Bring Back Feudalism

No, that was National Socialism. It was designed to correct all the flaws of traditional rule, most specifically generational degeneration due to regression towards the norm which makes feudalism absolutely horrible.

National socialism is just another treatment of the symptom. It doesn't attack the actual disease. It's another God forsaken byproduct of the Jacobin modernist world.

You don't understand how it works.

Also you were more free under feudalism. Your representative was your local lord. You didn't have to answer to some cunt in miles away that's never stepped a foot in your shoes.

Like what? He doesnt have his own castle like the nobleman?
What would he lack? With so many lords you can actually choose which lord you want to serve.>>6440401

Do you even know what taxes were like back then? How many holidays people had?

Quality post.

Sure mate. NS was another top down organization of society. An authoritarian reaction to authoritarian Jacobins.

I would like to point out how shit feudalism is and was and always will be but it seems to me you'll just adjust your special snowflake definitions and say real feudalism has never been tried

You sure about that? Even if you are, that certainly doesn't make you right. Holla Forums is sure about their shit and look how fucking retarded they are.

Even worse. It's socialism.

Cryptokikes and inbred freaks were not the norm. The failing of feudalism was the slow development of a useless courtly race that was not kin to its subjects and thus had little more loyalty to them than to Shlomo who gives them such nice gold.

The Jews were never the problem. You don't blame the enemy for being the enemy. The issue is yourself.

Without the centralization of society within urban areas and the abandonment of the decentralized nature of the middle ages where villages and communities handled their own affairs, the possibility for enemies like the Jews subverting shit suddenly became a problem.

f we still had the old ways, urbanites in Berlin might bitch, but the local lords and rulers and communities of the marches would never have allowed the brown hordes to invade.
That's just one example.

Because ultimately centralization is not compatible with the European man. We yearn to be free. We used to have that chance, to carve out our own path. Now we bend over for the capital, for the cities and for the political elites it has fostered. And they can more easily spread their poisonous urbanite degeneracy (that has always been there in some way or another) to the rest of the land.

Get out.

You also should point out, the establishment of the courts and the centralization of the nobility, like we see in late monarchist France, was another symptom of the Enlightenment.

Wheres before the nobility might have been petty at times, but they held to their office and their position as representatives of the land, because they lived there.
Blood and soil. The soil is no less important. By taking the nobles from their estates and castles and giving them riches in the capital of each kingdom, that's where shit went south.

And this was engineered every time by Enlightened Despots, idealogues that thought they could make people better.

And the system worked. Even under the Normans, the system worked.

Wherever communities are allowed to run their own business, things worked. Ideology was the death of it all. The Enlightenment and this need to decide the lives of others was the problem.

If I had a few million bucks I would buy a nice piece of land and let anyone White* to live there for free and live off the land.

All I would ask in exchange is 10% of the produce and be addressed as King user The Great.

Yet the European man turned centralization into an art form and the masses constantly vote for more government and long for the metropolis.

I'm all for moving people out of the degenerate cities and back into contact with nature but this fucking meme needs to die. The reason we need to decentralize is the exact opposite; the European man adapts to the unified greater good too well and it goes too far.

No. Conditions now are in no way similar to those back then. Something adapted to the technological world is needed and that something is National Socialism.

Good luck unifying them against something like the communist terror. You'll have been completely overrun before they are even close to a unified decision.

Isnt that what happened in Russia?

How about this
Feudalism just means calling your Zog state a kingdom instead of a republic

No he doesn't. This was forced on us by the few Enlightenment Jacobin cunts and it's been shilled ever since.
Ultimately the European man wants to be free. Every religion and culture we've had highlights the ideals of decentralization.

That's what you sound like.

Except it happened, and it worked. The marches held, Anglo-Saxon England united many times and it took two different armies to defeat that system of militia organization.

And even then, the Normans only won because the king of the Anglo-Saxons died in the battle.

The strength of this argument cannot be denied. Literally every form of government since the dark ages simply fails forward. Pre enlightenment Europe seemed to work and provide the kind of stability and prosperity that enabled the excesses that created the age of enlightenment. Remember that at the time of the Black Death pretty much all arable land in Italy and much of Europe was growing wheat because there were so many people.
I would like to evolve beyond rulers but a man I know and have half a chance to retaliate against if he does me too wrong is infinitely better than the abstractions currently available in the western world.

Of course the guild economy also probably had a lot to do with it, but you can't have one without the other.

It's worth noting also that the nwo neo feudalism bares no resemblance to classical feudalism. Neo feudalism is the golden rule above all else, he who has the gold, rules.

...

...

I swear it's like you're really retarded.

Because it's completely the same thing to base everything on abstract modernism instead of the philosophy of blood and soil.

"In addition to these pragmatic goals, the powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences."

Carroll Quigley: Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time, 1966, p. 324

Your brain on AnCap/Lolberturianism

Related thread

William the Conqueror completely depopulated the north of England to the point that no even bothered looking for taxes there for a generation. He killed every man, woman, child, dog, chicken or cow he could find. He killed absolutely anyone who dared thinking about opposing him, which was how he consolidated his rule.

His son was worse in terms of ruthlessness, although his reign was short lived having died of a "hunting accident" at the hands of his own brother who decided that going native and LARPing as an Anglo-Saxon was the better way forward for the Norman aristocracy.

Doing the genetic research also shows that the Norman aristocratic males basically just fucked all of the peasants wives with impunity, and cucked an entire race of people. So that Lord from London is actually going to come down and talk shit, push you out of your hut, have his way with your wife and daughters, and then ride back to your Lord's castle where they would have a laugh about it.

This notion that the Lords operate in some system of checks and balances is itself Enlightenment garbage. The reality of the situation on the ground from what anyone can tell is that peasants mostly didn't like their local lords, and loved their King because the grass is always greener. In reality the Lord from London is going to be preferred to the guy who collects the taxes.

The Carolingians were the seneschals of the Merovingians (The House of Martel). The bureaucratic apparatus of Frankia being the personal patrimony of a particular family. Determining that the actual Royal family was surplus to requirements when the power behind the throne actually ruled the country the Carolingian's inveighed upon the Church that they should instead be made the Royal family by official declamation with a roughly technocratic justification. The Merovingians were basically fired. This was in the 7th century wherein a centralized bureaucratic institution co-opted a nation's warrior-aristocrat Royal family because it was determined that bureaucratic managers made better Monarchs.

This was a long time before the Enlightenment and these aristocrats weren't very tied to blood and soil. They certainly didn't have that as a philosophy if they held it possible and rational that a King could be fired for lack of institutional clout among tax collectors.

Ignores power structures and human nature.
So if I'm in control of the government or any other powerful institution and I want to fuck with you what exactly can you possibly do about it? If it is beneficial to me why shouldn't I do it?
Again given a large power disparity how could you possibly fuck with me? You have no currency which has any value to me and so your bargaining position is basically to call me immoral for working towards my own interest.

What you are promoting is a form of radical egalitarianism in which we equalize all social power except in the exchange of currency for a certain set of very prescribed purchases wherein the accumulation of said currency doesn't really allow for unequal social power in any meaningful sense.

Pas moi?

Except that Norman England was FAR inferior to Anglo-Saxon England.

Salic law in general was pretty bad. You had other forms of organization and codes of law.

And there WERE checks and balances. The check and balance was that if you pissed people off people would fight back. The Normans had to completely defeat the Anglo-Saxons in war before they could do any of what you're saying and they only pulled it off by the death of the Anglo-Saxon monarch Harold.

The bureaucratic apparatus of Francia was nothing compared to Versailles. You're being disingenuous in comparing the two. There was no way to hold all that territory through centralized means at the time, they sure as hell depended on the local nobility which is why when it splintered, it splintered badly.

Power structures should not be top down.

End of story

To argue for top down power structure is to be fundamentally anti-European.

This is you right now. If the European man really was like you said then it would not have been possible for a few Jacobins to create something that resonated so strongly that it became absolutely dominant. If the European man was anything like you said he would not have voted to have more govt cocks showed up his ass in every single European country.

First of all, nice cherry picking. People sacrificing themselves for the greater good has also been an ideal throughout the times.
Secondly, an ideal is an ideal precisely because it something possessed by only a few people. If it was a general character it there would not have been a need or even a point to idealize it.

Yes. Because it doesn't take a fucking month to move an army a significant distance a system where are bunch of faggots are gonna have to bicker about absolutely everything and where each one can just take his army and turncoat at leisure isn't going to fucking work. A few centuries ago you had the fucking time but today an enemy with a centralized structure will have been able to get his entire fucking invasion force in before you realize some fucking baron is a traitor and the reports he's been sending you is just bullshit to stall you.

This has nothing to do with the date but with the level technology. Nice strawman though so 3/10

You're as fucking delusional as the lolbergs.

Since it got replaced from within it actually didn't, but let's not let reality get in the way.

Feudalism is just devolved autocracy. It is completely compatible with capitalism as evidenced by:
Modern russia where "Tsar" Vladmir IV, "Savior of the white race" rules with the support of his "Boyars", the oligarchs
Other corporate states where the leaders mus5t gain power with the support of their rich "aristorcracy"
The mafias where the "Capo de tuti Capo" rules devolving power to local crime bosses
Perhaps even the EU where each Nation sends one of their strongmen to the European commission, the strongest becomes leader and then demands tribute from his "Lords"

I don't understand why you're bringing niggers into this, we're discussing Europeans.

Also yes, it was possible. Jacobins sold us on this idea of the nation being absolute and that naturally moved to civic nationalism.

Wheres before you were allowed to not give two shits what happened outside of your direct community, and yet at the same because it wasn't artificial, you were more willing to lay down your life for your kin, even distant kin. There was also no morality based on materialism, but rather we aspired for something greater than the physical.

It's the same damn fucking thing.

You have more and more the tech to allow faggots to turn genders and for abortions to be a thing, and for all manner of degenerate behavior. Doesn't make those things right.

Technology should not rule us. It's just another thing the materialists of post 1789 use over you

Except the lolbergs try to extent all these ideals to non kin.

I have no illusions about shitskins, or even Europeans not of my own nation, will have enough unity and common soul with me to work together.

I mean just think about it how capitalist exploitation can resemble feudalist exploitation. And by the way political right fits with it well as its guard.

(If you love that, try Ukraine. But matbe don't get too confrontational with the local ukrainan-israeli oligarch or you might meet his extreme right-wing thugs for your commie antics.

Maybe some people forget that the "left" is also being undermined and derailed with immigration and so on stuff. (Who benefits? And actually who benefits from cheap immigrant labor?))

Guess what Napoleoshitter did in every territory he conquered.

(hint: it was repel all anti-kike laws)

Yep, spring of the white race, summer is the age of exploration and colonization, autumn was age of imperialism and world wars, post ww2 is the winter

No, the German Empire was the high point of European civilization, and feudalism was long dead by then.

what

If you mean the Holy Roman Empire of the Germans, yes, I agree.

All power structures are top down because they are about power which always rises to the top. You are just preaching an alternative form of Libertarian philosophy. Your virtue ethics based ideals can never be dominant. If you could in theory create a system wherein everyone just had to be a good goy for it to work you could also make Communism functional, but Communism doesn't work for the same reason that your system will not work.

Feudalism was an outgrowth of certain contextual conditions that arose out of the collapse of the Roman Empire in western Europe. It wasn't an ideal, it wasn't a philosophy, it wasn't a religion. It decayed into obsolescence because its' existence at all was largely circumstantial and was given an ex post facto justification.

Except that under Capitalism you wind up with an allocation of resources going to people based on their skills as a merchant and hence making these sets of traits dominant in the sexual marketplace where those with the most access to resources do the most reproducing. You eventually breed an entire race of merchants who value placidity and tolerance for the smooth functioning of the economy above any other consideration.

Your "Lords" of the EU can be told what to do by 17 year old inbred retards from Pakistan who exude more authority than basically any European in an actual position of authority because they are not bred for docility like the European man that is the product of the bourgeoisie-conceived soft eugenic scheme of Capitalism.

Ultimately the only thing compatible with Capitalism is being ruled by peoples who do not adopt Capitalism and continue to breed priests, and warriors and Kings.

It's not at all. The Leftist (((Current Year))) meme is entirely based on a progressive/linear notion of history wherein you have a defined eschatology and you move either closer or further away from it.

user is not making any eschatological claims, just that technology impacts social structures and that your precious Feudalism is an outgrowth of technology and circumstance. The invention of easily constructed fortresses allowed for the creation of a class of castellans why became the Feudal overlords. They were wilderness bandits who rebelled against the Roman institutions which were in collapse and the sharp population decline allowed for balkanized power structure to form. The refinement of the Castle-based civilization made central authority's ability to inflict its' will prohibitively costly.

The end of the age of Feudalism is the invention of the canon which makes castle walls obsolete and sieges short. A centralized professional army regained the power it once had under the Roman Empire and a more Roman Empire like normalcy returned.

And for European's Feudalism of the medieval period is not the norm. We are a race defined by thought and abstraction. We make ourselves what we are and we are more than any other race the symbols we create that in turn create us in a more idealized form in future generations. Rome and the Holy Roman Empire, and the British Empire were all more quintessentially European (in terms of their own idiosyncratic corners of Europe) in spirit than medieval feudalism.

I put the parenthetical in the wrong part of the sentence in a copypasta error. Mea culpa.

Yeah, this was the biggest problem with Enlightenment thinking that still exists today. The notion that non-rationally based institutions
(like religion, tradition, et cetera) had to have been categorically wrong because of the process used in decision making. The idea that a broken clock is right twice a day is beyond most rationalists, and so they just reactively do the opposite of the non-rationalist whose arguments they reject out of hand for not conforming to the rationalists standards of debate.

You see this penchant among Roman stoics, epicureans et cetera and the modern skeptic crowd. Even the intelligent ones. The desire to remove 'cognitive bias' without the recognition that the brain and body might actually be performing some positive survival function on a subconscious or non-rational level and that removing the non-rational "bias" from consideration will reliably produce bad results. The idea that the opposite of instinct must necessarily be a good idea is obviously a really bad idea.

Because you're using the same logic lefties use about niggers.

And this would not have been possible if the European man was such an freedom loving individualist as you proclaim!

Well we don't live in that world anymore and unless you nuke all technology you're gonna have to deal with giving a shit about what happens more than five miles away from you.

Yep, you're as retarded as the lolbergs.

No it doesn't, but that doesn't mean you can just pretend it away. The possibility for those things are going to remain for all foreseeable future so you're just gonna have to grow up and device a system that can deal with those things instead of just wishing you lived in a time when

It doesn't, its just that your enemies, both internal and external, are not going to give two shits about your philosophical preferences but are going to embrace that technology to shove it down your fucking throat unless you device an equally modern system adapted to the new nature of the threat. People have tried your method and pitted cavalry against tanks and it didn't work so well.

Your problem is you are completely delusional about the nature of your own people and completely ignorant of they ways in which today is different than the past of 300 years ago and why system designed for that era is neither practical nor desirable today. Your delusions are not the same as the lolbergs but you sure are equally delusional.

No we don't need to bring back feudalism because the most advanced Monarchies either had a form of Distributism or were transitioning to it.

It is better for every man to own his own land and the means of production than for it to be concentrated in the hands of the few.

I know OP is being satirical, but serfs didn't really have it bad at all, especially considering the time they lived in. Their life was worse than ours because there wasn't things like running water or electricity, not because there were kings and lords. Pic related is an obviously exaggerated comparison, but many things in it, such as the parts about vacation days and family structure, are accurate. There is no happiness in modern life because we've abandoned every practice that makes people happy just so we can live like ants in a colony.

Circumstantial as it was it was still the better days.

Lets put this in simple terms.

Where would you rather live. In a quite calm Anglo-Saxon village in the viking ages, or even in the marches of the HRE in the tail end of the middle ages.

Where you were ruled by people you knew, people of your own inclination and soil and blood, people you could at least, to some extent, trust to hold your interest at heart because the land you live in is their land too.

Or in a village of NatSoc Germany, subject to whatever rule some bureaucrat in Berlin decided.

Or perhaps some ranch in modern day US, subject to whatever the fed tells you.

This is no choice at all.

Our goal (or, at least mine) is the survival, progression, and freedom of the white race. The concept of improving and preserving European civilization and sovereignty dictates what I consider ethical: things that support these ideas are moral, while things that hinder them are immoral. I consider Feudalism to hinder our efforts because it forces the population to be complacent, uneducated and reliant on the state. This keeps the White Man stagnant; never able to learn, spread information, and develop technologically. It also prevents as our survival, as having uneducated masses of serfs will insinuate overpopulation, and an ensuing deficiency of resources. If we remained in Feudalism, we would likely still be the property of the papacy (a semitic organization).

Feudalism also takes the worst elements from communism and capitalism and combines them. It takes the authoritarian, autocratic attributes of communism and mixes them with the blind consumerism of capitalism.

Same thing with the globalists. They want complete control over the mind, body and soul of an individual with excessive laws, while binding them financially with banks, monopolies and corporations. The argument whether capitalism or communism is the best is as fabricated and rigged as the debate between republicans and democrats. Either decision benefits the kikes.

Feudalism is literally what the globalist cabal wants. After the innovative, free-spirited white man is either bred out or destroyed, they will subjugate the mongrel collective of inferior races into serfdom, providing for their dynasties until the end of time.

Tradition is important, but when it breeds stagnation, it is useless.

It's called violent purge before return to simpler life.

I never said a return to a decentralized form of society would be done through peaceful means. That's for lolbergs.

Fun fact, the better places with feudal organization didn't have serfs

Can you elaborate? I'm assuming you mean they had something more like what Russia would have had had Stolypin's reforms succeeded.

A return to decentralized life doesn't have to be violent. It can be done by changing taxation laws, breaking up large corporations (too big to fail) and monopolies and changing regulations that strangle small business,

On the local scale it can be done by promoting use of local credit unions and small banks over shlomo's big bank of fun and also promoting more small businesses and guild organizations.

To be honest this is something VERY possible to do as their is already a lot of support among white people in the green/organic/sustainability movement.

oops I picked a cuck pic. I though it was Principles of Permaculture.

I know this is a shitpost but the real intellectual renaissance happened in the 13th century. The black plague delayed it by 200 years.

Also peasants only worked for 2/3rds of the year compared to us who get 2-4 weeks plus holidays

Considering feudalism depended on serfdom for the production of resources and control of the populace, I would like a source. That seems unlikely to me.

Reek of communist shit.

Sorry, it was the wrong pic. As for more people owning the means of production whats wrong with that? It just means that private property should be more widely owned. More people produce things themselves rather than having production concentrated in the hands of oligarchs/plutocrats.

It can't be communism because property ownership is considered a fundamental right in distributism but in communism it is abolished.

The choice is clear. The 3rd Reich. Factually that bureaucrat in Berlin isn't coming to make me sit outside my hut while he fucks my wife, which is factually what happened all over Europe. The aristocrats all had vast harems which were constituted of village girls who were all married off to village boys who raised the bastards. The 3rd Reich's government would at least let me produce a family from my own loins rather than theirs.

There is actually a Spanish term originating among the Bourbons that is entirely about the King having the technical authority to fuck the peasant's wives but respecting the sanctity of their marriage to the extent that this would never actually happen. This being an obviously very Enlightenment-friendly dynasty was actually addressing real distinctions that existed between the new, improved aristocracy over the ones that were recently deposed.

I'm also not an outsider to my own society and people and so my ethos doesn't entirely revolve around this mewling, weak "I just want to be left alone". I don't mind intervention from people who are genuinely on my side. The ideal of Anglo-Saxon monarchy (and Germanic monarchy) in general was the notion of a popular King, and enveloped in that was a form of proto-nationalism which the aristocracy of Europe degenerated away from before it was deposed.

The Fuhrer and Fuhrer Prinzip was closer to the ideal of a Germanic Monarch than anything that had existed in Europe for a long time, even if it did not cleave to traditional nomenclature. It was the recrudescence of a primordial ideal that is inherent to our nature.

"Peace" has nothing to do with it. Your ideas won't work with peace or violence and are essentially just a contrarian interpretation of liberalism. Wherein the early liberals wanted to make everyone an aristocrat and imbue them with the same Rights but none of the associated duties. You are simply idealizing the peasant life on the basis of non-intervention being the most desirable outcome (ie the most liberty for the most people). The sentiment expressed is basically the same.

The basis of the ancien regime was not "yearning for freedom" from the State and to restore it would almost certainly necessitate the extermination of anyone who thinks in those terms and the abolition of such an idea from all human knowledge.

Distributism doesn't work because there isn't any real mechanism to combat collusion. It's basically backdoor socialism (which also seeks to distribute "property" as far and wide as possible) despite what any Catholic wants to say.

"Corporations" only exist because they are forced to in order to establish them as legal entities which can be regulated by the government. The preferred relationship between the individuals that own corporations would certainly be informal collusion rather than contract-based cooperation. The existence of corporations actually makes things more 'fair' and allows for a wider dispersal of property because it allows for a broader spectrum of society to collude with the assistance of legally binding contracts to compel non-cooperating partners to complicity when relationships sour.

In Distributism you'd have de facto corporations forming and the class of people who are most successful at this kind of organization would necessarily be a criminal type with omerta-esque codes forming to enforce these secretive relationships outside the view and bounds of the State. It would certainly be a better system for Jews whose ethnic networking would advantage them even more in a scenario wherein contract-based cooperation between property owners was effectively banned by the State and only informal, secret relationships were allowed (as such things are always necessarily allowed). When you have an (ostensible) 3rd party to adjudicate the terms of a formal cooperative enterprise basically anyone with any amount of industriousness could theoretically engage supposing sufficient resources to start up such a project. Rather than the kinds of people who could form an organized criminal racket.

The idea that in Distributism you have "private property" is essentially just semantic because you can't do what you want with that property in any meaningful sense and most of the reasons to accumulate capital are actually proscribed. It allows "possessions" but not "property" and isn't a propertarian ideology, so all references to 'property' aren't really relevant. It's a bone thrown to 19th and 20th century Liberals to assuage their fears. An advertising tactic.

So the 7th Century Byzantine recovery was a communist revolution was it?

Corporations would never be completely banned. They would be regulated to prevent plutocrats becoming more powerful than the state and co-opting it for their own purposes (what the Jews do now).

How so? Its simply more competitive capitalism as capital is distributed instead of being solely in the hands of Oligarchs. Imo Russia and Eastern Europe desperately need this as well as returning to their own cultural roots rather than being cucked by Western liberalism. Byzantism is the answer.

You are arguing for a Fuhrer and National Socialism but this effectively uses a form of Distributism and Monarchy. The banning of ursury is probably the most controversial act that both systems have considered.

You guys familiar with magna carta in England? it was a treaty saying the kings was not above the law.
It failed at the time because the world just wasn't ready for that idea (remember people still believed the king was sent by god and therefor infallible) however a new feudalistic system would need something like this.
I would think we would have to say the king serves the people and the people serve him.
There would also need to be a way for the clever peasants to clime the feudalistic ladder, probably through military service (in england that was entirely possible, especially during the hundred years war, someone could start out in the army as a peasant long bowman and move up the ranks to become a very wealthy man at arms, I am fairly sure one man did this and even became a knight!).

You can be a peasant to your heart's content, i for one, will not.

...

So you don't want to work your own land and have white culture in you local white community? You don't want to own capital instead of wagecucking for your Jew master?

As much as I'd love to be some kind of minor lord (I'm a small business owner but I won't kid myself, I wouldn't be a king or duke), I recognize the role of capital and its distribution/allocation in the development of modern society. Feudalism is, objectively, bad for technological development.

Say what you'd like about Jews and banking but houses like the Medici played an emormous role in opening up access to physical capital and land for tradesmen and "merchant princes" (note I'm not using the ((())) for that)

The clever, ambitious, and capable must have mechanisms for realizing dreams that aren't dependent on a single individual's patronage or favor.

I mean, were I a Baron or Marquis, I'd happily dump money into new apps for commerce or enterprise, agricultural sensors, biotechnologies, etc. I'd be the "king" of patronage and venture capital for innovators and those bucking against their guilds. That said, many wouldn't be.

I just don't see feudal lords in the modern era being more efficient, better at getting wealth where it belongs, than our current system.

This isn't to say our current system is without flaws. It has plenty, but Feudalism has more.

Then why did technology develop under Feudalism? Can we stop with this meme that the modern economic system promotes "muh technology". This is the consequence of development through history, not the effectiveness of modern capitalism.

"If capitalism means private property, I am capitalist.
If capitalism means capital, everybody is capitalist.
But if capitalism means this particular condition of capital, only paid
out to the mass in the form of wages, then it does mean something,
even if it ought to mean something else." - G.K Chesterton

I'd much rather be Doge or Prince Elector (a position in the Holy Roman Empire) than a feudal lord.

I have a great deal of power, though it's checked by a council of prominent citizens and high-ranking guildsmen, and that's better than absolute pseudo-ownership of serfs/peasants.

I'm honestly a fan of my current position: CEO. I get respect for it, plenty thereof. I get to order people around, which is fun. I get to see things I've imagined made reality as I manage the people who do so.

The best part of it? Everyone working for me is doing so by their own free will. Nobody's forced into this. I provide incentives, both in wages and benefits, and I get to reap the rewards of same. I get human capital a cut above the rest because I'm willing to part with my own capital in exchange for it. I don't get peasants either, I get free human beings with their own dreams and hopes, their own ideas. Peasants have those, but they lack the individual rights and franchise to realize them. Free humans, on the other hand, have al the same rights as me.

Just being honest, but I'd rather live within a system that allows all people to bear arms, own property, keep gold, accumulate wealth, etc.

It produces better workers for me and it gives me a better situation than I would likely have under Feudalism. Odds on, I would not have been born a lord. My picture isn't a coincidence, my ancestors were noble. That said, nobility has a short shelf life in terms of actual wealth and power. I'd rather everyone have a chance at wealth and power than a few hold the very ethereal reigns.

The problem with inherited power and wealth is that you cannot ensure the quality of all heirs. We all like to think our sons and daughters and those after them would continue to be just, fair, and wise but that just isn't the case.

Feudalism has its own weaknesses, as a consistent ruling class only promotes complacency and arrogance.

Something more suitable and long term would a traditionalist republic, or possibly a napoleonic aristocracy.

feudalism 10/10

nazis lol E for effort

Ok first off, the black plague is late middle ages.
second you're a fucking faggot who's not funny

alright, don't want to be a peasant, work hard enough, save up for a good school and become arch bishop. or become a lawyer.

Feudalism never existed.
It was a hypothetical interpretation of medieval culture by some lawyers - I can't remember if it was during the Rennaisance or enlightenment or whatever.

Then their memery caught on.

Feudalism wasn't the best thing. The Byzantine Empire was far more successful with its system.