I found it really surprising that The Guardian out of all publications published this article. They're normally extremely liberal and woke when it comes to political issues.
Honestly, I can actually agree with this take. Liberal democracies have descended into mob rule over insignificant issues while the leaders are invertebrates that are incapable of finding their own ass with both hands and all the while, a class of rich oligarchs are getting richer and directing society according to their vision.
What the West needs is strong and decisive leaders that can actually work on unfucking their own countries without having to worry about political action committees, lobbying, corrupt officials and all that crap. Even people like Ron DeSantis aren't going to be able to do what needs to be done under a democratic framework, so it would only make sense to return to monarchy or other more autocratic forms of government.
Charles is the current King.
He is a climate change cultist and part of the WEF.
You cannot make a positive case for monarchy when your damn monarch will be part of the oligarchy who destroyed your country when it was a liberal democracy.
Monarchy is good only in theory.
It would be good if your monarch was a wise benevolent ruler but that is not going to be the case.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Monarchy is not the solution to our current problems.
While that's true, why not find a new king then? Someone who will actually be a wise benevolent ruler? These people exist and they can help save their own countries if placed in the right positions.
If we can't even do that, then the WEF might as well have won and there's nothing we can do about it except pray that papa Putin will launch the nukes and destroy the current world order.
Also, I'd disagree that absolute powers corrupts absolutely. I would instead argue that power doesn't corrupt, instead it reveals. It reveals what kind of person someone really is.
Society has both plenty of wannabe tyrants who lack the power to act on their dark impulses, and good people who could lead us to a better future but they lack the power as well. Give someone power, and you'll find out which group they're in.
How are you going to appoint a new king instead of Charles in the U.K?
You seem to be wrapped up in the notion that single individuals can fix all of our problems. That is a very simplistic way of looking at a multi-faceted problem where all of our major institutions have become rotten.
There are very clear flaws to our current status quo in the west but replacing it with monarchy is not the easy answer you believe it to be.
How are you going to appoint the benevolent wise man as your king?
Through voting?
What happens when the easily manipulated general populace appoints someone like Brandon to be king?
Think of what can go wrong not just what can go right.
Under an absolutist monarchy, kings rely on a certain amount of popular support to stay in power. If they fall below that level of support, they will be overthrown. The people will revolt or they'll be assassinated.
Trying to reform the system or switch from democracy to another system through peaceful means is not going to work. Like you mentioned, the institutions are completely rotten and there's a more insidious problem that the West is dealing with.
It's the importation of aliens and foreigners that has been ongoing for quite some time now.
"It is also a habit of tyrants to prefer the company of aliens to that of citizens at table and in society; citizens, they feel, are enemies, but aliens will offer no opposition. " - Aristotle
So it is, and reform becomes ever more unlikely as demographics change, for demographics are destiny. The foreigners and illegal aliens will receive handouts from the corrupt government and in turn, they will give their loyalty. For a time, until they achieve majority and most likely attempt to seize power themselves.
At this point, the only solution that could work in the West is for a revolution or coup to happen and a new regime headed by a strong leader to restore their country to its former greatness and purge the WEF-backed anti-human elements. Whether this is a monarchy or a dictatorship is immaterial, so long as someone is doing what needs to be done.
I'll admit, it's possible that the populace might actually make things worse and the wrong man could get in charge, but doing nothing will only result in the slow destruction of Western countries.
Thankfully, people do seem to be waking up on a large scale. Countries that haven't been completely subverted yet seem to be trying to resist. The Right has had victories in Italy and Sweden, two highly woke countries.
But the same approach is not going to work in countries like the UK or US, which are two party states where your choices are between a corrupt ineffectual party and one that is actively trying to accelerate your destruction.
It depends. Peasant revolts have happened in the past, the nobility isn't a factor under an absolutist, bureaucratic monarchy and what the military does depends on if they're being used as a favored class to maintain power or not.
Although this was then, things would likely work very differently now. Unless you're North Korea or China, any monarchist industrialized nation is going to develop serious unrest if the ruling monarch becomes tyrannical or sells out their own country. The digital age has made it very difficult to cover up the misdeeds of a head of state.
Sadly I can't really think of much off the top of my head. You're welcome to have a debate and maybe I'll remember something or come up with something quote-worthy though?
Royals like Charles III make a very persuasive argument for the UK's constitutional monarchy that restricts their role to the one that everybody's happy with.
While you're correct, the current democratic system favors the left, because it maintains a deadlock where nothing gets done and people keep infighting while the WEF and other unelected oligarchs run things behind the scenes.
For the same reason we can't expect to vote our way out of this problem, at least in the Anglosphere. The system has been captured too heavily by the oligarchs, making real change impossible.
Western liberal democracies are driven by both oligarchies and mob rule simultaneously.
Western institutions (the executive, judicial, mass media and academia) have all been subverted by the wokist ideology. It's gotten to the point where a single angry tranny can utterly ruin you and get you attacked by a personal army. Corporations and governments alike will kowtow to these people and bend to their every whim.
Yes, there are plenty of rich oligarchs and they have heavy influence on policy, but they are now being controlled by the monster that they seem to have created.
Nevertheless, things still work out in their favor because so long as they pay lip service to the new state religion, they can continue operating more or less with impunity. Amazon is pushing wokeness in one of the most expensive propaganda pieces ever, but people aren't interested that Bezos is literally forcing workers to piss in bottles because bathroom breaks lower productivity.
It's bad enough to have a group of rich, corrupt oligarchs that are looting your country, but now some of them have been infected by the woke social contagion which gives them a cause to fight for. A faith with unbelivers that need smiting and values to uphold.
In a way, the West today is a mix between an oligarchy and a theocracy (with the cult of social justice heading it)
Yes, there are plenty of rich oligarchs and they have heavy influence on policy, but they are now being controlled by the monster that they seem to have created.
Nah. There's no reason they couldn't give trannies the same treatment that they alt-right got post Charlottesville. They are the same side. That's why they won't. It's why, for example, Chris Wray ignored Antifa, calling it "just and idea" and instead kept the FBI focused on muh white supremacy (totally not an idea, right?). If the radlibs/woke/whatever you want to call them were actually competing with America's ruling class, you'd see that competition playing out. You don't because they aren't.
Yes and no. The wokists want a democratic society that technically allows you to make choices, but they want to make sure that you make the right choices.
A wokist outwardly supporting monarchy over democracy is a full on mask off moment.
It's not about centralizing power, it's about making sure that all the instutions are under their control and people obey them.
First, thank you for the link. I didn't know David Mitchell wrote stuff like this and I enjoyed it.
Secondly however, I think the joke went over your head. This is a famous comedian (if you've seen Mitchell and Webb) and he's saying things are so bad even Charles is a step up. The whole thing is seething with sarcasm, even the title:
"I know which of our unelected leaders I prefer"
He's clearly saying the whole parliament/EU is shite here. Another gem:
"Democracy and meritocracy are of course far preferable to royal autocracy, but Truss’s administration has no democratic mandate and displays no merit. Charles III seems to have just as much right to tell us what to do and could scarcely screw things up any worse."
This is brilliant satire and condemnation of the whole system.
In principle, it would work since there's one thing more important to a monarchy than a democracy: Legacy
You don't want to be the King remembered as weak and ineffectual nor do you want to be a ruler that left things in ruins for your heir to take over after you. That's why you focus on having good statesmen and talented advisors to ensure your country grows more powerful and stable for your future offspring to take over.
Of course in reality, the guardian might be suggesting this now since Charles is in charge but it seems from current events he's following his mother's example. He rejected going to that climate summit despite everyone trying to pressure him to go and has been a lot more reserved. So ironically, if they make him absolute ruler he might be good!
You're absolutely right. This is one advantage that I didn't immediately think of, but it makes a lot of sense. Under a democracy, you're only ruling for like four years so what investment do you have in ruling well?
You can make a mess and let the next idiots clean up the mess that you created. If they even bother doing so.
And when mediocrity or terrible performance becomes the norm, it just becomes part of the system.
And yes, it's likely that The Guardian is only suggesting this for Charles. Some people called him a WEF shill, but I think that he's as yet unproven so things could go either way. Let's hope he proves loyal to his country instead of the WEF.
What people don't seem to understand is that humans like authoritarianism when they believe the authority in power holds their interests and they hate authoritarianism when they believe the authority is counter to their interests.
This is why all the hippy liberty anti-government people of the 60s are now the most pro-government and anti-liberty people around because now the authority serves their interests whereas before the authority did not.
Monarchy is good when the absolute monarch represents your interests. Monarchy is bad when he does not. Currently, King Charles is a Judaised globohomo degenerate of western civilization so of course our enemies think he should be an absolute monarch. If Hitler 2.0 came about though, they'd immediately be talking about how important democracy is and how bad dictators are.
I found it really surprising that The Guardian out of all publications published this article. They're normally extremely liberal and woke when it comes to political issues.
Honestly, I can actually agree with this take. Liberal democracies have descended into mob rule over insignificant issues while the leaders are invertebrates that are incapable of finding their own ass with both hands and all the while, a class of rich oligarchs are getting richer and directing society according to their vision.
What the West needs is strong and decisive leaders that can actually work on unfucking their own countries without having to worry about political action committees, lobbying, corrupt officials and all that crap. Even people like Ron DeSantis aren't going to be able to do what needs to be done under a democratic framework, so it would only make sense to return to monarchy or other more autocratic forms of government.
Charles is the current King. He is a climate change cultist and part of the WEF.
You cannot make a positive case for monarchy when your damn monarch will be part of the oligarchy who destroyed your country when it was a liberal democracy.
Monarchy is good only in theory.
It would be good if your monarch was a wise benevolent ruler but that is not going to be the case.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Monarchy is not the solution to our current problems.
That Charles just got in is almost certainly the only reason the guardian would suggest it. No principles other than grabbing power by any means.
Future ramifications be damned, they probably reckon they'll just change the rules again if they don't like the next heir.
While that's true, why not find a new king then? Someone who will actually be a wise benevolent ruler? These people exist and they can help save their own countries if placed in the right positions.
If we can't even do that, then the WEF might as well have won and there's nothing we can do about it except pray that papa Putin will launch the nukes and destroy the current world order.
Also, I'd disagree that absolute powers corrupts absolutely. I would instead argue that power doesn't corrupt, instead it reveals. It reveals what kind of person someone really is.
Society has both plenty of wannabe tyrants who lack the power to act on their dark impulses, and good people who could lead us to a better future but they lack the power as well. Give someone power, and you'll find out which group they're in.
How are you going to appoint a new king instead of Charles in the U.K?
You seem to be wrapped up in the notion that single individuals can fix all of our problems. That is a very simplistic way of looking at a multi-faceted problem where all of our major institutions have become rotten.
There are very clear flaws to our current status quo in the west but replacing it with monarchy is not the easy answer you believe it to be.
How are you going to appoint the benevolent wise man as your king?
Through voting?
What happens when the easily manipulated general populace appoints someone like Brandon to be king?
Think of what can go wrong not just what can go right.
Under an absolutist monarchy, kings rely on a certain amount of popular support to stay in power. If they fall below that level of support, they will be overthrown. The people will revolt or they'll be assassinated.
Trying to reform the system or switch from democracy to another system through peaceful means is not going to work. Like you mentioned, the institutions are completely rotten and there's a more insidious problem that the West is dealing with.
It's the importation of aliens and foreigners that has been ongoing for quite some time now.
"It is also a habit of tyrants to prefer the company of aliens to that of citizens at table and in society; citizens, they feel, are enemies, but aliens will offer no opposition. " - Aristotle
So it is, and reform becomes ever more unlikely as demographics change, for demographics are destiny. The foreigners and illegal aliens will receive handouts from the corrupt government and in turn, they will give their loyalty. For a time, until they achieve majority and most likely attempt to seize power themselves.
At this point, the only solution that could work in the West is for a revolution or coup to happen and a new regime headed by a strong leader to restore their country to its former greatness and purge the WEF-backed anti-human elements. Whether this is a monarchy or a dictatorship is immaterial, so long as someone is doing what needs to be done.
I'll admit, it's possible that the populace might actually make things worse and the wrong man could get in charge, but doing nothing will only result in the slow destruction of Western countries.
Thankfully, people do seem to be waking up on a large scale. Countries that haven't been completely subverted yet seem to be trying to resist. The Right has had victories in Italy and Sweden, two highly woke countries.
But the same approach is not going to work in countries like the UK or US, which are two party states where your choices are between a corrupt ineffectual party and one that is actively trying to accelerate your destruction.
No, no they don't. They rely on the armed forces and they rely on the nobility, whom they keep on side with various favours and grants.
It depends. Peasant revolts have happened in the past, the nobility isn't a factor under an absolutist, bureaucratic monarchy and what the military does depends on if they're being used as a favored class to maintain power or not.
Although this was then, things would likely work very differently now. Unless you're North Korea or China, any monarchist industrialized nation is going to develop serious unrest if the ruling monarch becomes tyrannical or sells out their own country. The digital age has made it very difficult to cover up the misdeeds of a head of state.
... do you know what normally happens to those peasant revolts?
I'll give you a clue: It rarely ends well for the peasants.
Got any more cool monarchist quotes?
I'm serious--I need them for a little project of mine, and I don't trust any search engine to give me good stuff here.
Sadly I can't really think of much off the top of my head. You're welcome to have a debate and maybe I'll remember something or come up with something quote-worthy though?
Royals like Charles III make a very persuasive argument for the UK's constitutional monarchy that restricts their role to the one that everybody's happy with.
Suppose he was assassinated? Who's next in line of succession?
That's because they're in a position of power and they can influence monarchs to do their bidding. The monarchs they have in mind are THEIR monarchs.
The left is neither liberal nor democratic. They would love nothing more than an absolute dictatorship, as long as it's THEIR dictator.
While you're correct, the current democratic system favors the left, because it maintains a deadlock where nothing gets done and people keep infighting while the WEF and other unelected oligarchs run things behind the scenes.
For the same reason we can't expect to vote our way out of this problem, at least in the Anglosphere. The system has been captured too heavily by the oligarchs, making real change impossible.
What do you mean by this? Liberal democracies are oligarchies.
Western liberal democracies are driven by both oligarchies and mob rule simultaneously.
Western institutions (the executive, judicial, mass media and academia) have all been subverted by the wokist ideology. It's gotten to the point where a single angry tranny can utterly ruin you and get you attacked by a personal army. Corporations and governments alike will kowtow to these people and bend to their every whim.
Yes, there are plenty of rich oligarchs and they have heavy influence on policy, but they are now being controlled by the monster that they seem to have created.
Nevertheless, things still work out in their favor because so long as they pay lip service to the new state religion, they can continue operating more or less with impunity. Amazon is pushing wokeness in one of the most expensive propaganda pieces ever, but people aren't interested that Bezos is literally forcing workers to piss in bottles because bathroom breaks lower productivity.
It's bad enough to have a group of rich, corrupt oligarchs that are looting your country, but now some of them have been infected by the woke social contagion which gives them a cause to fight for. A faith with unbelivers that need smiting and values to uphold.
In a way, the West today is a mix between an oligarchy and a theocracy (with the cult of social justice heading it)
Nah. There's no reason they couldn't give trannies the same treatment that they alt-right got post Charlottesville. They are the same side. That's why they won't. It's why, for example, Chris Wray ignored Antifa, calling it "just and idea" and instead kept the FBI focused on muh white supremacy (totally not an idea, right?). If the radlibs/woke/whatever you want to call them were actually competing with America's ruling class, you'd see that competition playing out. You don't because they aren't.
Yes and no. The wokists want a democratic society that technically allows you to make choices, but they want to make sure that you make the right choices.
A wokist outwardly supporting monarchy over democracy is a full on mask off moment.
It's not about centralizing power, it's about making sure that all the instutions are under their control and people obey them.
First, thank you for the link. I didn't know David Mitchell wrote stuff like this and I enjoyed it.
Secondly however, I think the joke went over your head. This is a famous comedian (if you've seen Mitchell and Webb) and he's saying things are so bad even Charles is a step up. The whole thing is seething with sarcasm, even the title:
"I know which of our unelected leaders I prefer"
He's clearly saying the whole parliament/EU is shite here. Another gem:
"Democracy and meritocracy are of course far preferable to royal autocracy, but Truss’s administration has no democratic mandate and displays no merit. Charles III seems to have just as much right to tell us what to do and could scarcely screw things up any worse."
This is brilliant satire and condemnation of the whole system.
In principle, it would work since there's one thing more important to a monarchy than a democracy: Legacy
You don't want to be the King remembered as weak and ineffectual nor do you want to be a ruler that left things in ruins for your heir to take over after you. That's why you focus on having good statesmen and talented advisors to ensure your country grows more powerful and stable for your future offspring to take over.
Of course in reality, the guardian might be suggesting this now since Charles is in charge but it seems from current events he's following his mother's example. He rejected going to that climate summit despite everyone trying to pressure him to go and has been a lot more reserved. So ironically, if they make him absolute ruler he might be good!
You're absolutely right. This is one advantage that I didn't immediately think of, but it makes a lot of sense. Under a democracy, you're only ruling for like four years so what investment do you have in ruling well?
You can make a mess and let the next idiots clean up the mess that you created. If they even bother doing so.
And when mediocrity or terrible performance becomes the norm, it just becomes part of the system.
And yes, it's likely that The Guardian is only suggesting this for Charles. Some people called him a WEF shill, but I think that he's as yet unproven so things could go either way. Let's hope he proves loyal to his country instead of the WEF.
What people don't seem to understand is that humans like authoritarianism when they believe the authority in power holds their interests and they hate authoritarianism when they believe the authority is counter to their interests.
This is why all the hippy liberty anti-government people of the 60s are now the most pro-government and anti-liberty people around because now the authority serves their interests whereas before the authority did not.
Monarchy is good when the absolute monarch represents your interests. Monarchy is bad when he does not. Currently, King Charles is a Judaised globohomo degenerate of western civilization so of course our enemies think he should be an absolute monarch. If Hitler 2.0 came about though, they'd immediately be talking about how important democracy is and how bad dictators are.
They're only saying that because Charles is one of them.