Which form of power do you think is better and why exactly is it?
Both gay, but fascism ohhh fascism, that makes my toes curl. HH
Nazism was a republic - the highest office was not inherited, Hitler himself wanted to give power to Goering or Goebbels after his death. Plus, Hitler never wanted to return the Hohenzollerns. Fascism in Italy existed in 1943 as the formal monarchy of the Italian King Victor Emmanuel 3
Republic, I don’t want my taxes going to some faggot to get slaves cause he was born in the right family while I rot away with no foid
Woah so he wasnt a dictator, damn i need to stop reading these jewish books, so i guess a republic, honestly that makes more sense. He was voted into power.
It still goes a to a certain families that believe ((((they)))) are chosen
Yes of course but no so blatantly out in the open.
And the faggot Charles apparently can’t get prosecuted for crimes either. So he could go on a raping and beheading of foids spree and nothing will happen legally
Hitler, even under Weimar law, was the legitimate ruler of Germany and the German people. The last president of the Weimar Republic, Hindenburg, gave Hitler, as head of the NSDAP, the Reich Chancellor's chair by decree.
I am also for a republic, since the monarchy does not protect against degeneration, look at Norway or Sweden.
Wanting to give power to someone after the ruler dies is not what a republic is. It literally means "the public matter", it needs input from the public at large.
Nazism was an autocracy.
Yes, but legally, the constitution of the Weimar Republic even remained there.
The theoretical doesn't matter if it's not applied in practice.
the Republic in my opinion is by far the best of the 2. It allows all the inhabitants of the country, both the less fortunate social classes and not, to vote. Furthermore, none of these voters who will be elected president will have all types of powers (legislative, judicial, executive), this allows to avoid the birth of a possible dictators who, having all these powers can literally do what they want with the country. In any case, not even the republic is 100% the ideal one, wanting to play the devil's advocate, since it is a vote of the majority, and being such it is not said that their votes can correspond to justice or truth. If the majority of people want a country that goes for their ideals no one can stop it, this means that the real power is not held by the people but by the thoughts of the majority of people, therefore it is not said that this is the true form of justice. But between the two it is far better to give the vote to the majority of the population than to a single person, especially if that person is a person who will not be elected but will only have the fortune of being born the son of a Monarch, and who, among other things, is not necessarily the best that the country can hope for its future. There are numerous examples in history of governments in which the power of monarchs has had an impact on the future of the history of their country.
Yes, you are right, the monarchy is always random. You can get a wise, just and great king like Peter 1 of Russia or Frederick 2 of Prussia, or you can get Louis 16 or Nicholas 2, who will destroy everything with their illiterate management.
Exactly
F
I don't like either because laws are gay. If I'd have to choose, I'd pick the republic. I don't want to be some kings cuck
J
What does it matter whether the cunt that rules over me got there via the will of god or the will of easily manipulatable cattle, there still is a cunt that rules over me. Democracy is a scam, it makes you feel like you have some control or that it is some least evil but it is not, it would require the NPCs to actually think for a second before they vote. That said, at least a king doesn't have to pander to morons or greedy old farts to get reelected so between the two Id go for monarchy.
Monarchy is useless if it's not an absolute monarchy. The republic seems better as it has the potential to turn into a sort of quasi-monarchy like the USSR, DPRK or The Protectorate of England
Monarchy as of the ol ruff days would come with some manner of noblesse oblige, a small improvement over todays elite that ravage and take and destroy without even pretending to have an obligation to the people they exploit and kill.
There was no quasi-monarchy in the USSR, power was transferred from one person to another without family ties. Lenin gave it to Stalin, then Khrushchev, then Brezhnev, then Andropov, then Chernenko and Gorbachev.
Khrushchev was forcibly deprived of power and sent into exile to the country for retirement.
Nonpartisan ethnocratic Presidential Republic
Nazism was a monarchy in all but name due to the Fuhrerprinzip
National Socialism is essentially a Völkisch Monarchy, so that
FUCK MONARCHS
The most accurate answer in the thread
These are only formally monarchies: the monarch has no legal powers. A more apt juxtaposition would be any EU country and Saudi Arabia/UAE/Kuwait.
Anyway, in the West, any thought about a genuine monarchy has been obsolete for a century. The last dictatorships in the capitalist Europe were in Greece and Portugal, those survived till 1970s. I don't think I'd opt for absolute monarchy anyway, but I'd support an authoritarian regime. Hungary doesn't even identify as a liberal democracy and I couldn't care less if Orban tailors the media. Because it's a relatively small country and with sufficient foreign funding the globalists could gain the upper hand again. People can be easily manipulated and there are several examples in the EU where just a decade ago the media was free indeed, but the corporate interests turned them into propaganda mouthpieces where independent thought is non-existent.
Republic, Monarchies are gigacucked. Of course a republic can be many things, it really just means the absence of a hereditary monarch
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
