19d116 No.594
The first and primary problem facing you when you suggest a form of governance is if and how it deals with "Caesars". Because in the end, regardless of what type of government you have - Democracy, communism, fascism, republic, oligarchy, aristocracy, anarchy - The type of people who rise to power will always be the same. Its the same even across large time-periods; The same who rise to power now are the same who rose to power thousands of years ago during the time of Pharaohs, Emperors and God-kings. I've hence come to know such people as "Caesars", based on the Roman dictator who most perfectly embodied what I am referring to.
A Caesar is a Machiavellian by heart, possessing a calculating nature that allows them to see and consider what their rivals usually cannot. Almost always possessing a demonic charisma, they are able to easily sway and convince others - as well as being both capable and willing to resort to either thuggery or bribery upon those they cannot sway. A professional liar who, through experience, is capable of determining the falsehoods of others with startling precision. Typically ruthless, cunning, and manipulative when attempting to achieve their goals. A master of Demagoguery capable of easily charming the common masses to their cause through exploiting their fears, frustrations, hopes, and above all else: ignorance. Unfettered by trivialities, personal biases, or petty emotions, A Caesar is a man who will use anything and everything to achieve what they want; and what they want is everything.
But more important than all of that: a Caesar is, above all, driven. Driven by a near-psychotic lusting for money, power, and influence that stretches well beyond the pale of normalcy. Driven by a sense that they are not "safe" until they become the most powerful person in the world, because the only one they trust is themselves. Driven by an instinct that tells them that they are destined for greatness and that ruling over nations is their god-given birth right. Driven, constantly, every second of every day by their own megalomania, greed, narcissism and paranoia. Almost all of the world's leaders, especially in ancient times, have been Caesars - Possibly because those are the only types of people who even CAN rule over nations. But regardless of whether that is true or not, of whether we even want them or not, they are here. And they are not going anywhere.
All in all, Caesars make up less than 1% of the world's population, but they comprise almost the entire ruling class and "elite" of the world. 1% may not sound like much, but when you consider that this means there are MILLIONS of such people, alive, right now - you might be able to see, then, why politics throughout history and even today is the way it is. Pit a few million psychotically power-hungry, megalomaniacal, ruthlessly intelligent sociopaths into a all-out death-match free-for-all with the entire world being the grand prize: and you will come across the primary problem in governing humans.
Now read it again, and this time replace the word "Caesar" with "Jew"
127f35 No.598
All government, in its essence, is a conspiracy against the superior man: its one permanent object is to oppress him and cripple him. If it be aristocratic in organization, then it seeks to protect the man who is superior only in law against the man who is superior in fact; if it be democratic, then it seeks to protect the man who is inferior in every way against both. One of its primary functions is to regiment men by force, to make them as much alike as possible and as dependent upon one another as possible, to search out and combat originality among them. All it can see in an original idea is potential change, and hence an invasion of its prerogatives. The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable, and so, if he is romantic, he tries to change it. And even if he is not romantic personally he is very apt to spread discontent among those who are.
>Henry Louis Mencken
19d116 No.606
>>598
>Henry Louis Menckenhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._L._Mencken
>Henry Louis "H. L." Mencken (September 12, 1880 – January 29, 1956) was an American journalist, essayist, magazine editor, satirist, critic of American life and culture
>satirist, critic of American life and culture 91fe53 No.616
The difference is, of course, that Caesar cannot stay hidden in a Monarchy or NatSoc and will be killed if he overdoes it. This is another reason monarchies are superior to basically everything else.
ff20d0 No.842
That's why I'm fond of minarchism.
4aff84 No.844
>>616>that Caesar cannot stay hidden in NatSoc and will be killed if he overdoes itSure, he's toast if he "overdoes" it to the point of gunning for the Fuhrer, but the Third Reich had many "little Hitlers" who exercised immense power within their fiefdoms and spent more time intriguing against like-minded individuals than they did serving the people.
563469 No.922
>>616So you are saying that because in a dictatorship those in power kill all who pose a threat to their power structure, means a dictatorship is a good system, am I right?
936067 No.931
>>606that doesn't mean that every single thing he said is satire
7498c7 No.1057
>>594>Democracy, communism, fascism, republic, oligarchy, aristocracy, anarchycommunism is not a type of
government, it's an economic system.
what we call 'democracy' is actually 'representative democracy'. representative democracy is essentially an aristocracy with elements of democracy. in a two party state it's a system where the people are allowed to decide between two aristocracies on regular basis. the major issue with this system is collusion between the two aristocracies.
64901e No.2781
>>931that's actually really interesting. personally it took me a long time to understand what satire even is. not sure if it's the only kind but usually it seems to be a kind of epic pretending where one implicitly is saying "hey how hilarious would it be if I actually believed what I said" which then indirectly is suppose to raise awareness for "imagine the people who DO believe what I said. why would they believe it? what atrociousness are they perceiving that would lead them to think like this"
>>598so stop and think for a second. what if this is satire? maybe it is incorrect but it is easy to see why one would think like this due to the constant cycle of failures that humanity undergoes
64901e No.2782
>>1057So nice someone mentioned this distinction of representative democracy
there's another kind called direct democracy. and the only country that has ever made use of this is switzerland, which in my opinion has the best political system and in general is pretty much the best country. thoughts?
8198dc No.2807
>>2782Wasn't Ancient Greece a direct democracy?
5fdc00 No.2810
>>2807Only Athena was, I think. Ancient Greece wasn't really a unified nation but a bunch of city state who fought each other, and sometimes banded together against bigger enemies like the Persian.
24e852 No.2815
OP there is no current solution to this problem. Any type of government requires a power structure, and that structure attracts and empowers "caesars" who can play the game. Mebbe we just need to be ruled by skynet or the ai from the deus ex games.
5fdc00 No.2819
>>2815I don't see any problem by being ruled by such people as long as they keep killing and blackmailing themselves in the top. It's part of the game. Leadership isn't for kind and sensible people. I think the problem is that our culture always say that we need someone with a heart of gold to move society, someone like the Christ.
The real danger would be to make impossible to people to pull a caesar. That there will always be the same people on the top, or literally nobody if everything is managed by an AI. History is a never ending cycle of bloodbath and coup. Well it was meant to be so before technology made possible to easily manipulate people and, soon, easily eliminate opposition. It was good till it lasted, our generation will never experience such stimulation like we ought it to be.
812d1a No.2832
>>594>blah, blah, blah,…what is a psychopath.Our entire world system is a psychopathic construct. We have an interspecies predator that has zero for the other members of its species.
Normal human beings don't need a government to tell them what to do. We are naturally self organizing, instinctive and intuitive.
Only psychopaths would invent reason after reason to continuously attack the sovereignty of other human beings.
5fdc00 No.2835
>>2832
>We are naturally self organizing, instinctive and intuitive.
Concerning this topic, I would like to have your opinion about what I wrote there >>2816
>Normal human beings don't need a government to tell them what to do.
We do not need government. We can perfectly live in small communities without much problem. But without such big power structure we would probably never be here talking by interposed screen. It require a large amount of people to band together to achieve such things, which would lead to fight, not necessary by using violence, for dominance.
812d1a No.2847
>>2835I think that is an aspect of us being self organizing. Families, clans, tribes. When a unit reaches a certain capacity it breaks away (Athabascans Indians in Alaska share the same language as the Apache in the southern regions of the U.S.).
But I also think there is a reality to the gnostic view of a spiritual parasite preying on the Human Race, with the primary symptom being this psychopathic system that keeps us perpetually in debt, in wars, and running dazed and confused.
The John Carpenter movie "They Live" is like the condensed soup version of our recorded history.
In a normal healthy human society we would deal with the psychopaths in a humane manner. Pity, but not mercy. Because the havoc they wreak never ends as long as they are free to run.
Seriously.
These are pedowood.
They hate us, cuz they ain't us.
Literally, they hate us because they do not feel like we do. They don't feel regret. No self correction from a conscience. If they change their behavior it is only to be more subtle in how they destroy their targets.
So that would be my only addition to what you wrote.
I think our instinctive nature is to have both patriarchal and matriarchal aspects active, because it's just healthy.
For the second part I honestly believe we would be far more advanced as a civilization. There would be conflicts, but nothing to the ridiculous scale we have now. We who aren't psychopathic are driven by creativity. Finding new ways to solve problems. It's only people without empathy who focus on finding new ways to milk a few more precious pennies from the already debt buried masses.
64901e No.2890
>>2815your half right (and half completely wrong)
there are types of governments that don't require a power structure IN THEORY like communism and direct democracy (though in the past some centralization was required to enforce the system to occur, which always lead to corruption in the case of communism; but direct democracy is working just fine in switzerland for a very very long time as I already stated)
so what if it was possible for technologies and protocols to enforce these autonomous and decentralized governments?
>>2819>no hopecome on anon don't be like that
>>2832>>2835yea before the age of technology we needed organization for representation to allow cooperation between different regions and cultures
now that we have the internet and such we can live as a global community now
but not to mention though that all this modern techonology only came about because of this competitive cooperation
64901e No.3051
>>2847
that's waaay too redpilled for most here
I would tell you to go to fringe but those guys are mostly just disillusioned spergs enabling each others
if you are still here, have anything to say about this post?
>>2903
01bf23 No.3324
Bump because we need to talk about what sort of a government can actually work
6f2bec No.3377
If you simply gas the kikes then the "caesars" wont be able to work as an ethnic group trying to enslave the population.
Thus they wont do much harm.
f62fe9 No.3380
Caesar wasnt a Problem for the Roman Empire.
It was the Empire itself that didnt take into account race.
Thus foreign people came into the roman empire and the romans themselfes became a minority.
Then you had people like Arminius who would secretly be loyal to the germanic people because they themselfes were germanic.
But above all you would have jews.
Even wikipedia hints to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandrian_riots_(38)The source is a jew, so it reads basically like another shoa all over again.
People like Caesar arent dangerous if they operate in the right state.
They are power hungry individuals that arent even that powerful because their greed and selfishness keeps them from actually having a multigenerational approach.
A Person similar to that is Angela Merkel. She also has no children but for some reason she will do anything to stay Chancellor. It doesnt even make any sense because she already has enough money to do whatever the fuck she wants. And theres no children that could benefit from her career either. And shes not even progerman so its not even altruism. Its just pure stupidity.
So how do you deal with it?
You create a country with a constitution and a power structure that actually punishes ruler for ruling against their people.
You can do that by outlawing any foreign influence on your government.
No Jews obviously because jews are allways foreign since their nation is israel whereever they live.
Also no NGOs that are financed by foreigners.
No secret societies and no multiracialism.
Basically what the Nazis did.
In Nazi Germany you had the same "caesar" types as in post war germany.
Journalists would be writing about racial hygiene and other cool nazi stuff, and right after the war they were writing about "more negroes into germany please".
They will do anything they have to so that they can have some power.
So you simply make laws that force them to do what you want them to do.
The Romans missed that, they thought the Roman Empire could consist of raceless individuals. But it couldnt.
77743a No.3526
>>594aye, brother. sociopaths are naturally inclined to fill positions by which they are empowered to determine the fate of others, in spite of whether the others want or need their fate to be determined by anyone other than themselves. one suggests that if these positions simply did not exist, the sociopaths wouldn't have the inclination to populate them.
there are other methods of governance excluding authority, although its success lies squarely upon the culture from which i springs. there are cultures inherently incapable of providing a satisfying life experience for its members without resorting to the installation of sociopaths to power.
obviously, a place comprised of many cultures in actuality has no culture. it is the anti-civilization. the lowest common denominator defines the mass and policies targeted to them become targeted to all.
if a group truly desires sovereignty it makes its declaration and exercises it. when the Caesar objects to this HE raises the sword. the assertion of liberty is perpetually a defensive posture, and it is historically more difficult to defend a position than it is to attack it.
b718a4 No.3527
>>594define ruling class?
if you think half the goyim in the bureaucracies around the world are ruling anything then you are deeply mistaken
192f55 No.3543
>>594>Driven by a sense that they are not "safe" until they become the most powerful person in the world, because the only one they trust is themselves.This statement really got to me but I don't think I will ever rule over more than maybe a small company. If I get my shit together and become a half-decent programmer, that is. I don't care about money beyond my physical needs and I don't feel like worrying about the fate of an entire nation.
b718a4 No.11304
>>594So if you want to deal with men that will either game the system or use people in high positions to remake the system in their name you need to empower the masses.
Without a centralized state there is little such an ambitious and unscrupulous man can do.
6b8023 No.11314
Man fuck kingofpol, now I associate that image with his spic faggot ass.
c118f9 No.11335
Sorry to burst everyone's bubble but Julius Caesar was not the problem, the problem was with the people who murdered him, the ants who want to be lions. They are the real parasites.
09a948 No.11340
>>2781If you knew Mencken, you'd know it's not satire.
83d505 No.11559
>>594An extremely romantic, superficial and naive position, anon. Your argument rests on modern Western and American thought in particular: individualism, the obsession with sociopathy - a scientifically discarded term by the way - and history being simplified into a story.
To understand Caesar you must understand the Roman clan system and aristocratic culture. Caesar was never alone, he would have never succeeded were it not for his allies, most of all those who originated from his family connection to Marius. As for lust for power and glory: this was a common trait among the militaristic Roman aristocracy, and Caesar was exceptional only in his achievements. Even then, he fell, and Augustus, who veiled his power and was rather free of charisma, took his place. So there goes that argument about charisma.
Understand: the despot is never alone, there is no individual. Of course the men in politics fight for power, but they are not a single mold and motives vary: for Caesar it was glory, but for example Hitler was an ideologue first and foremost, Stalin simply hungered for power, Charles XII of Sweden believed it was his god-given duty and so on.
Great leaders tend to share some traits because those traits make them focus on politics obsessively and become good at it. This does not mean they are all the same. It is foolish to imagine others as your own mirror image on the inside while differing fates and actions give ample evidence about the differences between us.
Also, Caesars are a rarity. A leader with a shaky grip is far more common.
d87367 No.13467
>>11559
>Even then, he fell, and Augustus, who veiled his power and was rather free of charisma, took his place.
I always wondered how he managed to pull this off. Sure, you can obfuscate your power so it's not as obvious to the plebs, but anyone with half a brain wouldn't have trouble seeing right through you, especially that nest of piranhas that are your political adversaries.
738c20 No.13474
>>11335
This. Caesar pardoned those in the Senate who sought to have him tried and executed for his "crimes" in Gaul (if slaughtering Frenchmen is wrong, I don't want to be right). The megalomania you presume is evil also inures Caesars against the pettier sins that afflict the rest of humanity. Caesar did not forgive his enemies for forgiveness sake, but rather didn't want such unpleasantness spoiling his victory. The very will to power you fear is what drove his magnanimity.
Such men desire to rule, yes, but they do not wish to rule ashes and dust. Their vanity is the very foundation of the nation.
b43f14 No.13484
There's probably no really good solution to stopping Caesars, but the best chance you've got is to make sure the ruling class has a strong sense of noblesse oblige and is well aware that they did not get to be where they are through pure merit alone. Even then I expect that you will only get a few hundred years before the rot sets in again.
b3fb88 No.13504
>>616
Well this is silly and not born out by any empirical evidence throughout history. In fact, we can observe the exact opposite when analyzing thousands of years of monarchies.
cd3810 No.13535
File: 1429766000274.png (738.44 KB, 898x849, 898:849, tmp_5042-1425036053031-699….png)
