/mlpol/ - My Little Politics

>>278012
Just looking at the British royals and their will to apply ethnic cleansing to their own people, no commentary is enough to describe their abominable crime.

>>278053
Yeah i always thought the Anglo Saxons were assholes because they wouldn't allow freedom to their neighbors.

My problem with Monarchy is that it creates an entire class of generally useless people (the nobility). The nobility usually don't have to worry about their status being taken away for incompetence except in the most extreme circumstances. A more meritocratic system is needed and there are plenty of meritocratic authoritarian systems to choose from such as national socialism.

>>278053
Those pieces of shit looped the generic Crowd Cheering sound (as seen in Minions, Batman, and that Lego game!) on a taxpayer-funded BBC broadcast of a royal wedding funded by the taxpayer.
And to add insult to injury the rich bastard didn't even marry anyone good for the "kingdom" like the princess of sweden or something like that. Just married some random woman with nothing to offer him besides puss and ass.

>>278053
>Just looking at the British royals
I already addressed this. Sure, let's go through it again though. They are an illegitimate dynasty.
>and their will to apply ethnic cleansing to their own people
I have no doubt that this illegitimate dynasty is in favor of such measures, however it is worth pointing out that it is parliament that enact such measures, the monarchy in this country has no power with which to counterract them even if they wished to.
>no commentary is enough to describe their abominable crime.
sure, fine by me, since they're as good as peasants anyway considering, as I went through in the OP, they are not a legitimate dynasty, either legally or through merit.
>>278055
>Yeah i always thought the Anglo Saxons were assholes because they wouldn't allow freedom to their neighbors.
Indeed, the treatment of the Irish and the Welsh in particular has been dreadful.
>>278065
>My problem with Monarchy is that it creates an entire class of generally useless people (the nobility)
Firstly, you are talking about aristocracy, which can coexist with monarchy but is not the same thing. However even if it were, the nobility don't just sit around, they form an upper house of the legislature in a constitutional system, and in others they act like the governors of your states.
>The nobility usually don't have to worry about their status being taken away for incompetence except in the most extreme circumstances. A more meritocratic system is needed and there are plenty of meritocratic authoritarian systems to choose from such as national socialism.
Systems which fail to include the aspects of tradition that made them complete prior to the enlightenment (i.e the creation of liberalism) don't have much value in my view. In any case let's include nobles for the sake of argument, the system of aristocracy is not incompatible with a more fluid meritocracy - the council of a monarch would historically be comprised of aristocrats who would be rotated in and out of roles as was seen fit. Not to mention the constitutional system in which they acted essentially the same as representatives. However even if I were to grant you this, the fact remains that under your preferred national socialism, the office of Fuhrer is one that is held for life, which therefore means that the argument of meritocratic rotation does not apply to that office in particular, which would be the office made hereditary.
>>278074
>on a taxpayer-funded BBC broadcast of a royal wedding funded by the taxpayer.
as has been exhaustively established, the current royal family has jack fucking shit to do with monarchy as a whole, and their existence is an insult to the idea of legitimate monarchism.
>And to add insult to injury the rich bastard didn't even marry anyone good for the "kingdom" like the princess of sweden or something like that. Just married some random woman with nothing to offer him besides puss and ass.
Quite so. It was done this way to make inter-class marriage, a fundamentally progressive and liberal concept, more acceptable.

>>278065
>Nobility
Like the Nobility of the "Elites" in congress? They rig the system so they stay in power and there are no term limits. When TDR kept geting re-elected we not only put a term limit, but an age limit, and a limit to being native born.

Congress can be as long as they want, forever. They can be from Somalia and marry their own brother like kings and queens and no one bats an eye.

OH BUT MUH AMERICA REVELATION.

The very thing we fought a war over, to abolish the tyranny of a king; we just give the power over to the mob instead, make our president no more than a face and adopt all the other luxuries of the British monarch with out an actual monarch.

>>278084
No fucking seriously
they used a royalty-free sound effect for a royal wedding https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJ5xC-0TYWI

>>278012
Also I've always found it strange how to defend monarchy, you have do defend everything bad done by corrupt monarchs.
I nominate Marquis De Sade for today's episode of "Monarchy sucks because he existed, discuss".
If every country becomes a monarchy, how do we know another Marquis De Sade won't happen?

>>278121
> They rig the system so they stay in power and there are no term limits.
I don't think anyone read the OP. the difference here is that they seek the power, whereas nobles inherit it. regardless, I'm fine without a nobility, it's merely that the office and tradition of monarch is the central antithesis to the enlightenment and liberalism.
>The very thing we fought a war over, to abolish the tyranny of a king;
This amuses me. You didn't fight for this at all, you fought for parliamentary representation. You know why? We English already abolished the King's power. You should learn a little about the English civil war, it made us a republic for a while. It was also said republic that let jews back into the country. In any case the king was soon returned, but Charles II once again tried to exercise power, and when this threatened jewish interests parliament asked a dutch prince to invade in 1689, in what is called the Glorious Revolution. The Glorious Revolution imposed a restriction on monarchical power in the form of the English Bill of Rights. From this point on the monarch could use their powers only under advisement from parliament, which is a polite way of saying only with their permission. However even THAT didn't last long, because the last time the monarch ever exercised any power whatsoever was 1707, to veto the scottish militia act. You certainly did establish a republic, but I don't see where the King's tyranny came into it at all, HE WASN'T EVEN ABLE TO LEVY TAXES BEFORE THE ENGLISH CIVIL WAR, THAT'S WHY CHARLES I HAD TO BRING BACK PARLIAMENT, YOU DUMMY.
>>278124
>you have do defend everything bad done by corrupt monarchs.
It's significantly less than having to defend everything bad done by corrupt politicians.
>If every country becomes a monarchy, how do we know another Marquis De Sade won't happen?
Firstly, Marquis De Sade would still exist without monarchy, he would have sought public office, where because he supposedly would represent the people he would be awarded with much greater powers than a monarch - now I know you're already disagreeing, but a monarch cannot levy taxes, declare war or pass laws without the approval of his court or parliament. Unless you were referring to absolutist monarchy, a specific flavor of monarchy that was not universal, mainly pioneered by the bloody french, and of course if I had meant absolutist monarchy then I would have made "feudalism" the subject, not monarchy. Secondly, I'm amazed you think that without monarchy the marquis (notably not a monarchy, but fine) would not have been just as pampered and perverted as a public official, given the manner in which literally every politician acts in private. But thirdly, and most importantly, the actual solution to our Marquis De Sade problem occured within his lifetime - being locked into an insane asylum. So if Marquis De Sade was to be born King, then parliament would block his mad schemes, and upon realizing his madness, would have him locked up to be replaced with either the next in line or a regent. doesn't seem like much of a problem to me, that's a better state of affairs by an order of magnitude than the one we have now.

>>278129
Thank you.
You know more about this than me. Where did you learn it?

>>278124
>If every country becomes a monarchy, how do we know another Marquis De Sade won't happen?
Politicians and other famous people probably sink to similar levels all the fucking time.

>>278124
Marquis De Sade was imprisoned by the Monarchy for his crimes. He was set free by the "National Congress" set up by the French Revolution. Marquise De Sade supported the Revolution, and became a part of it when he was elected to the National Congress.

I don't think the Monarchy can really be blamed for creating Marquise De Sade, as it tried to suppress him. The French Revolution, if it did not create him, certainly did not try to suppress him. (Until he criticized the Reign of Terror...)

>>278121
No one was arguing for a republic. I think most people on this board acknowledge that republics are doomed to failure.

>>278084
>the nobility don't just sit around, they form an upper house of the legislature in a constitutional system, and in others they act like the governors of your states.
Why should those positions be hereditary? The greater men of our volk should be involved in the decision making process regardless of their parents' positions in our society. The greatest of our engineers and scientists should be making the decisions regarding our industry and space programs. The greatest of our generals should be making decisions regarding the safety of our nation. Our greatest doctors in our health policies and so on.

>the office of Fuhrer is one that is held for life, which therefore means that the argument of meritocratic rotation does not apply to that office in particular, which would be the office made hereditary.
I can see the merits in making this office hereditary as it would keep power out of the hands of corrupt officials, but there needs to be an element of competition even among our leaders. The best should be allowed to rise to the top.

>>278269
What would you propose, a system where the children of a King or Queen battle amongst themselves for dominance through assassinations, backstabbery, and talking their way to the top?

>>278282
I would propose that the führer simply names his replacement before he dies.

>>278297
as long as there is a dynastic requirement that could work. like the currently young Saudi prince is not first in line but is just so competent, he is being groomed as the functional heir. although I don't actually know the REAL reason for his selection, I just know he's competent.

the big thing you have to worry about is the usurper. There are a small but ruthless group of psychopaths in every generation that seek total power at any cost. Think of someone as ruthless as Stalin, but as obsessed as Terry A. Davis (temple OS). being Psychopaths, basic law is irrelevant, but right to rule is not something that can be twisted. You are either royal or not. Challenges to power happen all the time, in democracies and monarchies. Hereditary succession is important because it kills any legitimacy a mad userper would have and raises the barrier of a change in power from some charismatic speeches to armed revolution, one much easier than the other.

Hereditary Succession is important because it keeps people obsessed with power away form absolute power.

>>278337
>Hereditary succession is important because it kills any legitimacy a mad userper would have and raises the barrier of a change in power from some charismatic speeches to armed revolution, one much easier than the other.
So would appointed succession. A usurper cannot choose who the führer will appoint.

>>278236
Mainly from reading Thomas Carlyle, Joseph de Maistre and Arthur de Gobineau, as well as being a fan of history.
>>278269
>Why should those positions be hereditary?
I didn't say that they should, and I do not believe that they should be.
>The greater men of our volk
It is worth pointing out here however that a great man is at least half his genetic material. That is the value of hereditary inheritance - not to mention that if we take pure meritocracy, we are left with allowing people of any race to take a position. Making inheritance central in this way cements the importance of protecting each and every bloodline of the nation.
>The greatest of our engineers and scientists should be making the decisions regarding our industry and space programs. The greatest of our generals should be making decisions regarding the safety of our nation. Our greatest doctors in our health policies and so on.
This presents an interesting point - because you see, though I'd be fine with simply an elective legislature, a peerage is bestowable by a monarch. Let's say we make all lordly positions non-hereditary but appointed - which is the case to an extent with the current house of lords. I think then we could have an aristocracy of merit based on the same traditions of our forefathers.
>I can see the merits in making this office hereditary as it would keep power out of the hands of corrupt officials, but there needs to be an element of competition even among our leaders. The best should be allowed to rise to the top.
I have no issue with competition, and certainly there's plenty of opportunity for it - in the days of our great ancestors, it was common for an heir to be introduced to the realm from a young age, at which point he would have to begin navigating the ins and outs of intrigue and power at court - not to mention cases where the King would offer a fief to the Prince in order to keep his own holdings smaller whilst keeping it out of the hands of potential rivals. Now, I am not proposing a return to this exact system, instead I think the Fuhrer-to-be ought to be encouraged to start making moves on his own, and made governor of a territory somewhere where he'll test out his mettle. Until it's time for him to succeed his father, he can rise through the ranks as a normal official, the same way the heirs of old did.
>>278297
>I would propose that the führer simply names his replacement before he dies.
I think that would serve fine for a regent, but let's consider this for the sake of argument. Let's say Karl Donitz is named Fuhrer (I know he wasn't presumptive for most of his career but it's just an example) - do you think he could choose a successor as well as his predecessor? I think he could serve fine as temporary Fuhrer whilst waiting for the true heir, carrying the genes of the first Fuhrer within him, to come of age, but I wouldn't trust him to pick the next great leader.
>>278338
>So would appointed succession. A usurper cannot choose who the führer will appoint.
In a way they can have an effect. Imagine if you will that our Fuhrer Donitz grows ill, and has not yet named a successor. A usurper could have agents caring for him, control access to him, and ultimately have private conversations with him - indeed if our usurper was bold enough, he could have Donitz assassinated and claim that he told him the successor. It's a small enough chance to be sure, but just one of several possibilities - could this eventuality be avoided by naming the next Fuhrer as soon as you become the Fuhrer? Yes, you could, but circumstances can change, as we saw with the presumptive succession of Fuhrer in our timeline. With a hereditary succession, if the eldest were discounted from the succession for whatever reason, the crown would simply pass to the next eldest in line. And if the Fuhrer had just one child? Well then we go straight back to your appointment doctrine in any case. Ultimately my argument is that a best case scenario is there are multiple sons, and the succession is therefore totally secure, not to mention each offspring carries a piece of the original spark of the entire Reich. It is the central thesis of race and it's importance that we inherit the legacy of our forefathers, NOT MERELY THROUGH CULTURE OR ASSOCIATION, but through genetic descent. And so I propose that the leadership of an ethnocentric nation ought to reflect this - it is not enough that a leader merely adopt the "culture" as it were of our original leader, nor adapt to his words or understanding, because we know that just as a black man can never be french, Donitz can never be Hitler, to come back to our example. Only through offspring can that original spark be preserved, and the preservation of a bloodline is what the nation should be founded on - there is no stronger foundation in this life than passing on your genes to your successors.

>>278012
>>278538
The pressure, and mentality of one man forged and bred to lead would be great if he doesn't reject it. By any number of issues he could be brought low. Any number of mental or physical illness could impair his judgement.
A hostile takeover much like in Russia where all the royals were executed to make room for jewish occupation and tyranny.
That's not all the next generation has to have teachers that won't subvert or twist the mind of the next ruler to be. The new ruler would have to be safe.
With multiple potential rulers they may squabble to take the throne.
With or without foreign antagonist forces acting from within or from without.
The positive is that one person can make quick wide societal changes. Be stalwart in his people and convictions. Do what must be done.
When a monarch is great so too is the country. If he is the scum of the Earth the induced tragedies can last for generations.
If the monarch has no children the blood line ends, and something else has to be done. Usually it's going back to the next potential candidate.
Where plotting and planning happen anyway to subvert this system. As with any system.
No lie is too big for a jew to commit to.

As a video put it "No man rules alone."
The desires of the nation and the populace. Prevent opposition controlled rebellions. The patriotism, and willingness to do what is right by kin and country is important too.
Then there are those that rule over others who do the same thing until it's back to the people on the ground so deep in the bushes and trenches they can't see further than an inch.
The command structure has to be flexible, adaptable, and clear and stable.

It what extent will this proposed monarchy have? Absolute? Should there be lines and lineages for every specific thing?
Duke Pepe of the meme farms.

Equal but seperate powers ordained by lineage?

The monarch MUST have children. I'd go so far as to say it is demanded of them.
Then to contend with the desires of one who does not wish to rule, and those unfit to rule that desire it.

>>278543
>The pressure, and mentality of one man forged and bred to lead would be great if he doesn't reject it.
Which is why abdication must always be an open option.
>By any number of issues he could be brought low. Any number of mental or physical illness could impair his judgement.
This is quite correct, but I think for this reason the court must have the power to declare the monarch unfit to rule, which unlike in Belgium where this power can be exercised without restraint, would need to go to trial before a supreme court, to rule on whether this is genuinely the case. Following this either a regent or the next in line would take the reins.
>The new ruler would have to be safe.
Essentially all usurpers would have to gain from this is legitimacy, but as I say there ought to be a process to define a monarch who is fit to rule. A compromised dynasty is a very common thing, and we see it across the west nowadays - though many of those are actually illegitimate to boot, such as the current royal families of the UK and Spain.
>With multiple potential rulers they may squabble to take the throne.
That's no different than any other system. The difference is under this system we have a process for determining which is legitimate that is ultimately infallible unless the process itself is circumvented, which is not the case with other processes for determining the leader of a nation.
>If he is the scum of the Earth the induced tragedies can last for generations.
I contend that a democratically elected leader that is bad is worse than a monarch that is bad. for one, democracies wield far greater domestic power than pretty much all monarchies in history, with the exception of ideologically neo-absolutist countries such as France under Louis XIV, or the late Austrian Empire before the reform to become Austria-Hungary. Furthermore with a democracy, or a Soviet/Chinese-style meritocracy where the next ruler is appointed or elected by a small council, you are left with a leader who has always sought that power, and is therefore guaranteed to be bad, leading to a string of evil even if the terms are limited, whereas at the least with a monarch you have a chance of a good leader, a chance you can increase with the education he receives, an education whose independence can be preserved partly by having the incumbent monarch setting out it's structure, or even the dynastic founder doing so.
>Where plotting and planning happen anyway to subvert this system. As with any system.
Indeed - but the point ultimately is this. It took around 1200 years or so - more perhaps, I'd say the feudal era began with Charlemagne - for the system of monarchy, which was common across radically different forms of feudalism, to be subverted, and when this was achieved, more often than not (((they))) simply discarded the system wholesale in favor of republics, democracies, meritocracies (under communism that is). And those non-monarchical states that have existed without succumbing to this menace have not lasted long at all - some due to conquest, that is fair to say, but others were subverted.
>The desires of the nation and the populace. Prevent opposition controlled rebellions. The patriotism, and willingness to do what is right by kin and country is important too.
If that truly meant anything "the people" would have done away with this nonsense years ago. Ultimately trusting in the wisdom of the mob to use it's power effectively is a progressive and I'd even go so far as to say socialist lie.
>The command structure has to be flexible, adaptable, and clear and stable.
That is fair to say, but I believe late monarchies were moreso fulfilling of this than any modern state - Prussia would be my main example.
>what extent will this proposed monarchy have?
I think the limitations the Fuhrer or the Kaiser had are acceptable. I believe that would make it constitutional, whilst not limiting it so much as to make it a crowned republic.
>Absolute?
The idea of absolute monarchy is misleading - they only existed in the 19th century, where the power of the state was advanced enough that a monarch was capable of wielding absolute power - beforehand, the clergy, merchants, nobility and peasants held enough power that the monarch could not simply do as he pleased. Indeed Charles I merely walked into parliament, and this was deemed enough to overthrow him. So as I say, absolute monarchies only existed in the age where the most powerful monarchs, that of Britain and France, were both Jewish puppets.
>Should there be lines and lineages for every specific thing?
No, I think that this particular practice was due to the recognition the monarch gave to his fiefs, that is to say that they were regarded as a sort of mini-monarch in their own right. Rulership over local provinces was such that one could have an independent duchy, so in a sense every noble was a ruler in his own right. Nowadays this is incompatible with the theory of nationhood, therefore there should be just one hereditary position, that of monarch, and to have other offices be hereditary I think would be demeaning and belittling to the monarch's position.
>The monarch MUST have children. I'd go so far as to say it is demanded of them.
Agreed. They should not be forced - if they wish not to have children, they ought to be able to abdicate peacefully. But the need to have children is one we've found in these latter days to be of the utmost necessity, and again I think we'd benefit greatly by having this enshrined in the nation's national values by having the nation's fate rely on children in a very direct and linear sense. To say the nation relies on children in general, as of a generation, is to say the nation is a family, which is fine so long as that family has a father. As it stands that family has an orphanage.
>Then to contend with the desires of one who does not wish to rule, and those unfit to rule that desire it.
Certainly - and to clarify ambition is not bad. But to give it ultimate power...

>>278538
>The greater men of our volk
It is worth pointing out here however that a great man is at least half his genetic material. That is the value of hereditary inheritance - not to mention that if we take pure meritocracy, we are left with allowing people of any race to take a position. Making inheritance central in this way cements the importance of protecting each and every bloodline of the nation.
The word volk refers to our race. No one was suggesting that people of other races be allowed to participate.

>I think that would serve fine for a regent, but let's consider this for the sake of argument. Let's say Karl Donitz is named Fuhrer (I know he wasn't presumptive for most of his career but it's just an example) - do you think he could choose a successor as well as his predecessor? I think he could serve fine as temporary Fuhrer whilst waiting for the true heir, carrying the genes of the first Fuhrer within him, to come of age, but I wouldn't trust him to pick the next great leader.
I would trust the Fuhrer's judgement with his pick. There is no guarantee that the Fuhrer's offspring is going to a better Fuhrer than the named successor. The Fuhrer will almost certainly choose someone who he knows well and who has seen preform well. There is no reason to believe that his offspring will do well other than that they have has genetic material and if one of his offspring does go into politics and preforms very well then the Fuhrer can just as easily name his own son.

>>278570
>The word volk refers to our race. No one was suggesting that people of other races be allowed to participate.
That's the crux of the issue. Why? Well, we can go on and on about the purity of our folk all day - but ultimately what it is really about is inheriting the heritage of our fathers and passing it down onto our sons. As soon as you have pure merit in the mix as a consideration, you'll have some odious fellow suggesting including other races in government or economic positions based on the principle of merit. Ultimately therefore I refer back to the traditions of my folk for political structure, namely monarchy, rather than adhere to a system dreamed up by some french fuck in an afternoon. So my point was not that that was what you were suggesting, but rather that without sticking to our traditional way of life, in both society and politics, it will inevitably be a slippery slope down into what I suggested.
>I would trust the Fuhrer's judgement with his pick.
I'd trust no other than the Fuhrer. The next best thing is his son.
>There is no guarantee that the Fuhrer's offspring is going to a better Fuhrer than the named successor.
Indeed not, but there is a guarantee that his offspring did not seek to attain power in order to acquire it. There is a second certainty, which is that within him is a piece of the original Fuhrer. Without this central thesis, the meaning of race and family are ultimately hollow. Logically sound, but without the core meaning, which as I said before is about inheriting our heritage from our fathers and passing it down to our sons. A folk is defined not only by the current generation, but all those that preceded it, so ultimate value must be placed into passing on our genes and traditions - I place my trust into the process by which our folk has propagated and passed on this mighty legacy, believe it or not above the decision of an individual man. Even the Fuhrer is as nothing compared to our combined lineage and it's wisdom.
>The Fuhrer will almost certainly choose someone who he knows well and who has seen preform well.
If the Fuhrer had an opportunity to train this successor from birth, would we not be obliged to take it?
> There is no reason to believe that his offspring will do well other than that they have has genetic material and if one of his offspring does go into politics and preforms very well then the Fuhrer can just as easily name his own son.
This is a fair point - but I must additionally point out that there can be no doubt that the Fuhrer's son would do well - I think the whole "genetic lottery" myth is concocted by progressives. Without a mental deficiency, illness or other condition, there is no way that the genes of the Fuhrer and Eva Braun would produce anything less than a very competent man. The only doubt is whether he could do better than some other candidate. And of course as you say the Fuhrer could appoint his own son. This is a good point, and I'd be happy with it so long as it became tradition to appoint one's own son. The only counterpoint I have to it is that again I don't think this carries across the line of Fuhrers - Karl Donitz would not be as qualified to choose the next Fuhrer as Hitler, consequently the next will be even less qualified, until it spirals down and down into incompetents giving each other positions. This obviously wouldn't happen as simplistically as that, but I think there is altogether too much room for deterioration or conspiracy. There is less chance of this occurring under monarchical succession.

If the technology to edit your baby's genes became commercially available at prices so low even the poor can afford it, would that be the end of genetic deformities?
"The best" genes would still be restricted to code containing them, if they're not cloned and sold as something you can add to your babies.
But objectively-terrible genes would end there.

>>278606
>technology to edit your baby's genes became commercially available
Don't believe the hype.
The technology is so crude as using a sledge hammer to repair a watch.

>>278581
>That's the crux of the issue. Why? Well, we can go on and on about the purity of our folk all day - but ultimately what it is really about is inheriting the heritage of our fathers and passing it down onto our sons.
You are forgetting the Eugenic aspect. The goal is not only to secure the existence of our race, but to improve our race. By ensuring that the best of our race holds the highest positions in our society we will also ensure that the best of our race has access to more resources to have children.

>As soon as you have pure merit in the mix as a consideration, you'll have some odious fellow suggesting including other races in government or economic positions based on the principle of merit. Ultimately therefore I refer back to the traditions of my folk for political structure, namely monarchy, rather than adhere to a system dreamed up by some french fuck in an afternoon. So my point was not that that was what you were suggesting, but rather that without sticking to our traditional way of life, in both society and politics, it will inevitably be a slippery slope down into what I suggested.
I want my political system to be adaptable. If a tradition prevents us from adapting to the modern world then it needs to be abandoned. Traditions exist to ensure the survival of the race. The race does not exist to preserve traditions.

>I'd trust no other than the Fuhrer. The next best thing is his son.
If you do not Trust the Fuhrer's judgement then you do not trust the Fuhrer.

>Indeed not, but there is a guarantee that his offspring did not seek to attain power in order to acquire it.
No there isn't if the Fuhrer has multiple children then they could still fight among themselves for daddy's favor.

>There is a second certainty, which is that within him is a piece of the original Fuhrer. Without this central thesis, the meaning of race and family are ultimately hollow. A folk is defined not only by the current generation, but all those that preceded it, so ultimate value must be placed into passing on our genes and traditions - I place my trust into the process by which our folk has propagated and passed on this mighty legacy, believe it or not above the decision of an individual man. Even the Fuhrer is as nothing compared to our combined lineage and it's wisdom.
A folk is more than the king or the royal family. A folk is our genes and our culture. Both of which are always evolving. Race and family are not so fragile that they die in the absence of a royal lineage. Race and family are important because we are a kin selecting species.

>If the Fuhrer had an opportunity to train this successor from birth, would we not be obliged to take it?
By all means train his children to be great politicians, but they should not be guaranteed anything simply by being from the right bloodline. There needs to be a fire under their asses so that they understand if they are fuck ups then someone else will take the reigns. Again nothing would prevent the Fuhrer from giving his son control of the nation. If that is who the Fuhrer thought was best then by all means give him control.

> but I must additionally point out that there can be no doubt that the Fuhrer's son would do well - I think the whole "genetic lottery" myth is concocted by progressives. Without a mental deficiency, illness or other condition, there is no way that the genes of the Fuhrer and Eva Braun would produce anything less than a very competent man.
I want you to look up "regression to the mean"

>This is a good point, and I'd be happy with it so long as it became tradition to appoint one's own son.
I would be fine with this as a tradition as well and it probably would become one in most cases. Parents want what is best for their children and the Fuhrer would ideal want what is best for his nation after all. It only makes sense that Fuhrers would groom their children for the job, BUT this tradition should not be law. If there is someone who is better suited to run the nation than the Fuhrer's son(s) and the Fuhrer knows it then he should be able to choose his successor.

>The only counterpoint I have to it is that again I don't think this carries across the line of Fuhrers - Karl Donitz would not be as qualified to choose the next Fuhrer as Hitler, consequently the next will be even less qualified, until it spirals down and down into incompetents giving each other positions. This obviously wouldn't happen as simplistically as that, but I think there is altogether too much room for deterioration or conspiracy. There is less chance of this occurring under monarchical succession.
The first heir to the throne would have one half of the Fuhrer's original DNA, the second 1/4th, the third 1/8th, the fourth 1/16th, and so on. There is plenty of room for deterioration in Monarchy too. And let's say that the Fuhrer's kid wasn't selected for the position of Fuhrer. That kid probably still has some good genes and a good education. He will probably find another leadership position in the new society. People in leadership tend to breed with other people in leadership. By allowing the best of our Volk to have a shot in the leadership it will ensure that good genes are constantly flowing into our ruling class. By allowing shitty rulers to be selected against we allow bad genes to flow away from our leadership.

>>278613
Biotech is improving at an exponential rate. The technology to edit your babies' genes safely may soon be here.

>>278624
If the technology to give every parent the ability to purchase a high IQ for their children becomes commercially available, I reckon that would reshape society. Smart kids can see through leftism on their own now, but there would be more smart kids under that system. The bell curve would be impacted severely: Either you can afford to make your kids smart, or you can't and you hope for the best.

>>278649
>If the technology to give every parent the ability to purchase a high IQ for their children becomes commercially available, I reckon that would reshape society. Smart kids can see through leftism on their own now, but there would be more smart kids under that system. The bell curve would be impacted severely: Either you can afford to make your kids smart, or you can't and you hope for the best.
And that is why the left will do everything they can to prevent people from having access to that technology.

>>278652
Do you think the left will try to push it on black people, so they'll have IQ approaching mixed race kids without needing to be mixed race?

>>278012
>Monarchy

I think government in general should not be looked at in such a dogmatic fashion as to warrant the choosing of the "best" System. As a National Socialist our core philosophy is for what is the best for our race in our various nations. Different people, different systems. With system of government, this naturally reflects the behaviors, beliefs and general cultures of the peoples it rules over if allowed to develop and not be forcefully or peacefully imposed by another.

I think many people have misconceptions about republics when compared to Monarchy and dictatorships. Republics are again a reflection of not just the general attitudes of the nation but the very peoples that elect their governments. IE the quality of the people, the quality of the government. This can be also even controlled with limiting the vote to citizens that meet certain requirements like civil, volunteer and military service. Or the creation of families, extraordinary efforts and good deeds. Mass democracy, especially Multi-Party parliamentary Republics suffer from both the sheer mass and difference of the electorate and the nature of political parties that by their very existence pursue what is best for the party and not the nation and people. Gaddafi writes about this in the green book for a good view on this. Governments vary incredibly by just the diversity of peoples in the world and within our race. But something that remains within all governments no matter what kind is the Iron Law of Oligarchy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy

Fundamentally as a National Socialist the system of government is subordinate to the issue of the condition and betterment of our Race. Government is subordinate to this. Government is another tool in which to enact our will with political action. Ideally I think the Romans and their republic are ideal, and that the causes in which destroyed their republic in favor of the Imperial system echos the issues in out time. In crisis, the Romans would select a dictator with supreme power to deal with the issue, limiting the power of that office to 6 months. Autocracy itself is the fastest way to act on something and change the nation. For the destruction of a current system Autocracy is best, but if that power is still invested within one man instability will follow and another change will come as quickly as the last. Republics on the other hand are designed to maintain the status quo, causing government to be slow and prevent quick changes.

For a quick change and foundation of the ideal National Socialist state for a nation autocratic men like Hitler serve well to create that state. For that state to not be significantly changed after men like Hitler and the core National Socialist revolutionaries are gone a republic is best to maintain and make sure that that nation is stable. Again this is Ideally, but none the less the Race comes first and everything else are but tools for the maintenance and well being of our people.

>>278655
If the left wants any race to not have something, that race is black people.

the aristocracy

one of the big advantages of a monarchy is that it is a check on the power of the natural aristocracy. I would say that America today has an aristocracy consisting of the merchant and political classes. From policical dynasties like the Clintons and Bushes to the family monopolies like the Rockefellers. Aristocracy does not need to be dynastic like Bezos paying senators how to vote with no heir. but the behavior is the same as merchants and parliaments of old.

The difference is that in a monarchy, there is a constant struggle of power between the king and aristocracy, with neither getting too powerful. Meaning good kings are absolute while bad kings get checked by the parliament. historically, English politics were between the people and king vs. the aristocracy. But in a republic, the aristocracy has absolute power and can do whatever it wants without limits. which is obviously the case in America, aristocracy make the rules and the public pretends they liked mass immigration and gay marriage this whole time.

a powerful and rich aristocracy is almost impossible to avoid unless you end all economic progress like the soviet union did. So a check on power by a monarch that is usually on the side of the people is better than the eternal aristocracy that never cared about the people.

>>278617
>The goal is not only to secure the existence of our race, but to improve our race.
Which is improved by selective breeding, i.e guarding the bloodline - which not only refers to royal blood but the bloodline of every single person in a society.
>By ensuring that the best of our race holds the highest positions in our society we will also ensure that the best of our race has access to more resources to have children.
Congratulations, you just described royal marriage.
>I want my political system to be adaptable.
It's rather the modern era of written constitutionalism and strict democratic principles that make a system non-adaptable, not so much monarchical succession. Germany remained constrained by the Weimar constitution throughout the war.
>If a tradition prevents us from adapting to the modern world then it needs to be abandoned.
You realize this is the exact argument pro-immigration progressives use? I understand you are speaking from a pragmatist point of view, but I rather feel we are a people of principles rather than cold pragmatism.
>Traditions exist to ensure the survival of the race.
Our heritage is more than just tradition - I can keep a colony of cells pure in a petri dish, but this on it own is meaningless, it is what behaviours they exhibit, their history, and their future that is defined entirely by those previous two factors that matters. That is to say I don't think there's any good preserving race without heritage, because the value of the race we are preserving is defined by characteristics such as principle, honor, and indeed tradition. Obviously these things survive so long as the people carrying those behaviours survive, but to sacrifice those traditions and principles is to act entirely in non-accordance with the very thing that makes us worth saving. So an admirable pragmatist outlook, but I would rather live up to my ancestors than descend to the level of a Jew simply because the ends are felt to justify the means.
>If you do not Trust the Fuhrer's judgement then you do not trust the Fuhrer.
I misspoke, I trust his genes. As I said I trust race over individuals.
>No there isn't if the Fuhrer has multiple children then they could still fight among themselves for daddy's favor.
Then we're left with no different a system than officials vying for the Fuhrer's favor, except for that there is an established precedent in the former case.
>A folk is more than the king or the royal family.
But a folk is not more than the sum of the collective spirit of the current generation and their forefathers preserved through the bloodlines of each and every one of the folk's members.
>A folk is our genes and our culture.
But you only care about genes when it concerns unimportant people rather than the Fuhrer, and would destroy our culture in a heartbeat if it meant preserving the race.
>Both of which are always evolving.
Evolution deriving from inheritance, both genetic and cultural. Without both you nigh on destroy the folk.
>Race and family are not so fragile that they die in the absence of a royal lineage.
But they do die in the absence of concern for lineage, which applies to the entire folk because it applies to the human heart of the nation.
>By all means train his children to be great politicians, but they should not be guaranteed anything simply by being from the right bloodline.
On the contrary they should, or else what right does the bloodline of the volk have to their rightful clay? They have a right to that because they inherited it through blood and tradition ONLY. Every member of the folk has a right defined by their bloodline, whether that is the right to citizenship or the right to rule. The rights of blood are the rights of race.
>There needs to be a fire under their asses so that they understand if they are fuck ups then someone else will take the reigns.
Unless you are suggesting applying this treatment to the Fuhrer himself I don't entirely understand the relevance. Treating them as normal prior to taking the throne is no problem, perfectly compatible with monarchism.
>If that is who the Fuhrer thought was best then by all means give him control.
Let's put this another way. Even if every white person was retarded they would have a right to exist and a right to a homeland, and if another race, say asians just for argument's sake, are in this nightmare scenario vastly superior to whites - well going by merit now they can simply take what belongs to the whites. Merit can be deceptive, it can involve luck and numerous other factors, but even discarding that I still would not supplant blood with merit. Blood is eternal, merit is fleeting.
>The first heir to the throne would have one half of the Fuhrer's original DNA, the second 1/4th, the third 1/8th, the fourth 1/16th, and so on. There is plenty of room for deterioration in Monarchy too.
There is, but less. The concept of a royal marriage means that the partner to the monarch is selected very carefully to best strengthen the bloodline - or it would in modern times in any case.
>People in leadership tend to breed with other people in leadership.
And we should solidify this by ensuring leaders breed with leaders and not with peasants (save good genetic stock from among them)
>>278656
>As a National Socialist our core philosophy is for what is the best for our race in our various nations.
I agree with variation across peoples, but again I believe race cannot be separated from culture and tradition, it is culture combined with genetics.
>Different people, different systems. With system of government, this naturally reflects the behaviors, beliefs and general cultures of the peoples it rules over if allowed to develop and not be forcefully or peacefully imposed by another.
In terms of variations that sounds closer to Fascism than National Socialism.

>>278710
>Which is improved by selective breeding, i.e guarding the bloodline - which not only refers to royal blood but the bloodline of every single person in a society.
Just because someone is in the royal bloodline does not mean that they have inherited genes worth keeping.

>Congratulations, you just described royal marriage.
No I described Eugenics, In Eugenics we frown upon inbreeding.

>You realize this is the exact argument pro-immigration progressives use? I understand you are speaking from a pragmatist point of view, but I rather feel we are a people of principles rather than cold pragmatism.
Progressives make many arguments for immigration most of them are economic arguments based on faulty grounds. A progressive will say anything to convince someone that immigration will good.

>Our heritage is more than just tradition - I can keep a colony of cells pure in a petri dish, but this on it own is meaningless, it is what behaviours they exhibit, their history, and their future that is defined entirely by those previous two factors that matters. That is to say I don't think there's any good preserving race without heritage, because the value of the race we are preserving is defined by characteristics such as principle, honor, and indeed tradition. Obviously these things survive so long as the people carrying those behaviours survive, but to sacrifice those traditions and principles is to act entirely in non-accordance with the very thing that makes us worth saving. So an admirable pragmatist outlook, but I would rather live up to my ancestors than descend to the level of a Jew simply because the ends are felt to justify the means.
Humans are constantly evolving; culturally and genetically. I fully expect my race to be different in 1000 years (due to selective breeding not muttification) and their cultural needs will be different from our own. Stagnation is not an option.

>I misspoke, I trust his genes. As I said I trust race over individuals.
The Fuhrer alone is not the race.

>But a folk is not more than the sum of the collective spirit of the current generation and their forefathers preserved through the bloodlines of each and every one of the folk's members.
That is not the king or royal family.

>But you only care about genes when it concerns unimportant people rather than the Fuhrer, and would destroy our culture in a heartbeat if it meant preserving the race.
I would not destroy our entire culture as much of our culture is made to ensure our survival. I would remove bits and pieces that made us less adaptable. Just as I would select against maladaptive traits in our eugenics program. Presumably we do not want insanity, low IQ's, and hereditary disease to continue.

>Evolution deriving from inheritance, both genetic and cultural. Without both you nigh on destroy the folk.
Genes are constantly changing and so the culture most change with the genes.

>But they do die in the absence of concern for lineage, which applies to the entire folk because it applies to the human heart of the nation
No one is saying to abandon concern for lineage. Members of our volk with better genes will be incentivized to have more children.

>On the contrary they should, or else what right does the bloodline of the volk have to their rightful clay? They have a right to that because they inherited it through blood and tradition ONLY. Every member of the folk has a right defined by their bloodline, whether that is the right to citizenship or the right to rule. The rights of blood are the rights of race.
The rights to land and citizenship are very different from the right to rule. Land and citizenship do not put the fate of the entire race in the hands of one lineage.

>Treating them as normal prior to taking the throne is no problem, perfectly compatible with monarchism
No one should be handed power without proving themselves first. It would be foolish to send an army to battle with a general's son that had never seen combat.

>Let's put this another way. Even if every white person was retarded they would have a right to exist and a right to a homeland, and if another race, say asians just for argument's sake, are in this nightmare scenario vastly superior to whites - well going by merit now they can simply take what belongs to the whites. Merit can be deceptive, it can involve luck and numerous other factors, but even discarding that I still would not supplant blood with merit. Blood is eternal, merit is fleeting.
Your analogy makes no sense. Whites are the greatest race on the planet and our history proves this. Furthermore retarded whites would be aborted or sterilized. We do not want to preserve shitty traits.

>There is, but less. The concept of a royal marriage means that the partner to the monarch is selected very carefully to best strengthen the bloodline - or it would in modern times in any case.
Everyone else would have their bloodline strengthened as well. There is no guarantee that the royal bloodline has the best genes. We need to ensure that the best reach the top. The volk with the best genes need to be given the most resources so that they have more offspring and the volk with the worst genes need to be sterilized. Over time this will improve the volk.
>And we should solidify this by ensuring leaders breed with leaders and not with peasants (save good genetic stock from among them)
Peasants with good genes should be allowed to rise to the top so that their genes enter the gene pool of our leadership.

Scenario* not analogy. I'm tired sorry.

>>278721
>In Eugenics we frown upon inbreeding.
Inbreeding becomes a factor 1: in an era where eugenics are not understood and 2: when royal marriages have brought a group of various royalties genetically closer together. However I think you know full well I was not advocating inbreeding, especially due to mentioning the use of non-royals of good genetic stock.
>Stagnation is not an option.
Is that what you feel the almost 2 milennia of recent european history were? Just stagnation?
>The Fuhrer alone is not the race.
Indeed not, but the King is.
>That is not the king or royal family.
They are the central nexus of the folk that defines who and what the folk are.
>I would not destroy our entire culture as much of our culture is made to ensure our survival. I would remove bits and pieces that made us less adaptable. Just as I would select against maladaptive traits in our eugenics program.
I think to play god like this is fundamentally anti-folk.
>Presumably we do not want insanity, low IQ's, and hereditary disease to continue.
Indeed so, and I'd voluntarily submit myself to your eugenics program for the good of the folk - but I think eugenics is more a stand-in for conditions which no longer exist that previously would wipe out genetic dead ends. In terms of principles and aspects of our traditions and culture opposed to this, I think adhering to those in a wider sense still ought to be central, but we need not follow the precise letter of the law if it's spirit is preserved. Besides, before long the eugenics program could probably be reapplied or scaled down in the wake of demonstrable improvements.
>No one is saying to abandon concern for lineage. Members of our volk with better genes will be incentivized to have more children.
The thing is you could make a perfect super-race in a lab, but it would be meaningless. I think the illustrious history of our existing folk therefore is worth drawing from, preserving and continuing - it may not have value in a strictly nihilistic sense, but being a member of that folk I have an innate desire to do so, and I imagine it would go for most.
>The rights to land and citizenship are very different from the right to rule. Land and citizenship do not put the fate of the entire race in the hands of one lineage.
The fate of the entire race must be placed into the hands of one person, however. Unless you were referring to absolutism again, but even when a monarch has absolute power he does not rule alone, it's impossible.
>No one should be handed power without proving themselves first.
Hitler was no politician, he only enacted policy upon seizing power. And he demonstrated himself from then on. That worked out fine so far as I'm concerned, and even if it didn't work out well, it is still better than the alternative.
>It would be foolish to send an army to battle with a general's son that had never seen combat.
But it would be better to allow the inherently superior general's son to acquire skills through application than to simply appoint some common rank soldier or the general's lieutenant.
>Your analogy makes no sense. Whites are the greatest race on the planet and our history proves this. Furthermore retarded whites would be aborted or sterilized. We do not want to preserve shitty traits.
My analogy is that being the greatest is not the only factor in the value of the folk. Even if we were not the greatest I would still believe what I believe is what I am saying.
>There is no guarantee that the royal bloodline has the best genes.
Yes. The government will make the guarantee with every means at their disposal.
>The volk with the best genes need to be given the most resources so that they have more offspring and the volk with the worst genes need to be sterilized. Over time this will improve the volk.
By using a method of assignment for this rather than trusting organic human behaviours, what you've got is a class system by another name. I'd be very much in favor of a class structure based on a combination of genetic quality and merit.
>Peasants with good genes should be allowed to rise to the top so that their genes enter the gene pool of our leadership.
That's why I just suggested precisely that. If a peasant is genetically good enough then naturally they will rise to a higher class.
>>278724
>Scenario* not analogy. I'm tired sorry.
No worries. All it is saying is that I'd be a nationalist of whatever race I belonged to.

>>278808
How can a peasant rise to a higher class under a monarchic system?
Sure, he could amass enough to become middle-class, maybe even become upper-class, but would "his fellow" rich people accept him even though he lacks generations of rich people behind him?

>>278808
>Inbreeding becomes a factor 1: in an era where eugenics are not understood and 2: when royal marriages have brought a group of various royalties genetically closer together. However I think you know full well I was not advocating inbreeding, especially due to mentioning the use of non-royals of good genetic stock.
Inbreeding will naturally occur among royal families just as it did in the past. It is the natural consequence of valuing lineage above all else.

>Is that what you feel the almost 2 milennia of recent european history were? Just stagnation?
Several traditions came and went in the past 2 millennia

>Indeed not, but the King is.
No he is not. Our DNA is. The leader is just one of many members of the race.

>They are the central nexus of the folk that defines who and what the folk are.
No they are not. If the king and the royal family were all slaughtered the race would not cease to exist. Clearly the race is more than the royal family.

>Besides, before long the eugenics program could probably be reapplied or scaled down in the wake of demonstrable improvements.
Why would we ever want to slow down our race's rate of improvement?

>The thing is you could make a perfect super-race in a lab, but it would be meaningless
That would be very dangerous. Too many unknown variables to do it safely.

>I think the illustrious history of our existing folk therefore is worth drawing from, preserving and continuing - it may not have value in a strictly nihilistic sense, but being a member of that folk I have an innate desire to do so, and I imagine it would go for most.
History and culture are useful for bringing a people together. No one is advocating getting rid of it all. We keep what is useful.

> Unless you were referring to absolutism again, but even when a monarch has absolute power he does not rule alone, it's impossible.
He may not rule alone, but his decisions could very well lead to the end of the race if he fucks up.

>Hitler was no politician, he only enacted policy upon seizing power. And he demonstrated himself from then on. That worked out fine so far as I'm concerned, and even if it didn't work out well, it is still better than the alternative.
The fact that he was able to seize power from the kikes made him fit for the job in the first place.

>But it would be better to allow the inherently superior general's son to acquire skills through application than to simply appoint some common rank soldier or the general's lieutenant.
The kid is not necessarily inherently superior. Again read up on regression to the mean.

>Yes. The government will make the guarantee with every means at their disposal.
How will a monarchy regulate away the regression to the mean?

>I'd be very much in favor of a class structure based on a combination of genetic quality and merit.
This is exactly what I want. Why not apply this system to leadership as well?

>If a peasant is genetically good enough then naturally they will rise to a higher class.
And if a peasant is so good that they can surpass current leadership (unlikely, but there are example of it happening) then they should be allowed to lead.

>>278809
>How can a peasant rise to a higher class under a monarchic system?Sure, he could amass enough to become middle-class, maybe even become upper-class, but would "his fellow" rich people accept him even though he lacks generations of rich people behind him?
A monarchic system doesn't have a general economic stance, so the answer would depend on what economic system the country the monarch ruled over had.
>>278845
>Inbreeding will naturally occur among royal families just as it did in the past. It is the natural consequence of valuing lineage above all else.
Royal marriage is national policy, not the choice of monarchs. The value of the lineage is defined by a complete absence of inbreeding, because no government could do else in this day and age.
>Several traditions came and went in the past 2 millennia
They were neither deliberately discarded or entirely forgotten.
>No he is not. Our DNA is. The leader is just one of many members of the race.
The members of the race are not equal to one another, there are inherently superior segments to them, and this must be recognized to preserve hierarchical society.
>Why would we ever want to slow down our race's rate of improvement?
I just assumed at some point you'd run out of room for improvement.
>That would be very dangerous. Too many unknown variables to do it safely.
Great, but my point was that even if you could do it safely there would be no purpose to that race's existence. Strength alone means nothing without something to defend, and intelligence alone means nothing without something to believe in.
>History and culture are useful for bringing a people together. No one is advocating getting rid of it all. We keep what is useful.
I think to imply that you'd discard what is not useful is a rather blatant display of hubris.
>He may not rule alone, but his decisions could very well lead to the end of the race if he fucks up.
Agreed, which is why I don't believe in absolute monarchy.
>The kid is not necessarily inherently superior. Again read up on regression to the mean.
I see lineage as a microcosm of race. If lineage can regress to the mean even without ever introducing lesser genetic stock, then I fail to understand how a race would do so - which is precisely why I see regression to the mean as communist propaganda.
>This is exactly what I want. Why not apply this system to leadership as well?
Because there must be one leader? His subordinates can be subject to that system.
>And if a peasant is so good that they can surpass current leadership (unlikely, but there are example of it happening) then they should be allowed to lead.
I think given the anomalous result we ought not to simply put such a person in charge of the country, but natural aptitude for leadership has plenty of other pursuits, and he could hold any number of important government or military positions and exist under the class structure. I don't trust a chance rising to the top to lead a nation.

>>278942
>They were neither deliberately discarded or entirely forgotten.
Some were see witch trials

>The members of the race are not equal to one another, there are inherently superior segments to them, and this must be recognized to preserve hierarchical society.
Some members are obviously superior, but the loss of one great member of the race does not mean the end of the race.

>I just assumed at some point you'd run out of room for improvement.
We started our journey as single celled organism and look at where we are now. You think we are even close to the end of this story?

>Strength alone means nothing without something to defend, and intelligence alone means nothing without something to believe in.
Defend and believe in the race. Your kin. Your story.

>If lineage can regress to the mean even without ever introducing lesser genetic stock, then I fail to understand how a race would do so.
If you continue to improve the gene pool over time the mean will improve as well

>which is precisely why I see regression to the mean as communist propaganda.
It is an observable phenomenon. If you need to deny the existence of reality because it is inconvenient to your ideology then your ideology is shit.

>Agreed, which is why I don't believe in absolute monarchy.
What type of monarchy exactly do you believe in?

>Because there must be one leader? His subordinates can be subject to that system.
A leader can still be subjected to a system.

>I think given the anomalous result we ought not to simply put such a person in charge of the country, but natural aptitude for leadership has plenty of other pursuits, and he could hold any number of important government or military positions and exist under the class structure. I don't trust a chance rising to the top to lead a nation.
Why?

who's monarchy pone?

>>278988
>Some were see witch trials
I see this as a little like saying the tradition of bastille day was not continued. I wouldn't venture to call witch trials a tradition, besides as we know jews were poisoning wells to cause the plague, so it's more than likely their accomplices were harming communities in a manner our ancestors are likely to have seen as witchcraft.
>but the loss of one great member of the race does not mean the end of the race.
but the loss of the exaltation of the very greatest the race can produce means that the system is unsuited to any european people.
>We started our journey as single celled organism and look at where we are now. You think we are even close to the end of this story?
there's only so much capacity our physical forms have for improvement, after a certain point it would become transhumanism.
>If you continue to improve the gene pool over time the mean will improve as well
I see, and you need an arbitrary large number to count as a gene pool I suppose. If we go by this logic then immigrants are fine since they'll just assimilate and in small enough numbers won't harm the mean - and that's the issue with your point of view, you aren't talking about sanctity but rather engineering a hypothetical super-race.
>It is an observable phenomenon. If you need to deny the existence of reality because it is inconvenient to your ideology then your ideology is shit.
I'm saying that the relevance of regression to the mean with regards to lineage is communist propaganda, obviously statistically this occurs and so it will occur in large sample sizes such as gene pools, but there is an extent to which genetic lineage overcomes that, otherwise the slavs and americans would long ago have regressed to a lower mean given ottoman and black intermixing. This is not to say that my previous statement does not hold true, but my point is that I don't see how regression to the mean can occur when you don't introduce enough of a low genetic stock to allow the mean to drop.
>What type of monarchy exactly do you believe in?
Constitutional. The power of the monarch is limited and both legitimizes but does not control the other two branches of government.
>Why?
Chance alone in selecting a leader might be good enough for a company, perhaps even good enough for lower officials, but the nation deserves the best assurance that it can receive, regression to the mean or no. Even if the subordinates to the monarch are superior it is vital that the government retain control of all genetic factors of it's leader, which requires management of the current leader's marriage and the upbringing of his offspring.

>>279195
>I wouldn't venture to call witch trials a tradition,
Laws on witchcraft were written into the law. They were a real part of our culture. (whether that is inconvenient to you or not) Sure the laws could be used to get rid of the village thot, but the laws were easily abused. Witch hunts and witch trials were a rotten part of our culture and they were abandoned.

>but the loss of the exaltation of the very greatest the race can produce means that the system is unsuited to any european people.
One this isn't what you were arguing. You were arguing that the king/royal family was the race. Two please explain how.

>there's only so much capacity our physical forms have for improvement
And at what point do you think that is? Look at the incredible feats preformed by biological organism; limpets' teeth, spider silk, corvid brains, human brains, echolocation, magnetoreception, super strength (common among insects), bioelectrogenesis, the deadliest toxins on the planet and the means to destroy/disable them, photosynthesis, chemosynthesis, the list goes on far too long for one post. Life can adapt to a variety of environments and capable of producing the stuff of legends all on it's own.

>after a certain point it would become transhumanism
Speciation is an inevitable part of natural selection.

>I see, and you need an arbitrary large number to count as a gene pool I suppose.
Depends on where you draw the line. It could be as small as a family or as large as the entire nation or human race.

>If we go by this logic then immigrants are fine since they'll just assimilate and in small enough numbers won't harm the mean
See outbreeding depression. Mixing genetically distant populations together can have disastrous results. I don't want those results in my nation's gene pool.

>and that's the issue with your point of view, you aren't talking about sanctity but rather engineering a hypothetical super-race.
A super-race and the culture needed to guide the super-race to even greater heights. National Socialism is just biology applied to politics after all.

>I'm saying that the relevance of regression to the mean with regards to lineage is communist propaganda, obviously statistically this occurs and so it will occur in large sample sizes such as gene pools, but there is an extent to which genetic lineage overcomes that, otherwise the slavs and americans would long ago have regressed to a lower mean given ottoman and black intermixing.
There are certain populations among slavs and americans that are worse off than the other Europeans and I blame race mixing for that. Now I don't have any studies to back that up because most scientific journals will not allow studies on race and genetics to be published.

>This is not to say that my previous statement does not hold true, but my point is that I don't see how regression to the mean can occur when you don't introduce enough of a low genetic stock to allow the mean to drop.
Ok let's say you have two tall parents and they have children. Just because the parents were tall does not mean that the children will be tall. Now most likely they will be taller than the average child, but probably not as tall as the parents (though they could be, but ON AVERAGE the offspring of very tall parents will not be as tall as the parents). Height is a highly polygenic trait which means that many genes are responsible for that trait. Some of the genes responsible for the height of one parent may be different then the genes responsible for height in the other parent. If the child does not recieve the right combination they won't be as tall. Perhaps one of the perhaps both of the parents genetypes is heterozygotic and that gives them an advantage or the desired gene is dominate, but the child receives only recessive genes. (Think back to punnett squares and Mendel here). Perhaps a crossover event moves genes around. Perhaps there is a mutation. Etc. The point is breeding two extremely fit individuals does not guarantee extremely fit offspring.

>Constitutional. The power of the monarch is limited and both legitimizes but does not control the other two branches of government.
So even under your system the leader would still be subject to rules.

>Chance alone in selecting a leader might be good enough for a company, perhaps even good enough for lower officials, but the nation deserves the best assurance that it can receive, regression to the mean or no. Even if the subordinates to the monarch are superior it is vital that the government retain control of all genetic factors of it's leader, which requires management of the current leader's marriage and the upbringing of his offspring.
You are taking a gamble every time the king has a kid that the heir will be fit for office. You have better odds of selecting a better leader if that leader has already demonstrated the ability to lead. By allowing the leader of the nation to name his successor you eliminate a lot of "chance".

>>279241
>Laws on witchcraft were written into the law.
So are social justice laws. Sure some of that is from a form of foreign occupation, but at the end of the day there's enough whites supporting it that it is an aspect of our culture by your definition. The point being that culture is an equal partner to genetics, and both must be ruled over by a just legal system based on establishment of facts, a jury, and the antagonistic form of representation in court.
>They were a real part of our culture. (whether that is inconvenient to you or not)
And it was a real part of our culture that created the principles which ended the practice - not, however, pure appeal to reason. It was a change created by the at the time relatively immovable cornerstones of our identity, rather than an opposition based on lack of convenience, waste of resources, that sort of thing. Taking a scientific approach to government will only get you halfway there, there is a living human element that deserves not to have it's culture forcibly changed.
>Witch hunts and witch trials were a rotten part of our culture and they were abandoned.
Precisely, abandoned through a cultural process, not deliberately suppressed.
>You were arguing that the king/royal family was the race.
Metaphorically speaking. If I wasn't that's as good as claiming windmills are giants.
>Two please explain how.
It's a microcosm of wider society. The Royal Family ought to set an example of the very highest ideal of our people, the most perfect family that can exist, which cares not only for their immediate family but for the grand family of the nation.
>Life can adapt to a variety of environments and capable of producing the stuff of legends all on it's own.
Which is surely impressive, but I think the sanctity of life derives from it's separation to engineering. the miracle is not so much the achievements of life itself, a robot is an improvement over animals in many respects after all, but rather that this occurred without the human hand of construction. Of course this sanctity and sacredness being attributed to a concept could be construed as a "spook" of sorts, but I think once we head down the path of dismissing that which our culture instinctively holds dear, we end up with not much of a society to speak of.
>It could be as small as a family
excellent then, students of biology such as yourself can be employed perfecting this small example of a gene pool.
>Mixing genetically distant populations together can have disastrous results. I don't want those results in my nation's gene pool.
You've narrowly missed the point there. It isn't only not wanting them in the gene pool, it's not wanting them in my FAMILY. The point is that defending that is the important element, and reducing the most important aspect of human life to a minor gene pool doesn't help matters in my eyes. It need not be rationalized on the level of an entire race, because every family ought to look after themselves rigorously. The reason why you would only accept a member of your race being your leader is the same reason that I would only accept the first leader's descendants: you want to make the importance of race the central thesis of the nation. I say defending race alone does not go far enough, every single individual family must be defended, and just as having a leader of the race you want to save represents that to you, having the leader of the families I want to save be a family represents that to me.
>National Socialism is just biology applied to politics after all.
Agreed, which is why I find it to be altogether too reductionist for me. Biology applied to politics helps us with aspects of rulership, but not rulership in it's entirety. (Not to mention there's not nearly enough books on the subject of National Socialism compared to Reactionary thought for my appetite, but that's of course just a factor in opinion.)
>There are certain populations among slavs and americans that are worse off than the other Europeans and I blame race mixing for that.
We also have celts having lower IQs on average despite, until recently, having relatively little intermixing. I don't think this detracts from their quality as a people much however, which I'd ascribe to the stronger emphasis on tradition in their culture.
>Now I don't have any studies to back that up because most scientific journals will not allow studies on race and genetics to be published.
There are studies prior to this dynamic shift, though I imagine you're referring to breakthroughs in the methods used since their publication?
>The point is breeding two extremely fit individuals does not guarantee extremely fit offspring.
Yes, but breeding two white individuals does guarantee a more intelligent offspring than a half white, half aborigine individual. There certainly are factors that are more random as you say, but I contend there are also factors that can be reliably inherited. Now it's obvious to anybody that I'm anything but an expert in the subject, but I believe I'm right in saying that there are dominant genetic factors in addition to non-dominant ones that we can safely assume will be passed down.
>So even under your system the leader would still be subject to rules.
Ultimately it is a contract between the Monarch and his estates, yes. Like a contract between a worker and his boss, there are limitations on what the boss can do with his workers and what they can tell workers to do, which as they acquire more power needs more and more stringent regulations to keep them in check, which on a national scale obviously leads to a leader more restricted than a company boss.
>By allowing the leader of the nation to name his successor you eliminate a lot of "chance".
In some respects yes, and if the heir is either underage or disabled a regent would be appointed like naming a successor. But I prefer a Monarch to a regent because I'd rather the nation control every aspect of a leader's creation, from genes to education.

>>279280
>So are social justice laws. Sure some of that is from a form of foreign occupation, but at the end of the day there's enough whites supporting it that it is an aspect of our culture by your definition.
An aspect of our culture that I would throw away in a heart beat if given the opportunity.

>And it was a real part of our culture that created the principles which ended the practice - not, however, pure appeal to reason. It was a change created by the at the time relatively immovable cornerstones of our identity, rather than an opposition based on lack of convenience, waste of resources, that sort of thing. Taking a scientific approach to government will only get you halfway there, there is a living human element that deserves not to have it's culture forcibly changed.
Certain aspects of our culture should be forcibly changed. Egalitarian slave morality social justice garbage needs to die.

>The Royal Family ought to set an example of the very highest ideal of our people, the most perfect family that can exist, which cares not only for their immediate family but for the grand family of the nation.
I'm not so sure that is a good idea for a political entity to be the model family for the rest of our society. The needs of the royal family will be different from the needs of the average family so they will obviously have different family dynamics and traditions. These traditions and dynamics may not be as beneficial for say the family of a mechanic.

>Which is surely impressive, but I think the sanctity of life derives from it's separation to engineering. the miracle is not so much the achievements of life itself, a robot is an improvement over animals in many respects after all, but rather that this occurred without the human hand of construction. Of course this sanctity and sacredness being attributed to a concept could be construed as a "spook" of sorts, but I think once we head down the path of dismissing that which our culture instinctively holds dear, we end up with not much of a society to speak of.
As of now our culture holds diversity and equality very dear. Should we preserve that? Of course not. That which actively harms us should be destroyed.

>excellent then, students of biology such as yourself can be employed perfecting this small example of a gene pool.
Are you suggesting genetically engineering the monarchs? Because that would be about the only way 100% sure way to do it. I mean that may be feasible in the future, but I'm not sure how wise that would be. A lot could go wrong there.

>I say defending race alone does not go far enough, every single individual family must be defended, and just as having a leader of the race you want to save represents that to you, having the leader of the families I want to save be a family represents that to me.
I don't think we should guarantee the existence of every family and bloodline. Bad genetics should be allowed to fail.

>Agreed, which is why I find it to be altogether too reductionist for me. Biology applied to politics helps us with aspects of rulership, but not rulership in it's entirety.
Everything about us boils down to biology. From our physical abilities to the cultures that we create.

>We also have celts having lower IQs on average despite, until recently, having relatively little intermixing. I don't think this detracts from their quality as a people much however, which I'd ascribe to the stronger emphasis on tradition in their culture.
Those lower IQs were the result of extenuating circumstances. If you starve a population or give a large portion of population fetal alcohol syndrome you are going to fuck them up.

>There are studies prior to this dynamic shift, though I imagine you're referring to breakthroughs in the methods used since their publication?
Generally anything after WW2 relating to genes and race is a big no-no. Even trying to publish a study in that field can end your career in science. (Look what happened to Dr. James Watson for merely SPECULATING) We didn't even know the structure of DNA until 1953. Scientists aren't allowed to study the genes responsible for intelligence and it pisses me off.

>Yes, but breeding two white individuals does guarantee a more intelligent offspring than a half white, half aborigine individual. There certainly are factors that are more random as you say, but I contend there are also factors that can be reliably inherited. Now it's obvious to anybody that I'm anything but an expert in the subject, but I believe I'm right in saying that there are dominant genetic factors in addition to non-dominant ones that we can safely assume will be passed down.
We cannot safely assume polygenic traits will be passed down. (without genetically engineering the monarch) And even if one monarch does receive the best of both his parents there is no guarantee that his offspring will be the best. Again the king's son will have half his DNA, his grandson one quarter and so on. Then factor in there is a tendency to regress to the mean every step of the way.

>But I prefer a Monarch to a regent because I'd rather the nation control every aspect of a leader's creation, from genes to education.
Ideally we be controlling the education and genes of every citizen to the best of our ability. So long as the leader came from one of our citizens we would already have control over those factors anyways.

>>279354
>Everything about us boils down to biology.
And biology boils down to mathematics, but we don't propose mathematics as a solution to political problems - indeed China and the Soviet Union's leaderships were, and in the case of China are, made up almost entirely of engineers - and the reason we do not propose mathematics as a methodology of producing solutions to political problems is because there is a more useful system of abstractions with which to consider them, and so I'd say the same with biology.
>Those lower IQs were the result of extenuating circumstances. If you starve a population or give a large portion of population fetal alcohol syndrome you are going to fuck them up.
I'm glad you bring this up because it's a point which is not even nearly talked about enough, which is that the British Empire's treatment of Celtic peoples was deliberate, and it the main figure behind the potato famine was one Jewish Benjamin Disraeli, who would later become Prime Minister and establish the Indian Empire portion of Britain's dominions, which essentially allowed Queen Victoria to take the title of Empress - i.e a Jew founded the British Empire. And it certainly wasn't just this one Jew - I don't want to go off on too much of a tangent but I'm sick and tired of seeing people defend the British Empire when it was the single entity most responsible for forging today's world politics and geopolitical structures and was in some ways even more Jewish than fucking Israel (which you will note was also founded by the British Empire). I encourage everyone to look into this stuff, it ranges from Britain allowing Lenin to take over Russia and even British troops building the first gulags to Britain's extermination of white settlers in south africa and in patagonia.
>Generally anything after WW2 relating to genes and race is a big no-no.
I think even that's an odd watershed, though we had some research being done from the 30s to mid 40s thanks to Germany that sort of research was not all that easy or accepted in the mid-war era either.

>>279280
What's soyboy about Steampunk?

>>279585
oh, the picture. well it's basically a meme, despite it saying it isn't. having said that though, I personally don't really like how many girls are involved in steampunk, and a lot of steampunk fans seem very keen on progressivism. but it is a very interesting genre, an underused one in my opinion.

>>279592
It's funny how the girls in nerd culture and nerdy subcultures are almost always there to get treated like a pretty girl by guys who see countless 2D girls hotter than them every day.
As if we're supposed to pretend 4/10 women deserve props and an elevation in rank to 10/10 for dressing up in a slutty batman costume.

>>279592
What makes steampunk interesting in your view?

>>279600
It's retrofuturism, but not the 1960s Star Trek And Fallout/Pulp Novels kind of "Raygun in one hand, fist in the other, saving women from aliens that want your women" retrofuturism.
It's the vision of the future envisioned by The Victorians, who had so much hope for the future and so much faith in their children.
They didn't write horror stories about how their kids would fuck everything up for them/the world.
They made postcards where entire city blocks migrate around the country on steam-powered trains.
And horror stories weren't written for them about how their kids would fuck everything up.
It's disgusting and hilarious how many dystopia stories (Logan's Run) are horror stories about the boomers being fucked over by their kids who theoretically out-boomer the boomers.
Anyway steampunk looks cool, opens itself up for an interesting exploration of Victorian-era themes/attitudes/sensibilities in the modern day or any kind of future, and lets you run wild with taking real-world elements and redesigning them to fit the look.
Faggots see the aesthetic of Steampunk and think it's just another aesthetic, like Goth or Scene. They think they can glue bronze cogs onto a top-hat and call it steampunk.
But it's about the past and future meeting and fucking to give the world the weirdest baby you've ever seen.
It's got so much more potential than "generic sci-fi" and "generic fantasy" do.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2qWCMVRzNk

>>279604
>It's the vision of the future envisioned by The Victorians, who had so much hope for the future and so much faith in their children.
In other countries maybe, not so in Britain. Jews openly ruled the streets of London, the urban populations of Britain were the least healthy in Europe, suffering from malnourishment, overwhelming amounts of smog, and industrial pollution on a scale scarcely seen before or since. I already went over the full Jewish control of the Empire and the Government, so I won't repeat myself there, but the hope our world had was in places like France, where the steampunk genre had it's most prolific writers, most notably Jules Verne, and in Italy and Germany, who unified into one nation representing their peoples for the first time, and had great cause to rejoice in the first mighty achievements of nationalism, starting a entire new era of philosophy and art and culture in Germany and sounding the end of the Austrian dominion thanks to the Italians. Meanwhile in Britain nationalism was reviled and despised, as it always was. Britain preferred Europe divided and infighting, and as such was strongly opposed to any nationalism on the continent, not to mention the hatred of Celtic Nationalism domestically - the concept of a united race and culture and language having self-governance over their homeland has always been anathema to the British State, which has not only trampled over the Scots, Welsh and Irish, but also acted very much against the best interests of the English people at every single decision of it's existence. Britain domestically was a slave state of starving, ill Englishmen and abroad a solidification of Jewish dominion across the globe. The Victorian Era was truly a great time for Europe, but for Britain, it was one of the darkest periods in history.

>>279583
>And biology boils down to mathematics, but we don't propose mathematics as a solution to political problems - indeed China and the Soviet Union's leaderships were, and in the case of China are, made up almost entirely of engineers - and the reason we do not propose mathematics as a methodology of producing solutions to political problems is because there is a more useful system of abstractions with which to consider them, and so I'd say the same with biology.
We use math in political decisions all the time. Especially those related to economics or industry. Much like we should turn to biology in matters related to race.

>>279637
>We use math in political decisions all the time. Especially those related to economics or industry. Much like we should turn to biology in matters related to race.
That's not the point I made. The first chap was saying that National Socialism was Biology applied to politics, and my response was that Mathematics applied to politics wouldn't make a good system, which is why I assumed the same would apply for Biology, providing the closest example of late-stage Communism for a state embodying Mathematics applied to politics. Yes, Biology is very much applicable in areas concerning race, and not only that area but many others, but it is but one aspect of politics and so I think merely applying a singular field to politics is a little short-sighted, and I would argue that varieties of Fascism were more broad in their approach.

The issue with mathematics alone in any kind of discourse is that in other fields capturing the full picture, and all the important minutia is hard and time consuming. Let alone gathering everything.
Math can overcome seemingly great hurdles, and math done wrong can spell the end to entire empires. Wrong math looks so pretty as math done right.
Intuition serves as a nice check to raw math. Logical, and emotional thinking can divine more of the entire picture. Different perspectives can fully scope out all the issues, but going through them all takes time.
There are simplified equations that are good enough for a rough guess, and those same simplified ones are utterly shit for ensuring optimal performance.
Math is the pure science. One far beyond others that solve problems that have no equal yet. One always steps into the future. It's just a matter of applying what is found, and finding what might be needed latter.
Everything of humanity has some rough guidelines that appear time and time again. Logarithmic sense of extremes, creative endeavors in any of the senses, even in some methods of thinking. Fractally everything almost follows it except when it doesn't. On, and on with more reasons and different explanations that describe the same thing, but each one making a more coherent and true whole.
>>279637
>>279639
The problem with using math as political structure is that people make mistakes. Could someone calculate what the best way to live would be to maximize everything, except evil. Technically sorta, but everyone is just different enough to cause problems with a one size fits all.
To make it work needs everything from everywhere, and everything not even considered at the time to make lasting long term predictions.
Could super generalized AI do pretty good. Sure, but even that wouldn't be enough. On a 'pure' mathematical style of governance that doesn't turn to shit. It could be a handy guideline, but never to be solely trusted alone.

>>279643
>The problem with using math as political structure is that people make mistakes.
You could make mistakes with any political structure. How is that unique to math?

>>279639
I am the chap you were speaking with.
>Yes, Biology is very much applicable in areas concerning race, and not only that area but many others, but it is but one aspect of politics and so I think merely applying a singular field to politics is a little short-sighted, and I would argue that varieties of Fascism were more broad in their approach.
Biology is the science of life itself and politics is just a tool in the struggle between life and death. If we are to base our political system on anything we should base it on life.

>>279664
>Biology is the science of life itself and politics is just a tool in the struggle between life and death.
While it's true that politics is in essence about mass action of individual humans, biology as yet is imprecise in deterministic prediction, therefore politics remains a useful abstraction in which more is used than just biology.
> If we are to base our political system on anything we should base it on life.
I think you've actually made a reductionist statement by accident in trying to make biology sound impressive, because life is merely the prerequisite for the existence of politics, whereas biology is one of the components of our understanding of it. Basing our political system on biology would get us further than basing it on life, and I contend that basing our political system on biology, mathematics, history and sociology whilst also using it's own abstractions would be even better than that. There is no objection to biology as a huge, even dominant factor in politics, only "biology applied to politics", which leaves us with less to work with in the end.
Also I forgot to talk about your culture points last time - my counterargument was that that was invasive rather than organic culture, which makes it fine to forcibly get rid of. The same goes for modern English culture, which was mostly created by Jews to control us, and as such I think something along the lines of reeducation to instill a culture closer to Saxony, Scandinavia and Hanover, our original starting point, would be desirable.

Going to throw my hat in the ring here. I'm an ancap and opposed to the political aspects of monarchy, but in line with Hoppe's thinking absolute monarchy is superior to democracy. People tend to overlook the underlying purpose behind Democracy: the God that Failed and ask "Well why aren't you a monarchist?" when in fact the book is meant to discredit the modernist love of democracy and the wishy-washy appeal of constitutional monarchy. Just as absolute monarchy is superior to those systems a feudal monarchy is superior to that, and Hoppe's ideal decentralized system is superior to feudalism. Hoppe's historical theory also is based on a degeneration of political systems over time, with feudal authority being aggregated in a central entity (absolutism), the powerful monarch establishing a bureaucracy and intelligentsia to cement and administrate his rule, the bureaucracy taking over most aspects of government (constitutional monarchy), and the bureaucracy deciding it no longer needs a figurehead in a democracy.

Despite my right-anarchist beliefs I'm not totally opposed to monarchy. Just as people need to believe in morality, ideals, and abstractions, they also need to believe in authority figures, whether they be politicians, scientists, or philosophers. Thus even without formal political power a singular family can exert great influence by being something of a celebrity. This of course true of modern royal families, but what I have in mind is rather than promoting hedonism, gossip, and vague patriotism the royal family–having proven itself worthy of its status by some great deed–would provide a Christian model through a virtuous life, keeping a "royal standard" of wisdom and beneficence. The expectations of this pseudo-religious role would have to be of course very harsh and members would be freely permitted to abdicate from this role. Life although luxurious would be under a microscope and so of course the family couldn't have any dirty secrets, something made easier through lacking political power. This "village elder" model is quite idealistic, probably overly so.

The reason for this "soft-power" model is based on the reality that monarchs were considered representatives of God in the same way the father of the family is. However, Machiavelli was generally proven right and saintly monarchs, though notable, were the exception rather than the norm. Giving someone political power just introduces temptations for abuse–look at what had happened to the Church–and corrodes the system, and so minimizing this is in the best interest. Monarchy may be less entropic than democracy but it is still ultimately entropic, as C.S. Lewis hinted at in his description of the kings and queens of Charn.

>>278338
>A usurper cannot choose who the führer will appoint.
He can bribe people close to the führer, suck up to him, or in general exercise influence over such decisions. Some say it's the reason Hindenburg made Hitler chancellor. The HOI4 mod "The New Order" may peddle a lot of historical fiction about the Nazis to make them look cartoonishly evil, but a power grab or even civil war after the death of Hitler wouldn't have been the most unlikely scenario. The more power you put at the top, the more people will lust after it. Don't trust people, they'll let you down.

>>278655
Yes but in a way that doesn't make them look racist, like saying "underprivileged minorities do not have access to gene-editing that whites have." Also whereas Gattaca was a great movie expect a woke version that bombs at theaters but wins an Oscar.

>>278710
>Which is improved by selective breeding, i.e guarding the bloodline - which not only refers to royal blood but the bloodline of every single person in a society.
While this is desirable how this gets carried out is the crux of the issue. A government agency managing all this would create even more problems.

>>278721
>Humans are constantly evolving; culturally and genetically. I fully expect my race to be different in 1000 years (due to selective breeding not muttification) and their cultural needs will be different from our own. Stagnation is not an option.
Believing that we will be significantly better over time particularly in terms of culture is inherently modernist. If we're lucky the "European Revolution" in intelligence will resume and we'll be marginally better in other physical factors, but I won't pretend we'll be inherently better morally or culturally.

>Presumably we do not want insanity, low IQ's, and hereditary disease to continue.
Again, how you do this is more important.

>>278809
Although I'm heavily inclined in favor of adoption there have to be standards set in culture; you have to not only be an exceptional person but also understand the underpinnings of one's way of life, regardless of class. I'm otherwise not opposed to a terrific scholar, innovator, or explorer being given the honor.

>>279241
>National Socialism is just biology applied to politics after all.
Lolno, national socialism is a great meme and was the best available alternative for Germany at the time but it certainly was not objective in its tenets. Standardized IQ tests were abandoned in favor of cultural knowledge tests, and finally completely subjective interviews, because Jews and slavs scored too high. As an ideology it has a lot of flaws.

>>279354
>Scientists aren't allowed to study the genes responsible for intelligence and it pisses me off.
While you can (which is how we have redpills at all) these studies are not publicized for obvious reasons.

>>279637
Mathematical obsession taking economics was the worst thing that happened to that field. The issue is not with math itself, but models used are inherently subjective. Mathematics is the favorite go-to of the social engineer whose goal is manipulating people with policy; see the Federal Reserve.

>>279585
>>279604
>>279635
I won't lie, there are a lot of degenerates in steampunk but that's true for any online community, particularly those involving cosplay. You'll see a bunch who say "oh, we just like the aesthetic, we don't like the backwards culture of the Victorians" and they are all cringe. The 19th century is something to be unironically proud of because it could be seen as the height of Western culture before the nihilism of the Great War took hold. Certainly the rot had already set in from socialists, atheists, feminists and bohemians, but it was the last era where one could say traditional sensibilities were dominant in the West. I also disagree that it was a dark period for Britain when it was at the height of her prestige (even if she was often less than honorable), economic conditions were improving rapidly and technology was proceeding at a faster pace than ever. International trade before WW1 was greater than any time since until quite recently. Materially of course people were worse off than today but it was the 19th century which gave momentum to positive development which has continued to this day.

Steampunk continues this bright-eyed optimism and envisions a society with the technologies–or derivatives of such–predicted for the future. There is a heavy emphasis on mechanical engineering, a melding of form and function, and a love of adventure. It's not unreasonable to involve 19th century beliefs–however unpopular in the modern age–in steampunk work and portray them positively as well. Modern progressivism got its start rebelling against "Victorianism" so it's no surprise the latter gets a bad rap. Victorian morality obviously was not perfect but it's certainly preferable to what came afterward: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IE4oZ6F-gQM

>>279635
>>279695
Where do you get this information on the Jews? I want to learn more about this, and learn how much more of the history I was taught in school was a lie.
Is there a based wikipedia alternative somewhere on the deep web/dark web?

>>279697
>Where do you get this information on the Jews?
Some of it comes from My Nationalist Pony, some from reactionaries like Moldbug and their work, but a lot is simply connecting the dots. The big example is the English civil war - if we unpack it, what do we get? Well, first we have a monarch who is descended from the one who expelled the Jews from England, and the Jews mainly fled to the Netherlands, which we know from the Netherland's relatively open attitude towards other peoples and religion for the time. We also know from secret societies such as the Rosicrucians that early liberalism organized as cabals to overthrow governments, and we also know that Jews organized in secret societies due to the emergence of crypto-judaism during the Spanish inquisition and the simple fact that immigrants always tend to form these communities - see the mafia or the chinese secret societies in america. ok, so there's our set up, and what happened? Well, parliament became dominated by religious extremists, puritans, and demanded England go to war with Spain and France (bear in mind these were the dominant superpowers of their day by far, England was not even close to as powerful as them - in those days England was the most lesser of the great powers of europe, save perhaps for Russia) and to persecute catholic Englishmen. King Charles I believed in reconciliation between catholics and protestant, that is he put his people above religion, but he acceded to parliamentary demands and went to war with France. When England was promptly defeated, at sea funnily enough, parliament was furious and blamed the failure on Charles's appointed admiral, and demanded the right to appoint all commanders of the military. Now, to put this into perspective, not even today does parliament have this much power, so the demand at the time was insane. So Charles disbanded parliament and tried to rule without them, which was legal at the time - the trouble was that puritan extremists continued baying for catholic blood, and so Charles was forced to remain in conflict with France. And that's where some of the understanding comes from, after all if you just read the history carefully this is clearly the case, yet mainstream education paints Charles as a bloodthirsty warmongerer - this makes no sense for a man sympathetic to catholics, and who was previously a diplomat to Spain, and so immediately something's up in terms of deliberate misrepresentation of history. A lot of this is actually on wikipedia itself, the issue is moreso that current British schools teach the "Charles the bloodhound" myth, which entrenches ideas much more successfully than wikipedia ever could. anyway, to get back to the history, Charles tried other methods of raising revenue for the war, but couldn't raise taxes, and so eventually he had to call parliament back into session. Parliament was immediately uncooperative, and went back to their old tricks of trying to gain the power to appoint military commanders, targeting the Governor-General of Ireland. A man called John Pym along with his posse of 17th-century soyboys, including a certain Mr Cromwell, claimed that the Governor-General was raising an army of Irishmen to invade England, and put the Governor-General on trial despite the claim being - well, fucking stupid. The court obviously found the Governor-General not guilty, whereupon John Pym issued a declaration demanding the Governor-General's execution on the basis of "guilt" - that is, he did not list a crime. He issued a warrant for execution on the basis of just being guilty in general, which obviously, you have to be at least charged with a crime for that. So, utterly furious at this blatant breach of limitations by parliament, essentially an effort on their part to execute whoever they wanted for thoughtcrime, he stormed parliament to arrest John Pym and his lackeys - but their fellow MPs forewarned them, allowing Pym and the others to flee the county. Credit is due here to Cromwell, who at least was no coward, as he sat in parliament that day as Charles and his troops stormed it. Upon entering and finding the criminals gone, parliament accused Charles of violating parliamentary privilege - now, this was a very petty rule which stated that the King could not step foot inside parliament, which essentially meant that if the MPs wanted to keep one of their members unpunished for a crime, they could, as the King couldn't enter nor his men to make an arrest. And so immediately after Charles left, not even arresting Cromwell to show he did not intend to violate their privilege, just to make an arrest, parliament declared war on the King because he - well, for stepping into a fucking room basically. Long story short Charles lost and was executed, becoming a universal european martyr and the only canonized saint of the church of england, and the first liberal democracy the world had seen was born. And here we come back to Jews, because our Puritans, almost certainly who organized through secret societies before ruling England, lifted the ban on Jews and they re-entered the country. That isn't where the story ends though: the proto-communist rule of Cromwell was obviously extremely unpopular, and the English people overthrew him, demanding the return of Charles's heir. However, within a few decades parliament invited a prince of the Netherlands - yeah, you see how this works? - to invade England and declare himself King. Once William Prince of Orange agreed and did so, the Stuart Dynasty was ousted from power and a Dutch line, acceding to parliamentary demands and respecting Jewish power, came to the throne, pacifying the English people whilst placing a yoke on their shoulders. And we can see the Jewish influence from then on again just from normal history if you read carefully: the first exception to MPs having to be protestant was a certain Rothschild, first Jewish member of the house of lords, and Dicken's Fagin was a real Jewish oligarch.

>>279697
>Is there a based wikipedia alternative somewhere on the deep web/dark web?
There are some, Metapedia is something like that, though it's just on the clearweb. In truth I don't really get much of my information online, I mostly read old history books and watch for the nose. I think it's fair to assume that the vast majority of Jewish tricks will really never come to light, so a lot of this stuff needs to be investigated personally I think. There's also a lot of revealing information gleaned from reading Jewish works, their views of their religion, their history, their myths, that sort of thing - for example a legend of a Polish Jew in the middle of constructing a golem was told by god that an amalekite was nearby, and he left for three days just to kill him - this shows us the Jews believed that descendants of the amalekites - a people god in the torah gave a directive to wipe out, not just the men but the women, children, animals and lands were all to be burned, salted, so on - had descendants in europe. So yeah, essentially if you teach yourself the history from the direct sources, that circumvents having a teacher interpret it for you. sorry if that's a dissappointing answer, I too wish there were more neat resources online of this kind of stuff, and maybe some people here could set up a wiki for the more esoteric subjects not covered by infographs and so on, but a lot of it is just getting stuck into the raw data yourself and seeing what you find.

>>279702
>for example a legend of a Polish Jew
I tried to find the source on this, I didn't succeed but I found one where he references another of these stories, adapting it to talk about Hitler:
https://youtu.be/QX20CbMvF24
these legends jews have are fascinating since they seem to correlate with european stories of jews kidnapping babies and killing various people, seemingly at random. The rabbi also goes into how modern Amalekites are identified by inherent hatred of Jews, which is why a lot of jewish scholars say hitler was an amalekite - it's often misinterpreted to say that they feel the germans are amalekites, which in fact isn't true, it's pretty clear they feel there are some amalekites mixed throughout different european peoples, not all germans or germans exclusively.
>>279694
>I'm an ancap
Interesting, you're between me and the other guy - I'd say I'm a Paleolibertarian.
>and opposed to the political aspects of monarchy
the foundation of those political aspects are property rights, handing down crown land from father to son. I'm curious on what basis you would oppose the property rights of the monarch.
Also to go on a tangent, the term "anarcho-capitalism" is a fascinating example of the way marxists have a retarded pseudo-language: as much as they say it isn't anarchism it does in fact fit the marxist definition of anarchism, it's the capitalism part that doesn't - the common understanding of capitalism isn't even shared in it's definition by these crazies. I've no idea what Marx would call anarcho-capitalism - perhaps degenerative anarchism or some such weird pseudo word that only Marxists understand the meaning of. They have to learn a whole terminology just to read their own literature.

The term "Britain" is a geographical term used by the Jew to oppress the Welsh, Scots and the Irish by denying their unique cultures and heritage, and as such the existence of Britain is inherently anti-nationalist and used to justify the entry of immigrants.

>>281047
This.
The Jews have always thrived from the imperialism and the constant wars between the Anglo and his neighbors, as (((they))) have always hated freedom and happiness.

>>281050
>This. The Jews have always thrived from the imperialism and the constant wars between the Anglo and his neighbors, as (((they))) have always hated freedom and happiness.
I'm glad to see someone agrees with me - a fellow Brit accused me of being an American Jew just for saying this.

>>281051
I wouldn't say Briton but instead a friend.
There are a lot of people that do not see these connections in history and it is weird that most people can't solve simple puzzles or want to solve them, a side note, always remember there are both idiots on the left and right as people are gullible and do not look for themselves and prefer to believe things told to them instead of finding out for themselves.

>>281055
it's just depressing since he seemed pretty based.

>>281059
Some people will remain Zealots and stay stubborn in a situation where they feel as if their way of thought is threatened so they will throw their friends into the fire if they deem them nothing more than firewood to keep their way of thinking aflame, they do not think about things as they are not open minded so they remain stuck in a mental box and will not like to explore out of it if their optics consider it bad so they prefer to stay locked away where they feel safe in their own thoughts, i wish more people could see how blind they are but i guess they will like to remain blissfully ignorant even if they think they are in the right or like to be edgy because it makes them feel special so they are like pirates because they will jump from one boat to the next in terms of thinking.

>>279896
>Interesting, you're between me and the other guy - I'd say I'm a Paleolibertarian.
Now that I think of it there are more types of ancaps than there should be, with some being seriously cringe. It would be more accurate to say "libertarianism without liberalism," where you have an anarcho-capitalist order absent Enlightenment ideals, existing to permit society and tradition to evolve organically without being hijacked by any central power.
>I'm curious on what basis you would oppose the property rights of the monarch.
Absolutist monarchies typically arise through coercive means, either through direct conquest or through political machination to subordinate the feudal nobility. They do, thanks to tradition, tend to less hit or miss than their modern corollaries of hereditary dictatorships (Bashir Al-Assad is practically a saint compared to what could have happened to Syria, but the Hermit Kingdom of North Korea on the other hand…), but that doesn't mean they have "property rights" over the kingdom, only that they treat it as their property. If you settle and build unclaimed land, or if you buy up some owned land, and declare yourself a monarch with "subjects" renting the territory, you've obtained that status non-coercively. However, in Europe peasants and small landowners gave their land rights (and sometimes their personal rights to become serfs) to local warriors in exchange for protection against brigands and Vikings in what was the rise of feudalism. This system lingered well after serious external threats had passed–becoming coercively imposed as a result–but a balance of power existed between the king (merely the foremost of the nobility) and other nobles, with economic and religious organizations also preventing a monopoly of force. Over time the king–rarely of the same dynasty that was around at the formation of the kingdom–subverted the power of the nobility while PEST (political, economic, social, technological) changes put other formerly powerful organizations into disarray. That was how the monarch became supreme. You're welcome to explain however, how it was within the rights of Henry VIII to seize Church property.
>They have to learn a whole terminology just to read their own literature.
Marxism is a cult masquerading as economic theory, it just does it very well. Cults will develop their own historical and political theories with terms that outsiders don't know because it's hard to debunk something when you're unfamiliar with its esoteric/obscurantist terms. Marxists use a mix of terms outsiders rarely know at all ("historical dialectic") and terms which are subtly but significantly distinct from the wider understanding (communism itself, anarchism, private property, etc.) When you indoctrinate someone into thinking along these terms it's nearly impossible to reverse because they'll think the non-Marxist terms are incorrect. You really have to go to the most basic economic justifications of private property, capital and exchange and work from there, and the vast majority of anti-communists aren't so familiar with economics or ain't got time for that. Smarter and more self-aware communists might possibly realize they've been conned, but most will resist any attack on their ideals.

This is why 1984 is most valuable for its depiction of language. Most professions have their own forms of jargon (which is why philosophy was most vulnerable to subversion from the start) but Marxism is insidious for portraying its pseudo-religious exhortations as "economic theory." The Nation of Islam and its many spinoffs have done similar things but in a much less sophisticated manner; I recommend watching EZ PZ's "Truth Streams" for a glimpse at how cults work.

>>281055
The NPC pill is a hard one to take, but it does open up the world. Every single ideology and system of thought has NPCs incapable of thinking on a broader scale, albeit with different proportions (most socialists are the NPC followers of their indoctrinators, lolberts are the NPC version of libertarians, and wignats are generally the NPC version of nationalists). Politics is a vile system whereby you manipulate NPCs to work against dissent, but the best you can do is get NPCs to blindly follow a path that doesn't lead to self-destruction.

>>281113
>Now that I think of it there are more types of ancaps than there should be
Sure, but I'm not an ancap - ancap is anarchism, and I believe in the existence of a state.
>It would be more accurate to say "libertarianism without liberalism," where you have an anarcho-capitalist order absent Enlightenment ideals, existing to permit society and tradition to evolve organically without being hijacked by any central power.
Yes, but there's a reason we apply shortened terms to longer meanings. Bottom line is that the position of immigration being incompatible with a libertarian social order is sadly not the one and the same as standard libertarianism, which will argue instead that borders are protectionist.
>Absolutist monarchies typically arise through coercive means
And a great deal of current corporations gained their property through working with coercive government intervention in the economy as their means, which is to do with the origin of their property, which is what you addressed with regards to monarchy, but that was not the question which I asked, I asked not of the political rights of monarchs nor of a nonexistent right to claim property by force, I asked of the right to own property already held - would you redistribute the monarch's property, in essence? How would you determine what was rightfully and what was unrightfully gained? How would you justify using coercion to undo coercion? This remains relevant because some modern monarchs retain the theoretical land ownership of all non-private or unclaimed lands in their country - for example Elizabeth II owns the majority of Canada directly (in theory). I ask mainly out of curiousity rather than a defense of monarchy on a propertarian basis.
>Marxism is a cult masquerading as economic theory
To be fair Marxist economic theory is separate from Marxist social theory, so it isn't so much masquerading as an economic theory as redefining a cult in esoteric 19th century terms.
>Cults will develop their own historical and political theories with terms that outsiders don't know because it's hard to debunk something when you're unfamiliar with its esoteric/obscurantist terms.
Again to play ineffectual devil's advocate here, I believe that in it's context, in it's time, the works of Marx and Engels were easily understood plainly, it's simply that Marxists since then have retained language of now nearly two centuries ago and expect the rest of us to know what they mean when they use a 19th century definition of capitalism rather than the modern one.
>This is why 1984 is most valuable for its depiction of language.
Whilst not forgetting the thoroughly Jewish and Socialist outlook of it's degenerate author, mind you.
>The NPC pill is a hard one to take
Mainly due to the Marxist delusion of a pool of people rather than hierarchical individuals mattering roughly equally, which has been cemented not just educationally, but emotionally also. No wonder so-called right-wingers try and defend the lower class, despite the obviousness that lower IQs persist amongst them, and is inheritable through the poorer genetic stock of the underbelly of society. I'd recommend looking into the official NSDAP racial policy view on lower class Brits in particular, since they had data to go on gathered in the aftermath of the Boer War pertaining to the indisputable inferiority of lower classes.

>>281726
Maybe some day, genetic modification can give high IQs to every white person.
It would mean the death of every ideology that promises undeserved rewards to the masses of weaponized idiots
No more white communist, just black and brownish ones that can be safely ignored or easily deported.

>>279354
>Are you suggesting genetically engineering the monarchs?
That might not be such a bad idea. Take the best genes our race has to offer and use them to design the perfect ruler. Each ruler would be a literal embodiment of the best traits of our race.

>>281783
I like that idea. It's like a reversal of the standard "The ruler shapes his nation" idea, where the nation shapes their ruler. And in a sense, this would make the ruler related to everyone and the ultimate product of their country, giving them a familial reason to remain loyal to it.

>>281786
>It's like a reversal of the standard "The ruler shapes his nation" idea, where the nation shapes their ruler.
Rulers should serve in the people's best interest and not for his own or other cabal members.
>And in a sense, this would make the ruler related to everyone and the ultimate product of their country, giving them a familial reason to remain loyal to it.
That there is the ultimate form of a clan possible.

>>281783
I like the Idea that each monarch (and only the current ruling monarch) have the state find the highest IQ female in the entire nation. And also accounting factors like health, purity and relative success of her recent ancestors (ex. both her grand fathers were both rags to riches stories). After the state finds the very genetically best women in the nation, The king would then select from those women the best woman. Do this for enough generations and the monarchs are all +200IQ mega brains. Genetically representing the nation they rule while avoiding inbreeding.

The only controversial part I would include is that I don't think it must be consensual on the side of the woman. if one woman is breed against her will per generation, then it is justified by the national good of improving the royal blood.