The Government Question

20 Comments

1. My preference would be monarchy with an agnatic open succession law – that is, the king and / or his peers would pick the king’s most able and popular son to be the designated successor, similar to the system in North Korea (minus the absurdity of that country, of course). There would need to be a constitution and legal tradition, but in my opinion there would not need to be any popular representation. If the king did not have an appropriate heir then a high noble from another family could be elected king, similar to the system in the former Holy Roman Empire.

   We currently live in an age of democracy but that will soon change as economic growth stagnates and then goes into reverse. Feudalism / monarchy will likely reassert itself as opportunity evaporates and class differences become de facto permanent.

2. The Canadian and Euro monarchies are symbolic. White people will never accept rule under a true monarchy.

3. If this actually came about then it would likely depend how it happened. If it was violent then it would likely end up as a military leader of some sort – so a de facto monarchy. If peaceful then i can’t see a desire for any dramatic change apart from modifications to the current system.

   “Regarding the banking system, it must be public, in other words, we print our own money backed by real assets and use it at zero interest.”

   Quite.

   “Switzerland’s form of direct democracy is not only the best existing political system on Earth, but it also has the greatest appeal to people everywhere looking to change their own political arrangements.”

   Agree.

4. “White people will never accept rule under a true monarchy.”

   It was the case for centuries, millennia. It is said the masses long for a Camelot Presidency, an American royalty. But it surely goes against my nature. Let slaves adore and love despotism, but it is the part of freemen to despise and resist it.

5. Dan Poole, I like what you wrote:

   “The key principle here is localism (…) By ‘localism’ I mean a nation where it is illegal for a given community (city, town, village, etc) to have a population larger than 50,000. I am convinced that urbanism and cosmopolitanism are great curses upon the White race. There’s not a single urban city in America where the majority of White people are authentically traditionalist. By contrast, there are tens of thousands of rural areas, small towns and suburbs where the overwhelming majority are traditional, family oriented Whites (most of them Christian). Any system of government must maintain the supremacy of these local communities and must prevent urban cities from dominating. To the extent that cities with skyscrapers exist, they should have literally no say in government. ”

   Very good!

6. There’s nothing wrong with the republic we had until the Civil War, and the power grabs of the early 20th century. We ought to have again a vastly restricted libertarian Republican government, in which the power to appoint representatives is restored to literate, property owning males. This time it would be in our interest to reinstate it as explicitly anti-federalist instead of federalist, and to define citizenship as hereditary.

7. Thanks Mosin!

8. TJ, you also make excellent sense.

   Aristotle understood thousands of years before our Founding Founders that the “mixed polity”, the constitutional democratic republic with many layers of “checks and balances” and “rule of law” is the most stable and best form of government for white, civilised people.

   “This time it would be in our interest to reinstate it as explicitly anti-federalist instead of federalist” — and I would add explicitly Christian!

9. Southern SECESSION INTO a constitutional democratic-republican mixed polity that is explicitly anti-federal and Christian, and anti-globalist, would be very difficult, but RIGHT — whereas secession into yet another form of slave-based, multiracial, elitist despotism, forming yet another regional branch of Global Elitism, could be EASY!

10. Secession could be EASY — IF you cooperate with the Global Elite to divide (and conquer) White Americans by the Mason Dixon Line, and replace White Nationalism with mainstream Bicausalism and Mono(Yankee)causalism.

11. “There’s nothing wrong with the republic we had until the Civil War”

    Five things imo
    – checks on judicial activism
    – checks on mass media
    – public banking
    – citizenship by blood
    – anti-federalist

    All potentially fixable.

12. test added:
    “- checks on judicial activism – checks on mass media – public banking”

    Good comment, test. The future constitution MUST EXPLICITLY exclude usurers and swindlers, lawyers and other liars (media) and corrupters. Instead of ensuring the freedom of the carnal-minded to pursue wealth, power and fame, rather the freedom of Christians to “live out the Scriptures” (“experimental” religion) must be protected.

13. My preference would be paternalism with the heads of families (of at least 3 generations in strength to assure the long view) gathering annually at the allthing to make the laws. Everything else is totalitarianism in the making.

14. My preference would be paternalism with the heads of families (of at least 3 generations in strength to assure the long view) gathering annually at the allthing to make the laws.

    The althing? We’re not Vikings.

    Everything else is totalitarianism in the making.

    I honestly don’t see how we are going to reverse the negative trends of the last 150 years without totalitarianism even if it is only a temporary measure.

15. The situation is beyond reversible.

16. Mosin and test: all very good suggestions that were missed the first time around. I think it would be great to also add expiration terms to the laws so the bad ones will expire rather than stacking up. Then legislators could perform the useful task of helping decide which laws to renew and adjust, rather than adding to the heap of millstones already hung on the public.

17. The allthing is just a name. For me it represents a counsel of respected elders. Men who understand the choice is civilization or barbarism. Men who dedicate themselves to the well-being of their kin. Who accept the mantle of leadership in their turn. Who are loyal to their kin, their culture and their race. Who can be trusted not to harm any of these to benefit themselves EVER. Who are not only dangerous to their enemies but will rain the fires of hell onto traitors. Men who come together as equals to preserve order and harmony within the group. My only king was called grandad.

    If you like totalitarianism you must be wetting yourself with excitement these days.

18. TJ

    “I think it would be great to also add expiration terms to the laws so the bad ones will expire rather than stacking up.”

    Good idea.

19. Interesting, TJ and test, but aren’t some laws never outdated? How can rule of law, a government of immutable laws not of men’s fancies, be possible if all laws expire over time?

20. The laws deemed necessary will be renewed quickly by popular demand. The prohibition style, or impulse driven laws will fade into obscurity and irrelevance. Some of the municipal and state books still have laws regarding horses defecating in the street. We could do well with minimal laws, and minimal enforcement goons, so long as the people are entitled to bear arms and defend themselves.