Search Results
6/15/2025, 12:50:38 AM
>>507398475
>You're making a liberal's case for monarchy which is extremely retarded.
The world is not static, new political systems must be devised to prevent the same excesses that have destroyed this one.
>You don't seriously need me to explain to you how institutions are subverted and corrupted.
I know how they are subverted and corrupted, they become clubs, their leaders considering themselves above the government. My ruler would have been trained to recognize this and would have the aforementioned secret police to deal with the issue before it grows to such a degree that the system itself is threatened.
>If you cannot accept the principle that must accompany monarchy, then you are simply not a monarchist.
No, I am a national socialist using monarchy to contextualize this completely novel system of government so as to make it easier to understand. Monarchies are a failed system, they failed because they did not learn from previous experiences, thoroughly screen their successors, or educate themselves as to the dangers that faced them. Unless you are willing to abandon the fundamental concept of monarchy, that the ruler's children must succeed him, it cannot be improved. A ruler must be an absolute force, an extension of the entire nation, its chief protector, and its chief executioner. They must never be allowed to turn into what they became (even the absolute monarchs), well-dressed showpieces sitting around delegating authority until they don't have any and their nations collapse around them.
>You're making a liberal's case for monarchy which is extremely retarded.
The world is not static, new political systems must be devised to prevent the same excesses that have destroyed this one.
>You don't seriously need me to explain to you how institutions are subverted and corrupted.
I know how they are subverted and corrupted, they become clubs, their leaders considering themselves above the government. My ruler would have been trained to recognize this and would have the aforementioned secret police to deal with the issue before it grows to such a degree that the system itself is threatened.
>If you cannot accept the principle that must accompany monarchy, then you are simply not a monarchist.
No, I am a national socialist using monarchy to contextualize this completely novel system of government so as to make it easier to understand. Monarchies are a failed system, they failed because they did not learn from previous experiences, thoroughly screen their successors, or educate themselves as to the dangers that faced them. Unless you are willing to abandon the fundamental concept of monarchy, that the ruler's children must succeed him, it cannot be improved. A ruler must be an absolute force, an extension of the entire nation, its chief protector, and its chief executioner. They must never be allowed to turn into what they became (even the absolute monarchs), well-dressed showpieces sitting around delegating authority until they don't have any and their nations collapse around them.
Page 1