Any new system, devoid of the enlightenment degeneration, would have to be made on the ashes of the old. Propertarianist faggots talk a big game with a lot of assertions and platitudes; however, I want to hear concrete methodologies for implementing and continuing it. Every system in nature operates off the Pareto Principle. If this 20% of our best are given the mandate to rule to the best interest of our people and not to the individual, the only action would be in how to create a check to ambition. Shakespeare most poignantly states it in Julius Caesar with a verse to the point of, “If Caesar was ambitious it was a grievous sin, and grievous hath he born it.” The same is with the nation. If one of these out best is ambitious, it will be a grievous sin, and grievous will we all bear it. As to who puts these people in charge, John Locke pointed out in his Second Treatise on Government that governments are from the mandate of the governed. Even the strictest despot rules at the pleasure of the mass because as has happened countless times, they will eventually revolt. An user gave the suggestion that a constant revolution is needed to refresh the citizenry. This is ludicrous on certain levels. A government must have stability in order to facilitate the growth of all that we call civilization. This level will certainly be achieved, but by actors from which you least want it. I’m going to interpret what you meant by having a revolutionary mindset in challenging our selves away from the status quo or degenerate emulation of revulsion. This rejuvenation of self will spur the achievement of things not previously imagined. Montesquieu, Rousseau, and to an extent British Parliamentary practice are responsible for the American Republicanism, yet the former two delved only in fanciful thinking and divorced any thought from former practical observations of the Greek Republics. All systems level with an aristocratic or oligarchical form for greatest longevity, security, practicality, and stability. What system can be applied to ensure it is the proper Pareto principle is applied and that the sin of exorbitant ambition is not laid on everyone?
The Death of the Democratic System
Literally untrue. It's just a form of government that isn't directly democratic or autocratic. You can have a Fascist republic, a Democratic republic, an Oligarchic republic, whatever hits the popular trend.
Considering there's communist republics, there is a dividing line between what some faggot names something and how the fucking system operates.
We don't have democracy in America.
observer.com
Stop blaming democracy for America/Europe sacrificing itself for Greater Israel. Bankers decide who wins. Bernie was allowed to stay for as long as he did because of all the donations he was pulling in.
I forgot to add that CA can help find what the documentary called "persuadables" ie new customers to give donations, but they didn't decide who won the election. If the bankers didn't have something on Trump, he would have been disqualified like Bernie was.
Trump is on the Republican side, which is way fairer than democucks.
Even Ron Paul was given a fair chance.
Trump is on the shitbag side. He likes tax breaks from Republicans and subsidized labor from the Democrats like all top goyim.
A republic is a "people's matter" meaning the country is meant to belong to the people and not the leader.
From that standpoint, National Socialism, or even nationalism in general, is a republican principle.
HOLY SHIT YOU JUST BLEW MY MIND, NIGGA!