Search Results
6/15/2025, 1:16:44 AM
>>507401137
>Monarchy has a much longer track record than National Socialism.
Yes, a very long history filled with injustices, impotent leaders, the tragic deaths of all competent successors until only incompetent one remains, monarchs being tricked into surrendering their power left and right, having their countries conquered because they were too obsessed with hedonism to do anything about it. Occasionally there are golden ages, just like with democracy. That simply is not good enough to me, I want a nation that can last thousands of years, and as far as I can tell, this is the best option. Unless you'd like to surrender all control to an undying AI empowered in a similar fashion, which would definitely last even if it may not be the nicest experience.
>but it's also a bit absurd for a National Socialists to call monarchy a failed system
Is it? National Socialism did not fail due to flaws in its own structure, it was overcome by vast enemy armies.
>Hedging with constitutionalism is an ideological incoherency imo.
You need the legal bedrock a constitution provides to maintain the direction and 'soul' that the original founders intended the nation to hold. If you do not have this, you will very likely end up with a nation that is the antithesis of itself. Now when I say constitution, I mean a comprehensive instruction manual stating that the ruler is lord and master of all under him, clearly outlines the full extent of the ruler's powers, explains the specific system by which the ruler will be chosen, provides specific instructions, details specific powers that each institution holds, details specific circumstances where the ruler may be removed (insanity, cripplingly ill health, etc) with specific procedures for verifying such a state, procedures for this, how they must be replaced, and perhaps a section detailing what portions of the constitution may be changed and how only if the constitution itself if presenting a mortal threat to the state.
>Monarchy has a much longer track record than National Socialism.
Yes, a very long history filled with injustices, impotent leaders, the tragic deaths of all competent successors until only incompetent one remains, monarchs being tricked into surrendering their power left and right, having their countries conquered because they were too obsessed with hedonism to do anything about it. Occasionally there are golden ages, just like with democracy. That simply is not good enough to me, I want a nation that can last thousands of years, and as far as I can tell, this is the best option. Unless you'd like to surrender all control to an undying AI empowered in a similar fashion, which would definitely last even if it may not be the nicest experience.
>but it's also a bit absurd for a National Socialists to call monarchy a failed system
Is it? National Socialism did not fail due to flaws in its own structure, it was overcome by vast enemy armies.
>Hedging with constitutionalism is an ideological incoherency imo.
You need the legal bedrock a constitution provides to maintain the direction and 'soul' that the original founders intended the nation to hold. If you do not have this, you will very likely end up with a nation that is the antithesis of itself. Now when I say constitution, I mean a comprehensive instruction manual stating that the ruler is lord and master of all under him, clearly outlines the full extent of the ruler's powers, explains the specific system by which the ruler will be chosen, provides specific instructions, details specific powers that each institution holds, details specific circumstances where the ruler may be removed (insanity, cripplingly ill health, etc) with specific procedures for verifying such a state, procedures for this, how they must be replaced, and perhaps a section detailing what portions of the constitution may be changed and how only if the constitution itself if presenting a mortal threat to the state.
Page 1