Feudalism Thread

What's wrong with the west is liberalism, libertarianism, capitalism, anarchism, communism, nationalism, etc.

Feudalism is Ground-up; the people need protection, and the lords offer protection in exchange for services. A model based on Japanese feudalism with the merchants at the bottom is the best way to prevent international Jewry such as what we seen with the Rothschilds who turned monarchies into republics for their own personal gain, and overthrew national banks to give people their newly created debt. And it's not the Jews' fault themselves, but internationalism, such as when Americans invaded Japan for trade.

Feudalism represents order at its finest. This can't be refuted.

youtube.com/watch?v=Gd4lopIPObA

youtube.com/watch?v=aZ4k4dtRgPw

And a video by a literal cuck, but his definitions are spot on:
youtube.com/watch?v=Nosq94oCl_M

everybody loves feudalism until they find out that they are the serf

You're an absolute moron. We have feudalism today. The majority of everything you make will go to a bank or to the government. You will work your entire life primarily for the benefit of an organization or "farm" owned by somebody else. When you die, you will receive peanuts to retire on. Holy shit, you're retarded.

Being a serf isn't bad. That's one of the reasons I like feudalism. It's because everyone knows their place. The way you talk, you've already been brainwashed by your marxist leaders into thinking that inequality turns into conflict.

I'll be a knight, I got nothing else better to do than to defend my oppressors until the end

A state isn't a feudal society, you retard.

Lords give land to vassals who give land to serfs; this is on the condition that the serfs provide for them. The money and resources go up the chain in exchange for various services.

The word "Lord" itself comes from "Loaf" + "Ward", basically the bread winner who provides bread for everyone given that they were loyal to their duties.

The state is imaginary; nations are imaginary. The only thing that really exists is the people and their property; the people want protection, and the people who protect want something else. Legislation does NOT equal feudalism .

Christ, it's like commie central. "Meh, I don't want to be oppressed by the inequalities of a feudal system. I want what I deserve".

Reminder that communism is a transitional form of Capitalism.

>wanting to be on the bottom of the social ladder
>wanting your decedents to be on the bottom of the social ladder
>wanting to functionally be the property of a feudal lord
Fucking leaf

>Lords give land to vassals who give land to serfs; this is on the condition that the serfs provide for them. The money and resources go up the chain in exchange for various services.

Are you seriously unaware that that is the system of the world today?

But it's not really "The bottom". In terms of progress (which is a liberal idea), it would certainly appear to be "the bottom", because self-interested lunatics want wealth and riches, and such things can't be found at the bottom. The bottom is the backbone of society.
The "bottom" is where the average people are. The bottom are fortunate to have a sense of brotherhood, community, and friendship. The King and lords literally work for the bottom.

If you so willing to be a cuck why don't you give me half of all your income and in exchange I promise that ill stop anybody from attacking you or taking the other half of your income :^)

No, because that's not how the modern system works.. AT ALL..

If a sense of "Non aggression" existed, then the only fear driving people to work for the rich is the fear of not having protection. In a place like England, someone could stroll on in to the common land and assume a township there as long as they could get a fief from the king who is entitled to the land. The commoner who then becomes a lord would build up a population of serfs and knights to offer protection and services to the king and the people. But generally, one would only become a lord by being born of nobility; thus, a system governed by loyalty maintains and sustains itself because it holds values of loyalty, such as the loyalty of the king to his people, and the people to the king, and the lords to the king and the people. There is no "state" in a modern sense, because that would imply that the king is using law to threaten the people into working. The king shouldn't have to threaten the people. It's a system based on loyalty, FOR loyalty.

If the island I live on was lawless and no police were around to enforce laws, and let's say you had a small army of noble knights and people who followed you and worked for you, then i'd definitely give you half my income, as long as you protect me. If your services don't interest me, I'll move somewhere else where I can be entitled and live as a hermit with my own weapons.

>I'll move somewhere else
you clearly don't know what a serf is

>you clearly don't know what a serf is
someone coerced into living on some guy's estate to work for them in exchange for housing and food.

In a modern feudal nation, one would theoretically be given internet, free food, free housing, free power, as long as they worked for the feudal lord. The lord, having to be loyal to the people, would manage the people's labor in a way that maximizes the compensation for their efforts. In other words, they don't have to worry about paying bills or whatever, so long as they are rightfully compensated with the work they do.

The capitalist system doesn't do this, because they use interest and credit as a means to make somebody perpetually coerced into being anxiety ridden into scarcity mode. Scarcity mode makes them into degenerates, gluttons, sex addicts, gamblers, etc, who want nothing but MORE AND MORE, as progressivism becomes the final result.

Don't forget
>wanting your feudal lord to cuck you with prima nocta

>one would theoretically be given internet, free food, free housing, free power, as long as they worked for the feudal lord.
You're making a lot of assumption there serf

>wanting to be a serf

>The lord, having to be loyal to the people, would manage the people's labor in a way that maximizes the compensation for their efforts. In other words, they don't have to worry about paying bills or whatever, so long as they are rightfully compensated with the work they do.

How about I choose what's best for myself rather than expect others to make decisions for me like a parent would to a kid. Also you're just advocating state run economy. Why bother with the feudalism role playing?

Explain in simple greentext why Nationalism and Feudalism are incompatible?

Am I just retarded, because I'm quite sure the two can exist in one coherent State.

>State run
No, because it's not a state. it runs on the loyalty principle. If a king wanted to kill me for walking out on a lord's property, then the people would be generally upset with him for being unloyal to the people, thus they would stop working and have a revolution. A king is just because it works on the loyalty principle. As long as they're being loyal to the people, the people will be loyal to the king.

They're compatible in a sense, but they're strictly separate, because the idea of a "Nation state" runs along the idea of a "State for a people", whereas feudalism says "Social order as per the people"; thus there is no concrete state as one would write down on a paper, but the idea of a state like an ethnicity, bound to nothing but the loyalty of each person to the greater society.

Nationalism and feudalism are similar in concept; in fact, the ideas are essentially compatible. But they are separate nevertheless.

How is that different than if some minister would have the police shoot you without just cause? The people would be upset at excessive force too. Whether the king or a minister runs the economy, it's still a state run economy but now you're wasting money on pompous role playing. And why do you assume they govern from the goodness of their heart for the best of everyone? Historically, that's never been the actuality of the state.

Before any modern state existed, feudalism had existed for HUNDREDS and HUNDREDS of years, possibly thousands.

>How is that different than if some minister would have the police shoot you without just cause?
Because in this case, the police serve loyalty, not authority. Such a case would be avoided.

>Whether the king or a minister runs the economy, it's still a state run economy
It would be a Lord's economy. They manage and control the economy because it's their birthright. They don't do it "for the money", because there's no sense of materialism to be gained in such a position. Look at feudal Japan; the samurai were given everything, never needing or having to work, but they became skilled and adept at many things like music, rituals, ceremonies, etc. The samurai pursued unselfish goals because money wasn't required. Capitalism causes an anxiety of scarcity which propels people into working longer and harder for more and better, hence progressivism.

>but now you're wasting money on pompous role playing.
I'm not saying we need feudalism because it's traditional. I had just the same criticism you have right now. I thought it was people roleplaying. But it's a system, and that system has existed for a very long time. The terms and positions are very transferable right now; we have a mayor (who essentially could become a lord), and we have a local police department who could become separated from the Canadian government to serve the mayor who would serve a king-figure who doesn't have to dress with a crown but could have a suit and tie like normal people. Feudalism doesn't have to be knights in shining armor. It can be transferable easily to a modern society.

>And why do you assume they govern from the goodness of their heart for the best of everyone?
They don't...
They govern from loyalty.

What do you mean from loyalty? Also are you really saying the lord wouldn't abuse power and want to have more possessions because... And how do the people get what they want? Let's say someone wants a certain phone but the lord decides you get another, would he have to listen to everyone's complaints? It seems very slow an ineffective. Also scarcity is caused by reality, not capitalism. Feudalism won't make us live in a post-scarcity world.

Slavery has existed for longer and therefore is more stable than feudalism. How about you be my slave then? I'll feed and host you, it's in your best interest user.

>What do you mean from loyalty?
When you give a friend the benefit of the doubt to establish a trust. Then the friend trusts you more. Then you put more into that trust, and the trust gets bigger and stronger.
Had someone else offered a fief but couldn't give adequate protection, there'd be no loyalty to go on. No loyalty = no feudal society.

>Also are you really saying the lord wouldn't abuse power and want to have more possessions because..
I've seen money driven people. My boss was a very money driven person. There was no sense of "leisure" like new-money types; he was driven by the anxiety of money. If he couldn't provide work for us, we'd lose money, and he'd lose business; he has to keep people's jobs as well as provide an adequate service; he was always concerned with money. But sometimes, he'd show up drunk, and he'd use a lot of the money on stupid things like bailing out his son and his stupid venture capitalist schemes. Such a person consumed by the anxiety of money has only money to gain and money to lose, otherwise he's free from materialism. Feudal lords don't care about money in that way; they care about money in the fact that it benefits the people to care about money. And so storing up worldly possessions isn't a great deal for a lord. They would have no sense of abusing power for personal gain, because there's no personal gain to be had.

>And how do the people get what they want?
Usually merchants run outside of society but parallel to society, so you still get the phone, provided the lord pays you money for your services. In the less impoverished feudal countries, lords had money to give to the common workers; they weren't just serfs who worked for bread and shelter. But this is how rothschilds eventually got into the system, because the kings granted them special permissions and privileges over the banks; there was an overwhelming sense of scarcity prior to that any way, because the government was playing a bigger role in society.

fuck off retard. nationalism and capitalism all the way.

fuck off edgy cuck

You haven't answered my last question, why don't you want to be my slave? It's in your interest trust me, I know what's best for you.

I don't want to be your slave; that would imply coercion. I simply want to be a person who has everything handed to me without the need for all the debt I've accumulated, and I'll work , and I'll enjoy my life without the fear that someone's going to take my house, or that my payment isn't on time, or whatever.

Serfdom also does, unless serf were suddenly free to change lords or live on their own without lords taking their stuff.

Also we're getting somewhere, you want stuff handed to you. And all your debt might be a reflection of your poor choices, why do you want everyone else to live under a system because you couldn't make good decisions?