Is anybody here a defender of Monarchism?

Yes
Monarchy is based, it gives us nice flags like pic related

Attached: 1200px-Royal_Standard_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg.png (1200x600, 286K)

>stalin purged the jews

Attached: 1431760514109.jpg (452x374, 62K)

I am pro monarchist.

It depends who the monarch is really.
If they're based and respect the people then there are no problems.
But if they are cunts who treat the people like cattle then I dislike them.

Currently there are no monarchs that I know of that are worth the tax burden they entail.

you might want to read about the 1930's in the Soviet Union

the great thing about Monarchy is that you know who will rule in advance, so you can raise the heir to be a good ruler
Let's say you magically gain power right now, as some sort of transitional fascist dictator, what you could do is take Prince George and raise him for the next 15 years to be the perfect ruler.
Then, you make it standard for every person in line of succession to go through the same education and you make him King

Yes. Not all people are fit to self rule, I’d go as far as to say perhaps only Englishmen are maybe the Italians since the idea has been there so long. Not even the Germans - basically 1/4 of classic European culture - have shown the ability to govern themselves well. I’m not a Nazi/fascist but you can’t blame the Germans for electing Hitler and supporting him whatsoever, the German people had been ruled by monarchs since Rome collapsed, of course they wanted a singular powerful figure, especially when a similar figure was taken from them by The Treaty of Versailles. Finally, monarchy in Europe wasn’t naturally phased out because democratic/republican values made more sense or things naturally shifted that way - monarchy was destroyed by the First World War. I don’t advocate it in America, but for most of Europe and the world, yes I do advocate for it. Russia would be a better place I think with a czar out in the open instead of presidents breaking their own laws. One Austrian monarch was asked what his purpose was, and he responded with “to protect my people from the government.” And coincidently - as monarchy and it’s structure ( don’t forget about the structure of local lords ) collapsed in Europe, the tyrannical power of the state exploded. At least local lords and dukes are out in the open instead of faceless little tyrants hidden in the dark corners of the government.

The Romans had great success with the 'monarch' choosing the next ruler; the Emperor would adopt the chosen person as his son. They had great success with this during the Nervan and Antonine dynasties (think the Pax Romana). Granted that each of these Emperors did not have a natural heir, and that the Roman concept of adoption was very strong. But this was what worked at the height of their power and prosperity, and it is often considered that Marcus Aurelius choosing his son Commodus as his successor was the beginning of the end for Rome.
tl;dr Monarchy does not have to be purely blood-lineage and its worked well when a monarch was able to choose his successor.

the Roman Empire had way too much instability over the long run, with different people declaring themselves heir
biological succession is relatively more stable

that began to occur after Commodus, particularly with his death and the Year of Five Emperors. Prior to that there was little to no difficulty in succession.
Any examination of the Roman Empire finds the Nervan-Antonine dynasties to be the most stable and prosperous time, and this was the era when adoptive succession was the norm.

Obviously.

Attached: Braun Smiling.jpg (644x637, 46K)