What is objectively the best system of government?

what is objectively the best system of government?

pic related gets my vote

>that feel when the church and state are two heads of the eagle under one crown; God

Other urls found in this thread:

google.com/amp/s/gnosticwarrior.com/eagle-symbol.html/amp
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

The best system we have is the modern liberal democracy in the west.

Theocratic Fascism

What a cuck
The Roman Empire.
All it needed was a second amendment expy, and less overextension for its means, in all honesty.
It also needed way more religious discipline (especially the Western part) and cultural enforcement.

Care to explain how I'm a cuck?
hardmode: no memes allowed

>All it needed was a second amendment expy
You absolute mong, some of the first mentions of the right to bear arms prior to the 16th century comes from the writings of Cicero but it was extremely primitive. Why would they have need of a Second Amendment in a nation without any sort of law on weapons outside of the state? More importantly, what the hell makes you think Imperial era Rome is a good model for a government?

God doesn't exist.

because you think the status quo is the best, when the status quo is built on the degradation of Christianity

disclaimer; i don't think you're a cuck. just wrong

Bump

If Christianity reflects the attitudes of the public, it will suffice, if not then oh well, we all see humility and virtue as ideals like in the religion, it's just that a secular society allows you to make that decision for yourself instead of institutionalising it.

Absolute Monarchy. Anything else is degenerate and cannot last.

'Best' is very vague. Please clarify

What does that even mean?
You want a global feudal system?

absolute Truth and Righteousness isn't subject to the attitudes of the public though.

Look at the degeneracy of modern western civilization. It's Pagan Rome 2; depraved boogaloo

Funny how all the absolute monarchies in Europe actually died, where as the figurehead monarchs survived.

this

There is no one best system, different times require different methods of solving problems.

Because under social democracy you're forced (and I mean it) to believe all humans are equal when they're not, and that, on top of that, they all deserve to vote for a candidate they believe will serve their interest and not his for his meager 4 year mandate.
To put the cherry on top, you're a secular state and reject the idea of an ethnostate, demolishing any national interest or objective outright.
Because Rome under imperial law was a shining beacon of culture, prosperity and freedom until the death of Hadrian, and provided with the longest period of intra-medite-european peace in history?

What degeneracy?
If you mean to say that society is degenerating, then what to?

Representative technocratic meritocracy

Yes. Feudalism ensure the respect of local traditions and thus the unity of the country. It also allows a great autonomy, which means a greater efficiency.

You don't believe that all humans are equal
you believe that all humans are dignified of equal human rights.
How would you suppose the logistics of an ethnostate? Deportation? Compensation? Economic incentive to leave?

>all the absolute monarchies in Europe actually died
British education everyone.

Implosion, in the best case?
In the worst case, into a never-ending dystopia belonging to wanting Jews living over a slave caste of pale negroidal creatures.

>what degeneracy

literally anything and everything other than one man and one woman in a sexual relationship that begins after marriage.

the notion that all cultures are equally valuable or have equally contributed to society and civilization

and the notion that we can/should all get along

and also what the Leaf above you said

Could traditions not suffice apart from a state which enforced them?

What absolute monarchy still exists in Europe? The French were fighting in the 18th century to achieve what England did in the 13th century.

is that what the 2 heads mean?
i thought i was an homage to the god Janus with one head looking towards the past and the other towards the future

I don't believe all of that which you mentioned
I'm still a liberal

It's not about the state enforcing traditions, it's about respecting them.
>what is the Vatican
I didn't expect a brit to be cultivated but come on.

>You don't believe that all humans are equal

we're objectively not. Every human has the Imago Dei and is worthy of the respect due because of that, but look at western europe and its contributions to art, music, cuisine, science, technology, philosophy, etc... and look at austrasian aboriginies whose only invention was a fucking hollow tube that sounds cool when you blow through it...

Any government that bans usury and controls its own money supply is top tier. Even dictatorships can be better than current forms of government.

Democracy can never work as the mob rule is the worst. The people are uneducated in regards to economics, money, their own government and how politics work. Its high school popularity as the world works right now - get funding, be rich and popular and run ads nonstop. You will generally win with this strategy regardless of politics provided the (((media))) approves you. And they will fund and own your opponent jsut in case, as is with Trump before you point out he won against billion+ from shillary.

So democracy simply does not work. Its corrupt and money system affects it, but it can also only truly work in a homogeneous society. Niggers and spics and other religions do not work together. Look at simpl ebreakdown of US election for proof. Most democracies also run first past the post system (america does not as a republic hybrid with college, but england, canada, etc do). Most have top down governments as well (states do not with states having more power in general). This furthers the popularity contest and voting the media approved winner or party you think will have most seats in government and control power. These people then do what they want without listening to population. Look to islam/immigrant polls - we all dont want muslims and mass immigration, yet shit like m103 islamophobia passes 100% from 38% controlling liberal party in Canada. over 70% in polls say no to it from the public.

Current democracy does not work. Its a media shilled 'your vote matters' bullshit system. Idiots are not equal to educated people (not college, just knowledgable on government, money, banks, actual issues and candidates). People that cant even tell you what a podesta email is voted in America. People that dont know who George Soros is vote in European countries. Its a joke.

All the systems of goverment are larping.

Three types of authority. Traditional, Legal, Charismatic. Traditional (monarchy etc.) and Legal authorities (democracy etc.) are illegitimate authorities that cannot survive without charismatic authority fuelling them. White societies are perfect example of both traditional and legal authorities failing because there is no charismatic authority. They are so desperate for white charisma that they named emperor a stupid fat fuck with goofy hair. All the white charisma is probably neet/mgtow because white people forgot who serves whom.

The Vatican is the ONLY example of any form of absolute monarchism in Europe you can think of, where as all of the actual monarchies are dead.

then that is why you're a cuck, my dude.

The best form of government will always be a benevolent dictatorship ruled by philosopher-kings where the king has absolute authority.
The worst form of government is rule by many people who have ill will towards the populace, a bureaucracy of oligarchs.
Middling forms of government include democracies, with republics being slightly superior.

Well it exists, so you were wrong. Just admit it :)

You're allowed to respect traditions in a public market of ideas, even in one in which your ideas can be surpassed.

Enjoy your absolute monarc- oh wait.

I'm a cuck because I believe in moderate government and human rights?

>benevolent dictatorship ruled by philosopher-kings where the king has absolute authority.

sup Plato

That's a phoenix, not an eagle.

Juche desu
>No capitalist degeneracy
>One strong leader as an authority figure
>Basically a hereditary socialist monarchy
The only legitimate issue i have with that is if one of the leaders becomes incompetent in the future and the atheism, the rest is 10/10

when your "human rights" include degeneracy , and "moderate government" encourages that, and both are self-destructive, yes. you are.

>encourages
no
>permits
yes

some kind of technocracy, with help of psychology, that will have a good balance

wrong again, negrito

>Human rights
This doesn't exist. The foundation for universal human rights originate from two enlightenment age perspective, one originating from Rousseau and his Social Contract, which he based on an erroneous, utopic view of the State of Nature, where humans lived in a state similar to primitive communism, while we all know today that it was probably more related to Hobbes' perspective, which is tribal despotism.
The foundation for human rights also come from an enlightenment theory that state that all men are equal physically and spiritually, which is also wrong. Counter examples like the aberration that is psychopathy in the first case and the nigger race in the second refute this entirely, meaning that, again, Man is more influenced by law and duty than by right and privilege. Law protects Man from Himself and allow Him to live in tranquility (making early civilization oddly similar to a libertarian paradise) which is why it's one of the earliest means of power codified in History.
Finally, if those rights were truly Universal, then those would be observable in Nature itself, as a golden rule for all species. Unfortunately, other species in Nature :
>Eat their own youngs
>Make intra-species tribal warfare (specifically chimpanzees and gorillas)
>Kill for pleasure (Orcas and dolphins)
>Have hierarchy (one more example that equality is also non-existant in Nature)
Ultimately, universal human rights are nothing more than conventions waiting to be shattered by a burden too heavy for a people to lift.

The two headed eagle is one of the most recognisable symbols used by empires amd kingdoms dating back to the Romans, you retarded fucking mutt

Lol the Roman Republic trumps the fuck outta the Principate

>results are the same
yes
>results in destruction of western civilization
yes

they're the same

>Law protects Man from Himself and allow Him to live in tranquility
agree
>ultimately, universal human rights are nothing more than conventions waiting to be shattered by a burden too heavy for a people to lift.
and what is that burden?

Yes but absolute monarchies have other advantages

originaly i would a say a monarchy with a ideal king like Rama, but that it's impossible now

make a costitution that can't be changed
then democratically elect a führer that rules with absolute power
no congress or something
the führer has absolute power except he can't change the constitution
elections to become the führer is every 5yesrs

this way politicans can get shit done without losing democracy

such as?

As for your last question, segregation is the best mean to insure the safety of all population, and varying levels of autonomy would ensure that more or less autonomous human subgroup in one empire/country be truly cared accordingly to his status.
Everyone except Jews and Muslims, of course. After the pain and misery they've caused for fourteen centuries, those deserves executions on sight.

It is a phoenix, you're both idiots. Read more, speak less.

>Shilling for the Empire
>Not realizing the Empire was only necessary because Sulla + Marius killed all the men of courage in the Senate

So you want to segregate your country between ethnicities and kill Jews and Muslims?

citation needed bromigo

Ensuring unity and passing traditions, without being corrupted by (((foreign ideas)))

Including democracy in the system means that minority groups will get fucked if they lose. It's still superior to what we have since the führer will be held responsible for any actions they take though. I would approve of such a situation if the populace is relatively well armed.

google.com/amp/s/gnosticwarrior.com/eagle-symbol.html/amp

''All action create an equal but opposite reaction.''
The burden is natural law. Trying to fit abstract ideas like equality into a stable, realistic pyramidal society is bound to make it fall apart.
Hence why the West is collapsing right now. It is also why Western Rome collapsed, while the East lived on, amongst other reasons; instead of enforcing one culture and religion across Western Europe, they've decided to accept them all. Now onder Rome desintegrated; no one was Roman anymore, not even the ethnic Romans, since they were nothing more than a part of the whole. Serving barbarian kings was easier and more rewarding.

Passing down *

Are these traditions religious and so righteous?

>He is an expert on both ancient and modern Gnosticism, Freemasonry, Esotericism, and the Occult.

yeah, no. Real citations needed plz

Yes.
>Too butthurt to admit that Trajan is an actual rolemodel and three times the man Pompei will ever be
Patricians; when will they learn?

>Absolute power
>Term limits

Term limits are the single best means of limiting absolute power.

This is why Roman dictators never became monarchs/tyrants.

However
>Wanting politicians to get shit done
Only necessary in time of war.

>natural law
care to explain what the natural law is?

ridiculous

Italian here, ask me anything about this.

They're religious, cultural, linguistics, moral... Everything. Tradition is what have secularly succeeded and therefore an absolute good.

>Muh Pompey Magnus
>Not comparing him to Scipio Africanus, Coriolanus, or Camilus instead

not an argument

So what traditions do you have in mind which deserve to be preserved by a monarchy?

Your dignity doesn't exist.

>Coriolanus

Goddamn, I love Ralph Fiennes, but that was a shitass movie.

We can all agree that Marcus Aemilius Lepidus is the best, right? Right?
hell no

I feel that discriminating against people based on aspects such as their ethnicity or religion violates human rights.
Is that an argument?

>Marcus Aemilius Lepidus

the only things Lepidus has going for him are that he was portrayed by a decent actor in HBO's Rome and Lepidus' Rome has an interesting starting position in Total War Rome II

W E W
E
W

*in the capacity which beckons state-mandated murder of individuals.

It's beautiful. Shill can't offer any argument to the contrary. Let it be done.

no. that's a statement of feelings.

...

Never seen it.

Plutarch's rendition of his life of it is better than any Shakespeare though.

>Rome BTFOs Veii because of him
>Switches sides
>Would have destroyed Rome but for his mother telling him he'd have to hack her down first

Feelings?
So what objectivity holds up the law of a nation?

Literally any form of government in an all-white society will outperform any form of government in a non-white society.

National Socialism is obviously the best performer we've seen thus far. Hard to say if it could last and what it'd mature into.

I wouldn't recommend it. It's in a kind of modern setting so they're all wearing multicam and shit. like fucking make it in ancient rome, Jesus Christ...

But I do love the story, and Shakespeare can eat a bag of dicks

Well religious traditions, since the absolute monarch receive his power from god. We've seen how both constitutional monarchies and republics have failed to preserve religious traditions. Then, cultural traditions, every language, local culture... is a treasure, that republics and constitutional monarchies have also failed to preserve, for they are too weak to rule over a multitude of peoples. More important of all, moral traditions: honor, loyalty, fidelity, respect, hierarchy. Just read Evola ffs.

yes feelings. an argument would be making a case as to why your feelings matter using objective facts and reason. you just said how you feel about a subject.

>So what objectivity holds up the law of a nation?

Force

I'm torn between libertarianism, fascism, and aristocracy. Anyone able to redpill on any of them or have good books?

In this particular case, it would be more accurate to call it primitive law; absolute loyalty to your ethnic tribekin, who share the same culture, physique and religion as you.
Why do you think Medieval Europe, divided between slavs, iberians, anglos, britons, italians, greeks, franks, germans and even mongoloids didn't simply descend into Africa 2.0? Because all of them recognized the supremacy of Christ. They felt like kin.
Natural law also encompass normal hierarchical behavior in human societies. ''The strong/wisest/richest gets to be the leader, and he picks his subordinates to rule the realm. If the realm turns to shit, the people can revolt and place new leader on the throne. Exceptional individuals can, in time of crisis, become part of the aristocracy.''
And that's it. But that's exactly what ''equality'' and ''integration'' seeks to destroy. The sense of kinship. Religious belonging. Obvious hierarchy, obvious person to displace if things goes to shit. The glory of real, everlasting achievement.
Everything's disappearing for this bleak, shitty dystopia that the Jews, Niggers and Cryptos are creating for their own hedonistic cravings.

Exactly
I suppose that the force which protects citizens of a liberal nation should not homicidally discriminate against ethnic or religious factors of a person.

uhhmm
i think you're confused.

>Kaiser's monarchy: BTFO's Russia in 1.5 years.
>HItler: BTFOed by a Russia afflicted with communism and huge purges of the most competent officers

How the fuck do you all say this unironically? Your ideal government was outwitted by Stalin, and outfought by literal peons.

okay. that's still just, like, your opinion man.