Redpill me on neo-monarchism What are the pros, cons?

> neo-anything

gay

>>133548371
fpbp

>>133548299
Big fucking con: I'm considered someone's subject. Say all the bullshit you want, but I don't plan on ever calling anyone King. Also, you can't put neo in front of it, unless there's a new way to run a monarchy sans king and court.

>having gods or masters

on tonight's episode of That's So Cuck

Cons: mayhaps treasonous 'round these parts. Need the find the right man to be king. The heir sometimes is a slob. Civil war amongst the heir apparents. *Yes, a man. **Exception : Glorious Queen Tay, Aryan Goddess.


Pros: Time tested. Keeps the common rabble in order. No more leeches voting themselves MY hard earned shekels. Flay the opposition alive. Please God, Trump for King.

Pros: Probably the best political system, in terms of actually ruling. Glorious and white. God-approved.

Cons: Goes against ideals such as "freedom" and "equality" which the Jews have hyped up since the French fucking revolution.

>>133549397
You're always someone's subject. All that changes is the subtlety with which they rule you.

Pros: If you have a good leader you'll be stuck with them for the rest of your/their life

cons: If you have a bad leader you'll be stuck with them for the rest of your/their life

Main con is that you could get a weak or corrupt ruler, or one who is just extremely fucked up from inner turmoil and/or mental issues. Other than that if you have a good and just ruler it would be best.

I'm more of a monarchist than any other political ideology. Enlightened dictatorship is the best form of government they get shit done and cut through bureaucracy and answer to nobody but their conscience;
but they're extremely rare in history, the Trajans and Vespasians.

Instead a monarchy with constitutional limits to ensure that bad monarchs don't fuck up history is the best solution I can think of as an alternative. Today European monarchs don't have enough power, the constitutional limits have gone too far while any dictatorships I can think of are corrupt.

Perhaps the only good examples of monarchies left in the world are all in the middle east.

>>133548299

Pros: Stable and centralized rule (in cases of absolute monarchy)

Cons: Prone to failure if monarch happens to be incompetent (in cases of absolute monarchy), absolute power in the hands of the monarch and his/her family (in cases of absolute monarchy), suppression of political dissent (in cases of absolute monarchy), paying enormous amounts of tax money to the monarch and his family in order for them to represent country/fulfill ceremonial functions (in cases of constitutional monarchy)

File: 220px-Charles_II_(1670-80).jpg (27KB, 220x287px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 220x287px

Here's your redpill, this is what monarchies do.

>>133551353
You're a fucking moron if you think absolute monarchy is good for the average joe.

What happens when a good king has a spoiled faggot son?

You starve to death or get shot for talking shit about prince faggot.

Kings are for cucks and niggers.

>>133552963
Enlightened true philosopher kings would be the best. Socrates came to the same conclusion and then have further generations basically bred, trained, and serving the greater good of the state. None of that opulent garbage after stealing from citizens. You're right to be weary of that though theres almost no one who could do that without being compromised.

>>133548299
The biggest and most fundamental problem with any monarchist system is that when all is said and done, the competence of your Head of State ultimately comes down to a dice roll.

>>133553374
>a good king
can keep a handle on a faggot son. And it's not like you could get away with talking shit about your boss's son.

>>133553759
A dice roll, yes, but one balanced by a lifetime of being trained to rule.

I feel like instead of having lineages there are state run schools focused on raising rulers. The best of the best are picked and trained. They are taught that their subjects are their brothers and sisters. Any meddling by the king without a council done to that school or plots to kill anyone there etc goes against the Constitution. I'm on mobile but hopefully the point comes across. Similar to Plato's Republic.

File: F6959DA0-AF8F-41AB-B20E-6D5EBB75E285-239-00000061C5CC5D96.jpg (249KB, 962x905px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 962x905px

>>133548299
Monarchs are:
>trained from birth in the art of leadership and governance, using millennia of tradition and wisdom to rule well. In a democracy a leader only serves a short time in office (4-8 years) and has no incentive to look to preserve is nation beyond that term limit.

> The physical manifestation of the soul and heritage of a nation - a king is the father of the nation, not just the ruler. He embodies the race, nation, culture and history of his people. He therefore devotes his life to protecting them. He has an ulterior motive other than power, and that is to advance the state of his people, culture and civilisation.

>The most powerful people inthe land. This means they cannot be bought out and coopted by bankers, corporations and Jews, because they already have all the wealth they need. This is unlike in a democracy, where politicians are always striving for more power and wealth because there is always more they can achieve due to the nature of such a political system.

>better than a military dictatorship, because monarchs have been trained to govern well in all aspects of civilisation. Monarchies also provide a stable succession, something which other authoritarian regimes have failed to achieve.

It is a harsh fact of nature that most people are fit to follow, not to lead. People want to be provided with an influential leader, someone who sees himself not only as ruler but as a father to the nation. Monarchies are just those leaders; leadership has been in their genetics, history and education. Democracy was only meant to work in small, ethnically, culturally homogenous communities - not on the massive national scale we see today. Entrusting the natural followers with the power to lead has been met with nothing but disaster and instability. No, leadership belongs to natural leaders.

File: A8A9D3C2-CDA3-419E-9630-799EBA739D6A-239-00000062B4BA726B.jpg (714KB, 1936x2728px) Image search: [Google]

714KB, 1936x2728px

>>133557805
>>133548299
A final point:
Monarchies have withstood the test of time. Unlike other modern ideologies, such as anarchism or socialism, monarchism has evolved naturally for tens of millennia, adapting and changing when new social or economic circumstances arise. Because human nature is inherently irrational, illogical and sinful, ideologies that are crated purely from human thought alone are always doomed to fail. Monarchism has always been the natural state of man.

To summarise, monarchies are better because they have withstood the test of time, they are the natural result of human society, they are highly trained, influential leaders whose only goal from birth to death is to lead and guide the nation, they act as a protector and father for their civilsation, race and culture and they have no insentive to become corrupt.

I wholeheartedly think we should reinstate absolute monarchy in Europe and the rest of the old world, but because of the relatively short history of the American nations I don't know how feasible or effective they would be over there.

Monarchism is the final redpill.

>>133549564
>he denies that hierarchies are useful
>he prefers to call the people who dominate him commissar or comrade, because it sounds better
Top prole.