Why do dictatorships rarely outlive their first dictator?

>>511241240 (OP)
international banking cartel

>>511241240 (OP)
dictatorships are (usually) non-hereditary monarchies, but without the royal title
the refusal to adopt a royal title is their downfall, as the reasoning is built upon self-defeating notions such as equality or populism. if monarchy is illegitimate, so is the monarch-in-denial. if monarchy is legitimate, why not declare yourself a monarch?

also all monarchies need to be hereditary or dynastic to last because it grants the monarch a biological incentive to care for his country's long-term standing, even in the absence of a moral incentive
and before anyone embarrasses himself: no, countries like britain or spain are not monarchies as they do not have a monarch (=sole ruler) but ceremonial figureheads who may as well be LARPers

>>511241240 (OP)
roman empire blocks your path

>>511241240 (OP)
Too much focus on the individual while little left to having a strong party to last. On that aspect they've done good in North Korea

We only get puppets from secret societies. All engineering consent for global techno-communism

>>511241240 (OP)
not enough focus on succession
There's a reason 99% of all dictatorships ever have been hereditary because its quick and easy and leaves little room for interpretation
Also because a lot of the dictators we think of in the 20th century either try to completely change the system after their death like Franco or die or lose power in a war like Hitler, Mussolini and Saddam Hussein

dick 'taters

>>511241997
The denial of monarchy also hurts dictators who want to pass the mantle to their heirs. Most dictatorships keep the facade of republicanism intact, which only makes it harder to justify their family’s rule over the country. Assad and African dictatorships like Togo and Gabon held elections but when the recently deceased president’s son ‘wins’ with 99.99% of the vote, the sham becomes too obvious.

>>511242696
whoops. wrong pic

>>511241240 (OP)
Cult of personality does not normally transfer to another person.

>>511241240 (OP)
Franco was here to avoid the commies turning Spain into another commie shithole. His mission was done well, but democracy came again and freedom allowed the commies coming back and freemasons too.

The solution would have been forbiding these two things.

>>511242990
I’m talking more general and not Franco in particular

>>511241240 (OP)
Because zionists get their golems, AKA christians, to attack them.

>>511241240 (OP)
because fascism is a defect rebranding of monarchy which is inherently instable
in an educated industrial society

>>511241240 (OP)
Because the king who established the kingdom, knows "why" he built it. Purpose.

They become personality cults that fail to incorporate other figures/succession into the cult lore, resulting in fragmentation and/or collapse shortly after. You can also see a somewhat similar process in various political movements in modern democracies

>>511243986
>inherently instable in an educated industrial society
Yeah, dictatorships maintain a republican facade but repress actual democracy. It lays the groundwork for protests as the people know they are living in a poor imitation of a democratic state.

>>511243986
A uniparty authoritarian state with power divested into a single party leader is generally going to be the new 'mode of governance' once US branded democracy fades away as the US' global power does too, and the aforementioned mode of governance will become more and more popular as the other great powers, Russia and China, both possess this model

>>511245143
thats instable too, to much power in one hand

>>511245143
An age of kings with no crowns and no legitimacy