Notice: You have been identified as a bot, so no internal UID will be assigned to you. If you are a real person messing with your useragent, you should change it back to something normal.
People won’t like this, but the truth is that Communism and Liberal Democracy are both revolutionary ideologies that came out of opposition to the tyranny of monarchy. If you look into the Russian revolution and the American revolution, they were both fighting against the same thing which is feudal hereditary based monarchy.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 2 hours later, 6 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,426,433
@1,426,398 (C)
Liberalism decays into fascism, and fascism is just unhinged militaristic expantionist monarchy.
There are countries that have had stable governments and consistent development under monarchy. Fascism, a consequence of liberalism, burns out quickly.
> Liberalism decays into fascism, and fascism is just unhinged militaristic expantionist monarchy.
That’s actually surprisingly based from a monarchist.
> There are countries that have had stable governments and consistent development under monarchy. Fascism, a consequence of liberalism, burns out quickly.
If we have a monarchy, I’d rather have one like the Holy See where the monarch is democratically elected, because for the life of me, I cannot stand praising born rich incest babies for the sake of being born rich incest babies.
Anonymous E double-posted this 1 month ago, 8 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,426,442
Like Hirohito for example. Like what? You were born to a 16 year old teen mom, people flew themselves into ships for you because it was more honorable to die than surrender, and then what? You just surrendered? Seriously?
Anonymous E triple-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 8 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,426,443
I’m not a Japanese so I shouldn’t say this maybe but if I was Japanese and I was alive in the 1940s and I was hearing about kamikaze pilots and then I heard Hirohito surrendered, I would be like… "Bitch."
Anonymous E quadruple-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 8 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,426,444
And I’m not saying I think he shouldn’t have surrendered it’s like, at least shoot yourself or something if that’s what you made everybody else do. Like come on, fuck you!
Anonymous E sextuple-posted this 1 month ago, 5 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,426,446
Fun fact about Hitler: he was baptized and confirmed as a Roman Catholic, and traditionally in Catholicism suicide is considered to be worse than murder and unforgivable.
> Monarchy is stable and brings accountability. > > Democracy justifies bourgouise rule and rotates figureheads to keep up hope and dispell the idea that anyone is truly responsible.
Monarchy fails and you get the occasional great king and a lot of inept legacies. Maybe the regent or advisors hold things together.
There is no justification for monarchy, as evidenced in the “divine right of kings.”
The idiots who claim stability and fewer wars neglect The Thirty Years’ War, War for Spanish Succession, Seven Years’ War, Napoleonic Wars, 1848 Revolts, Crimean War, and WWI.
Over time you end up with inbred bloodlines.
It’s a lifetime position and you’re stuck with whatever you get.
> Recessive gene expression is likely bad among the dregs and good amongst the nobles.
You get into pure bloodline nonsense. Think of a king like you would a family business. The founder is the great entrepreneur and CEO, and often the inheritors are nepo babies, legacies, and rent collectors, with the occasional Henry V or Frederick II or Edward I. You never get a full line of them.
Think also to the Roman emperors. A few greats, followed by a revolving door, Crisis of the Third Century, and a brief respite from chaos granted by Diocletian.
You need functioning institutions and continuity so that an entire society doesn’t depend on the good will, health, or mental soundness of the singular “great leader.”
If we look back to pharaohs and the like, or the Chinese, dynastic collapses led to chaos, mass death, and recessions beyond the palace economy.
They do share a lot of the same genes, however, and a king is much more likely to have recessive genes that promote strength or intelligence compared to a commoner or underclass.
Those genes may not express in the next generation, because you need pairs of them working together, but incest among nobles increases the chance of another genetic lottery winner.