Stability is not freedom. Stability is stagnation. What has Oman done? Like ever, other than sell oil? Nothing. Choice of the people leads to innovation. That is what got us to the moon. Oman never got to the moon. I will take a unstable government over a stable one every time. It's what the founders wanted.
Jordan is not an absolutist monarchy and I spoon-fed you that example of Oman because you couldn't name a single country.
Lolno. WWI Germany was more democratic than WWI Russia, the epitome of absolutism, and did better on the battlefield than the latter. They were less democratic than France or Britain or the US, and certainly did a lot worse on the battlefield given they lost. A bunch of their generals came from illustrious families founded by medieval knights who produced soldiers and generals for centuries. Meanwhile they were defeated by France, among whose famous marshals was the son of vineyard owners (Joffre) and a guy from a peasant family (Petain). Neither of them would have the positions they did if France was a monarchy. And don't even get me started on the USSR's generals vs aristocratic Wehrmacht generals like Manstein, Bock, or Kleist. The Soviets turned borderline illiterate peasants into successful generals.
Why do you bring up "pop history" when you make bizarre claims like this? The Ottomans didn't deforest Anatolia or Greece because they were deforested no later than the early Middle Ages. Romans really liked their baths, you see. In Anatolia the forests never came back because it was a giant warzone for centuries between the Byzantines and Arabs and the only logical lifestyle was herding goats and sheep. Modern Turks are barely distinguishable from Greeks and Armenians because it was easy for those shepherd communities to join their Turkish neighbors and become Muslims to avoid paying jizya.
Your "successful generals" were responsible for one of the most embarrassing wars in human history, the one in which Russian aristocrat Mannerheim wiped the floor with illiterate ukrainains who couldn't pass primary school but were appointed to lead armies out of nepotism
Did the republican system do that? Or is it your people's iniquitousness that caused them to sell out their own for personal gain?
Yes, the republican politicians are to blame for this. Our republican constitution is nothing but an instrument to cement the elite's political power, it has been since day 1, and is seen as legitimate only because of copious amounts of propaganda. Most of the political class that wrote it would end up joining gayops like Gladio and the P2 lodge.
Issue is that a smaller country will always lose to the larger country. There's a reason Europe is completely dependent on the USA.
The Finns were defending against foreign invasion, that totally changes the dynamic, and Stalin was a fool who purged and shot his most capable officers up to and after the Winter War leaving the country vulnerable.
The rise of centralized nation-states corresponds with the fall of monarchies, these things aren't separate. Monarchists were always in favor of local autonomy as opposed to centralized representative democracy.
Russian Empire conquered Finland in a couple of months mind you. I don't think the dynamic would stay the same if Mannerheim was in charge of Russian army and Voroshilov was the one defending Finnish Socialist Republic.
This brings us back to the topic of the monarchy. In a state where changes in leadership are common the leader will always feel weak and threatened, as such he will try to remove anyone who's smarter and more talented than him due to fear of being replaced. This is especially true in meritocracies, where your right to rule is justified by the fact that you are better than everyone else. In a monarchy your right to rule is secured through your bloodline, as such you don't feel threatened by the presence of more competent people and the king can surround himself with advisors who know more than him. There have been cases where this has been untrue, but it's more about failing to adhere to the principles of the monarchy than the fault of the monarchy itself.
Ah yes checks notes the massive security state that monitors every single thing you're doing oh wait that's the United States and the Soviet Union and communist China yes there was secret police in Russia during the empire but do you know what they mainly prosecuted people attempting to overthrow the government not random citizens going about the day-to-day business they also weren't trying to turn your sons into homosexuals.
Modern China and Russia beg to differ. Those are very centralized states but clearly have proven resilient to social decay. I do agree that large bureaucracies can be extremely dangerous when the state is morally decaying since it entrenches evil, as we see right now in the West. And technology is a no brainer for its contribution to how fucked up society is these days. That said I do favor a decentralized state, like in the US that's what we call "states' rights."
The rise of centralized nation-states was a consequence of economics favoring the guy who had the most money, and that wasn't some random count or duke but the king, who could actually afford things like well-trained standing armies or hiring the best engineers to make the best forts. Sure, the French revolutionaries were very centralized, but they just continued in the footsteps of Louis XIV who didn't give two shits about local or regional autonomy. Happened everywhere in Europe, like in 1714 the Spanish king suppressed all the regional laws in his country and put them under Castillian law. The 18th century Russian tsars were similar centrist and revoked plenty of noble privileges.
Lmao no it isn't, the king is just as likely to throw you in prison or execute you as a potential threat to the stability of the state. Look at all the successful generals who got assassinated by their ruler because they were terrified of them.
Kill bookings attack the noble generals kings that are loved promote them six books on the Commonwealth goes into this if you start off with the bad king his roots do not go deep enough but if you are followed by a terrible son and you were a good king people remember you and within your son most kings are pretty mediocre but I'd rather have a mediocre king the mediocre president
This is not always true, and it certainly isn't the case in a scenario of nuclear proliferation or bio-weapons.
The establishment of a "monarchy" would not by itself mean greater local autonomy, whether self-described monarchists support it or not. Unless there is a fundamental change in the size and scope of the nation-state, as well as changes to basic monetary policy and technological conditions of that society, there is little possibility of having a functional monarchical or republican system in the first place. It will replicate all the same failures of the current political model. Monarchists are not working from a vacuum. Monarchies ceded power to these very institutions before, and royalty within various modern states today is hardly at odds with the central banking system or the deep state. It's a problem of implementing monarchy as a practical extension of current conditions.
You say "modern China and Russia" as if both of them haven't had massive governmental change and collapse in the last 40 years. Just because they don't allow trannies in their media doesn't mean they aren't undergoing their own kind of societal decay. In fact, in China in particular, I'd say government overreach is a significant contributor to its societal decline.
I could easily point to Israel as an example where nuclear capabilities don't protect a country from being fucked with by funding local militias or waging economic warfare.
The ancient east Asian cases of purges, at least in Han China came from a series of very interesting and well intentioned ideas of basing the state on landowning peasants.
And I could easily point to Afghanistan or Vietnam as examples of where even countries without nuclear capabilities were able to resist foreign incursion by a much larger country - multiple times. Israel is one of the worst examples you could give to prove your point. They are surrounded by hostile states, many of which ARE larger than them, Iran is nearly 10 times larger by population size alone. Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan... all of them are significantly larger than Israel. And yet Israel is able to not only survive, but also continually expand its territory. Now, I know you can point to US aid to Israel as some kind of complicating factor, and it would be. Except your claim, which is stupid, was that a smaller country always loses. Clearly, it doesn't.
I disagree. Afghanistan is a barbaric shithole that even its own terrorist leadership barely controls.
