Thread 514130195

I want to debate people who are anti democracy on here. Specifically National Socialists. Explain to me why you think Democracy is wrong, and I will argue why I think it is good

>>514130195 (OP)

Democracy does not exist

>>514130326
Yes it does
Next

>>514130195 (OP)
lobbying

people are retarded

>>514130195 (OP)
Take a look at our country. Right after the fall of communism, the people were faced with a democratic election. Did they choose a democratic leader that was exiled till then? Did they choose the king? Did they choose a democratic leader imprisoned by the communist regime?
No they chose a communist aparatchik. A communist secretary.
Did they make the correct choice? Is it correct to let low iq's vote? Would you let a retard decide your fate?

>>514130195 (OP)
Democracy is 2 wolves and 1 sheep voting on what’s for dinner and OP is a fucking retard for not already knowing this well established fact

>>514130195 (OP)
There is no way to defend democracy. It's a race to the bottom and always has been. A race to enfranchise the cheapest votes possible, then buy them. Then once they already had the cheapest available in the nation, they started to import even cheaper ones. This is ignoring all of the vote fraud and the fact that elected leaders have no power next to the unelected ones, and that the voting is just a farce.

51 votes to enslave the 49. simple as.

>>514130455
Implement IQ / competency tests for voting

>>514130445
Not a big issue in Japan or Korea.

>>514130195 (OP)
It causes political deadlock

>>514130195 (OP)
Have some monarchist poems.

>>514130594
Most other democracies use proportional representation or other systems that distribute representation more proportionally to vote shares.

>>514130556
You're simplifying the debate and then insulting me because I think harder about it than you. Dictatorships are often dystopian and rife with uncontested corruption as we can see in Turkmenistan and North Korea

>>514130556
Democracy is when the sheep votes no it doesn't pass.

>>514130195 (OP)
the hellenics knew it to be mob rule
that's enough for me

>>514130859
Monarchy was garbage and everyone became aware of it after the French revolution liberated people of talent from the lower classes and had a vaster talent pool which crushed the traditional Prussian monarchy

>>514130778
Who decides on the qualities of who can vote? You’ve already dismissed democracy.

>>514130195 (OP)
how is democracy going to solve the jew and nigger problem?

The Herodotus Debate:
Otanes (Democracy)
Otanes was for giving the government to the whole body of the Persian people. "I hold," he said, "that we must make an end of monarchy; there is no pleasure or advantage in it. You have seen to what lengths went the insolence of Cambyses, and you have borne your share of the insolence of the Magian. What right order is there to be found in monarchy, when the ruler can do what he will, nor be held to account for it? Give this power to the best man on earth, and his wonted mind must leave him. The advantage which he holds breeds insolence, and nature makes all men jealous. This double cause is the root of all evil in him; he will do many wicked deeds, some from the insolence which is born of satiety, some from jealousy. For whereas an absolute ruler, as having all that heart can desire, should rightly be jealous of no man, yet it is contrariwise with him in his dealing with his countrymen; he is jealous of the safety of the good, and glad of the safety of the evil; and no man is so ready to believe calumny. Nor is any so hard to please; accord him but just honour, and he is displeased that you make him not your first care; make him such, and he damns for a flatterer. But I have yet worse to say of him than that; he turns the laws of the land upside down, he rapes women, he puts high and low to death. But the virtue of a multitude's rule lies first in its excellent name, which signifies equality before the law; and secondly, in that its acts are not the acts of the monarch. All offices are assigned by lot, and the holders are accountable for what they do therein; and the general assembly arbitrates on all counsels. Therefore I declare my opinion, that we make an end of monarchy and increase the power of the multitude, seeing that all good lies in the many."

Herodotus Debate
Megabyzus (Oligarchy)
Megabyzus' counsel was to make a ruling oligarchy. "I agree," said he, "to all that Otanes says against the rule of one; but when he bids you give the power to the multitude, his judgment falls short of the best. Nothing is more foolish and violent than a useless mob; to save ourselves from the insolence of a despot by changing it for the insolence of the unbridled commonalty — that were unbearable indeed. Whatever the despot does, he does with knowledge; but the people have not even that; how can they have knowledge, who have neither learnt nor for themselves seen what is best, but ever rush headlong and drive blindly onward, like a river in spate? Let those stand for democracy who wish ill to Persia; but let us choose a company of the best men and invest these with the power. For we ourselves shall be of that company; and where we have the best men, there 'tis like that we shall the best counsels.

>>514130588
>There is no way to defend democracy.
- freedom of speech
- freedom to affect your political system
- freedom to push back against bad laws
Under a dictator you might not even have internet connection

Darius (Monarchy)
Darius was the third to declare his opinion. "Methinks," said he, "Megabyzus speaks rightly concerning democracy, but not so concerning oligarchy. For the choice lying between these three, and each of them, democracy, oligarchy and monarchy being supposed to be the best of its kind, I hold that monarchy is by far the most excellent. Nothing can be found better than the rule of the one best man; his judgment being like to himself, he will govern the multitude with perfect wisdom, and best conceal plans made for the defeat of enemies. But in an oligarchy, the desire of many to do the state good service sometimes engenders bitter enmity among them; for each one wishing to be chief of all and to make his counsels prevail, violent enmity is the outcome, enmity brings faction and faction bloodshed; and the end of bloodshed is monarchy; whereby it is shown that this fashion of government is the best. Again, the rule of the commonalty must of necessity engender evil-mindedness; and when evil-mindedness in public matters is engendered, bad men are not divided by enmity but united by close friendship; for they that would do evil to the commonwealth conspire together to do it. This continues till someone rises to champion the people's cause and makes an end of such evil-doing. He therefore becomes the people's idol, and being their idol is made their monarch; so his case also proves that monarchy is the best government. But (to conclude the whole matter in one word) tell me, whence and by whose gift came our freedom — from the commonalty or an oligarchy or a single ruler? I hold therefore, that as the rule of one man gave us freedom, so that rule we should preserve; and, moreover, that we should not repeal the good laws of our fathers; that were ill done."

But the people are retarded.

>>514130195 (OP)
Where do you enjoy Democracy?
There isn't one.
True Democracy is the entire body of people voting on every code and corporate decision. afaik it hasn't been done since approximately City-State Greece?
It's crowd mood cruel, and every-man ignorant.

>>514130195 (OP)
>Democracy enjoyer

>>514131030
Let there be one ruler, one king, anon.

>>514130195 (OP)
Democracy is only good if the people are good

Nine wolf and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner is democracy.
Gang-rape is democracy in action.
The founding fathers limited participation in government to land-owning, tax-paying white men.
Now we have niggers and no voter ID requirements.
If you think this is what the esteemed lawmakers in Athens desired, you are a dumb nigger who should be keel-hauled (51% of the ship's sailors agree).
Here's another issue — once infiltrated, the "democracy" has no means to root out a parasitic element. The King, on the other hand, can issue an Edict of Expulsion, and the problem resolves itself.

>>514131052
No. Democracy has always had conditions on voting. France restricted it to men, England restricted it to property owners and Athens restricted it to non slaves.i think 100-110 IQ and perhaps proven financial literacy would be good cutoff for who can vote if you care so much about intelligence

>>514131275
But they do work well to defend themselves generally. That's the one truely democratic power that nobody in history who actually wanted a winning state passed.
Mao, Madison, Machiavelli, all of them in their doctrine agreed that everyone armed was everyone safer. Even Hitler wanted all his people to be trained.

>>514131240
You don't have free speech

>>514131476
>But they do work well to defend themselves generally.
Clearly not.

>>514131395
I don't think you support monarchism because you've critically thought about it to be honest, you just support it because you think it looks cool

>>514130195 (OP)
>Explain to me why you think Democracy is wrong
Look around nigger like use yo eyes goddamn

>>514130387
You aren't even a real democrat there is no interest in talking with you just kys kike

>>514130195 (OP)
We voted, and we voted for fascism. If you want to stop us from voting for fascism, then you're attacking democracy. Get used to losing.

>>514130195 (OP)
Democracy is the tyranny of the 51 acting on the 49 its 2 wolves and 1 sheep voting on whats for dinner why is this good

>>514130195 (OP)
Does "mob rule by the majority" account for the fact that people are becoming increasingly brown and retarded over time?
At what point would it flip from good to bad, with a stupid/fat population and all?

>>514131510
Freer speech than Turkmenistan

RAPE XI HINPINGS DAUGHTER FUCKING PUT A HORSECOCK IN XI MINGZE DAUGHTER OF XI JINPING HAS A HORSE BABY NI HAO

See that would get you put in the rape chair if you posted that in China

>>514130195 (OP)
Why debate it? I'm not a master debaters, I leave that to the experts .

>>514131588
I prefer it for the corporatist ideal over mixed constitutionalism.
A plurality of heads is hideous, you're right.
The statesmen are rivals to each other and destroy each other's progress by succession.
But in Monarchy, being father-son, there is an incentive to retain the cult of personality and build upon the achievements of your ancestors.
Monarchy ideally is able to surpass party lines, where parties are stuck in the mud unable to look between party lines and policy, a monarch typically is in the position to look between both sides of the aisle and from an eagle's eyes take stances from both sides.

>>514130195 (OP)
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
Its mob rule, and the mob is irrational, easily manipulated, and retarded.

>>514130778
You were already convinced out of democracy, by limiting the pool by arbitrary criteria. You don't want mass rule.

>>514131082
How will authoritarianism? Putin just let's in millions of Tajiks and Syrians and Russians just nod along or get beaten by police

>>514131314
That's direct democracy. There are many forms of democracy

>>514130195 (OP)
Democracy is when you choose whoever you want to apply the will of the powerfull and then they say it's your fault when they fuck up.
Which is often.

Since the leader change all the time, it also mean that anything that won't have consequence for the duraton of the mandate, like debt is not just free of onsequences but have positive consequences sine their opposition will most likely have to deal with it.


And I would add that I have seen the fruits of demoracy and decided that I don't like it. I now want to try something else.

>>514131796
Why does it include the third world? You can have a democracy with a constitution that explicitly restricts votes to White Europeans of the nation

>>514132424
>restricted voting
This is fine with me but does defining the voting class not take us out of democracy territory?

>>514130195 (OP)
Does it look like the presidents do what you, or the people in general want them to do?
Take immigration for instance. Both the left and right opposed it. The left because it's a tool of the capitalists to create social dumping and the right for the identitarian reason. The left and the right of every European country opposed it, every European country had it.

This is democracy. You must die to defend it. At gunpoint if necessary.

>>514131990
Monarchs are just rich families who got lucky sitting like on millions of men more talented than them, and it's hilarious to call them more stable when they were frequently killing family members and holding feuds over Divine Right of Kings status. Estonians sheltered under the serfdom of their Teutonic masters, and now they have the highest IQs in Europe. How many peasants of stature as great as kings rotted in destitution as inbred hapsburgs ruled the land? "It is a sin against the will of the eternal creator that hundreds and thousands of his most gifted creatures must decay in the modern worker labour swamp" - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

>>514132424
No, you can't. The rich, who own the press want a divided and weak population, and it's hard to have a unique body of people to be divided.
So they will use their press to weaponize compassion and sympathy and slowly extend the Overton windows until enough strangers get the right to vote, and then the rule of democracy mean that no governement can make the country strong enought to contain the power of the capitalists.

>>514132214
I do though. I want the intelligent and educated masses to decide the structure of the country, not a dictator >>514132605
>>514132214
Are you fucking retarded, women and non Whites did not even have votes until like a century ago

>>514130195 (OP)
We don’t actually have any say in how our country is governed either in domestic or foreign policy. The actual ((identities)) of our rulers are rather mysterious. Our legal system is set up to only favor the wealthy and never hold them accountable. Democracy as a system of government seems like it can just be suspended at will too whenever the need arises (Ukraine 2014, or Ukraine of 2025).
In short, it’s awful. They’re asking Greeks were right, it always devolves into an oligarchy

>>514132855
Okay so have a political party nationalise the central bank, liquidate the Jew controlled press and go back to democracy. You criticise democracy whilst ignoring the fact dictatorship is entirely at the whim of the dictator

>>514133026
Yes but the thing is it is a transformable system. You can through block votes, organisational and bureaucratic means affect the law and government of your democracy but you can't do that under a dictatorship

>>514130195 (OP)
Its bad because the will of the people is never put into policy, politicians will always blame the other parties for themselves betraying all their promises or they will just sweep it under the mat. If you have a powerful leader of a country there is nobody to blame since he has the power and time to change things

>>514132808
Liechtenstein is a monarchy and the best country in the world.

Democracies can only work if only the people who contribute can vote, and if that's the case, then it's a republic not a democracie. Democracies can only fail.
And republics pave the way to democracies.

>>514131240
None of that has anything to do with Democracy. The freest nation in history was England and its colonies in the 1700s. You also didn't address what I said.

"Those who hold office for one year only have to retire before they have mastered their duties; a monarch has the advantage of continuous experience. Again, he knows that he has to superintend everything; the oligarchic and democratic ruler has colleagues, and much remains undone because each thinks the other is doing it."
- Isocrates

"In oligarchies and democracies, the rulers have private interests, further they only meet occasionally and opportunities for action are missed; monarchs are continually occupied in the public interest. Again, the former are jealous and wish to exalt themselves at the expense of their predecessors and successors, the latter seek the good will of all. But the greatest difference is that monarchs treat public affairs as their own concern, other rules transact them as if they were other people's business, and they choose their advisors accordingly.
- Isocrates

>>514130195 (OP)
hi demoncratic person
u murdered Socrates with your vote
funk u nigger

>>514133309
>Liechtenstein is a monarchy and a tax haven

FTFY
>Democracies can only work if only the people who contribute can vote
Democracies exist and work fine

>>514131052
This
>>514130778
What if the 51% vote to remove voting restrictions?

>>514133158
A dictator can be benevolent or evil. The clique that run a democracy from the shadows can only act in their own interest which is never the interest of the nation.
Many dictators have greatly improved their countries, look at Franco for instance.
Even Stalin, despite the tens of millions of people he killed have greatly improved his country and was admired by a large part of his population.

The clique that lie in the shadow only take.

>>514133488
>Yes goy, all monarchs wish for the good will of all. No monarch has ever been an unchallengable megalomaniac who has repressed and taxed their subjects ever

>>514133434
Funny how this guy came to the exact same conclusion as myself 2400 years ago

>>514131240
I live in a democracy.
I do not have freedom to speak and I will go to jail for saying the wrong things. In England, somebody was arrested for saying "I am English". Another one for saying "I like bacon".
I can only choose a political party that have the right to exist, which mean that is approved by the power in place. Wow. Such freedom.
I do not have the power to push against the law. My gun laws date from the occupation.

It have been said that Russia was a dictatorship. Russian people enjoy more freedoms that I do.

>>6882
Thus it is clear that monarchy is the most efficient form of government. It is said that even the gods are under the kingship of Zeus; even if that were untrue, yet the fact that we imagine that the gods are under a monarchy is an admission that we consider it the best form of government.

>>514133847
At the end of the middle age, taxes were much lighter than at the start of it.

Does taxes goes down in a democracy? For the working man I mean, not for the trillionaires or the corpos?

>>514130195 (OP)
Read the 3rd chapter of Mein Kampf.

>>514133584
Name one democracy that work fine.
Yours have tolerated the apex gangs and do nothing while China is taking over your country. Why do you even want to buy our submarines to protect your island from China if you let too many Chinks get the right to vote in your country?

>>514133847
Why would you think mixed constitutionalism works for the good of all? you'd think that by giving people votes, it would unite them together: but it has the opposite effect -- they become sworn enemies, and it divides the citizens against each other on party lines.
Monarchy / Corporatism makes the people one big family under one head.
Yes, I say corporatism (one-party states) are of like mind as Monarchy (a pre-eminent Monarchy), in the outlook of making people a family, a familial loyalty between the citizens under one ruler is ideal because members of a family have a deep blood bond and loyalty towards one another.
Countries like North Korea are the most homogeneous in this world and I don't think that is merely an accident: the corporatist ideal wants to unite the people as much as possible...
Monarchy as a cult of personality brings them under a community of pleasures and pains, where everyone is united around one leader and achieve single-minded unity.

>>514134311
What does it says?

>>514132176
Politicians must promise something in exchange for votes. The only source of wealth is labor.
Therefore, democracies are a political structure whose goal is to steal from the hard working man and to exchange this money for votes.

>>514130195 (OP)
Women and beta males will always make up the majority

>>514133847
The point is that in parliamentary democracy the will of the people is never implemented, in a country where there is a single powerful leader it is sometimes implemented

>>514130876
>fake countries pretending not to be run by the US and EU do this
Hahaha ok kid relax

True, Hitler was critical of the Habsburg Monarchy (but the faults there are more with Trad Catholicism, desu), but Hitler also slamdunked parliamentary democracy (arguably harder):
Hitler writes in Mein Kampf in his criticism of parliamentarianism:
>Does anybody honestly believe that human progress originates in the composite brain of the majority and not in the brain of the individual personality?

>>514130195 (OP)

Our

>>514134546
This is why only the hoplites voted in the place where they invented democracy

Hitler in Mein Kampf also describes his own disillusionment with parliamentary democracy. Many other people have been raised with a profound belief in the wisdom of statesmen: they are the experts:
>Yet all these, and many others, were defects which could not be attributed to the parliamentary system as such, but rather to the Austrian State in particular. I still believed that if the German majority could be restored in the representative body there would be no occasion to oppose such a system as long as the old Austrian State continued to exist.

>But I soon became enraged by the hideous spectacle that met my eyes. Several hundred representatives were there to discuss a problem of great economical importance and each representative had the right to have his say.

>That experience of a day was enough to supply me with food for thought during several weeks afterwards.

>The intellectual level of the debate was quite low. Some times the debaters did not make themselves intelligible at all. Several of those present did not speak German but only their Slav vernaculars or dialects. Thus I had the opportunity of hearing with my own ears what I had been hitherto acquainted with only through reading the newspapers. A turbulent mass of people, all gesticulating and bawling against one another, with a pathetic old man shaking his bell and making frantic efforts to call the House to a sense of its dignity by friendly appeals, exhortations, and grave warnings.

>I could not refrain from laughing.

>Then I began to reflect seriously on the whole thing. I went to the Parliament whenever I had any time to spare and watched the spectacle silently but attentively. I listened to the debates, as far as they could be understood, and I studied the more or less intelligent features of those 'elect' representatives of the various nationalities which composed that motley State. Gradually I formed my own ideas about what I saw.

>>514134546
Look at the picture there: >>514133309

>>514130876
And no matter who you elect, the do the same thing that everyone before and after them, with some aesthetic changes, most likely of high emotional values that do not question power structures.

Hitler continues.
>A year of such quiet observation was sufficient to transform or completely destroy my former convictions as to the character of this parliamentary institution. I no longer opposed merely the perverted form which the principle of parliamentary representation had assumed in Austria. No. It had become impossible for me to accept the system in itself. Up to that time I had believed that the disastrous deficiencies of the Austrian Parliament were due to the lack of a German majority, but now I recognized that the institution itself was wrong in its very essence and form.

>A number of problems presented themselves before my mind. I studied more closely the democratic principle of 'decision by the majority vote', and I scrutinized no less carefully the intellectual and moral worth of the gentlemen who, as the chosen representatives of the nation, were entrusted with the task of making this institution function.

Hitler continues to make some critical complaints about parliamentarianism:
>The aspect of the situation that first made the most striking impression on me and gave me grounds for serious reflection was the manifest lack of any individual responsibility in the representative body.

>The parliament passes some acts or decree which may have the most devastating consequences, yet nobody bears the responsibility for it. Nobody can be called to account. For surely one cannot say that a Cabinet discharges its responsibility when it retires after having brought about a catastrophe. Or can we say that the responsibility is fully discharged when a new coalition is formed or parliament dissolved? Can the principle of responsibility mean anything else than the responsibility of a definite person?

>Is it at all possible actually to call to account the leaders of a parliamentary government for any kind of action which originated in the wishes of the whole multitude of deputies and was carried out under their orders or sanction? Instead of developing constructive ideas and plans, does the business of a statesman consist in the art of making a whole pack of blockheads understand his projects? Is it his business to entreat and coach them so that they will grant him their generous consent?

>Is it an indispensable quality in a statesman that he should possess a gift of persuasion commensurate with the statesman's ability to conceive great political measures and carry them through into practice?

>Does it really prove that a statesman is incompetent if he should fail to win over a majority of votes to support his policy in an assembly which has been called together as the chance result of an electoral system that is not always honestly administered.

>Has there ever been a case where such an assembly has worthily appraised a great political concept before that concept was put into practice and its greatness openly demonstrated through its success?

Hitler asks us --
>In this world is not the creative act of the genius always a protest against the inertia of the mass?

>What shall the statesman do if he does not succeed in coaxing the parliamentary multitude to give its consent to his policy? Shall he purchase that consent for some sort of consideration?

>Or, when confronted with the obstinate stupidity of his fellow citizens, should he then refrain from pushing forward the measures which he deems to be of vital necessity to the life of the nation? Should he retire or remain in power?

>In such circumstances does not a man of character find himself face to face with an insoluble contradiction between his own political insight on the one hand and, on the other, his moral integrity, or, better still, his sense of honesty?

>Where can we draw the line between public duty and personal honour?

>Must not every genuine leader renounce the idea of degrading himself to the level of a political jobber?

>And, on the other hand, does not every jobber feel the itch to 'play politics', seeing that the final responsibility will never rest with him personally but with an anonymous mass which can never be called to account for their deeds?

>Must not our parliamentary principle of government by numerical majority necessarily lead to the destruction of the principle of leadership?

>Or may it be presumed that for the future human civilization will be able to dispense with this as a condition of its existence?

>But may it not be that, to-day, more than ever before, the creative brain of the individual is indispensable?

Hitler continues.
>The parliamentary principle of vesting legislative power in the decision of the majority rejects the authority of the individual and puts a numerical quota of anonymous heads in its place. In doing so it contradicts the aristocratic principle, which is a fundamental law of nature; but, of course, we must remember that in this decadent era of ours the aristocratic principle need not be thought of as incorporated in the upper ten thousand.

>The devastating influence of this parliamentary institution might not easily be recognized by those who read the Jewish Press, unless the reader has learned how to think independently and examine the facts for himself. This institution is primarily responsible for the crowded inrush of mediocre people into the field of politics. Confronted with such a phenomenon, a man who is endowed with real qualities of leadership will be tempted to refrain from taking part in political life; because under these circumstances the situation does not call for a man who has a capacity for constructive statesmanship but rather for a man who is capable of bargaining for the favour of the majority. Thus the situation will appeal to small minds and will attract them accordingly.

>>514130778
>Not a big issue in Japan or Korea
>keiretsu and chaebol not a big issue
Fucking retard

Hitler in Mein Kampf--
>The narrower the mental outlook and the more meagre the amount of knowledge in a political jobber, the more accurate is his estimate of his own political stock, and thus he will be all the more inclined to appreciate a system which does not demand creative genius or even high-class talent; but rather that crafty kind of sagacity which makes an efficient town clerk. Indeed, he values this kind of small craftiness more than the political genius of a Pericles. Such a mediocrity does not even have to worry about responsibility for what he does. From the beginning he knows that whatever be the results of his 'statesmanship' his end is already prescribed by the stars; he will one day have to clear out and make room for another who is of similar mental calibre. For it is another sign of our decadent times that the number of eminent statesmen grows according as the calibre of individual personality dwindles. That calibre will become smaller and smaller the more the individual politician has to depend upon parliamentary majorities. A man of real political ability will refuse to be the beadle for a bevy of footling cacklers; and they in their turn, being the representatives of the majority–which means the dunder headed multitude–hate nothing so much as a superior brain.

>want to debate national socialists
>National Socialist Workers Party of Germany 1920-1945

It's like asking to debate a communist that didn't starve to death

Hitler criticizing Democracy:
>This new invention of democracy is very closely connected with a peculiar phenomenon which has recently spread to a pernicious extent, namely the cowardice of a large section of our so-called political leaders. Whenever important decisions have to be made they always find themselves fortunate in being able to hide behind the backs of what they call the majority.

>One truth which must always be borne in mind is that the majority can never replace the man. The majority represents not only ignorance but also cowardice. And just as a hundred blockheads do not equal one man of wisdom, so a hundred poltroons are incapable of any political line of action that requires moral strength and fortitude

>The lighter the burden of responsibility on each individual leader, the greater will be the number of those who, in spite of their sorry mediocrity, will feel the call to place their immortal energies at the disposal of the nation. They are so much on the tip-toe of expectation that they find it hard to wait their turn. They stand in a long queue, painfully and sadly counting the number of those ahead of them and calculating the hours until they may eventually come forward. They watch every change that takes place in the personnel of the office towards which their hopes are directed, and they are grateful for every scandal which removes one of the aspirants waiting ahead of them in the queue. If somebody sticks too long to his office stool they consider this as almost a breach of a sacred understanding based on their mutual solidarity. They grow furious and give no peace until that inconsiderate person is finally driven out and forced to hand over his cosy berth for public disposal. After that he will have little chance of getting another opportunity. Usually those placemen who have been forced to give up their posts push themselves again into the waiting queue unless they are hounded away by the protestations of the other aspirants.

>>514130195 (OP)
Democracy lets people that you hate (or who hate you) have power over you. Additionally, you are forced to smile and say that this is a good thing.

Finally, Hitler says
>The whole spectacle of parliamentary life became more and more desolate the more one penetrated into its intimate structure and studied the persons and principles of the system in a spirit of ruthless objectivity. Indeed, it is very necessary to be strictly objective in the study of the institution whose sponsors talk of 'objectivity' in every other sentence as the only fair basis of examination and judgment. If one studied these gentlemen and the laws of their strenuous existence the results were surprising.

>There is no other principle which turns out to be quite so ill-conceived as the parliamentary principle, if we examine it objectively.

>It is not the aim of our modern democratic parliamentary system to bring together an assembly of intelligent and well informed deputies. Not at all. The aim rather is to bring together a group of nonentities who are dependent on others for their views and who can be all the more easily led, the narrower the mental outlook of each individual is. That is the only way in which a party policy, according to the evil meaning it has today, can be put into effect. And by this method alone it is possible for the wirepuller, who exercises the real control, to remain in the dark, so that personally he can never be brought to account for his actions. For under such circumstances none of the decisions taken, no matter how disastrous they may turn out for the nation as a whole, can be laid at the door of the individual whom everybody knows to be the evil genius responsible for the whole affair. All responsibility is shifted to the shoulders of the Party as a whole.

>>514130914
>Dictatorships are often dystopian
This democracy is quickly becoming dystopian. In a democracy you can't say what you want, criticize those in charge, or vote for who you want in a meaningful way. In a democracy those in charge take billions in bribes every year, or use insider trading, as it's nothing.
>>514131240
>Under a dictator you might not even have internet connection
Under democracy if I get caught saying the wrong thing I can be debanked and unable to pay for anything. Under democracy everything I say online is monitored for wrong think and I can be canceled at any time.

>>514135480
You know this spam posting only annoys people, even those who love Hitler

>>514135313
I don't know about Japan but Korea is 100% at the boot of the corpos. This country is cyberpunk in real life and it's not a surprise that they have 0,4 kids per women. Give it 30 years the problem will solve itself.

>>514135412
Communism died in 29, not even from a total war but from it's incapacity to maintain internal order and to produce food.

>>514135355
Uncle A had his feet on the ground, unlike philosophers who have only be interested by fruitless theories.

>>514130195 (OP)
If you still trust the system after the past 30ish years you’re either retarded or jewish. Voting represents nothing more than giving your consent to be assraped.

>>514130195 (OP)
It depends on what you mean. Strictly speaking, I would support a republic with very limited voting writes so that is a representative democracy so to speak. But objectively such a system would be far, far less democratic than what we currently have in the west. It's very clear to me that too much democracy is a bad thing just like how too much power concentrated in one ruler is also a bad thing. A balance needs to be had and we are way too far on the democratic side of the scale.

>>514134531
>What does it says?
My apologies. It's chapter 2. Read this section (starting on page 111) titled "The Destruction of the Idea of Leadership".

https://archive.org/details/mein-kampf-vol.-1/page/111/mode/2up

"Democracy, as practised in Western Europe to-day, is the fore-runner of Marxism. In fact, the latter would not be conceivable without the former. Democracy is the breeding-ground in which the filth of the Marxist world pest can grow and spread. By the introduction of parliamentarianism, democracy produced an abortion of filth and fire, the creative fire of which, however, seems to have died out."
- Adolf Hitler

>>514130594
better than 1 king to enslave the 99 (and that 1 king might be schizophrenic and crazy)

based

>>514136141
The one king can have his head chopped off by a mob. Whose head do you cut off in a democracy?

>>514130195 (OP)
Democracy is naive.
The first thing the wealthy and powerful do is capture all the "representatives" in a representative democracy.
You can vote as much as you like, but the wealthy own all the people you are voting for.
Their interests are guaranteed before a political party even selects candidates because they own the selection process.
ONLY the interests of the wealthy elites are represented in democratic systems.
example.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/abs/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=copy_link&utm_source=bookmark

>>514134357
I am still waiting for you to name one democracy that isn't slamming one of the best country the world have ever seen into the ground.

I oppose democracy because I live in one.

>>514130195 (OP)
The majority, maybe even super majority of people are bad with money. In a situation where people vote for things like budgets they will vote for reckless spending instead of saving and sane financial budgeting. It's no coincidence that every democracy is up to its eyeballs in debt.

>>514135794
Thats why im calling that guy a fucking retard, shit going on there is unabashed late stage corpo/political incestuous bullshit that all of the western deepstate/lobby utterly pales in comparison to and he says no big issue, faggot doesn't what the fuck he's talking about

>>514136141
Medieval peasants had more rights, days off and paid less taxes than us.

We used to shoot communists and nazis.

>>514136330
The people without a head are like a headless chicken squawking and roaming about until it eventually keels over and dies.
Or an amorphous blob unfurling in all directions.
What the people desire is a head, like a singer on the stage, to bring them a community of pleasures and pains, to unite them in one voice.
The corporatist mantra of "One for all, all for one" is what I appeal to.

>>514130326
FPBP
Precisely
/thread

>>514130195 (OP)
>I want to debate people
get lost tranny kike dick sucker pedo

>>514130195 (OP)
>I want to debate people
>Does not actually want to debate people
many such cases

>>514130387
So I can vote for every single law and I can decide how much money will there be in taxes as well where it's spent? Can I also vote to decide what the army has to do?

>>514136716
You did not, and your population wanted to stay off this war or at the very least to join Germany. That's why your government have made it umpossible for Japan to have peae with you and have placed most of its fleet within the range of Japan with no defense and ignored both English and Soviet intelligence who both told your government that they planed to attack you.

>>514130556
>Democracy is 2 wolves and 1 sheep voting on what’s for dinner
No. Democracy is 100 sheep voting for which wolf they want "representing" them
The sheepdog has been imprisoned for hate growls against wolves

While everyone here attacks Democracy, most of you aren't sold on whether to support the unitary mode of politics, the corporatist ideal, OR the mixed constitutionalist, Aristotelian model which people praise here for being more "balanced"...
Until most of you pick the former, the corporatist ideal, you will keep falling for the trappings of political pluralism and a hydra of many heads, be it the democracy or the noble-gowned estates:
It is the same disease really, the former is a multitude of political parties, the latter the multitude of aristocratic estates under numerous heads.
What a one-party state was to multi-party democracy, absolute monarchy represents to the estates-general or nobles -- to the proponents of the mixed constitution, which is invariably the same spirit back then (many noble estates) as today (many political parties): the corporatist ideal is to bring you all as one body under one head (one party or one estate) with the unitary aims.
That is what must be the decisive battle for most of you.

>>514130594
>51 votes to enslave the 49. simple as.
Incorrect

well this australian kike didn't last long

>>514137221
Democracy is when I tell the sheep that the dog and the shepherd work together and they mock me.

>>514137319
I have seen what corpos do when they need complexe scheemes to control a fragment of the power and I do not want to see what happen if they get to dictate every aspect of our lives. You go live to Googleistan, leave me alone.

The most reasonable form of government history have shown so far is a military nobility that does not have the right to enforce on the people violence that they don't enforce on themselves.
Conscription is a crime against humanity and morality.

>>514130195 (OP)
Because democracy relegates the appointment decision to the people least qualified to make it.

>>514138193
the moment he said implement iq tests for competency/voting i knew he was a dumb nigger and this was a sophisticated larp

>>514138193
Such is the path of the man who have recently left the echo chamber he has grown in and who enter a space where ideas are free to circulate. We have all been there. I give him 4 years before he want the military of his country to form a coup to establish a junta.

Democracy is the reason why your country is being flooded with billions of jeets and other undesireable subhumans.
Democracy only rewards psychopaths that would rather rule over a billion of rootless retards than noble men who want the best for their people.
Democracy strives for perpetual mediocrity.
Democracy rewards being average.
Democracy is for retards who will never achieve anything on their own.

>>514132961
>I do though. I want the intelligent and educated masses to decide the structure of the country, not a dictator
>I want democracy, but one where select few get to vote
Just start advocating technocracy then.

The political body depends on sound governance and administration conducted by people capable of and prone to sound reasoning and good instincts. Democracy necessarily subordinates governance not only to the lowest common denominator but powerful intermediate groups which are able to buy votes with money. Leftists seem to be anti-Corproate oligarchy, but strangely defend the political system that subordinates politics to the interests of corporate oligarchs the most.

>>514131240
>- freedom of speech
Won't do shit.
As it is freedom of reach that can influence outcomes.

>>514130195 (OP)
Right now the self-crowned lords of democracy are trying to abolish democracy in order to save democracy. Please explain.

>>514139084
It's hilarious that any instance of a "democratic process" that I've seen in the EU is
>Yuro overlords decide to pass a law that will completely fuck over Europeans
>law doesn't pass
>Yuro overlords start the process over again and again until it passes
Only retards think that democracy is real.

>>514139465
Was about to say this
>>514139084
There's already no influence of the people on what laws get decided both under the sun (EU laws that fuck everyone up, like sanctions to russia, greenpass, chat control and more) and no influence on what goes on the shadow government (in other words, you elect you representative and then they do a 180° on their promises because a shadow entity ordered them to do so).

>>514130387
I'll dumb it down to your level: Western democracy is fake on every level. If the western elites were as fanaticaly democratic as they pretend to be and naively implemented actual democratic principles, western society would collapse in a matter of weeks. That's why there is no marketplace of ideas, that's why the government harasses and persecutes anyone who tries to introduce private political opinions into the official public discussion. Every child knows that.

At the end of the day, I'll rest content if most anons here choose Fascism, Natsoc, or Absolute Monarchy.
Something that asserts the corporatist ideal (Fascism or Natsoc) or absolute monarchy.
Anything else, I am opposed to.

>>514138279
Woe, French anon, don't tell me you fell for the Tocquevillist slop, that rehash of Aristotle's mixed constitutionalism...
Alexis de Tocqueville praised Germany rather than France in keeping the so-called "Old Constitution of Europe".
Whereas Jean Bodin and Louis XIV triumphed France and celebrated the unitary ideals.

>>514139465
The EU is similar to the USSR.

The commission is unelected, uncountable and do whatever the fuck it want. Like the Politburo used to.
The parliament does not have any power and can only approve what the commission have decided, just like the Soviet suprem used to.
Every independent state have to apply those rules in their national laws, just like the independent republics of the USSR used to.

Good morning, I hate the EU.

>>514140103
I just say it would have been better if Austria, not Prussia had unified Germany. And if our revolution had never happened.

All I have now is coward administrators whose only skill is to use emotional content to get low T men and women to vote for them and to trade my money for vote to get the rest.
How can you tell me that the rule of a warrior class would be worse?

>>514140335
I don't care about warrior or priest caste.
What I care about is the pre-eminence of one estate over the other estates, or the pre-eminence of one party over the other parties.
I advocate a unitary mode of politics that is ideal for monarchy or fascism.

>>514130195 (OP)
I was leftie. I read things like Habermas, Rawls and Popper.
Now I'm experiencing that the political left is setting itself up as the savior of the system itself. what tha fuq
You are privileged weirdos who suck the system dry and preach water.
There are some left-wing newspapers that have already asked whether the right is the new left.
As someone who is more intellectually gifted than you. The answer is yes.
You re left, you re a system whore.

what good is classism when you erode your very tribal identity into nothingness
democracy makes your open door system vulnerable for subterfuge and infiltration to by-partisans
if you have no sovereignty on a fundamental level you are surrendering citizenship for replacement theory

>>514130387
We live in constitutional republic. Otherwise we would had more voices instead of having weird mandates shoved on us unauthorized.

>>514139811
You have buckbroken him

>>514130529
After all Italy had been all over the political spectrum. USA is dull by compare. .

Let me go over this real quick so anons are on the same page about the origin & history of this debate:
Plato Republic:
>That the other citizens too must be sent to the task for which their natures were fitted, one man to one work, in order that each of them fulfilling his own function may be not many men, but one, and so the entire city may come to be not a multiplicity but a unity.

Plato Republic:
>For factions… are the outcome of injustice, and hatreds and internecine conflicts, but justice brings oneness of mind and love.

Plato Laws:
>That all men are, so far as possible, unanimous in the praise and blame they bestow, rejoicing and grieving at the same things, and that they honor with all their heart those laws which render the State as unified as possible

Thomas Hobbes
>The error concerning mixed government [constitutionalism] has proceeded from want of understanding of what is meant by this word body politic, and how it signifies not the concord, but the union of many men.

Plato advocated a unitary ideal of policy, a unitary mode of politics -- "the entire city may come to be not a multiplicity but a unity" Plato says.
Plato said that political (a city) & economical (a household) are not very different in their science / kind of knowledge, if you know how to rule one estate, you know how to the rule the state.
But Aristotle said that politics is more pluralistic (political pluralism), that political and economical don't have the same science / knowledge, that the state should be a partnership of clans (multi-parties) rather than a corporatist ideal (one unitary body).

>>514140641
Both the left and the right used to work for the rich. Now the rich have gone so far that the population who support being normal have united under the new right, which have to fight both the left and the old right.

Aristotle / Since the nature of a State is to be a plurality
>Further, as a means to the end which he ascribes to the State, the scheme, taken literally is impracticable, and how we are to interpret it is nowhere precisely stated. I am speaking of the premise from which the argument of Socrates proceeds, "That the greater the unity of the State the better." Is it not obvious that a state at length attain such a degree of unity as to be no longer a State? since the nature of a State is to be plurality, and in tending to greater unity, from being a State, it becomes a Family, and from being a Family, an Individual; for the Family may be said to be more than the State, and the Individual than the family. So that we ought not to attain this greatest unity even if we could, for it would be the destruction of the State. Again, a State is not made up only of so many men, but of different kinds of men.

Aristotle / state is a partnership of families and of clans in living well, and its object is a full and independent life.
And a state is the partnership of clans and villages in a full and independent life, which in our view constitutes a happy and noble life;
>These are necessary preconditions of a state's existence, yet nevertheless, even if all these conditions are present, that does not therefore make a state, but a state is a partnership of families and of clans in living well, and its object is a full and independent life. At the same time this will not be realized unless the partners do inhabit one and the same locality and practise intermarriage; this indeed is the reason why family relationships have arisen throughout the states, and brotherhoods and clubs for sacrificial rites and social recreations. But such organization is produced by the feeling of friendship, for friendship is the motive of social life; therefore, while the object of a state is the good life, these things are means to that end. And a state is the partnership of clans and villages in a full and independent life, which in our view constitutes a happy and noble life; the political fellowship must therefore be deemed to exist for the sake of noble actions, not merely for living in common. Hence those who contribute most to such fellowship have a larger part in the state than those who are their equals or superiors in freedom and birth but not their equals in civic virtue, or than those who surpass them in wealth but are surpassed by them in virtue.

>>514141183
Special elections disagrees with you in USA.

Aristotle Politics / Anti-State Corporatism / Anti-Absolute Monarchy
>For the people becomes a monarch, and is many in one; and the many have the power in their hands, not as individuals, but collectively. Homer says that ‘it is not good to have a rule of many,’ but whether he means this corporate rule, or the rule of many individuals, is uncertain. At all events this sort of democracy, which is now a monarch and no longer under the control of law, seeks to exercise monarchical sway, and grows into a despot; the flatterer is held in honor; this sort of democracy being relatively to other democracies what tyranny is to other forms of monarchy. The spirit of both is the same, and they alike exercise a despotic rule over the better citizens.
Contrast this with Plato again (who does support many in one & state corporatism & unitary notions of State)
>That the other citizens too must be sent to the task for which their natures were fitted, one man to one work, in order that each of them fulfilling his own function may be not many men, but one, and so the entire city may come to be not a multiplicity but a unity.

>>514140527
You may want to know that this self absorbed retard have burned all our money in his lavish lifestyle. We spent more money to put water in his fountains than the English had to colonize the new world.
It did resulted in the first machine of the industrial age, the Marly machine, a long time before the use of coal, but still. He was a fucking pimp and it's not a surprise that the merchant class have deposited monarchy one century later.

Aristotle writes in Politics,
>Now there is an erroneous opinion that a statesman, king, householder, and a master are the same, and that they differ, not in kind, but only in the number of their subjects. For example, the ruler over a few is called a master; over more, the manager of a household; over a still larger number, a statesman or king, as if there were no difference between a great household and a small state.

Aristotle:
>The rule of a household is a monarchy, for every house is under one head:
>whereas constitutional rule is a government of freemen and equals.

<Plato / There won't be any difference, so far as ruling is concerned, between the character of a great household & the bulk of a small city
>Visitor: Well then, surely there won't be any difference, so far as ruling is concerned, between the character of a great household, on the one hand, and the bulk of a small city on the other? – Young Socrates: None. – It's clear that there is one sort of expert knowledge concerned with all these things; whether someone gives this the name of kingship, or statesmanship, or household management, let's not pick any quarrel with him.

>>514136988
Because some people cannot be reasoned with

principles are just semantics to hide human nature
the same is for language
hide actions, create illusions

>>514141409
In 16, half of the republican party ran against their own candidate. Explain that to me if you think democracies are not a tool of the powerful to fool the masses. Even in 20 a large part of this party ran against him.
The entirety of the press was partisan.

>>514141625
RARE! RARE!

Democracy doesn't work on a scale larger than city and when the rulers segregated from the people they rule over.

>>514141183
the left has been so brainwashed.
The street beating gangs of capitalists and these scumbags think they are fighting for the good. You have to be that retarded in the head.

In short, in the history of political thought, the unitary ideals that Plato established is represented today in one-party states / absolute monarchies (nazis, fascists, real monarchists) vs mixed constitutionalists who support multi-party democracies or elite estates.
Plato believed in a community of pleasures and pains, where all the city is united in their emotions: the race ideal of an ethno-state is really the same idea, to dissolve the different properties of persons into one race so people are more united.

Plato Republic - Community of Pleasures & Pains
>And there is unity where there is community of pleasures and pains–where all the citizens are glad or grieved on the same occasions of joy and sorrow?

>No doubt.

>Yes; and where there is no common but only private feeling a State is disorganized–when you have one half of the world triumphing and the other plunged in grief at the same events happening to the city or the citizens?

>Certainly.

That is what pic related represents.

>>514141523
Louis XIV was a great king.
Alexis de Tocqueville simped for Germany rather than France and longed to establish a mixed constitutionalist / oligarchic system of the elite nobles, a plurality of heads, rather than the pre-eminence of one ruler.

>>514130195 (OP)
Pure democracy allows retards to have a say simple as.
Imagine being in a house with you, your wife and a downs syndrome child. You all vote on how the house will work and the downs kid has a say. This is ofc preposterous right? Well that's democracy. It's a stupid system that even greek philosophers spat on.
A republic or monarchy with voting granted to some like a senate for example is a far more efficient way of dealing with things, the masses should also have a right to bear arms so if things go really bad the masses can rebel and overthrow the senate and government.
Rome had it correctly.

Half of the people here have read plato, half of them have understood how retarded it is to discuss it.
Please your stage - you know you won't get anywhere. :>

>>514130195 (OP)
>Explain to me why you think Democracy is wrong, and I will argue why I think it is good
Direct democracy with limited voting rights like Ancient Greece had is good.

Parliamentarism is a breeding ground for corruption and thus attracts destructive jews like shit would flies.

>>514142459
Limited voting rights is key in that sentence otherwise it falls apart.

>>514142558
To add, women should never have a say in govermental issues. No i dont hate women, no i am not seething, it's just simple facts that women ruin a society with their idiotic ideas.

>>514142222
Alexis might have been a faggot, it does not make Louis XIV a good king. This bitch would run the country almost randomly as his "good pleasure" was at the moment. Why do you think England became more powerful than us?

>"The old European constitution was better preserved in Germany than France", says Alexis de Tocqueville.
>"Whenever I discovered in the old legislation of Germany" recounts Alexis de Tocqueville.
>"Royalty had nothing in common with medieval royalty", says Tocqueville.
He simped for Germany over France; Tocqueville wanted France to be more like Germany, where a plurality of heads had the pre-eminence rather than one Caesar.

>>514141625
National Socialists on /pol/ are extremely reasonable

>>514133296
>it’s a transformable system

It most certainly has not been for the duration of my life or that of my parents. It always serves to protect the wealthy with power, and only them.

>Other forms of government don’t have bureaucracy


lol wtf am I reading.

>>514142786
They came to be NatSoc precisely because they are reasonable people who use those faculties.

>>514142558
Neither women nor low T men.
Such a democracy would be called a republic, or have so few electors that it would be more like the HRE.

>>514142954
Indeed and it is much better than whatever modern bullshit we have now.

Contrast Tocquevillie with a true French chauvinist: Jean Bodin

Jean Bodin / French Royalism, Loyalty, & Patriotism
>The King is so united with his subjects, that they are still willing to spend their goods, their blood, and lives, for the defence of his estate, honour, and life; and cease not after his death to write, sing, and publish his praises, amplifying them also in what they can.

>But we pour out all our fortunes and our blood for the safety of King and Country

Jean Bodin recounts that the Kings of France are the very best Kings of Christendom.
>Upon this difference cast themselves into the protection of the Kings of France, who were the GREATEST Monarchs of Christendom; wherein they were not of their hope deceived.

>>514142786
I used to be a brainwashed goodboy, blupilled to the bones, but then I tried to show the nazis how wrong they were.
He was the greatest man who ever lived and his only mistake is to not have killed the Jews.

Jean Bodin praises Philip the Fair even:
"But howsoever the Bishop of Rome pretended to have a sovereignty over all Christian princes, not only in spiritual, but also in temporal affairs, whether they got it by force of arms, or by the devotion and grant of princes; or by long possession and prescription: yet could not our kings even for any most short time endure the servitude of the Bishop of Rome, nor be moved with any their excommunication, which the Popes used as firebrands to the firing of Christian Commonwealths. For these Popes interdictions, or excommunications, were wont with other nations, to draw the subjects from the obedience and reverence of their prince: but such has always been the love of our kings towards their people (and so I hope shall be forever) and loyalty of the people towards their kings: that when pope Boniface the Eight saw himself nothing to prevail by his excommunication, nor that the people were to be drawn from the obedience of their king, after he had publically excommunicated Philip the Fair, he in like manner excommunicated all the French nation, with all them which took Philip for a king."
- Jean Bodin

"But Philip having called together an assembly of his princes, and other his nobility, and pereceving in his subjects in general a wonderful consent for his defense of his state and sovereignty: he thereupon writ letters unto Boniface (which are common in every man's hand) to reprove him of his folly: and shortly after sent Nogaret with his army into the Pope's territory, who took the Pope prisoner, (giving him well to understand that the King was not his subject, as he had by his Bull published) but seeing him through impatience to become furious and mad, he set him again at liberty. Yet from that the Pope's interdiction, the King by the advice of his nobility and Senat, appealed unto a general council, which had power over the Pope, abusing the holy cities. For the king next unto Almighty God had none his superior, unto whom he might appeal: but the Pope is bound unto the decrees and commands of the council. And long times before Philip the Victorious, and his realm being interdicted by Pope Alexander the Third, who would have brought him into his subjection: answered him by letters, That he held nothing of the pope, nor yet of any prince in the world. Benedict the third, and Julius the second, had used the like excommunication against Charles the seventh, and Lewes the twelfth (who was called the Father of his country) that so as with firebrands they might inflame the people to rebellion: yet failed they both of their hope, the obedience of the subjects being nothing diminished, but rather increased: the Bull of excommunication which the Popes legat brought into France, being by the decree of the parliament of Paris openly torn to pieces, and the legat for his presumptuousness cast in prison… True it is, that they which have thought better to assure the majesty of the Kings of France against the power of the Pope, have obtained the Pope's bulls whilest they yet stat in the city of Auignion to be exempted from their power."
- Jean Bodin

Jean Bodin, like Voltaire, on the HRE
"The way in which the Germans define a monarchy is absurd, that is, according to the interpretation of Philip Melanchthon, as the most powerful of all states. It is even more absurd that they think they hold the empire of the Romans, which of course would seem laughable to all who have well in mind the map of the world. The empire of the Romans was most flourishing under Trajan."

Jean Bodin roasting the HRE continued
"The Germans, however, hold no part of the Roman Empire except Noricum and Vindelicia. Germany is bounded by the Rhine, the Danube, the Vistula, the Carpathian Mountains, and the ocean, but all authority ends at the foothills of the Alps in the south; by the Rhine and a few cities this side of the Rhine in the west; by Silesia, in turn, on the east; by the Baltic regions on the north. How much truer it is of the king of the Turks, who took Byzantium, the capital of the empire, from the Christians, the region of Babylon, which is discussed in the book of Daniel, from the Persians, and joined a great part of his dominion beyond the Danube, up to the mouth of the Dnieper, to the old Roman provinces?"

Jean Bodin roasts HRE / Germany more (unlike Tocqueville who wishes France was more like this).
"Now, if we identify monarchy with force of arms, or with great wealth, or with fertility of areas, or with the number of victories, or with the size of population, or with etymology of the name, or with the fatherland of Daniel, or with the seat of the Babylonian empire, or with the amplitude of sway, it will be more appropriate, certainly, to interpret the prophecy of Daniel as applied to the sultan of the Turks."Turning to foreign nations, what has Germany to oppose to the sultan of the Turks? Or which state can more aptly be called a monarchy? This fact is obvious to everyone–If there is anywhere in the world any majesty of empire and of true monarchy, it must radiate from the Sultan. He owns the richest parts of Asia, Africa, and Europe, and he rules far and wide over the entire Mediterranean and all but a few of its islands. Moreover, in armed forces and strength he is such that he alone is the equal of almost all the princes, since he drove the armies of the Persians and the Muscovites far beyond the boundaries of the empire. But he seized provinces of the Christians and the empire of the Greeks by force of arms, and even devastated the lands of the Germans. I shall not discuss the prince of Ethiopia, called by his people Jochan Bellul, that is, precious gem, whose empire is little less than all Europe. What of the emperor of the Tartars, who rules tribes barbarous in their savagery, countless in number, unconquered in strength? If you compare Germany with these, you compare a fly to an elephant."

Democracy is a spook
>The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Finally, Jean Bodin says
"Finally, all the peoples of the earth except Germans, Swiss with their allies, Venetians, Ragusans, Lucchese, and Genoese, who are ruled by the power of Optimates or have Popular governments. But if so many people are uncivilized because they have hereditary kings, oh, where will be the abode of culture? The fact that Aristotle thought it disastrous, however, seems to me much more absurd. For in the first place an interregnum is clearly dangerous, since the State, like a ship, without a pilot, is tossed about by the waves of sedition and often sinks. This happened after the death of Emperor Frederick II. The country, in a state of anarchy, was without an emperor for eighteen years on account of the civil war among the princes."

Jean Bodin: Indigenous, Native People of America Retain Royal Power & Marvel at Rule of Optimates like Germany & Venice
"Moreover, from earliest memory the people of America always have retained the royal power. They do not do this because they have been taught, but from custom. They were not trained by Aristotle, but shaped by their leader, nature. Furthermore, when they hear that the rule of optimates exists in some corners of Italy or Germany, they marvel that this can be."

See. Jean Bodin and the French typically associated Germany and Venice with the regime of the Optimates / Oligarchism (which Tocqueville wanted the France to be more like -- how cucked is that?)

Louis XIV on HRE
>An on this subject, my son, lest they should try to impress you sometimes with the wonderful names of Roman Empire, of Caesar, of Imperial Majesty, of successor to the great emperors from whom we derive our origin, I feel obliged to indicate to you how far the emperors of today are removed from the greatness of the titles that they affect.

>When these titles were introduced into our house, it reigned all at once over France, the Low Countries, Germany, Italy, and most of Spain, which it had distributed among various individual lords, while preserving sovereignty over it. The bloody defeats of many peoples issuing from the north and from the south for the ruin of Christendom had made the French name the terror of the whole earth. Charlemagne, finally, seeing no king in all Europe, nor, to tell the truth, anywhere else in the world, whose fortunes could compare with his, this title seemed henceforth unsuitable either for them or for him. He had risen to this high point of glory not by the choice of some prince, but by courage and by victories, which are the choice and the votes of Heaven Itself when It has resolved to subordinate the other powers to a single one. And there had not been any dominion as extensive as his except for the four famous monarchies to which the empire of the entire world is attributed, although they had never conquered nor possessed any more than a small part of it, yet important and well known in the world. That of the Romans was the last, entirely extinct in the West and with only some feeble remnants in the East, miserable and languishing.

>>514144609
You have a standing army and a central bank.
Not one shot fired.

>>514144935
the american empire is completely separate from the american people, we are but slaves to its inflation. The mass importation of dysgenics prevents any sort of cohesive consciousness. Reminder it was German immigrants that deleted our militias

>>514130195 (OP)
Democracy, do you mean allowing the plebs to vote as long as the asset owning class doesn’t suffer from it? Democracy is not alive in the west, 95% of what countries do is not on the ballot, the system is fundamentally dead already

>I fail to see, therefore, my son, for what reason the kings of France, hereditary kings who can boast that there isn't either a better house, nor greater power, nor more absolute authority than theirs anywhere else in the world today, should rank below these elective princes. It cannot be denied, nonetheless, that the popes, as a consequence of what they had done, have gradually given precedence at the court of Rome to the ambassadors of the Emperor over all the others and most of the courts in Christendom have imitated this example without our predecessors having made any effort to prevent it.

>In short, my son, while I have not believed I should ask for anything new in Christendom on this matter, I have believed even less that, in my position, I should in any way tolerate anything new by which these princes might affect to assume the least superiority over me; and I counsel you to do the same, noting, however, how much virtue is to be esteemed, since, after such a long time, that of the Romans, that of the first Caesars, and that of Charlemagne still secure, without adequate reason, more honor than is due to the empty name and to the empty shadow of their empire.

Anyways, French anon, I am feeding you the opinions of Jean Bodin and Louis XIV on Germany...
Just to show you how cucked it is that Alexis de Tocqueville would do the opposite: "I want to be more like Germany!"
...
France was the definitive ROYALISM at the time. It was THE pre-eminent Monarchy of Europe...
It is a shame Frenchmen idolize their Alexis de Tocqueville or Bertrand de Jouvenel... Tocquevillism is an Aristotelian disease telling them to embrace mixed constitutionalism...
...And England? Look at England today, French anon, their King is a eunuch: do you want the Kings of France to be eunuchs / fake monarchy...?

>>514144935
Oh also, the US literally had a civil war to prevent the american empire. The good guys lost

The French Monarchy may have died, but it would be more shameful if it lived to be like King Charles III today: a eunuch.
It was a Monarchy worthy of that name.

The King of France was a pre-eminent monarch.
He had the power of the whole state, meeting the qualities of a pre-eminent Monarch.
Even Aristotle notes what a Monarchy of pre-eminence looks like (saying this after Plato's Laws would also cover that).

Aristotle - Qualities of a Pre-eminent Monarch:
>1. Agreeable to that ground of right which of the great founders of States
>2. It would not be right to kill, or ostracize, or exile such a person
>3. [We should not] require that he should take his turn in being governed
>4. He who has this pre-eminence is in the relation of the Whole to a part
>5. He should have the supreme power and subjects' obedience
>6. Is like a demigod among men

THE GREAT FOUNDER / PRE-EMINENT MONARCHY
As explained by Aristotle in Politics
>Further, the state is by nature clearly prior to the family and to the individual since the whole is of necessity prior to the part… The proof that the state is a creation of nature and prior to the individual is that the individual, when isolated, is not self-sufficing; and therefore he is like a part in relation to the Whole. But He who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because He is sufficient for himself, must either be a Beast or a God! A social instinct is implanted in all men by nature.
<& yet he who first FOUNDED the state was the GREATEST of benefactors!

>But when a whole family or some individual, happens to be so pre-eminent in virtue as to surpass all others, then it is just that they should the royal family and supreme over all, or that this one citizen should be king of the whole nation. For, as I said before, to give them authority is not only agreeable to that ground of right which the FOUNDER of all states… are accustomed to put forward … but accords with the principle already laid down. For surely it would not be right to kill, or ostracize, or exile such a person, or… require that he should take his turn in being governed. The Whole is naturally superior to the part, and he who has this pre-eminence is in the relation of the Whole [the State] to a part. But if so, the only alternative is that he should have the supreme power, and that mankind should obey him, not in turn, but always!

Aristotle went on to say.
>Any would be ridiculous who attempted to make laws for them: they would probably retort what, in the fable of Antisthenes, the lions said to the hares.

>For surely it would not be right to kill, or ostracize, or exile such a person, or… require that he should take his turn in being governed–the whole is naturally superior to the part, and he who has this pre-eminence is in the relation of the whole to the part. But if so the only alternative is that he should have the supreme power, and that mankind should obey him, not in turn, but always.

>Such an one may truly be deemed a god among men. Hence we see that legislation is necessarily concerned only with those who are equal in birth and in capacity; and for men of pre-eminent virtue there is no law–they are themselves a law (living law).

>>514130195 (OP)
>but the people.... are retarded

Of course, Aristotle after setting the bar this high (& increasing my suspicion of him as a monarchist) said that this was unattainable, and left it not to Greek kings but the kings of the East. (Aristotle nonetheless would promote mixed constitutionalism and not a pre-eminent monarchy, but even Aristotle knew such an ideal).
–
>Now, if some men excelled others in the same degree in which gods and heroes are supposed to excel mankind in general (having in the first place a great advantage even in their bodies, and secondly in their minds), so that the superiority of the governors was undisputed and patent to their subjects, it would clearly be better that once for an the one class should rule and the other serve. But since this is unattainable, and kings have no marked superiority over their subjects, such as Scylax affirms to be found among the Indians, it is obviously necessary on many grounds that all the citizens alike should take their turn of governing and being governed

there is no democracy because the people who control the propaganda control who people vote for
>just start your own propaganda network to compete with the people who own the money supply and every human from birth bro
we need more shitskins because we voted for them! based!

Even the English knew what the ideal of monarchical pre-eminence looked like:
The Pre-eminence of King Charles II:
>His comely presence, meekness, majesty,
>Do Adamantine lustre far out-vie;
>If to be highly born it is great bliss,
>What Prince for Birth may you compare with his?
…
>Behold your King then thousands more tall
>In Grace, Power, Virtues, higher than you all
>When Kingship, Persons, Virtues thus you see
>All meet in one, happy's that Monarchy
>Not Solomon in Glory may compare
- P. Dormer's Monarchia Triumphans, 1666.

>>514130195 (OP)
democracy doesn't exist, its a mask for neoliberal capitalism / oligarchy, in your so called democracy the state has no power only mega corporations do and their interest consists only of making profit not wellbeing of the country and its people

>>514130195 (OP)
Empirically, democracy does not work as advertised. Nothing the people want is being developed per democratic process as endlessly communicated (it's really incredible to see how much daily propaganda we produce). Elites/jews like it because they can game the system any way they like, with no accountability and high deniability.
The two party system is now everywhere and works as intended as we're entering the decay phase where everybody is blaming everone else.

It "worked" in the past because we were coasting on fumes with no real comptetition.
Democracy is not even a scam anymore.
It's actually the other way around where "democracy" (false, see premise) enjoyers should tell us why we should bother with it.

>>514147843
national socialistic monarchy is the solution

>>514130445
>lobbying
Definitely something classical liberals couldn't fully account for. Representative democracy is a check on tyranny of the majority. But at modern scale, representatives are far too easily corrupted by money and ideology.
But also:
>mass media
Technically, there was mass media during the 18th century. Newspapers, pamphlets, books-- all manner of mass-produced writing was disseminated to the population. But it's nothing like the speed, scale and manipulative power of modern media and "big tech".

>>514138886
>Democracy is the reason why your country is being flooded with billions of jeets and other undesireable subhumans.
Not true in the slightest. This is one issue where it's specifically corruption/capture of the the counter-democratic safeguards meant to protect the people from tyranny of the majority, which are being exploited to work against the good of the people.

Mass immigration is massively unpopular in EVERY SINGLE western country, despite many years of activist propaganda and brainwashing. Elected leaders who allow mass migration do so against the will of the majority in every single case.

>>514130195 (OP)
Fuck your Democracy. Fuck your freedoms. Fuck your “free will.”

WE TREAD.

>>514130195 (OP)
Democracy is rule by (((money))) and (((propaganda))). Not only domestic money mind you, but international money(finance), and international media.

>>514130195 (OP)
You don't have democracy, you live in a jewish oligarchy. Why keep fooling yourself?

>>514130387
No, it doesn't. You lost from the start.

>>514130195 (OP)
Democracy is gay and retarded
Case closed

>>514132961
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA
"i want democracy but only for the people i want to make decisions"
welcome brother, just so you know, you're here forever.

>>514130326
>Democracy does not exist
Not only does it not exist, but the reason people think democracy "works" is precisely because it doesn't exist.

All governments are oligarchies. They always have been, and they always will be.

The only difference between governments is the extent to which public-opinion/consent can be manufactured.

Where public-opinion can be controlled, and thus thereby coincides with the national interests, you have freedom. Where public-opinion can't be controlled, or where it otherwise conflicts with the national interests, you have authoritarianism.

This principle is the same for religion.

As C.S. Lewis wrote...

"It is objected that the ultimate loss of a single soul means the defeat of omnipotence. And so it does. In creating beings with free will, omnipotence from the outset submits to the possibility of such defeat. What you call defeat, I call miracle: for to make things which are not Itself, and thus to become, in a sense, capable of being resisted by it’s own handiwork, is the most astonishing and unimaginable of all the feats we attribute to the Deity. I willingly believe that the damned are, in one sense, successful, rebels to the end; that the doors of hell are locked on the inside. I do not mean that the ghosts may not wish to come out of hell, in the vague fashion wherein an envious man ‘wishes’ to be happy: but they certainly do not will even the first preliminary stages of that self-abandonment through which alone the soul can reach any good. They enjoy forever the horrible freedom they have demanded, and are therefore self-enslaved: just as the blessed, forever submitting to obedience, become through all eternity more and more free."


You are only "free" to do "good". Therefore you can only be free insofar as your only desire is to do "good". Or as the saying goes, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary."

>>514130588
>>514130195 (OP)
>>514130529
>>514130808
>>514131025
>>514131420
Trying to defend or criticize democracy is a waste of time.

The simple reality is, the rich always get what they want.
The moment the rich aren't getting what they want, they will overthrow the government.
Democracy is just another means of control. An ideological strategy. It exists insofar as it is effective.

Regardless, stop thinking like a fucking pleb. Think like a kike. What good is democracy to a kike?

>>514144961
Thanks for the quality posts

>>514132961
>I want the intelligent and educated masses to decide the structure of the country
pretty sure thats how china works and it works quite well for them, 1 party in absolute control but is a meritocracy

>>514130195 (OP)
I'm pro democracy (the original jew free democracy where you can easily kick out undesirables and subversives and only the free men are able to vote but women and slaves can not)

>>514130195 (OP)
Democracy killed Socrates.

>>514130195 (OP)
Read this book first, then come back

https://archive.org/details/liberty-or-equality

>>514154701
I do what I can.

State Corporatism is a unitary politics with the State as one personhood, a living organism, a higher personality and being; not to be confused with a collection of private corporations.
The ideology of State Corporatism traces its lineage back to Plato's Republic, Hobbes' Leviathan, and the formation of one-party States and Fascism.

Gentile
>It is the State that possesses a concrete will & must be considered a person.

Giuseppe Bottai
>However, in speaking of the corporative State, it must not be understood as meaning only all that which pertains to the relations between employers and workers – relations based on a principle of collaboration rather than upon a struggle of classes. Fascism with its new arrangements aims at a more complex end. This, summed up in a few words, is "to reassert the sovereignty of the State over those syndicates, which, whether of an economic or social kind, when left to themselves broke out at one time against the State, subjecting the will of the individual to their own arbitrary decision, almost musing the rise of judicial provisions alien to the legal order of the State, opposing their own right to the right of the State, subordinating to their own interests the defenceless classes, and even the general interest, of which the State is naturally the judge, champion and avenger."

Mario Palmieri:
>To make this discipline possible, and the sovereignty effective in practice as well as in theory, Fascism has devised the “Corporazione,” an instrument of social life destined to exercise the most far-reaching influence upon the economic development of Fascist States. (The Italian word “Corporazione” which is currently translated into English by the apparently analogous word “Corporation,” means, more exactly in the Italian language, what the word “Guild” means in English; that is: associations of persons engaged in kindred pursuits. We shall nevertheless follow the general usage to obviate the danger of misunderstandings.)
>Within the Corporations the interests of producers and consumers, employers and employees, individuals and associations are interlocked and integrated in a unique and univocal way, while all types of interests are brought under the aegis of the State.

Fausto Pitigliani
>That the Corporation has no legal independent personality but is an organ of the State Administration.
>To these organs, which take the name of Corporations and link the various productive activities of the country as members of one body
>The Corporations constitute the unitary organisation of the forces of production and represent all their interests.
>In virtue of this integral representation, and in view of the fact that the interests of production are the interests of the Nation, the law recognises the Corporations as State organs.

For clarity, Hobbes Leviathan also takes this stance on the limitation of subordinate corporations and the sovereign relationship of the state corporation:
>Of Regular, some are Absolute, and Independent, subject to none but their own Representative: such are only Common-wealths [or States]; Of which I have spoken already in the 5. last preceding chapters. Others are Dependent; that is to say, Subordinate to some Soveraign Power, to which every one, as also their Representative is Subject.
>Of Systemes subordinate, some are Politicall, and some Private. Politicall (otherwise Called Bodies Politique, and Persons In Law,) are those, which are made by authority from the Soveraign Power of the Common-wealth. Private, are those, which are constituted by Subjects amongst themselves, or by authoritie from a stranger. For no authority derived from forraign power, within the Dominion of another, is Publique there, but Private.
>In All Bodies Politique [Any Corporation under the State] The Power of The Representative is Limited.
>In Bodies Politique, the power of the Representative is always Limited: And that which prescribes the limits thereof, is the Power Sovereign. For Power Unlimited, is absolute Sovereignty. And the Sovereign, in every Commonwealth, is the absolute Representative of all the Subjects.

Jean Bodin also adds.
>Provided that they [the family] are joined together by the legitimate and limited rule of the father.
>I have said "limited", since this fact chiefly distinguishes the Family from the State.
>That the latter [The State] has the final and public authority.
>The former [The Family or Household] limited and private rule.

>>514130195 (OP)
>i want to debate
Dicklet, you are a tiny brained scumbag benefiting from the failure of government, you are like a parasite lobbying for sickness and debilitation.
Kys. Go find your penis.

Benito Mussolini:
Speech of the Ascension, May 26, 1927
The Unitary State
>But in the meantime I come to an essential point of my speech: perhaps the most important. What have we Fascists done in these last five years? We did something huge, monumental, centuries in the making. What have we made? We have created the Italian Unitary State. Consider that from the time of the Empire onward, Italy was no longer a unitary State. Here we solemnly reaffirm our doctrine concerning the State; here I reaffirm my formula in the speech I delivered at La Scala in Milan: "Everything within the State, nothing against the State". I do not even think anyone in the 20th century can live outside the State, unless they are in a state of barbarism, a state of savagery.

>It is only the State that gives people a consciousness of itself. If the people are not organized, if the people are not a State, they are simply a population that will be at the mercy of the first group of internal adventurers or external invaders. Because, dear gentlemen, only the State with its juridical organization, with its military force, prepared at all times, can defend the national collectivity; but if the human collectivity is broken up and reduced to the mere nucleus of the family, a few hundred Normans will suffice to conquer Puglia.

>What was the State – that State which we took over as it was breathing its last breath, gnawed by constitutional crises, debased by its organic impotence? The State which we conquered at the time of the March on Rome was the one which has been handed down from 1850 onward. It was not a State, but a system of badly organized prefectures, in which the prefect had but one preoccupation: that of being an efficient electoral errand boy.

>>514130195 (OP)
>majority always knows best
Fucking kekkerdekek!

Hobbes Elements of Law
http://www.public-library.uk/ebooks/31/91.pdf
>And as this union into a city or body politic, is instituted with common power over all the particular persons, or members thereof, to the common good of them all; so also may there be amongst a multitude of those members, instituted a subordinate union of certain men, for certain common actions to be done by those men for some common benefit of theirs, or of the whole city; as for subordinate government, for counsel, for trade, and the like. And these subordinate bodies politic are usually called CORPORATIONS; and their power such over the particulars of their own society, as the whole city whereof they are members have allowed them.

>In all cities or bodies politic not subordinate, but independent, that one man or one council, to whom the particular members have given that common power, is called their SOVEREIGN, and his power the sovereign power. which consisteth in the power and the strength that every of the members have transferred to him from themselves, by covenant. And because it is impossible for any man really to transfer his own strength to another, or for that other to receive it; it is to be understood: that to transfer a man's power and strength, is no more but to lay by or relinquish his own right of resisting him to whom he so transferreth it. And every member of the body politic, is called a SUBJECT, (viz.) to the sovereign

>>514130195 (OP)
In the simplest terms id put in this way:
Is virtue common or is it scarce?
Is it easier to find many men who are selfless and rational and caring enough to make decisions in the best interest of the whole nation or is it easier to find one??
If we know we accept the virtues that make a good ruler are hard to come by and are easier found in a few man rather then in many then why would we trust the direction of the state to the many rather then the few???
Why would we INCREASE the number of variables which need to come up favorable for their to be success?

Bodin / The unity of sovereignty
>No otherwise than Theseus his ship, which although it were an hundred times changed by putting in of new planks, yet still retained the old name. But as a ship, if the keel (which strongly bears up the prow, the poup, the ribs, and tacklings) be taken away, is no longer a ship, but an ill favoured houp of wood; even so a Commonwealth, without a sovereignty of power, which unites in one body all members and families of the same is no more a Commonwealth, neither can by and means long endure. And not to depart from our similitude; as a ship may be quite broken up, or altogether consumed with fire; so may also the people into diverse places dispersed, or be utterly destroyed, the City or state yet standing whole; for it is neither the walls, neither the persons, that makes the city, but the union of the people under the same sovereignty of government.

>Now the sovereign prince is exalted above all his subjects, and exempt out of the rank of them: whose majesty suffers no more division than doth the unity itself, which is not set nor accounted among the numbers, howbeit that they all from it take both their force and power…. being indeed about to become much more happy if they had a sovereign prince, which with his authority and power might (as doth the understanding) reconcile all the parts, and so unite and bind them fast in happiness together.

<For that as of unity depends the union of all numbers, which have no power but from it: so also is one sovereign prince in every Commonweale necessary, from the power of whom all others orderly depend

>Wherefore what the unity is in numbers, the understanding in the powers of the soul, and the center in a circle: so likewise in this world that most mighty king, in unity simple, in nature indivisible, in purity most holy, exalted far above the Fabric of the celestial Spheres, joining this elementary world with the celestiall and intelligible heavens

>>514130326
FPBP. OP is a fag

It is of no importance whether the families come together in the same place or live in separate homes and area.
>It is of no importance whether the families come together in the same place or live in separate homes and area. It is said to be no other than the same family even if the father lives apart from children and servants, or these in their turn apart from each other by an interval of space, provided that they are joined together by the legitimate and limited rule of the father. I have said "limited," since this fact chiefly distinguishes the family from the state – that the latter has the final and public authority. The former limited and private rule. So, also, it is still the same government, made up of many families, even if the territories and the settlements are far apart, provided only that they are in the guardianship of the same sovereign power: either one rules all; or all, the individuals; or a few, all. From this it comes about that the state is nothing else than a group of families or fraternities subjected to one and the same rule.

>>514132424
Oh yeah? You gonna vote this law into power? Lol

>"The process of the building of our Party is a process of patterning it on the Juche idea. Imbuing all Party members with the Juche idea is a continuation and a higher stage of our Party's historic struggle to model itself on that idea."

>"Imbuing all Party members with the Juche idea means, in essence, strengthening and developing our Party for all time into a party of Comrade Kim Il Sung."

>"Strengthening and developing our Party into the party of the great Comrade Kim Il Sung implies having him eternally at its head and holding fast to his ideology and line and implementing them throughout all generations."

>"The respected Comrade Kim Il Sung is the great leader who has, for the first time in their history of several thousand years, been acclaimed by our People; he is the Teacher and Father of our Party and People."
- Kim Jong Il

>Our Party regarded education in the monolithic ideology as its basic ideological task and carried it out energetically. As a result, a single ideology has prevailed throughout the Party, and all its members have been armed firmly with the Leader's revolutionary idea, the Juche idea, and have come to think and act as required by this idea.

>Another important factor in establishing the monolithic ideological system is to achieve the Leader's unitary leadership absolutely.

>The Leader is the supreme controller of a party, and the party's leadership is precisely his leadership. Our Party has set up a well-regulated system under which all its organizations and members act as one man under the unitary leadership of the great leader Comrade Kim Il Sung, give absolute authority to Party policies and defend and implement them without question.
- Kim Jong Il, The Workers' Party of Korea is a Juche type revolutionarty party which inherited the glorious tradition of the DIU

Kim Jong Il also endorses State Corporatism / Unitary ideals: "All its organizations and members act as ONE MAN under the unitary leadership."

>>514130195 (OP)
>Explain to me why you think Democracy is wrong, I will argue why I think it is good
Democracy has been shit from the start.
Politicians were always needed as proxies for voters. THAT is the fatal flaw in democracy.
>
Politicians are incapable of representing anyone other than themselves. No human brain can represent anyone else's views except those of the politician so the idea of 'the will of the people' is a myth.
>
So replace politicians and their flaws with something better.
>
A MACHINE, AN ALGORITHM, A MATHEMATICAL MODEL, HOWEVER, COULD REPRESENT 'THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE' AS A GESTALT OF THE ENTIRE ELECTORATE AND ALL THEIR VIEWS AND VOTING TENDENCIES.
>
Instead of having any politicians as a proxy, have a better machine as the holder of all the voter's proxy votes.
>
We COULD exterminate all politicans and politics and all parties and replace them with a mathematical model that COULD represent the voting potential, the proxy, of each and every single voter and every vote would count toward the whole.
>
Democracy could be fixed... by eliminating politics, politicans and parties from democracy forever and replacing them with a server and a mathematical model that can vote like every voter, voting as they would io if asked about every political decision that needs to be made, how they would vote. It could be asked questions, just as we ask any AI, and reply accurately representing the majority of all those views.
It'd be cheaper and better than any political system that's ever existed AND able to make millions of decisions per second using 'THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE' as a data-set.
This data set is based on asking each voter in the electorate a series of questions and making the data-set publicly available, as it contains no identifiable voter data when amalgamated.
Made publicly available, like a data-set for an AI, means ANYONE with access to a CPU or GPU could verify what anyone says it replied.
Corruption is therefore impossible.

>>514159745
That simple view only works in purple prose. The answer is that virtue is a moot point, fascist leaders and their followers have no standards of virtue to adhere to, there is no measurement, it's all vibes. In practice, you're just choosing to believe them just like you choose to disbelieve elected leadership.

Most people are retarded. This cannot be refuted.

>Our Party equipped all our people fully with the Juche idea, united them closely behind the Leader organizationally, ideologically and morally, and thus made the revolutionary ranks a socio-political organism.

>Today the Workers' Party of Korea stands firmly in the centre of the revolutionary ranks in our country, and the masses of the people, who have withstood every manner of ordeal by sharing their destiny with the Party in the long revolutionary struggle, are united rock-firm behind the Party and the Leader, sharing one mind and one will.
- Kim Jong Il

More corporatist thinking here: "Thus made the revolutionary ranks a socio-political organism".

Kim Il Sung – The Peach Story
>Kim Il Sung looked around the room, and picked up a peach from the table.
>Then he answered, "A party should be built like a peach."
<"Like a peach?"
<The guests looked at the peach.
>Pointing at the peach in his hand, Kim Il Sung said: Success can be achieved in the revolution and construction only when the single-hearted unity of a leader, the party and the masses is achieved; compared with this peach, the masses are the flesh, the party is the stone, and the leader is the core in the stone.

Kim Jong Il – The leader is the life of the socio-political community
>The essence of the leader in all context lies in his being the centre of lthe life of the socio-political community. There is no doubt that the center of life is important for the existence and activities of the organism. Unless the masses are united, centring on the leader, they cannot acquire vitality as an independent socio-political community. We must understand and believe that the leader is the centre of the life of the socio-political community and that it is only when we are linked to the leader organizationally, ideologically and as comrades that we can acquire immortal socio-political integrity.

Kim Jong Il - Fatherly Leader & Motherly Party
>In order to have a deep understanding of the value of the organization, one must consider it in relation to one's own socio-political integrity. Only through the party organization, the parent body, can the popular masses be integrated into an independent socio-political organism and become the real masters of their own destiny. We must value and respect the Party organization as the parent body of our integrity. We refer to the leader as the fatherly leader and to the Party as the motherly Party because the Party organization with the leader at its centre is the parent body of our socio-political integrity.

Kim Il Sung Aphorism - Queen Bee
>Just as worker bees form a group and live in a disciplined way, centring on a Queen Bee, so the collective must have a centre and discipline.

Bodin / A household or family, the true model of a Commonwealth
>So that Aristotle following Xenophon, seems to me without any probable cause, to have divided the Economical government from the Political, and a City from a Family; which can no otherwise be done, than if we should pull the members from the body; or go about to build a City without houses… Wherefore as a family well and wisely ordered, is the true image of a City, and the domestical government, in sort, like unto the sovereignty in a Commonwealth: so also is the manner of the government of a house or family, the true model for the government of a Commonwealth… And whilest every particular member of the body does his duty, we live in good and perfect health; so also where every family is kept in order, the whole city shall be well and peaceably governed.

The true image of the Commonwealth is the household or family well ordered:

Giuseppe Bottai
>All modern history, that is, all contemporaneous life, leads to the corporative conception of the State with the inclusion of Economics within the State or the identification of Economics with Politics.

>>514161019
All politicans could be shot in the head, all parties dissolved and their headquarters bulldozed and replaced by something better.
The flaw in politics is that human leaders are needed when democracy already has EVERYTHING it needs; an electorate and their views.
Eliminate human leaders and replace leadership with something incorruptible and unbiased and perfect that represents the people, all of them, every last voter and their views, rather than having it filtered through flawed human politicans.
>
Humans should be ruled by machines that can represent them ans their morality in every decision.
>
Politicans would no longer be needed.
We could nail them to lumber and set them all on fire.
Livestreaming it could even return some funds to taxpayer coffers.

Filmer / Political & Economic, No Different
>Aristotle gives the lie to Plato, and those that say that political and economical societies are all one, and do not differ specie, but only multitudine et paucitate, as if there were 'no difference betwixt a great house and a little city'. All the argument I find he brings against them is this: 'The community of man and wife differs from the community of master and servant, because they have several ends. The intention of nature, by conjunction of male and female, is generation. But the scope of master and servant is only preservation, so that a wife and a servant are by nature distinguished. Because nature does not work like the cutlers at Delphos, for she makes but one thing for one use.' If we allow this argument to be sound, nothing doth follow but only this, that conjugal and despotical [lordly / master] communities do differ. But it is no consequence that therefore economical and political societies do the like. For, though it prove a family to consist of two distinct communities, yet it follows not that a family and a commonwealth are distinct, because, as well in the commonweal as in the family, both these communities are found.

ANYONE PROMOTING OLD POLITICAL IDEAS THAT HAVE ALREADY FAILED SHOULD STOP.
THAT BS HAS ALREADY FAILED.
>
TIME FOR SOEMTHING NEW FOR THE 21st CENTURY.
>
TIME TO BE RULED BY MACHINES ACTING AS A PROXY FOR EVERY VOTER IN THE DEMOCRATIC ELECTORATE.
>
MAKE DEMOCRACY WORK.
>
BEGONE WITH YOUR OUTDATED BS FROM BYGONE AGES OF YORE.
>
THIS IS OUR WORLD NOW.

I for one welcome my brothers in Xbox and will gladly teach them the way of the portable hell bomb

Democracy allows niggers to exist, which is why democracy is ontologically evil and must be permanently destroyed.

Also OP is a nigger

>>514162288
Democracy when it is allowed to work is the WILL OF THE MAJORITY.
The majority hate niggers, hate jews and loath pakis and their muslim shite.
The majority also want the death penalty back for crimes that warrant it.
Politicians stand in the way of TRUE DEMOCRACY since they give the voters what THEY want and NOT what the voters want.
So politicians must be murdered out of the way, if necessary.
MAJORITY RULE leads to stability and happiness.
THE MOB IS ALWAYS RIGHT!
Don't get in it's way.

>>514160841
It's true, that's why bureaucracy exists. Yes, it needs to be monitored and maintained, held to a high regulatory standard, but "unelected bureaucrats" need to be experts in their field. A strongman passing your vibe check doesn't mean he isn't going to put together a cabinet of sycophants that serve billionaires. The results can be similar between who gets appointed to be what czar or whatever the titles may be, so feeling the need that you need a strongman at all when really it's just the support and quality of the bureaucracy makes it so that the elected leaders or fascist strongmen just need to be appointing the right people and have the right mind to go about meeting that goal with their countrymen in mind. The rest is just how they satisfy your vibes.

>>514162567
Lynchings worked for thousands of years.
Why go against human desire for revenge?
TRUE DEMOCRACY MEANS MAJORITY RULE.
SO LET THE MAJORITY RULE BE THE WHOLE OF THE LAW.

>>514162613
>a cabinet of sycophants that serve billionaires
So simply remove flawed humans from the equation.
Problem?
Welcome to the 21st century.

>>514130195 (OP)
Most poeple here are brainwashey by news and "our democracy"
democracy = international unelected buerocracy
Glowies managed to convice low iq retards democracy means trust the experts + no referendums.

Also they voted for it jewish shills just blatantly lie. Mass migration of pakis somalis etc would never pass on a referendum in any western country. They can lie all they want no referendum about it will ever be allowed for obvios reasons.

>>514130594
I APPLAUD MAJORITY RULE.
THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THIS.
THE 51% SHOULD RULE OVER THE 49%.
THIS IS HOW THE UNIVERSE WORKS.
MATH CANNOT LIE.

I don't think democracy is necessarily wrong. Things don't always turn out preserving a democratic system. National socialism was voted in. Then the Night of Long Knives happened and Hitler hijacked the party. It could have been like Scandinavian socialism with gay ass patriotism. People have also voted for communism, fascism, dictatorships and shariah law. Sorry you don't like it when people don't vote for gay ass neo liberalism and would rather live under something else. And yes even under neo liberalism you get people talking about suspending democracy to save it.

>>514130195 (OP)
Democracy without a functioning education system just turns into which side has more money to brainwash the largest amounts of retards

>>514163347
Politicans will be exterminated globally by a wave of improvements to democracy that are coming.
I WILL IT.

>>514130556
More like 2 sheep and 1 wolf voting for dinner. And somehow 1 of the sheep got brainwashed into voting for sheep onto the menu.

>>514163601
Something better exists.
>>514160761
>>514161616
>>514161994
>>514162567
>>514162789
>>514162988
>>514163454
It's time.

>>514162613
>It's true, that's why bureaucracy exists
Average bureaucrat is below average in iq and above average in narcisism sociopaty and dishonesty.

It cannot be reformed its like that by design bureaucracy attracted shittiest poeple since the time of rome.
In 2000 years we learned a shit will allways attract flies and never butterflies.


There is absolutely no need for it in modern age of computers. Its only purpose is to keep poeple from acheiving self sufficiency and forcing them to be wagies for megacorp instead of independent workers.

>>514139811
Mob rule. And mob rule collapses society.

>>514130195 (OP)
Democracy is completely fake and the banks and investment funds control everything and it doesn't matter who you vote for because if they don't do what they're told they tank the economy.
That's why you get endless niggers and Indians, because you live in a giant pyramid scheme.

>>514163645
>Politicans will be exterminated globally by a wave of improvements to democracy

I mean they are desparate to keep this charade going.
Before it was common knowlege what the purpose of supposed representatives is. To represent poeple 5 days horseback away.

bureaucracy is supposed to be human computer. Poeple following procedures.

Supposed to be but now its not.
Now we have high speed internet ability to transact milions in miliseconds but we cannot vote on referendums like that.

We also have computers that could automatically execute laws and regulations.
Thus no need for politicians and bureaucrats.
But now they came up with other bulshit of suposed irationality od common man (although they are rational enough to pick representatives. Completly insane logic)and suposed "inhibiting too much change to fast" role of bureaucrat.
Mntr0

>>514131438
The problem then is that people who can vote will always vote for their not being conditions on who can vote. That's why sometimes we need natsocs to elect a dictator to reel in the slack.

>>514130195 (OP)
No one ever voter for open borders but they exist in all Western countries.

The State is powerless to stop them.

Then when a Based Politician tries to deport them, 100x lawyers show up to sue and Judge BLOCKS the State from deporting 1 of the 50,000,000 illegal immigrants.

I'm not convinced we live in a Democracy or free society.

>>514130195 (OP)
Democracy good until I have the right to fuck your mom and girlfriend even though you may not agree but me, them and my friends who are way more than yours we all agree so suck our dicks faggot

>>514165149
>elect
>outdated old-fashioned thinking
Mericans are always the last to see it.

>>514130195 (OP)
Control the media
Control the voters

>>514165384
Yes. Democracy only works with a balanced media. In all Western countries liberals run the media. And Jews. And Communist.

>>514165231
You live in tyranical bureaucracy.
Even if somehow politician slips in . You have unelected bureaucrats and judges (((interpreting))) laws as they like and defacto stopping anythibg not desirable for the elites.
Lawyers and judges are also parasites. Laws can be written in code.

>>514130195 (OP)
democracy is bullshit right from the start it was at the top ruled over by oligarchs and the rest was trickle down power, the lowest rung of people were the ones who worked the fields and fought the wars, fuck democracy you have no representation unless your seen as a 'fit and proper person' that equated to beating the literal fuck our of 'lessers' one way or another.

Nature though that produced life has no such compunction, though they will say its does they are fucking liars because put simply if we were to do as they did and group together to steal their freedom or enact acts of predation on others then they arbitrarily 'produce' laws against it by saying 'no you cant do that its bad' when its exaclty what they fucking do, So if might makes right then why the fuck are they against it? There is no morality of theirs that cant be taken apart by using their own logic, so it not bullshit its utter contemptible hypocrisy at best and its also deceitful, Now that they've decided they can kill anyone by any means all fucking bets are off, these are not altruistic people who care about mankind they care about their kind and we fucking shouldnt now they've shown what they really are about

>>514165658
yes. i also like the description of The Managerial State / Anarcho Tyranny.

>>514130195 (OP)
Read plato, you mongoloid. All democracies turn oligarchies because those with the money simply control the flow of information and can dictate every single election.

While Aristotle denied the ground of a pre-eminent monarchy & is the grandfather of mixed constitutionalist notions of State:
I always love these quotes & sharing them from Aristotle.

>>514165593
Even in Japan its obvious how the media controls the voters

This sentiment really is ringing throughout the thread:

>>514131240

I'd rather a dictator the people love than a democracy everybody hates.

>>514133296
>block votes
>organizational and bureaucratic means
That's precisely why it isn't a transformable system dummy