don't click the link its malware

>>520
Explain? Looks fine to me. No warnings from any safety sites either.

>work
You call yourself a hikineet?

Pic are creators of politis.cales, probably datamining site.
Remember to use VPN, Tor, etc. Or don't participate.

>>522
In an ideal world where normals aren't obnoxious mouthbreathers, leaving the house doesn't expose me to abrasiveness, meddling and selfish people, and work wasn't basically glorified slavery, yes, I wouldn't mind working. For now I'll ride the HikiNEET train as far as I can.
>>523
Fair enough. I don't have any "data" worth hiding, so can't say I care in exchange of the little fun I had taking the test.

>>525
The only thing that'll change that is force.
I mean, it's not like care to change.

This survey is just bad. The questions focus mostly on a black and white version of politics where only two opposing ideologies exist. I answered neutral to so many of the questions, and often some were just poorly written english that made no sense. Not even gonna post my results, because the thing is pointless and badly made.

Post edited on 7th Jun 2018, 3:42pm

There is this one, won't work if you're a filthy Commie though.

Can't say this survey is particularily good. The questions can be hard to understand, and don't leave any detail for interpretation.

I think it's cool it seems to give you a flag and some descriptors based on your choices though. I wish other surveys did something like that.

I put only partially agree for every answer and got a frowney face flag.

1/2

>>531
this test said I'm alt right

I don't know if I'd necessarily use that label to describe myself though

>>545
I wouldn't take it too seriously, it isn't a scientific test or nothing.
That said, the definition of alt-right changes quite fast being a new ideology.

>>551
>the definition of alt-right changes quite fast being a new ideology.
That's because it was never a ideology too begin with. It was a made-up blanket term resurrected by Hillary Clinton's 2016 election campaign. It conflates MANY groups (that never liked or agreed with each other in the first place) into one. Of course fucking faggots like that cingelord Dicky Spencer or that Millennial Woes faggot allow their enemy's too define them playing right into their hands.

I am apparently constructivist, rehabilitative justice oriented, progressive, and a whole lot less definitive answers. Not sure if I fully agree with this, as I would feel these answers need more nuance. Equality, humanity, work. Also pragmatism with mild hints of missionary.

I got a pretty boring flag

>Additional characteristics (textless icon at the bottom):
>Pragmatism : politics objectively boil down to looking at where the problems are and trying to solve them according to the means available.

Hmm, I see myself at least a little bit more nationalistic. At least the capitalism part is true.

Anon, you deleted the thread but where are your results ?!

>>527
>This survey is just bad. The questions focus mostly on a black and white version of politics where only two opposing ideologies exist. I answered neutral to so many of the questions, and often some were just poorly written english that made no sense.
I agree, the absolute nature of many of the questions kind of ruined it.

For example, I am generally extremely pro-reformist and believe that revolution as a last-ditch effort, but I firmly believe that there is a point at which reform fails and revolution is required. By affirming this, I am considered to favor revolution, which is not the case.

>>519
I tried taking this, but the questions were loaded and stupid.
>marriage should be abolished
When the real question should be:
>should the government be involved in marriage by providing tax incentives

It's barely close to what I believe, but probably the closest there is. Eco-fash? Sorta.

>>531
did this one since the site for politiscales was down for me. I'd say I'm right-wing so it should have worked, would be interesting to see a leftist take it though, honestly.

>>531
I don't get it, but maybe I misunderstand what the "alt-right" means. I definitely would not consider myself alt-right, and I tend to despise them for being more or less the same kind of people as modern leftists, but with an edgy pseudo-right-wing appearance instead. The description does indeed fit me, but my main belief boils down to the idea that homogeneous societies are good societies. This goes for imageboards and anything that is at risk of the culture being diluted. I would say I think race matters more than anything else and I would rather be in a modern industrial socialist country with ethnostate policies and limited social regulation than a country that was traditional in all things but race. Maybe that's where my problem lies because as far as most of the stuff in the questionnaire was concerned, I could go either way although I'll always be suspicious of ideas that came out of communism, any left-wing group of thought, and anything classically liberal and afterwards in general. But when it comes to race I've got a very solid idea. I think countries can self-moderate more or less regarding their other problems, as long as they first and foremost look at who exactly is in their country in the first place. In a similar vein I think imageboards can self-moderate very easily when women and obvious outsiders or facebookfags are outright removed on sight. In the modern world no country does this, race and immigration restrictions being the most weakly supported right-wing policies today.

Incidentally, I didn't see any options tailored to monarchism, I guess that's just seen as a joke by most people now.

>>1125
I would also add that I have a special dislike for Richard Spencer.

>>1125
Alt-right might be the answer given for people who give a lot of "contradictory" answers. Why do you care? Nothing will change.

>>1127
That's what I figured it was to be honest. Why do I care? I don't fucking know. I don't know why I care when realistically nothing is going to stop globohomo.

>>1125
I'm a monarchist. It's the best system by far, even Plato agrees(for what it's worth). The masses are ignorant and have been under the thumb of socialist propaganda for years now so of course they do not like it.

Oh, and Tolkien thought it the best system as well.

Post edited on 3rd Mar 2021, 6:26am

>>1129
The problem with Monarchism is often royalty becomes figureheads and socialites at worst. I think Saudi Arabia is the only powerful country that does it right.
I'm not really into politics nor can I relate to most western politics that are discussed on the internet but im glad there are people following stuff outside of the cancerous modern right-left dichotomy.

>>1129
Monarchism is stupid as hell. The inbred descendants of glorified war lords larping as either chosen by a deity or actually being a deity is not the best system. Especially when said "special beings" aren't even from your own country and were imported from Germany. Maybe you're conflating having a monarch with having a strong sense of national pride. For what's it worth, Diogenes agrees.

Post edited on 3rd Mar 2021, 7:11am

>>1133
...I'm not sure if you knew this or not but using the inbred meme is kind of dumb for a number of reason. One being that it is massively overplayed and usually uses one guy in every case who was the exception and had very specific circumstances that lead up to that but second;y and more importantly, incest was common all over the world through all class anyway. Wow! Prince married a princess who is his second cousin but also has blood from completely unrelated peoples. Villages were interbreeding within cousins for hundreds of years, not only that but they were breeding within a very small gene pool, it's not like a royal who may have blood from England, Spain, Germany, France and Russia. They all had the blood of a village with a few hundred people.

Being descended form a warlord just proves that they are from breed from stock that rose to the top.

>>1134
The inbred meme is there just to make fun of those massively self-important people. Villages weren't plagued by people whose blood can't clot, and people in cities obviously had a larger pool of people especially later on, so I would say they were less inbred as a whole. Of course that's what you chose to make most of your post about instead of anything else I wrote.

In genetics, there's a phenomena called return to the mean, there's also epigentics. Basically, expecting the descendants of a war lord to be nearly as exceptional as their first member, if that first member was exceptional in the first place, is incorrect. Their environment is also quite different from their first members, tending to be much more leisurely and comfortable.

The assumption that what makes a good war lord, necessarily makes a good ruler in peaceful times, is also inaccurate and unfounded.

Meritocracy and secularism has led to most of the greatest leaps forward in technological progress.

Post edited on 3rd Mar 2021, 9:55am

>>1135
>Meritocracy and secularism has led to most of the greatest leaps forward in technological progress.
Well, actually, that was war, nuclear weapons, and operation paperclip. Still a nice fantasy for neocons and other types of liberals I guess.

>>1136
Human beings are nothing but filthy pigs and religion is a plague on society. Monarchy denies both of these truths and is the ideology of pretentious, larping foot lickers. Decadent, wasteful monarches and the families belong on a pike. Nobody is chosen by god to rule. Nobody has special blood or deserves familial titles. This is the self-respecting mindset. What kind of limp-wristed maggot wants to bow down to some fat, arrogant fuck just because of the cunt they crawled out of?

>>1135
Even cities were not that diverse and still suffered the same issues.

>Of course that's what you chose to make most of your post about instead of anything else I wrote.

What other aspects to you post where there? Foreighn monarchs? Diogenes? Don't blame me for your poor post.

Regression to the mean is obviously based on what the mean even is and the mean for a royal or noble is not the mean of a nation as a whole, it's the mean of the other warlord descendants(plus some introduction from the more common people but even then, to get raised to nobility from common stock you have to be somewhat special).

>Their environment is also quite different from their first members, tending to be much more leisurely and comfortable.

Depends on the monarch and the era. Constitutional monarchs are not really monarchs.

>The assumption that what makes a good war lord, necessarily makes a good ruler in peaceful times, is also inaccurate and unfounded.

What makes a good warlord? What makes a good ruler in peaceful times?

>Meritocracy and secularism has led to most of the greatest leaps forward in technological progress.

Meritocracy exists within a monarch as well as does secularism. Technology builds on itself, it was always advancing now it is advancing at a faster rate simply due to the advancements already made. Also, many early scientific advances were made by members of the church anyway.

>>1137
Religion gives humans morals in the hope of raising them above pigs. Without morals we are no better than animals, we are pigs. Monarchism doesn't deny this but accepts it. 'The greatest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter' said Winston Churchill, why then give these people a say in the administration of the nation? I see that the socialist propaganda has gotten to you fairly well.

>>1138
Okay, footlicker. You belong on a field slaving away for your lord and wasting your leisure time in church. You don't deserve freedom of thought.

>>1139
What is that even supposed to mean? What you think you are not a boot licker either, that your vote actually matters and that you are not being run by oligarchs? Do you actually have an argument or are you just going to sling insults and compare your poor understanding of medieval society to modern society? Slaving away on a field? You can only plant once a year and harvest once a year, peasants of the Teutonic order had to give a week a year of labour to their lord. A week. And another thing, if a peasant was injured the lord was obliged to look after him even if he could not work and would never be able to work again. We have better technology now(naturally) leading to more industries and in theory leading to an easier life but we are slaves to corporate overlords that do not care about us in the slightest nor do our democratic governments even care to stop them. I live in a first world country where it is common for industries to demand 12 hour shifts, not only that but they demand these shifts to be on a rotating roster, they demand that you be unable to keep a sleeping pattern even though we know damn well how important that is to health. There isn't even a reason for it, our governments just could not care less and we lack a central authority to stop it(even the Kaiser made attempts to bring Europe together to improve workers rights).

>>1137
Whoa there buddy, calm down. I just was pointing out that your ideas about technology are basically wrong. I didn't say monarchies had anything to do with it, but I don't think you can attribute it to secularism either. No government, backwards or otherwise, will ignore the call to advancement that war brings, and pretty much everything we ever developed was because we needed to kill better than the other guys. If you really want to discuss monarchy though, this was already covered by Plato, and basically, you're fucking retarded and full of half-understood ideals fed to you by a system who benefits greatly from having a populous who prefers having their life decided for them by bob and joe down the street, or more precisely, bob and joes banker. Not that monarchy is going to be any better inherently, but if you think you're free because the mob decides what happens to you instead of an arguably more educated lord, you're pretty fucking stupid and clearly haven't thought about government at all beyond what makes you feel good in your head.

>>1140 Here again. Adding to this subject in more detail.


But anyway, that post touches on it but not really. The problem with using the middle ages as a reference is that they are the middle ages, you cannot really compare the working conditions or whatever of somebody in that era to now or to monarchism, the example I mentioned myself was of the Teutonic order, a Theocracy not a monarchy but the way life of the common peasant was largely the same as were most laws and rules(though tournaments were banned) it's nothing to do with the government but the times, you could find republics that had similar laws as well. So it's interesting but not so relevant.

So anyway. The problems with democracy are many. Really it's a competition between two parties of oligarchs, you will find that politicians either are businessman, were businessman, have close relations with businessman or rely on businessman. Therefore the manner in which the country is run is to the benefit of big business. That is the overall theme. Within that you have two competing parties of the aforementioned that are trying to both appease business(or themselves) and tell sweet lies to the masses in order to get them to vote for them(or get in bed with the media and have them do it). The common person has no right to impact politics, he has no knowledge in it and is often misled and even then, his vote only choses which oligarchical party gets in power and maybe what social policies get enacted in order to appease the masses(such as gay marriage). Another issue with democracy is the short term nature of it, a democracy struggles in enacting long term plans. Long term plans don't win votes, a government elected now can't boast about the completion of a goal that is completed in 20 years, in fact his opposition may get that right. The other issue is the instability of it, even if the government did enact a long term plan, the head of sate generally has a fixed term anyway and his successor may not have the same views on the pan as he did, particularity if he comes form another party. Democracy also lacks the direct control over the nation that authoritarianisms does, often if a democratic government wants to change something the tools at their disposal are very limited. The last two reason are why China has been able to grow so rapidly, Chinese foreign and internal policy is often quite bad but they are able to create and complete long term goals and they are able to directly get the nation to follow the course they want it to(that and the limited tools, short term nature and oligarchical influence of the west limit their ability to combat it).

Authoritarianism(in a non-monarchist form) lacks many of the above but is still not ideal. It falls victim to much internal politics and the head of state is often not so much competent as well connected(democracy has this issue too). A good example would be the Nazi party, the successor to Hitler was planned to be Goering. Another issue is that they are not bred to rule, a monarch is raised from birth with the intention that he will be monarch, he learns that skillset through his whole life.

Often when a monarch was poor historically it was because he was not meant to be monarch. Which leads to another point. In the event of a poor monarch the sate and people have much more inclination to remove him, just look at the US. A vast mass of the nation hated the old President and now hates the new one, what are they going to do about it? Nothing. There is nothing they can do, they can only wait for the next election and hope to win, they are given the illusion of impact and therefore are content to do nothing. In a monarchy poor governance leads to direct intervention, either the nobles get together and force you to sign the Magna carta or the nobles and/or peasants have you removed and executed, the nation has more power in removing a poor monarch. Not only this but the health of the nation and the competence of the ruler directly impacts the ruler himself. If the nation prospers, he prospers. If the nation does poorly, he does poorly, it is his nation. Unlike in a democracy, if the Monarch is removed he can't just fly to Florida and relax in his mansion, if the monarch is removed he is likely to have his land confiscated along with his head removed.

>>1140
>>1141
You are both pretentious, ungrateful foot lickers who don't understand the inherent restrictions caused by a monarchy. Our society having problems in no way supports the idea of returning to a superstitious, decadent antiquated system. Do you SERIOUSLY think "peasants" would be able to revolt against a monarchy in this day and age where the military has tanks and machine guns? Today, everybody in the first world has access to information and education. Some children from a specific family being "specially tutored" because of their parents would not in fact necessarily make them more qualified to control society.

We may not have control over our environment, but at least we're free to openly hate and despise our leaders and shout down the street how much we hate them. You would not a be a king. In your pretentious little heads you see yourself as royalty, or nobility, but you wouldn't be. In this place, the most greedy and conniving succeed. Their family does not limit them. This is an improvement. There's a reason the industrial revolution eventually led to so many nobles going bankrupt. They weren't special to begin with.

Fuck the king. Cut off his head and rape his daughter and then kill her too. Fuck them and their regalia and heirlooms and titles and everything else.

Plato was wrong about a lot of things. Don't name drop plato like a pretentious dick head. Somebody should be able to lead or do anything they want regardless of their family. Nothing should be guaranteed because of their family. We haven't reached this ideal, but we've gotten closer. Not fucking complicated and only a foot licker would want to go backwards.

Post edited on 3rd Mar 2021, 8:42pm

>>1143
>You are both pretentious, ungrateful foot lickers who don't understand the inherent restrictions caused by a monarchy.

Aren't you the biggest foot licker here though? You just mindlessly abuse others to support your own love of whatever ideology you have.

>Do you SERIOUSLY think "peasants" would be able to revolt against a monarchy in this day and age where the military has tanks and machine guns?

Well that is the thing, the nobility would be in control of that and they certainly could. Even peasants alone could cause issues enough that monarch had to act. They don;t have to overthrow the nation.

>Today, everybody in the first world has access to information and education. Some children from a specific family being "specially tutored" because of their parents would not in fact necessarily make them more qualified to control society.

And look how that works. Would you say that everybody is informed and educated then? Seeing as they all have access to information and education. You cant go to uni and study to be a ruler anyway, and even if you could that still would only prepare you from adult hood, not birth.

>We may not have control over our environment, but at least we're free to openly hate and despise our leaders and shout down the street how much we hate them.

And there is no reason why the same could not be true in a monarchy.

>You would not a be a king. In your pretentious little heads you see yourself as royalty, or nobility, but you wouldn't be.

I never said I would, you would not be president either.

>In this place, the most greedy and conniving succeed. Their family does not limit them. This is an improvement.

Well their family does and the greedy and conniving succeeding and running the nation is far form an improvement.

>There's a reason the industrial revolution eventually led to so many nobles going bankrupt. They weren't special to begin with.

Well no, many nobles did quite well out of it. The reason nobles don't frequently end up on the forbes rich list is because they are so rich, so well established that they don;t need to be a part of something so visible and misleading as company management. I say misleading because the wealth of CEOs like Jeff or Musk is based on an illusion really, sure they are rich but the vast amount of his worth comes form the worth of the company and the worth of the company on the stock market.

>Fuck the king. Cut off his head and rape his daughter and then kill her too. Fuck them and their regalia and heirlooms and titles and everything else.

...Do try to act like a grown up.

>Plato was wrong about a lot of things. Don't name drop plato like a pretentious dick head.

Didn't you name drop Diogenes? Anyway I was more doing it as a joke to make fun of the fact that people put so much stock into the opinions of people like that. Sorry if you didn't get it, it was not very good.

>Somebody should be able to lead or do anything they want regardless of their family. Nothing should be guaranteed because of their family. We haven't reached this ideal, but we've gotten closer. Not fucking complicated and only a foot licker would want to go backwards.

Monarchism doesn't affect that at all, you are not going to be the president and you never could.

Post edited on 3rd Mar 2021, 9:01pm

>>1143
Also, I find it funny that you call humans pigs and yet you make the most revolting, mindless and base posts in this discussion. If anybody here is a pig it's you.

>>1144
You can't separate monarchism from the way it manifested in real life. Monarchism is characterized by the monarchies that actually existed and nothing else. So every time you say "monarchies don't have to do with that", you're ignoring reality. Monarchism is inherently tied to feudalism, theocracy and a restriction of free speech. Those things fuel a monarchy.

Every time somebody from a poor family ends up successful later in life, a doctor or magistrate, that alone makes getting rid of monarchism and by extension feudalism worth it. Every time somebody is able to express them self in a way that conflicts with Christian values, that alone makes secularism worth it.

The idea of revering and referring to somebody by a title they got just because of their family infuriates me. The idea of somebody getting a position just because of their family infuriates me. The idea of a human pig strutting around and claiming they were chosen by god and having to accept it infuriates me. You want to lick and kiss the feet of a human pig with a crown on their head. You think that's oh so sophisticated of you. It makes me sick. Human beings don't deserve anything like that.

>>1145
All humans are pigs. It doesn't matter how eloquent you try to come across or how much history trivia you know or what family you come from.

Post edited on 3rd Mar 2021, 9:22pm

>>1146
Well you can as you must understand the context it existed in, a completely different context and environment than that of today(many issues you might have with a monarchy were not solely an issue with that monarch in question but also with republics and such of the era).

>Monarchism is inherently tied to feudalism, theocracy and a restriction of free speech. Those things fuel a monarchy.

And again, one could level that accusation toward Venice or the Teutonic order as well, both not being monarchies. Hell you could level it at the democracies of today.

>Every time somebody from a poor family ends up successful later in life, a doctor or magistrate, that alone makes getting rid of monarchism and by extension feudalism worth it.

It happened commonly enough back then as well, not that it is ever common then or now.

>Every time somebody is able to express them self in a way that conflicts with Christian values, that alone makes secularism worth it.

Which again, they often id back then but again you are talking of a different time and context. Back then we lacked the understating of the world we do now so of course religion is going to be taken much more seriously.

>The idea of revering and referring to somebody by a title they got just because of their family infuriates me. The idea of somebody getting a position just because of their family infuriates me.

Well they are just feelings, the idea of being run by a country of suits and oligarchs and the votes of the masses(the most pig like of pigs) infuriates me.

>You want to lick and kiss the feet of a human pig with a crown on their head. You think that's oh so sophisticated of you. It makes me sick. Human beings don't deserve anything like that.

What, they don't deserve a nation run by those that are above pigs? Instead we should be run by the masses, the most base and pig like of all. I would think that if you hated these pig people so much you would both not act like them(which to be fair this post was better) and not want them having such sway over government and over you. Instead you want to lick and kiss the feet of the most pig like.

At the lowest and most natural level yes we are pigs but the idea is to try and rise above that not to accept it and wallow in filth.

Post edited on 3rd Mar 2021, 9:36pm

>>1147
There's no reason to think things would better with a monarchy then. Why wouldn't them and their nobles adopt the same ideas as leaders in the current system if "context" is the only thing that matters? The current pope is a good example of that sort of thing. Saudi Arabia, which somebody else mentioned as a monarchy with a "traditional" mindset, is an Islamic theocracy. That's their context and I don't want any of it.

With suits, oligarchs and the masses there's no or at least way less pretenses and grandeur. I would rather everything go to hell because of collective stupidity or the greed of a few shadowy figures than have to kiss up to another person and look up to them. People never deserve to be revered.

Being self-hating about your species is a new one.

>>1148
>There's no reason to think things would better with a monarchy then. Why wouldn't them and their nobles adopt the same ideas as leaders in the current system if "context" is the only thing that matters? The current pope is a good example of that sort of thing. Saudi Arabia, which somebody else mentioned as a monarchy with a "traditional" mindset, is an Islamic theocracy. That's their context and I don't want any of it.

That would still be preferable for the other reasons I mentioned, they would still have a stable government able to enact long term plans and that was not subject to the whims of ignorant masses. Many of the worst policies are being enacted for the masses which would not be an issue in a state that doesn't need votes. They would still be connected to business as well but as they would have their own stable assets and income and would not rely on appeasing big business to stop them pulling funding for their political campaign or launching media campaigns against them it would not be as necessary.

Looking at the Saudis the monarchy has nothing to do with it, there are plenty of Islamic theocracies that lack monarchs such as Iran, Indonesia or even previously Afghanistan(though the US ended that). It would be that way regardless(well maybe, if it was more fragmented and vulnerable the US probably would have invaded it and put up a puppet regime).


Grandeur isn't a bad thing. Nobody goes to Dubai to look at their flat deserts and the housing of the common folk, they go to look at the tallest building in the world. likewise the Queen is a huge asset to the way the UK is viewed and also brings much tourism and soft power. The UK without a monarch would be bland and lifeless even though she doesn't do all that much. Merely because she is head of state the UK is viewed in a completely different way by the average person. Nobody says you have to kiss up to monarchs or even look up to them either(or that you don't have to do such things in non monarchist states).

>>1150
Your whole premise assumes a monarchy would be stable, the rulers would be competent and the government would have "enough" of its own assets to not be swayed by corporations, also assuming they wouldn't try to amass more wealth if they can. Any society would be good under these circumstances. There has been many cases of unstable, awful monarchies where one or more of these weren't the case. The noble system as a check of power is no more reliable and working in the people's interest than having a million competing government agencies. At least you have to pay off more people in the latter case.

The assumption that a person can be "bred to rule" is unfounded. Lenin wouldn't have been miles superior as a leader than Nicholas II if that was the case. The assumption that a person who was treated specially their whole life and disconnected from average people would be a better leader is unfounded. Restricting people for these unfounded assumptions is not worth it. Grandeur is a bad thing when its hogged by individuals and their family. Grandeur should be shared by society.

If you want a non-democratic system, come up with something new. Raising child geniuses to lead, Genetically modified leaders, computer ai, something new. Monarchy is old, filled with antiquated, nonsensical baggage, and should stay dead.

Post edited on 3rd Mar 2021, 11:16pm

>>1151
>Your whole premise assumes a monarchy would be stable, the rulers would be competent

They generally are stable and competent particularly if raised well.

>and the government would have "enough" of its own assets to not be swayed by corporations, also assuming they wouldn't try to amass more wealth if they can.

Well again, for the reasons I mentioned already even if they were the same they would still be less mailable as they would not be subject to big business for election. And then there is the culture and raising of the nobles themselves, the thing about businessman and politicians is that they are raised in a getting money is everything environment to begin with. They are businessmen.

>Any society would be good under these circumstances.

Not really, even under those circumstances, again for the reasons I mentioned.

>There has been many cases of unstable, awful monarchies where one or more of these weren't the case.

Of course, most of our history was monarch controlled(which is stability in itself) there would always be bad ones. Generally this wasn't the norm and when it was the monarch in question was not meant to lead and was often removed.

>The noble system as a check of power is no more reliable and working in the people's interest than having a million competing government agencies. At least you have to pay off more people in the latter case.

Not really, you don't. You pay of the president and that is all you need, or if you would like to go down the chain you pay of the minister of environmental planning and you have your mine etc.

>The assumption that a person can be "bred to rule" is unfounded.

Well they did a fairly good job historically and often(usually) when a peasant or whatever has become a ruler it has gone terribly most of the time.

>Lenin wouldn't have been miles superior as a leader than Nicholas II if that was the case.

Was he actually though? And where did that lead in the end?

>The assumption that a person who was treated specially their whole life and disconnected from average people would be a better leader is unfounded.

Well again, it's not unfounded as it has historically been the case. What usually happens when a peasant comes to power is they manage the nation terribly and fill the administration with their own supporters. Even if a good ruler existed, the chances are that he will hand power on to the biggest sycophant.

>Restricting people for these unfounded assumptions is not worth it.

They are not really restricted. How many people become president? One out of 200 million or so? You are restricting one in 200 million people.

>Grandeur is a bad thing when its hogged by individuals and their family. Grandeur should be shared by society.

And it is, how many people visit Buckingham palace a year do you think? Or saw the coronation of the Queen? And you don't think the politicians aren't doing anything grandiose behind closed doors?

>If you want a non-democratic system, come up with something new. Raising child geniuses to lead, Genetically modified leaders, computer ai, something new. Monarchy is old, filled with antiquated, nonsensical baggage, and should stay dead.

There is no need to reinvent the wheel.

>Raising child geniuses to lead

Yes, and intelligence has been shown to collaborate with genetics and environment, so that goes back to monarchism. Have a smart king, he will pick a good wife and he will raise his child in a good environment and prepare him to rule.

Otherwise you end up in a situation where the child is a pawn for political games.

>Genetically modified leaders

That's the same as above just with the king genetically modifying his child.

>computer ai

AI is incredibly flawed and will probably never reach the point where it can act as a human would. Even if it did, an unusual situation that it's programming could not deal with would throw it off completely and instead of a child being a pawn it would be the AI that would be the pawn of whoever programmed and maintained it. And it could be hacked.

>>1152
Who makes sure they're raised well? Nicholas II wasn't. Where were the nobles to do something about that? Ivan the Terrible wasn't raised great. Neither was Vlad the Impaler. When things do go wrong, it sure has taken a lot of death before things get corrected.

>they would still be less mailable
No. And nobles at certain points have been raised to lead a leisurely lifestyle, perform glorified errands for the king like in Versailles and collect money from their serfs. You're also assuming they wouldn't genuinely agree with liberal ideas and act accordingly(destroy the middle class). See current pope.

>You pay of the president and that is all you need
You vastly overestimate how powerful the president is.

>And where did that lead in the end?
It doesn't matter. As a leader he was vastly better. Nicholas II wouldn't have been able to accomplish the same thing. Lenin wasn't trained to rule and he didn't come from a family of rulers, yet he beat somebody who did.

>when a peasant or whatever has become a ruler it has gone terribly most of the time
You flip flop constantly between saying things associated with monarchies depend on the context of the times like theocracy and freedom of speech restriction and being forced to revere the monarch, or constant factors like royalty being smarter than "commoners", depending on what's convenient. The US has had good presidents, some of which grew up in an average environment.

>behind closed doors
I don't care what they do behind closed doors. Royalty thrives on public displays of their special, non-taxable wealth. Public Grandeur means open to public use buildings. Not people's living quarters. Moscow's marble metro is an example.

>intelligence has been shown to collaborate with genetics and environment
Neither of which "go back" to monarchism. Prince Harry and Charles are idiots. And they're ugly. Plenty of super rich business men have idiot children too. Lots of silicon valley people are far richer than their parents on the other hand.

>There is no need to reinvent the wheel.
Monarchy isn't the wheel. Hunter-gatherer societies are the wheel. How about a magnet train instead? Where would you even find new kings? Try to trace the lineage to whoever is the closest living relatives of dead royalty? That is so stupid and arbitrary. Stop larping. I am so fucking glad there is no monarchy where I live and am embarrassed on your behalf. My eternal gratitude goes out to all those great men who committed regicide. I have no choice but to be "base" because getting through your thick, footlicker skull is impossible.

Post edited on 4th Mar 2021, 12:48am

>>1153
Ivan and Vlad both achieved a lot actually.

>No. And nobles at certain points have been raised to lead a leisurely lifestyle, perform glorified errands for the king like in Versailles and collect money from their serfs.

They do but there are factors underlying that it is not the rule. Even so, once that occurred the were removed. Well kind of, there are currently more nobles in France now than there were even before the revolution.

>It doesn't matter. As a leader he was vastly better. Nicholas II wouldn't have been able to accomplish the same thing. Lenin wasn't trained to rule and he didn't come from a family of rulers, yet he beat somebody who did.

How is it meant to be difficult to use a populist movement to overthrow a nation that has very nearly lost the war it is fighting way? And it does matter.

>You flip flop constantly between saying things associated with monarchies depend on the context of the times like theocracy and freedom of speech restriction and being forced to revere the monarch, or constant factors like royalty being smarter than "commoners", depending on what's convenient. The US has had good presidents, some of which grew up in an average environment.

It's not a flip flop it's an easy to establish truth. Intelligence is largely genetic and environmental, nobles are raised in better environments and come form better stock. That context remains the same.

>I don't care what they do behind closed doors. Royalty thrives on public displays of their special, non-taxable wealth. Public Grandeur means open to public use buildings. Not people's living quarters. Moscow's marble metro is an example.

So you don't care if they waste the money in private but if they use the money to build a marble metro then you have a problem? I already addressed that anyway. Although 'Grandeur is a bad thing when its hogged by individuals and their family. Grandeur should be shared by society.' Isn't that literally what you are describing as being a bad thing? And you accuse me of flip flopping.

>Neither of which "go back" to monarchism. Prince Harry and Charles are idiots. And they're ugly.

Well one thing I would not say they are either stupid or ugly(even if I don't agree with what they do) and of course the elephant in the room here is that there mother was a commoner.

>Plenty of super rich business men have idiot children too. Lots of silicon valley people are far richer than their parents on the other hand.

It often depend son how they achieved their wealth. Poor people that become wealthy often have idiot children, well they are common and still raised in a common environment.

>Monarchy isn't the wheel.

It's an expression, I would have you had heard of it before.

>Where would you even find new kings? Try to trace the lineage to whoever is the closest living relatives of dead royalty? That is so stupid and arbitrary.

This is an issue but it's not an issue with the system itself(well in a way maybe it is, in the sense that it's not as difficult to remove a monarchy as to reinstate one).

>Stop larping.
>Fuck the king. Cut off his head and rape his daughter and then kill her too. Fuck them and their regalia and heirlooms and titles and everything else.
>My eternal gratitude goes out to all those great men who committed regicide.
>Human beings are nothing but filthy pigs and religion is a plague on society. Monarchy denies both of these truths and is the ideology of pretentious, larping foot lickers. Decadent, wasteful monarches and the families belong on a pike. Nobody is chosen by god to rule. Nobody has special blood or deserves familial titles. This is the self-respecting mindset. What kind of limp-wristed maggot wants to bow down to some fat, arrogant fuck just because of the cunt they crawled out of?

....Explain to me how it's me that is larping here?


>I have no choice but to be "base" because getting through your thick, footlicker skull is impossible.

For a simpleton like you it would be.

>>1154
Your ideology is based on an an extremely idealistic, fantasy, "modern" version of monarchy and is dependent on your lack of understanding of genetics and cultural change. You've misinterpreted things I've said or have too many misconceptions for me to laboriously explain each one. "I am a monarchist" is a euphemism for "I am a pretentious idiot".

Me shitposting to offend your "refined sensibilities" and demonstrate the freedom people have today is different from having an incredibly stupid and impractical fantasy ideology. Next you'll say "well there could be internet in a monarchy". Okay, look at China, Iran and Saudi Arabia then dumb ass. You've tried convincing me that something works well in your magic version of reality. I'm a magicist. The world would be perfect if magic existed and wizards controlled everything.

Post edited on 4th Mar 2021, 7:51am

>>1143
>Do you SERIOUSLY think "peasants" would be able to revolt against a monarchy in this day and age where the military has tanks and machine guns?
So you think you can do that against your rulers right now? Really? I hope you realize that the narrative of the "peoples revolt" is largely a lie and that in reality what happens is a military coup drums up support from the populace so that one of the established powers can fuck over the other ones.
>You would not a be a king.
No shit? Why would I want to be a king?
>Fuck the king. Cut off his head and rape his daughter and then kill her too. Fuck them and their regalia and heirlooms and titles and everything else.
Ah, what a charming person. See revolting shit like this is exactly why I'd rather have a king rule me than the guy down the street. Time and time again the average person has proven themselves to be a disgusting, base individual who cares so little for anything other than his most primitive desires or revenge and freedom that you'd be better off under the worst tyrant.

Uh, I mean, don't tell me you really believe that "all men are equal" bullshit right? It's so obvious that all men are NOT equal, and by the way regents exist for a lot of the problems you've described. I think it's pretty funny that you have this idea in your head of monarchs being some kind of crazy tyrant king who forces everyone to go back to the stone age. You do realize that the gun was invented during the middle ages right?

I will die on the hill that most people are into extremist philosophies because they like the aesthetics and talk themselves into the rest.

>>1155
It's not, I have explained it and you have failed to provide an adequate argument to what you even attempted an argument at while still ignoring large parts of it. Now you are completely resorting to Ad hominem attacks in lieu of an argument.

I don't know if you know this but China and Iran are not monarchies, have not been for some time now actually. And again, context is everything. Asian was never as free as Europe was, monarch or no monarch. Though communism has not helped and it is likely they would have a more free system of internet under the emperor. Also it's not like the west is doing so great with Internet freedom now, it's only getting worse too.

I wrote out some shit about my political views but I doubt most of you know or care about desi politics

>>1151
>Lenin wouldn't have been miles superior as a leader than Nicholas II if that was the case.
Oh no
I'm sorry I replied earlier, if I'd read this I just wouldn't have bothered

>>1157
There's nothing extreme about things that were normal for the vast, vast majority of human history like openly preferring your own ethnicity, supporting your own country or government over others in a pre-nationalist way, I mean most of the things called "extreme" now are just ideas that were declared ideological heresy after the classical liberal cultural revolution. Which, incidentally, is as extreme and unfounded as anything else, it just happens to be the ideology you grew up in and were taught from birth. Not that it doesn't make sense to prefer what you're used to, but the only real "extreme" ideologies would be something retarded like NazBols that has no basis in reality. Keep in mind that fascism had a tendency to greatly improve countries economically and lowered crime and unemployment, until they ended up in a world war and were excommunicated from what people were allowed to believe. So it is a valid political theory and isn't just some retarded shit to look cool and wear fancy uniforms, even if you do fundamentally disagree with it you have to admit this.

>>1156
>So you think you can do that against your rulers right now?
The same old "what about now" bs I already addressed.

>don't tell me you really believe that "all men are equal" bullshit right
What I don't believe is that a singular family or handful of families chosen by arbitrary means can be vastly superior to everybody around them who is genetically almost the same, certainly not enough to give them and their descendants power. Certainly not enough for pointless theatrics celebrating their greatness. Monarchy is the dumbest solution to accounting for variable human ability.

>>1158
"but China and Iran are not monarchies" this one line demonstrates why talking to you is pointless. You can't make connections in your head. You're incapable of it. You never think about the why. You just take things for granted like the west being inherently "more free" than Asia, which I would disagree with. Being more individualistic culturally to some extent does not equal more free. The west is getting worse in that respect because it's abandoning certain ideals that are incompatible with monarchy.

The west is a monarchy, they are ruled by the Blue Checkmark Dynasty

>>1162
I don't think you addressed anything with any argument of substance besides repeating the same tired, pretentious phrasing used by every would-be revolutionary. I guess you must be having a lot of fun getting to pretend that you're some freedom fighter against evil tyrants on an anonymous imageboard. You had almost no arguments aside from ridiculous caricatures of what you think a monarchy is, most likely taken from fictional depictions made for children, supplemented by propaganda spiels mish-mashed together from a variety of different revolutionary speeches and then butchered by time and pop-culture.

>>1164
Well that's the "context" that I live in. Every revolutionary was inspired by the culture around them, which is the same process you call "butchering", another demonstration of your lack of understanding of how culture changes. People have ignored a lot of my arguments too. Considering the system you want to revive despite the impracticality of it,
>where would you even find new kings
which ignoring everything else, should be enough of deterrent to you being a "monarchist", I'm glad that you're unhappy with the way things are. Substance =/= pretending things are facts which aren't actually facts like monarches being genetically superior to everyone else or inherently more capable rulers despite all the evidence I've presented to the contrary. Kill the king, and rape his daughter, and then kill her too.

>>1165
>People have ignored a lot of my arguments too.
You haven't made a single argument. There are plenty of valid arguments against monarchy, but all you've done is pretty much just make up some fantasy to fight against in your head. If we're going to actually TALK about politics, I want to hear criticism of a monarchies effectiveness to manage the banking system, law enforcement, tariffs, immigration, etc. You seem to be under the impression that every monarchy is some god-emperor authoritarian dictatorship, a pretty silly idea at best. Most Monarchs were restricted by the local lords, joint-ruler arrangements like Egypt or Rome, and in a lot of ways acted more like a hereditary presidential position than the fantasy you allude to. All things said and done, whether it's a king, lords, a parliament, or a council, the actual quality of the leadership and management of a country is not improved by democracy. The possibility to change major laws and aspects of the government at any time is incredibly weak for long term stability, and is only really useful during massive expansion periods. Even then, historically the military bears the brunt of the work in expansion regardless of the system of government. And this idea that it somehow makes you more "free" to have decisions made by a popular vote rather than individual leaders is an illusion. You are no more free when decisions are made by the mob than when they are made by a prime minister or a lord or whoever. You still are ruled by a government of law and order, and decisions can still be made against you and entirely without your consent. As long as two people live in the same universe, no one will ever be truly "free" in the autistic sense that libertarian minded people think of freedom. Taken to its logical conclusion, freedom as the highest ideal is just stupid. Your own freedom is determined by how much actual power and control you take over your own life. This is completely independent from what system of government you live under. If the "democratic" government decided tomorrow that you were a danger to the social order and needed to be removed, there is nothing you could do about it aside from staging an ineffective and ultimately futile last stand. And that decision could very well be made by a vote of the people of the country. Would you gladly acquiesce because the people curbing your agency you were "the people" rather than a king? Of course that is also a pretty ridiculous scenario, but still on a daily basis you make concessions in every aspect of life to the rulership of "the people".

Again there are a lot of actual criticisms against monarchy as a form of government. Emotional revolutionary platitudes are not one of them.

>>1166
You didn't mention any of those things when trying to support monarchy. Everything you said in support of monarchy was incorrect gibberish and idealistic fantasizing that ignores reality and real life examples. Your idealism, like monarchs being geniuses with better moral character or whatever, is worse than my idealism.
>This is completely independent from what system of government you live under
mmmhhhhhmmmmm, yeah, in your fantasy version of reality where the government system is disconnected from culture. Where really everything is disconnected from each other unless you want it to be connected.

>>1162
>"but China and Iran are not monarchies" this one line demonstrates why talking to you is pointless. You can't make connections in your head. You're incapable of it. You never think about the why.

It's you that is unable you do what you describe though... And also haven't I already addressed it before? Why Yes I think I have >>1142

I can add more to it though. Communist China is still on paper a populist Government, it has to justify everything it does as being for the people whilst hiding the issues I mentioned before it has more inclination to restrict the internet to begin with but added to that is the fact it is a communist nation. You attacked me for not making connections but maybe you should look up communism, their ideology and implementation and try to make some connections yourself? Communism always did try to have more control over the life of the average citizen. As for Iran(and the Saudis) again, I already mentioned it(which I am frequently having to say with you). Again, you attack me for not making connections but you lack the ability to make even basic ones like China and communism or Saudis and Wahhabism. Don't you maybe think that Communism and Wahhabism(plus the Iranian Islamic school of though) might impact the way they are run? Regardless of weather or not they have a monarch or not? Again, it's context.

>>1168
China is communist on paper only. In fact, there has never been a communist nation. The Soviet Union was self-described as having "advanced socialism". "True communism" is completely impossible in real life. China is in actuality fascist. Wahhabism supports the monarchy in Saudi Arabia culturally, just as Christianity supported European monarchs. The current western culture in no way supports monarchy. If you could make the connection between government style and supporting/resulting culture, I wouldn't have to explain something so basic to you. Monarchy that isn't supported by the culture around it only exists in your fantasy version of reality. You can't fit monarchy in our "context" anymore than you can fit sex slaves harems.

Post edited on 4th Mar 2021, 5:43pm

>>1169
Sure but you have to agree that whether they are true communist or not they do share similarities in how they behave.

>Wahhabism supports the monarchy in Saudi Arabia culturally, just as Christianity supported European monarchs

Well it's a state that follows it and allows it to thrive, why would they not support it?

The relations between Christianity and European monarchs is nowhere near so clear cut and nice as you make it to be, they were frequently in competition with each other. The HRE and Catholic Church were almost always hostile to each other or even outright at war, then of course we have the wars of reformation where many northern monarchs decided they had had enough of the Catholic church altogether.

>The current western culture in no way supports monarchy. If you could make the connection between government style and supporting/resulting culture, I wouldn't have to explain something so basic to you. Monarchy that isn't supported by the culture around it only exists in your fantasy version of reality. You can't fit monarchy in our "context" anymore than you can fit sex slaves harems.

That's not a fault of the system of government now is it? Or are you going to say that because Democracy will not work in current China that it is flawed too? You have to change the context but for the introduction of ANY radical new government you would have to do that anyway. Most of these radical changes come about as a result of huge wars. It is possible to implement it softly but that would take far longer and involve reversing decades of Hollywood propaganda. But the masses can be swayed to any view given enough time and effort.

>>1170
My point was that I don't want to live in the kind of culture where a monarchy would work. That's not a desirable goal. Conflicts between the church and royalty does nothing to undermine my point. European royalty depended on religion being part of the culture. We've already been through this, and you denied it the first time, because you failed to recognize the connection between these things.

Post edited on 4th Mar 2021, 6:23pm

>>1171
>My point was that I don't want to live in the kind of culture where a monarchy would work.

That is a separate argument entirely. Though I still don't agree with you.

>Conflicts between the church and royalty does nothing to undermine my point. European royalty depended on religion being part of the culture.

They don't actually.

>We've already been through this, and you denied it the first time, because you failed to recognize the connection between these things.

Because there is not one. If the Church was so integral to monarchism then why when the Catholic Church excommunicated a ruler did that not have humongous consequences? Often it barely impacted anything at all. Also why have monarchs existed in mixed religion states? Why have non Monarch sates continued having such a strong religious influence? You often place communism and Monarchism in the same basket, are you infact aware that Communist China is an atheist state? Again, context. Monarchism is an old system and was around during the time Religion was taken more serious(because we did not know better) but many non monarchist states were around then and took religion equally as seriously or even more so in some cases.

>>1172
The church and religion in culture aren't the same. A culture can continue to be religious even if the specific church is replaced by another one the monarch likes better. A society can also be religious without having a monarchy. That's what's unrelated. You're completely missing my point.

We don't "know better". Saudi Arabia doesn't know better. If we "knew better" there wouldn't be any theocracies on earth. You take these things for granted. Monarchism feeds off of religion in culture, so that system doesn't encourage the undermining of something which strengthens it. Juche is a modern example of religion being manufactured by what's basically a monarchy to justify its existence. "Communism" also restricts people, but that goes to show that there are many paths to that. There a very few paths which give people more freedom. Monarchy is one of the former, not one of the latter.

>Though I still don't agree with you.
What do you disagree with? You want to live in that kind of culture. I have no more posts for an impractical, thick-skulled, ungrateful, stuck in the past footlicker.

Post edited on 4th Mar 2021, 10:23pm

>>1173
>The church and religion in culture aren't the same. A culture can continue to be religious even if the specific church is replaced by another one the monarch likes better. A society can also be religious without having a monarchy. That's what's unrelated. You're completely missing my point.

You are going to have to explain why exactly you think that a monarchy requires a church, I am pretty sure I know what you will respond with if you indeed can articulate it and it's wrong but you at least need to try to create the argument.

>We don't "know better". Saudi Arabia doesn't know better. If we "knew better" there wouldn't be any theocracies on earth. You take these things for granted.

I'm more referring to us, the modern west(well maybe not America so much). Region is playing an increasingly minor role and often only is paid lip service, many of these 'Christian' nations have had referendums resulting in gay marriage. Of course in places like Saudi Arabia, Iran and Indonesia(a democracy) things are different.

>Monarchism feeds off of religion in culture, so that system doesn't encourage the undermining of something which strengthens it.

It doesn't. The church itself is often the most undermining part of a monarchist state. It is what has lead to numerous wars including some of the biggest wars in Europe. The Church and the Crown were constantly competing with each other.

>Juche is a modern example of religion being manufactured by what's basically a monarchy to justify its existence.

And it's also an atheist state. Yes, it's religion like but it is not actually a religion. It's more a cult of personality(which we of course know exist in democracies as well).

>"Communism" also restricts people, but that goes to show that there are many paths to that. There a very few paths which give people more freedom. Monarchy is one of the former, not one of the latter.

Monarchy isn't the former or the latter as it is the culture of the nation and context it is in that shapes that regarding a monarchy. And democracy doesn't lead to freedom either, as we are seeing more and more in the west.

>What do you disagree with? You want to live in that kind of culture.

I disagree with your opinions on freedom and religion within a monarchy.

>I have no more posts for an impractical, thick-skulled, ungrateful, stuck in the past footlicker.

I would say I am the least fitting of those words out of the two of us but you are free to have that view.

Post edited on 4th Mar 2021, 11:11pm

>>1167
You're responding to more than one poster.
>>>Your own freedom is determined by how much actual power and control you take over your own life. This is completely independent from what system of government you live under.
I fail to see what's wrong with that statement, but maybe you could enlighten me.

>>1175
Your freedom can be(and is to a certain extent) restricted by the government or the people around you via the law and culture. It's not only up to the individual. A monarchy needs something to justify its existence and why specific people and their children should receive such a position rather than others who will certainly want it and may be more popular and better for the role. Religion, a cultural force, has universally been used by monarchs to suggest they are divine beings or were chosen by divine beings. That's how they justify their existence. The weaker religion is in culture, that justification, the less others(educated people especially) will put up with somebody receiving a role without working for it and that role being closed off to somebody they like more. Cult of personality is weaker the more democratic a system gets because loyalty gets divided up so easily.

There is no purpose or way to return to a monarchy, not one where people have inherited roles with power behind them, which could possibly justify the sacrifice of progress that would take. Anybody who's head isn't in the clouds can see that.

>>1176
Not him but this isn't true.

Monarchy doesn't need the justification of religious authority. While yes it is often the case that religion does superficially justify the monarch if you dig even a tiny bit deeper than that you will see that it's a very thin layer. I have mentioned religious wars and clashes with the Church, if you logic was true and the reason the people accepted a monarch was religious then what would happen once that Church excommunicated that ruler? He would lose all that justification and according to you be overthrown. Now is that what actually happened? No, rulers were frequently being excommunicated and it changed nothing. Again, if this was true would a ruler be able to(or have the motivation too) remove the Church and set up his own even at the cost of a huge war? No, he would be removing the justification he had and the people would not follow him. And again, if the Church crowned a monarch and that monarch was removed by nobles would that not also remove that justification? How could you justify removing that monarch if he was there by gods will? How could the new monarch have any justification on a religious basis? And yet again, what if the monarch was never crowned by the Church to begin with? As happened on a few occasions when a ruler was at war with the Church, he would have no justification to begin with. The idea you have is simply groundless. And this does not even cover all the atheist that still followed a monarch, the Christians that rebelled against one or the nuances of how different religions treated the monarch.

Simply put while in theory the Church placed the King as ruler by gods will in actuality that had little bearing on how the people(both common and noble) saw the king or treated his rule. This thin layer of justification is not even removed by the democratic system, you just replace the will of god with the will of the majority.

>Cult of personality is weaker the more democratic a system gets because loyalty gets divided up so easily.

Well Hitler, Trump and Putin were all democratically elected(well Putin arguably, depending on who you ask). That still doesn't address the fact that personality cults are not religions.

Post edited on 5th Mar 2021, 8:47pm

>>1177
Actually tl;dr. Wasting your time for nothing is your punishment.

>>1178
No need to be so hard on yourself, maybe at least some of this will get through to you.

>>1179
Yeah, and then I'll be a monarchist too. Give me a break, sped.

>>1176
>A monarchy needs something to justify its existence and why specific people and their children should receive such a position rather than others who will certainly want it and may be more popular and better for the role.
Eh, not really. A wise country might just justify a monarchy by pointing out that it's been the most stable system relative to other systems in the same time. Keep in mind, Rome and Greece both humored republics for quite some time. It's not exactly new and it's not exactly that great. This idea that monarchy = outdated and bad and democracy = new and good is just silly. Most kings just said "I'm here, I'm in charge, so that's how it is". The reason you stick with a single family is, well, someone who did a good job will probably have kids who are also pretty intelligent. I used to believe that all men were born with roughly the same potential, but that belief has long since decayed into nothing. Actually, the idea that all men were born equal is pretty ludicrous. But I guess democracy lets people believe that anyone can be important. Even though that isn't true and it's just the same as before with the elite ruling the country, with the added negative that the system is malleable and sensitive to outside influence. The idea that democracy will allow a people to rule over themselves is a lie. Far from it, but I suppose if you can be tricked into thinking that every man on earth is of "your" people then the illusion isn't so obvious.

>>1181
A "wise country" is impossible in my opinion. There has never been a wise country. A wise country would do fine as an anarchy. It's easy to see monarchies as more stable when they've had a lot more time to be "play tested". They were stable because they worked with people's "unwiseness" in a way that wouldn't work now. You would have to make people more ignorant than they are now. Monarchies' disappearance in the west was an inevitability.

A modern, ethnostate one party government would be miles more stable and probably better run than a modern, diverse, multi-party, secular monarchy, assuming you could magic the latter into existence to begin with. Even then, stability isn't the end all be all. I would rather live in a less stable nation with better living standards and more personal freedoms than a more stable one with less of both. As for people who did a good job having children who will do a good job, I already wrote why that's a huge and "unwise" assumption to make. People should be tested in some way before they get a position. What happens when the first descendant fails? Wait for the next one? At that point there's no purpose to any of it and the parliament or whatever will take control.

Post edited on 6th Mar 2021, 9:12am

>>1182
>A modern, ethnostate one party government would be miles more stable and probably better run than a modern, diverse, multi-party, secular monarchy, assuming you could magic the latter into existence to begin with

Kind of off topic, but isn't this what Bangladesh is? They are an Islamic, 98% Bengali, Unitary dominant-party parliamentary constitutional republic. In the west, this is almost impossible but in the east (and some island nations, whatever they're classified as) they still exist. They are very unremarkable though and nobody wishes they lived in them, aside from maybe the East Asian ones like the Koreas and aside from them are only known for the novelty of their existence in the modern age and sometimes as a "home base" for the diaspora of that ethnic group. Regardless, Bangladesh is better run than it's neighbors, but it's not a high bar to clear. I'm only mentioning it because it's one of the most homogenous states in the world, something that seems to be deeply desired by political imageboard types. It technically has existed in some fashion since the 1300s, and that finely parlays into your next point.

>Even then, stability isn't the end all be all. I would rather live in a less stable nation with better living standards and more personal freedoms than a more stable one with less of both.
Which is a fair point, but there's a conversation to be had about accepting your nationality, personal connections for the citizens of a nation, but yeah, from a government and idea perspective that should be prioritized.

>People should be tested in some way before they get a position. What happens when the first descendant fails? Wait for the next one? At that point there's no purpose to any of it and the parliament or whatever will take control.
If you MUST be a monarchist, there's an easy solution to this, use a mix of the Egyptian and Saudi systems, instead of having a traditional king/queen just have a figurehead king but have his family run things by committee, and then have a dynastic system to replace the family. In Egypt, the heir to a pharaoh in a dynasty was often chosen deliberately rather than just having the first-born son or whatever take over. It sounds an awful lot less like monarchy when run like that though.

>>1182
Not him again but there are a few issues here.

>A "wise country" is impossible in my opinion. There has never been a wise country. A wise country would do fine as an anarchy.

The common man is dumb in every society, the problem with the hypothetical you put forth is that for an anarchy to do fine as a wise country everybody has to be wise, in a monarchy only the top does(and again it's genetics, education and environment that dictate this so it's not actually impossible to achieve).

>It's easy to see monarchies as more stable when they've had a lot more time to be "play tested". They were stable because they worked with people's "unwiseness" in a way that wouldn't work now. You would have to make people more ignorant than they are now. Monarchies' disappearance in the west was an inevitability.

I already addressed that before but your believe that the only reason people accepted monarchy is based in religion is unfounded. And the common person was always ignorant and still is ignorant, that's an argument against democracy not monarchism. In fact I would even argue that the ignorance of the population benefits democracy more than it does a monarchy, the vast majority of the population don't know or care about politics or how the nations is actually being run, they hear a few sound bites the media shoves down their throat and decide based on that if they give any thought to it at all. And these are the people that form the majority of the vote. The system itself also encourages those that do have differing opinion or know better to allow it as well, after all democracy is to be cherished they have been fed all their life and they can always wait another 4 years, so they are manipulated into not doing anything even though they disagree with what is happening.

>A modern, ethnostate one party government would be miles more stable and probably better run than a modern, diverse, multi-party, secular monarchy, assuming you could magic the latter into existence to begin with.

Well I already mentioned the issues with that very early on.

>Even then, stability isn't the end all be all. I would rather live in a less stable nation with better living standards and more personal freedoms than a more stable one with less of both.

Stability drives growth and investment, this is one of the reasons economists believe China has developed into what it has while India has not, even though India had many things going for it that China did not, India has many English speakers, much of the way their country runs stems from Britain giving them a lot of common ground with the west and they are not a threat like China is. Yet because of the instability inherent in a democracy and also the lack of long term planning that is also a part of democracy, they were never able to reach the level China did or anywhere near it.

Plus again, I don't agree with your assertion that a democracy guarantees rights and a monarchy does not. There are many issues with this that have already been argued over but ask yourself this, if the government decided it wanted to ban sexualised little girls in anime who would stop them? The people? Democracy? Do you really think if they held a referendum on that that 51% of the population would say 'yes actually. this should be legal'? In many ways democracy is worse at guaranteeing rights than a monarchy is, if the democracy works perfectly and all citizens are fully educated and aware of exactly what the government is doing and exactly what that will do, even in that dream world it only guarantees your rights so long as 51% of people don't care that it is taken away. You may even be lucky that the majority stops at your rights and it does not end up in a situation like Rwanda or like what has happened to the Rohingya.

>As for people who did a good job having children who will do a good job, I already wrote why that's a huge and "unwise" assumption to make.

I have explained to you already why it is not a mistake to make.

>People should be tested in some way before they get a position. What happens when the first descendant fails?

If that happens they get removed, what happens if a democracy fails though? Nothing, look at the US, according to the left democracy failed last election and according to the right it failed this election, did either side do anything about it? And on top of that what if both parties failed?

>>1183
Bangladesh might seem unremarkable, but at least it manages to exist. You can't compare it to the second thing since the second thing existing to begin with is approaching impossible in real life and is purely hypothetical.

>If you MUST be a monarchist
I don't. Some people get off on the idea without thinking about it too hard. That's the only reason this conversation is happening. Your suggested system sounds a bit more practical in practice, but equally if not harder to set up without being sufficiently better. Predictably enough, the pharaoh position also had religious connotations. First born sons weren't chosen, but it seems the criteria was still arbitrary(which wife he liked better), based on whims and not formalized.

>>1185
>I don't. Some people get off on the idea without thinking about it too hard. That's the only reason this conversation is happening.

...Really? I'm not sure how you manage to say that when you your arguments where weak to begin with and now you have given up entirely and resort to cowardly and snide comments like that.

>>1185
>Predictably enough, the pharaoh position also had religious connotations. First born sons weren't chosen, but it seems the criteria was still arbitrary(which wife he liked better), based on whims and not formalized.
The choice of figureheads is gonna be like that, I imagine the family ruling is gonna be more important and that changing is more of consequence. I also don't really know if it's possible to have a non-religious monarchy, especially in this day and age.

>>1187
>I also don't really know if it's possible to have a non-religious monarchy, especially in this day and age.
Even if "monarchists" conceded on that, next they'd argue about whether religion is necessarily restrictive, or restrictive in a "bad way". Honestly. >>1157 was right.

>>1182
>Even then, stability isn't the end all be all.
I mean, how is it not? First and foremost you want to not be getting killed/raped/eaten. Everything after that is just a luxury. A sane society would value social stability and homogeneity over abstracts like freedom.

>>1189
Stability just means less conflict in the government and between the government and people. A bit more conflict doesn't mean complete lawlessness.

>>1188
Taken just from a chronological viewpoint, anything classical liberal and diverging from that theory is the real example of the extreme. Well, maybe being hyper-traditional to the point of disassociating from the last 200 years of politics is an extreme position in the modern world, but if it is then it's only because the world has shifted so extremely in a new and strange direction. Is it really that hard to believe that some people exist who still genuinely hold beliefs that were common for a much longer time? Just calling someone or something "extremist" so you can discount it and feel safe in your belief in the superiority of modern philosophy is intellectually dishonest. And I don't think I've seen you or anyone else make a single attempt to actually explain your dislike of monarchies or why the classical liberal ideology is so good beyond ad hominems, very strange projections, and a couple strawmen about how monarchy is backwards and religion is for slaves and yada yada. No system is perfect and monarchy definitely doesn't come close, so there are a lot of genuine arguments against it. Pretty much the only valid one posited so far is that relying on a single strong individual for leadership can backfire if their children go horribly wrong. There are of course safegaurds for this like regents, which deviates somewhat from pure monarchy, but the most important thing about a system or country is that it cannot easily be changed, especially from the outside. If a country is good, there is no point in making drastic changes beyond tariff adjustments and maybe addressing unforeseen problems like a new factor in solving crimes. Because if a system is good, why change it? And if a system constantly has to be changed, when and how was it ever good to begin with? That's my own fundamental problem with democracy. I don't see why people should be able to change the government in the first place, monarch or no. If it wasn't going to be monarchy, then a limited oligarchy would be good, or ideally a system with a fixed core constitution that cannot be changed or amended, where the governing bodies function only to uphold the law, not to revise it. I don't like the idea that a country can theoretically transform into something completely different. Which is a big part of why I don't like any of the revolutionary movements in the first place.

Monarchy is just the best possible option I arrived at by reductive reasoning and getting rid of possible systems in order of which ones presented the biggest potential for problems. All said and done, a monarchy provides the greatest chance of long term stability. A lot of what you've heard about monarchies problems are most likely greatly exaggerated. After all, who or what led YOU to your ideology?
>>1190
What value does that conflict have at all though? And why should a people be in conflict with their government at all? This idea of looking for tyrants in your own government is pretty ludicrous and can only be a result of attempts to divide people from rulers who are actually OF them. And one main benefit to having a monarch with biological inheritance is that, assuming they came from the people of that country, they will be the same race and thus a people can be assured that they are ruled by themselves. A people is not capable of ruling themselves if anyone can become a ruler. But, I guess you probably don't think much of valuing race or racial tribalism either. So you probably can't see the benefit in having rulers that are guaranteed to be the same race and religion.

>>1188
I preferred monarchies originally because, just from a standpoint of trusting a political ideology to be honest, the entire republican revolutionary movement in France, Spain, etc. was incredibly destructive and incredibly repulsive. I was raised by a very religious family so maybe I'm just biased to begin with, but any movement that praises itself for burning down churches and killing people out of jealousy is a non-starter for me. And in general I strongly suspect all the movements that attack traditional culture of sinister motives. It's hard not to when you can see such an obvious pattern with the end result of the truly vile modern state of things. Now, if you look at the world today and it's okay to you the way it is, that's fine, and it puts the conversation into an entirely different light. I'm not going to try and argue with you if your core values are fundamentally different from mine. But you have to understand that from my point of view, the classical liberal movement, egalitarians, communists, are the extremists. I don't see myself as extreme, because my beliefs are supported by thousands of years of human civilization. I see the modern world as insane. It feels like a nightmare that I can't wake up from and it doesn't seem real. Because how, how the FUCK can I really be living in a country where a nigger can be a politician?

>>1193
>I was raised by a very religious family
So you've been poisoned. I'm glad I don't have any of that in my head aside from some cultural osmosis.
>my beliefs are supported by thousands of years of human civilization
Humans have spent far longer being uncivilized than civilized. From that perspective, it makes more sense to go back to hunter gatherer societies. Maybe people would be happier or whatever then. This whole society thing is crazy. Other animals don't do it and they've been around for even longer. The point is, time scales don't matter.
>if you look at the world today and it's okay to you the way it is, that's fine
I have problems with the way things are, but I feel right now is the best time to be alive and there has never been a greater time than the present.

>>1192
You could find my problems with any of what you've written here in my other posts, so I wont repeat myself.
>who or what led YOU to your ideology?
I think about what I like and what would realistically be good or bad for the things I like. That's all.

Post edited on 7th Mar 2021, 12:59pm

>>1194
>So you've been poisoned.
No I just actually have a background that spans further than the French revolution instead of being a rootless cultural infant.

>>1195
Your Americana, protestant nonsense is hardly older than the French revolution. How often did your parents listen to Bach? Everybody has access to the same cultural resources. What you call "roots" are vices that entrap your mind. What are you doing on an website for otaku? Shouldn't you be focusing on your "roots" a bit more?

Post edited on 7th Mar 2021, 4:14pm

>>1188
And yet more cowardly and snide comments. But then I don't know why I should expect better from you...

And it's not true so why concede? I already even addressed it but you lack an argument.

>>1196
>Your Americana, protestant nonsense is hardly older than the French revolution.
I was raised Roman Catholic
>How often did your parents listen to Bach?
Quite a lot actually. Or, at least, my mom made sure we listened to it while in the car as kids.
>What are you doing on an website for otaku?
Relaxing?

>>1198
So your parents worship an old guy on the other side of the planet and corpses people pretend were saints. Okay. I actually prefer protestantism despite it being newer. Another example of time scales not mattering. Your way of relaxing makes you a Japanophile race-traitor. If you actually cared about your roots you wouldn't soak yourself in heathen, squinty-eye shit.

Religion is a tricky subject for me, I understand for the average person the social aspect of it is pretty much the whole reason it still exists but supporting it because of the tradition to fight destructive ideas like self-hating communists trying to make inroads into your country isn't bad in my opinion.
There is an amusing irony in a Roman Catholic being a monarchist, though.