed through public processes
NOPE

The point of monarchy and how it came to be in the West was Roman military garrisons which later became land-lords to collect taxes from the demoralized christian peasantry. The peasants weren't allowed to leave their hometowns, or even change jobs. So they would riot against the lords.
The lords built casltes to protect themselves.

Very close to a primitive Soviet style government. Diocletian laws

Attached: duck kingdom.jpg (600x600, 50K)

>I've never met a Christian on Jow Forums who didn't get an absolute erection at the destruction of European culture and tradition as it was, their enslavement and subsequent ownership through Jews.
It's a death cult

Attached: trump betrays mexican jews maga.jpg (1023x978, 228K)

no, it really is enlightenment age rhethoric. You can check, the term comes from there.

European history culture language and writing was very much formed in that time. And not destroyed. How do you confuse day with night I can hardly take you seriously.
Church history is mostly medieval and a major factor in the political and social development of Europe.
Our latin works are majority medieval. And they were preserved, as I said, in the monasteries. We have marvellous masses, great church music (again in latin) from that time, and both the gregorian and the flemish traditions produced exceptional music.
The gothic cathedrals that are one of the most important architectural styles of cathedrals in Europe, is medieval as well.
I think you argue mostly from ideology. You want to find a way to talk badly about the middle ages, with complete disregard of what was actually going on.
The middle ages were unrightfully called dark age.
And furthermore much of what happens today qualifies us for a kind of dark age as well, given the social and political developments, and the insane piles of dead bodies never before seen in history to this extent.

These retards are cheering 4 another dark age. This might explain how the 1st 1 happened. "Yay! Let's say fuck enlightenment and stay the same!"

>They didn't pioneer astronomy, math, or science.
They did, though. You can't build a cathedral by accident. And without the Carolingian Renaissance, we may not have had the communication technology for any later ones.

Shit isn't done in isolation, American.

>Some things are bad
>So stop trying the good

>it's hard to philosophically defend a dynasty having the birthright to rule over a given territory.
Why? It's quite logical. They have the most vested interest in doing well, and are in the best position to know how to do so.

>Some don't.
There are always idiots, sure.

No.

>European history culture language and writing was very much formed in that time. And not destroyed.
WRONG

You destroyed our entire history and wiped it out to the point that we have spent 100yrs trying to dig it out of the ground (archeology). You traitors love to brag about how you did this, and claim we have no history and lived in mudhuts or whatever. You do the work of the Jew and always will.

Attached: Viking Calander veddic writing.jpg (500x1314, 491K)

I wasn't alive at the time.
And have nothing to do with it.

You're an ideologue. No use talking to you.

>You want to find a way to talk badly about the middle ages, with complete disregard of what was actually going on.
It's pretty easy to talk about a shitty era of European history where the only work of Plato was a fragment of Timaeus.

It's pretty easy to talk badly about an era that we were being surpassed scientifically by fucking Islam until they shit the bed by following Al Ghazali.

It's easy to talk shit about a period that was directly followed by an influx of newly made Latin translations of those same classics(that they had previously destroyed) resulting in the greatest period of Europe's development.

Face it, we climbed up off the backs of Greeks, and the Dark Ages was embodied by an era that they simply weren't given any accord. Of course, even despite the evidence of this being the case, we'll get the odd Jow Forumslack to deny reality because Aquinas tried to appropriate Aristotle.

>muh Jew worship buildings
>so it's OK we destroyed our history and burned the philosophy schools and traditions

Attached: jesus gnostic destroying egypt.jpg (1536x2048, 1.34M)

>There are always idiots, sure.
Exactly, people who deny that the period from Rome's conversion to the Renaissance sucked ass are fucking retarded.

>The islamists had no indigenous science; that was all in the hands of the conquered who had to pay jizya. Christian monks copied classical books for centuries while the Muslims burnt down the library of Alexandria
NOPE

Persian Zoroastrians protected our history from the fucking CHristkikes and you fuckers burned down the libraries, Plato's school, and every cultural historic/religious/education center in the West.

Attached: JESUS ROME GOY.jpg (900x900, 529K)

LOL, what a fucking redneck.

>I wasn't alive at the time.
>And have nothing to do with it.
>You're an ideologue
HOLY SHIT!

What a piece of fucking trash.

Attached: jesus cucks.png (312x496, 197K)

>huemonkey

Not if you're Jewish

Attached: jewhat.jpg (800x1223, 429K)

>Science doesn't matter
>Even when it surpasses what came before

>it's OK we destroyed our history and burned the philosophy schools and traditions
That is a shame. More a shame that they were already out of fashion by the time West Rome fell.

Lol, what do you think actually happened there? Remember, Europe is more than just Italy and Germany.

>Jow Forums doesn't believe in the Dark Ages.
You don't speak for us Jew demon worshiper

Attached: pol jesus 4.png (900x900, 360K)

You retards keep doing the same thing. You expect a human system not to fail. They always do. All you can do to contain that damage is to have thousands of micro-level governments that make decisions. Then each decision effects less people in total. Each individual gets a lot more power in decision-making, though, within their government.

monarchy is fucking great and as your new Kaiser I promise to make the fucking jews back into a race of wandering tinkers again.

>what do you think actually happened there?
The Carolingian dynasty created the slave trade ran by Jews off the backs of enslaved Europeans that eventually turned into a global outfit.

Always remember, Jews came out of the middle ages rich and protected by kings, pagans ceased to exist.

>More a shame that they were already out of fashion by the time West Rome fell.
WTF does that mean? Rome fell 85 years after becoming Christian and broke into two provinces.

Then Monarchs rose up out of the military garrisons to collect taxed for the Vatican pedos and christkikes still call this "Rome".
The East Orthodoxy was taken over by Jewish Cesars. Just look at their pics. Then a few Germanic Cesars who kicked their asses.

Attached: jesus christian evil rome.jpg (400x502, 167K)

Monarchy is a pretty broad system of government, it's impossible to definitely say it's "bad" or not. I think if you must generalize a good king can accomplish a lot more than a more short term kind of a ruler because they have the advantage of time and long term planning, while a shit king is worse than a shit president for example because the only way to depose them is usually though violence.

I was being sardonic.

No. Every monarch is tied to a church. And hell Henry 8th broke away from Rome and started his own church just because he wanted to slam dunk Anne Bolyns snizz.

And you'd be surprised who can come up with some sort of claim to the American crown. Technically that halfbreed that was born to the British Monarch can make a semi valid claim.

>You expect a human system not to fail. They always do.
No they don't. Shit happens and people fail the system.

are Jow Forums unironically becoming monarchist?
wtf

Not every monarch**

>All you can do to contain that damage is to have thousands of micro-level governments that make decisions.
that existed under monarchy

Yes they do even if it's because people fuck up the system. People are part of the system. It needs them to be a system. If they can so easily fuck it up, that's a fatal flaw.

"And as for the writings of the Greeks, they are all put out and vanished, but this man's shine brighter day by day. For from the time that he (was) and the other fishermen, since then the (doctrines) of Pythagoras and of Plato, which seemed before to prevail, have ceased to be spoken of, and most men do not know them even by name. Yet Plato was, they say, the invited companion of kings, had many friends, and sailed to Sicily. And Pythagoras occupied Magna Græcia, and practiced there ten thousand kinds of sorcery. For to converse with oxen, (which they say he did,) was nothing else but a piece of sorcery. As is most clear from this. He that so conversed with brutes did not in anything benefit the race of men, but even did them the greatest wrong. Yet surely, the nature of men was better adapted for the reasoning of philosophy; still he did, as they say, converse with eagles and oxen, using sorceries. For he did not make their irrational nature rational, (this was impossible to man,) but by his magic tricks he deceived the foolish. And neglecting to teach men anything useful, he taught that they might as well eat the heads of those who begot them, as beans. And he persuaded those who associated with him, that the soul of their teacher had actually been at one time a bush, at another a girl, at another a fish.
Are not these things with good cause extinct, and vanished utterly? "
John Chrysostom was a cock smoking faggot.

Well, as a direct descendent of Sam Huston, I may be able to put forth my claim to the throne of Texas.

>Viking Calander veddic writing
>veddic writing
Vikings were pajeets?

Attached: 1551875347992.png (406x399, 246K)

Yes. Now fuck the Monarchy part & we can do this thing.

Codreanu, leader of the Romanian Iron Guard, claimed that a bad king didn't hurt monarchy as a whole, because even with a bad king there was still a connection between blood and land.

Then again, a single bad king can fuck up a kingdom permanently, so there is that.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesir–Asura_correspondence

You stupid motherfuckers ripped off fairy tales

Fairy Faggots aka TransPrincesses

A single bad president can do that too. All it takes is one idiotic decision in the wrong time. Also remember that the check and balances shit is more or less suspended in harsh time in any country, making the elected president quite similar to a monarch but w/o the genetic nor the life long training in caring for the future of the kingdom.

That's why I am undecided about where to stand on the issue.

On one hand, monarchy offers a connection between people of the land, their ruler, and the divine. Elected officials don't offer that. Although they share some of the same faults.

Jow Forums has gotten really stupid recently. There used to be a large group of monarchists and neoreactionaries on this board. There was the NatSocs who had the most, Libertarians and Ancaps with the next highest, and then monarchists.

The best arguments for monarchy are all pretty esoteric, and no type of government or philosophy is perfect because they can't fix the problem. There are some pretty glaring flaws with things like Communism, but even if they weren't there, they wouldn't solve the problem of human nature. If the purpose of living a virtuous life is to mitigate suffering, you would imagine that man would be happy without suffering. But no, without suffering he loses virtue - he degenerates, becomes complacent. That's the problem with all governments, and it's a problem government can't solve. The best we can do is accommodate for human nature, and the most organic form of human government is monarchy. It is what developed from the primordial chaos of prehistory, and something like monarchy is what humans default to without dogmatic principles about Communism or representative government or whatever.

even in US history there are examples of presidents taking extreme authority. most notably, lincoln during the civil war and roosevelt during the depression

easy and wrong, as so often in life
shit talking isn't going to reveal the truth here
I repeat again as I have previously remarked, enlightenment historians have conveniently overlooked this
The monasteries have in fact preserved most of the knowledge. It is hardly relevant critique that an influx of science from the arabs, or lost works from antiquity, removes the fact that countless precious works have been preserved and created. (Being surpassed by Islam was no shame either since they were in a golden age, just btw)
The catholic church itself is in the unique place of being the only institution in the world to have carried forward the roman spirit - who else can say this? Who else has built what they have build? Their work defined europe. And yet we have this sillyness floating around here like they destroyed europe. Excuse me? Wet is dry and rivers float upwards in your world?

>the Dark Ages was embodied by an era that they simply weren't given any accord
They did do that, to the best of their ability. Plenty of scholars appreciated the old works. There is hardly any doubt about it. It was already a good gesture from the christians to preserve pagan works but they did so because they acknowledged them.

But I want to remind you that they didn't have to. There is nothing wrong for people in the christian medieval ages to create their own culture and knowledge which they did do. But then of course followed the renaissance. Not all ages must be measured relative the renaissance.

I told you, only in the age of enlightenment did people begin to do this and you follow their footsteps. No need. You can appreciate both, they are interconnected, and not exclusive.

Neutral programmed AI as monarch would be ok. Otherwise the rulership would only be as good as your monarch is. And knowing some humans for some decades now doesn't make me think a human monarch is the best form to rule

>The monasteries have in fact preserved most of the knowledge
Not reading the rest of your post since you can't get even the first statement right.
Kill yourself my retarded friend.
Read a book you fucking moron.

Attached: plato.png (714x713, 172K)

Yes

Attached: Screenshot_20190509-091437_Twitter.jpg (1080x2220, 454K)

No.

based amerimutt

Attached: Corneliu_Zelea_Codreanu_archive_Legionary_Movement_Romanian_Christian_Nationalists.jpg (1147x621, 553K)

But Pletho was a pagan

That's why he was so smart.
He's basically the hero the West needed.

your business. If you don't want to acknowledge them, don't. I told you people you are ideologues and feel the need to talk badly about those ages because they threaten you, and their scholars threaten you, and the exclusive place you want to carve out for yourself as worshippers of greeks exclusively which, while they are great, is again not the measurement by which all must be judged.
Remember we began with the silly accusation that the dark ages destroyed european culture when in fact, the opposite occured.
Not just an injustice onto them to talk that way, but there is no need for emnity either, since we have much to thank both the medieval and renaissance ages.

>. There used to be a large group of monarchists and neoreactionaries on this board.
ya, I remember those times. Good threads too.

Awww you want daddy trump to be king.

Dynastic Monarchy is flawed, because the current ruler can be good but the heir can be a retard.
Monarch by appointment is way better and if the monarch doesn't perform he should be replaced without a fuss.

>feel the need to talk badly about those ages because they threaten you
Obviously.
An ideology that has repeatedly attempted to destroy the same Classics that invented our intellectual tradition is a threat.
>greeks exclusively
And the people who studied them.
The same people the Catholic church did nothing but shit on for being heretical.
See, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum
>Remember we began with the silly accusation that the dark ages destroyed european culture when in fact, the opposite occured.
Oh? Where is native European culture and tradition today?
As far as I was aware, they were utterly decimated and Jews rose as a financial power off their enslaved backs.
See,
>medieval and renaissance ages.
More like Renaissance ages.
The Middle Ages leaves little to be grateful for.