Can national socialist monarchy be compatible?

Nicholas Sanchez
Nicholas Sanchez

Before I get any flack and yes I do understand that this board can get a bit more elitist when it comes ideological belief and being only pro national socialism or hitlerism 99.9% of the time, but I want you to hear me out on this one. I have been thinking as of late Zig Forums the genius of national socialism and what it had done for germany cannot be in anyway understated, but the main flaw about national socialism I think Zig Forums had not realized or do but never decide to talk about it. Imagine in a timeline where nsdap germany won and defeated the international jew, but there is another problem at least for germany, were hitler to die or decided to kick the bucket is who will replace him? There is a 50/50% a tyrant would replace him or guy who may continue his policies, but never at the extent hitler did or with inspiring speeches but the problem keeps increasing that a tyrant might take over and take power for him self. So I was thinking to my self how to avoid this sort of problem if we were to implement national socialism to any of our nations. I think I might've found the solution, but I have no idea if this can work I propose national socialist monarchy the reason I think this may be a good idea is because of passing your knowledge on to the children and that will continue with your bloodline. This may prevent many problems, if the first leader of a national socialist country were to die or kick the bucket, his child will continue the policies and knowledge his father had left him, as his father will be teaching the main tenets of national socialism to always love your people and to serve their interests and for the common good and to treat your people with love and teach them be strong and self improvement, not only does the population continue to self improvement as it is truth, but so does the new leader of that blood line who continue improving upon the policies and to pass down his knowledge to his child and this keeps continuing I think this solves a lot of problems that national socialism may have had and will serve the reich pretty will at least in my opinion.
Are they compatible and will this be able to work?

Attached: 46375163-579750189115944-8116243943003073135-n.jpg (105.27 KB, 640x640)
Attached: Hitler-Spear-of-Destiny-Holy-Lance.jpg (548.77 KB, 2396x2417)
Attached: main-qimg-648988ec2a6d27810dcd136a1abb2a9a.jpg (144.27 KB, 602x446)

Other urls found in this thread:

resist.com/Instauration/OtherPubs-20120723/NS-BiologicalWorldview-RiisKnudsen.pdf
archive.org/details/NSLM_201604
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assassination_attempts_on_Adolf_Hitler
youtu.be/sTYvTj8Ss6g
youtu.be/7YMG7zDHbew
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1789_in_the_United_States
boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/203385113
youtube.com/watch?v=i5d_Eo70Qn4
mega.nz/#F!DpAz2IgQ!nW7bPNnpJFk5CAV3ypiaHw
youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ

Parker Phillips
Parker Phillips

Selfless bump for discussion

Christian King
Christian King

"A further problem is that of selecting a successor when the philosopher-king dies. Each philosopher-king will have to be able to pre­select reliably a successor whose goals and values are virtually identical to his own; for, otherwise, the first philosopher-king will steer the society in one direction, the second philosopher-king will steer the society in a somewhat different direction, the third philosopher-king will steer it in yet another direction, and so forth. The result will be that the development of the society in the long term will wander at random, rather than being steered in any consistent direction or in accord with any consistent policy as to what constitute desirable or undesirable outcomes. Historically, in absolute monarchies of any kind-the Roman Empire makes a convenient example-it has proven impossible even to ensure the succession of rulers who are reasonably competent and conscientious. Capable, conscientious rulers have alternated with those who have been irresponsible, corrupt, vicious or incompetent. As for a long, unbroken succession of rulers, each of whom not only is competent and conscientious but also has goals and values closely approximating those of his predeces­sor-you can forget it. All of these arguments, by the way, apply not only to philosopher-kings but also to philosopher-oligarchs-ruling groups small enough so that Engels's "conflicts among many individual wills" do not come into play. "

-Ted Kazynski Anti-Tech Revolution Why and How 1.V

Elijah Brooks
Elijah Brooks

*Kaczynski

Leo Price
Leo Price

no homo

The Nobles actually supported Hitler, and gave him financial backing. All of the Royals in the 1920's until the actual fighting started between the German Communists and National Socialists would wear their SS uniforms and whatnot.

When I say fighting, they actually were shooting each other in the streets as the Communists had violently overthrown the legitimate government when they found out Hindenburg was very ill and close to being dead

Brandon Watson
Brandon Watson

Monarchy doesn't exist in reality. It's an oligarchy.

Noah Carter
Noah Carter

So how long did that fight lasted or did it went all the way to 1933 and where did you find this information?

Jaxon Gray
Jaxon Gray

no , and your thread sucks

Michael Hall
Michael Hall

I need some hard core proof's for that.

Cameron Young
Cameron Young

natsoc is revolutionary while monarchy is reactionary. thus, the two are incompatible. it's as simple as that.

Liam Ortiz
Liam Ortiz

Mind to explain as to why it can't work?

Grayson Butler
Grayson Butler

You just need common sense and logic. If it's that hard to imagine, please point out a single example of a monarchy that ever existed.

Wyatt Anderson
Wyatt Anderson

… What about the monarch during the crusade era?

Thomas Rodriguez
Thomas Rodriguez

Let me expand. To learn, read Povl Riis-Knudsen.

resist.com/Instauration/OtherPubs-20120723/NS-BiologicalWorldview-RiisKnudsen.pdf

archive.org/details/NSLM_201604

Povl Heinrich Riis-Knudsen's compelling and intriguing thesis published in 1984, contending that National Socialism is a politically "left wing" ideology, based on its revolutionary nature as contrasted to the perceived merely reactionary ways of the Right.

Where National Socialists are to be found in this spectrum seems quite clear: We are
leftwingers — no doubt about it! We do not want to preserve the present system or any
part thereof. We do not believe in the foundations of a system that has led our people into
the misery of the present time! We do not want to support any institution which is
responsible for two world wars between White nations as well as countless minor wars;
nuclear rearmament; the pollution of the environment; unemployment; the total
disillusionment of young people, who have lost all faith in the future; drug abuse;
pornography; and all the other forms of complete degeneracy which are displayed today.
We National Socialists want the most radical change of all: we want the complete
overthrow of the entire Old Order!

Attached: povl-riis-knudsen-april-20-1989.jpg (76.81 KB, 652x490)

Xavier Flores
Xavier Flores

Nobles, lords, the church, etc., it was an oligarchy.

Colton Myers
Colton Myers

no , but you should check my dubs before you fucking try to oppose me faggot

stop being dumb, if you want to stay dumb , not my fault

Mason Smith
Mason Smith

If National Socialism is, in its essence, a left-wing movement, it is, of course, paradoxical
that National Socialists should have devoted so much time and energy to catering toward
traditional right-wing attitudes, whereas they have shunned all openings to the left. Is it
any wonder that all attempts to create a National Socialist movement on this basis have
been utterly unsuccessful?

Dominic Richardson
Dominic Richardson

Shit history books lie to me about that one as well?
If a monarchy didn't fucking exist then what was it in reality is it just as fake compared to communism?

Cooper Miller
Cooper Miller

I think natsoc has been unsuccesful due to how powerful jews have been after ww2.
I mean it was about to pick up, but they (((assassinated))) george rockwell and erased dudley pelly.

Jason Taylor
Jason Taylor

(heil'd)
Didn't see it user.

Jack Torres
Jack Torres

I wasn't asking a question. I copypasted the text and it didn't format properly so only the first line is greentext.

Wyatt Sullivan
Wyatt Sullivan

I do disagree that he said
national socialism is a left wing ideology.
I view it as a 3rd position ideology like fascism, hitler and nsdap's main goal was to unite the people under one banner not divide them through (((democracy))) dribble.

Attached: GoebellsJewMediaControlMeme.jpg (373.75 KB, 722x655)

Dylan Bell
Dylan Bell

I would argue it's a term on face only, you either get a prominent member of an oligarch group, or you get the shadow puppet figure.

Ian Sanders
Ian Sanders

Disagree with what he said*

Owen Perez
Owen Perez

oh it's no different in the US with respect to government. Sure we have a president, but government is actually run by the deep state, although their power isn't unlimited because of the laws and need to work from behind curtains.

Dylan Sanders
Dylan Sanders

If a monarchy did not exist at the very least was an oligarchy a good system? I know a lot of ideologies but never studied oligarchy or a monarchy.

Sebastian Reed
Sebastian Reed

Though I will give him a read, I am pretty sure he has a lot of interesting things to say.

Jaxon Rodriguez
Jaxon Rodriguez

The right to rule should never be hereditary. The bloodline of a man offers a genetic template which may be improved upon and built up through the experiences of the individual. But the father will never be the son, nor the son the father. A man isn't just his blood. He is the sum of all of his words and deeds, and those of the people around him. Very few men are able to withstand the hardships which are required to make him into a leader. The son of a king will be sheltered and weak, and he'll never experience that hardening of his soul. He'll never know what it's like to claw his way up out of the darkness, to fight for his life. The sheltered son of a king will never possess the stuff of legends. He'll always be a spoiled bitch.

Fuck monarchy.

Attached: 7c9.gif (969.59 KB, 320x240)

Anthony Hughes
Anthony Hughes

You only have left and right. The proper way to think of left and right is with the terms revolutionary and reactionary, respectively. Either at the core of your philosophy you wish to be revolutionary or reactionary. Go look up the definitions. You can either be progressive or conservative. There are no other options. NatSoc being revolutionary is therefore leftwing. It does not seek to conserve but instead to move forward and change, even in terms of race. The term Third Position is only really useful for differentiating a small handful of movements away from the modern ideas of left and right, which is necessary when you are talking to people who are limited to a worldview of Marxism VS capitalism.

Colton Ortiz
Colton Ortiz

He'll never know what it's like to claw his way up out of the darkness, to fight for his life. The sheltered son of a king will never possess the stuff of legends. He'll always be a spoiled bitch.
This may sound ridiculous, but what if the leader sends him and teaching how to survive with a bunch of children and is expected to lead them.

Jason Smith
Jason Smith

(heil'd)
If it is a really left wing ideology for the shake of the argument, how do we get people to convert after the shit libturds (((establishment))) and degenerates had done and think we may lead them to that dribble, do we tell them the truth or lie and say we are 3rd position?

Jeremiah Robinson
Jeremiah Robinson

The hardship has to be organic. Leadership comes from the heart, and from all of the real world experience a man has. It's impossible to teach a man to be a leader. He has to learn that himself. He has to find his own will to be.

The old saying goes that you can bring a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

Brayden Barnes
Brayden Barnes

Nope, oligarchies always fail because the condition for them to be good is dependent on human nature, and human nature by default is greed/corruption/evil. If it's not the first generation of the oligarchy that is corrupt, the generations that follow will be. The fatal flaw in all systems that rely solely on people is human nature.

This is why a Constitutional Republic (rule of law) is the most resilient of all forms of government yet discovered. Of course, it's only as good as the design of the constitution, and therein lies the problem because the constitution is written by humans trying to account for vast complexity.

John Bell
John Bell

I guess that makes, since I would say caesar or hitler are the best examples of what you just described.

Oliver Nelson
Oliver Nelson

Sounds like fucking hell and another jewish trick in our history books.
Not even constitutional republic is just as good, is kinda hard to believe national socialism is the only good ideology though we have not seen the long terms of it to see if it will hold up even today.
To bad the kikes destroyed it before we even got a glimpse if it will do good in the future.
Another redpill swallowed.

Jose Walker
Jose Walker

Yep, Hitler is the best modern example. Many men just like him gave up hope and died in the trenches. Many took their own lives out of despair after the war. What made Hitler unique was his will to live. Every time he was beaten down it only made him angrier and angrier, driving him forward to greatness.

Connor Wright
Connor Wright

Hitler unique was his will to live. Every time he was beaten down it only made him angrier and angrier, driving him forward to greatness
Sounds like the majority of Zig Forums.

Chase Wilson
Chase Wilson

do we tell them the truth or lie and say we are 3rd position?
NatSoc is Third Position and leftwing. Both are true. Third positionism merely means in opposition to both capitalism and communism. There is no contradiction.

Jayden Thomas
Jayden Thomas

I don't support national socialism because socialism is fatally flawed. I am a hardcore nationalist though. The first iteration of the constitution was simply insufficient to prevent human nature form corrupting the country. After this country collapses and IF we get another shot at it, we need to correct it based on what failed and improve it. Rinse and repeat until we either find a really good framework to constrain human nature, or we're all dead.

Nolan Parker
Nolan Parker

Which isn't a bad thing I suppose.

Aiden Thomas
Aiden Thomas

ocialism is fatally flawed.
Depends on how you define it, since socialism is not connected to marxism, but something more ancient that includes people while nationalist meaning the nation, while the (((marxist))) skewed the definition on what socialism even is.
Though I am not saying national socialism is without it's flaws, because it certainly does and is the only non kiked system along with fascism we have.

Attached: for-people-who-compares-national-socialism-to-communism.jpg (196.25 KB, 1024x878)
Attached: Hitler-thoughts-on-socialism.jpg (820.19 KB, 2100x750)

Hunter Murphy
Hunter Murphy

The majority of Zig Forums will call you a shill if you suggest doing anything offline. There were PNW threads up talking about the Butler Plan but I doubt anyone will actually get off their ass and do something. You know what's lazier than a nigger and cheaper than a kike? A white nationalist. Meanwhile Hitler went marching through the streets and took a bullet.

Zig Forums is nothing like Hitler. Stop sucking your own dick. It's pathetic.

John Ramirez
John Ramirez

I recommend looking up cultured thug on national socialism he describes it strength's and weaknesses.

Ryder Bailey
Ryder Bailey

but something more ancient that includes people while nationalist meaning the nation, while the (((marxist))) skewed the definition on what socialism even is.
It had defining elements of what is, in a general and modern sense, socialism, both social and economic. They practised interventionism (price control, etc.) and egalitarian policies, for example. The list goes on. What separates it from Marxism is its belief in hierarchy and the importance of race, the Volk..

Brody Powell
Brody Powell

Took a bullet
I heard about this one post on what hitler went through and he sounds like a badass
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assassination_attempts_on_Adolf_Hitler

Bentley Parker
Bentley Parker

This. Socialism is as old as time itself. It just means helping your neighbor whenever you can, with the expectation that they'll help you in your time of need. Communism isn't socialism. Communism is a kosher "gibs me dat fo free" on steroids.

Brayden Sanders
Brayden Sanders

Everything you're doing is wrong. Except for embracing NatSoc. Please lurk a bit

Grayson Hall
Grayson Hall

It had defining elements of what is, in a general and modern sense, socialism, both social and economic. They practised interventionism (price control, etc.) and egalitarian policies, for example. The list goes on. What separates it from Marxism
Are you talking about national socialist or marxism?

Henry Russell
Henry Russell

This. Socialism is as old as time itself. It just means helping your neighbor whenever you can, with the expectation that they'll help you in your time of need. Communism isn't socialism. Communism is a kosher "gibs me dat fo free" on steroids.
Instead of just looking at quotes you should look at the history of what they actually did in practice.
It just means helping your neighbor whenever you can, with the expectation that they'll help you in your time of need.
This is now what NatSocs practised as "socialism",
Are you talking about national socialist or marxism?
<What separates it from Marxism is its belief in hierarchy and the importance of race, the Volk..
Given that quote, how am I talking about Marxism? You're retarded.

Colton Scott
Colton Scott

It's called an emperor, it's who wrangles kings. Kings are important because they are the blossom of a culture. Please use the options button to learn how to format and try /test/ or /sandbox/ for all your hideously disfiguring newfaggot needs. NIGGER

Oliver Watson
Oliver Watson

now
*not

Lincoln Thompson
Lincoln Thompson

Socialism is like anti-evolution. It's very nature has to set artificial constraints based on the system in which it exists in order to function. We can't all drive expensive cars, nor should we, it's a waste of resources. So we need market conditions to drive competition and force increases in efficiency, which is what evolution really is.

So no, there is no magical definition of where socialism will ever work in a world that is finite and constrained by scarcity. If they can basically find a source of near unlimited energy and the ability to convert energy -> matter, now socialism becomes feasible because scarcity is no longer a constraint. You would have to deal with human nature however.

Dominic Hill
Dominic Hill

The right to rule should never be hereditary
Agreed. Discussion closed, devise a better system of ascension. Please and thank you.

Sebastian Jones
Sebastian Jones

I think I have boned all the hot women. Apparently all that's left is the crackhead that won't go away.

Aaron Sanders
Aaron Sanders

Jesus the amount of those attempts.

Matthew Price
Matthew Price

Since you asked, a capable monarch will allow his sons to be captured for ransom. They will be tortured or bribed, surely both. If he survives intact he may be fit to rule. Tough but true

Luis Robinson
Luis Robinson

I'm well aware that the German National Socialist government took over various businesses, pieces of land, and materials for the war effort, and I don't really care. The US did the same shit during this time period. I would expect the same to happen within a modern ethnostate if we went to war. What the fuck do think total war means, nigger? What is eminent domain?

Sebastian Diaz
Sebastian Diaz

You're a faggot.

Alexander Gutierrez
Alexander Gutierrez

Almost like he could see the future

Brayden James
Brayden James

youtu.be/sTYvTj8Ss6g
For requried viewing what you are describing is marxist socialism.

Attached: 1547794770988.jpg (249.5 KB, 1729x818)
Attached: 1549586085965.jpg (92.8 KB, 1024x484)

Caleb Foster
Caleb Foster

Kek, zombies groaning. You're more creative than that, right? I'm right , right? I dare you

Landon Sanders
Landon Sanders

For people who want a better understanding of the ideology.
youtu.be/7YMG7zDHbew

Bentley Powell
Bentley Powell

Oh, a bot. I'll give you guys a bit more than phone love maybe I guess

Carter Ross
Carter Ross

You can argue the qualifier semantics all you want, socialism simply doesn't work regardless of the flavor because you can't magically wish away scarcity. Maybe take a course on operations research, do a little intro linear programming, then come back and try to tell me the qualifier of the type of socialism somehow negates mathematics.

Colton Fisher
Colton Fisher

have to deal with human nature
That argument is for communism not national socialism.
Also you are confusing the ideology of national socialism as an economical term rather than an ideology.

Evan Taylor
Evan Taylor

You're not worth the effort. You're just a crackhead.

Sebastian Perez
Sebastian Perez

Any type of monarchy is shit. A man has to have fulfilling labour in his life, providing for himself by himself, then he is happy and competent. But then he is a common free man, not a monarch, at best a tribal chief. If a man has his living handed to him with zero risk and zero effort, he quickly degenerates into a depressed biomass obsessed with make-believe autistic bullshit, be he a God-Emperor or a lowly bureaucrat.
You know the Byronic hero? The rich cuntlet that had the world handed to him, so he doesn't know why live or how to live and invents vanity projects to occupy his intense boredom? Give him the absolute power in an ethnic supermonarchy and see him permanently depressed over his newest grandest palace minutiae while the plebs providing him with free bling die from hunger and exploitation. He might as well turn a couple hundred thousand of his people into field fertilizer for a neighboring country out of boredom and maybe get some cheap war fame undeserved.

Jace Gray
Jace Gray

Oh right, because ideology can negate physics, math, and all manners of scarcity. The ideology is fucking irrelevant if the solution that implements it doesn't fucking work.

Parker Reyes
Parker Reyes

National socialism had a mixed economy and every thing you described is from either communism or a marxist socialist you should also see the video I linked.

Christian Garcia
Christian Garcia

You also have to read some economic reformations hitler did which benefited the people a lot.
National socialism is about self improvement not an utopia which you are confusing with communism and thinking natsoc is against evolution which it is not.

Michael Miller
Michael Miller

I misread user.

Jeremiah Flores
Jeremiah Flores

That's almost as dumb as people who imagine the political axis to be all about liberty vs tyranny.

There are good reasons to make the right to rule hereditary. People are the most invested in their children and guaranteeing their offspring will inherit their kingdom extends this investment to their kingdom as well. I believe this is a primary reason why certain forces toiled to destroy monarchy and spread democracy. It's obvious that (((corruption))) and (((subversion))) are the greatest problem of democracy, because the rulers have no personal investment in the government whatsoever. This is what allows every single congresscritter to be bought with relatively minor sums of money.

mindless republicuck propaganda
As if any human system is not entirely dependent on human nature. Your constitution has no power on its own and is being/will be completely thrown out of the window as soon as there's a reason to do so. Tell me how much your constitution has protected your freedom of speech when one of the last bastions of free speech in the world are anonymous internet forums and even these can't be allowed to exist and must be spammed by shills 24/7.

look we can't all drive expensive cars and that's why people who are in a bad spot can't receive basic services to help them move recover and move on with their lifes
Do you realize what you're saying makes no sense?

Attached: 1547945271060.jpg (94.83 KB, 1024x745)

John Garcia
John Garcia

I've had to do it before, but I'd like you to pay attention to what a bot looks like.

then he is a common free man, not a monarch, at best a tribal chief. If a man has his living handed to him with zero risk and zero effort, he quickly degenerates into a depressed biomass obsessed with make-believe autistic bullshit
Of all sad words of tongue or pen, the saddest are these

Attached: 1436315442997.jpg (39.72 KB, 466x600)

Nathaniel Richardson
Nathaniel Richardson

There are good reasons to make the right to rule hereditary.
And better reasons not to. Namely IT'S BEEN TRIED AND IT'S FAILED

Christopher Jones
Christopher Jones

I prefer a strict Constitutional Republic, heavily anti-government and nationalist. This IMO is the only solution that is viable. The found fathers managed to come up with a system that has lasted 200+ years before failing. It was a good first iteration. We just need to study how the system was corrupted by the kikes (gold standard/central bank being a huge reason), and write a new constitution to make that impossible to do again.

Nolan Baker
Nolan Baker

Even if it is more strict how do we improve the system without letting kikes find loopholes and takin advantage of it?
Gonna go to sleep looking forward to have a discussion about this.

Julian Torres
Julian Torres

The found fathers managed to come up with a system that has lasted 200+ years before failing
That's the exact same fail rate as every system tried in the last several thousand years. Meaning it's a failure. 200 years with the last hundred kiked is a failure. You won't found even a 1000 year Reich like that, pleb

Attached: 8f0610936afb30dd988810e85b0f90ceb4ea39c0cd1c47b0870edc1f8f7837c6.gif (1.79 MB, 350x155)

Angel Nelson
Angel Nelson

As if any human system is not entirely dependent on human nature

What do you think the purpose of law is? Law is by nature and design to supersede human nature by outlining the societal enforcement thereof. What's that saying about rules? It's what sets us apart from the animals.

Do you realize what you're saying makes no sense?

What about scarcity confuses you exactly?

Matthew Walker
Matthew Walker

I don't even want a leader with children. I want one who will be fully devoted to the nation and folk. A family will only drag him down in such an important position. Families are for the common man. And no, the US government wasn't bought and sold because these politicians don't have kids. It happened because they're weak. Because they haven't been kicked in the balls enough times to know their right hands from their own assholes. They're morons, and they're unfit to rule.

Joseph Ortiz
Joseph Ortiz

The current republic/democracy paradigm will pass too. Everything fails given enough time and there's no reason to believe they're replaced with the best. That's a ridiculous argument. Hereditary rule existed for thousands of years in many different parts of the world during much more unstable and difficult times, and none of those societies were so badly subverted by kikes as the USA was in a couple decades.

Attached: 1549415713780.jpg (145.61 KB, 1024x632)

Jaxon Morales
Jaxon Morales

Well my number 1 would be going back to a gold standard and dropping the entire monetary system into the ovens along with the kikes. I'd also limit who can run for office through heavy testing to qualify, also on who can vote, effectively wiping out the stupid masses from being able to fuck shit up and politicians from manipulating them. Term limits for Congress would be another addition. A better written 2nd amendment that leaves no debate. I remember years ago before Zig Forums even existed on cuckchan there were threads outlining things we should do if there was ever a constitutional convention. I mean shit, there were like 100+ unique suggestions easy.

Point is it can be done.

Alexander Evans
Alexander Evans

That's the challenge isn't it? To find a better system that's robust enough to survive longer.

Jonathan Torres
Jonathan Torres

(checked)
The current republic/democracy paradigm will pass too. Everything fails given enough time
Of coursh. But it doesn't have to be quite so fragile. According to my napkin math approximately 1 in 4 humans experiences societal collapse within his lifetime. We could make that 1 in 20 from day one

Attached: 1420081590921.jpg (12.21 KB, 225x225)

Parker Wright
Parker Wright

That's the challenge isn't it? To find a better system that's robust enough to survive longer.
That it is. Hope I found the most capable people on the planet to hash it out for free

Nicholas Flores
Nicholas Flores

We will see how it will do without kikes this time we have not seen national socialism failed either before jews declared war and destroyed it.
Without intervention I would like to see which ideology would last the longest and more beneficial for whites.

Nolan Scott
Nolan Scott

Which leads to another question how do we get tough people in office without having cucks 50 years later down the line?

Easton Phillips
Easton Phillips

Adjusting deck chairs
You're doing it wrong. I can see this place needs more tenderizing

Attached: 1468015364628-0.png (192.34 KB, 959x541)

Caleb Bailey
Caleb Bailey

Founding fathers took ~116 days to write the Constitution. It needs to be corrected to be more kike proof for the next iteration.

Maybe we'll get another shot at it, or maybe we all end up dead. Honestly, I'm leaning towards the latter being the most likely outcome.

Camden Taylor
Camden Taylor

Mind posting the cuckchan thread?

Samuel Peterson
Samuel Peterson

Founding fathers took ~116 days to write the Constitution. It needs to be corrected to be more kike proof for the next iteration.
I expect nothing less. I have tangible faith in you scurvy lot
Without intervention I would like to see which ideology would last the longest and more beneficial for whites.
ethnoglobalism

Attached: 1430254548694.jpg (117.83 KB, 500x725)

Matthew Evans
Matthew Evans

It's more like adjusting the ship structurally that just so happens to support the deck and chairs, not to mention the engines, living quarters, and everything else, but that isn't as cliche as that easy parrot line you've just regurgitated like an NPC.

Blake Bennett
Blake Bennett

I would not mind taking constitutional republic for another go but the problem is taking back control and I would not mind combining that with propertainism which is a lolberg ideology that makes sense.

Dylan Flores
Dylan Flores

I saved it, but I'd have to dig through my old archives. I'll put it on the to-do list and start a thread when I find it.

Dylan Gomez
Dylan Gomez

Finally the 666bot didn't steal one of my gets. A 1488 get and I'll observe it myself
adjusting the ship structurally
You have 5 hours. Go.

Attached: 1467436671099.jpg (68.07 KB, 400x400)

Carson Miller
Carson Miller

(sieg heil'd)
Ya making a new thread for discussion sounds nice.

Gavin Wright
Gavin Wright

We just need to create a new Constitution and system that is more kike-proof. Honestly I bet if we actually focused all the autism here on such a problem, we could probably come up with a pretty decent rough draft.

Daniel Perry
Daniel Perry

Nice fucking get. Heil!

Jaxon Rivera
Jaxon Rivera

Also the etnoglobe would take centuries to achieve mate.

Angel Lee
Angel Lee

You underistimate our autism what will most likely end up happening we will be arguing on which ideology was better (since this board is majorly natsoc) but will some will play devil advocate and then discussion the constitution and we will accidently make up a new ideology which does not make sense but it works.

Christopher Richardson
Christopher Richardson

Oh ya one more thing when are you going to make that thread.

Benjamin Cooper
Benjamin Cooper

Ya making a new thread for discussion sounds nice.
I'm very OK with BEING WHITE it, but my power level ya know?

Also the etnoglobe would take centuries to achieve mate.
I can make it happen in 7 years, cap this m9. Underestimating me has cost innumerable people everything

Attached: c2c328e38b3cd551ef6d56748c5fe202394eb127d180bcf590e4a4d5ec44adeb.jpg (58.59 KB, 456x412)

Julian Diaz
Julian Diaz

Or a few decades of genetic research and like a year of releasing it into the water supply of ching chongs.
oh no, terrible news! there's a virus that only kills chinks! distribute masks and water bottles to the civilians because it might hurt whites too, wink wink!

Brayden Reed
Brayden Reed

underistimate our autism
Underestimating me

we will accidently make up a new ideology which does not make sense but it works
I wouldn't accept it any other way

Attached: 4fc8d90f2c03667e3c43066c206e7b3a65b39006d6c05a634db03829363098ef.jpg (111.34 KB, 564x729)

Nolan Perry
Nolan Perry

Not if we set a framework to direct the autism.

For example look at the Titanic as a parallel to the US Constitution. The Titanic had design flaws that were exposed when it hit the iceberg. The US Constitution has designed flaws as well as evidenced when it hit the kikeberg. We can use the existing design framework to make corrections to the Constitution so that next kikeberg it hits it crushes it.

Robert Harris
Robert Harris

We don't need to jew-proof our legal system. We just need to remove the hebrew. What I'm suggesting is basically orkan, but for jews instead of ants.

Luis Cooper
Luis Cooper

The Titanic
Was a kike assassination device. Jesus fucking Kek do I have to teach you everything? They could have put enough lifeboats for everyone by gasp nesting them. The plan was proposed. Instead they opted for the more murderous route. I took note of it, reversed it, and obliged. Go do your homework, kid nothin personnel

Jaxson Green
Jaxson Green

To write a new Constitution? We could start right here. I hope I can find the old thread I saved, it was from like 2012 ish.

Carson Reyes
Carson Reyes

So I'm not one to interact much beyond a single post, but I notice you labor under a delusion of saving this catastrophe. I intend to dissuade you of that perspective. But I deeply admire your intentions. Honestly.

Christopher Watson
Christopher Watson

Tell that to the guy who got 400 years imprisonment for having a car accident in Charlotesville. Or the other guy who got community service for attempted murder with a bike lock. The purpose of the law, in the grand scheme of things, is to punish your enemies and aid your friends, just like every other form of power.

Attached: 1549416373007.jpg (177.05 KB, 1024x659)

Xavier Thompson
Xavier Thompson

I unleashed the kraken just for you.

Brayden Jenkins
Brayden Jenkins

Well in terms of feasibility I don't see that how happens. What's your solution? I'd rather figure out to how become immune to the kike cancer because it's easier to achieve than removing every last kike cell. Kikes are system manipulators, so we need to make the system kike immune. 1st amendment is a great example of kike-proofing. They fucking hate the 1st amendment because they can't effectively control speech.

Camden Rodriguez
Camden Rodriguez

No, this Titanic already hit the kikeberg, it's going down and there's no saving it. This is for the next ship that gets built.

Isaiah King
Isaiah King

The Jews put a pile of women in my way, no man could stop me, but these women drain motivations like psychic vampires.

Aiden Howard
Aiden Howard

bots trying to steal shine
Actually I was the one who unleashed the Kraken, about 8 years ago. Your intel is half-ass sufficient though, almost approaching conceivably effective. I think I'll unleash one of my beloved AIs on you

Attached: 05799c6ed96c1500e41bfdfa81be5bee3cdeaa086c41d49a8d880154c31f4ae8.jpg (24.2 KB, 236x320)

Matthew White
Matthew White

Ain't my thought, I just rephrased Ted Kaczynski.
I had my suspicions, of course, from personal observations and historical experience delivered via literature (Russian literature is choke full of Byronic aristocrat nutcases wasting the ludicrous riches inherited from slave labour of Russians on pettiest frivolities while staying permanently depressed sacks of shit, why do you think Communism started there so fiercely).
But Ted nails it. His writing is a must, neat and packed. You don't have to agree with anything he writes, but damn he writes on spot

Juan Anderson
Juan Anderson

Monarchies/dictatorships were born from the belief that a very powerful, invisible being granted the king victories in battle. All his thoughts came down from heaven and should be obeyed or a storm will wipe out your crops and your family will starve. I blame movies and literature for people still supporting such a ridiculous idea.

Carson Lewis
Carson Lewis

Oh I'm quite there with you, friend. I intend to give this planet a happy ending

Attached: 23a791afdb9e38b58240483629bf4408d4e3fbb4c535ce0d0d5e5b4667573c99.jpg (112.88 KB, 900x675)

Joshua Peterson
Joshua Peterson

Republics/democracies were born from the belief that a very powerful, invisible being ==LAW== granted the king ==PRESIDENT== victories in battle. All his thoughts came down from heaven ==WE THE PEOPLE== and should be obeyed or a storm ==REVOLT== will wipe out your crops and your family will starve. I blame movies and literature for people still supporting such a ridiculous idea.
There you go. The State remains the State, whoever gets to wear the funny hat and murder domestic terrorists.

Tyler Bell
Tyler Bell

Interested at all in discussing where you came here from? I'm in quite an accepting mood today

Attached: 4e4a59483b4c80b809a0eac8e87d2e262cf8170d9d6451602c9fffc483ed2a53.jpg (39.55 KB, 499x514)

Easton Butler
Easton Butler

Once I was able to repress my disgust I read your words. I didn't hate them. I started off as a strict anarchist, I'll have you know. That not working, I reversed polarities to ethnoglobalism. Ya get what ya pay for. You want a liberated planet? I gotcha, but be careful about those intentions. You'll just end up dead yourself if you're not realer than real

Attached: 1429555280859-1.png (750.84 KB, 499x973)

William White
William White

<The sound of silence
It's what I crave. The silence of the vocal. I correlate that with thought processes occurring. We're going to need just a few more of those, if any of you have unused RAM

Attached: 1424095163447.png (176.92 KB, 1138x1024)

Juan Davis
Juan Davis

Wanting to be ruled by someone born in power instead of a government of the people
Fuck off, monarch cuck. I bet you're Australian or a Brit.

Asher Murphy
Asher Murphy

thinks he isn't already ruled by people born into power.

Eli King
Eli King

From his ass. This board needs 110% more skepticism and way fewer shitposting shills.
This is a redefinition of the left-right paradigm, which actually refers to one's political views on hierarchy, the left side of the scale being egalitarian, and the right side being (genuinely) authoritarian. In truth, all autocrats require underlings to carry out commands and thus no one man wields the political power of all kingdom or dictatorship. The definition I've offered, would for example, explain the Soviet Union and communist China as situationally right wing, but left wing in ideology, because the Chairmen of the Party are nominally equal to the other party members.

I personally believe that diminishing the numbers of useless eaters (including whites) over time would be great, but I like the planet's diversity. I like Japan and if the Mideast were stripped of Mohammadanism it wouldn't be such a shithole, and other nonwhites aren't so bad, as I've met many a good castizo/mestizo. I'm only replying because of that fantastic get of yours.

Here's a book for you guys, hope you enjoy. Monarchy isn't the only form of anti-democratic political philosophy on the block, but it's worth looking into, even if only to sate the curiosity.

Logan Gomez
Logan Gomez

because the Chairmen of the Party are nominally equal to the other party members
And so was the king nominally just the first among the aristocrats. The Holy Roman Emperor, supposedly supreme authority of Catholic Europe, was elected as first among the fursts the same way the Gensek was elected among the TseKa members. Same with Nomenklatura titles and powers heritable by right progeny, just as nobility was heritable; and having aristocratic or merchant or farmer ancestry in the USSR disqualified you of power forever, just as villain ancestry made you forever ineligible for nobility.

The only thing monarchists seem to genuinely hate about an extremely authoritarian, hierarchical and religious USSR is that their specific brand of Catholic Traditionalist Kool Aid wasn't adopted instead of the Marxist-Leninist Kool Aid. Rename a Gensek into an Emperor, the Nomenklatura into Nobility and Party Schools into Clergy Schools and they will gleefully send the dirty plebs to die for the Reg Flags Worldwide regardless.

Easton White
Easton White

is that their specific brand of Catholic Traditionalist Kool Aid wasn't adopted instead of the Marxist-Leninist Kool Aid
This tends to be true of most Christians on the right in fact. They are temporary allies in my opinion, because once they realize that their ultimate goal is very different from ours, they will bail/sabotage.

But about hierarchy, it took Rome hundreds of years to transition from the Principate (under a princeps, first among equals) to the Dominate (under the Dominus, lord or master). This means that constitutional republics are not 'left wing' in that they are not egalitarian in ideology, but because power is shared by a fairly broad class of people (patricians, then +plebeians, then +citizens) it is somewhere in the middle. Likewise, Third Positionist political philosophy is not exclusively right wing, adopting many leftist tenets, as for example when Dr. Goebbels said that in the coming Reich, not all men would be equal, but they would be brothers. Meaning that while ability is unevenly spread across a society, all (first class) citizens share political responsibilities and right.

Zachary Cox
Zachary Cox

Hereditary monarchy is dysgenic, degenerate and not compatible with National Socialism (Aristocracy). A child is not the father. Our ancestors used to have monarchy based on merit, not on succession (at least not for long, as any successor not fit for his position was disposed of, which happened fairly often). Dynastic ruling families came with Jewish poison of Christianity and the idea of a ruler being "divinely ordained" (by intermarrying with kikes of course, and their mongrel blood being somehow sacred). It was a total corruption of ancient Aryan principles. Aristocratic rulers are divinely ordained, but their divinity comes from quality and excellence (and thus being closest to God) rather than their ancestors being kikes and their rule being enforced top-down regardless of how much of a trash they are.

Sage for Libertarian National Socialism thread.

Julian Reed
Julian Reed

watmchinf holly jew ever.
Just woke up.

Brandon Reed
Brandon Reed

Thanks for the link user.

Jaxon Sullivan
Jaxon Sullivan

Even if you are for new the constitution alright. But National socialism is still the best immune system against the parasitical scum hell the 25 points are not unconstitutional some tend to debate or argue that.

Joseph Roberts
Joseph Roberts

Will the Catholic at least did not murder 50 gorillion.

Xavier Perry
Xavier Perry

I prefer the term of a 3rd position rather than calling natsoc left or right as that tends to divide people.

Easton Edwards
Easton Edwards

You were dead on that "rule of one" does not exist and cannot exist outside of a family compound.
However, you are wrong that republicanism is different from oligarchy. They are not. Indeed, all forms of government to date have been oligarchies. Even Hitler's Germany was an oligarchy.

I am a hardcore nationalist though.
I don't support national socialism because socialism is fatally flawed.
Do you support state intervention in the economy or are you a capitalist puritarian?

Aiden Watson
Aiden Watson

Fate will not be confined within paragraphs
A Constitution is important when it comes to fundamentals, but that's about it. Sometimes, it may even get in the way of things. For example, if a leader is prevented from enacting a policy that could be useful for the nation all because it's "unconstitutional," then it's a bad system. Not saying there shouldn't be a constitution, but it should be written with the Volk in mind.

Tyler Morris
Tyler Morris

So basically the 25 points?

Cameron Thomas
Cameron Thomas

Sure, but how can that be applied to and implemented in our own countries?

Anthony Flores
Anthony Flores

Yes, a Kingdom is the only natural, lasting hierarchy possible.

With Kingship, comes wealth. The King is made wealthy enough to be incorruptible with money. There is little gain to be had in selling out your people when you live in an opulent palace and feast on venison every night.

With Kingship, comes responsibility. A King is King for life. If he wishes to keep his head, he will put the nation's future first, and if he makes mistakes, he can learn from them and undo them. No scuttling off into the shadows once his 4 year term ends and he's finished wrecking the economy for short-term gains or the chance of re-election. He must guide the nation for decades into the future. This, combined with his wealth, makes his only incentive to make his people happy and prosperous.

With Kingship, comes love. The King is the symbolic father of the national family. The nation is not divided and conquered through partisan bickering about issues they understand little. It is united with one direction, the direction set by the King.

With Kingship, comes grave consequences. There is no blaming of the other party, no disappearing off to retirement to let others clear up your mess. If the King is tyrannical, it is relatively easy to remove him from power with a revolution that much of the military will join, compared with modern democratic governments where power is so diluted that barely anyone can be found to blame or pressure (or threaten) to change.

Finally, a King is made from birth. Instead of being elected, he is selected by God, or fate. He spends his whole youth knowing the responsibility before him, and learning from the best tutors all arts, sciences and histories to become worthy of leadership.

How the first King in a line is made is usually a matter of war, selection by fate, or election by a people willing to finally vote out the fools and liars game that is democracy.

Attached: behold-the-argonath-armand-cabrera.jpg (105.84 KB, 900x666)

Elijah Smith
Elijah Smith

By taking it back from the kikes.

Wyatt Jenkins
Wyatt Jenkins

Nice

Attached: check-em.jpg (80.5 KB, 615x870)

John Peterson
John Peterson

You'll have to argue that out.
Some say monarchy does not exist or work.

Connor Sullivan
Connor Sullivan

Succession by any other means will entice those seeking power and control, when the title is passed down it is not a means to a selfish end, but a duty and responsibility

Justin Jackson
Justin Jackson

I like the planet's diversity
Me too, biological diversity is my #1 priority. Removing subhumans is unfortunately or fortunately, if you're designed for it the only way to preserve it. Niggers, spics, chinks, poos and kikes exist merely to strip the earth bare of natural life, allowing them to exist is a death sentence for the biosphere. That might sound harsh, and then again you might just be a soft bitch who can sleep at night knowing your planet's being devoured by ravenous beasts. I suppose that's why nobody wants you to be in charge.

I like Japan and if the Mideast were stripped of Mohammadanism it wouldn't be such a shithole
Glorious Nippon aside, the other places you mentioned DO have Whites in them. I'll sort out the Japanese issue later
I've met many a good castizo/mestizo
But the minority, right? You'd let the plague of locusts continue because you met a few that weren't actively eating your crops? I call this cowardice and ignorance.

Attached: 3325ae4eb70fa890582ae877342ec5d89b6d1addd7d913fc8de4d02dfc5aa2d0.jpg (84.18 KB, 770x590)
Attached: niggers-vs-plants.jpg (161.91 KB, 1024x926)
Attached: irony-in-picture-form.jpg (12.81 KB, 310x163)

Joshua Jenkins
Joshua Jenkins

Is there any truth to the idea that vast reductions in human population could also have catastrophic ipact on our planet?

If so what time frame will we need to spread the cull of subhumans?

Niggers, spics, chinks, poos and kikes
Which is the priority at the top of the cull? All waste huge amounts of resources.

Levi Sanchez
Levi Sanchez

OY VEY MORE NADZEES

Adam Barnes
Adam Barnes

The King is made wealthy enough to be incorruptible with money.
<Billionaires and trillionaires are incorruptible because of their wealth
Oh thanks sir rothschild, you're truly made pure by your "wealth".

Finally, a King is made from birth. Instead of being elected, he is selected by God
selected by God
Do you actually, literally believe that?

Succession by any other means will entice those seeking power and control
any other means
Holy shit user, you know literally every means of succession and have conclusively analyzed ALL OF THEM?! I could really use someone like that, you're a legendary genius

Attached: ae58b45994d1951f23e25d48847f77aca1c838bccc301e728e0fc41b7a46b0a3.jpg (32.69 KB, 574x382)

Logan Foster
Logan Foster

Kikes started a civil war in the Reich before Hitler even popularized the NSDAP. Referring to it indirectly is not being a shitposting shill. It is a dank redpill that you will never hear in ZOG school.

Anthony Russell
Anthony Russell

Lurk moar newfag, holy shit.

Lucas Perry
Lucas Perry

(double checked)
Is there any truth to the idea that vast reductions in human population could also have catastrophic ipact on our planet?
I've never heard such a thing
<SUBhuman population
Definitely not. They are a living extinction-tier event. Basically we have two groups fighting for control of this planet, and both are willing to use exterminatus. You have the current ruling groups and 6 billion shitskins on one side, with us leading what Whites we can rally on the other. But my exterminatus abilities are vastly superior to the combined strength of the shitskin goblin horde, and I never lose, so since I'm in play we win.

Which is the priority at the top of the cull?
Well, kikes obviously. They're the most destructive and are currently occupying the least amount of corpses, and they lead the shitskin horde. Decapitate the leadership, cut off all supplies and the rest will fall into disorder, infighting and starvation. 80% will be dead within 2 years without a single bullet or lost White life.

If so what time frame will we need to spread the cull of subhumans?
Once it kicks off, I plan to be complete in 6 years. How long until the trap springs? Tough to say but certainly less than 10 years. I'd bet it's in the next 6. Our power is actually growing while our opponents' if dropping, so even though they can't win, I expect them to kick off kinetics sooner than later. Otherwise we'll just keep adding troops and getting more pissed off and prepared. I'm willing to accept 10 million enemies into my land if it radicalizes 1 million Whites. As I've said before, 1 million Whites vs 10 million shitskins isn't a war, it's a janitorial operation and nothing more, not even particularly interesting.

Attached: 1426355023494.jpg (33.64 KB, 540x328)

Justin Anderson
Justin Anderson

You are a moron. The french revolution gave us two different sets of terminology, they are not interchangeable. Left vs right is equality vs hierarchy. Progressive vs conservative vs reactionary is overthrowing the status quo for something new vs preserving the status quo vs reverting to the old status quo.

Hudson Howard
Hudson Howard

(checked)
This thread is getting hitler dubs and trips.

Samuel Mitchell
Samuel Mitchell

I did the math on my post history, used the dubs-trips equation, and I'm way off the charts recently. Kek approves apparently.

Attached: 44af5542da25f3388b3d460936cc5d4bb6d919a97c931a088c47883c8a761e3b.png (34.14 KB, 679x738)

Ayden Flores
Ayden Flores

As a kid Hitler idolized the idea of kings.

As a politician, he met with the king of Italy, and realized the king was a weak, useless, idiot and that hereditary leadership positions resulted in bad leaders.

Luis Mitchell
Luis Mitchell

It's revolutionary inasmuch as it aims to restore proper order against Jewish tyranny.
For all intents and purposes, Hitler was the equivalent of a supreme ruler. i.e. a legitimate ruler.
And don't get the Esoteric Hitlerists started on that because they'll you we was a God-Avatar.

As presented by OP, the main problem is the selection of heirs.
Elections? Democracy!
Trials? Cheating!
Dynasty? Nepotism!

Asher Richardson
Asher Richardson

As presented by OP, the main problem is the selection of heirs.
That seems to be the case. So what we should be doing is brainstorming on what that process should be. Point out weaknesses and possible fixes, etc. That would be handy. Also I'm still trying to come up with a name for my country. I have it in my head that someone around here knows it and I want it out of your brain

Alexander Morgan
Alexander Morgan

Not sure it's necessary to read miles long essay when it's quite easy to understand that NS was a return to true leaders, therefore real kings grabbing power by the sheer virtue of their inherent quality, whilst the ones PRK was looking at were the last fruits of mentally crippled lineages.

Luis Reed
Luis Reed

Sure, if I'm the monarch.

Thomas Brown
Thomas Brown

Got proof's?

Matthew Carter
Matthew Carter

The nobility were the main assassins that tried assassinate Hitler when the war was no longer in his favor. After the war all the nobles escaped the Nuremberg Trials, denounced National Socialism, and went back into the mainstream like the traitorous kikes they were. Nobles tend to end up as raceless, elitist, degenerates who will freely race mix with foreign nobility and jews, while looking down on the lower classes as “inferior” There is no magical blood that makes nobles superior when it comes to rulership “hell their tendency To fuck their cosines and race mix with rich Jews and foreign nobility makes them even less qualified in my opinion” Hitler did have a heir if he died, his name was Herman Goring, ever heard of him? He in fact had a long list of people to replace him, who he believed to be most qualified.

National Socialism is all about meritocracy, true meritocracy where people will find their rightful and deserving place based soley on their SKILL, WILL, STRENGTH, AND INTELLIGENCE. With no limitations based on socially constructed things like class, wealth, or nobility. Under National Socialism everyone finds their place based on their traits and character. “Exceptions to this historically were simply the result of the transition from a oligarchic to a meritocratic society, and woldn’t have lasted.”

The strength of National Socialism was always the strength of the German people, this strength was not in capitalists, or nobility. Who often subverted the movement, were never true believers, and freely switched sides based on who they thought would win. True, they did finance Hitler at the end, when his victory was a inevitability, but not before. They much preferred the respectable “conservatives” who merely wanted to maintain the status que, but get rid of a couple things “like commies” that the oligarchs didn’t like.

Even by the end, when Hitler was about to win. The oligarchs still only provided 25% of his funding, in a selfish attempt to save their skins in the coming revolution “It worked, but they never had as much power as before still.”

The NSDAP was always a lower and middle class movement. It was ordinary men “and plenty of female supporters” who helped themselves when no one else would. Even right before the election, 75% of their funding was from donations from lower and middle class party members and working men and women throwing their cash into the pot. Millions of German workers forming a movement with cash out of their own pocket, to help themselves. To save their nation, and people from poverty, humiliation, and degeneracy.

Hitler himself is the exact opposite of a noble, he was just some hobo, who then became cannon fodder in WW1, and miraculously survived. He had nothing to his name except his strength, intellect, and character. Yet he soon became a leader of a nation. Hiearchary should be determined by meritocracy, future fascist leaders should look for gifted talent to indoctrinate and train for future leadership. Their spawn could suffice only if they can be proven to be reliable, but only if their is no one better.

Attached: CA6A187C-54B2-476F-AD97-1DE793A05324.jpeg (32.57 KB, 236x344)

Adrian Mitchell
Adrian Mitchell

Mein Kampf, Ch.10, Why the 2nd Reich Collapsed

[when] a man is prepared to stand up for a cause, come what may, he never
grovels before its representative. A man who is serious about the maintenance
and welfare of an institution will not allow himself to be discouraged when the
representatives of that institution show certain faults and failings. And he
certainly will not run around to tell the world about it, as certain false
democratic ‘friends’ of the monarchy have done; but he will approach His
Majesty, the bearer of the Crown himself, to warn him of the seriousness of a
situation and persuade the monarch to act. Furthermore, he will not take up the
standpoint that it must be left to His Majesty to act as the latter thinks fit, even
though the course which he would take must plainly lead to disaster. But the
man I am thinking of will deem it his duty to protect the monarchy against the
monarch himself, no matter what personal risk he may run in doing so. If the
worth of the monarchical institution be dependent on the person of the monarch
himself, then it would be the worst institution imaginable; for only in rare cases
are kings found to be models of wisdom and understanding, and integrity of
character, though we might like to think otherwise. But this fact is unpalatable to
the professional knaves and lackeys. Yet all upright men, and they are the
backbone of the nation, repudiate the nonsensical fiction that all monarchs are
wise, etc. For such men history is history and truth is truth, even where
monarchs are concerned. But if a nation should have the good luck to possess a
great king or a great man it ought to consider itself as specially favoured above
all the other nations, and these may be thankful if an adverse fortune has not
allotted the worst to them.

Andrew Reyes
Andrew Reyes

It is clear that the worth and significance of the monarchical principle cannot
rest in the person of the monarch alone, unless Heaven decrees that the crown
should be set on the head of a brilliant hero like Frederick the Great, or a
sagacious person like William I. This may happen once in several centuries, but
hardly oftener than that. The ideal of the monarchy takes precedence of the
person of the monarch, inasmuch as the meaning of the institution must lie in the
institution it self. Thus the monarchy may be reckoned in the category of those
whose duty it is to serve. He, too, is but a wheel in this machine and as such he
is obliged to do his duty towards it. He has to adapt himself for the fulfilment of
high aims. If, therefore , there were no significance attached to the idea itself
and everything merely centred around the ‘sacred’ person, then it would never
be possible to depose a ruler who has shown himself to be an imbecile.
It is essential to insist upon this truth at the present time, because recently those
phenomena have appeared again and were in no small measure responsible for
the collapse of the monarchy. With a certain amount of native impudence these
persons once again talk about ‘their King’ - that is to say, the man whom they
shamefully deserted a few years ago at a most critical hour. Those who refrain
from participating in this chorus of lies are summarily classified as ‘bad
Germans’. They who make the charge are the same class of quitters who ran
away in 1918 and took to wearing red badges. They thought that discretion was
the better part of valour. They were indifferent about what happened to the
Kaiser. They camouflaged themselves as ‘peaceful citizens’ but more often than
not they vanished altogether. All of a sudden these champions of royalty were
nowhere to be found at that time. Circumspectly, one by one, these ‘servants and
counsellors’ of the Crown reappeared, to resume their lip-service to royalty but
only after others had borne the brunt of the anti-royalist attack and suppressed
the Revolution for them. Once again they were all there. remembering wistfully
the flesh-pots of Egypt and almost bursting with devotion for the royal cause.
This went on until the day came when red badges were again in the ascendant.
Then this whole ramshackle assembly of royal worshippers scuttled anew like
mice from the cats.
If monarchs were not themselves responsible for such things one could not help
sympathizing with them. But they must realize that with such champions thrones
can be lost but certainly never gained.

Owen Fisher
Owen Fisher

(…)

First of all the monarchical form of government guarantees stability in the
direction of public affairs and safeguards public offices from the speculative
turmoil of ambitious politicians. Furthermore, the venerable tradition which this
institution possesses arouses a feeling which gives weight to the monarchical
authority. Beyond this there is the fact that the whole corps of officials, and the
army in particular, are raised above the level of political party obligations. And
still another positive feature was that the supreme rulership of the State was
embodied in the monarch, as an individual person, who could serve as the
symbol of responsibility, which a monarch has to bear more seriously than any
anonymous parliamentary majority. Indeed, the proverbial honesty and integrity
of the German administration must be attributed chiefly to this fact. Finally, the
monarchy fulfilled a high cultural function among the German people, which
made amends for many of its defects. The German residential cities have
remained, even to our time, centres of that artistic spirit which now threatens to
disappear and is becoming more and more materialistic. The German princes
gave a great deal of excellent and practical encouragement to art and science,
especially during the nineteenth century. Our present age certainly has nothing
of equal worth.

Ian Cook
Ian Cook

End of (long) quotation.

tl;dr
Excellent kings, brave and smart, are an absolute rarity. However, in such exceptional cases, it seems Hitler advocates for granting him exceptional powers, perhaps a decision which could be considered safe. That is what I read from between the lines.
Most of the time, the monarchy is a whole interconnected system where the Monarch must NOT be surrounded by groveling yes-men and it falls down on the Monarch himself to make sure this never happens.
It's largely implied that the monarch himself, were he to be an incompetent person, would be a danger to the monarchy.
Hitler clearly had no issue the monarchical system, in this book at least. Assuming this wasn't another political concession. Yet, what he did up to his death is in agreement with his earlier statements.
The monarch is therefore not only responsible in front of the people but also as a defender of the system itself.
This requires humility and a sincere understanding of the weight of responsibilities that come with such power.
At the time of Mein Kampf, there's no noticeable opposition to the idea of a monarchy, but just like Kaczynski, he bursts the myth of monarchs always being right and adequate and clearly objects to the idea of them being impossible to depose.
This doesn't provide a key into how finding the right person for succeeding to the former king, but clearly shows that maintaining the monarchy with the right monarch could be a necessary prerogative.
All in all, monarchy >>>>>>>>>> anything relying on politicians.

I was also certain that Hitler himself had provided an outline of perhaps the ideal system that a nation could rely on to decide of its legitimate ruler in his other writings. Have I imagined things?

Easton Harris
Easton Harris

Communism didn't exist.

That's what communists really believe.
You know… the "we have never seen true communism" kind of BS.

Xavier Wood
Xavier Wood

Nope, oligarchies always fail because the condition for them to be good is dependent on human nature, and human nature by default is greed/corruption/evil.

Christard detected.
Keep your stories about sins to yourself, thx, and don't pollute this place.

Angel Collins
Angel Collins

Plus form and beauty.

Oh and the fact that it wasn't penned by a Jew who was full of sh*t.

Angel Bennett
Angel Bennett

I'd have asked you what kind of socialism you rely on but I'd rather ask what kind of crack you rely on.
All your mumbo-jumbo about muhmaths and fishes completely ignores that NS didn't curtail innovation, nor competition, as long as it didn't significantly threaten the existence of the people/race.
If you allow a system to be such a threat, well then no need to look any further than in the USA and the vaunted capitalism.

Wyatt Morris
Wyatt Morris

A KING IS THE MOUTH OF THE WISE MEN. IF YOU WANT A KING YOU FIRST NEED TO REBUILD YOUR SOCIAL CLASS OF WISE MEN AND MAKE SURE THEY REPRODUCE.

Attached: woman2.jpg (34.53 KB, 500x341)

Brayden Morris
Brayden Morris

Do we really need to go over the whole short history of America? To remember how even towards the end of the 19th century, the country wasn't neatly organized yet?
The only reason you think it worked is because the structure wasn't finished, but once it was, who were running it became quite clear.
You can also throw the last 100+ US years down the shitter. Sadly enough, America's influence on the world has been one anyone sane enough would gladly erase from history.
So shaved off your initial yearly count, it only leaves a century of all too relative goodness at best.
Which, frankly, is absolutely pathetic!

Landon Torres
Landon Torres

Please add more leather and swastikas.

Ian Wood
Ian Wood

Yet all upright men, and they are the backbone of the nation, repudiate the nonsensical fiction that all monarchs are wise, etc. For such men history is history and truth is truth, even where monarchs are concerned. But if a nation should have the good luck to possess a great king or a great man it ought to consider itself as specially favoured above all the other nations, and these may be thankful if an adverse fortune has not allotted the worst to them.

If, therefore , there were no significance attached to the idea itself and everything merely centred around the ‘sacred’ person, then it would never be possible to depose a ruler who has shown himself to be an imbecile.
<and the rest of it
Hitler was a great man. I enjoy these selected readings and am always interested in hearing more.

the Monarch must NOT be surrounded by groveling yes-men and it falls down on the Monarch himself to make sure this never happens
This is by far the hardest job of a Monarch. I think it's incumbent upon one to bow to Nature, and above that God. The ideal is that which Nature has deemed most suited to survival, and any leader of any stature must accept that fact. Being the greatest among Man is to be the first servant of Nature. Nature, that ultimate fascist.
I was also certain that Hitler himself had provided an outline of perhaps the ideal system that a nation could rely on to decide of its legitimate ruler in his other writings. Have I imagined things?
If you did I support their reality.

Attached: 10487522-1040929145933578-6210649572686458962-n.jpg (44.39 KB, 389x554)

William Martin
William Martin

A republic has the potential to not be an oligarchy, that's one of the flaws in the US Constitution. The Constitution only defines terms for high level offices. It says absolutely nothing about the middle ranks and the career bureaucrats. That also needs to change. Perhaps a solution would be limiting the time people can work in government across the board, that's a simple answer of the top of my head, but I don't know how feasible/reasonable it would be. I'm sure there are plenty of solutions. I'd also couple that with severe penalties for government workers who are corrupt and those who seek to corrupt government from outside government. The penalties for betrayal of public trust should be extreme, including death. You make the penalties so severe that the risk of attempting corruption could be life ending.

I do when it comes to private corporations colluding together to control markets. Basically any market in which competition is suppressed should be under government scrutiny. If found guilty of collusion/rigging, they should be executed.

Isaiah Barnes
Isaiah Barnes

nice dubs

All men are equal is utter BS.
The whole project was doomed for failure.
Don't tell me the politicians back then believed the negro to be the equal of the white man!
Several, perhaps a minority, were deists; so they wouldn't even be influenced by egalitarian christian teachings of equality of races.
The whole Constitution penning is fishy.
FFS, B. Franklin warned people about the kikes!

Christopher Roberts
Christopher Roberts

And some green frogs and a Trump cartoon.

Michael Evans
Michael Evans

human nature by default is greed/corruption/evil
<nature by default is greed/corruption/evil.
<nature is evil
You sure spotted the kike

Attached: 1464688354165.jpg (85 KB, 376x401)

Dominic Adams
Dominic Adams

Its the same thing if the King is like Hitler, Wilhelm, Barbarossa, Hengist or Ermanaric.

Attached: do-you-possess-it.mp4 (3.76 MB, 640x360)

David Sullivan
David Sullivan

For anyone wondering, I couldn't find the old thread on my accessible backups, which means it's likely in my DVD archives. It's just too much to dig through right now.

Doesn't hurt to start a fresh attempt. Anyway, as for the naysayers, you can bitch and complain all you want about my position on socialism and the various flavors thereof, but at least I have an actual framework in mind for a potential new solution. I haven't seen jack shit from the NS proponents for any kind of feasible solution, let alone a framework to even start on one. I'd be interested in hearing any solution someone believes would be superior to my revamped Constitutional Republic solution, but the ideological drivel and larping don't a solution make.

Bentley Ross
Bentley Ross

Wow, i’m sure your special snowflake version of the constitution “which will totally lead to drastic change” will catch on!

Luke Long
Luke Long

A capitalist puritan will be pwned by Jews sooner or later. A White man has natural values ingrained in our instincts that make us incapable of scratching the bottom of the barrel of decadence in order to make a few extra shekels.

Cooper Hernandez
Cooper Hernandez

btw, does anyone know if there exists some kind of anonymous version control service for anonymous groups to collaborate on say documents etc.?

if not, credit the idea to user ;)

Colton Rodriguez
Colton Rodriguez

Why not? When the country collapses, the people who aren't dead are going to need and want something new. It has no hope of ever being adopted in this country, just like this country has no hope of surviving.

James James
James James

The best argument for Monarchy I ever read was in Nihilism by Fr. Seraphim Rose.

The problem is incompetent tyrants. I think Confucianism solved this with the "Mandate of Heaven." Essentially, if the kingdom falls on bad times, it's proof the mandate has passed to another and a new King must overthrow him.

So dynasties come and go, but the kingdom lives forever, or at least until the Japanese invaded with superior weaponry.

Nicholas King
Nicholas King

Oh thanks sir rothschild, you're truly made pure by your "wealth".
You don't understand, the principle corruption is considered from the standpoint of Whites serving Whites.
Rothschild is a Jew. He is NOT corrupt. He simply jews like any rich Jew would jew.
Do you actually, literally believe that?
If one delves into the mysteries, it's actually plausible to agree with that.

Kayden Cox
Kayden Cox

This is where NS was revolutionary, as it short-circuited the clique of impotent plotters born in silk but who had proven nothing worth its salt.
In other words, meritocracy was utterly lacking.

Adam Nelson
Adam Nelson

corruptible by money
And therefore intensely corruptible by countless other means.
If one delves into the mysteries, it's actually plausible to agree with that.
I'm not disagreeing, I just wanted some parameters. I suppose it could mean that my ascension is guided by God Himself. I'm not likely to dissuade people from believing such a thing, true or not.

Attached: 28059707fffe6a95858411611ebbc15163b855dae23bec97e85dd0ace11292e1.jpg (61.43 KB, 469x750)
Attached: merchantbypass.jpg (554 B, 16x21)

Ayden King
Ayden King

the strength of the german people.
If we were to implement national socialism how do we reignite that strength when a good percent of the population of any western country demoralized.

Wyatt Cooper
Wyatt Cooper

In short, it will fail, as all left-leaning ideologies do.
Adapt it to get rid of the leftist views, and it may succeed.

Adrian Hughes
Adrian Hughes

Fucking monarchists, hereditary rule is a joke. I'd sooner trust my leader's second-in-command, whom my leader has personally chosen and worked alongside for most of his life and likely shares many if not all of his ideals, than an offspring who could be nothing like his father in terms of willpower and mental clarity. The only way I could see hereditary rule work is if the offspring was dropped off and raised in bumfuck nowhere by rural, middle-class parents, taught the value of the culture and history, and then near adulthood it gets sprung on them "You're a prince, Harry." Sure the rush of power could go to their head and make them a prick but if the strategy worked they would be tempered by hard work and humility.

Or, you know, just pass on power to the ruler's second in command and let the offspring work their way up through the chain of command through hard work and loyalty to their country rather than cheating their way there.

Nathaniel Parker
Nathaniel Parker

How do you handle/ensure stable transitions of power?

Nathaniel Martin
Nathaniel Martin

The founding fathers did not write the constitution. The founding fathers were those men who spilled blood on the battlefield and themselves died. The usurpers came years later, and shredded the confederacy for the simple reason those usurpers could not pay their war debts. Veterans of that war, the true founding fathers nobody writes books about, were revolting here and there, because once again they were paying dues to a foreign entity, through a congress of scheming rats for middlemen, but they hadn't even been paid by that congress for spilling blood. That's how our constitution drafted in the dark behind locked doors came to be. Fuck those merchant cunts who enslaved our founding fathers.

David Cox
David Cox

Checked

Attached: CCB90D4D-0F8C-4F3A-8970-8837F9F57699.png (2.27 MB, 750x1334)

Samuel Collins
Samuel Collins

Are they compatible and will this be able to work?
I don't think either side would tolerate it. Too many national socialists are rigid on monarchy as a political issue because Hitler did not support this form of government. While monarchists play sweet with liberal conservatives and usually have a stick up their butts for historical grievances.

Attached: 52e7dc35103c575d43bb44855adbe32f274b95f200947fae2915773628db7a13.jpg (2.69 MB, 2190x1990)

Leo Ortiz
Leo Ortiz

Ya no shit any one who does not want to live in fantansy land can tell you every race is different.

Daniel Bennett
Daniel Bennett

(heil'd)
want something new
Perhaps the 4th position? From what I heard it already had a political theory to go by and I do not think there has been any threads talking about it but maybe that should be saved next time.

Justin Torres
Justin Torres

it will fail.
How so? None of us ever got to see it fail it got rid off completely by the kikes and then use propaganda to say natsoc is evil and filled with hate horse shit.

Camden Russell
Camden Russell

I personally believe that diminishing the numbers of useless eaters (including whites) over time would be great
I like the planet's diversity
If the Mideast were stripped of Mohammadanism it wouldn't be such a shithole, and other nonwhites aren't so bad

What makes you not a useless eater? What's your utility? This post sums up the utter decadence of the ruling classes. Let's kill people who are genetically close to me, but keep the subhumans because I like having orgies with niggers. This is exactly what happens if one person owns the country (in such monarchies everything in it, including the people, is the literal private property of the nobility). You get people who got raised without struggle, more often than not being defective in every possible way, completely out of touch with reality, decide the fate of everyone else. It's the most unnatural and most degenerate form of government that can exist, which is exactly why kikes are shilling for it so hard as a solution to the failure of liberal democracy.

Good post, hereditary monarchies are the enemy. Especially the modern ones. Kingship must be earned. Period.

Tyler Hill
Tyler Hill

This actually isn't a bad suggestion.
However, don't forget that it was usual for kids to have their younger years sort of sacrificed so they'd learn all they need to learn to be a future king.
The second-in-command can work and fail too. All you need is a weak link in the chain, a bad decision from the ruler who fails to recognize the value of people next to him.
Interesting fact, it's precisely a second-in-command (mayor) who took control of France as the Merovingian dynasty was becoming weaker. However, the new dynasty plotted with the nascent Catholic Papacy in a reciprocal back-scratching deal. A pity since the Western Roman Empire was no more and the church could have been left to wither on the vine. :-/

Sebastian Bell
Sebastian Bell

Could be nice to start a thread on the real founding fathers and the crafting of the Constitution.

Indeed. So it absolutely boggles the mind that one could even claim it was a MISTAKE to have such a terrible clause slip into the primary founding chapters of the new Constitution.
Of course one would say it's some tinfoil hat rambling right here but come on! Any sane White man would have been totally outraged by such nonsense. Christians would not, but again they didn't represent the whole of the Constitution's voters, and in how the States went from a Confederation of independent states to a Federation of cuckolded states. Lincoln was a pig, a Jew stooge who got the axe once rendered useless, and Madison was f***ing high… assuming he wasn't (((theirguy))) too or a plain retard (cue the "incompetence" part from Mein Kampf).

It is interesting how the creation of a monster came to pass in 1789 in North America, when at the same moment a (((terrible coup))) was unfolding in France with extreme prejudice and consequences for the whole of Europe.
Check dat flag: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1789_in_the_United_States
American Union /+/ United States of Europe.
Same shit -> Zionist World Order

Brandon Torres
Brandon Torres

That's untrue and Mein Kampf, among other sources, shows that it would work.
If the system is legit, it WILL work. People will converge toward it. NS was 200% legit in Germany and did you see how Germans flocked around Hitler? The insane rallies, the crowded rituals under the moon and the sun filling entire valleys?
Jews cannot understand that and they're scared shitless of it. They have no rationalization for this so they unleash their Freudian experts and inquisitors upon us to defile this great achievement.

Cameron Thomas
Cameron Thomas

in such monarchies everything in it, including the people, is the literal private property of the nobility
Then it's a decadent monarchical model. Doesn't need to be so. One is too used to hear of subjects of the Queen sort of nonsense.
No, the King (or queen) BELONGS TO the people. His entire legitimacy is based on the well being and strength of the population, at ALL levels.

Think of a pyramid.

Justin Moore
Justin Moore

Will the Catholic at least did not murder 50 gorillion.
You ever heard about the 30 Years War? With half of German people genocided because they decided they'd rather not pay taxes on hookers and bling for pornocratic Popes? Or how about the Crusades againts Czechs who also kinda decided they'd rather not pay 10% of their income to a foreign dude in a funny hat that spent it on vanity fits and orgaistic debauchery. Or what about the Albigensian Crusades that had left Southern France all but genocided.
You ever notice how "refusal to pay taxes to Pope" precedes "genocide, war, Crusade"?

Jace Price
Jace Price

Substitute the President for King, and you're set. If the common folk have no way of dethroning a tyrant, they WILL be exploited. If they have a sure way of offing bad rulers, the specific government doesn't matter.

Parker Nelson
Parker Nelson

What's the origin on the Hitler quote about democracy and free press?

Alexander Martin
Alexander Martin

Actually back then before the kikes got their hands on the constitution said america is only for the white men aka any person of european descent, they also should add a law for selective breeding so no ethnicity mix with each other.
To bad that never happened

Samuel Bailey
Samuel Bailey

He most likely said it in mein kampf if you feel like it you could save it and add the page number.

Gavin Ortiz
Gavin Ortiz

the german population genocides.
Jesus christ I never heard this one before, and cuckchan is telling me germany ruins each and every ?

Dominic Rivera
Dominic Rivera

A republic has the potential to not be an oligarchy
In theory, yes. But so too can a monarchy theoretically not be an oligarchy.
None currently exist because all governments function by the same rule; A few men at the top must please their core constituents that do the running of society.
Marxist dictators need the support of the men in charge of the police state in order to keep the public in line. And our "benevolent" republic requires the support of media corporations to keep the public voting for the "correct" candidates.

any market in which competition is suppressed should be under government scrutiny.
So you're in favour of state intervention in much of the energy market, the tech industry, and (at present) the healthcare system.
What about multi-national corporations?

Brandon Jackson
Brandon Jackson

national socialist
Government, economy, society exists for the people

monarchy
Government, economy, society exists for the king.

Can national socialist monarchy be compatible?
You tell me, OP.

Cameron Lewis
Cameron Lewis

The king isn't just himself, he's the realm. He's the people and the land deified as the god-man.

Attached: sleeping-kings.jpg (231.94 KB, 1024x655)

Jack Bennett
Jack Bennett

The King has the obligation to act on the behalf of the best interests of his subjects. It really does boil down to that if a King is a good, just person that his Kingdom will flourish. The common man will emulate his goodness and all of society benefits. Furthermore it is the responsibility of a King's subjects to rebel and forcibly overthrow him if he portrays the pubic good.

In short you're a retard and the goals of national socialism and a monarchy headed by a PROPER monarch are one and the same.

Cameron Nguyen
Cameron Nguyen

The monarch also benefits tje people depending on the king.

Hudson Ross
Hudson Ross

Reminder that the only thing in the way of absolute salvation via philosopher king is man’s frail ragged body

Attached: 110F2136-98C8-4C27-81C8-F063A8C5C337.jpeg (70.02 KB, 851x315)
Attached: 34E0781E-8BBB-4FE8-9C81-9BA6F0454E3C.jpeg (571.53 KB, 1151x969)

Liam Gutierrez
Liam Gutierrez

lmao at the demagoguery. Learn some history. You are so far from the truth it actually makes me smile. Blood > everything. All traits and thinking arise from a genetic template.

Gavin Kelly
Gavin Kelly

It becomes decadent sooner or later if it's solely hereditary. A proper government must have both upwards and downwards pressure. Neither the tyranny of the masses, nor the tyranny of the monarchy (overt or covert ones like today).

Think of a pyramid.
I am. An inverse one. The ruler must be superior enough to support the entire weight of society, not to be an apex parasite sitting on the top.

We need a proper constitution which would define our eternal values, principles, and goals, and an aristocracy measured according to it. Those who contribute the most to our Ideals would hold the highest ranks. Nothing would prevent you from upraising your kids according to Virtues so they can succeed you in meritocratic, rather than nepotistic manner. The center needs be moved away from the individual, away from the masses, the center must be the values themselves. If everything is set out clearly, finding a proper successor would never be a difficulty. Constitution would be guarded by the most elite military force of warrior-monks who would unleash hell on any group threatening it. They would have access to best weapons and technologies.

God-Emperor: the living embodiment of the race-soul and virtues of Evropa
Knights of the Constitution: Elite military force devoted solely to upholding it and ensuring that no group becomes too corrupt or too powerful
Philosopher-kings: Round table of detached sages who would guide the race with their wisdom and knowledge. They would be masters of sciences, metaphysics and philosophy (the leaders of various grand schools, esoteric, tech guilds etc.)
Priest-kings - rulers of nations , embodiment of national characters and intra-racial diversity, the overall best of each nation (beauty, intelligence, willpower, character, strength/physical shape, virtues, skills)
Military-commanders: The best strategists, fighters etc.
Guild leaders - each profession would have professional guilds that would make most laws concerning it
Industry leaders - owners of top businesses, small business associations etc.
Worker assemblies - unions of workers
Community leaders - leaders of various communities (groups of people separated according to their nature or region)

This would bring enough checks and balances and pretty much eliminate the need of (((assemblies))) and (((representative governments)))

Camden Morgan
Camden Morgan

monarchy wouldn't fix the problem of the leader being replaced and whatnot; the child can be subverted behind your back

Leo Mitchell
Leo Mitchell

God-Emperor: the living embodiment of the race-soul and virtues of Evropa
Who appoints him or how is he appointed? What keeps him honest?

Knights of the Constitution
Given that these men will be granted a significant amount of power to "ensure that no group becomes too corrupt or too powerful" they will necessarily be granted an immense amount of power. What prevents them from becoming like the Janissaries?

Philosopher-kings
school masters and tech Guild leaders
Who or what appoints them? What do the knights do if they seek to limit the Emperor's power through fostering a youth led political movement?

Priest-kings
Who or what appoints them? What makes or keeps them "king" of nations? And what happens when these nations inevitably chafe under the rule of the world monarch and they work together (probably with nationalistic Guild Leaders and youth movements) to secede from the world Empire?

Military-commanders
What political power do they hold?

Guild leaders
Who or what appoints them?

Industry leaders
owners of top businesses
I can foresee this being a very dangerous institution. How do they interract with other factions?

Worker assemblies
Do they have leaders that they appoint and what power do they wield?

Community leaders
Are they elected or what?

Also, how do these factions even check each other?

Isaac Turner
Isaac Turner

Where's Varg to remind us of the real deal about dem Crusades again?

Chase Diaz
Chase Diaz

Anybody can be subverted.
There's no perfect, fool-proof system.
Only one that sucks less than all the others.
The less politicians, the better. That simple.

Easton Nguyen
Easton Nguyen

There is no panacea. There are no guarantees in any system, but hereditary kingship is the best system in practice, with the most history and brightest men. Nothing compares with their results. Republicans always insist we judge their system under optimal conditions, but they can't judge monarchy under optimal conditions or they would become monarchists. So they toss out the most natural and aryan system, because one king or dynasty might be really bad.

Chase Nelson
Chase Nelson

Who appoints him or how is he appointed? What keeps him honest?
Smells like heresy.

Liam Harris
Liam Harris

I'm growing tired of people who think the King is some kind of super capitalist slave-owner or such shit.
What these posters describe is a tyrant, not a King.

Michael Garcia
Michael Garcia

Guild leaders - each profession would have professional guilds that would make most laws concerning it
Wew lad, this is a blast from the past. Are you unearthing my old political doctrine?
Knights of the Constitution: Elite military force devoted solely to upholding it and ensuring that no group becomes too corrupt or too powerful
You definitely are.
Priest-kings - rulers of nations , embodiment of national characters and intra-racial diversity, the overall best of each nation (beauty, intelligence, willpower, character, strength/physical shape, virtues, skills)
Proceed in thine act. I have nothing to teach you. I've never been prouder

Attached: DDChSMiXUAEhzZJ.jpg-large.jpg (98.6 KB, 621x618)

Josiah Jackson
Josiah Jackson

I'd sooner trust my leader's second-in-command, whom my leader has personally chosen and worked alongside for most of his life
D-did he just solve the equation? Let the Fuhrer choose his own successor, someone a couple decades his junior, and let them work together until the former steps down? It's not bulletproof, but I think you're onto something here. Time to investigate this concept.

The second-in-command can work and fail too. All you need is a weak link in the chain, a bad decision from the ruler who fails to recognize the value of people next to him.
It's weak as an plan, but strong as the seed of a concept. This thread ended up being quite worthwhile

Attached: 59f3a5e9aeb5556fe2d9cd6f1cb0c83d716375477238979ae673648971d14459.jpg (30.81 KB, 635x630)

Camden King
Camden King

witnessed and yes, he did

Attached: I-saw-that.jpg (37 KB, 534x534)

Gavin Lopez
Gavin Lopez

Might as well keep bumping so we can continue discussing and debating to see what we may find out.

Jeremiah Howard
Jeremiah Howard

Might as well keep bumping so we can continue discussing and debating to see what we may find out.
I was surprised how well this thread turned out. I don't think it's a flash in the pan. Anyway, might as well bump it to stay afloat in the sea of piss read: shill threads

Attached: e7796cc205c0533fd3a8621c8c4f6d45660269effae79d3efede7a87ac4ffed5.jpg (93.63 KB, 620x559)

Adam Phillips
Adam Phillips

that's some god emperor drumpf kind of shit
kings can fuck you over just as easily as they can propel you towards greatness

Grayson Wright
Grayson Wright

Yup despite my op being mediocre I did not expect this thread to be left alone by shills or have people falling for bait.

John Barnes
John Barnes

I did not expect this thread to be left alone by shills
It's a special ability of mine, we can call it OVER-AWING. Shills wouldn't dare fuck around in my province or I'd deconstruct them molecurarly. Metaphorically speaking of course

Attached: 2444693012fb6fea9e3c41f55548b91669aa392d08fde4f96fa2e2509505cc84.jpg (91.56 KB, 720x474)

Hunter Gutierrez
Hunter Gutierrez

So the way this works is, if you even attempt to stand against me I ionize you and consume you. If not I just run my script unopposed. If that sounds like cheating it's close, imagine what would happen if I failed. You'll rubber stamp my finger-on-the-scale tactics. I see everything

Attached: 3691178-4f799afbaa4ff.jpg (326.03 KB, 1920x1080)

Jace Baker
Jace Baker

Seems nice, is it because your verbal iq tends to be incredibly high or is it something else entirely?

Bentley Martin
Bentley Martin

Both, I'm super smart and also the remainder of warriors who didn't die

Attached: 1448974549737.jpg (1.4 MB, 2560x1600)

Jonathan Martin
Jonathan Martin

Mind teaching your ways, I am not worried about the lazy shills who only use insults like
NAZI LARPERS stormfags hitler was a jew rothchild nazis kill 6 gorillion whites, white nationalists are jews
types of shills since they are either ignored or very easy to deal with, I mean kikes who really try by using pilpul and many semantics and hopefully trying to trick you and probably write like 6 fucking paragraphs as well.

Joshua Cruz
Joshua Cruz

Neh, I don't mind at all. I've kinda been attempting to transmit knowledge anyway, interspersed with VIOLENT NEEDS TO PURGE. Ask me a specific question you care about and give me a minute, ima go have a smoke. Ya I suck but I'm down to a pack a week so I don't beat myself up too much over it.

Attached: 1470429537485.png (202.93 KB, 499x329)

James Reed
James Reed

Mind transmitting this knowledge on a thread of your own or do you prefer doing it here for now?

Brayden Foster
Brayden Foster

(checked)
Oh, generally I just colonize off-topic threads. Makes me more resilient that way. I deserve my own thread but then kike shills would have a target, so I do this instead. I absolutely colonized a Drumpfthread last night and converted 40 IRL people, but they're just targets of opportunity. It just makes more sense for me to keep being an assassin for now

Attached: 79a79a1dd3b1eeab8d4dc7e946d58f0d6e6f7bf966de9a069231dd3579e1c213.jpg (43.08 KB, 407x427)

Jose Johnson
Jose Johnson

Neat. I am gonna go off for bed sadly, I will ask you questions tomorrow including the shills I dealt with on several occasions that shill differently than your generic ones.

James Murphy
James Murphy

Baited breath &tc. We'll meet again soon

Jackson Lopez
Jackson Lopez

The King has the obligation to act on the behalf of the best interests of his subjects.
No he doesn't. He's the king. He has all the power and the people have none.

It really does boil down to that if a King is a good, just person that his Kingdom will flourish.
And the king answers to no one.

The common man will emulate his goodness and all of society benefits.
While reaping none of the rewards.

Furthermore it is the responsibility of a King's subjects to rebel and forcibly overthrow him if he portrays the pubic good.
Which would be happening often.

In short you're a retard and the goals of national socialism and a monarchy headed by a PROPER monarch are one and the same.
No. Because the monarch has nothing to do with the preservation and betterment of the race, which of course is the basis for civilization.

Brody Parker
Brody Parker

The king isn't just himself, he's the realm. He's the people and the land deified as the god-man.
Which doesn't exist to protect the race but only ensure his own power.

Daniel Long
Daniel Long

I honestly believe that if Hitler had married, and Hitler had a son, that man would be ruling Germany. I don't know that they could have won WWII, but I think that Germany would be better off.
If you want lasting NatSoc, it ONLY be done under a monarchy.

Anthony Clark
Anthony Clark

Except the King absolutely does have the moral and financial obligation to be good to his subjects. If not they chimp out and despose of the monarch and his family. This results in lower taxes than democracy and far more liberty than democracy.

Attached: democracy-has-nothing-to-do-with-freedom-democracy-is-a-10585061.png (110.81 KB, 500x325)

Nicholas Flores
Nicholas Flores

Bump for discussion.

Matthew Jenkins
Matthew Jenkins

I don't know about that one hitler was kinda dying during late into the war.

Isaiah Long
Isaiah Long

I'm all ears.

Attached: 18bdcf0dbc22423b31b5d0a13b15a90393ad2c17308b3c07def7b4c6a3a4d6b8.png (389.43 KB, 1032x1457)

Tyler Wilson
Tyler Wilson

If not they chimp out and despose of the monarch and his family
As opposed to republics NOT having chimp outs and depositions? Since when there ever was a republic that didn't have to pacify its tax cattle?
This results in lower taxes than democracy and far more liberty than democracy.
Must be the reason a North Korean has to waste 10 years of his life on free labor for Kim the Third. Or the reason Bongs pay taxes on their own ethnic cleansing by Muslim Indians and Africans while ruled by a German dynasty with Jewish bankers.

Jace Rodriguez
Jace Rodriguez

North Korea could be much worse. It is actually a Democratic People's Republic of Korea under the ideology of Juche. The dynastic aspects are the only strength that regime has going for it. Homogeneous, unified, and strictly partisan.
Or the reason Bongs pay taxes on their own ethnic cleansing by Muslim Indians and Africans while ruled by a German dynasty with Jewish bankers.
Most countries throw your tax dollars into nefarious plots. Britannia has it pretty bad, yes.
ruled by a German dynasty
That's their own fault. Honestly, not even the problem with their proud Muslim mayor of London.

Attached: north-korea-is-best-korea.png (167.71 KB, 1263x632)

Noah Ramirez
Noah Ramirez

The King has the obligation to act on the behalf of the best interests of his subjects
No he doesn't. … He has all the power and the people have none
Except the King absolutely does have the moral and financial obligation to be good to his subjects
You haven't refuted his objection also, just restated your current dogma piece.
When the gunpowder made kingly retinues of heavy cavalrymen obsolete, kings got guillotined just fine, and they were regularly blown up or shot afterwards by dirt poor anarchists.
But not before the era of handguns and bombs. Before that a king had to share enough of his plunder to pay for grizzly men in steel to murderfuck the peasants into compliance.

And I wouldn't call up to half a year worth of unpaid corvee work days for manor owner a small tax. If you take away all the holidays, a peasant would spend 50%+ his time working for someone else, effectively payin 50%+ tax. On top of a Church tax of 10%.
Low taxes my ass, just because they were too poor to pain in coin doesn't mean they didn't waste labour on inbread fucks with all the power and no responsibilities.

10 years of slave labor is terrible tax in a monarchy
<North Korea could be much worse
I am sure the North Korean slaves are pleased to know their fate could had been much worse. They might have had to work 10 hours a day in a tyrannical republic of South Korea getting $1500 a month with 40% taxes.
Instead of 10 years of daily labor with 100% income tax (lol) and then $150 dollars a month and ever present threat of famine or gulag instead of K-Pop.
But Kim the Third needs to stuff his chin the third out of someone's free shit, eh?

Most countries throw your tax dollars into nefarious plots
So your reasoning is that throwing money and power at entrenched foreign families is better, because… why? Because they get born entitled to free shit and power, instead of at least pretending to care for 4 years?

That's their own fault
I thought somebody said something about "the King absolutely does have the moral and financial obligation to be good to his subjects", for now however the Queen seems staunch on her moral and financial obligation to the international banker nobility of heavily Jewish pedigree, and not the stinky Bong plebs. How so?
Was the Real Monarchy Never Tried?

Christopher Collins
Christopher Collins

Return to what is patriarchal, imperial, and autocratic.
keeps whining about North Korea and taxes
Go back to listening to K-pop for all I care.

Attached: ill-check-your-balances-one.png (111.67 KB, 420x443)

Ayden Lewis
Ayden Lewis

Have a happy starving to death a slave to Jewish-German bankster clans, monarcuck. You might just get your servile utopia sooner that you expect.

James Rodriguez
James Rodriguez

I would rather listen to something like this than K-pop.
For all this chat about Jewish international bankers, bolsheviks and anarchists get bankrolled by those anyways. Not to mention they are Jews.

Attached: Song-of-General-Kim-Jong-Il.mp4 (13.41 MB, 640x360)

Adam Campbell
Adam Campbell

Monarchies have a better track record of expelling Jews. Say what you will about monarchies today. Back in the day of Good Queen Bess, Jews were savagely prosecuted and beaten, ripped apart and killed. The English Commonwealth invited the Jews back and killed their king.

Attached: 1546554294385.jpg (123.85 KB, 583x643)

Michael Young
Michael Young

I propose that every municipality has a democratically elected partisan (!) mayors and that these mayors choose a dictator for life. This pattern repeats itself whenever the last dictator dies.

Nolan Hernandez
Nolan Hernandez

Degenerates like you are the reason boards go to down in quality. I think you'll feel much more at home on 4chan or Reddit.

Jason Perez
Jason Perez

The problem with this is no king in history had time to raise his own heir because he was the king, he was running a country, not babysitting.
There are plenty of great leaders who never had children or had horrible children, or only girls. This is why hereditary monarchy fails.
Has there ever been a monarchy where the king simply chooses his own replacement and does a sort of apprenticeship?

Charles Nelson
Charles Nelson

Has there ever been a monarchy where the king simply chooses his own replacement and does a sort of apprenticeship?
Roman Imperial succession was kinda like that at times, even if not formally a monarchy. Augustus himself was chosen by Caesar as his heir despite not being his son. Many of the best Emperors to have ruled were chosen, still among the aristocracy, by the previous Emperor based on their qualities. It's interesting for instance how the so called five good Emperors were a succession of non hereditary Emperors mostly chosen as heirs rather than inheriting the throne by succession. The first to accidentally break this streak, Marcus Aurelius, produced a disaster like Commodus. I assume Marcus didn't even intend to pass the throne to him.
I don't think the concept of succession by heredity is inherently bad, but should be weighted by the overall quality of the potential successor among the aristocracy as a whole. Good blood matters but it's only a prerequisite, not a guarantee if it isn't properly cultivated.

Samuel Jackson
Samuel Jackson

Hereditary and other forms of succession have their benefits and downfalls. Personally, I like the hereditary ideal for its emphasis on blood and origin. A kind of son of the nation ordeal, or the reverse. It conceptually entices me despite its drawbacks.

Elijah Lee
Elijah Lee

The Papacy

Jaxon Johnson
Jaxon Johnson

ENDLESS LARPING FOR THE JEWS

Josiah Turner
Josiah Turner

Seems a bit left wing to me but I guess its doable.

Michael Wilson
Michael Wilson

forgot pic

Attached: truth.jpg (62.34 KB, 975x567)

Caleb Smith
Caleb Smith

still thinks political ideologies can be reduced to a one-dimensional left-right dichotomy

Lurk two years before posting again.

Henry Jenkins
Henry Jenkins

this is by far one of the most retarded and american things I have ever seen

Hudson Turner
Hudson Turner

Looks right to me.

Attached: 605821084012480128.jpg (20.76 KB, 376x442)

Eli Martin
Eli Martin

This guy knows.

Evan Wright
Evan Wright

We need a strong authority to fix some of the problems we have even though north korea isn't a very strong example.

Ryan Long
Ryan Long

Fuck off and spam elsewhere you obvious kike.

Matthew Murphy
Matthew Murphy

american understanding of politics.jpg

Christian Evans
Christian Evans

it is retarded and historically inaccurate
individualism and collectivism are two sides of the same modern coin, the inability to go beyond the atom/individual and its quantitative extension in space, both communism and libertarianism/anarchism are modern aberrations and much closer to each other than they are to, I don't know, medieval European states

only a mentally challenged individual could call feudal Europe "left wing" because they had a social structure and an organic conception of the state beyond the individual
it's amazing how americans managed to butcher the historical right into an anarchistic cry for freedom

Attached: King-Hugh-Capet.jpg (33.88 KB, 509x631)

James Bell
James Bell

Well it's not.

Benjamin Butler
Benjamin Butler

individualism and collectivism are two sides of the same modern coin
Pretty much.
We shouldn't squeak about what is old or new. The best is for what is eternal.

Attached: Grace-Chan-Winterchan-Forest.png (763.52 KB, 888x555)

Jeremiah Campbell
Jeremiah Campbell

Feudal system. Basically the monarch deals in influence alone, keeping lords/vassals who are very much autonomous in check - this means lords/vassals can influence the monarch and vice versa, because the monarch has no power without the lords, and the lords on their own can't stand against a monarch with several lords under him. So it does become an oligarchy, if by proxy.
Basically a monarch is just lord-president

Logan Long
Logan Long

Shouldn't we get a good balance of individuality and collectivism? I know individualism at least true individualism cannot happen unless is under a healthy collectivist society.

Julian Martinez
Julian Martinez

I wonder if on the eastern side, those important people who switched their allegiance to Soviets were also those noble types.

Gavin Wilson
Gavin Wilson

Speaking of assassinations.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assassination_attempts_on_Adolf_Hitler

Angel Parker
Angel Parker

What is the difference between duedal or a monarchy, they are similar in a lot of ways aren't they?

Jack Gomez
Jack Gomez

Medieval European states were possibly only because of Medieval European tech. And then there were many differences in different ages between the Late Antiquity and Early Modern Age.
Notice how Noble power and privilege grew and the peasants became dispossesses serfs in X-XIII centuries of High Feudalism due to advances that made heavy cavalry invulnerable, reversed only due to the Plague killing off enough population to give some rights back to common men - while in the East mostly free people became enserfed in turn, in response for West emancipating its own yet needing free labor. Modern Tech makes Digital Gulag possible, and so the Jewish Bolsheviks build just that.

Any monarch+modern tech=digital gulag overseer with a funny hat. It doesn't matter at all whether the international bankers' puppet is the POTUS or the Queen, the end is the same so long as the digital enslavement infrastructure stands.

Connor Cruz
Connor Cruz

This is the system that existed in many parts of Europe. Local democracy with full voice-vote necessary was in fact mandatory, but the common man had no say about the high-tier politics, just as much as it wasn't the King's business to know how a bunch of villagers decided to share their yearly resources.

Nathaniel Price
Nathaniel Price

I don't think the concept of succession by heredity is inherently bad, but should be weighted by the overall quality of the potential successor among the aristocracy as a whole. Good blood matters but it's only a prerequisite, not a guarantee if it isn't properly cultivated.
Yes, like in a big contest. Nothing forbids the King from preparing his own son but he understands that there will be no privilege when the choice will need to be made.
The decision would be made by a mix of respectable and reliable aristocrats who proved their worth AND high level priests who know about the customs.
There will be plotting and bets made, you cannot avoid that. Sometimes a particularly power hungry person with an ego-issue might even try to grab the power without respecting the rules.
It will be incumbent on the circle of electors (again, aristocrats and priests) to make sure this person is outed and dealt with, otherwise peril may befall the nation.

Alexander Hughes
Alexander Hughes

LOL DAFUK IZ DAT SHYEET???

Hunter Gonzalez
Hunter Gonzalez

yeah pretty much

Landon Taylor
Landon Taylor

Yes but no, not good enough when serious stuff needs to be done.
Now, serious stuff needing be done must be exceptional too.
So yes I guess, but only when things are relatively cool. Otherwise when danger looms, the system must TRANSFORM and COALESCE into MEGAKING.

Jace Flores
Jace Flores

There's a notion of ownership of people/serfs and, yet, there's been a marxist reading of the feudal system for a long, long time.
Many serfs made the choice to get where they were and the "owners/lords" were responsible of them.
Serfs would keep a percentage of their work and the rest would go to the owner. It's not exactly such a bad structure.

Grayson Reyes
Grayson Reyes

Technology? No, it was the lack of ideology. With ideology pulled off its straps and unveiled, you are left with a system of loyalty.
Not all of us want feudalism.
We all have a first and a last name. In this aspect, I want a balance between individual and society. A name for ourselves and for our heritage and origin.
If aristocrats will have power over monarchy, let the People™ pull the rug from under their feet. Anyone who fancies hierarchy would like hierarchy above the aristocrats too.
Sometimes a particularly power hungry person with an ego-issue might even try to grab the power without respecting the rules.
Good. Let the tyrants show put them in their place. Aristocracy or democracy? I think I would let the two contend and snuff each other out.
In short, aristocrat rules don't matter.

Attached: Anchovy-and-grace.png (948.79 KB, 1200x1200)

Nathan Allen
Nathan Allen

Any monarch+modern tech=digital gulag overseer with a funny hat.
Although I like the expression, there is no reason for monarchy to be that way. For one a constitution would easily place limits and avoid the BS that we saw in mid-centuries and beyond.
Peasants being allowed to have weapons (sort of 2nd amendment) would also allow for a proper balance of power. A good ruler has no reason to fear his people and does not need nor wants to weaken them.
It would also allow them to defend themselves against the typical cases of bands of rogue knight-thieves that would from time to time become a problem in some countries (basically armed and armored defenders turned oppressors and brutes who abused peasants).

Luke Parker
Luke Parker

We all have a first and a last name. In this aspect, I want a balance between individual and society.
natsoc.gif
If aristocrats will have power over monarchy, let the People™ pull the rug from under their feet. Anyone who fancies hierarchy would like hierarchy above the aristocrats too.
The peepul are not up to par for ruling a country. Despite the rich education given and long debates held during the 50-60s, it's been clear that the capacity to understand the affairs of the world and pass good judgements rests in the hands of a few. You will always have an elite.
The system should allow for exceptional individuals from the common folk to have a right to reach the highest places of power.

Levi Davis
Levi Davis

You will always have an elite.
I am not against aristocracy in principle, but aristocrats assuming power over monarchy – the upper notch of the ladder – disrupts this hierarchy. You need the highest inspiration from the highest office. The triangle has always been a struggle between the many, the few, and the one. While aristocrats appeal to their virtue and rank and swindle with "representative government", the monarch could likewise do such and claim to be the true people's will. Aristocrats fear populists and tyrants for a reason. You will always have a higher power above aristocracy; the power that inspires all.

Jaxson Parker
Jaxson Parker

Well then we agree. Ideally there's a strong appeal in having a perfect ruler, almost god-like, at the head of a system. Pure light shining from the uppermost section of the pyramid.

I also notice something about the hierarchy:

Ruler
Priesthood
Aristocracy (nobles and warriors)
Bourgeoisie
Commoners (some subdivide it with Guild + x-craft; with slaves below)

A rule of thumb was how the Jews attacked one layer by using the one underneath.
It all ended with communism using the people against the bourgeoisie.
Then, as inter-class struggle was largely exploited, the final blow had to be delivered.
This time, it needed a tool from outside.
So extra-national people are now pitted against the locals to fight on the biological plane; you cannot get one step below than that, it's the final layer:

Pr.23: 23. Political, economic, and religious systems may be destroyed and resurrected by men, but the death of a race is eternal.

James Perez
James Perez

Hahahaha kill yourself boomer. Go on back to Gab now. Whatever you do don't ever read about the French Revolution where the political terms left and right were invented.

David Hill
David Hill

What prevents them from becoming like the Janissaries?
Proper selection and proper education. If you get the right people, and teach them the right things, they would pretty much become immune to corruption and outside influences. In any organic society, this caste arises naturally (it's archetypal). And it's the caste that kikes target the first when they want to conquer a society. Wars, assassinations, coups, before the general corruption and infiltration starts taking place.

Who or what appoints them? What do the knights do if they seek to limit the Emperor's power through fostering a youth led political movement?
Everyone gets appointed based on his merit and adherence to the Principles. The only political movements would be those seeking to improve the nation, the race, and the individual. You set a point outside of the individual, and judge individuals on how close to it they get. Emperor is a symbol, not an actual political figure.

Who or what appoints them? What makes or keeps them "king" of nations? And what happens when these nations inevitably chafe under the rule of the world monarch and they work together (probably with nationalistic Guild Leaders and youth movements) to secede from the world Empire?
Their nations do (not democratically, but through collective will, this concept is too complex to describe here). They need to prove their worth in all areas, and be as objectively the best as possible. They would never need to "secede" because they would be offered great autonomy, and being part of their race-Empire would be in their best interest, and the most natural state of affairs. Those not wishing to live within it, would be free to leave. Individuals, not entire nations. If they got the best of them to rule them, populistic pseudo-nationalistic movements would be very ineffective. Kikes can only thrive in rotten societies, which is exactly why they are pushing for decay of all types on their hosts.

What political power do they hold?
The power to demolish things, it's crude but highly effective

Who or what appoints them?
Voting system where voting power is distributed according to achievements. A great inventor's vote would be worth 100's if not more times than the one of an apprentice. This would prevent both autocracy of corrupted "academic cult" and kikes manipulating masses like they do in democracy. Professional codex, rules of profession, achievements, rank of knowledge, peer review, mentor review etc., plus approval of other instruments of society.

I can foresee this being a very dangerous institution. How do they interract with other factions?
They all promote their interests. Other institutions would become too dangerous without this one. A lot of vessels balancing each other on a kind of 3d scale. But they can only promote their interests by adhering to the Principles. They win by giving to society (nation-race) and competing about it, rather than stealing from it (like in Talmudic societies)

Do they have leaders that they appoint and what power do they wield?
This would be closest to proletarian democracy in an otherwise mostly fascist/aristocratic system. Another venue for people to express themselves.

Are they elected or what?
Also, how do these factions even check each other?
They get selected among the most notable individuals, and then voted for. Checks would be implemented in the constitution. The goal is to make a state an entirely organic entity (a total opposite of the modern Talmudic monstrosity). Can your heart declare independence from the rest of your body? Can your legs run without the heart? Each group would be too dependent on others to be in conflict and each would have a venue for expressing it's interests in order to remain healthy and not be neglected. Together, they would make an organism. That's nature. A system of vessels defying entropy through balanced tension. Race is a tribe, nation is a man, Jews are a virus/disease. Quite simple.

Who appoints him (The Emperor) or how is he appointed? What keeps him honest?
HERESY. MUTATION. WITCHCRAFT!

When senpai notices you

Christian Butler
Christian Butler

Attached: SystemOptions.png (74.12 KB, 1024x768)

Josiah Scott
Josiah Scott

(((communism))) (((capitalism))) are one the same side of the shekel.

Joshua Smith
Joshua Smith

They are both materialistic and individualistic ideologies (communism just groups individualistic interests as a singular force)

Matthew Peterson
Matthew Peterson

This.
Both are shit ideologies except one of them works.

Elijah Jones
Elijah Jones

Read Siege

Attached: meme.jpg (7.75 MB, 5000x10000)

Zachary Nguyen
Zachary Nguyen

Utter bullshit. US Democracy is an abysmal failure.

James Hill
James Hill

For one a constitution would easily place limits
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED my ass. USSR constitutions were as liberal as they were void. A piece of paper is no law. The weapon is the law. So long as somebody can fuck you up with impunity, he will.

Proper selection and proper education
Somehow it didn't prevent the appearance of said Janissaries, Mamluks, Saqalibas and other Gulyams to overthrow their rulers and murder them, then exploiting the rest - every. single. time.
Them dozens Padshahs, Sultans, Imams and Khalifs were stooopid, you see, unlike the enlightened monarcuck overhere.

Cameron Hernandez
Cameron Hernandez

Yeah, Capitalism turned out to work much better for the kikes, that's why they ditched Communism.

Convert to Judaism. Or die!

Somehow it didn't prevent the appearance of said Janissaries, Mamluks, Saqalibas and other Gulyams to overthrow their rulers and murder them
Even if you get kidnapped as a small child, get trained and educated in alien culture, at one point you realize that you are surrounded by shitskins and their kike rulers so you go against them. If Turks were white/European, it would happen much less often.

(((Monarchy))) shills have abandoned the thread it seems. They will just wait for it to reach the bottom and then make a new one repeating the same lies. Another proof that kikes are greatest supporters of Monarchy today.

Blake Phillips
Blake Phillips

Bump for judeo-masonic kikes

Noah Phillips
Noah Phillips

You ruined it with posting anime pictures/

Jose Thomas
Jose Thomas

If Turks were white/European
Genetically there's a minuscule difference between a Greek and a Turk. And only because all of continental Greece was choke full of Slavs for several centuries, their male genes are a recent (~1000-1200 years ago) addition.
Same with Turks having a minuscule Central Asian admixture… because Central Asia used to be an Iranian region and its occupants mass-migrated to Anatolia fleeing from Mongol happenings.
Especially now with modern Turks, who have a large number of Muslim refugees from Bulgaria, Bosnia, Albania and Greece assimilated into themselves.
And then again, Gulyams were literal Turks straight outta the Altai mountains, surrounded by Iranians. The reverse of what you claim.
Point is, it is simple economics. The regime depends on you so much there wouldn't be the regime without you. So you effectively control everything already. Why then feed most of the taxes to a useless fatso in a funny hat/turban and his cronies, if you can keep it to yourselves and nothing happens? You can even murder him and his cronies, and nothing would change for the worst, probably even it will get better. So they did. Every single time, regardless of imaginary race and religion things.

It just occurred to me. Turkic slave-soldiers hijacking Persia and North India, Gulyams->Seljuks. Slavic slave-soldiers hijacking Muslim Spain, the Saqaliba. Caucasian slave-soldiers hijacking Muslim Egypt, the Mamluks. Balkan slave-soldiers hijacking Ottoman Turkey for a sizeable chunk of its history.
It follows the same cycle!
1. Monarchs import aliens, because aliens can't form opposition groups against the monarch with locals (them being aliens). Monarchs can't trust the feudals if they want to keep the absolute power by inheritance, instead of Byzantine backstabbing or Roman succession wars or Abbasid-Ummayad both.
2. They need aliens to be more powerful than any opposition faction, in order to threaten opposition into submission. The aliens are given privilege treatment to buy their loyalty AND increase their power in the society.
3. The aliens SUDDENLY discover that everything depends on their power, and the monarcuck is a very costly figurehead at best, a harmful parasite to them usually.
4. The monarch is either slain or gracelessly put aside. The aliens become effective rulers of the monarchy, but rule it as a military meritocracy.

Every. Single. Time.
There are theories Russia and Lithuania formed that way, with Rurik/Mindaugas and their hosts being mercs to local Slavic rulers. Eventually they would just push aside the previously local ruler, with locals seeing no difference whatsoever, or even seeing an improvement due to less tax guzzlers around.
And then they would turn into the very same monarchs they ousted. And be ousted in turn, be in the Novgorod Republic, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth or things like the elective monarchies of Scandinavia. Or the already mentioned Janissaries, Saqaliba, Gulyams and Mamluks.

Now. The Jews. The Jews could loan money to rulers, because both the Catholic and the Orthodox churches forbade that to Christians, so they would accumulate funds - the king would pay out of taxes, effectively taking wealth from his own and feeding aliens. The Jews would be used as middle-managers, intermediaries for milking the plebs out of their taxes and labor, so the plebs would hate the Jew instead of the King. The Jews would be used as diplomatic intermediaries through other Jewish communities, effectively controlling foreign policy (Kissinger, anyone).
Then you have Benjamin Disraeli (Binyamin of Israel ffs) ruling the British Empire, that is half the world, on behest of Germans ruling Britain, turning into official aristocracy. By late XIX century the Jews did the same thing the Gulyams, the Saqaliba, the Mamluks and the Janissaries did. Having all the power handed to them, they gradually put the figureheads aside from real power and took it all onto themselves.

Which they do still. All because the logic of hereditary monarchy dictates that having aliens doing your business with opposition factions and taking all the blame on themselves is profitable in a couple generations course.

Justin Nguyen
Justin Nguyen

1. Monarchs import aliens, because aliens can't form opposition groups against the monarch with locals (them being aliens)
Oh, yes, of course, how could I forgot. The Anglo-Saxon invasion of Britain! Ethnic cleansing instead of a coup, however.
Which the Jews seem to be doing with Western Europe now. They both couped it from late XIX century Janissary type, and are now ethnically cleansing in from late XX century, for the same reasons! They can't trust locals not opposing them, so they import alien golems from Africa and the Middle East as their not-Janissaries to keep locals in control… until they get couped by Muslims in turn. The same stupid cycle over and over again.

Logan Perry
Logan Perry

After the war all the nobles escaped the Nuremberg Trials, denounced National Socialism, and went back into the mainstream like the traitorous kikes they were.
You know, this rising of class consciousness has me thinking. Lower classes are cattle.

Brody Rogers
Brody Rogers

Which they do still. All because the logic of hereditary monarchy dictates that having aliens doing your business with opposition factions and taking all the blame on themselves is profitable in a couple generations course.
The case is easily made for liberal ideas about representation, social contract, and republican democracy. The propaganda machine promotes its diversity agenda with these taglines of liberalism. Social contract theory follows the logic that if you can choose leaders, your leaders will choose your people (because they need people that will choose them). This worldview is propagated harshly in the democratic system to import votes from immigrants who will support their candidates. With equal disdain to generation, hereditary values of a nation, between the generations of kings and people, the democratic process is built upon tearing asunder and pitting waves of people against each other.
REPRESENTATION!
Look at how this idea is wielded like a weapon for the sake of multiculturalism. How many have seen diversity propaganda asking for more REPRESENTATION in the media and movies? Or, in government, we need more "representation" in this neighborhood and more representative ideals for minorities. After all, we're all fundamentally human and need to be Represented equally.
individual freedom, liberty, and human rights!
International human rights, "refugees", abortion, LGBTQIA+
Every. Single. Time.
There are plenty of historical kings and founding monarchs that fought in rebellions against foreigners or historically hated the Turks with a passion. King Nikola Petrović of Montenegro hated Turks.

Attached: 40123810248.jpg (122.79 KB, 624x518)

Evan Sanchez
Evan Sanchez

National Socialism is already essentially an elective monarchy. I've thought about the debate between elective and hereditary monarchy before. I used to support hereditary monarchy for the same reasons you list. A child raised from a young age to be King would be a lot better than the chance of a tyrant. However, in practice this seems to be wrong. There were plenty of Kings raised from a young age to be rulers, that were still bad rulers. Meanwhile, under single-party dictatorships, note worthily in communist Russia and China, harsh dictators were succeeded by liberal reformers. There's still the question of people being raised from a young age to be rulers, however. I think this forgets that National Socialism follows the Spartiate tradition. All children in the country are being raised to be strong and virtuous. The allotment of government positions is done through merit. Offices can be given to all of these children based on how competent they are in current or previous roles, and the most competent ones will rise up the hierarchical government. Even a poor child in the middle of nowhere can become leader. National Socialism is a Monarchy, but we are all Royal.

Liam Young
Liam Young

Every single type of government is just the method by which the societal elite rule. We've seen first hand how democracy is just show and ceremony for the ruling class - with values and constitutions imagined or discarded whenever needed. Italian Sociologist Vilfredo Pareto scientifically proved that every society in history follows the same patterns of inequality. So the question should never be "What form of government will we follow?" but instead "Who shall rule us?"

Ryder Sanchez
Ryder Sanchez

Good post, but that's the consequence of the rulers becoming completely detached from their people. That will happen in any system that's not organic, be it monarchy or representative democracy. People see rulership in parasitic manner, rather than great responsibility. This is why kikes excel in this system the most, because they are natural born parasites.

Upper classes are even worse cattle in expensive suits.

Learn the difference between Monarchy and Aristocracy. National Socialism is meritocratic, national, aristocracy that focuses on the well-being of entire nation from which all classes benefit.

Brody Ross
Brody Ross

or things like the elective monarchies of Scandinavia.
Not all Scandinavian monarchies were elective. The Norwegian monarchy wasn't. There is a strong heritage of hereditary monarchies throughout the European continent. Ireland had its hereditary kings. These electoral monarchies were also strongly hereditary. This is for the obvious reason that monarchy is the natural government. It is natural in the same way that what is national is natural. It is because they both follow the "nat" part of the word – "to be born of". Monarchy should be reproducing the hereditary tradition of generations, from above to the regal family, to the national family.

Attached: Vlad-the-Impaler.jpg (29.1 KB, 600x440)

John Harris
John Harris

The case is easily made for liberal ideas about representation, social contract, and republican democracy.
Yes. Except the republic leader is in charge for 4-6 years, not 40-60. Monarchs imported foreigners just fine with same disastrous consequences, except they did it a generation what it took the Republican USA three generation to go 56%. So republican rule is better than a monarch rule, because a disastrous politician has less time and power to fuck everything up, unlike the rule-for-life absolute power monarch.

the political process is built upon tearing asunder and pitting waves of people against each other
I made a correction of your otherwise incomplete statement. The essence of politics is who gets to rob whom with impunity. The Vase of Soissons captures the essence of monarchism - an elected tribal chief acts uppity and steals booty by killing his own soldier out of greed, then his descendants cry and wail when they get the same treatment from now empowered-by-gunpowder plebs.

The rest is just sliding. Just because some king somewhere hated Turks someday doesn't make monarchism viable nor changes the Prime Political Question of who gets to rob whom with impunity. Fuck the kings. The kings imported and fed the Jew you all have the pleasure to live under's dominion. They WILL do the same thing again because the political process demands it.

The only way to evade the political process is to kill politics. Which leads us to tribal anarchism.

Ian Nguyen
Ian Nguyen

Monarchy should be reproducing the hereditary tradition of generations, from above to the regal family, to the national family.
Except it lead to hereditary oligarchs using Jews as middlemen to rob and exploit the hereditary commoners. And the Jews couped the monarchs and now have them as well-paid actors in funny suits while they rule the Western world and import new Muslim aliens to serve as middlemen.
Much good the hereditary entitlement gave you all.

Elijah Reed
Elijah Reed

Nepotism is not natural. It's the most dysgenic force in society. To be born of does not imply a bunch of parasitic kikes owning the nation like private property.

Brandon Cook
Brandon Cook

Good post, but that's the consequence of the rulers becoming completely detached from their people. That will happen in any system that's not organic, be it monarchy or representative democracy. People see rulership in parasitic manner, rather than great responsibility. This is why kikes excel in this system the most, because they are natural born parasites.
Look at the world today and Jewish democracy. This is the era of democracy and it's also the height of Jewish power. That's no mere coincidence.
So republican rule is better than a monarch rule, because a disastrous politician has less time and power to fuck everything up, unlike the rule-for-life absolute power monarch.
The amount of time given to a rulership doesn't change the impact. Bad rulership is bad whether it is condensed in a short period or a long period.
I made a correction of your otherwise incomplete statement. The essence of politics is who gets to rob whom with impunity.
Which leads us to tribal anarchism.
You need to kill the greatest conceit within people to kill politics. Anarchy itself is a rootless ideology. It represents the Jewish ideology the strongest. Rootless loyalty and minimal values, the absence of greater structure, and disdain for all goy authority.
Nepotism is natural. If you put it in a racial context, like the Jews, it only proves that races favor each their own. What is wrong with favoring your kin?
Except it lead to hereditary oligarchs using Jews as middlemen to rob and exploit the hereditary commoners.
Jews don't view class. They view race. Hereditary regimes are not oligarchic. What is oligarchic is the virtue of plutocratic assemblies. It consists of an ideology of wealth and what percentage of the rich or poor will wage toil. Between the few and the many, the rich and the poor, the social climate sees whether the elite will unequally have more representative power over the many. Or, on the reverse, whether the many poorer folk will have representative power over the rich. Democracy is the ideology of plutocracy because these two cannot be represented equally and it demands it.

Adrian Morris
Adrian Morris

Look at the world today and Jewish democracy. This is the era of democracy and it's also the height of Jewish power. That's no mere coincidence.
Representative democracy. No one is supporting it in here anyway, except in very limited manner. Monarchy is not the only alternative to democracy.
Nepotism is natural. If you put it in a racial context, like the Jews, it only proves that races favor each their own. What is wrong with favoring your kin?
If you put it in racial context, it stops being nepotism. Nepotism is highly individualistic and narrow , individual interests of power hungry parasites (hereditary monarchy) and racial weltschanung are often mutually exclusive. Monarchs don't care if most of their race dies out as long as they can continue their lineage, or even stop caring about race altogether as long as they remain apex parasites in society. They get niggerized, but it's still THEIR family, and they will continue pushing for it regardless of any other context. That's the only thing that matters for them. You fail to understand the philosophy and metaphysics of race, and see everything through Jewish (or Anglo) lens.

White race is objectively superior and should be supported for that reason alone, rather than you or me being a part of it . Same goes for individuals who belong to it, they should be picked based on their objective qualities. That' natural meritocracy. If you poison it with subjective, exclusively personal interest based, relativist, sophist/pragmatic Jewish values like hereditary monarchy or Freemasonry, it starts rotting away and degenerates.

Kevin Murphy
Kevin Murphy

This is the era of democracy and it's also the height of Jewish power
Correlation does not imply causation. Suppose the European kings used Armenians instead of Jews as intermediaries, would it change anything?
Protip: it wouldn't. The Turks used Armenians as intermediaries dealing with Arabs and Caucasians just fine, until common Turks fearful of Armenians genocided them in Turkey… and yet their modern ruling class has suspiciously high Albanian, Bosnian and Georgian pedigree, with Erdogan flaunting his Georgian roots to show how anybody can become a good Turk (but not just anyone a ruler over Turks). The Ottoman Empire is long dead, its legacy lives on.

The Russian Empire used Baltic German aliens instead of Jews. Seriously, the military and political upper circles of the Empire were so choke full of Germans one might wonder if he got stuck in Hapsburg mega-Austria.
Eh, the Jews exiled-genocided most of their competitors for The Most Useful Alien title pretty soon. Then they used Georgians as mediators… who purged Bolshevik Jews under their Jughashvili and Beriadze rulers… who used Ukrainians as mediators… which led to Ukrainian-South Russian rulers like Khrushchev and Chernenko enacting anti-Jewish measures yet still having crypto-Jews like Andropov and Brezhnev. Oh. What a mess.
And not a single ethnic Russian around.

tl;dr Any other alien people in place of Jews would behave the same. The Jews exploit the crimes the European Christian kings committed against their European Commoners, and why wouldn't they given the change.
The question who gave them that chance is long solved. Hence why monarcucks must be shamed out of their treacherous ideology.

Dylan Martin
Dylan Martin

Nepotism is highly individualistic and narrow , individual interests of power hungry parasites (hereditary monarchy) and racial weltschanung are often mutually exclusive.
Monarchy is not individualistic. Monarchy is about the institution as much as it is about the individual monarchy. It is a paternal system. It is a royal family, not an assembly or an individual, with a crown that is tied to the land. Go look at a bunch of monarchal flags and coats of arms that represent something, and then go compare the anarchist flags. You will see that the gold-and-black and the red-and-black flags are not only the same design. They also represent plutocratic ideals and are rootless and tied to no place of origin. Take a look at this quote from Charles Maurras. "The love of all people except the French people is deep within the mind of the doctors of the French Republic." Think about it. They always talk about "The People™", but not a people; likewise, the individualist talks about "The Individual" exclusive to any place of origin. Sure, a monarchy might embrace foreign royals from different parts of Europe. It still isn't rootless. We know their origin and it isn't a problem as long as these people are White. Just as an ordinary White person can marry another nationality from their own cultural level. It's only bad as far as that person goes with someone outside their race. As for individualism and collectivism, it should be the balance between individual and society in the family; likewise… the first and last name. Families are your first safety net to look towards when you are in trouble – ideally, your own family. The race is perceived in national socialist circles as an extended family. Monarchy and national socialism are both not very individualistic. It's probably one of the common grounds.

Attached: 6daf4bebdfeeed16f7983d9fb74602d8cdf3d466e9aa0a6449fe71f836782921.jpg (93.97 KB, 1280x763)

Sebastian Wright
Sebastian Wright

tl;dr Any other alien people in place of Jews would behave the same. The Jews exploit the crimes the European Christian kings committed against their European Commoners, and why wouldn't they given the change.
Jews exploit Christian republicans as much as they do with Christian royals.

Attached: 1546497735844.jpg (353.64 KB, 1252x626)

Charles Ramirez
Charles Ramirez

Monarchy is about the institution as much as it is about the individual monarchy. It is a paternal system.
Except a sane son has his father close by, not in the TV being Big Pres nor in a funny hall atop a funny chair. The King sure tends to his sons… who are only his blood relations, and only those who inherit, and only at the cost of plebeians taxed and controlled, and then this happy family proceed to murder each other in succession wars. Truly a great patriarchal clan fucking over everyone else.

Whoever forsakes His Own Family in favor of an alien family, the Royal family, is, well, a cuck. A dirty monarcuck. UNLESS he happens to be of the aristocratic oligarch families running the kingdom, but then the aristocracy never drank the Kool Aid and maintained strictly business relations with the kings.

Thomas Hall
Thomas Hall

Truly a great patriarchal clan fucking over everyone else.
That's politics for you.
Whoever forsakes His Own Family in favor of an alien family, the Royal family, is, well, a cuck. A dirty monarcuck.
If you sell out your own family for political ambitions, it has nothing to do with being a monarchist – this is your problem.
a cuck
Royalists have been calling people cuckolds before it was a cool.

Attached: 0328124801208517.png (1.97 MB, 600x2554)

Daniel Jenkins
Daniel Jenkins

You are correctly asserting that monarchy was most often the cause of original kikery, but you are incorrect about any alien people being the same as Jews. No other race in existence is as ruthless, as parasitic, as disgusting and as toxic as them. Turkey would be much better if ruled by Jannissaries, counties like mine would be much better if ruled by Baltic Germans. In fact, i'd gladly genocide about 40% of local population and replace them with Germans of decent stock. I would never, ever, wish to be ruled by a Jew or live surrounded by Jews. Sure, other races exploit each other, kill each other, many individuals are tyrants to their own people. But no one can be as sadistic, as greedy, as deviant and as corrupting as the Jew. Even the smarter and more evolved Jews realize this and seek to distance themselves from their demonic tribe.

European Christian kings were not European, they were the original Zionists. Our kings of old ruled through merit and often replaced each other, either by the people, or among each other. The logical conclusion of hereditary monarchy is a bunch of dysgenic, degenerate parasite larping as gods, despite being the exact opposite, and that being fueled by no one daring to tell them the truth.

Monarchy is not individualistic.
MY family. MY (as in possessive) nation. I'm not supporting anarchy at all, except as a temporary measure to destroy all the pillars of Jewish power over the world and erase the Talmudic law imposed onto us by our globalist, judeo-masonic governments. Only with them removed can the natural aristocracy arise again and people would be each at their place. Most people don't actually seek power, many are perfectly content where they are. Races would continue naturally differentiating (instead of mixing), people with aristocratic souls and capacity would rise to power, genuine nationalism would become a thing again and the world would become a much better, and more natural place. The real challenge is to delay the next cycle of corruption as much as possible. Did Jews create corruption , or did the corruption summon the Jew? This is a very important question. In a different environment, it simply wouldn't pay off to be a Jew.

French revolution was actually very nationalistic (as in ethno-nationalist, romanticist), they just got foolish enough to accept kikes as (((fellow revolutionaries))) with their mondialistic ideas of universal equality (with them being more equal than others of course). Same happened with the US founding fathers, just to a lesser extent. Also, many monarchies were in fact not kiked. History is not black and white, nor are political systems. A Jew is neither a democrat, nor a monarchist, nor an anarchist, nor a communist, nor a fascist, a Jew is the ultimate parasite that takes any form that benefits him, a creature with zero values. There are no Jewish political systems, just the ones more or less susceptible to it. National Socialism being far superior to Monarchy in that regard.

Monarchy focuses on the individual and HIS family, National Socialism focuses on the collective. The thing they have in common is Aristocracy, as much as each specific instance and manifestation is aristocratic. You are right about the rest.

Austin Mitchell
Austin Mitchell

European Christian kings were not European, they were the original Zionists. Our kings of old ruled through merit and often replaced each other, either by the people, or among each other. The logical conclusion of hereditary monarchy is a bunch of dysgenic, degenerate parasite larping as gods, despite being the exact opposite, and that being fueled by no one daring to tell them the truth.
There were hereditary monarchies before and after Christianity. The role of kingship was seen as a "marriage" between the male and female entity. The Irish royal ceremonies had this kind of emphasis. Divine Right is not exclusively Christian. Autocrats throughout centuries have appealed to spiritual manifestations for a reason. Monarchies need to be a higher power, of extraordinary virtue, to have legitimacy. This is why monarchy and religion often go together. Look at the Japan. Look at the Imperial cult for Augustus. Look at the Mandate of Heaven. In Arthurian Legend, the Lady of the Lake and Excalibur. This virtue is about the discipline of the self. A monarch has no authority over him, so the monarch has to look above to spiritual discipline as much as the average individual needs self-discipline.

Jason Smith
Jason Smith

Monarchy focuses on the individual and HIS family, National Socialism focuses on the collective. The thing they have in common is Aristocracy, as much as each specific instance and manifestation is aristocratic. You are right about the rest
Collectivism is as cancerous as individualism. I could say "OUR" family as much as I can say "HIS" family. It doesn't matter. This is the problem of today's politics. There is no room for compromise between individual and society, only societal destruction. We need to focus on the whole; the individual and society matter. Not on public or private property, but an overwhelming sense of propriety. We exclude terms like "his" and "our" for stupid petty ideology.

Attached: Charles-Maurras-4.jpg (87.34 KB, 1200x601)

Michael Rogers
Michael Rogers

That's politics for you.

the Prime Political Question of who gets to rob whom with impunity
The irony misses the monarcuck as much as he misses he imaginary baron title. No luck there, buddy, baron Rothschild decides who's who know, why don't you bend the knee to the Kike King and ask with utmost servility for a place in his hereditary NWO, instead of misleading White people here into selling themselves into peasantry to long dead kings who lost their crowns to Jews anyway.

In fact, i'd gladly genocide about 40% of local population and replace them with Germans of decent stock
Hi, are you an Eesti? Latvians generally seemed to be ultra-buttmad from Baltic German barons enserfing them for centuries so they mass disenfranchised and exiled them before the USSR made it cool. On the other hand Estonians seemed indifferent to Jews, while the Latvians, oh, damn Latvians are angry just like you in that post.
Anyway, Baltic Germans built an empire heavily favoring Baltic Germans, what a surprise. The Jews exploited that to much success, many modern Russians are still drinking the Kool Aid of "Lenin saved Mamma Russia from useless parasitic Germans". But installing useless parasitic Jews in power no less, but Holstein-Hottorp-Romanovs did their harm alright.

Also, ironically Lenin had Mongolian ancestry by father and Jewish-German by mother, not a drop of Slavic blood, lol. The Jewish-German-Mongolian mastermutt to rule all mutts.
So if you come from Baltic states, your ancestors experienced some "updated" German-Jewish rule just fine.

The Irish royal ceremonies had this kind of emphasis
I seem to recall the Irish practicing Tanistry, that is elective monarchy, if among the ruling family. And then they were tribals until conquered by the Normans and then the English, so their "kings" had less effective power than a count in Mainland Europe.

Divine Right is not exclusively Christian
It is. The whole Mandate stuff is that it can be revoked, shown by calamities coming from unworthy dynasty. While the Divine Rights could be revoked only by the Pope, which he totally wasn't exploiting before the French king whooped his augustly ass. Having whole your authority rest on hooker fucker from Rome is shaky already.

Look at the Japan
Until the Meiji restoration, the Emperor was a nobody, a High Priest at best, with zero real power (and barely had power after the Restoration, lel, a figurehead to several Samurai clans of new oligarchs). And real monarchs, the Taikuns and Shogus… well, behaved like your typical Euro monarch, taxing the shit out of dirty plebs to waste it all on petty wars.

Look at the Imperial cult for Augustus
I looked unto the stupid mess of a falling Empire taxing itself to death via permanent succession wars just fine. When a dirty Germanic savage became a preferable alternative to an imperial tax collector, you know Rome done goofed.

Zachary Rodriguez
Zachary Rodriguez

I seem to recall the Irish practicing Tanistry
That is difficult to assess. I don't know what kind of vendetta you have against hereditary monarchies, though. There were hereditary monarchies before and after this period. As for Ireland, it was made of constituting kingdoms and also the High King of Ireland.
And then they were tribals until conquered by the Normans and then the English, so their "kings" had less effective power than a count in Mainland Europe.
This isn't about power. Actually, most kings also had an spiritual role, not political as we know it. However, it is argued that before any conception of law, kings were simply local authorities and also judges and laws were conceived when a king was away in battle and could not share this spiritual authority.
It is. The whole Mandate stuff is that it can be revoked, shown by calamities coming from unworthy dynasty.
Confucianism isn't about this liberalism of revoking here and there according to laws. Divine Right could simply come down to meaning divine favor in certain instances.
Until the Meiji restoration, the Emperor was a nobody, a High Priest at best, with zero real power
Tell that to any Japanese person. Liberals tend to only value one kind of political authority.
When a dirty Germanic savage became a preferable alternative to an imperial tax collector, you know Rome done goofed.
We are talking about a long span of time between Augustus and the Fall of Rome. I don't see why having monarchs with power, but aristocrats with power is somehow less cucked to you. It doesn't change this scenario.

Noah Gomez
Noah Gomez

Let me put it this way:
In the early Medieval period, European monarchies were a mixed bag and not all of them were electoral monarchies. There were hereditary monarchies.

Easton Turner
Easton Turner

The role of kingship was seen as a "marriage" between the male and female entity
The ritual of marriage was much more sacred and actually got profaned by Christianity. Divine rule was older than it, true, much older, but it was a down-top approach rather than top-down. Christianity inverted the pyramid with it's Jewish mysticism (but the real roots of it started in ancient Egypt). Aryan kings were Avatars, a living manifestation of their nation-soul, and the first sons of the nation. Their power was symbolic, archetypal, rather than practical. Pagan kings were often selected by tribal councils or by previous kings (despite not being their family).

Monarchies need to be a higher power, of extraordinary virtue, to have legitimacy.
Exactly. Virtue is the key. But with nepotism, you are excluding anyone with equal of greater virtue and ability from ever taking a position of power, which is, in the very long term, detrimental to your family as well. Nepotism also removes any evolutionary pressure and responsibility from those in power, and we have all seen a product of that.

Agreed. This is why we should create a political center that focuses on a specific vision, goals and values, where individuals would be judged based on how meritocratic/aristocratic they are, regardless of are they wealthy inheritors or children of peasants. No one should be sabotaged due to his or hers family background, but no one should be penalized for it either. If you are a 'noble' successor, and raise your child to be a paragon of values, no one should make an issue of it. Same goes for ordinary people .

Kevin Cooper
Kevin Cooper

Pagan kings were often selected by tribal councils or by previous kings (despite not being their family).
I feel like this could be debated. Unfortunately, electoral monarchists have the upper hand since their form of electoral system is most promoted. As far as I view the hereditary principle, I know it has roots much deeper than electoral monarchists would tell you. At least, as I said for Norway. The Divine "top-down" approach has always been a thing even despite Jewish theology, I would believe. That doesn't mean taking out the national soul, if I had to say .

Asher Gonzalez
Asher Gonzalez

I don't want to extend my hand to find historical legitimacy for hereditary monarchies in Europe. I would argue that there's great hereditary civilizations to point in ancient civilizations like Egypt and China. It is a historical debate long-winded. What I will borrow from classical political views is monarchy grapples with the few and the many. Monarchy has the potential to be the best for all and the worst for all. When I say, "This is politics", it is quintessentially a struggle like pic related. Hereditary monarchy doesn't eliminate virtue in its line for succession. At least, from how I view meritocracy, I don't see how you can make the perfect meritocratic government. One thing people consider to be a virtue might not suit the role of leadership. For example, intellect. People fancy the idea of intellectual leaders, but I doubt everyone wants a weak limp-wristed egghead or academic leading their country like these technocrats (who favor meritocracy) would say.

Attached: 4320483284012840128301284124123.png (12.26 KB, 876x492)

Sebastian Robinson
Sebastian Robinson

With this said, I am going to tell you that is the eternal structure and struggle of the political landscape. It is a continual tug-of-war between monarchs, aristocrats, and democrats. It doesn't make it anymore centralized regardless of whether it is the one, the few, or the many. Only the friction between them. When an aristocrat sees what an aristocrat doesn't like, like many of the previous posts, the aristocrat will cry, "Tyrant! Dictator! Brute!" Likewise, the people who favor democracy are quick to call out dictator or tyrant or even oligarch with disdain to aristocracy and monarchy. My central point is never to let namecalling be central to the debate whether it's calling "tyrant" or "oligarch". With that said, I am very skeptical of history because history is written by the winners. Those who favor aristocracy, and want elective monarchy, would probably argue that all history and original government hunches of the electoral model of voting. Likewise the democractic people, but this would be like how Marxists argue for communal tribal societies. Monarchists? Always argue in terms of the family for the primitive model. I want to say that anthropology and history is the propaganda book for ideologies to find legitimacy in their ideals. Monarchy/Tyranny, like Democracy/Anarchy, and Aristocracy/Oligarchy rest on a subjective framework. I think national socialists most of all can understand how history maligns one person as a tyrant.

Isaac Reyes
Isaac Reyes

Tribal kings were war leaders of temporary nature. The war passes, the leader is demoted back to local nobility.
Why would a free man entrust anything else to another man voluntarily? Icelanders lived without kings just fine, but the moment local oligrachy of sturlungs formed everything went to shit and the King of Norway they ran away from sails in to claim their asses for taxes.

Samuel Fisher
Samuel Fisher

Icelanders lived without kings just fine, but the moment local oligrachy of sturlungs formed everything went to shit and the King of Norway they ran away from sails in to claim their asses for taxes.
Medieval Iceland is another place for the Libertarian playbook of history. Tribal kings pluralistically, as a temporary nature, is difficult to assess and know. There is an extraordinary lack of information about that past life. I cannot speak for all tribes and what all tribal life was like. I'm just going to stick with what I said here about history and anthropology. This is not only a playbook to rely on for libertarians, but also Marxists try to envision a tribal society without property and most ideal for themselves. They do this with the Incans, lately I heard. I'll admit we do it too.

Easton Lopez
Easton Lopez

In other words, I don't want to play that game of bickering about historical societies and saying, "Hey, this society back then long ago is like my ideal society."

Attached: ab46238bec5c784ce13f26dc888f98d6.gif (1.63 MB, 220x320)

Isaac Fisher
Isaac Fisher

but also Marxists try to envision
Except they try to envision, while others read the sagas and take notes. Also notable that Icelanders have the richest amount of epics on common peoples' lives, not some overly beefed dudes bragging how they totally obliterated/were obliterated by other beefed dudes. It is fine, but gets repetitive and stale pretty fast. Yet the marginal frozen over Iceland provided most of early Germanic literature while other petty kings were too busy robbing their own and neighbors' some plebs for cheap glory. I wonder if it happened due to Iceland not being repeatedly robbed by raiding and taxing from local and neighbouring kinglets.
Speaking of literature.
The Epic of Gilgamesh, the first written epic in history of world literature, starts with a wail on how king Gilgamesh kills random men and rapes random women of his petty kingdom out of literal boredom. And does it so well the gods get fed up with plebs' wailing and create a nigger to punish and kill Gilgamesh, for such a terrible person the first written-down king in history was.
Look up and read. Literally it starts with king Gilgamesh murdering and raping out of boredom. Talk about ominous beginnings.

In other words, I don't want to play that game of bickering about historical societies and saying, "Hey, this society back then long ago is like my ideal society."
Then don't. I never stated Iceland to be ideal or something. Just that people can have functioning societies without overprivileged inbreds siphoning their wealth to Jews and really big huts and shiny bling because Divine Right or so.

Kevin Adams
Kevin Adams

Except they try to envision, while others read the sagas and take notes. Also notable that Icelanders have the richest amount of epics on common peoples' lives, not some overly beefed dudes bragging how they totally obliterated/were obliterated by other beefed dudes. It is fine, but gets repetitive and stale pretty fast. Yet the marginal frozen over Iceland provided most of early Germanic literature while other petty kings were too busy robbing their own and neighbors' some plebs for cheap glory. I wonder if it happened due to Iceland not being repeatedly robbed by raiding and taxing from local and neighbouring kinglets.
Norwegians have a saga of kings for their hereditary monarchy too.
The Epic of Gilgamesh, the first written epic in history of world literature, starts with a wail on how king Gilgamesh kills random men and rapes random women of his petty kingdom out of literal boredom.
Like I said here, it is an eternal struggle. Aristocrats are fine and dandy to whine about the abuses of monarchs. I'll grab the flute and play about the abuses of aristocrats. Or the abuses of some other member of the political body. Save me the ideological bullet points. Throughout history, there will be tales of good kings and bad kings.

Hunter Allen
Hunter Allen

The way I see it is rather Monarchy/Tyranny and Democracy/Anarchy being on the opposite poles, with Aristocracy being a perfect ratio on the line (not in the middle), but true Meritocracy/Aristocracy is actually a third (dimensional) axis. From that perspective, all systems on a 2-dimensional plane are observed as how close they are to achieving it. There are many more axis here, first and foremost being a distinction between idealism and pragmatic materialism. Idealism values the end result (irrespective of the self), pragmatic materialism values the personal success irrespective of anything else. Communism, capitalism and hereditary monarchy are all exclusively materialistic ideologies, where people are used as pawns for achieving the personal interests of the individual. Communism (in theory) is actually an individualistic ideology, where the proletariat is only used as a mechanism for achieving personal interests and aspirations of an otherwise disenfranchised worker. Third position relies on transcendental values and rises above petty short term interests. It's not just a third/fourth political point on a two-dimensional axis, it's a third dimension.

Monarchy completely alienates the people from the rulers, because it creates an infinite gap between rulers and non-rulers. You are not only inheriting money there, you are inheriting power over everyone else.

Parker Collins
Parker Collins

Monarchy completely alienates the people from the rulers, because it creates an infinite gap between rulers and non-rulers. You are not only inheriting money there, you are inheriting power over everyone else.
I mean, that's what people will argue to say, "This monarchy is tyrannical because it is not in the interests of the people." However, I will tell you first of all that there is a distance between ruler and ruled in all societies. To determine whether that government is tyrannical or just or best is part of the problem. From the aristocrats, they will pull their rope and say, "No, this is unjust," like that triangle I showed you. Tyranny and monarchy are both two in the same as are the other rulerships.

Owen Anderson
Owen Anderson

Aristocrats are fine and dandy to whine about the abuses of monarchs
What aristocrats. This is a folkisch tale. The first ever tale with a king character in it. A degenerate rapist murderer, until the nigger-beast beats some sense into him. You think aristocratic families would just invent a tale with a mythical king showing him to be a murdering rapist yet did their PR so well we 4000 years later still read it?
I don't buy it. Nobody sane will. The Epic of Gilgamesh has MANY things resonating with our souls. This was NOT a throwaway slander that JUST happened to become a national epic of like third the population of Eurasia.
And it happened to start with a tyrant king and rapes and murders out of degenerate boredom.

Like, I CAN understand why an unconquerable man would use his super-strength to overpower every possible opposition (other men will fight the hardest to protect their daughters, so he tried that) then wallow in self-pity on how bored he is and his life futule, the plebs be damned. This is some basic male psychology of under-exerting. Except it sure shows how common people saw unopposable kings - murderrapist tyrants. Which repeats over and over and over again.

Why again would a sane man find himself an overlord? We already have Rothschilds and other Ignoble families ruling the Western world as uncrowned kings inheriting amazing power and wealth every generation. Why monarchists can't just bend a knee and vassalize themselves to their Jewish kings and be done with it, they already have everything they want.

Henry Walker
Henry Walker

The NSDAP was always a lower and middle class movement.

wrong. the NSDAP is a german racial movement.

From Mein Kampf

In the open country there could be no social problem, because the master and the farm-hand were doing the same kind of work and doing it together. They ate their food in common, and sometimes even out of the same dish.

But this, too, was altered. The division created between employer and employee seems now to have extended to all branches of life.

How far this Judaising process has been allowed to take effect among our people is illustrated by the fact that manual labour not only receives practically no recognition, but is even considered degrading.

That is not a natural German attitude. It is due to the introduction of a foreign element into our lives, and that foreign element is the Jewish spirit, one of the effects of which has been to transform the high esteem in which our handicrafts were once held into a certain contempt for all manual labour.

From Mein Kampf

While our bourgeois middle class paid no attention at all to this momentous problem and indifferently allowed events to take their course, the Jew realised the manifold possibilities which the situation offered him for the future.

While, on the one hand, he organised capitalistic methods of exploitation to the highest possible degree, he curried favour with the victims of his policy and his power and in a short while became the leader of their struggle against himself.

‘Against himself’ is here only a figurative way of speaking; for this ‘great master of lies’ knows how to appear in the guise of the innocent and throw the guilt on others.

Since he had the impudence to take a personal lead among the masses, they never for a moment suspected that they were falling a prey to one of the most infamous deceptions ever practised.

Yet that is what it actually was. The moment this new class had arisen out of the general economic situation and taken shape as, a definite body in the social order, the Jew clearly saw where he would find the necessary pacemaker for his own progressive march.

At first he had used the bourgeois class as a battering-ram against the feudal order, and now he used the worker against the bourgeois world.

Just as he succeeded in obtaining civic rights by intrigues carried on under the protection of the bourgeois class, he now hoped that by joining in the struggle which the workers were waging for their own existence, he would be able to obtain the mastery he desired.

When that moment arrives, the only objective the workers will have to fight for will be the future of the Jewish people.

Without knowing it, the worker is placing himself at the service of the very power against which he believes he is fighting. Apparently he is being made to fight against capital and thus he is all the more easily brought to fight for capitalistic interests.

Outcries are systematically raised against international capital, but in reality it is against the national economic structure that these slogans are directed. The idea is to demolish this structure and on its ruins triumphantly erect the structure of the International Stock Exchange.

The method of procedure of the Jew was as follows: He kowtowed to the worker, hypocritically pretended to feel pity for him and his lot, and even to be indignant at the misery and poverty which he had to endure.

That is the way in which the Jew endeavoured to gain the confidence of the working class. He showed himself eager to study their various hardships, whether real or imaginary, and strove to awaken a yearning on the part of the workers to change the conditions under which they lived.

The Jew artfully enkindled that innate yearning for social justice which is a typical Aryan characteristic. Once that yearning became alive, it was transformed into hatred against those in more fortunate circumstances of life.

From Mein Kampf

Thus arose a movement which was composed exclusively of manual workers under the leadership of Jews. To all external appearances, this movement strives to ameliorate the conditions under which the workers live, but in reality its aim is to enslave and thereby annihilate the non-Jewish peoples.

The propaganda which the Freemasons had carried on among the socalled intelligentsia, whereby their pacifist teaching paralysed the instinct for national self-preservation, was now extended to the broad masses of the workers and the bourgeoisie by means of the press, which was almost everywhere in Jewish hands.

To those two instruments of disintegration, a third and still more ruthless one was added, namely, the organisation of brute force. Massed columns of Marxist attackers were intended to complete the work of attrition which the two weapons formerly employed had brought to the verge of fulfilment.

Attached: 2.jpg (1.98 MB, 1904x3264)
Attached: 1.jpg (544.06 KB, 1784x2462)
Attached: 1.jpeg (57.61 KB, 556x806)
Attached: 2.jpg (325.07 KB, 1280x1738)
Attached: 3.jpg (143.9 KB, 1280x846)

Noah Campbell
Noah Campbell

What aristocrats. This is a folkisch tale.
I'm not talking about the story. I am talking about you. This isn't the first time aristocrats bemoaned or pointed to literature to say that they should have power rather than kings.
And it happened to start with a tyrant king and rapes and murders out of degenerate boredom.
Okay, I get that. Is Gilgamesh a protagonist of the story and does he learn from the story? Why do I have to listen to your narrative of the story?
Why again would a sane man find himself an overlord? We already have Rothschilds and other Ignoble families ruling the Western world as uncrowned kings inheriting amazing power and wealth every generation. Why monarchists can't just bend a knee and vassalize themselves to their Jewish kings and be done with it, they already have everything they want.
Because men have a sense of duty. Like I said, discipline of the self. This includes what you said about the Epic of the Gilgamesh, right? Does it involve any discipline of the king or lessons learned?

Michael Collins
Michael Collins

The same thread is on half chan
boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/203385113

Ethan Taylor
Ethan Taylor

the he sits…. charlemagne… and god damnit now he starts to cry
do you even know how the viking age got strted? it was ebin norsemen gassing innocent christians right?….

… well turns out that is wrong, charlemagne attacked the saxon, and as they refused christinity he slaughtered over 4k of them… now problems start to unfold… he goes there, omg sir get away. he goes there, omg sir you need to leveNOW!…tick tick tick…. now he looks eastwards to denmark, hick… I am still alive and thy have already started atticking me….. I am not even dead!….
He, then he died….

you don't understand, this was now HOLY war, are you stupid why do you think they went for the churces to desecrate them?

Attached: 280050d-emp.jpg (87.77 KB, 559x839)

Angel Peterson
Angel Peterson

this is the song

Noah Thomas
Noah Thomas

still can't get all these lit nigger refernces from lit th 800ds, historical, and pol just passes by… uh… this … ih read thos song uncensored.. it was you want

I twas magnus the king… and god damnit now he starts to cry[the viking age was triggered]

small gems of history
youtube.com/watch?v=i5d_Eo70Qn4

Brody Thomas
Brody Thomas

Wilhelm greatly admired the success which Hitler was able to achieve in the opening months of the Second World War, and personally sent a congratulatory telegram when the Netherlands surrendered in May 1940: "My Fuhrer, I congratulate you and hope that under your marvelous leadership the German monarchy will be restored completely." Hitler was reportedly exasperated and bemused, and remarked to Linge, his valet, "What an idiot!"

Doesn't look like it was happening.

Josiah Adams
Josiah Adams

I listened to the story. The Epic of Gilgamesh seems not as clear cut as "a tyrant king that rapes and out of boredom". Sure, it happens, but when I learned that that tyrant king was also Gilgamesh – the central figure in the story – I realize it's a redemption story like with King David who had intercourse with a man's wife. If this is the case, and I am not mistaken, how do I know that you, TOR user, are not cutting out literature to construct a narrative like revisionists cut through history to portray their political views?

Asher Perry
Asher Perry

National socialism is a free market meritocracy based on racial foundations.

The concept of monarchy and ridiculous values of "divine right" is abhorrent to any fair society, it's outdated and easily turns corrupt. The merit of your actions and personality should decide who you are, not superficial garbage like class, lineage or party boss mentality. Many previous "royal families"(respected families) and of some were allowed to keep their status, but this does not mean anything becuase it did not include any semblence of hereditary power beyond patronyms, inhereritance like estates and so on, which is a given in the new free country Germany had become.

Attached: aa4beb7f8a0b113d67b0f3d28548e54178af1ab9ce77817b767b109635e792d4.jpg (56.39 KB, 210x340)

Hunter Parker
Hunter Parker

Nice 1 there shlomo. We're not a nazi board so stop trying to frame this as one and have this site blocked by authorities.

Michael Jones
Michael Jones

I realize it's a redemption story like with King David who had intercourse with a man's wife
It is, that's why it is a story, not a PR flick. But. It won't return the people murdered and raped by Gilgamesh previously. Even though he had been punished for it, and the ancients didn't quite imagine societies with no kings - shouldn't all of us be wary of unopposable kings?

It is hard to oppose a mob of gibsmedat screechers alright, but it is at least a stupid mob swayed by demagogues left and right. Not a sane insidious tyrant plotting his progeny's wealth and power at the expense of everyone else for 40-60 years instead of 4-6.
They all get lazy eventually and pass on business to them mercs, aliens or bureaucrats who oust them anyway. Or Stalin-style cling to the last while sending dozens of millions to their graves all be damned.
It is way easier to corrupt and destroy a monarchy than a republic.

I repeat again, a terrible president doesn't have that much time and power to irreparably fuck things up. Monarch has all the time and power. It took USA three generations since 1960's to turn to shit. It took 12 years to Ivan the Terrible to turn Muscovy into a proto-Imperium shithole and irreparably damage both it and Lithuania and the Baltics leading to very miserable and murderous Time of Troubles.
Oh, he also willed all power to Simeon Bekbulat-son, a baptized Tatar because he had troubles trusting own Russians. Even though Simeon was swept away soon, it again shows - monarchs don't trust their own. Muscovites had Tatars, Lithuanians had Tatars, Poles had Germans and Jews, Scandinavians had Germans, Turks had anyone but the Turks, Persians had Turks, Andalusians had Slavs - aliens everywhere, an intermediary to take all the heat of exploited locals. Hell, even Byzantines effectively used "the Latins" to conduct byziness at commoners' expense then redirect commoners rage to murderfuck Latins instead of the very people who "granted" Latins privileges and monopolies.
Until the intermediary turns ruler. Again. Or comes full Fourth Crusade on your kingly ass.

No matter, monarcucks will shill for rootless hereditary tyrants once more.

Austin Anderson
Austin Anderson

It is, that's why it is a story, not a PR flick. But. It won't return the people murdered and raped by Gilgamesh previously.
Give me a break, TORkike. You're no better than those people who highlight one picture in a newstory to change perspective. Bringing up stories and not even shedding light on it, only to suit your narrative.
Not a sane insidious tyrant plotting his progeny's wealth and power at the expense of everyone else for 40-60 years instead of 4-6.
Aristocrats squeak about tyrants and demagogues because they want power too. Give me a break with your boomer-tier ramble about Stalinism and monarchy.

Ryan Collins
Ryan Collins

I'm not serving your personal opinions here, mate. I provide a counterbalance to lads who might get enticed by monarcuck propaganda here. Let the smart compare and choose, and the braindead enserf themselves to parasites in funny hats.

Michael Rivera
Michael Rivera

I'd imagine many tales of powerful monarchs seeking immortality. First Emperor of China, Qin Dynasty, made a giant wall to keep invaders out and sought the Elixir of Life to live immortal. When I say that religion is the ultimate discipline of monarch, I echo that there needs to be self-discipline without the weight of the law.
I provide a counterbalance to lads who might get enticed by monarcuck propaganda here
I'm sure they'll all be enticed with crybaby tears over tyrants and dictators. Every national socialist knows how Hitler is turned into the spawn of all evil. How the elite cry crocodile tears about tyrants and dictators even today.

Attached: 1a.jpg (48.63 KB, 632x332)

Parker Morris
Parker Morris

First Emperor of China, Qin Dynasty, made a giant wall to keep invaders out
And keep the dirty serfs in. Typically a serf would often run away from their monarch utopia to a steppe tribal anarchy, if the steppe was close enough and/or a major river flew there. Gobi desert and Manchurian steppe tribals down on their luck would recruit Chinese runaways and get Yerrowed.com - hey, it's free manpower.
Said manpower remembered how it ran there and would pay costly visits. Hence the wall.
Same with Cossacks deriving much pleasure from raiding Poles and Muscovites that forced them or their fathers on the run, or just plain raiding and enslaving Muslims because why not.

It is as if Trump on his 4th term suddenly build The Beautiful Wall to keep semi-Mexican Mutt Supremacist raiders out.

Oh, yeah, wasting your empire's resources, freshly forged by ultraviolence, on a fool's errand before dying of mercury poisoning and leaving the bloodily conquered states to once again turn into a shitfest. G'job, Qin Chong, you have had a fun ride and fuck the rest. Thanks for The Burning of Books and the Burying of Scholars, those nerds won't pass their genes to future Chinks, retarding your culture and civilization by a couple centuries in a couple years.
Seriously now, whooping 11 fucking years of eternal rule. Even Hitler got it longer with his 1000 years Reich. And he didn't plan to go on fucking plebs forever.
Qin, a regime so universally despised it died from immediate peasant rebellions, because the court was so happy the Qin Chong died it murdered themselves and the inheritor in immediate bloody squabbles over an already feeble tyranny.

Liu Ban, a kinda sane monarch - strange you didn't mention him - used to be a peasant overseer late for seasonal works on The Beautiful War and got so shit scared of punishment for late coming to work he and his villager buddies killed this fucking empire. Because toppling the most savage and bloodthirsty empire in Eurasia with bamboo stick and stone slingshots at the time was less scary than living under it, it seems.

You sure know how to pick examples of good monarchs, I'll tell you that. Of all a hundred or two emperors you picked one of the batshit insane ones.

One dictator got black PR
Ergo every single tyrant in history is a saint with black PR
First - Does not follow.
Second - Hitler did many retarded decisions that ultimately ended in Burning of Dresden and Rape of Berlin. There was nobody there to stop him doing these retarded decisions, like saving the British on Dunkirk or diverting precious forces to progressively retarded escapades of the most retarded army in WW2. Absolute power equals absolute responsibility, and he blew it. And he didn't even have an absolute monarch's power to start with. So yeah, let's entrust even more power into an absolute ruler that can fuck up even harder.
Just because he is the most well known NatSoc does not make him infallible nor an absolute authority, however monarcucks would like to imagine infallible daddies atop funny chairs deciding all their problems for them before awarding loyal monarcucks a title and privilege to tax dirty plebs to death.

Sebastian Williams
Sebastian Williams

You sure know how to pick examples of good monarchs, I'll tell you that. Of all a hundred or two emperors you picked one of the batshit insane ones.
Hell yeah. I love picking the controversial and bloody monarchs. I adore riling up those who cry about tyrants and to show how much I don't care. I do it to mess with fugging libtards.
Liu Ban, a kinda sane monarch - strange you didn't mention him - used to be a peasant overseer late for seasonal works on The Beautiful War and got so shit scared of punishment for late coming to work he and his villager buddies killed this fucking empire. Because toppling the most savage and bloodthirsty empire in Eurasia with bamboo stick and stone slingshots at the time was less scary than living under it, it seems.
I have nothing against dynasty change, personally. It's how new monarchies are introduced. This is also how Confucianism and Legalism made due ends and became the next imperial regime in ancient China.
Thanks for The Burning of Books and the Burying of Scholars
This is debatable on whether it's true or myth. By saying that alone, we do not know much about le centuries of knowledge and your weighty words to magnify consequences.
however monarcucks would like to imagine infallible daddies atop funny chairs deciding all their problems for them before awarding loyal monarcucks a title and privilege to tax dirty plebs to death.
Anarchists think they're big guys.
I will be a fearsome churl.

Attached: 4907120481289048912984219805.jpg (84.43 KB, 453x595)

Ayden Powell
Ayden Powell

I don't care. I do it to mess with fugging libtards
<hurrrr durrr look at how retarded monarchs are, let us live under one hurrrr
Genius

Hunter Rodriguez
Hunter Rodriguez

I don't understand your reply. Why are you mentioning the difference between Monarchy and Aristocracy? If you're trying to say that National Socialism chooses the aristocrats based on merit, then we are in agreement. But National Socialism obviously follows the Fuhrer principle, so the two aren't mutually exclusive. If you're talking about class-cooperation then yes, that is a basic third-position principle.

Chase Lee
Chase Lee

People should be defined as a nation-race, not a rootless plenum. Tyranny can as well be in the interests of the people, just like parents sometime scold their children for their own good (kikes hate this).

However, I will tell you first of all that there is a distance between ruler and ruled in all societies
Naturally. But that gap should never be infinite.

Because certain someone tends to equate the two, and I'm talking about hereditary, absolutist Monarchy (divine mandate) exclusively. They might be aristocratic, but usually end up being the exact opposite due to very nature of their system. I never said they are mutually exclusive.

Fascists in Italy were mostly against the royal houses, so were various National-Socialists. Royals mostly supported the kikes against our struggle. They are the ancien regime, the old world order. And global, Zionist empire is their endgame. Whoever thinks that modern Monarchists are our allies, does not understand the dialectics of the enemy. They, along with the Communists, global bankers etc. all work towards the same goal.

Nicholas Richardson
Nicholas Richardson

What you’re notgetting is that a white nationalist anything(within reason) will work provided people on the inside are not greedily fucking witth the economy.

Carter Reyes
Carter Reyes

The Constitution is a symbol, and ignoring it sends a message. It cannot be denied. It will not prevent a tyrannical system from being so, but it will be impossible for cucks to deny it.
That's the point. Yes, it's paper, but it's a paper which one's actions can be compared to.
It will not protect you against an onslaught of commies, but in case of a good regime that shows signs of weakness, it will prove useful as a point of reference because contrary to invaders and kikes, it is supposed to stick to it.
So, as long as you are not invaded by strangers, it is useful.

Julian Martinez
Julian Martinez

Well, ya know where the Constitution REALLY is, it's in the hearts, minds and imaginations of the People. You could write it in piss in the snow, but as long as it won hearts and minds it would be effective.

Ryan Roberts
Ryan Roberts

(((Monarchy))) shills have abandoned the thread it seems.
Why the parentheses?

Those not wishing to live within it, would be free to leave. Individuals, not entire nations.
Trouble is, if there's no land outside of the Empire, nobody can leave the Empire.
It would be necessary for the Empire to keep fringe White countries alone and simply trade with them, if only for the idea of showing that one can indeed live outside of the Empire without risking stigmatization or else. In fact, such a rule or idea should be made clear by the Empire itself.

Voting system where voting power is distributed according to achievements.
I already thought of that, a meritocratic democracy, but it's not worth it. It's still a democracy and we will fall in the same pitfalls as usual. We have countless examples, starting with Rome or even Athens, wherein populists break the barriers on and on to distribute more and more voting power to get elected.
Nobody should be elected on words and promises but on good deeds.
We don't need elections, we need trials.
Only the ruler shall have the right to decide of a sort of voting, one that would only be used to see if the ruled are OK with the ruler.
This is what N. Bonaparte did. It is called a plebiscit. Some kind of referendum, right?

The 3C of the Jewish Trinity:
Capitalism
Communism
Christianity

One astute mind will observe how each one of these systems claims having the cures to the illnesses of the others, while not displaying its own poisonous principles.

Yes and other points;
Communism sells the idea of heaven, but0 on Earth (that's more Jewish but more palatable too than the unproved pie in the sky).
Communism and Christianity deny individuality; the latter having you absorbed into Christ.

No. Capitalism does not work. It wrecks the planet and destroys economies because a regulated Capitalism is no Capitalism at all, and no regulation means Jews get the upper hand in it no matter what; just like with usury, it is only a matter of time.

Xavier Morgan
Xavier Morgan

Genetically there's a minuscule difference between a Greek and a Turk
I'm curious about your studies because even if Greeks nowadays are coasting towards the fringe or Whiteness, I've seen enough Turks in my life to know that there's still a vaaaaast discrepancy between them and the Greeks. Anything remotely whitish in Turkey is a leftover from slavery and perhaps very old subgroups that inhabited Anatolia before the Turks themselves took control of those lands.

1. Monarchs import aliens,
Fair point but it's treasonous and thankfully, is more of an exception than anything else.

Which they do still. All because the logic of hereditary monarchy dictates that having aliens doing your business with opposition factions and taking all the blame on themselves is profitable in a couple generations course.
You overlook the fact that those monarchs were already corrupt and/or manipulated.
Disraeli didn't get so much power just before he came, knock knock wanna see some shekels?

Josiah Diaz
Josiah Diaz

National Socialism is already essentially an elective monarchy. I've thought about the debate between elective and hereditary monarchy before. I used to support hereditary monarchy for the same reasons you list. A child raised from a young age to be King would be a lot better than the chance of a tyrant. However, in practice this seems to be wrong. There were plenty of Kings raised from a young age to be rulers, that were still bad rulers
Hence the need for trials instead.
Anyone, from the highest ranks to the lowest class, should be detected (scanned) for potential and put through harsh trials; such trials shall be repeated as often as necessary. They shall be used to actually become Men and Women of Honor to serve the Ruler in different domains.

Yes. Except the republic leader is in charge for 4-6 years, not 40-60. Monarchs imported foreigners just fine with same disastrous consequences, except they did it a generation what it took the Republican USA three generation to go 56%. So republican rule is better than a monarch rule, because a disastrous politician has less time and power to fuck everything up, unlike the rule-for-life absolute power monarch.
The same works the other way round: a republican has little time to build long term projects and must soon face the mischievous plots of elections.

Soissons
That's a rather very condensed and wrong way to put it.

The rest is just sliding. Just because some king somewhere hated Turks someday doesn't make monarchism viable
You have hardly shown how it is not viable.

The only way to evade the political process is to kill politics. Which leads us to tribal anarchism.
This is stupid. Not only for the fact that there is a hierarchy within any tribe, but a coalition of united tribes is asking for being weak and easily invaded.
There is value in actually forming at least something of the size of well sized country.
And you're quite jumpy in finding all sorts of flaws in monarchy, but quickly brush aside the intertribal wars.

Except it lead to hereditary oligarchs using Jews as middlemen to rob and exploit the hereditary commoners.
Aren't you painting monarch with one big sweeping brush and, above all, judging monarchs who were glued within the hypocritical christian worldview?

Monarchs are parasites, don't care for the people
Aren't you projecting a little bit or something?
at the cost of plebeians taxed and controlled
You cannot do without taxes. It is a necessary evil.

Quotation of Maurras
The French Republic likes its niggers more than the French themselves.
Same happened in the Roman republic. It didn't take long for it to like its Anatolian "Greeks" more than its true Romans.
One could even wonder if there can be any racial solidarity within a republic.>at the cost of plebeians taxed and controlled

Christopher Hernandez
Christopher Hernandez

Even the smarter and more evolved Jews realize this and seek to distance themselves from their demonic tribe.
But they also debase the bloodlines of the higher class people they intermingle with.
A Jew remains a Jew, no matter what.

It is about time people understand that their behavior is instinctive.
If evolution is a thing, then the Jews have been doing what we accuse them of for thousands of years.
The "evolved Jew" like the "nice Jew" are just traps, smokescreens we shall never be fooled by.

Did Jews create corruption , or did the corruption summon the Jew?
They sense it, exploit and empower it.
It starts with a small weakness, one we all have.
Only discipline and purity can protect us from such weaknesses blossoming like cancerous cells.
Cue a "No Jew (full, half or quadroon, etc.) allowed on these lands" law. Death penalty otherwise. Jew or whatever they would call themselves later on.

National Socialism being far superior to Monarchy in that regard.
It's all theoretical. We have hardly seen NS used and applied by one single ruler. As seen above through quotations, Hitler himself had nothing against Monarchy assuming it did what it was supposed to do for the people.

It seems most people here have reached a sort of agreement on the idea that a hereditary/nepotistic monarchy isn't good, it needs checks so as to verify the valor and quality of potential heirs to the power.
Which is perfectly logical and this is where NatSoc dovetails nicely too.

Lucas Thomas
Lucas Thomas

Proper selection and proper education. If you get the right people, and teach them the right things, they would pretty much become immune to corruption and outside influences.
That sounds like utopianist thinking.
Who selects them and how do we know they're selected for quality rather than nepotism?

Everyone gets appointed based on his merit and adherence to the Principles.
By who?
Emperor is a symbol, not an actual political figure.
So the emperor has no political power? Like the Queen of England?

not democratically, but through collective will
Sounds flawed.

They need to prove their worth in all areas, and be as objectively the best as possible.
How and who judges?

They would never need to "secede" because they would be offered great autonomy
Those not wishing to live within it, would be free to leave.
So it's more like a loose confederation than an empire.

Military commanders hold The power to demolish things
Sounds like they're a loose cannon ready to sack government officials that implement policies that they don't like. Given the already loose nature of this empire, this would make it all the more unstable and likely to break apart. If a national leader (appointed to his position by who the fuck knows what?) opposes a policy of the central government and tries to secede, then the military commanders might "destroy" him and his people for resources.

Voting system where voting power is distributed according to achievements.
This I like.

Other institutions would become too dangerous without this one.
The military commanders already seem like a mortal threat to this institution.
they can only promote their interests by adhering to the Principles.
Yet with all that money and influence, what stops them from engaging in the destructive capitalistic exploitation of this era's moneyed elites?
This would prevent both autocracy of corrupted "academic cult" and kikes manipulating masses like they do in democracy
Hopefully we can exterminate the kikes and their vile, subversive, parasitical race before implimenting this new system.

I like the idea of top down and bottom up political interractions.

So long as the Emperor is a powerless figurehead (in theory) I suppose it doesn't matter how he gets into this position. Of course, even allegedly powerless figureheads actually do hold great soft power.

Attached: Bardejov.jpg (456.7 KB, 2682x800)

Xavier Hall
Xavier Hall

This graphic isn't correct. Put The Few at mid height in the pyramid (because it's one).

One thing people consider to be a virtue might not suit the role of leadership.
Let's think of what one would expect from quasi-perfection, a demi-god, and derive the required attributes from there.

I think national socialists most of all can understand how history maligns one person as a tyrant.
The base-model Joe sixpack would only see the political/elective aspect of Hitler's rise.
Others would see the aristocratic qualities of the man.
Some, in the end, would place this on a divine canvas and point out how, in the end, solar soul strongly tied to the soil is never going to be elected by the illusion of a political system, but will naturally reach power because its time has come.

Eli Howard
Eli Howard

Because that same king wouldn't have done so if Icelanders had remained divided?

Except they try to envision, while others read the sagas and take notes. Also notable that Icelanders have the richest amount of epics on common peoples' lives, not some overly beefed dudes bragging how they totally obliterated/were obliterated by other beefed dudes. It is fine, but gets repetitive and stale pretty fast. Yet the marginal frozen over Iceland provided most of early Germanic literature while other petty kings were too busy robbing their own and neighbors' some plebs for cheap glory.
Have you read any of these sagas actually? Because they're hardly devoid of petty battles for power too, and it easily gets gruesome.
I really don't share your enjoyment for reductive methodology where suddenly, as a country is crumbled into minuscule tribes, all suddenly works like sunshine in rainbow land.

Michael Martin
Michael Martin

We have hardly seen NS used and applied by one single ruler.
Scrap. I meant beyond one single ruler.

Angel Rivera
Angel Rivera

Why the parentheses?
Because it's mostly top kikes (like Rothschilds) promoting it today. It's their wet dream to finally be the kangz of the world and be worshipped by the mongrelized goyim, but officially. To live the dream of their forefather, rabbi Jeshohua Ben Josef.
Trouble is, if there's no land outside of the Empire, nobody can leave the Empire.
I'd let anyone wanting to racemix, promote cancerous ideologies, pursue individual interests on the expense of the nation/race or otherwise live contrary to the Principles do so, but they would need to leave and never be allowed to come back. Forcing someone to partake is never a good idea, and it would also serve as a good selection mechanism. Eventually defectives would breed themselves out. Likewise, any member of our race living outside of Empire's territory for whatever reason other than exclusion should be allowed to join it if he or she fits the criteria. (Race, character, beliefs, background).
It would be necessary for the Empire to keep fringe White countries alone and simply trade with them
The issue I see here is kikes or other races using them against the Empire. There would need to be a distinction between supporting and non-supporting population and a way to separate them. You don't want a civil war in your realm. Nations would have great autonomy so no one would feel oppressed, regardless of propaganda from foreign sources of influence.
Nobody should be elected on words and promises but on good deeds.
This. Actions first, political capital second. In modern democracies politicians take political loans based on weak promises and never pay them back while using that same credit to fuck people over and enrich the kikes. This is the very same system of financial usury applied to politics. Also, accountability needs to be absolute. If you want to lead the people, you need to face the consequences for any bad actions, be they a result of malice (intention) or incompetence. To pay with your head and blood of your family if needed.
We don't need elections, we need trials.
Exactly. And those trials should be measured according to Principles. And for that, we need a proper reference model, aka the Constitution.
One astute mind will observe how each one of these systems claims having the cures to the illnesses of the others, while not displaying its own poisonous principles.
I'm glad someone else got their false trichotomy figured out. You will often see shills sell one as a solution for another in here, while keeping the original Judaic poison potent and allowing them to still control the society. But Christianity and Communism are in essence one and the same, so it's more a dichotomy. Unfortunately, they have many more points in their "political hexagram" where they keep goyim bouncing from one wrong position to another, while keeping them 'hexed' in slavery to Saturn and themselves. National-Socialism was the only system designed to untangle their web.
Communism and Christianity deny individuality; the latter having you absorbed into Christ.
They are both lowest common denominator, crab-mentality, universalist/globalist, materialist religions seeking to abolish any differentiation and reduce people back to primordial slime.

Julian Thomas
Julian Thomas

I repeat again, a terrible president doesn't have that much time and power to irreparably fuck things up. Monarch has all the time and power. It took USA three generations since 1960's to turn to shit. It took 12 years to Ivan the Terrible to turn Muscovy into a proto-Imperium shithole and irreparably damage both it and Lithuania and the Baltics leading to very miserable and murderous Time of Troubles.
And how many generations has it taken for the good old USA to revert to a pro-White nation?

Oh… wait.
Still counting…

Monarchy has actually nothing to do with whether the country suffers or prospers.
It's all up to the people.
You could have a long family of good rulers because there simply were good genes that were properly exploited into making men and women of virtue.
Unless accident or else, there is no reason for the quality of a bloodline to fade away. But bad decisions can be made nevertheless, so a ruler should be deposed if he were to fail his people.

Then again the term ruler isn't adequate either.

Samuel Bennett
Samuel Bennett

theyre pretty much the same thing from what i've read

Jace James
Jace James

Second - Hitler did many retarded decisions that ultimately ended in Burning of Dresden and Rape of Berlin. There was nobody there to stop him doing these retarded decisions, like saving the British on Dunkirk or diverting precious forces to progressively retarded escapades of the most retarded army in WW2. Absolute power equals absolute responsibility, and he blew it. And he didn't even have an absolute monarch's power to start with. So yeah, let's entrust even more power into an absolute ruler that can fuck up even harder.

Just because he is the most well known NatSoc does not make him infallible nor an absolute authority, however monarcucks would like to imagine infallible daddies atop funny chairs deciding all their problems for them before awarding loyal monarcucks a title and privilege to tax dirty plebs to death.
Who spoke of infallibility?
I also love how you judge him without considering how outgunned and outnumbered NS Germany was, or how Stalin was about to rollover all of Europe unabated, with Churchy standing still.
One can only imagine how the story would have gone between North America and Soviet Europe…

Jack Gutierrez
Jack Gutierrez

All with commies praying on Lenin's tomb.

Kayden Walker
Kayden Walker

Aren't you projecting a little bit or something?
Monarchs are not parasites? They are the logical conclusion of parasitism (in hereditary/nepotist monarchy)

But they also debase the bloodlines of the higher class people they intermingle with.
They don't necessarily need to do so. You observe everything through muh bloodline lens while some people don't really care about that and just want to do what they consider right or want to live a certain experience. You are not your children. Some people with no children were more accomplished than people who had 10 children. Offspring is only relevant in the context of race/nation.
Only discipline and purity can protect us from such weaknesses blossoming like cancerous cells.
True
Cue a "No Jew (full, half or quadroon, etc.) allowed on these lands" law.
I'd follow Nuremberg laws for that. Excluding quality whites just because they are 1/8 Jewish despite not having their traits is idiotic. You would be turning valuable allies into enemies, and that's exactly what the kikes want. To get the "stray sheep" back.
We have hardly seen NS used and applied by one single ruler.
The one that was actually successful was Aristocratic and Fuhrer was not an absolute ruler (despite having most power), he had an entire team of very competent individuals, all doing their role. His was just the most public one. You are mistaken if you think that he made all the decisions individually. NSDAP were knights of the round table.
Which is perfectly logical and this is where NatSoc dovetails nicely too.
We could do a NS government with a Fuhrer from the people and Nobility backing him while keeping their titles and status but without being able to influence society too much. Something like what Japanese did, just with the Emperor having less power. Or if Russia had a NS revolution that instead of removing the Monarchy, just took all the practical power while leaving them the symbolic one. Or, we could try to combine the two, and appoint aristocrats based on how many, and how difficult trials they have passed. Some elements of the two could be reconciled for sure.

Jayden Gonzalez
Jayden Gonzalez

That sounds like utopianist thinking.
Anything that's not pure individualistic, materialistic game theory (excluding enlightened self-interest) is utopian thinking. And kikes are a logical conclusion of that. Everyone becomes one.
Who selects them and how do we know they're selected for quality rather than nepotism?
The original council. They would rise to ranks due to trials and quality because you could not threaten the current system otherwise. They would arise (mostly) organically and would have to test and prove their worth in order to hold any power in the first place. In actuality, it would be those who define the Code and shape the values, but also those who prove most meritocratic in bringing them to materialization and actualization. From there, everything and everyone could be measured against those values. I mean look at us, we follow NS values despite having no direct relation to any of the people who defined them, and many of us not even being Germanic. Hell, many of our nations were fighting Germans in WW2. This is the power of the superior idea.
So the emperor has no political power? Like the Queen of England?
Soft power, like the Queen, but it would represent something very different. Queen of England represents Jewish values, The Emperor would be a living embodiment of beauty, strength, intelligence/wisdom and Virtues. Different values, different symbols.
How and who judges?
How do you judge who won a running race? Or which object is more heavy? Subjectivist thinking is Jewish thinking. Everything is relative to each other, there is no ultimate frame of reference, there is no objective truth, there is no objective reality, beauty is in the eye of beholder, there is no race etc. Our philosophy is the exact opposite. There exists the ultimate frame of reference, the highest point on it being God (nothing to do with Abrahamistic demons). The closer you get to that point, the more divine you are. That applies to both individuals and races. The closer to it a race gets, the more beautiful, strong, intelligent and wise it will be. TL;DR , the nature itself will be the judge through all of us. All things have their place in nature. And by nature I don't only mean it's lowest manifestation, the physical world. Some things are simply self-evident and no amount of Jewish post-structuralism can change that.
If a national leader (appointed to his position by who the fuck knows what?) opposes a policy of the central government and tries to secede, then the military commanders might "destroy" him and his people for resources.
They couldn't do that without the general consensus
The military commanders already seem like a mortal threat to this institution.
A military has to eat. They also need a vast network of production, supplies, logistics, and entire economy working for them to be effective. If they go against other centers of interest alone, they won't last long. It would simply not be in their interest to go against the rest. Also, you forgot the Knights of the Constitution who would also wield considerable military power. Organic society, like an organism. Where every cell benefits from the Whole, and the Whole benefits from every cell. A holistic society, Aryan society.
Hopefully we can exterminate the kikes and their vile, subversive, parasitical race before implimenting this new system.
What would stop another version of them emerging? No matter how many of them you kill, another similar nation will form as long as you leave room for that. Hell, their religion is basically a demonic blueprint for their genesis.

Joseph Scott
Joseph Scott

having a symbolic monarchy with aristocrats
You might as well have an elective parliament.
We could do a NS government with a Fuhrer from the people and Nobility backing him
No national socialist would approve of an utterly symbolic Fuhrer.
Monarchs are not parasites? They are the logical conclusion of parasitism (in hereditary/nepotist monarchy)
Aristocrats can be parasites.
While looking back on this, the Kingdom of France established hereditary monarchy around 1223 with the electoral process becoming less of an established tradition. While the Kingdom of Wessex was also strongly hereditary in blood and its kings. With the Carolingian dynasty, part of the reason it became very electoral was after the end of the Merovingian dynasty and the Mayor of Paris merging with the King title. Gavelkind succession split the realm over and over again despite strives in hereditary succession. Until primogeniture developed in later periods, making indivisible lands was becoming necessary. I don't see how a nationalist would favor these things. Sure, they can complain about hereditary monarchies growing larger and incorporating non-ethnic peoples, but the gavelkind successions lead to numerous splits. I would say thank goodness that monarchies moved away from being so electoral in 1,223 AD to 1,670 AD. Democracy and the rule of the ballot box has its fair share in creating parasites, despite how much you'll say utopian and parasite.
d?

Soft power, like the Queen, but it would represent something very different. Queen of England represents Jewish values, The Emperor would be a living embodiment of beauty, strength, intelligence/wisdom and Virtues. Different values, different symbols.
Boring.
Anything that's not pure individualistic, materialistic game theory (excluding enlightened self-interest) is utopian thinking.
You're a utopian.

Grayson Barnes
Grayson Barnes

You're a utopian.
No, just not a kike. What's your suggestion? Let's be someone's property? Surely you envision yourself as the ultimate tyrant, but never the subject, no?

What would be interesting to you?

David Harris
David Harris

This graphic isn't correct. Put The Few at mid height in the pyramid (because it's one).
That's not what it aims to represent. It's not a picture of hierarchy, but political struggle.

Lucas Brown
Lucas Brown

No, just not a kike. What's your suggestion? Let's be someone's property? Surely you envision yourself as the ultimate tyrant, but never the subject, no?
You view all government as being someone's property, as far as I can tell. A hereditary transition is about being like another son to a king. At least, in a romanticist portrayal.
What would be interesting to you?
Anything but this lemon party of elder aristocrats you want. Cliques represent the worst societal institution to me when compared to the family. Cliques are where people gossip and act subhuman. Hereditary structure has this reinforced view of a father-son obligation. The aristocracy seems worse to me when it's electoral.

Brandon Fisher
Brandon Fisher

I've always personally thought that a system where leaders where required to pass both a physical and mental test/trial much like a grading system where once through they would then battle one another through debates and other physical tests. Then of the few that make it through this last hurdle, would then be selected by a committee for review. Then finally the current leader of the nation would then select a successor from that very small refined pool of candidates.

My thought is that this would ensure strong, both physically and mentally capable leaders who would have years of experience with the leader of their country before they even take up the work of their predecessor.

Julian Harris
Julian Harris

That "drawback" is true no matter what system of governance. I'd take my chances with a king that can be killed if he fucks up too much vs the modern multiheaded Jewish cabal hydra we have now.

Owen Anderson
Owen Anderson

KILL WHITE NATIONALISTS FOR TREASON
They are the ones that help our enemies exterminate us. And
they are the ones that destroyed Whites' ablility to be tribal

Wyatt Sanchez
Wyatt Sanchez

May the best man win, kike.

Matthew Rodriguez
Matthew Rodriguez

This

Logan Collins
Logan Collins

The original council.
Somehow you failed to mention this council.
It seems like real power rests with them.

The Emperor would be a living embodiment of beauty, strength, intelligence/wisdom and Virtues.
So when the first one dies, who succeeds him?
His son? What if he does not meet our standards?

nature itself will be the judge through all of us.
Yes but "nature" does not appoint people to powerful positions within a government. Some body or person will need to approve of people who run these races and lift these weights.
Frankly, I'm less concerned with a politician's weight lifting abilities than I am with his racial loyalty.

They couldn't do that without the general consensus
Sounds like a referendum. With control over the military establishment, somehow I wonder if they'd need it. Or is the military nominally under civilian control?

If the military establishment go against other centers of interest alone, they won't last long.
I have lived in a country where the military just seized power. Those guys who represent the indistries could object all they like but if the military became determined to seize power, they wouldn't need to worry about food and supplies being denied to them.
However, I admonish that the Knights of the Constitution action would be an effective check upon the power of the military industrial establishment.
On the otherhand, duo-military structures tend to create their own host of problems. Competition for resources of the state and squabbles over how they're divided between the groups becomes inevitable. Quite literally an arms race between two factions within a nation. This becomes more of a problem considering the nature of the world-Empire; Different nations seeking independence would back different factions in a bid for more autonomy and power. Thus leading to civil war.

Even if we exterminate the jew, another similar nation will form
It can't hurt to try to exterminate the current jews.
They've proven themselves to be pure evil, a term that I do not use often and yet even that seems not enough to describe them.

Luis Russell
Luis Russell

I'd prefer a Council of Elders, similar to our earlier ancestor tribes, as opposed to relying on one man. The Amish and Mennonites have a similar system and it's quite effective. Of course, if a Hitler or Vlad Dracul came along, they deserve to rule, but those are once every few centuries type of great leaders.

Owen Turner
Owen Turner

Unfortunate that leaders like hitler and caesar are rare though.

Jeremiah Green
Jeremiah Green

Delusions.

Ryan Evans
Ryan Evans

You certainly do not want someone like Julius Caesar. He was on (((their))) payroll.

Daniel Sanders
Daniel Sanders

Monarchs are not parasites? They are the logical conclusion of parasitism (in hereditary/nepotist monarchy)
Parasitism implies one takes from the host and the host gains nothing.
Let's loot at Syria. It's not called a Monarchy, yet Bashar has certainly proved to be a better leader than his father and does stand for his people.
You automatically assume the Monarch is corrupt and only takes, doesn't give anything to the nation. Although I can easily see the problem with nepotism, power transmitted within a family isn't automatically sending the nation on a crash course between two generations.

I'd follow Nuremberg laws for that. Excluding quality whites just because they are 1/8 Jewish despite not having their traits is idiotic. You would be turning valuable allies into enemies, and that's exactly what the kikes want. To get the "stray sheep" back.
Genetics are a thing. 1/8th is not going to be a problem. But half? Or quarter? By default, no, it's exclusive. Only special cases could allow for an admission and that would require more than an oath of loyalty to Whites, but I won't detail this here.
So it remains a rule of thumb: full, half or quadroon: out!
We have enough good genetic stock not to need to accept questionable creatures.
Rome for some time had such a law. Jews were to be killed if caught on Roman territory.

The one that was actually successful was Aristocratic and Fuhrer was not an absolute ruler (despite having most power), he had an entire team of very competent individuals, all doing their role. His was just the most public one. You are mistaken if you think that he made all the decisions individually. NSDAP were knights of the round table.
Whoever he surrounded himself with, he had the final word.
Nobody said that even a powerful monarch wouldn't surround himself with competent people, that would be fairly stupid and irresponsible.
Note btw that my point was corrected below because I meant to say we didn't see NS applied beyond the scope of one single ruler (or leader). We lack empirical evidence to see how this would have held on the long term beyond Hitler.
They obviously were grooming SS and would have most likely looked into them for the future leader, but I wish we could find actual notes on how they would have managed to succession.
This said, the reference to the Knights of the round table was nice.

We could do a NS government with a Fuhrer from the people and Nobility backing him while keeping their titles and status but without being able to influence society too much.
If you refer to the aristocrats not being to influence society too much, that's good, but there still needs to be a respectable group with the ability to dethrone the High King if he's an utter failure. The conditions must, however, be extremely clear to all, even the people. Inner agitation and disagreements shouldn't suffice, and nothing like what some aristocrats did against Hitler shall be tolerated.

I am all for powers to be concentrated into one single person if said person is truly exceptional. But the system should also be built so as to divide this power over a limited group of guardians, twelve ideally, properly chosen too, shall that unique individual be absent. The main throne shall remain empty until such a person comes to life.
However, never shall the power be divided further into smaller parts, across more people.

Or if Russia had a NS revolution that instead of removing the Monarchy, just took all the practical power while leaving them the symbolic one.
I may misunderstand you, but it really does look like you have an axe to grind against a monarchy, even if the leader is chosen wisely from his/her deeds, through a process I alluded to earlier on.
I don't want a disguised democracy, enough of that poison!

Or if Russia had a NS revolution that instead of removing the Monarchy, just took all the practical power while leaving them the symbolic one.

Brandon White
Brandon White

natural auto-selection or some such
You will not cut the fact that for trials and benchmarks, rules have to be designed. Obviously conforming to the Laws of Nature, but made by men nonetheless. So other men will judge based on them. The more transparent the selection process for these overmen, the better imho. The candidates would be tested on all points deemed necessary to the well being and strength of a people. This would cover anything such as pro-white religious views, martial arts and martial knowledge in different types of weapons, from traditional to cutting-edge, classic arts and architecture, national and international culture including customs and languages, preservation of the land and plant and animal life, support of philosophical and scientific research ensconced within Aryan ethics, understanding of sane economical principles of value of goods, of barter and money production, capacity to judge fairly those who commit heinous acts, etc.
Many of these could be easily picked from what type of education princes and princesses were subjected to in their early age, all of this updated for current necessities and in accord with other ideas advanced by NS and WN writers.

Lucas James
Lucas James

You view all government as being someone's property, as far as I can tell.
Not at all. Almost every system can be corrupted to a such level, but absolutist, hereditary monarchy is like that by default.
Anything but this lemon party of elder aristocrats you want.
Why do you imagine them as old people? Children can sometimes be as wise as very old people. People get more accomplished with age however. It's natural. Both youth and elderly worship are degenerate. It's another split that kikes use to advance their agenda, but it rarely gets discussed as much as gender politics and other forms of individualism.
Cliques represent the worst societal institution to me when compared to the family.
Family only looks after the family. Cliques can be either good or bad, depending on the people, agenda, organization etc. A nation is many families, it cannot be represented by only one.
Somehow you failed to mention this council. It seems like real power rests with them.
Yes, but not personal power. Power of ideas, of design. Of archetypes. It would be very hard to explain to someone seeing the society from a lens of individualistic cutthroat paradigm. Master-slave dialectics. Organic society would function exactly like your body does. If any organ started working against the interests of the body, the entire body would die, including the organ itself. Kikes are a virus which reprograms every cell to blindly pursue it's own interest at the expense of the body, killing it in the process. Communism is no different, it just groups individualistic interest based on the lowest common denominator. It's not a collectivist ideology. Christianity is a materialistic religion, Communism is individualistic ideology.
So when the first one dies, who succeeds him?
He would be given a series of trials from every "vessel" of society (such as priest-kings, army, guilds, etc.) Those who pass those, and excel the most, would be mutually agreed to by various different interests to hold the highest title.
His son?
He would be given the same opportunity as everyone else. But zero favoritism. That's the whole point.
Yes but "nature" does not appoint people to powerful positions within a government.
In Talmudic societies, no, the opposite happens. In organic societies, it does, like an invisible hand.
With control over the military establishment, somehow I wonder if they'd need it.
They would need it. Every group would.
Those guys who represent the industries could object all they like but if the military became determined to seize power, they wouldn't need to worry about food and supplies being denied to them.
Initially, yes. But food and supplies would quickly run out, and military tyranny is vastly inefficient, meaning that it would collapse sooner or later. Wise military leaders would understand that, and their inter-dependence with the other vessels of society (organism).
Quite literally an arms race between two factions within a nation.
Competition is good, as long as it's constructive.
Thus leading to civil war.
In an optimized, organic society, never. Why won't your lungs go to a civil war with your liver?
It can't hurt to try to exterminate the current jews.
*shrugs

Jose Howard
Jose Howard

not personal power. Power of ideas, of design.
The power to appoint individuals to political positions is personal power.

It would be very hard to explain to someone seeing the society from a lens of individualistic cutthroat paradigm
If any organ started working against the interests of the body, the entire body would die, including the organ itself.
Critics like me help you form a social order that will be free from cut throat power grabs. You should heed my critiques and come up with systems that prevent corruption.
You have claimed that if any one faction in this system worked against the interests of the others, the system would die. But I fail to see how.

When the emperor dies, everyone is given a chance to succeed him through trials
Would there be an application process? I suspect that almost everyone would apply for the chance to become emperor.

In organic societies, it does, like an invisible hand.
Okay, describe how someone gets appointed to a position without voting or political appointments.

Competition (between military factions within an empire) is good, as long as it's constructive.
But it is not. A state of being when two competing military factions exist in the same country is called "civil war"
What specifically prevents civil wars from taking place in this "organic society"
Calling it "natural" is not an answer. I am genuinely curious.

Ethan Thomas
Ethan Thomas

Parasitism implies one takes from the host and the host gains nothing.
Which is precisely what an absolutist, hereditary monarchy is. Of course, monarcucks will delude themselves that being someone's property is beneficial for them. Or imagine themselves as the royals, despite the very low odds of that being the case.
Only special cases could allow for an admission and that would require more than an oath of loyalty to Whites, but I won't detail this here.
I agree. Quadroons could be acceptable, but not as a rule.
We have enough good genetic stock not to need to accept questionable creatures.
Think of it as immunization. Mischlings make the best anti-kikes.
Whoever he surrounded himself with, he had the final word.
Were it really his words is debatable.
Nobody said that even a powerful monarch wouldn't surround himself with competent people, that would be fairly stupid and irresponsible.
Why would competent people consent to being subjects of some nepotistic charlatan? There is nothing that pisses competent people more than that.
we didn't see NS applied beyond the scope of one single ruler (or leader).
It was a proper aristocracy, not a monarchy. And Hitler was just the first among equals (round table), only kikes portray him as some kind of tyrannical dictator. They were all working for him, and he was working for all of them. It was not one-directional like in monarchies.
The conditions must, however, be extremely clear to all, even the people.
Which brings us back to the need of a good, buletrproof (kikeproof) Constitution.
I am all for powers to be concentrated into one single person if said person is truly exceptional. But the system should also be built so as to divide this power over a limited group of guardians, twelve ideally, properly chosen too, shall that unique individual be absent. The main throne shall remain empty until such a person comes to life.
Which is precisely what I'm proposing
However, never shall the power be divided further into smaller parts, across more people.
It would be a pattern. (For example), those 12 would each have their own round table of subordinates. It would ensure the mutual feedback between the rulers and the ruled.
I may misunderstand you, but it really does look like you have an axe to grind against a monarchy, even if the leader is chosen wisely from his/her deeds, through a process I alluded to earlier on.
Not at all, I am talking specifically about the nepotistic type of monarchy where titles are strictly inherited/being born into. Go and read my posts in this thread before coming to conclusions.

Nature extends itself through genes, through men, through reason, through soul that transcends all. Yes, what you wrote is what Aristocracy is all about.

Brody Edwards
Brody Edwards

A Constitution is a monarch without a voice to defend itself. The true power is with those who interpret it.

Evan Campbell
Evan Campbell

This is probably the only thread actually discussing politics on Zig Forums right now.

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Confirm your age

This website may contain content of an adult nature. If you are under the age of 18, if such content offends you or if it is illegal to view such content in your community, please EXIT.

Enter Exit

About Privacy

We use cookies to personalize content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyze our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our advertising and analytics partners.

Accept Exit