Monarchs

>>138695074
Trained for the job since birth. Biggest investment in nation. Can't escape duty (as in, stripmine and flee like a politician can). Can't be bribed since they already have everything. Best long term planning.

Most people are dumb and politically retarded.

>>138695074
Not exactly a monarchist, but close. Long term planning. More invested in success of the nation.

>>138696256

Also
>>138697065

&
>>138698914

>>138696256
The only society ruling it should be, it's the family all the rest of the institutions are put there to justify the figure of a king.

>>138695074
It's 1:00 am in the States. But briefly, the appeal of Monarchs, historically, is that they promise a limited, private, and distant form of government. Bismarck supported the German Emperor because he knew that a 'modern' state would come with it an entrenched bureaucracy and ambitious leaders for the state. Look at Hoppe and his argument for Monarchy if you want to take a modern approach and understand it from a Western perspective. People susceptible to Monarchism are those who despise government itself.

>>138695074
>>138696256
This. Also -- maybe most importantly -- they have responsibility. A single point of responsibility that people can blame when they fuck up. Right now, the government has no responsibility at all, and there's nobody specific to blame for their bureaucratic failures. Monarchy solves that.

>>138699667
Yup. Elective governments are hydras. If you vote out one head, two more take it's place, pretending to be different.

>If things go wrong there's only one person to blame
>politics only exist in a group with a weak leader, in a monarchy the only politics are between the sovereign and the military
>A life long reign means long term planning for the future
>The sovereign's life is tied to the success of the nation, a president will spend most of their time using their power to set up a comfortable retirement by selling policies to corporations
>When politics aren't an issue for society then the societal friction caused by it stops existing
>Becoming a leader in a democracy is based on how charismatic you are, not how good a statesman

>>138700493
The vipresidents become secretaries of defense that become candidates to presidency.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpD6FOo0XCw

I agree with all posts,now it's time to get this country by killing ((((chosen people)))) in the government

>>138701012
I mean replys,srry too much liberalism

>>138695074
Point a gun at a monarch and you will be stopped in your tracks by the divinity. Point a gun at a president and well why no pull the trigger?

>>138695074

I dont think I can OP. Maybe, just maybe, if someone made a ridiculous altruistic sacrificial deed on the behalf of one's country, something so epic and hard to pull of that nobody has ever done in history, maybe the country could honor him and perhaps, up to one generation, with the legislative powers and a crown (either "de jure" or "de facto").

Im not seeing it happening though.

>>138695074
I am a absolutist Catholic monarchies.

A monarch is the living embodiment of your ethnic group. He represents the divine right of authority by which your ethnic group asserts its self-determination. The crux of the issue is aesthetics. If you believe value to be determined by the mob, then you must accept rap, homosexuality and obesity to be good but if you think values ought to transcend human experience and point to the objective supreme, then you can value Michelangelo, Beethoven etc over the former.

>>138695074
The point of a government is to set laws. Different governments create those laws in different ways, but the government itself doesn't determine what those laws will be.
Republics tend to be difficult to change, so when a good constitution and good laws are made to start off with, it tends to stand by those principles.
Democracy is easy to change, and those laws will shift with the generation.
A monarch can either create the best laws for a nation of the worst laws depending on the king. If you have a good king making laws, you will get good laws, and a good nation. The potential is as high as it gets. If you have a bad king, they will make bad laws and the low is as low as it gets.
If you could find a way to always have a good king. It would be the best option. But the reality is that men die and a new person takes their place.
It is the reason why a republic is the best option for those who wish to keep what worked for as long as they can, but they are doomed to fail completely over time.
With a Monarch, you may get a bad king, but you may get a good king after him. Or another bad king. But there is always a chance to turn things back around with a good king.
Once a Republic is gone...it's gone.

>>138702229

They are descendants of medieval warlords who succeeded in manorialism. Despite the tribalism, many didnt gave two fucks about who their subjects were. Late WWI monarchic empires were cosmopolitan.