Do you think we will ever return to monarchies? Modern politics

>>1767415
fascism is the future

>>1767417
>every single facist country is backwards as fuck

File: 1464538913890.jpg (15KB, 480x453px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 480x453px

>>1767415
>A monarchy can result in shitty leaders from time to time
Understatement of the year

>>1767415
No. The foundation of monarchy was that it provided stability and was based on tradition. No monarchy that sprung up today would have either of those things going for it.

>>1767415
>it is another monarchyfag shits on the common man and yet thinks his OC donutsteel king will be super perfect and incorruptible episode

At what point does this become sad?

>>1767415
>Henry Viii
>great leader
Explain

>>1767502
>At what point does this become sad?
That point was passed long ago

>>1767415
>Modern politics already shows democracy is useless.
NO!
Get out!
Its media which ruined democracy.

Hang the radios and burn the televisions.

>>1767415
>Society will become stagnant without a supreme governing force capable of enacting laws without worrying about the idiotic masses.
Literally no such thing has every existed in history in history, and never will either.

File: 1462752258526.jpg (42KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 640x480px

>>1767519
>Its media which ruined democracy.
Media, particularly the kind we have at our disposal now, is what makes Democracy viable in the first place. Media allows for the populace to actually be informed enough on the issues to vote. And thanks to things like the internet now, it's harder for a single source to dominate one's intake, so you've got people generally being exposed to more ideas.

>>1767415
>Alfred the Great
>here pictured with his fleur de lys sceptre, Frankish crown and 14th century cloak

File: 2016-09-21.png (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

>>1767557

Monarchies are great if you have persons raised from birth to be ruler and they aren't autists.

Even better if you have a great person found a dynasty.

However, invariably one of their descendants will be a degenerate or autist and fuck things up.

File: chinese-army.jpg (569KB, 1200x778px) Image search: [Google]

569KB, 1200x778px

>>1767446

Like modern China?

>>1767446
Please, remind us about how Germany developed the V-2, the Tiger tanks, computers, ...
The thing is, all political systems have pros and cons.

>>1767502
1917-1919

We're not poor, uneducated serfs with the inability to cooperate and mass so no, monarchy as you wish it to be will never return unless there is such an enormous shift in global paradigms (i.e complete and utter destruction of society).

>it's another introverted neckbeard becomes seduced by Wikipedia articles thread

>but it can also produce greats like Charlemagne, Henry VIII, or Louis XIV
>great

Great for whom? For autists like you who read history books dedicated to the kings alone?

Probably not too great for the peasants who lived absolute wretched and abhorrent lives beneath them.

File: 1462752315681.jpg (147KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 960x720px

>>1767786
>Monarchies are great if you have persons raised from birth to be ruler and they aren't autists.
Not necessarily. Though they may be raised from birth to take power, that doesn't necessarily mean that they're going to have the interests of their subjects in mind - just the interests of themselves, their immediate family, and those more powerful subjects with enough power to seriously threaten them.

>However, invariably one of their descendants will be a degenerate or autist and fuck things up.
That's also the big problem. There's not really any competence threshold for holding power in a Monarchy, which becomes a real big issue when you've handed absolute power off to an heir who's literally retarded.

Anarchism is the way of the future. Fuck rulers and kings.

The problem is not democracy per se
You just need some checks to make it work.

Vote is voluntary, not mandatory
Minimum voting age: 25+
Remove women suffrage (this will be hard)
Landowners or businessowners only
People with major degrees only
Similar and harsher restrictions on candidates (full on background check)
Parties and candidates can't receive public (government) or private (lobbying) funding (and crack down on donations from individuals, to avoid loopholes)

Maybe more that I forgot

Modern politics shows us that using a celebrity oligarchy is not all that useful to the citizens.

We can't know if something close to true democracy, where the citizens vote on the laws that affect them, where the citizens vote on the budget, where tax revenue is understood to belong to the citizenry, and where the citizens directly select an executive, we can't know if that system works until we try it.

>>1770018
>Landowners or businessowners only

These are the only people who should be paying taxes, since the state is virtually defined by protecting property rights, and this is not a free service.

But everyone who has to follow the law needs a say in what the law is.

>>1770018
>major degrees only
Well I'm a education major and not and stem so am I not qualified to vote by your standards?

>>1770063
Not a native english speaker so I have some trouble wording some concepts
What I meant is superior education (any degree).
Too many highschool dropouts voting.

Has any form of weighted democracy been 'tried'?

I can't see how minor alterations like giving people with higher education (and this could increment) a vote worth 1.1 of the rest could be anything but beneficial.

>>1770018
>Remioe women suffrage
Hurr durr let's make sure 52% of the populace can't vote

>>1770073
Oh that makes more sense, but what about people who go through trade school is considered same level. I've meet plenty of people who I consider smarter that went to trade school over college.

>>1770090
Trade school is considered superior education here (well, not on the same level as college, but close enough).

Besides, with how things are (job market saturated with unskilled people with diplomas up their asses), those who go to trade school (learn an actual useful skill always in demand) ARE smarter.

>Muh perfect monarch
>Muh landowners democracy
The modern state system isn't perfect but still the best we got in all know history.

File: 1382820416325.jpg (86KB, 464x787px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 464x787px

I don't get reactionaries who hate modern democracy but love absolute monarchy. Modern democracies are the culmination of a political process of centralization that began with the monarchies. They were the ones who empowered the "majority of people" in order to break the power the intermediary institutions like the nobility, the Church, the family, private proprietors, municipalities, guilds etc. The only reason a "supreme governing force" was able to be formed is because the "idiotic masses" supported it in order to "free" them from their petty oppressors.

Everything the Jacobins did is what Louis XIV would have done, if he had the chance. If you want to be a true reactionary, you should admire descentralizated realms like the Holy Roman Empire and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. But then, these had very weak monarchs. If you really want a "supreme governing force" governing without caring about the "idiotic masses", you should become a leftist.

>>1770089

You're acting like this is an unusual feature of democracy.

File: 1471754676524.jpg (219KB, 640x2399px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 640x2399px

>>1767415
Autocracy is the best way of government by having the best candidate with the most skill in power

> not embracing superior AI as your ruler
This is the future, not some old guy with fake crown

>>1770157
>reactionaries who love absolute monarchy

true reactionaries are aristocratic.

File: Reinhard.jpg (124KB, 595x1440px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 595x1440px

Can democracies produce such great individuals?

File: george-soros.jpg (29KB, 635x454px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 635x454px

>>1770240
Of course.

File: on power.jpg (30KB, 333x499px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 333x499px

>>1770233
I agree, but a lot of people who claim to be "reactionaries" who "hate modern democracy" have a hard-on for absolute monarchs who crushed the aristocracy. It's like when they defend Western civilization against Islam, fap to the Battle of Vienna, then praise Louis XIV, who collaborated with the Turks while they were attacking Europe.

I blame a lack of historical knowledge. Pic related should be an obligatory read.

File: 1470268559775.jpg (35KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 640x480px

>>1770248
He doesn't have the balls to come out of his private sphere and rule the public directly. Fucking Phezanni right here

File: Founder of 8chan.jpg (5KB, 207x244px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 207x244px

Yes.

His country still exists. Hitler and Stalin can't say that.

>>1770270

yeah but he didn't have to fight an extended land campaign on his own soil.

File: ober.jpg (133KB, 400x615px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 400x615px

>>1770206
autocratic meritocracy*

>>1770294
The USSR did wander on almost fifty years once world war 2 ended.

Also, shouldn't "getting yourself into a war with the whole world" count as an argument against someone's ideology?

File: 1470805969681.jpg (991KB, 1184x4440px) Image search: [Google]

991KB, 1184x4440px

>>1770296

File: lincoln.jpg (220KB, 750x500px) Image search: [Google]

220KB, 750x500px

>>1770294
Ahem.

>>1767415
>modern politics show democracy doesnt work

Gonna need a source on that

>>1770336

Lincoln was literally a fag

File: 1473357689599.jpg (22KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 400x300px

>>1770348
Modern democracy promotes cultural stagnation and degeneracy.

>>1770360
Yes, and if anybody gave him trouble, he fucked them in the ass.

And by ass I mean Georgia.

>>1770369
>buzzwords and an anime pic

Yeah, that argument about the uneducated masses is really starting to ring true

>>1770382
The nice thing about uneducated masses is that they typically don't understand how to influence a political system effectively.

The real problem they pose isn't what they do, but what people get away with while everyone is distracted by the retards.

>>1770206
Agreed.
Until a drooling retard comes into power
Then what?

>>1770386
No, the only real problem is the lack of education and the subsequent strong effect of propaganda on those persons.

So, instead of edgy and angsty ideas like disenfranchising 80% of the population, greater emphasis should be given to educating people, in general, in political and economic systems and specifically on the laws being voted about (in a more participatory democracy, swiss style).

File: 1473539537548.jpg (53KB, 600x586px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 600x586px

>>1770387
He won't because to be able to topple the one in power he need to be equal or greater or crash and die with no survivors.

>>1770382
>random anime pic
neck yourself

>>1770369
>According to me
Democracy would be better if people with no income and people on welfare couldnt vote.

>>1770413
I meant after the godlike autocrat dies.

>>1770408
What do you do if the little glue eating retard won't pay attention to the classes, but shows up on election day anyway?

Honest question, I've been trying to figure out how to stop people from acting like retards, and it's hard.

So why don't Monarchy-fags move to North Korea?

File: 1472317128322.jpg (257KB, 640x960px) Image search: [Google]

257KB, 640x960px

>>1770416
then switch to constitutionalism if the successor doesn't step us his game.

>>1770416
But then it wouldn't be a democracy if you exclude peasants from it.

>>1770427
Don't let him vote.

>>1767415
Only if there's a huge collapse on par with that of the WRE

File: image.jpg (81KB, 416x408px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 416x408px

Feudalism will return in after the fall of the nations

>>1770430
>implying Juche has anything to do with monarchy
>implying

>>1770427
The first step is to realise you're probably just as retarded as they are and stop unjustifyingly stroking your overblown ego.

The second is, as >>1770433 suggested in part, to have some sort of system of qualification (a diploma for participating in the voting process (state subsidised education for it obviously) and a short check to see if the person actually read the law/referendum being proposed.

>>1770456

I cannot wait for techno-feudalism!!

>>1770456
Feudalism became impossible when you needed state-sized economics to arm a modern army.

>>1770018
Make university free and we will agree.

>>1770868
Sure. I'm all for it.
But make entrance exams hard as fuck.

>>1767895
[COLLAPSE]

>>1767415
Republics and other similar systems work best. You need to have a system that has some bit of democracy to it but allows leaders to have a good deal of latitude in decision making. It's like an economy anarcho-capitalism doesn't work but neither does a more pure version of communism.

>>1770876
Agreed.

>>1767415
>without worrying about the idiotic masses.
You are a fucking moron if you think a monarch can simply pass laws at will. Even in the most hyper centralized absolute monarchy, if a monarchs laws step on the toes of the powerful too much and too often, he'll find his head on a chopping block in short order, with his scheming 52nd cousin now sitting on his solid gold chair.

Centralized governments of any type and form all fall prey to the same short falls as one another. To maintain absolute power, absolute loyalty is needed to the state and its institutions. Loyalty is ensured through the doling out of political power and favors and laws to special interests to ensure that when something unpopular or undesirable is passed, the built up good faith of the government ensures that even the unpopular laws are followed.

>>1767415
>the idiotic masses
Your first mistake is assuming the masses control discourse and power. The masses do not. Only a small minority of people, hardened in their opinions, and beliefs, control discourse.

A fanatic with power and influence will not bend towards the middle, but a man in the middle will bend towards the fanatics position because the fanatic has the means and desire to influence the common man, and the middling common man has no compulsion against bending towards the middle.

Even in the most centralized autocratic monarchy, a phenomena which only has one real examplar whose trappings and styles are far and away from whatever ideal your hallucinating about in your head, removes only the common man from the equation. The powerful and influential remain, and they will remain just as fanatic, and they will attempt to influence the course of government, as best they can to accommodate their beliefs and desires.

But Anons, one of the core tenets of democracy is that all people are equal, hence why we give them votes to choose our next leader.
If we limit our suffrage, then does that mean we are not equal? If so, why not just install an aristocracy?

>>1771523
>implying everyone is equal
>implying if that would be true, it would be a good thing

>>1770018
>Remove women suffrage
how will disenfranchising half the population based on something out of their control improve things? Every other reform you suggested makes becoming an elector more difficult but attainable in the hopes that only the educated and wealthy will be enfranchised.

>>1770413
that's not true at all, Stalin was able to become an autocrat because he was both a shrewd player of party politics and a clever assassin. That did not translate at all into him being a good leader, and since he was so paranoid purging thousands of innocent party members to get to the few plotting his downfall didn't bother him one bit and Russia was stuck with that monster for decades.

Autocracies tend to select leaders based on how good of a political operator they are rather than how able of an administrator they are.

>>1767415
>Henry VIII
>Great
Nigger you had best included an extra I in there by mistake or else you just said some FUCKING retarded shit.

>All these people talking about how they want only the wealthy to vote
You are basically saying you want two terms of Hillary Clinton.

File: 1471404029660.jpg (139KB, 640x963px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 640x963px

>>1772047
The funny thing is the people spouting that shit are just like the Monarchists - they seem to think that they'd somehow be part of that privileged voting/ruling class.

>>1772100

You're thinking in terms of what's best for individuals and not what's best for the nation.

>>1772115

A nation is only as good as it's people you jabroni.

File: yang.png (123KB, 560x365px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 560x365px

>>1772115
What does the "greatness" of a nation matter if the people are living in squalor?

I chuckle at the anons posting Yang. His death was a catalyst for the Iserlohn fortress turning into a fucking meritocratic dictatorship.

>>1767415
>A monarchy can result in shitty leaders from time to time, but it can also produce greats like Charlemagne, Henry VIII, or Louis XIV. It is high time we return to it.
Actually good monarchs are the outlier. On average, the American Presidency produces better leaders versus any monarchical dynasty.

>>1770498
Not him, but you could argue that if modern civilization actually fell, then the first "vassal" armies popping back up wouldn't need to be at peak technology to be effective in the chaos of a new dark age.

Just my two cents though.

>>1771554
>implying everyone is equal
Democracies are founded on the assumption that everyone is born equal, and deserves an equal voice regardless of station.

Its an idealistic and maybe naive ideal, but idealism is the life blood of democracy.

File: Pancor.jpg (82KB, 777x693px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 777x693px

Prussia under Friedrich der Große should be the gold standard for anyone making this argument. Napoleon and Caesar are also acceptable.

That said, I think anyone can at least agree with OP's assessment of the problem. My thinking on this matter is generally aligned with Nietzsche's, however. Even in his own day, the problem was clear: what justifies a state in which so many wretched individuals can exist? The answer, at the end of the 19th century at least, was the existence (and celebration) of genius.

We have lost both of things, however, which is a problem. We still have all the wretched people, but with nothing to justify them or the state that permits their existence.

>>1772199

More like spooks are the lifeblood of democracy.

I find it funny how the likes of Rousseau are celebrated, yet he justifies his arguments with appeals to the 'General Will' and others Signifiers without a Signified.

>>1772213
The fact remains that despite its many problems democratic forms of government are much more responsive to the needs of the people. Its also a huge benefit that if you end up with a shit leader in a democracy you can just wait a few years and vote him out.

While in an autocratic state if you end up with a complete creep as king you'll need to put up with a few decades of shit until he dies, and then there's no guarantee that his successor will be any better, or you can oust him from power in a violent revolution in which many innocent people may be killed and the economy ruined, and after all that there's STILL no guarantee that the guy you replace him with will actually be any better.

>>1770018
>Remove women suffrage (this will be hard)

Not possible.

>Landowners or businessowners only

Good luck stopping the proletariat rebellion. That will throw half the population up in arms against the government.

>>1767786
Which can be easily fixed by doing what four of the five good emperors did, namely choosing your heir by adopting the most competent man for the job. Just make it unlawful to choose an heir that is kin.

Also try to make sure that the heir gets a couple of years atleast wherein he is co-ruler before the senior one passes the bucket.

If one wants to play it even safer one could put a time-Limit on the office.

>>1772100
Yes, but at least Monarchs, ignoring how you'd go about getting them into power, have the possibility of arbitrarily agreeing with random anons, just by chance. That's the appeal of centralized power.

But we can actually look at what rich people want, and how they vote.

>>1767895
>V-2
Forced to develop it after losing the battle of Britain and failing at the Blitz

>Tiger tanks
overengineered memes mounting a glorified AA gun. Shoulda stuck to Pz IVs

>computers

Allied computers were far more advanced

>>1770206
>Citing weebshit

>>1767415

>greats like Henry VIII.

Great kings are usually better at fucking their wives than fucking their kingdoms.

lotta gay lactating homos in this bread

File: 1473357815640.png (322KB, 640x482px) Image search: [Google]

322KB, 640x482px

>>1773480
>not being gay
what are you, some kind of faggot?

File: movimento_5stelle LOGO.jpg (126KB, 947x947px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 947x947px

So this the possible heir of fascism.
In Italy we have a lot of neofascist parties like Forza Nuova or Casapound but there's no fascist party like this:

> Modern politics already shows democracy is useless.
Let's ignore the fact that most monarchies literally collapsed before a modern politics even happened.

File: This Triggers the bourgie.jpg (980KB, 1280x1500px) Image search: [Google]

980KB, 1280x1500px

>>1770018
Do this and let us take power a week later.

>>1773218
What if your kin is the most qualified?

>>1767415
No, the idea that just one person or one body can decide the fate of a population is retarded in this day and age.

>>1767417
This

bring back the venetian republic

>>1770257
Stop wasting your time on 4chan RF

>>1770018
We had an archaic version of this in the US until Andrew Jackson screwed everything up.

>>1770257
fascism is very similar to absolute monarchy. the only real difference is the manner in which power is achieved. monarchs used the aristocratic legal system to their advantage. the play within the rules gradually amassing land and power to lock out their competition. you're essentially the dictator among the other nobles.

dictators, on the other hand, gain power by critiquing the legal system. they attack the nobles and appeal to the masses instead. the problem with dictators is that while they are an effective tool for disruption there is no long-term strategy. the dictator is necessarily seen as an outsider from the existing system, so once that system is disrupted, there is no remaining system to establish continuity for the next leader. the only outcome is a series of increasing violent counter-revolutions and then we're the western roman empire all over again.

File: Gabriele_D'Annunzio.jpg (10KB, 220x258px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 220x258px

>>1775508
>fascism is necessarily dictatorial

File: larp4.jpg (75KB, 620x332px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 620x332px

>>1767415
Monarchies exist right now you fucking mong and they are all, with the exception of constitutional monarchies and tax-haven microstates, shitholes. There is no fucking way that monarchy is going to work in an industrialised country. It's retarded LARPing.

>>1770461
DPRK is a literal monrchy, """Juche""" is a meme and not a real ideology.

>>1774600
Their methods were fucking awesome.

http://www.rangevoting.org/VenHist.html

Thus the process for electing the Doge, as of 1268 (when it was employed for the election of Lorenzo Tiepolo), had reached this amazing almost-final form [Lane p.111; also described by Lines p.156]:

Choose 30 of the Great Council members (of whom there were 1000-to-1500, typically; all male) by a random process;
Reduce them to 9 by random processes;
The 9 name 40 nominees;
The 40 are reduced to 12 by a random process;
the 12 name 25 nominees;
Reduce them to 9 by random processes;
The 9 name 45 nominees;
Reduce them to 11 by random processes;
The 11 named 41 (all of whom had to be age≥40 years);
The 41 elected the Doge (from among nominees they chose; any of the 41 could write a name on a slip of paper, and from then onward, that name was a candidate) by range3 voting!
This choice theoretically was subject to approval or veto by the mass of the people (assembly) but I am unaware of any instance in which that veto was exercised. This perhaps meant this step was a mere formality with the People not really having any power. But another interpretation is that the threat of a veto kept the Grand Council honest in its choice – they refused to risk the embarrassment of a veto.

In this process, only the penultimate step – the election – "really mattered" – the rest was mainly intended to make the identity of the 41 unpredictable hence making the process (hopefully) uncorruptible. The 41, during their deliberations, were sequestered rather like the juries in modern-day big-time criminal cases. This again was presumably intended to insulate them from corruption.

>>1772199
>idealism is the life blood of democracy.
democracy is the only pragmatic and sensible ideology. Communism and Fascism are retarded for reasons that should be obvious, and monarchism is nearly always based on bullshit like "divine right of kings" "mandate of heaven" etc.

The ideology of democracy is based on checks, balances and strong institutions and the separation of powers.

>>1767415
The problem with modern "democracy" is that they are republics, which are a 200+ year old dank, DANK meme. The issue is entrenched elites exploiting the country, not retarded common people (don't get me wrong, that is a massive problem, just not the current one).

>>1771558
Women overwhelmingly vote based on emotion not fact.

>>1767557
>Media allows for the populace to actually be informed
Informed from corporations that are owned by the same half dozen people hardly counts.

File: cato.jpg (10KB, 200x279px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 200x279px

>>1770233
>true reactionaries are aristocratic.
the medieval feudal system was a degenerate and barbarian system unfit for just about anything. True Reactionaries support the Roman Republic.

>>1775603
>Women overwhelmingly vote based on emotion not fact.
so do men, and so does the majority of voters on this website. Most people are single issue voters who only care about meme topics like immigration, gay marriage and weed legalisation

File: 1384628923879.png (295KB, 838x720px) Image search: [Google]

295KB, 838x720px

>>1775586
>>1775595
>>1775603
The problem with Democracy is universal suffrage. Allowing every imbecile and moron to vote on matters of public policy is a ridiculous decision that proceeds in lockstep with the growth of the size and power of the State.

Democratization [which in our various Republics and Parliamentary Democracies means the transference of power from undemocratic institutions into the hands of the commons, and the extension of the vote to more and more people] inevitably leads to an increase in the size and authority of the State as the poor vote in what they perceive as their best interest. And thats to say nothing of the easily led morons who just vote for whoever has the best propaganda.

>>1770240
Reinhard was an awful individual.

>>1775619
>tfw if only white men could vote the Democrats wouldn't have won the Presidency in the last 50 years.
>tfw if only people who paid income taxes could vote, the same would be the case [largely because those two groups have significant crossover]

Ignoring demographics is what killed democracy. Its not who wins an election who controls a democratic society, its those who control the long-term attitudes of the electorate.

>>1775545
There can be monarchies without medieval crap anon.
>>1775619
Women are very easy to brainwash with propaganda due to their emotional minds.

>>1775648
>Women are very easy to brainwash with propaganda due to their emotional minds.
so are men

Athenian democracy is the only worthwhile political institution. Everything else might as well be autocracy.

>>1775648
>There can be monarchies without medieval crap anon.
there are, today, and they are all absolute shitholes with the exception of microstates

>>1775658
If that were the case we would have been liberal fucktards before the 1900s. Also males have rational minds we are not emotional like you.

It really astounds me that every single conversation that talks about how democracy doesn't work and what it should be replaced with no one ever mentions or thinks of replacing it with nothing; not just abolishing the state. It shows how spooked and indoctrinated people are that they cannot comprehend the state not existing. It's like if the French Revolution happened and the only thing anyone talked about was which person should become the new king.

Even if you still think that a state has to exist, there's no reason why everything couldn't be decentralized to the most local level and just remove the large centralized governments that people delude themselves into thinking actually represents or cares about the interests of millions of people over hundreds or thousands of miles.

>>1775665
Them being shitholes has more to do with their economies rather than the monarch jackass.

>>1775668
>women are purely emotional because they vote FOR FUCKING LIBERALS
>Men on the other hand are sensible, logical voters because they vote for what I agree with

>>1775673
Liberalism is based on emotion while conservatism is based on logic and reason. Women are naturally liberal it explains why when they got the right to vote all of a sudden the policies of european countries became more liberal.

>>1775663
Why has no modern democracy introduced sortition and purely direct democracy? Shit, you could even modify it by needing certain qualifications to be selected but if you meet those qualifications you're automatically put into the pool for certain government positions. Major laws and policies would be decided by direct vote; no one would be elected, all government positions would be randomly filled by individuals who meet the required qualifications and they would be subject to recall at any time.

>>1775679
>The side I disagree with is based upon emotion
>Not my side though, it's based purely upon logic and reason
>That's why most educated and intelligent people are on my side
>My reasoning isn't circular at all

>>1772202
Napoleon and Caesar only managed to reach absolute power because they manipulated democratic sentiments.

Even Frederick II of Prussia was something of an anti-traditionalist. He worked to undermine the Holy Roman Empire by allying himself with disenfranchised classes like Jews and commoners.

>>1775673
>Women consistently display a particular voting pattern, globally.
>Namely, they are weaker on immigration, have less of a concept of national loyalty, and support government entitlements and welfare. This being a statistical fact.
>I view all these things as being horrible
>Therefore I'm hesitant to allow women to vote.

If there's a contradiction in that Anon's view, I don't see it.

>>1775695
I'm not denying certain demographics don't have certain voting patterns, I'm saying it's fallacious to say that those demographics vote that way purely based upon something "illegitimate" while you of course vote based upon "legitimate" reasons.

>>1775691
Strict collectivist thinking like conservatism is logical while liberal thinking is emotional.

Example this whole diversity whole crap, we dont need any human except white people in our countries to boost our economies, the liberals make us take in human cancer like muslims and africans they dont get professions and form criminal gangs creating problems in our problem, if we never took them in there would be no problems at all. The liberal justifies this madness as every human deserves a good life showing liberals truely have no clue how africans and muslims act.

>>1775704
All people by definition view their own values as good and correct. If people thought all possibilities were strictly equal, politics would not exist.

What would your alternative be? That this anon views his own ideas as illegitimate, and those he opposes legitimate, yet still supports the one and scorns the other?

>>1775710
>Conservatism
>Collectivist

No. No that is not correct.

Another example of liberal emotional reasoning.

The american negro is still the most violent dangerous type of human in America after decades of problems and yet the liberals still do not see blacks are impossible to civilize because LOOK AT THEM THEY ARE HUMAN JUST LIKE US HUMAN!

>>1775723
This is mostly true.

>muh children
>muh refugees

vs.

>muh society
>muh values

Liberals have collectivist economics, conservatives have collectivist morals.

>>1775668
>If that were the case we would have been liberal fucktards before the 1900s.
You are too stupid to be allowed to vote.

>Also males have rational minds we are not emotional like you.
I'm a straight cis white male

>Liberalism is based on emotion while conservatism is based on logic and reason.
No, you've just got the mind of a child and you are unable to see nuance.

>Women are naturally liberal it explains why when they got the right to vote all of a sudden the policies of european countries became more liberal.
Your cartoon history is as retarded as your understanding of politics and biology.

I wish there were some way of enforcing the age requirements on 4chan.

>>1775730
See what I mean the liberal's response to anything they cant understand is passive aggressive moody child behavior.

>>1775710
>Strict collectivist thinking like conservatism
>Libertarians and Tea Partiers aren't conservative
>Diversity crap; only white people, human cancer; all immigrants are criminals; the other side is insane
>Not highly emotional, subjective thinking
>>1775717
Obviously people think the other side is wrong, but the point of intellectual honesty is that people can have opposing viewpoints both for legitimate reasons, and while one side might be wrong or you disagree with them, that doesn't mean they're stupid or illogical.
>>1775727
You're sounding very emotional right now anon. You sure you're not a woman?

>>1775733
aren't you demonstrating that yourself?

>>1775730
>Its a "I'm going to pretend like modern society isn't a complete historical anomaly in terms of beliefs and moors when compared to the last thousand years of European history" episode!

Piss off.

>>1775739
>I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I
See what I mean like a child.
>>1775738
Blacks and muslims are human cancer because they dont offer no logical benefits to a country having them unless that country is already majority black or muslim. They are parasites that slowly ruin and destroy countries.
>You're sounding very emotional right now anon. You sure you're not a woman?
If you think Im being emotional you are dumb.

>>1775679
i don't think women voted for the french revolution anon

>>1775749
See, if you were being purely rational and logical, you wouldn't be using emotionally charged, personally subjective words.

>>1775738
Actually, since all value-statements are entirely ALOGICAL, being completely subjective, I feel completely at peace with calling people I dislike fucking faggots whose ideas are stupid. But that's neither here nor there, lets focus on the matter at hand.

IF there are certain ideas that you know cause outcomes you deem undesirable. And if you know for a fact that a certain group of people tend to promote those ideas. Why would you permit those people to participate in your political system?

>>1775749
>See what I mean like a child.

i'm an impartial observer not a liberal so no. even that response was passive-aggresive

>>1775753
>implying you can vote for revolutions.
>>1775754
Human cancer is a metaphor you moron.

File: size-s.jpg (50KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 900x900px

>>1775671
>Them being shitholes has more to do with their economies rather than the monarch jackass.
Governments are responsible for their country's economy. If monarchy was such an efficient system we would expect to see high performing economies run by monarchs. There are none. The only rich monarchies are the gulf states, which are absolute basket cases in terms of management, internal politics and foreign policy. If you want to live in a country like Saudi Arabia good for you but I expect your naive millenial mind wouldn't handle it.

>>1775749
>they dont offer no logical benefits

>>1775758
>>implying you can vote for revolutions.

yeah that's the point man. liberalism began with the french and is an inherent part of the enlightenment and social contract theory, not women's right to vote

>>1775761
What benefits do they offer?

All blacks have done is slowly ruin and destroy America, they have completely shattered the once great economies west indian colonies had now in the modern west indies that are third world shitholes like any black infested place.

I am sorry but America would be better if blacks were never brought here they are human cancer.
>>1775764
Liberalism or MUH FREEDOM is natural female behavior because women are rebellious free spirits(whores).

>>1775754
Well he is being overemotional, but he's not wrong.

Blacks in the United States have an average IQ of 85, and commit 40-50% of murders, 33% of rapes, and more total violent crime then any other ethnicity in an average year, despite being only 13% of the population.

Muslims are overwhelmingly the primary ideology of terrorism worldwide, have explosive population growth, and live in countries with values totally opposed to modern western values [especially liberal ones, so you'd think they'd be the most vehement in opposing them, but no], to the point that being homosexual is often a capital offense and women can't leave the home unsupervised or immodestly dressed.

>>1775760
>95+% of the most powerful richest nations on the planet right now are democracies
>I'm going to ignore the 99% of human history where this was not the case
>I'm also going to ignore that most of those rich nations were rich back when they were monarchies, and stayed rich after being democracies

>>1775769
>What benefits do they offer?

you missed the point

>Liberalism or MUH FREEDOM is natural female behavior

and natural male behaviour, judging from the french revolution

>>1775770
Islamic terrorism is not why muslims are a bad idea its because for some reason these desert humans decide to cause alot of crime in every european country they exist in, the most crime ridden place in Belgium is muslim Molenbeek
>>1775778
Women are more liberal than men though.

>>1775770
>Muslims are overwhelmingly the primary ideology of terrorism worldwide

how does one judge this?

>>1775783
>Women are more liberal than men though.

evidently not. women are more religious than men too

>>1775787
Women are more liberal than men, notice how most SJWs are women, the ones who vote for most liberal policies are women.

>>1775791
i don't see the world through your eyes so no i'm not relying on your confirmation bias to prove a point. if you have some data though i will look at that

>Nobody posting the part where Yang BTFO Reinhard so badly that he had to resort to Muh kricheis

>>1772161
It was a temporary government to push the republican cause. Nobody thought that was gonna be permanent

>>1772115
Spooky as fuck

>>1773218
>Just make it unlawful to choose an heir that is kin.

Great, now you've just ensured an inevitable succession war.

>>1775794
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-hidden-agenda-the-political-mind/201411/why-do-women-and-men-vote-differently

>>1767415
Dude, read this book, answer your question https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy:_The_God_That_Failed

>>1775784
By looking outside. Its ridiculously obvious that this is the case. If you want math, they perform more sheer numbers of attacks then any other ideology [followed closely by 'Secular', which is to say all political based terrorism combined] and have more sheer deaths caused then any other ideology.

This shouldn't come as any surprise to us, considering Muhammad himself was a warlord who conquered Arabia, and whose followers in the centuries following his death conquered North Africa, the entire [then Christian and Zoroastrian Middle East] middle east, Indonesia, Spain, raided Rome, raided Byzantium, attempted to conquer the Kingdom of the Franks but got their asses kicked at Tours, etc, etc, etc.
>>1775783
It may also have something to do with their values being totally different then ours.
>>1775778
>What is statistical differences in populations for 500 please.

>>1775755
Well, if you didn't care about political freedom or checks and balanced and just wanted to be a dictator, I guess you wouldn't. But if you're intellectually honest you know you can be wrong sometimes and the other side can be right, and you'd prefer to not be a hypocrite and create a system that intentionally excludes others while you complain about exclusion, or rationally not support it because you don't want to risk being the side that's being excluded.
>>1775770
The question reminds why the blacks and the Muslims do those things? Is it because they're genetically inferior, because of a system that encourages certain behavior, either through reward or punishment, because of historical reasons? Those questions need to be answered before a solution can be created. Being vitrolic and just bitching about shit and offering extremely simplistic and unrealistic solutions doesn't help anything.

File: themistocles.gif (404KB, 784x1024px) Image search: [Google]

404KB, 784x1024px

>>1770240
Weak bait but here's your reply.

>>1775797
>Really, though, the gender gap just isn’t very large either in voting or in issue opinions. In our recent book, we look at lots of other gaps – relating to race, religion, sexual orientation, sexual lifestyles, education, income, and so on – that are often much bigger deals.

?

can you point out what you are referring to? nothing here really supports your conclusions.

>>1775799
If Muslims are violent because of their religion, why aren't Jews? The Torah and Quran are both violent and encourage violence, and both have oppressive laws that both Jews and Muslims are still supposed to follow today.

>>1775800
Muslims are just dicks but blacks are wild animals. The kind of crime blacks commit compared to muslims shows a difference, blacks murder more in Europe than muslims, muslims have the monopoly on rape crimes but africans arent too far behind them in that game.

Meanwhile in America muslims americans barely have crime rates compared to the truely paleolithic crime rates of black americans.

>>1775800
Actually, I don't feel the need to do that. I believe that all value-systems are axiomatic and lack rational basis, therefore my value-system is best purely because I say it is.

I don't feel a need to engage in democratic methodology to "justify" achieving my political ends, its enough that my ends are achieved by whatever means.

What you're calling "intellectual honesty" is really just general tolerance, but the problem is that everyone tolerates only that which is indifferent or mildly bad for himself and his ideals, not that which is very bad.

For what its worth, I am very much in support of freedom to assemble, and of speech, and of religion, and so on, but that's not the question here. The question isn't what rights people should have, its who should run the government.

Its entirely possible that I believe a man should have the right to do as he please, while not thinking he should have the right to run the state.
>>1775800
Muslims do those things because they are an ideology that explicitly promotes those things and has ALWAYS practiced them.

Blacks do those things because of genetic reasons. If the reason was urban environments or poverty or discrimination poor whites would be the biggest criminal element in the United States, and Africa wouldn't have always been a shithole.

>>1775799
>By looking outside.

you mean only looking in your own country, so you miss the fact that millions of muslims have died at the hands of americans in their own country, but this doesn't count as terrorism?

if you're getting all your information from an ideological apparatus such as the news (or 'looking outside') then yes you're going to see every other ideology other than your own as the problem

>>What is statistical differences in populations for 500 please.

what was the point in this?

>>1775813
Their crime rates are due to Islamic first cousin inbreeding creating more incidences of mental illness in their genome, most muslims male or female are completely fucking nuts.

>>1767446
Except for Portugal

>>1775813
Because Jews are small in number, and don't promote conversion by the sword. Hell, they hardly promote evangelism at all, its basically an ethnic religion.

The Old Testament promoted death for leaving Judaism, but outside the conquests of Joshua there was no general command to "Go forth and conquer"

>>1775819
Even assuming I took your "millions of Muslims" statement at face value [I don't], that doesn't change the fact that Islam commits the most acts of terror, and when it had political power engaged in outright conquest on a Mongol-tier scale IMMEDIATELY after the faith was founded.

This also doesn't address the bigger problem, which is that I hate Islamic values.
>>1775819
I mean that a single exception doesn't disprove the mean. Saying "See, see, men can be liberal sometimes too!" doesn't suddenly abolish the fact that women are overwhelmingly more liberal, on average, then men.

Next liberal emotional reasoning

Single moms with kids are a financial disaster rather than discourage or shame women who get pregnant before marrying they celebrate it and encourage women to become leechs to the welfare system.

A better solution is to force all women who can reproduce to always be on birth control unless for medical reasons and arrest them if they arent on birth control, but the liberal is a emotional fool they want to be heroes they dont want to actually solve problems.

>Thread about monarchism ruined by /pol/faggotry
I am okay with this.jpg

>>1775814
>The question reminds why the blacks and the Muslims do those things?

There's also the possible aspect that if minorities are systemically oppressed then any crime statistics published by their supposed oppressors would not be valid. An innocent man who didn't do anything would still be counted as an arrest, and could still accept a plea deal that says he's guilty.
>>1775818
>Actually, I don't feel the need to do that. I believe that all value-systems are axiomatic and lack rational basis, therefore my value-system is best purely because I say it is.
You can think whatever you want but without solid reasoning no one is going to care.
>What you're calling "intellectual honesty" is really just general tolerance, but the problem is that everyone tolerates only that which is indifferent or mildly bad for himself and his ideals, not that which is very bad.
There's different types of tolerance. You can tolerate ideas and words without tolerating the actions that they advocate.
>Muslims do those things because they are an ideology that explicitly promotes those things and has ALWAYS practiced them.
So why aren't modern Jews the bloodthirsty conquers they were in the Bible? Why don't modern Jews stone adulterers or Sabbath breakers?
>Blacks do those things because of genetic reasons. If the reason was urban environments or poverty or discrimination poor whites would be the biggest criminal element in the United States, and Africa wouldn't have always been a shithole.
Blacks haven't had the same behavior throughout American history. Poor whites also don't have the same culture or upbringing blacks do.
>>1775821
That sounds incredibly flimsy.

>>1775831
>the most acts of terror

yes because 'acts of terror' is defined in a different way to you. so when an american murders a village of muslims it is an 'act of war' not an 'act of terror'. it's an ideological term you're using so it's not surprising that you say muslims commit the most acts of terror because, by your definition, only muslims can commit acts of terror.

>I mean that a single exception doesn't disprove the mean.

there is no 'mean'. was it you who linked to https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-hidden-agenda-the-political-mind/201411/why-do-women-and-men-vote-differently before? because that clearly states that women aren't "overwhelmingly" more liberal on average and in fact the voting is kind of the same. sometimes conservative on issues, sometimes liberal

the point i was making is that you can look at some group in some way and come to conclusions based on what you see, but it's useless to do this if you are purposely omitting information just so the evidence adheres to the conclusion rather than the other way around

Liberals advocate for the pointless degrees like humanities and encourage women to be mindless cunts that waste their existence dividing western civilization with their feminism horsecrap.
>>1775845
Oh fuck off blacks are subhuman, they have been criminal cancer before Jim Crow days. We didnt oppress blacks, blacks are just stupid dumb animals that slowly destroy wherever they live turning it into a wilderness with buildings they oppress themselves, we try to help them over and over but nothing ever changes they cant be civilized at all.
>>1775845
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1392217/Muslim-outrage-professor-Steve-Jones-warns-inbreeding-risks.html

>>1775837
liberals actually promote sex education so people are informed rather than 'shamed' for being convinced by their abusive partner that they should have unprotected sex with them "if they really love them"

besides the data about single moms is skewed because of how many black single moms there are. white single moms and single dads are around the same.

and what you propose is just cooking numbers rather than actually addressing the real concerns behind the data. this business-like approach to everything is what has ruined america

>>1775846
1. Even if Americans did kill more Muslims then Muslims kill Americans, so what? I've already made it quite clear I despise Islam and its values, so why should I care?

The biggest issue is the value-divergence, not the kill counts.

2. I didn't link that, another anon did. And women are overwhelmingly more liberal on average then men, if only white men could vote, or if only taxpayers could vote, no liberal would have won the Presidency in decades.
>>1775845
1. Give me solid reasoning for a morality that doesn't violate the IS-OUGHT problem and we'll talk, otherwise, I'm sticking with Nietzsche on this one.

2. Granted. As I said, I like freedom of speech, assembly, etc. That doesn't mean I want everyone voting.

3. See this >>1775825

4. No, but they have consistently performed disproportionate amounts of crime, and Subsaharan Africa has basically been a shithole its entire history, barring a scant few exceptions.

>>1775856
>this business-like approach
Yes liberals like you had logical ways to deal with issues.
>actually promote sex education
Yes make America hedonistic fools liberals thats all you have done devolve American and European humanity.

File: 1453044348639.png (335KB, 636x478px) Image search: [Google]

335KB, 636x478px

>leave for the day after some sporadic Yangposting
>Come home expecting to continue shitposting against buttblasted Monarchfags with more pictures from chinese cartoons
>Instead thread has been shitted up by some faggot insisting that anyone who's disagrees with them shouldn't be allowed to vote going off on /pol/-tier tangents about race
>mfw

>>1775862
>so why should I care?

i'm not asking you to care. i don't care if you care or not. the point was (which i asked at the beginning) how does one measure which has committed more acts of terror? you don't have to justify your beliefs to me, and if you don't want to answer the question then we don't need to continue the conversation

>And women are overwhelmingly more liberal on average then men

that link states otherwise. i'd like to know where you get your information from

>>1775865
are you done?

>>1775825
Judaism wasn't always against conversion, they certainly weren't when they were supposedly conquering Canaan.
>there was no general command to "Go forth and conquer"
Have you ever read the Old Testament? They're constantly conquering shit because they said it was their birthright. You even have classic antisemitism that says Jews are trying to conquer the world yet the Jews aren't violently trying to do it, even Zionists don't care for much beyond Israel. Even outside the conquering aspect, modern Jews are still supposed to stone plenty of people who break Mosaic Law, yet they don't, even though they now have their own country to do those things.
>>1775852
>we didn't oppress blacks
>enslave them
>discriminate against them
>create a drug war to target them
>propagate a culture and welfare system that slowly destroys them
>but we didn't oppress them
>>1775862
>1. Even if Americans did kill more Muslims then Muslims kill Americans, so what? I've already made it quite clear I despise Islam and its values, so why should I care?
Because you're creating the terrorists that you spend some much time and money fighting against.
>1. Give me solid reasoning for a morality that doesn't violate the IS-OUGHT problem and we'll talk, otherwise, I'm sticking with Nietzsche on this one.
What does this have to do with morality?
>4. No, but they have consistently performed disproportionate amounts of crime, and Subsaharan Africa has basically been a shithole its entire history, barring a scant few exceptions.
Yes, they do, the question is why. And Subsaharan Africa has been mostly uncivilized for the majority of it's history, that doesn't mean it was a shithole, just the people didn't live in cities or write. The reason it's a shithole now has a multitude of reasons that can't just be said to be "because of those fucking nigger subhumans".

File: image.jpg (52KB, 418x482px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 418x482px

>>1775852
>Liberals advocate for the pointless degrees like humanities and encourage women to be mindless cunts that waste their existence dividing western civilization with their feminism horsecrap.
>declaring subjective statements with no evidence but vale judgement
>claims only women are emotional

>>1775878
If blacks werent subhuman none of that would have ruined them, whites have been on welfare and our poor areas arent anywhere as violent as black AFFLUENT ones. Blacks are the reason they fail.
>>1775882
Do you even know what emotional thinking is?

>>1775733
>See what I mean the liberal's response to anything they cant understand is passive aggressive moody child behavior.
I came to this thread expecting somewhat interesting discussion but I'm not going to get it from you so I decided to insult you instead. You're an idiot. I'm hoping someone else will actually come to defend monarchism.

>>1775889
>If blacks werent subhuman none of that would have ruined them
Nice conjecture m8. I'm sure there's plenty of concrete evidence to back that up.

>>1775889
if anything blacks have a lot of catching up to do in terms of violence ever since the mass slaughter of whites known as the two world wars

File: image.jpg (137KB, 800x1199px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 800x1199px

>>1775889
Yea I am looking at it right now

File: 1439396026298.jpg (523KB, 1000x1512px) Image search: [Google]

523KB, 1000x1512px

>>1775890
>I'm hoping someone else will actually come to defend monarchism.
Unfortunately it seems like the thread's long past that now. This autist with his SJW boogeyman decided he just has to inject his tangentially related opinions into the thread and ruin the fun for everyone.

>>1775896
The evidence is black communities they are the most uncivilized dangerous places in America, the top 10 most dangerous cities in America have the highest black populations the negros are subhuman wild animals.
>>1775900
Oh a liberal posting OMG LIKE SHUT UP images what a surprise.
>>1775899
Yes because war violence is the same as civilian violence you stupid black fuck.

File: 1473208825364.jpg (332KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

332KB, 960x720px

>>1775903
Anon pls, you're just digging yourself deeper with your whole "muh emotions" bullshit.

>>1775903
>The evidence is black communities they are the most uncivilized dangerous places in America, the top 10 most dangerous cities in America have the highest black populations the negros are subhuman wild animals.
>Blacks are violent
>Why? Because they're fucking violent!

>Yes because war violence is the same as civilian violence you stupid black fuck.
No, it's worse. I guess because it's white guys in fancy clothes doing it that makes it better even though all the black murders and assaults could never come close to it.

>1775695
>Women consistently display a particular voting pattern, globally.
>Namely, they are weaker on immigration, have less of a concept of national loyalty, and support government entitlements and welfare. This being a statistical fact.

This isn't a "statistical fact" at all. It's only true in certain countries, mostly in the Anglosphere. In other countries it isn't true at all. In some places, women vote to the right of men, and have often done so historically.

>>1775908
In war you are supposed to kill, but civilians are not supposed to murder eachother enmass like blacks do all the fucking time.

>>1767557
Whoever doesn't read the newspaper is uninformed, whoever does is misinformed.

t. Mark Twain

>>1775903
>Yes because war violence is the same as civilian violence

i wonder if the people in the blitz saw the difference

>>1775775

>I'm going to ignore the 99% of human history where this was not the case
If the point is to compare democracy and monarchy then there is no point comparing times when democracy did not exist, and no Athenian democracy is not the same thing as parliamentary democracy. The fact that European absolute monarchies were the richest nations of their times is irrelevant. You can't just copy and paste an 18th government system onto a 21st century economy, infrastructure etc. We know what monarchies look like in the 21st century and they look like shit.

>>I'm also going to ignore that most of those rich nations were rich back when they were monarchies, and stayed rich after being democracies
The ones that didn't transition peacefully to constitutional monarchy got overthrown. Monarchs proved incapable of holding onto power in Europe. If you like we can ignore Europe altogether and look at other advanced economies. Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, the Anglosphere, Chile and Argentina etc. Overwhelmingly these are parliamentary democracies, though most went through periods of dictatorships. The only rich monarchies today are, as I said, microstates and the gulf petro-states. If you like I can go into detail about how shit the gulf states are. They are a good example of all of the bullshit that goes along with monarchy, especially the big factor that all of this neo-monarchism seems to miss, namely the fact that monarchs are still completely hamstrung and bound to public opinion.

>>1775913
because it's not a formal war declared by the president it's not a "war"? because they don't belong to a national army they aren't "soldiers"? these are very, very minor differences

File: image.jpg (94KB, 600x610px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 600x610px

>>1775902
Nigga if this isn't evidence on why we stop having these threads anymore I don't what is

>>1775903
Yes, so? You feeling ... Emotional?

>>1767557
>t. American fucktard
The media in America is controlled by the parties who use it to slowly brainwash retarded americans into accepting their ideas without realizing it and THINKING YOU WANTED IT.

>>1775913
>killing becomes fine and even morally good if someone tells me to do it
>but he has to speak the right dialect and wear the right clothes and have the right title otherwise I'm just a mafia soldier

>>1775920
>>1775926
Do you have any freaking clue how much violence happens in black areas in America? For fuck sake these wild animals have given Chicago the murder rate of a FUCKING WAR.

What blacks should do is stop pointing fingers and civilize their subhuman assses and stop this rampant crime but blacks are wild animals thats impossible for them.

>>1775932
>the murder rate of a FUCKING WAR.

it doesn't quite live up to the precedent set by white people though

why do you care how blacks treat other blacks?

File: 1471409037500.png (819KB, 960x738px) Image search: [Google]

819KB, 960x738px

>>1775922
>Nigga if this isn't evidence on why we stop having these threads anymore I don't what is
Ehh usually these threads are fun because I can sit back and Yangpost at Monarchists. This is the first time I've seen someone jump in with the "muh liberals" boogeyman.

File: centralamericanlevelbloodbaths.png (159KB, 603x462px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 603x462px

>>1775935
The murder count is caused by black civilians not soldiers big difference anon.

Also you blacks are so psychopathic you cant even fathom why caring about other humans is a good thing.

>>1775945
If you cared about other humans why do you hate blacks and muslims and why do you support white wars that kill millions of people?

File: 4d679dadb3e312ee7cab745cc5627faeb9ed528e_hq.jpg (78KB, 540x510px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 540x510px

>>1775871
Is Mein Kaiser the biggest hypocrite ever

>Hates current monarchy, even if it is the only thing that manages to advance him in society
>emperor likes him

>yeah lets fuck his shit up and create a new dinasty, even if you hate hereditary power

File: eisenach.jpg (53KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 640x480px

>>1775945
>Firearm Homocides per Capita
>not Homocides per Capita

>>1775952
I dont support white wars you fucking retard I calling you as a moron comparing ORGANIZED ARMED CONFLICTS TO UNCIVILIZED ANIMAL BEHAVIOR.

>>1775945
no it's caused by a well-armed militia

>you blacks

not the most rational of conclusions

>other humans

? you think they're "other humans" now?

File: 1437472770720.jpg (174KB, 500x600px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 500x600px

ITT

>>1775957
Soldiers are supposed to kill not civilians besides blackie show me one white area in America with crime on par with yours OH WAIT THERE ISNT ANY.

>>1775955
gang warfare isn't an organised armed conflict?

>>1770018
autism

File: 1473465585131.png (638KB, 1024x731px) Image search: [Google]

638KB, 1024x731px

>>1775953
He did make some half-assed point about his son not necessarily being the next ruler should he be incompetent.

Really it feels like he hated not so much the dynastic nature of the Empire itself, but the decadent aristocrats and the Goldenbaum Dynasty that had taken his sister from him. So he wanted less to "fix" the dynastic way of doing things, but rather get his revenge on the Goldenbaums and those who tried to keep him down.

>>1775960
i'm not in an american area and i have no idea why you thought i was. if you weren't so emotional you'd be able to follow the conversation like any reasonable person could

in any case, armed blacks are just upstanding citizens ending more gun violence by shooting potential mass-killers

>>1775940
>This is the first time I've seen someone jump in with the "muh liberals" boogeyman.
This sort of shit is the reason 99% of contemporary monarchists are monarchists though. They look back to some mythical time when supposedly everything was great for white men and others knew their place, and associate monarchy with that. All their other """arguments""" are just window dressing

>>1775961
>He actually thinks gangs cause most black murders
Top kek watch the last 48 most black murders are caused by blacks being impulsive wild animals

>>1775967
If I dislike most anime and think it's shit, would I like LoGH?

>>1775953
Iirc the emperor secretly likes him, that's why he never supported the prime minister against Reinhard

>>1775971
i thought they were "other humans"?

>>1775969
>in any case, armed blacks are just upstanding citizens ending more gun violence by shooting potential mass-killers
What? Armed blacks kill blacks.

>>1775958
Photoshop (You)s on the notes and it is golden

>>1775976
yes and like any gun owner in using their firearms they are preventing a greater potential death count than if the entire citizenry were unarmed

>>1775981
Roughly around 1200 blacks are killed every year by other blacks in America thats a huge loss of black life, there are barely any countries except african ones with this massive loss of life in a year's time that shows blacks are more murderous than any other race on earth.

>>1775985
and that number would be even higher if not for the blacks who end the lives of other murderous blacks

could you imagine if more than 0.000016% of the black population was killed every year? jesus christ it would be a literal genocide given how naturally murderous their race is

File: 1473535308026.gif (319KB, 500x400px) Image search: [Google]

319KB, 500x400px

>>1775972
LoGH is /his/ the show with a side of prussia and democracy

>>1775967
BUt still he outright says to Yang that just because of the danger of dictatorship, autocracy can't be ruled out as a effective platform

>>1767415
CNN won't tell you this

>>1775991
Yes my point is that blacks are subhuman violent wild animals that are no logical benefit to any country that takes them in.

File: 1406714577438.jpg (383KB, 848x1250px) Image search: [Google]

383KB, 848x1250px

>>1775972
Maybe. It doesn't have the biggest tropes I always complain about
>oversexualized little girls
>unneccessary female character shoehorned in
>Main characters being children
>harems

It's generally pretty interesting, though there is a fair degree of hand-waving, and some heavy-handed odd points that are probably the result of the fact that it's a story written by a Japanese guy trying to emulate German culture.

I'd consider it worth watching, but be aware that it can be slow at times and you're going to have to put up with listening to moonspeak struggling over very German-sounding names while reading subtitles.

>>1776000
your point was that they should learn the benefits of caring for "other humans"

>>1775970
Ah yeah the "good old days" conservatives who always assume that they'd somehow be in that miniscule privileged class instead of the much, much larger oppressed class.

>>1776009
it's funny how people who haven't read a single book claim to know anything about the 'good old days'

File: 1446851479657.jpg (170KB, 638x1914px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 638x1914px

>>1775993
>BUt still he outright says to Yang that just because of the danger of dictatorship, autocracy can't be ruled out as a effective platform
Not sure what you mean by that. My point was that he wanted to disrupt what he viewed as a decadent aristocratic system and purge out the elements he disliked, not destroy it altogether. I don't think there was a moment in the show where Reinhard didn't have the intention of taking the throne.

>>1775993
>BUt still he outright says to Yang that just because of the danger of dictatorship, autocracy can't be ruled out as a effective platform
Did he? If anything I think Yang did something similar to him, saying something "that is saying fire should be ban coz arson exists"

>>1776012
You'd be surprised - a lot of them are pretty well read, just not on the right subjects. Nobody really cares about the day-to-day lives of the commoners when looking at history. We like the stories of great kings and conquerors, and the glory surrounding them. So it's easy to get caught up in that because information on the squalor of the comman man at the time isn't as readily available. And when it is, it's usually dry and boring to read about.

It's kind of like how the 50's is idolized by many conservatives in the US because societal pressures and the culture of the time ended up hiding a lot of the major issues they had to create this facade of a wholesome perfect society. Of course, any real look at the details of the time would reveal a host of major societal issues, but unless you're really looking for that kind of information, it's hard to come across.

>>1776017
Yes, Yang told him that democracy can't be ruled out because of corruption, to whick Reinhard said what he said.
Bigger question is how did Reinhard get away with so much shit considering all the important nobles hated him and he openly said fuck the current monarchy

Also, was Reinhard's father wrong for what he did?

File: Musel Iserlohn.webm (3MB, 832x449px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 832x449px

>>1776035
>Bigger question is how did Reinhard get away with so much shit considering all the important nobles hated him and he openly said fuck the current monarchy
His sister was the favorite concubine of the then-Kaiser which got him a good deal of favoritism, and his continued successes on the battlefield protected him from any real criticism over the favoritism.

>>1776035
>openly said fuck the current monarchy
He never said it out loud except to his closet allies.

I think his father is wrong though

>>1775970
That'll keep the crows away for sure.

>>1776049
.Well he lucked out then that nobody was an opportunistic fuck that ratted him out. I mean, his fucking mutiny at the destroyer he served him should have sended both him and Kircheis to the wall.

>>1776031
How can you sit there and claim others' ignorance when you're heavily implying the diaspora of europe at that time was limited to the Nobility or destitute peasants? That's the level of understanding you get from children's books or the same selective research you're decrying. There was a Whole range of tradesman & merchants who held varying levels of wealth and power not to mention the clergy. At the end of the day humanity always tries to do the same shit no matter what system you put them under.

I think it would be better to try to discuss a hypothetical uber-government, poaching the best policy implementations from across history.

Granted it would still turn to shit flinging like it always does

>>1767790
>china
>fascist

>>1767415
May be. A lot of modern days fantasy and fantastic books are here describing kings, but only few describing world alike modern politics. For example even Game of Thrones is pure game of kings and nobles.

File: images(3).jpg (7KB, 208x242px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 208x242px

Will we ever return to tribalism?
>One with nature
>Traditional family values
>No wars over resources
>Free from greed

File: a fucking leaf.webm (172KB, 636x382px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 636x382px

Perfectly shows the difference in breeding.

Even at such a tender age this future King can spot a faggot.

>>1767415
>Henry VIII
>Great leader
Is that a new meme I'm not aware of?

>>1767790
>china
>facist
And besides
>china
>not backwards as fuck

>>1770375
>and by ass I mean Georgia
Jej

>>1775669
How long until one decentralized Union infringes upon the rights or merely begins to chaff against another decentralized Union?

Sounds like we'll just repeat the polis giving way to empire.

>>1767417
Nationalism is dead my dude

>>1776238
>No wars over resources
What did he mean by this?

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/slaughter-bridge-uncovering-colossal-bronze-age-battle

>>1775824
How is Portugal fascist wtf?

Wait, are you talking about Estado Novo or present day? Yeah Estado Novo was clerical fascism but present day Portugal is socialist. Current government is Socialist Party supported by Left Bloc, Communist Party and Green Party.

>>1775924
>>1775609
>t. Retarded hipsters without internet access or the ability to think critically

>>1775924
>>1775609
Publish your own media, then. If everything else was so one-sided, surely there's a market for your stupid ideas.

>>1775669
Anarchy is a spook you subhuman retard. Stirner wasnt an anarchist.

>>1767415
This thread is riddled with end-of-history cancer.
Of course a monarchical revival woud be extremely different from the various previous monarchical governments.
There is no magical argument that will make parliementary democracies eternal by necessity.

>>1776238
>Bronze age
I'm talking much before that, when society was less organized and there was no concept of owning land.

>>1767491

the vast majority of monarchs were at least competent
in fact, even madmen were not the worst for a country
the worst kind of monarchs were weak ones that ended up becoming puppets

>>1775679
either you're a troll or you're just really deep in your own batshit crazy head-world

>>1776242
It is funny coz if anything the current Canadian PM is the closet thing Canada will have to a prince

>>1777725
Recently read an article about all the bills Lizzy stealth vitoed over the years.

Smart lady.

Anyone who thinks the pig fuckers in UK had done a better job than she could do over the years is retarded

Why not have a king but democratic cities?

>>1777819
Why not have strong states and below a federal system of limited scope but strong powers within said scope?

Whats wrong with traditionalism anyways?

>>1778186
Traditions tend to degrade over time to pointless bullshit.

>>1767415
Not for the foreseeable future. Socialism is where the world is headed.

>>1776980
There's a difference between aggressors possibly conquering you and you thinking you deserve to be conquered and that you cannot possibly survive free. Mafias are a part of life in some places, but no one thinks that the "protect money" is legitimate or that it's their moral duty to become a mafia soldier or obey them.
>>1777410
How is the absence of a dangerous spook a spook itself? Stirner would approve or disapprove of a state if it suited him or not, but he certainly wouldn't think it had a right to rule him or tell him what to do. A Union of Egoists isn't a state.

>>1767415
>Dictators cause too much instability upon succession.
And monarchs don't?

>>1779595
Anarchy is a spook because it's considered to be a political ideology.