argued the concept of home transcended borders and urged Norway to embrace “trust, solidarity, and generosity”.
More gaslighting bullshit. Trust, solidarity, and generosity are all directly made worse by importing a bunch of low IQ goat fuckers who believe they have a god given right to destroy anyone who doesn't convert to Islam.
The "concept of home" does transcend borders. Those guys on the other side of the border have their home over there. And they know the place they're invading is your home.
No, this is just how Monarchism works, despite how Monarchists want to believe that monarchs will be based.
Almost all Monarchs tend to believe in luxury beliefs and are typically captured by their own assemblies and courts.
When we look at the reactionary, illiberal, monarchist restoration movements (like the Bourbon Restoration), you'll regularly find that these groups are far more monarchist and hard line than any of the monarchs.
The monarchs that aren't ideologically captured, or court-intrigue captured, are typically tyrants who can't accept that it's possible for them to commit treason. Hence, they support foreign betrayals because those international families are more familiar than the general population.
Monarchists don't really understand that, yeah, you might get a good king for 40 years. But then you get shit kings for 200 straight years.
Which form? Different forms of "democracy" have major downfalls.
Democracy as "the people's state" will be Totalitarianism. As such, you probably won't have any good years at all.
Democracy as voting is a different issue. Each form of voting has different problems, whether "Direct Democracy" or "Representative Democracy" or "Republicanism", or First Past the Post, or any other system.
Hereditary monarchy anyway. Basically the elite families are going to be elite globalists by definition. Rulers selected through ritualistic combat might be a little more based and certainly more entertaining.
Countries survived under (absolute) monarchy just fine for thousands of years. . Democracy only lasted a few hundred years before all the countries started falling apart
*Feudal monarchies, rather, where the king's power was constrained by custom and rival interest groups (not just against him but also each other) in the Church, the nobility & the towns/burghers. Absolute monarchies emerged in the 1600s and quickly gave way to revolutionary regimes which took their centralist & bureaucratizing tendencies further in just 100 years.
Well, I guess there was also Imperial China, but that had its own problems.
Ain't the ones Japan and there's some other European country where they're 'working royals' and even use public transport ok?
The problem is that a lot of them are reliant on how good their advisors are and the best are the ones whose advisors tell them to keep quite and away from voicing politics since that's what makes them hated.
I don't know about that but I saw kind of recently the young princess Aiko had graduated university and was riding the train to try and live like a normal person.
More gaslighting bullshit. Trust, solidarity, and generosity are all directly made worse by importing a bunch of low IQ goat fuckers who believe they have a god given right to destroy anyone who doesn't convert to Islam.
Home transcends borders, eh? I feel like this is not what King Haakon VII said to the Germans.
I believe the correct response is: "That is the enemy. Set 1200 meters. Fire"
Norway needs more anti-ship weapons.
The "concept of home" does transcend borders. Those guys on the other side of the border have their home over there. And they know the place they're invading is your home.
No, this is just how Monarchism works, despite how Monarchists want to believe that monarchs will be based.
Almost all Monarchs tend to believe in luxury beliefs and are typically captured by their own assemblies and courts.
When we look at the reactionary, illiberal, monarchist restoration movements (like the Bourbon Restoration), you'll regularly find that these groups are far more monarchist and hard line than any of the monarchs.
The monarchs that aren't ideologically captured, or court-intrigue captured, are typically tyrants who can't accept that it's possible for them to commit treason. Hence, they support foreign betrayals because those international families are more familiar than the general population.
Monarchists don't really understand that, yeah, you might get a good king for 40 years. But then you get shit kings for 200 straight years.
now do democracy
Which form? Different forms of "democracy" have major downfalls.
Democracy as "the people's state" will be Totalitarianism. As such, you probably won't have any good years at all.
Democracy as voting is a different issue. Each form of voting has different problems, whether "Direct Democracy" or "Representative Democracy" or "Republicanism", or First Past the Post, or any other system.
Hereditary monarchy anyway. Basically the elite families are going to be elite globalists by definition. Rulers selected through ritualistic combat might be a little more based and certainly more entertaining.
Eh, trial by combat might just lead us to stuff like Harold v. William.
I feel like it has to have some sort of trial by combat of lords and barons.
Countries survived under (absolute) monarchy just fine for thousands of years. . Democracy only lasted a few hundred years before all the countries started falling apart
*Feudal monarchies, rather, where the king's power was constrained by custom and rival interest groups (not just against him but also each other) in the Church, the nobility & the towns/burghers. Absolute monarchies emerged in the 1600s and quickly gave way to revolutionary regimes which took their centralist & bureaucratizing tendencies further in just 100 years.
Well, I guess there was also Imperial China, but that had its own problems.
Absolute monarchy is not very accurate. Even the French Sun King, je suis l'etat, had to grapple with significant power sharing agreements.
Listen to the first couple episodes of Mike Duncan's french revolution podcast if you are interested in the details.
Most countries lived under systems that weren't absolute monarchies, those are a bit rare. Most of those are fucking terrible almost by default.
There is only ONE royal family: Jesus, Mary and Joseph.
holy based
Ain't the ones Japan and there's some other European country where they're 'working royals' and even use public transport ok?
The problem is that a lot of them are reliant on how good their advisors are and the best are the ones whose advisors tell them to keep quite and away from voicing politics since that's what makes them hated.
I don't know about that but I saw kind of recently the young princess Aiko had graduated university and was riding the train to try and live like a normal person.
A friend of mine once said "the Japanese royal line is no longer straight."
I could not get him to elaborate, as he then disappeared for over a week.
EDIT: He finally came back. He said it was about them losing power after the bombs dropped. That made me hurt myself in my confusion...
The continued existence of Kings on earth is a lasting source of embarrassment for me.
I guarantee there are alot more things in your life you're embarrassed about
Sure, duh; that isn't even something I can do anything about. Still makes me ashamed of my humanity.
What humanity lol.