State, government and policy

So, I've been wanting to discuss this for a while, statecraft, government and policy. And how we obtain the holy grail of good government. Where citizens can actually be happy with the way things are run and we are empowered to live good lives.

As most of us are, I'm politically far removed from centrist feelings of keeping up the status quo, and when I attack the status quo of the Western Liberal Democracy (WLD) that I live under, I'm reminded of resident court jester Winston Churchills famous quote, that it is the best system out of all the bad systems we have tried.

Obviously, that is an intellectually foul thing to say, and it shows a deepseated unwillingness to reimagine the economic and political systems we have built in the WLD, to support our way of life.
So I'd like to discuss policy with you all, my spiritual comrades in arms, about how a society would look, in which we win. In which we can shape ourselves and the future.

I don't want to hear about killing Jews, killing Arabs and killing blacks. Obviously we can't build our societies purely around slaughter. So just don't go there, nobody cares about how we need draconic laws to keep Jews out of government affairs and national finances. That's obviously a given, what is important is how we would actually want our institutions built, so they can outlast our generation and pave the way for future generations.

Ideas such as Feder's abolition of interest slavery, Keyenes model economic policies and the distribution of executive, legislative and judicial powers, are insanely important for us to discuss and understand, if we want to offer the vast majority of people, who simply don't care, an alternative to the current WLDs where we're subjected to rampant materialism and a return to our most basic purpose of breeding and finding instant gratification.

How does the NatSoc state we envision, actually work, if we wanted to establish a framework we could actually model it upon. Instead of the typical references to Nazi Germany, which was in no way perfect and in many ways only a rearrangement of German society as it was.

How would monarchists return power to a monarch, and also abate the fears of an incompetent king?

What policies should we argue for to reach our goals?`And what ARE those goals? Do we want equality of opportunity in all fields of society, or should some level of tradition and inheritance play a part in our economy?

I have a lot of topics that I'd like to broach and discuss, even at length, but to start, I'd like to hear where your ideal state derives it's power from, and how this power is distributed and represented.

Other urls found in this thread:

We need absolute authority, no degenerates, no lolbertarians, no gunfags, no equal rights tards. The purest whites only allowed, no I am a d&c kike, ban my stupid non-white asss, no inbred britons, no slav niggers, no green eyed mutants.

The problem with that idea is that it's a shallow base for any society.
Sure, having a homogeneous population is important. But you can't build society on it being a homogeneous population under the ultimate authority of a dictator.

That invites political instability, unrest, squalor, corruption and governmental incompetence.
Which is exactly why the far right is constantly discredited in discussions with any non-descript middle seeking consensus fag, because leaving a system that ensures many of the basic necessities for a good life, in order to get a one-dimensional dictatorship, just isn't an option. Neither realistically, nor by preference.



Old habit. I used to run a civgame on Holla Forums while another user ran his own, and to keep our games seperate, we adopted two different trips.

Besides, tripfaggotry is about personality establishment and wanting to create a unique persona that can be carried over. I'm using this trip for this particular thread, since I do plan on discussing with anyone who feels the need to put forth an idea they have been brewing, so having a trip just makes it easier to identify me if the thread starts picking up speed.

Assuming you force anonymity, if you have post ID turned on, then sure. It's completely unnecessary. But I don't like making that assumption.

well for starters, having concrete limits to how long someone can be in an office is a given. The longer someone is in a particular place, the more likely they are to get complacent. Eventually they will become corrupted, there are very few incorruptible people, i would like to think myself one, but i'd rather not test it.

As for a governing body, I believe an user at some point threw out the idea of random lottery for things like senate/house seats. Which would provide a few incentives. One being that people would take a good hard look at how we educate people, because if we systematically educate our children poorly, we get shit tier law makers. When you don't know who is going to get a seat, it's a bit of an incentive to make sure everyone is smart in some way or another. Not everyone needs to be a rocket scientist, or a great mathematician, but everyone needs to be guided by common morals and values as a start.

As for president, sure, lets have elections. However, lets do the same as above, where lets say for arguments sake, 10 people from the population were picked at random, and then would have debates and everything else. Why limit random compelling selection to jury duty?

A system of filling governing bodies such as the one above forces the population as a whole to start caring about politics, education, and world events. It would cause people to stop the whole "if it's not sports it doesn't matter" "politics doesn't affect me" "why should i care what congress is doing" mentalities that I personally see every where.

How do we sort out the reward and punishment of society? Criminal minds and stuff. I know crime and criminals are taught, ppl dont just randomly wake up one day saying "Imma kill me some fags tonight".
Criminals and crime and murders and theft are very real problems i think, in any society no matter how perfect, and this people if not sorted out, will cause more and more grievances.
I truly believe that people can be reformed, it is in some cases nigh impossible, but at least we have to try. I think this sentiment stems from camaraderie between humans, ya know, people can be helped.

(And if not we can always keep our ovens warm and cozy)
Pic not related, just random pic I find hilarious.

By starting locally with laws that affect you and your family. Use logic and the precident set by other "fair" "laws" to argue for better laws. Use magic to spread your idea locally and on the internet.

You steal their "money".
But not in the way it is currently done.
If you look at current county laws, for building or hunting codes, you will see something similar to a fine of ~$500 and/or imprisonment for up to 30days.

People in cages should require cages.
Violent offenders can be caged.
A guy who fucked up his easment road on accident should not be in a cage.
He should pay a fine.
The fine should not go into a pool to be spent wildly.
It should directly fund the area/industry/community which was affected by the "unlawful" actions.
Pretty much combining community service and a fine into the same experience intended to aid in the enlightenment of the good inside of all people.

First you have to deal with the white rabbit and the beast in the cave user.
Then the bridge of death.

But wouldn't forcing rotation in government offices create a gradual loss of institutional strength and built up competence?

While eventual corruption would be a given, wouldn't a certain level of corruption be acceptable in order to retain the competences and abilities of the capable administrators and lawmakers that get into office?

And while I can definitely see the necessity of sound education and traditions being passed from generation to generation in a lottery government, I'd also argue that relying on the national average being high rather than relying on the competences of the most able citizens seems like a waste of potential for a nation.
You wouldn't be enabling genius, and you completely disregard the arguments of Plato on how government should be handled by those specifically educated to ensure good government.

But upping the investment and planning for education would probably be the best way to deal with the current ignorance and disinterest in politics and world events.

I'm onboard with reforming criminals instead of needlessly punishing them. But you mention it yourself, some people are just not able to be reformed.

So obviously, European systems aren't capable of dealing with hardened criminals, who obviously just have to be locked up for good and kept under police surveillance. And the US system doesn't leave much room for a reformed criminal to return to society and start fresh.

So how do we actually enable a combo of those two? Because both problems seem to have a stem in the judicial systems, where Europe is built on codified law and precedents, while the US relies on the morality of the jury, which can at times be perfect for ensuring justice, but are also both deeply flawed systems.

So you argue that decentralisation is the best way forward?
I mean, while I wish magic was real, I find it hard to just ensure a continuous development of sound government from just setting a precedent.

The Romans made great laws and dominated the ancient world, but with each passing generation their laws were perverted and ultimately, the wellfare of the people suffered.

And your notion that fines alone can ensure justice seems flawed.
What if a company is involved in a disaster that renders a community unlivable.

Would you destroy the livelihoods of those employed there by fining the company into oblivion?
Do you even place blame?

Jewish law is based on the notion that any grievance can be paid for.
Muslims demand an eye for an eye.
Christian morality dictates that you make amends and forgive.

Neither seem capable of giving us a fair and lawful way to deal with crime, both intended and unintended.

I fart in your general direction! Your reference is definitely not the most topical. Pic related.

I don't know what you are trying to say here, but I'm going to write my own comment assuming you are saying something along the lines of (aryans only). While that may work for a smaller state-like government, we need to examine a confederacy which is controlled by colonies of different, smaller white ethnostates . Slavs, Nords, Aryans, etc, get to live in different portions of America and liberated Canada and Mexico. For instance, a Castianos white could live in the Southwest region of the US, under strict immigration laws and genetic testing for non-white admixtures.

Actually, if you remember the white rabbit in pizzagate and what lurked behind it, then you'll understand that what I said is of the most importance here.
No ideological stone can be set until the ground is firm to stand it upon.
When beasts are trying to pull it down then you cannot build any holy grail of government.

And when a government is corrupted to such a degree, it must cross the bridge of death to make a new system. Or at least survive the cleaning of it's bowels.

But the thread isn't as much about the shadowy cabals that are currently poisoning our wells. But about how government SHOULD be, if we were allowed to repair the system.

Arguing that it's no use discussing how it should be, because it wouldn't be allowed is a hollow argument.
If we don't have any actual ideas behind our ideology, then what use is it to others, who aren't looking for values, but for a way of life. Not everyone is inclined like people who seek out some remote imageboard on the net to discuss politics that other balk at even mentioning.

There has never been such an opportunity user. That IS the problem.

No point in human history has there been an opportunity to build a castle from scratch so to speak. We've built the bricks from previous castles, including the cancer of past societies.

The Egyptians related that reality to the God Set too. It's a consequence of our free will.
So what we should aim for is a stronger method to attack the beast. A better enforcement method that is usable in the current system.

That relies on less macrocosmic goals, more direct instructions and methods to law enforcement and the ways it is adjudicated.

Checked for my Hitler trips.

Plenty of societies have been changed and reformed. Plenty of governments have evolved and changed. And plenty of peoples have learned and overcome their limitations.

The French revolution saw the destruction of the ancien regime and the coming of a new era. Though people were the same, the institutions were changed forever. And while the beginning was rough, it did turn out for the better in most cases, as people refined their ideas and methods. And it ended with the return to the golden mean under Napoleon.

Your argument reeks of a certain kind of intellectual dishonesty, wherein you claim a sort of understanding, based on some preconcieved notion that we are the targets of a massive conspiracy aimed at stopping mankind from reaching our full potential, and I find that idea in contempt. Bring an actual argument based in fact or in philosophy, or GTFO.

I feel like our government was set up for the individual person.
we need to strengthen the middle class and make people as least reliable on government as possible.

these days everything seeks to breed dependence (govt, medicine, food, information)
but if we come together through a movement of INDIVIDUALISIM with the tenants of SELF SUSTAINABILITY
then we can have an even smaller government

the best inventions liberated people from the current power structure

Solar panels
Water Filtration for one person

OP sounds like he hasn't read Decline of the West.

In order for a culture/civilization to be alive and thrive, it must also die at some point. One must know life to know decay. Asking for some permanent reign is like the classic Greek story of Tithonus where he grows old, decrepit and useless but is stuck alive for eternity. Is that what you really want? A government crippled by itself? If anything we've learned, it is that the great masses are just a tool in the play of greater men. As long as you wish for an long term safety like an old, decaying man would, you wish against the highest dream of the youthful hero in the heart and soul of every young man of your culture.

You misspelled (((The French revolution))).

(((Individualism))) is a mental cancer even though I strongly agree with the premise of mandatory self-reliance of citizens.

Individualism applies also to thinking about other people. so instead of being racist, realize your anger is at individual jews not the whole ideology


I think we need some kind of enlightened military juncta, an alliance between a break away faction within the military and a public movement outside of it - something akin to the "Alt-Right" but less gay. From the ranks of this military order would with hope rise someone competent enough to rule the country in the interim period - we'd need someone capable of fighting a multi-dimensional civil war. I don't mean aliens I mean just a war fought on different levels. I think a Republic system with a functioning senate is the best for our people. We need to be more stringent on enfranchisement too - maybe make it so in order to vote you have to be a father, or someone who has served at least 8 years in the military. We shouldn't treat voting like some kind of right you can wipe your ass with as as joke at 19, we need it to be a serious tradition with social reverence that only those who feel truly capable of influencing our direction as a society get to embark upon.


Just like your argument is relying on the notion that society has a fundamental flaw in it's foundation, and that entropy will eventually crush it.

But there is no historical precedent for that. And the myth of Tithonus, while providing a philosophical point in the folly of seeking stability at all costs, does not provide any good reason that government cannot be reformed and maintained over time as the needs of a people change.

Surely we can all see the Wests current decline, but I refuse to believe that it is terminal.

I'd rather not theorize about how the new government comes about, since most Western nations have wildly different setups.

But your proposal does strike a chord with me, mostly because I have a massive hard on for the Roman republic as well, which was in essence a military/civil republic, with a strict voter franchise and very strong traditions and social institutions.

But the US WAS built on a system like that, when it was founded, and has followed a development much like that of ancient Rome, with a necessary expansion of the voting franchise and a deep economic corruption of the political process. So how would you even be able to protect your government against that sort of decay? Wouldn't the military junta / republic just slowly wilt as the voting franchise expands, and money comes to dominate the election cycle?

Or does your junta have a hard counter against a potential historical fifth collumn of (((merchants))) and their allies?

non violent offenders can be reformed simply by educating them to the laws pertaining or relating to what they did.
Violent offenders, or rather murderous offenders, and those who maim and purposefully cause serious injury can be dealt with in a cheap manner. I'd go so far to say this manner would possibly be the most effective at reducing violent crimes. Simply put, we bring back the firing squad. When you give people a death sentence these days, it's laughable. Life in prison, seriously, life in prison, if a guy is 20, that's 40-80 years we have to pay for his well being, food, medical, clothing, etc. Not only does it not deter people from said crimes effectively (think a poor person looking for a free meal ticket) it's almost an incentive. Now if you're in a state where the death sentence is still "active" then we have to pay for that person to live until the day we put them down, which is something like 10-20 years isn't it? why? Why waste a good Samaritans money on someone so worthless? get the death sentence? you've got 6 months to get a repeal, then firing squad.
No need for a cage if the one to be caged is dead.
Of course if you get in a bar fight, or you and your neighbor duke it out over where the property line is and who mows what, you're not going to get a bullet. Instead you'll be fined or be made to do community service.

We need to give people a reason to be scared of the consequences of crime again. letting felons out of prison after 20 years of paying for their meals and workout routines, and letting them go vote is certainly not the way.


But shouldn't reforming criminals be about taking hardened criminals and showing them a way out of their life in crime? Instead of making reforming criminals about telling people who are either ignorant or just don't care about the law, that they aren't allowed to do that?

I feel like you're detracting something important from the meaning of reforming criminals, and I feel like your tough on crime stance will only lead to a logical fallacy.

Wouldn't instating the death penalty in a nation just raise the stakes for criminals? You'd incentivize criminals to kill in order to escape, fight for their lives rather than give themselves up, when their only alternative is to face the firing squad.
I get that Americans fear soft prisons, because nation's that are infested with niggers can't solve the myriad of problems that niggers create, by releasing them again only after a few short years. But I don't think long prison sentences and death are a viable alternative when you consider what prisons do. Inmates become even more hardened, join gangs within the prisons and lose almost any prospect of a civilized life on the other side. Prisons are essentially factories, pumping out nutcase murderers, thugs and repeat offenders, with very little societal gain.
I get that the compulsion to punish is strong, but it seems so flawed to perpetuate a problem when obviously, there are tools that could at least limit or remedy the problems.

Ebin meme lad 420 1488 and all that my fellow enlightened gentleman.

Roman style, publically funded bath houses must make a come back. Seperated by sex where the populace can come and swim, sauna, exercise and relax.

Post images of higher resolution in the future.


You already exposed your true intention. Don't even try to cover it up kike.

This is the final solution, take it or leave it.

Niggertech phone wasn't letting me grab the full image. Thanks tho.

I'm casting my vote for: Protectionist State with Nationalized Banking System

Keynes was a fucking idiot, who's only famous because he provided an excuse for government expansion into the economy. He pretended that you could accurately calculate what an economy is doing with a simple formula, when in reality it's incalculable. He claimed that there is an objective standard of value/price, when in reality it's subjective. He thought that people would trade when they have equal value, but really people only trade when they perceive greater value for themselves.
In order, the counterarguments:
-Formulas require data, which require people to accurately report their economic activities. Yet doing so exposes them to tax/criminal liabilities, so many(most?) will lie. Many also won't remember, or will not consider some things economic activities, like babysitting for a relative or building new cabinets for your house.
-Value is subjective because different people want the same thing more or less. I may value BTC at $1000, and would sell if it goes over that. Others may hold it at $100,000 and will hold until it gets there.
-Why trade $1 for $1? If I'm buying a stick of gum for $1, it's because it's value to me is greater than $1, not equal.

Racism is society's immune system against outside threats. Is there a group of easily identified people that commonly engage in a type of behaviour that is detrimental to your group? If yes, who cares if it's not 100% of them? If a nigger is 10 times as likely to try to mug me, I'm going to keep my eye on him. If a kike is 10 times as likely to try to defraud me, I'm not going to go into business with him. If a fag is 10 times more likely to be a child molester, I'm not going to let him watch my kids. Maybe I'm wrong about the individual, but why risk it when I can simply associate with my own kind instead?

A minarchist society is the only way to go for whites, but it would likely only work for a racially/culturally homogenous area. We don't want competence in government, because that just means they're really competent at screwing us over. Government attracts the worst elements, the most organized and scheming and sociopathic, and that's why we've got our current (((leaders))), but the same could happen with the Chinese or freemasons. If you have a smaller government, you have more oversight from the people and less available lucre for the (((parasites))) to steal.

The one exception to that is war, and even then it should be limited to largely defensive/counteroffensive actions by a mostly militia group. Yes, this means that we'd have private ownership of helicopters, tanks, and cruise missiles. Sounds like fun.

Oh, and courts should basically be common law lawsuits, but with most precedent set for the past 100 years wiped from the books. No prisons, everything is either fines, exile, or for capital crimes (murder, rape, arson, treason) public execution within a month of conviction.