Aristocracy will return

True aristocracy, the rule of the noble, will return, because it's the natural state of human existence. We're all born as dumb, ignorant and useless children who need leadership by those, who are better than us. This will become the principle for every layer of society again, so everyone can pursue the struggle of overcoming himself/herself. Those at the top have to overcome themselves without leadership, which is the highest art of self improvement. Only ideals/gods guide them.
Right now, social status is determined by material goods, which can be stolen or achieved through betrayel. Honour and a noble character however have to be individually achieved. You cannot steal courage or honesty or industriousness or loyalty or strength or hospitality etc. Virtues can not be achieved in dishonest ways. Anything but true aristocracy leads to degeneration and weakness. The gods will return and reconquer this weak world with ease, do your best and contribute your part in the battle.

Attached: asgardsreien.png (1366x768, 2.08M)

Okay, so that's all well and good.
But allow me play devil's advocate to test how much you have thought this through.

You say that aristocracy is the natural order and I agree. In fact we live under an (((aristocracy))) today.
You also suggest that society would be better off if honourable, noble, courageous, honest, industrious, loyal, and strong aristocrats would lead us into an era of peace and prosperity for all. And again, no argument from me on that particular scenario.
But, just because someone is born into a ruling family does not guarantee that they will hold any of these characteristics. An aristocrat born into a wealthy house may well be a self absorbed, arrogant, little cunt who will squander his wealth and ruin the people whom he rules.

Furthermore, if an aristocrat is assured that he may rule indefinately, he may pursue policies that enrich himself at the expense of the peasantry. More worrisome still, he may employ the same tactics that the jews use to rule over the peasantry. Namely, the forced racial mixing and "multiculturalism" that is intended to neutralize the nationalistic spirit of the population and destroy our ability to revolt.

These are some potential pittfalls to resurrecting "true" aristocracy that you must contend with.

Attached: 12.jpg (1600x1200, 195.78K)

It pretty much did before the French revolution. The European nobility were bred for morality, intelligence and honor for thousands of years.

The point being is that the peasants know how is in charge. It isn't a democracy where to people are pitted against each other and the leader is shuffled every few years. If the aristocracy is draining the nation the peasants know who's head to chop off.

Feels real bad, man. My family can trace its lineage to mid european high society in parts of Austria, Switzerland and London back to the early 18th century, when records and letters kept by a now deceased great great Aunt on my mom's side surfaced, which had details of relatives leaving for the new land and settling in what is now Georgia. They became quite rich, setting up one of the first assembly line type factories for manufacturing wooden accessories such as pool sticks and rocking chairs.

There is not much upward mobility for strapping aryan looking men anymore, unless you become a pozzed soycuck. I am not able to hide my power level anymore. My eyes exude fierce disdain whenever I am in public. They don't make eye contact with me but I can feel their stares when I turn around. Half marvel and half shitskin seethe, like they are in awe that something they assumed had already gone extinct is still roaming around. I feel that I am going to be swarmed and eaten alive by these animals one day.

True aristocracy is in opposition to "birth privilege". Just because your father was noble doesn't mean you're noble as well. I believe the concept of nobility has been subverted through the middle ages. Imagine a wolfpack. A son of the alpha is not automatically the next alpha. He has to prove it like everyone else in the pack. So the alpha is always the best wolf AT A GIVEN TIME. He only leads until, he's not the best anymore. Then he returns to being a free man/wolf following the new alpha/leader, because he knows it's the best for himself and the whole pack. Some applies for aristocracy. You don't follow anyone. because he or she happens to have a certain name or belongs to a "noble family", but because they are better than you and you can learn from them.

I really hate to tell you this, but aristocrats before the French revolution were not angels. They were as cut throat as today's politicians are. The Polish aristocracy for instance invited the jews into Poland in order to use them as middlemen in exploiting the peasants.
And the French aristocrats caused the French revolution itself. Firstly by stupendeous mismanagement of the French economy and then by jockying for power with the king. Remember that the king was forced to call the Estates General because the nobels refused to pay a fair share of taxes, instead shifting the burden to the starving peasants. And many of the political agitators that sought to restrict the kings power were aristocrats who chaffed under the absolute rule of the king.

That's a nice theory, but in practice that rarely ever happens. Most revolutions (the French and Russian revolutions included) are led by elements within the elites. And when this does not happen, a string of foolish aristocrats can cripple a country.
Great examples of this are the Holy Roman Empire. Especially during the 30 years war, which was one of the most idiotic and bloody conflicts in history. Aforementioned Poland which was famously corrupt. Russian and Austrian elites used to bribe Polish nobels into ennacting policies that harmed Poland.
History is replete with examples of foolish aristocrats who harmed their nation with their petty squabbling and jockeying for power. Indeed, they would fight many wars for things that did not benefit their country. And if the wars went poorly, then the peasantry would suffer terribly.

Kys kike. The Jews push for an overcast ruling those below. This is the fundamental end goal of communism, of capitalism, - the creation of a 1984 state.

Hitler was initially decieved by romantic notions of aristocracy, but his illusions were dispelled upon actually meeting European nobility who he found weak and inept.

Power must always be gained by competence, not by birth.

Attached: 1471890605400-2.png (419x504, 239.84K)

No. Egalitarian meritocracy is cancer. After time classes of people will naturally stratify biologically. Families should be allowed to slowly shift in hierarchy, but a noble born should ALWAYS be worth more than a peasant. After thousands of years it is completely impossible that any low-born person will ever be more intelligent or moralistic as a nobleman. The first thing kikes did was convince the lower classes that they could ever rule.


The aristocracy were saints in compared to the middle class. Most of what you think you know about the aristocracy are kike lies fed to Europeans for more than two centuries.


You're an actual retard. Top down rulership is how Europe ruled before the kikes and their (((enlightenment))) cancer. Hitler knew this and this is why Natsoc was strictly hierarchical. Genetics always matter MUCH more than anything else. It would take a fluke of nature for a noble born to be less than a low-breed serf.

Fair enough. But then the question arises; how do we determine our rulers?
You mention that we can choose who to follow. Yes, as individuals we can. But government is more complex than choosing which e-celeb to subscribe to.
Also, if aristocrats are selected based on who follows them, isn't that just another form of "republicanism?"
Rule by elected representatives.

I agree. If you force your leadership upon others, you're not noble. Real leaders don't have to force anyone to follow. Their followers want to be like them and therefore follow without force. Our present times are different though. Scum is larping as noble, using their money and media to appear as the (((right side of history))). However, lies never pay of on the long run, therefore they will ultimately fail and true nobility will com back. As I already said in the original post: Spiritual, internal wealth can not be stolen and virtue will always prevail virtue signaling. Lies will collapse soon.

Natsoc as a transitional ideology back to aristocratic monarch.

The ruling class if far more degenerate than even your average nigger

Attached: heather-tony-podesta-arch-of-hysteria-art-getty.png (291x380, 269.17K)

If history is a lie, then none of us can be certain of anything at all.
You have a very rosey picture of the elites. You know, the peasants didn't start the 30 years war. The nobles did. The peasants didn't set the tax levels of France before the revolution. The elites did. And YOU said yourself that f the elites fuck up, the should lose their heads. If you stand by your earlier statement, then France is a prime example of your suggestion in action.

Okay. Sure.
But how does it work in practice?
Do you want to return to the system that led to the First World War?

Yes

The current ruling class is composed of jews, bankers and merchants.

A series of physical, mental, and spiritual trials that can be attempted by anyone but mastered by only the fittest would insure not only the best leaders, but would guarantee that neither women, niggers, nor jews could ever pass them.

Jews started the first world war. Get rid of them and the old system works fine.

The more talented will come to the top, even if you give everyone the same chance. I agree, that great parents will most likely have great children. However thy still have to prove it, like everyone else. If they really are better, they won't have any problem with that and will appreciate the challenge. If they are trying to evade it because Mus noble family, they are probably just afraid of losing and weak. Don't say everyone should go to the same school or something. That's just stupid, the best education system maximizes inequality, everyone with a sane brain knows that. Imagine everyone learning to play guitar with the same methods/teachers. The distance between the most and least talented becomes biggest. Distance is zero however if noone learns how to play the guitar.

Only history from enlightenment inspired republicans is a lie. The nobility wasn't perfect but it's the best we can get without turning ourselves to low-breed amoral merchants. France was depleted from fighting wars before the revolution but the fire was stoked by the middle class. The conditions in France weren't as bad as made out to be. They were MUCH worse after the revolution. Also war isn't a bad thing. Aristocratic-knight families were the ones leading their armies into battle. Its only in this world of middle-class secular rule that the leaders don't participate in war.

Podesta isn't a jew, bankers or merchant.

Funny, I have aristocratic roots in the caucasus too, Ossetia to be more specific.

What are these trials?


That is simplistic. In truth, the elites of Austria and Russia bare the most responsibility for the war.
They fucked up. Instead of working out a peaceful solution to the assassination of Ferdinand, they acted in ways that guaranteed war. And because of the inflexibility of the alliance system that they established, it guaranteed that the war would be bloody and destructive. THIS allowed the jews the breathing room to take over Europe.
Also, the Russian elites really fucked up. The Tsar in particular made a series of shockingly stupid decisions as well as keeping his country in the meatgrinder despite knowing what harm it was doing to his people.
The jews did not start WW1. Fools did.

Because you can't give everyone the same treatment in society. People need to be bred into certain roles in order to feel content and do well in them. "Better" isn't on a linear scale. You need a farming population bred for farming, a warrior class bred for fighting, and a ruling class bred for ruling. Putting it in everyone's head that they can be the ruler, and that their worth as a citizen is based on this general, non-stratified hierarchy, is how you get national discord. Meritocracy should exist, but only within classes, and it should move slowly.

Not to mention many of the European nobility were clouding with the jews to traffic opium long before the first world war. Much the same way they do today

The Jews roping in England and America turned it into a world war.

You're right in that I'm being simplistic. The English and French nobility has been compromised for centuries before the first world war. Though it was the jews that backed cromwell and the jews that started the FR.

The failure of aristocracy is making itself apparent here in my life at the moment.

I am an American citizen, and yet all of the contemptuous and foolhardy n*ggers in my community are here trying to ball-rub the management at the public library I'm at and grease palms to paint me out to be some kind of traitor to the U.S. or paint out some sort of anti-white propaganda street theater.

I do not know for sure and I do not have any evidence. I am in Illinois where many n*ggers work iniquity. This is what I think, however, that around here there is some sort of "n*gger conspiracy".

Kankakee, IL. They claim it is a "retirement community" but I believe that to be a bloated and false claim.

t. American patriot and truther

The rich cannot overstep with their conduct.

If there is no standard of morals then them and their society is lost.

Wars which by the way included the destructive 7 Years War which was caused in large part due to the political goals of the king of France to get relatives on the thrones of Poland and a battle over who got which titled in the dying Holy Roman Empire.

Maybe, maybe not. I believe that being vaporized in a nuclear war because my king wants to inherit the dutchy of Silesia is bad for me, bad for my family, bad for my nation, and bad for my race.

True, but it is highly unlikely that this would happen today.

The sky is the limit. Trials of combat and weaponry, tests of courage, knowledge tests, problem solving, physical labor, acts of selflessness, humiliation and servitude, endurance, cunning, etc. Basically anything demanding that ordinary filth could never achieve.

Yes, but let's not be autistic here. The war began because the Austrian, Hungarian, German, and Russian elites couldn't get their act together and work out a solution that didn't kill millions of our best and brightest.
Also, instead of working out a peace solution, the elites of all nations involved pursued a policy of demanding outrageous concessions from the other side in exchange for peace.
Wise leaders, upon seeing that the war was slaughtering their people would have reached a status quo ante bellum peace deal. But no, they were too arrogant to see the terrible price their war had wrought upon their people.

Before WW1 total war wasn't really a thing. Contest for dominance between professional soldiers isn't a bad thing.

I think that Russia would have been brought to heel pretty quickly. WW1 was a catastrophe, but is war a product of aristocracy, or the inevitable outcome of the constant contest for power.

*without the west's involvement

Be aware, that you are not living in an aristocracy, but in a plutocracy. Those above are not the most noble humans, but the most wealthy in a materialistic sense. And as I pointed out in OP, material wealth can be stolen or acquired in a dishonest way, whereas virtues can not.

Okay. Maybe that might work. Someone will need to design in detail a program that will eliminate the unfit and the self absorbed.
And we will need unbiased judges to ensure that nepotism doesn't play a role in who gets positions of power.
Also, what kinds of trials by combat are we talking about here? In the Middle Ages we had jousting because it taught you how to kill a man with a lance. But today we have drones and missiles.


Yeah but that's irrelevant to my point because if we resurrect aristocracy, we will likely face wars over titled just as they did back in the time you believe was "saintly"

Mass slaughter of the best and bravest is a very bad thing.


What do you mean? It took three long, bloody years and millions of dead Germans and STILL they accomplished nothing… until the aristocracy of Germany thought it was a clever idea to ship Lenin into Russia and fund the Bolsheviks.
Not exactly the brightest decision from our "noble" aristocrats.

Obviously not. However, if you are ruled by danastic nobles jockeying for power and titles with little concern for their peasants, war is much more likely to happen.

We need an aristocracy but not one that is merely born into, but selected through character… however that is NOT an easy feat. The problem is that man is corrupt by nature, and positions of power tend to attract the biggest sociopaths.

But only between professional armies and it would not be total war
The jewish burghers in Germany did that. Wilhelm lamented that he allowed jews to influence Germany in the way it did.

I thought Zig Forums history claimed that it was Jews (Wall Street), not Germans, who "funded" Bolsheviks.

Oh! A new discovery. I'm not even going to ask for sources.

Up until the Middle Ages, there was a dueling culture, where the challenged person would decide the type of battle, where they would compete. So the challenged one would always pick something, he believed the challenger can't beat him or her. Thereby everyone challenging someone else was always confronted with his weaknesses. I think, this was a good concept.

Hitler was pretty clear how jews had compromised the German leadership during WW1.

Why? Nothing in history suggests that aristocrats would hold back anything in a war over their interests. Just look at the first world war.
And by the way, the idea that there were no total wars before WW1 is not really true. Look at the Thirty Years War, the Hundred Years war, the Boer Wars, and the Crimean War, just to name a few and I won't even mention the conflicts we waged against non-Whites which were scorched earth and very bloody. Loads of civilian massacres on both sides.

Source?

Yeah… LONG after he had been deposed due to his own stupidity. If he had cared about the jews during the war or before, why didn't he ever do anything to thwart their influence? Why didn't he kick them out and stop them from exploiting Germans?


Both did. The jews were instrumental in overthrowing the Russian REPUBLIC that overthrew the Tsar. And so too was Germany money and support. It's no secret that the German high command sought to destroy Russia by infecting it with communism.

All of those were fought between professional armies. Large-scale warfare =/= total war.

Hitler


Because kikes are conniving and play on aryan empathy. The jews hadn't shown their hand yet.

Today, we have internet so the game has changed.
The people who should be in power won't be distinguished by their competence but by their loyalty to the spirit of their people with intact honour. The higher class is the knighthood. Look at what will be internet politics in a distant future, the intelligence and the memetics.
DNAs don't lie, bravery spreads way behond 1 life.

What people must ensure is to keep the most energising men to the top especially if it means to replace decreasing bloodlines by newer fresh ones without drama, after wars and such.

Attached: Beksinski_woman_riding_horse.jpg (483x600, 50.62K)

OP, I think you are idealizing monarchism without realizing it.

Attached: 3884d746f3abf50a0820e00ae8d7e7de0a92dddd4437258d158d8d943557d44c.jpg (1696x2136, 2.45M)

Attached: nietzsche quote nobility blood noble.jpeg (750x1334, 70.75K)

That's the idea behind a traditional society. Over hundreds or thousands of years people would filter into the different classes based on their strengths and weaknesses. There has always been room for promotion and demotion in traditional society, think of a knight for instance. A knight starts of as a squire, he could be a mere farmer, but after training under a real knight and if he proves himself in battle, he could be awarded land/ positions. Like-wise if a knight or nobleman is doing too poorly, contrary to pop culture, he would be ousted rather quickly. This means that anyone could in theory become anything, after all the first kings in any era start off as nobodies. However you should understand that in order to insure that someone really holds noble genes, multiple generations must be tested. This is why unless you perform a truly incredible act, climbing the social ladder is usually slow in traditional society. After a few hundred/thousand years, this won't be an issue as most will fit perfectly into their niche.

I strongly disagree. Monarchism implies certain families being chosen to rule amongst the plebs. I disagree with that. being noble is not associated with carrying a certain name. Neither the king nor the queen are eternal.They must allow to be challenged by anyone at any given time. Nobility is neither a birthright nor an eternal state for anyone in true aristocracy. As said before, the king is the best male at a given time and the queen is the best woman at said time. Nobility has to be proven instead of just being inherited.

Attached: 1464273948876.jpg (3289x4426, 915.82K)

Is he talking about “within the context of an ethnostate”?

Yeah, but today we have high powered rifles. There is a great element of skill involved in single combat with swords. This just doesn't work well when you throw automatic rifles into the mix.

Besides, single combat doesn't weed out the corruptible or the sociopathic, narcissists. Just the poor swordsmen.
And I haven't even brought up the fact that rulers tend to want their children to inherit their positions. It doesn't take a large stretch of imagination to envision elites twisting the rules in order to guarantee their sons will inherit power.


So was WW1. Do you want to repeat that too?
The thirty Years war was one of the worst, fratricidal wars before WW1. Villages were slaughtered, regions were depopulated, Germans caught with the "wrong religion" were tortured to death and hung from trees, cities were starved to death and burnt.
That's what total war looks like. And I'd rather not repeat that with nuclear missiles.

First of all, the plan to send Lenin to Russia was approved at the highest levels of Germany's high command and political elites. There's no evidence that the Keiser was involved, but it is quite likely that he at least knew about this plan.
Secondly, if the keiser lamented the jewish control of Germany, why didn't he stop this?

This.

It isn't a name, its DNA. "Best" doesn't lie on some linear scale. People should be bred into specific roles. Of course among the ruling class, the best are chosen to be on top of the ladder. Farmers should never get the idea that they can rule, however, as their energies need to be directed elsewhere.

We have a culture, where you come to the top, if you have a certain specialized ability. For example you are good at playing basketball, but except for that, you are dumb as a rock. Aristocracy, however, demands wholesome humans, exceptional allrounders if you want. Therefore Aristocracy is in opposition of modern dysgenics creating specialized idiots. However, the concept of an "allrounder" might change over time, as conditions might change, so it's not a dogmatic principle.

No, WW1 had mass conscription and the nation's entire economic might was retooled to support the war effort.
Didn't realize it until it was too late. Jewish subversion isn't something the empathetic can easily grasp.

So how would one determine which man is the "best" at any given time? How long is this timeframe before we start searching for a new king? And how do we select who is the best king when we do?


So, the 30 Years War on a grander scale.
My point remains. In modern economies, you get modern wars. You have yet to explain why landed elites would not engage in total wars (slaughtering villages, massacring civilians, impoverishing peasants to fund it, etc) when history clearly demonstrates the opposite is true.

Well, I would say that in that case, the Keizer failed his people, he failed his nation, and he failed himself.

Can't give a final answer to that, can't define the right time. You will know by your instincts. I want to portray the following example: In every wolfpack there's an alpha. Sometimes a younger wolf proves to be physically stronger than the alpha, but he still doesn't get the loyalty of the pack, because being alpha is not only about physical strength. It's also about experience, intelligence, ability to keep the pack together and so on. So they will only switch their alpha, if he's not good enough anymore, whatever that means to them. As already mentioned, this cannot be defined ultimately, you have to listen to your instincts.

not for much longer. Its heavily censored in many places some nations have even made having a VPN subscription a crime much the same way printing presses were once illegal

National Socialism has no room for aristocracy. The race's most intelligent must lead.

You do realize that if every one of us listened to our instincts in selecting a landed noble, we'd probably have at least a thousand contenders. Many of us would simply say "myself, obviously"

I will need a more detailed manifesto on how aristocratic selection takes place in order to support your thesis. I'm not opposed to established hierarchy. Hell, I'm not even opposed to being a peasant or taking off my feathered hat and genuflecting if a leader should pass my way provided that the aristocrat is not a warmongering zealot or a narcissistic schemer. Everyone except the elites are already peasants anyway including you and I. So that wouldn't be at all different. And I'd love a feathered hat.
Anyway, my contention is that until we can establish a set of rules and failsafes to ensure that only wise and honourable men get into positions of power, this is all just a happy little theoretical utopianism, like marxism.
It's like; "Oh wouldn't it be nice if our leaders were honourable and honest?"

All that is gold does not glitter;

Not all those who wander are lost;

Old that is strong does not wither;

Deep roots are not reached by the frost.

From the ashes a fire shall be woken;

A light from the shadows shall spring;

Reforged shall be blade that was broken;

The crownless again shall be King.

I cannot define the nobility however you might recognize the following situation: You listen to someone and follow him, because he appears to know, what he's doing/talking about. After some time you realize, he's a fraud just trying to impress people, but there's no substance behind it. And you ignore him. Same applies for leaders and nobility. That's what I mean with instincts. Not pure "feelings" but cautious observation and evaluation of the actions of said person. You might not be superior to said person, but still know he/she is not superior to you ether. You cannot give fixed definitions/commandments for everything, except you believe in kike religion or islam. Our world is symbolic and therefore not distinct/definite by design.

Nobles were once noble.

Now, as has been said, we have "plutocrats" not "nobles."

Only problem is 99 percent of people never figure it out and just keep blindly supporting the person. That's why almost every system of government are just different types of mob rule

I don't think it's 99 percent but in general you are right. However don't bail out from the eternal struggle between Good and Evil, keep fighting. Become the role model you wish to have had. Never give up. Evil is parasitic and feasts on your power. Never forget. Overcome Evil in yourself and people will look up to you.

Evil feasts on your weakness to be precise.

Is that why the Lebensborn program was sanctioned?

...

podesta is a "shabbos goy" for jews, bankers, and merchants

Attached: DKvVe0bVAAA2ST7[1].jpg (400x400 72.44 KB, 24.82K)

It worked for the Romans.

Attached: mariusz-kozik-caesar-in-gaul-final-alter-my.jpg (1920x1131, 615.52K)

That's what I said.

Attached: 0mariusz-kozik-octavian-august.jpg (1920x1176, 464.57K)

Attached: 000.jpg (1177x833, 256.67K)

One aristocracy trumped another one.

Attached: 530sbelisarius__benevolence_by_ethicallychallenged-dahwsgb.jpg (808x1000, 669.68K)

Those at the top are more tangles in the web that those at the bottom and cannot overcome anything or they'll get kicked down to the bottum.

"hurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr if you're poor then you can't overman".

Sage for being this stupid.

Attached: hillary witch creature.jpg (800x800, 47.15K)

Fair enough. Of course one would think that the entire point of good government was benefiting the race or nation as a whole, not just those few at the top.

god damn it

*Those at the top are more tangled in the web than those at the bottom/

They're not aristocrats if they're not actually better than you, those are called oligarchs. Big difference.

No one is more capable of helping out the many than the few, if they so choose to do so.

Attached: 540mariusz-kozik-belisarius-ii.jpg (1920x1056, 327.01K)

They were later invaded by the Germans, who had to clean up all the buildings of the rotten stench. Sure Byzantium flourished for a time, but they drowned in a sea of mud too.

Attached: composite-pompeii.jpg (750x500, 202.74K)

Who were led by better aristocrats than anything the Romans had at the time.

Attached: 600slombard_trial_by_sunstare_by_ethicallychallenged-d8i8zpj.jpg (848x1200, 1.13M)

Our current (((aristocracy))) certainly does not do so. And this entire mess began in large part because the aristocracy of yesteryear fucked up beyond belief in WW1

You're confusing oligarchs with aristocrats. Go read Aristotle's Politics. The former is the corrupt form of the latter. Happens when people become obsessed with many and luxury, no human being is immune to immorality, unfortunately.

Attached: 35_0_868e54f9434ad9860e9a34aacf3c2683.jpg (900x900, 195.93K)

There's a small problem with that. The Aristocracy was not a meritocracy. At one point it was the smartest, strongest, and wisest who ruled as the honored class in society, but over time as inbreeding and (((political marriages))) took hold, you ended up with a class of drooling, decadent retards who walled themselves off from the unwashed masses and lived in blissful ignorance while still believing they had every right to dictate to the rest of society how they should think, act, dress, and worship. Sound familiar? Because it's what we've got now. Only instead of nobility and royalty, we've got celebrities, musicians, politicians, social media whores, and (((businessmen))) who believe that they should be our ruling class. You think these power hungry faggots would step aside for an aristocratic ruling class of their betters?

Attached: potions.jpg (500x411, 63.15K)

Aristocracy is by definition automatically meritocratic. The etymological root of "aristocracy" means rule of the best, it's meritocracy before the term was even coined. You're just conflating oligarchs with aristocrats because you've never read Aristotle and have no idea what you're talking about. Aristocrats are merely the best in a given population, the most capable of leading and exemplify it's best aspects. It's not hereditary.

Are you saying that the nobility of the pre-WW1 era were simply oligarchs?
How would you define aristocrats and how would you define oligarchs? Seen objectively, they are not so different.

Definitions are nice, but practical examples are better. Throughout history, from the time the term was coined to where we are now, aristocracy has rarely worked out the way you imagine it should be. Right now, the niggers, faggots, and kikes who rules our society would argue that they are an aristocracy because they believe they are the best. That they are the moral paragons, the smartest businessmen, the wisest leaders, and so forth. Coincidentally, they already hold all the cards and get to freely decide these things for themselves and their cliques of degenerate associates, who likewise believe their ill-gotten gains and shameless social maneuvering is a sign of their superiority and right to rule.

What time period does that begin and end with? Pre-WW1 can go back to the big bang for all I know. I want to say yes, but it's not that simple. Most are oligarchs but a few are legitimate aristocrats.
In Aristotle's Politics they are defined seperately as "rule of the best" and "rule of the rich", the former devolving into the latter over time. Plato also notices the devolution in his Republic.

You can't have one of those without the other retard.

"By definition" doesn't mean shit when the concept in practice is totally different from said definition.

Communism "by definition" returns power to the proletariat but you see how that turns out in practice.

That makes no sense, the definition and the concept are the same fucking thing. You're just confusing oligarchy for aristocracy because you don't read.

It's like feminism. They say that they believe in something very basic, very understandable. "We want equality between the sexes" and people think that sounds fine. Then, in practice while still under the banner of "feminism" and preaching those same very basic ideals, they promote marxist degeneracy and actively seek to subvert and destroy masculinity, the family unit, and and western civilization. Then you ask them to knock that shit off and they tell you, yet again, that they just believe in equality.

If we were following Aristocracy to the letter and doing things exactly the way they were meant to be done, as prescribed by Aristotle, that would be pretty great. However, when these things are put into practice without the controls necessary, it always goes wrong and you end up with disgusting deviants running the show and manipulating the system. This happens because power attracts evil. Those who would actively seek power are usually already corrupt and twisted inside, and when given power they use it for their own gain as the expense of others. Those most worthy to rule do not want to rule. Those who want to rule and would throw themselves into such a job, are usually kikes.

No.

Surely you can see how vauge and subjective that is.
The ruling class will always define themselves as "the best" and if they have sufficient control over the security forces, your opinion doesn't mean shit.

Hence why Aristotle and Plato made a second definition to differentiate corrupt leaders from non-corrupt one. There's nothing subjective about corruption, it's "rule of the rich", it means the rich call themselves the best because they have money rather than military skill, oratorical skill, athletic skill, musical skill, poetic skill, philosophical contemplative skill, etc.
Oligarchy isn't fucking aristocracy, get it through your thick head, the definitions are extremely useful.

Yes oligarchies are being removed in the west and a healthy economy will come back, especially in the states. They are the theives who stole the power of rule from the original genetic nobles. This is the main theme of JJBA, "thieves becoming kings, and vice versa,"

What everyone is trying to tell you is that if you told everyone "Okay, we're doing Aristocracy!" you'd end up with an Oligarchy sooner, rather than later.

I'm sure they stood a chance against the kings army.

what we need is spiritual aristocracy
not birthright aristocracy

That's what I'm telling you retard, and what Plato and Aristotle said as well. One turns into the other, it's devolution. Try fucking listening.

"birthright aristocracy" is an oxymoron

aristocracy never left. OP is IR buttsex.

They employ a few technical people to manage their investments, but almost everything is owned by the same aristos as ever.

Attached: trump tower struck by lightning 3-15-16 rub hands.gif (640x640, 8.26M)

So then why do you think Aristocracy will work this time if you know that it turns into the same shit we've got now? You seem really proud of yourself for constantly namedropping Aristotle and Plato, but you can't seem to get over the fact that the definition is irrelevant when the practical use will go wrong, like it has every single fucking time it's been tried.