The time of Kings has returned

Republics are great. The greatest wealth, the best heights of civilisation, come from Republics. Unfortunately Republics require rather special conditions, as used to be well known. Republics tend to destroy the conditions that make them possible, and these conditions have been destroyed.

For a Republic to actually work:

1. The voters, the enfranchised, own property. Without this, elections degenerate into advance auctions of stolen goods.
2. The voting class is intelligent, educated, and literate, or else you are going to get rule by demagogues, by those best at conning and manipulating.
3. The voting class are virtuous, upright, and God fearing.  The founders of the American Republic repeated emphasised that without faith and virtue, the Republic could not survive.
4. The voting class are all or nearly all of the same or sufficiently similar religion.
5. The voting class are homogeneous, they are all or nearly all of the same race. Differences in race or religion result in tribal politics. Notice that the jury system no longer works since minority voters feels that members of their own minority are entitled to do bad things to whites.
6. Warlike. Power comes from the barrel of a gun. The class that votes is roughly the same class as fights. The typical voter serves militarily.  And we now see that to serve militarily, the typical voter needs a property right in his wife and children.  Those without family or reasonable prospects of family are unlikely to volunteer to defend their nation.

Since these conditions no longer apply, a Republic is no longer viable. It is time for Kings again.

Kings are a regrettable remedy for a sinful people. The book of Samuel vehemently points out the problems with Kings. But how bad are kings compared to what we have now?

There are more than ten countries today in which Kings exercise actual power.

You will notice that only one of these countries is all that tyrannical. They are mostly nice countries to live in, unless you want to engage in leftism, or street preach a religion contrary to the state religion, and even nicer countries to be a citizen of, albeit not quite as nice if you do not subscribe to the state religion. But still very nice to be a citizen if you do not.  All of them that are oil rich (which is most of them) have escaped the resource curse, where resources are dissipated in destructive elite conflicts.  Most resource rich countries where a disproportionate amount of wealth comes from resources are worse off for being resource rich.  The greatest benefit of monarchy is that it avoids the resource curse.  People in resource rich monarchies are better off because of the resources, rather than worse off.

The Seven emirates of the UAE, Al Maktoum family since 1833. While each emirate maintains internal autonomy, the UAE operates as a union where the ruler of Abu Dhabi serves as President and Head of State, and the ruler of Dubai serves as Prime Minister and Head of Government. Provides impressively good governance. Dubai is an excape hatch for white elites from around the world.

Brunei , ruled by Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah, Absolute ruler; also serves as Prime Minister, Minister of Defense, and Minister of Finance. Controls all branches of government and enforces strict Sharia law. Nice place.

Liechtenstein: Prince Hans-Adam II (de facto: Prince Alois)
Power: Retains strong constitutional powers, including vetoing legislation, dissolving parliament, and initiating constitutional referendums. Used to be a little Dubai, but now Dubai outcompetes it.

Saudi Arabia, ruled by King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, : Absolute monarch with supreme executive, legislative, and judicial authority. Appoints all key ministers and judges; royal family dominates all state institutions. Pretty nice if you are a native — kind of sucks to be a foreigner.

Oman, ruled Sultan Haitham bin Tarik: Absolute ruler; holds full executive and legislative powers. Directly controls defense, foreign affairs, and the military. Again, pretty nice if you are a native.

Eswatini: King Mswati III.  Unlike the other countries on this list, it is typical of poorly run African countries. It is thoroughly reactionary, and makes reaction look rather bad.  It is as repressive as people fear monarchies might be. But then most of Africa is quite repressive.  The best that can be said of it is that it is far from being the worst country in Africa, which is a very low bar.

Bahrain: King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa
Power: Semi-constitutional but retains significant power: appoints the entire upper house of parliament, key ministers, and can veto laws. Again, very nice if you are a native.

7. Jordan
Monarch: King Abdullah II
Power: Appoints the prime minister and cabinet, dissolves parliament, and controls the military and intelligence services. Parliament has limited oversight.  It is biggest problem is that when there is trouble in the Middle East, as there frequently is, everyone wants to flee to Jordan.  It has no oil, nor much of any resources, but still does OK economically, because you can invest and do business safely.  And, unlike most of the middle east, you can be member of a racial or religious minority safely. People in the middle east are voting for monarchy with their feet.

8. Morocco
Monarch: King Mohammed VI
Power: Holds supreme executive authority, including control over the military, religious affairs, and judiciary. Can dismiss governments and issue decrees.  Not really a great advertisement for Monarchy, but not bad at all by Middle Eastern standards.    Provides better government than most of the middle east, but that is a low bar to clear.  Not a good place for foreigners to do business in.

10. Qatar
Monarch: Emir Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani
Power: Absolute authority in practice; appoints the prime minister and cabinet, controls defense and foreign policy, and dissolves legislative bodies. Again, very nice for natives, and rather popular among foreigners, though Dubai outcompets it.