IDEAL GOVERNMENT GENERAL
#1
august Wrote:Constitutional monarchies are LIBARDISM but just at an earlier stage of development. See 1848. It's still LIBTARDISM all the same and when all is said and done you're left with something like the Noble and Virtuous House of Windsor. RE: the practicality of your "ideal": a ~democratically~ elected Premier that has no check on the monarch is literally powerless, and since he was popularly elected he would have no incentive at all to not overthrow or relegate to mere ceremonial status the monarch that he is required to be subservient to.
Historically you're not wrong, but I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with constitutional law. During the middle ages kings were not all powerful, the age of absolute monarchies in western Europe was something that only arrived with early modernity. Kings have historically been limited by the law, the feudal contract, and their vassals and peers. There's nothing wrong with this, there needs to be checks and balances or otherwise you run the risk of a mad or incompetent ruler wrecking the nation. I think constitutional law is a good method to reign in the behavior of a potentially bad king.

The Premier would be the head of the King's Cabinet, he would be powerful and influential as an advisor, and as a representative of the common people. The Premier of-course would not actually be FROM the common people, a potential candidate should be a landed aristocrat himself with ties to the royal family. Yes my idea isn't really democratic, but democracy is fake and gay anyway. It's just to give an ILLUSION of democracy to keep people content. It's bread and circuses, and a game for lesser nobility to play to earn prestige and get the ear of the king.

Since the Premier comes from the nobility himself, he would not want to to destroy the monarchy. In the worst case scenario, it would be in the Premier's best interest to merely use his influence to supplant the current ruling family and put his in charge instead. This is always a risk to a King however, which is why it's important for a ruler to keep his vassals happy and honored.

Ideally the King would have executive and legislative powers, but judicial powers would be held by a council of nobles. The constitution would be bare bones, and would mostly be an assurance to a few fundamental rights (Free speech, guns, freedom of association, no slavery, no niggers, etcetera) The judicial branch's only role being to ensure the constitution is not being violated. If the King does violate the constitution, he is a tyrant that should be deposed by the noble council, who then crown a new king. The constitution would be decided by the first King and his vassals, and cannot be amended. It is the law.

august Wrote:There was never a chance that America would have ever done this. You have to understand the fundamental reason for having settled in America in the first place, and maybe more importantly the ideological influences of the men who established the state proper. The answer in its totality lies in, I believe, the American constitution's 1st amendment alone."
Yeah, some of the ideas our founders had were good. A society ruled by landed aristocrats whose rights are protected by a constitution is good and proper. But the founders were also poisoned by Enlightenment ideals too, and didn't allow themselves to be honest about what they really wanted. They made mistakes clearly, I'm not saying what I want is actually possible historically, just that what they did was a mistake.
#2
Ignoring the obvious:

This is how you end up with Malia Obama on your money. Is this really what you want?
#3
(03-03-2024, 04:51 PM)calico Wrote: Ignoring the obvious:

This is how you end up with Malia Obama on your money. Is this really what you want?

What would be your ideal government calico?
#4
What post are you replying to cyber?
[Image: cca7bac0c3817004e84eace282cc7a3d.jpg]
#5
(03-04-2024, 06:18 PM)Aizen Wrote: What post are you replying to cyber?

The text I'm quoting is something august said to me in the shoutbox. I had allot I wanted to say in response to what he had said, and so I decided to make a thread rather than further fill up the shoutbox with text walls. I'm going to change the thread's title, this is now IDEAL GOVERNMENT GENERAL. Post your ideal state boys. No need to reply to anything else anyone is saying, I want to see some good ideas!
#6
Cyber Viking Wrote:What would be your ideal government calico?

The United Nations (India/China NOT allowed).
#7
I do not have a hypothetical ideal government because I want to be free. People who have an ideal government are cuckbrained. The more totalitarian it is the more cuckbrained they are (wignats). I want to own my domain. Monarchy if I have to pick a typical answer. It is common sense and you should feel the same way if you're a red blooded man. How could I even be friends with you if your ideal is for me to be a slave?
#8
BillyONare Wrote:I do not have a hypothetical ideal government because I want to be free. People who have an ideal government are cuckbrained. The more totalitarian it is the more cuckbrained they are (wignats). I want to own my domain. Monarchy if I have to pick a typical answer. It is common sense and you should feel the same way if you're a red blooded man. How could I even be friends with you if your ideal is for me to be a slave?

Monarchy is what I want, ideally me and you would be nobles. Inferior people exist to be our servants, we should be lords over them! I'd be surprised if you didn't want this. As hypothetical nobles, we need a constitution so whoever gets to be king doesn't trample on our freedoms, and so we can lawfully depose him if he decides to try.

Quote:
calico Wrote:
Cyber Viking Wrote:What would be your ideal government calico?

The United Nations (India/China NOT allowed).
How about the United Nations but every country is a monarchy?
#9
And I already told you Mr. Viking: you are not the nobles. The Obama's are. Maybe Trump's kids.

Do you want Lord Jared Kushner running the American Fleet or would you be prefer Ivanka get a chance?
#10
(03-05-2024, 01:01 AM)calico Wrote: And I already told you Mr. Viking: you are not the nobles. The Obama's are. Maybe Trump's kids.

Do you want Lord Jared Kushner running the American Fleet or would you be prefer Ivanka get a chance?

Those families (Except for maybe Trump's) would clearly lose influence if there was a paradigm shift that would lead to my ideal become real. The Obamas and those like them wouldn't support a change like I suggest anyway, so that alone would exclude them from holding power. Ideally, the new nobility would be formed from military officers. (Yes I know most of them are nothing but chair-force bureaucrats right now, things would have to change drastically for my idea to ever actually have chance of happening, obviously. Maybe a war with Russia or China would create this new class of competent and ambitious officers.) We're talking about ideals here calico! Dream a little sir, obviously I don't want the Obama Empire, and he doesn't either.
#11
Free Enterprise National Socialism
#12
obscurefish Wrote:Free Enterprise National Socialism

Why National Socialism rather than a monarchy?
#13
Sakana Wrote:Why a monarchy rather than National Socialism?
A few reasons. 

1. A monarchy establishes different castes within a race. Not all people of the same race are equal, and a hierarchy should be established within the same people so that the superior breed with the superior and the inferior with the inferior. National Socialism is populist rather than aristocratic, and sought to remove class boundaries rather than establish them. It is not eugenic for us to just say "Well, we're all white so we're equal and so it doesn't matter if a 140 IQ ubersmench marries a 95 IQ laborer" No, there is no equality in anything, not even within the same race. The superior should be higher in position to the inferior, and preserve their superior qualities or even improve them through proper mate selection; which is what a caste system would seek to accomplish, this is virtuous.

Now the National Socialists did have the SS, and there are some that argue that the organization could have morphed into a pseudo-aristocracy, but there's nothing tangible to that idea, the SS had its ideological basis in peasant romanticism (Thomas777 talks about this in Greatest Poasts). Himmler himself mocked the idea of aristocracy. Generally, the National Socialists were not aristocratic in their outlook on things. They were populist, and appealed to populist sentiments.

The National Socialists called themselves a worker's party for good reason. Is caring about the lower classes wrong? No, of-course not, but a movement that is dominated by lower class populist sentiments, a lust for welfare, and resentment against those of higher station, is not ideal. Low IQ wignats today are motivated by similar things the NS voting base was motivated by. Perhaps it was necessary for Hitler to appeal to populist ideas and the working class to get power, I won't argue one way or another, but we're talking about the ideal here.

Real Prussian Socialism in monarchic, everyone serves the interests of the people as a whole. Everyone is sacrificed on the altar of the race. The caste system exists so that all can better serve the race, and the higher castes have more power and freedom because this allows them to more easily serve the race in the best way possible. The King is the first servant, he ideally is the biological epitome of the race and so his bloodline must be secured so the race will always be ruled by the best.

2. A monarchy is more stable. The Nazis were far more concerned with mobilizing the masses into serving Germany's geopolitical goals than establishing something long lasting and stable. (I do not blame Hitler for this, he had to work with what he had. But it is what it is.) Look at the shitshow that the Reich's government became. Interservice rivalries, libtard traitors like Canaris sabotaging things from the beginning, corruption, and no real heir or vision for the future. Imagine if Hitler had actually been assassinated. Who would lead? Everyone would fight to become the next leader while the nation needed unity. Even if there was a heir that was decided upon unequivocally, there was no one in the Reich's government who could have lived up to Hitler's example.

A monarchy solves this issue by succession by simply having the heir be the King's son, it's simple, and has worked for thousands of years. Through selective breeding based around modern understanding of genetics, the King's son would be as genetically fit as his father, and raised to rule from a young age. People would typically be born into their positions rather than competing in some rat race of public schooling to become bureaucrats; and then spending the rest of their days trying to one-up rival bureaucrats to gain advantage. A functional monarchy is a confederation of family businesses; rather than a megacorpation filled with diverse and competing interests who are always trying to screw each-other. A family business is stable as-long as everyone does their duty.

That's not to say their should be no upward mobility, Hitler himself is an example of someone of a low class background who was truly of noble character (More so-than the junkers). Upward mobility should not come from getting a college degree and then maneuvering through bureaucratic organizations however. It should come through selfless service to the nation in your assigned role, excellence in that role, and clear evidence of genetic superiority. It should not be a bureaucratic process where you get degree and spend 10 years jerking off baboons or whatever. Rather, elevation should be done on a case-by case basis, and done through inter-personal relationships. A noble knighting a yeoman for a great service.

3. Monarchies tend to be religious, while National Socialism was secular and ideological. In NS Germany, they tried to bring about unity by convincing everyone of secular ideological tenets and the good of the NSDAP rather than through religion. Now we can see that this created some truly great and loyal men, but we can also see that it created just as many disloyal traitors as-well. You're just not going to truly unify a nation by citing race science and making screeds about jews and usury. National Socialism was quickly stamped out in Germany after the Reich fell because most people are not autistic enough to be willing to sacrifice for a failed political movement that's based around secular principles. It's the same reason why no one really fucking cared when the USSR collapsed, or why no one will really care when the secular liberal establishment we live under today will be gone.

Religion is useful, it brings stability and gives meaning to people who don't have the capacity to come to logical conclusions. The early Christians were tortured for hundreds of years yet they remained faithful, because they believed that they were serving God and that their struggle was to their benefit in the afterlife. People in general are self-interested, if you want them to die for a cause, promise them they will be rewarded for it. I think such a promise even has some truth to it.

Religions also helps with stability, it's a way to bring unity to a people in a natural way, it's more encompassing than a secular ideology where you have to agree with every economic policy or whatever. A ruler that claims to have his authority stem from God will also be more respected by his people generally than a secular one who just believes in some arbitrary ideology. Even today our rulers transparently larp that they're Christians to desperately try to gain some of that legitimacy. Ideally, the King himself would truly believe in the religion too, so as to keep him humble and in service to a greater will.

I also find the vestige of a political party running everything to be vulgar and ugly.

Hitler was still the greatest man of the 20th century.
#14
Cyber Viking Wrote:
obscurefish Wrote:Free Enterprise National Socialism

Why National Socialism rather than a monarchy?

Hitler admired the Japanese imperial institution, but said that it would take 500 years to create such a thing in Germany.
#15
(03-05-2024, 02:19 PM)obscurefish Wrote:
Cyber Viking Wrote:
obscurefish Wrote:Free Enterprise National Socialism

Why National Socialism rather than a monarchy?

Hitler admired the Japanese imperial institution, but said that it would take 500 years to create such a thing in Germany.

Where does he say that?
#16
Cyber Viking Wrote:
obscurefish Wrote:
Cyber Viking Wrote:
obscurefish Wrote:Free Enterprise National Socialism

Why National Socialism rather than a monarchy?

Hitler admired the Japanese imperial institution, but said that it would take 500 years to create such a thing in Germany.

Where does he say that?
In a conversation with Ayukawa Yoshisuke.

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Unf...TaDwAAQBAJ
#17
obscurefish Wrote:Free Enterprise National Socialism

Libertarian Free Market National Socialism.
#18
obscurefish Wrote:Free Enterprise National Socialism

How does this work at the higher levels? Is state banking selecting who can grow and how much not an essential part of the national socialist economic program? I read 'Princes of the Yen', but a while ago. I might vaguely understand some of this stuff.
#19
Re: since deleted thread about America as Babylon

Cyber Viking Wrote:This is my my country and I want to see it great, that's all the reasoning I need to disagree with you.

You probably don't even actually disagree with what he said, you're just doing that annoying, somewhat American thing where you're too inclined to respond like a Boomer who is above it all and knows better when you hear something you don't like.

American nationalism from self-styled [insert whatever trendy name describes The Movement this week] always confuses me for the same reasons described in that Unibro thread that recently resurfaced. Europeans cling to the achievements of the past, thinking that they're the successors to the traditions of the Romans and the Carolingians and whoever else simply because they have museums and live where some stuff happened some long time ago. Then someone comes along and says 'Let's do something like that again, ourselves, instead of merely being content to jerk off to these old relics that we keep behind glass,' and in light of this, everyone has since been programmed to respond to that with 'are you fucking crazy?!'

So when you say "my country", which one do you mean? Obviously you're referring to "America", but which America? Some argue compellingly that there have been at least 4 and a half refoundings of the United States. And every single time, "America" has become less free and the power of the state has become significantly more centralised. If you're an "American Patriot" shouldn't you want an end to the facade that is this massive federalised blob and a return to independent states functioning as their own nations, maybe even the formation of multiple small confederations? You also believe in constitutional monarchy, which can't really be squared with the views that one should seemingly consider to be those an "American Patriot".

Perhaps both the clearpilled young man and the American libtard can say that 'America is an idea' and both may actually be correct in saying so, albeit for totally different reasons.
[Image: JBqHIg7.jpeg]
Let me alone to recover a little, before I go whence I shall not return 
A land as dark as darkness itself, where even the Light is like darkness
#20
august Wrote:You probably don't even actually disagree with what he said, you're just doing that annoying, somewhat American thing where you're too inclined to respond like a Boomer who is above it all and knows better when you hear something you don't like.
Is the state ruling America corrupt and in-need of a good purging? Of-course. Do I really want my country to fall apart and become irrelevant? No, not really. I want to see my nation be healthy, powerful, eugenic, and dominant. America better than she ever was.

august Wrote:American nationalism from self-styled [insert whatever trendy name describes The Movement this week] always confuses me for the same reasons described in that Unibro thread that recently resurfaced. Europeans cling to the achievements of the past, thinking that they're the successors to the traditions of the Romans and the Carolingians and whoever else simply because they have museums and live where some stuff happened some long time ago. Then someone comes along and says 'Let's do something like that again, ourselves, instead of merely being content to jerk off to these old relics that we keep behind glass,' and in light of this, everyone has since been programmed to respond to that with 'are you fucking crazy?!'
America was created by dreamers that wanted to escape from slavery to old institutions. Americans don't need to justify their patriotism through worshiping Charlemagne or some other ancient king. We're patriotic simply because this is OUR country, we love it because it's US. An American wants his country to be powerful and free because he himself wants to be powerful and free. A mature egoist understands that his individual traits are not unique to him as an individual, and instead are shared among people who are similar to him. Therefore, wanting to see people who are like you succeed over others is not much different from wanting to see yourself succeed. A powerful nation is also of interest to one's individual life and family, as powerful nations tend to bring economic prosperity. This is all the justification one needs to be a patriot.


august Wrote:So when you say "my country", which one do you mean? Obviously you're referring to "America", but which America? Some argue compellingly that there have been at least 4 and a half refoundings of the United States. And every single time, "America" has become less free and the power of the state has become significantly more centralised. If you're an "American Patriot" shouldn't you want an end to the facade that is this massive federalised blob and a return to independent states functioning as their own nations, maybe even the formation of multiple small confederations? You also believe in constitutional monarchy, which can't really be squared with the views that one should seemingly consider to be those an "American Patriot".
You're thinking far too abstractly, America is a Empire, and Americans are a people. Not all American citizens are Americans, Americans are Anglo-Saxons, and other Germanic peoples who have been incorporated into American WASP culture. America is an Anglo-Saxon Empire that dominates the continent. I'm a American Patriot because I want to see my people succeed, and our Empire to be powerful. Patriotism means loyalty to one's people and nation, not loyalty to some abstract idea like "democracy". Today, America is dominated by traitors and subversives who are trying to kill her, but they don't get to define what America is.

Anyway, I do advocate for a type of neo-feudalism in my ideal world, which isn't much different to giving individual states more power. (Perhaps every state could be a Dukedom) There still needs to be a Federal Government to secure our Empire's power however, ideally ruled by a King or Emperor. No state should be allowed to secede either. If anything, we should expand our borders, conquer South America, and replace its ruling class with our people. (Send all the spics and niggers living here there too).

august Wrote:Perhaps both the clearpilled young man and the American libtard can say that 'America is an idea' and both may actually be correct in saying so, albeit for totally different reasons.
America isn't really an idea, but ideas are powerful as a source of inspiration and as psychological propaganda. If America is an idea, I see the idea of America as the future. Something with the potential to be better than anything else that has ever existed before. My country has so much potential, it would be a crime to waste it.



[-]
Quick Reply
Message
Type your reply to this message here.




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)