Hey Holla Forums...

Hey Holla Forums, I'm currently reading "The rights of man" by Thomas Paine and I just came across this passage in the portion where Paine shares his criticisms of aristocracy and more specifically primogeniture, and I just had to share this with you all:

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

OY VEY, HE WAS AN ANTI-SEMITE; WE NEVER DID ANYTHING WRONG!

Anyway, yeah. Monarchy is an attempt to force benevolent dictatorship to work for more than a single generation, but it just fails.

Which is why the only system that has any chance of working in the long-term is one which can accurately select out and elevate nature's aristocracy to positions of power and control.

Monarchy is a strong form of governance, but it is ultimately a mere replacement. "We cannot accurately determine who truly is great," says society, "so instead we will give one child the best chance possible from birth to be great."

Monarchy hopes for both nature and nurture to align, but settles for nurture nine times out of ten.

It works, as a system, but it is inefficient and unoptimized. The most ideal form of governance is, again, one in which the natural aristocracy of a society will be filtered to the top through their merits and value, which grants all of the benefits of having an Aristocracy or Monarchy without the drawbacks of eventually getting saddled with incredibly powerful and influential morons.

Key in this system is power not being hereditary. This prevents the child of a great man who is not great himself from taking power, and also renders political marriage meaningless, which means the aristocracy will still marry for love like the common man, which prevents any sort of inbreeding.

The Founding Fathers attempted to make this a reality when they created America. Unfortunately, they were too high off the fumes of the disastrous French Revolution to remain as impartial and objective as they should have, and they forgot to carve on a stone slab outside the door that only White Christian men of European descent were permitted to be citizens.

Our Founding Fathers, for the most part, were republicans (not lolbergtardians). Paine is a really good example


also everyone post "remove kebab" ITT

But how do you do that? If you have voting (and you have to), you have to limit it to 1. your nation’s racial base, 2. MEN, and 3. taxpayers.

Thus, any national leader must, at bare minimum, come from your VOTING base. Should there be a requirement of lower level public service to become national leader?

not necessarily. before mass media natural leaders were elevated; people men trusted. now its just a money-media shitshow

Centuries, literally centuries upon centuries of our best and brightest intellectuals and leaders warning us about the juden, and we did not listen.

they allowed only the best to vote. that was changed later by amendments and shit. not their fault.

*Inherited Monarchy

There's nothing wrong with an elective and meritocratic Monarchy

But just to add, limiting leadership terms to only 8 years max is fucking stupid, especially with a politically divided country.

It usually just means you seesaw back and forth between ideologies, no one gets to complete what they have in mind, and everybody gets fucked.

Think about it,

The founders originally never placed a term limit.

I'd be a bit scared TBH of an Obama serving for life, but usually things work out when people push too hard, too fast, his dreams are failing and his vision for this country are being unraveled.

You can still have the three branches, judicial, legislative, and executive, to restrict the leader's authority, just without term limits.

America is in need of a king (president) without term limits.

The term limits should be on fucking CONGRESS. People get sick of a president and would easily vote him out. If nothing else, extend to three terms (after the nigger is killed) so that you can get a decade’s worth of work in (like, oh, say, a fucking NASA Mars mission).

The American Revolution ended in 1785 and the French one started in 1789.

Exactly, if people get sick of a president, they can still easily impeach him, or vote someone else.

Congress is so far removed from the people, and entrenched, it's absurd

The American revolution came before the French one, read a fucking history book sometime

By creating a Representative Republic and putting into law rules that deincentivize the corrupt and the greedy from running for office, such as policies of mandatory poverty and forfeiture of inheritance and material assets.

If political office is not a path to personal power and wealth, but the opposite, then the greedy, the prideful, the selfish, and the amoral will avoid it instead of seeking it out, and only the truly virtuous and self-sacrificing that truly wish to give of themselves to help society as a whole will take office. "For My Legionaries" by Corneliu Zelea Codreanu has an excellent outline of exactly how this can be accomplished.


You are technically correct. The law existed on the books that only White European men who were willing to take Christian sacrament before legal witness and were members of good standing with their community could be citizens. This was created by the Founders and they defended it until their deaths. It stood for eighty years, and was struck down only after the Civil War, to permit Negros access to citizenship.

The problem is that they left it as a law on the books, and not as something which was declared in the Constitution, or the Articles of Confederation, or the Bill of Rights. They allowed one of the most important rules to languish in the backpages of a law book. Several of them having been lawyers themselves, they should have known good and well that it would have stood only as long as some judge wished it to.

If they had carved it in stone like they did the right to assemble and bare arms, then we wouldn't have many of the problems that we have today.


And it came clean out of nowhere, did it? Those ideas just sprang into being fully formed the very hour that revolution was declared?

Liberte, egalite, and fraternite were specters in the political consciousness of the west for decades before the American revolution was declared. The opening line of the Declaration of Independence doesn't bare the trappings of Universalism by coincidence.

Elections are shit, the people don't know jack shit about what's actually good for them.

There are types of republics which aren't democracy, user.

Paine was a traitorous liberal but he was better than the fuckwits we have today.

Also there is nothing inherently wrong with aristocracy as long as they fulfill their responsibilities.

Sure, but they're not that much better.

Right, and so were Franklin, Jefferson, Washington, etc.

Most people have a filter in their mind which checks if what they're saying is stupid or not. Consider getting one.

Paine believed in democracy. Franklin, Jefferson and Washington didn't.

...

The most powerful empires this world has ever known were mostly republics of some kind. Note how the Roman Empire began declining almost immediately once it switched from the Principate to the Dominate.

Hereditary and military based governments are idiotic. The arguments explaining why it is so have been made thousands of times over the last two to three centuries. History has proven it as well. Republics are more reliable and more stable.

Except the largest one in history was Constitutional Monarchy, not a republic.

But they did believe in republics. Calling Paine a "liberal traitor" for thinking democracy is the best type of republic isn't merely pushing it, it's aberrant.

That's why Hitler's Germany, Napoleon's France, or Caesar's Rome did so terribly, am I right?

Paine was a liberal traitor and you're a faggot.

If you're referring to the English empire, it was a monarchy in name only. The power of the king was significantly checked by elected individuals, and had been since the Magna Carta.

He believed in the enlightenment. Therefore he was a fucking liberal.

All three of those had republican elements. Try again.

Do you even know what happened after the Magna Carta? The king completely ignored it and preceded to kill the people who signed it.

That wasn't the point. You said military based governments are idiotic, so I gave three counter-examples.

Try again.

A constitutional monarchy is basically a monarchy that has republican elements, with checks and restrictions on it.

Far from an absolute monarchy

You seem to have fucking zero grasp on history or on the workings of government. Fucking kill yourself. Republics are for liberal faggots.

Monarchies are sanctioned by God and therefore the only legitimate form of human government.

It eventually evolved into that, but for a long time the House of Commons was largely only an advisory council, mostly interested in making sure the king was a protestant.

All three of those governments backed themselves into a military or diplomatic situation that was greater then them, and led to their downfall

tbh none of them were long lasted, I guess that's the drawback.


I agree Republics are more stable, but Rome's problem was more of what we're experiencing today than their switch to Dominate, but that's highly arguable.

I don't think the difference between a republic or a monarchy is all that important, and invoking god as a justification for monarchy is a bit of a copout. God is dead.

Aristocracy literally just means 'rule of the best'. It was tying this to private property which made it hereditary and thus degenerate. Remove the hereditary element and aristocracy is a thousand times better than democracy.

Filtered.

And how did that come about? By governments that became military based.

kek

Thomas Paine was a subretardant mong as well btw

A military based government is one where power is held solely through strength of arms. See Somalian warlords.

The only powerful nation the world has seen which functioned this way was Gengis Khan's Mongolian horde, and the man still made sure to take advice and listen to the military men under him. And it didn't survive him long either.

Meanwhile, the Roman empire (up to the dominate), Hitler's Germany and Napoleon's France all had fairly decentralized power structures with authority figures chosen by competent individuals. The leaders of those entities, as powerful as they might have been, mostly acted as guides to their respective nations and didn't actually control day-to-day activities, leaving most of the nation's management in the hands of men of competence and regularly consulting those around them when they had to take important decisions.

Take your imaginary friend and go fuck him somewhere else.

Eh, more a case of being too ambitious. You can't judge military based gov. by three men's ambition.

You could argue that government was more military based than anything for a large portion of history.

Atheism is just another religion, and at that a poor kike attempt to destroy any bonds or cause for higher unity among people.

Religion is dead, men has no more need to sacrifice himself for anything greater, and to unite with his fellow man for that cause, the family unit is decaying, man has no more need to defend his blood. Attempts at undermining culture, again, no more need to unite for a higher purpose.

Kikes want everyone to have the highest degree of individuality, to where they can drag you out of your house and beat you and no one would care to fight for you.

A government without a military is a government without arms and legs. The stronger your military the stronger the nation. You have to be extremely stupid to deny the importance of a military in any form of government. No system is more meritocratic than a military.

Also the more decentralized the power is, the more the mob has power. And the mob is a fickle beast with down's syndrome.

I'd argue that secularism is one the core reasons of the decline of the west.

Fedora tippers are autistic not to see this, even if they are filthy apostates themselves.

They were three good generals who were able to transfer their ability to muster troops into an ability to muster the entire population to their will. And their will was what benefited those countries more than anything. The Bank of France, the conquering of Gaul, the autobahn system, the Napoleonic Codes.

I don't think any person who genuinely understands metaphysics can continue to believe in a world with god. As much as cherish western traditions, we do need a new religion of sorts without any gods. We need to be more creative than that.

A military government is generally going to view solutions in terms of force, which is useful, but not in every case.

They can still be extremely successful, but that perpetual view will tend to lead self-detrimental tendencies.

They need to be balanced with competent and varied skills

You can still have a strong military even in a republic, they're not mutually exclusive

North Korea is an example of a militaristic government, they place priority for taking care of their military above all else, and what have they achieved?

Realistically, it would be extremely difficult to create a militaristic government in today's climate of temptations, easy information(propaganda) and globalism, and maintain it without getting the whole world aligned against you

And with pluralistic multicultural societies, it makes it even more difficult. You would want homogeneity to help maintain a militaristic government

Secularism, certainly a core reason, it is among others however. (and sadly)


Yeah, but they overextended their boundaries, that's what I was getting at.


I don't believe in god either, but I have perused spirituality, I've found it to be worthwhile. I think an astral plane is possible. A land of thoughts and mind if you will. (ala Twilight Zone)

Democracy is awesome when women and non-whites don't have a vote.

It's better than now, but democracy is still very problematic.

My personal thoughts is electing the President for ten years.
Then a one term limit would be enough

White men and it was stated clearly, everywhere. Then there was a war you fucking degenerate moron. French Revolution also came after the American Revolution. It's Christians who made niggers our "equals". This is what happens when you think the Bible is a history book

that is the thrid fucking user I've seen who thought the French revolution came first. Did they stop teaching world history recently or something?

The French and American Revolutions are inextricably linked. They both started in the salons of Paris with the likes of Diderot, Voltaire, and Rousseau.

One started in 1776 and the other 1789 this is a objective fact. Stop damge controlling for the common core retards

Paine has some good writing if you read it critically, but he got more SJeWy commie over time.

Its summer

Correct. That's why you need tests for leadership. The candidates would compete in contests to see who is best.

There should be no term limits, but at any time the voters may call for the leader to be killed and replaced with another. This ensures that the leader does his best to avoid being killed and replaced.

Paine was a retard. So were Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson.

fam…

No, they were a Racialist Republic

Between that and your love of military government I think you'd really enjoy Africa

Monarchy has worked for thousands of years, republicanism/democracy took less than 150 to deteriorate and 250 to be on the verge of collapse

Paine was a jacobin commie, the french should have finished him off

Id argue the opposite but then we have a question of what a "genuine understanding" of metaphysics means. Modern philosophers would prefer that it didnt exist

That depends on what your definition of "worked" is. If they had manged to keep the bread and circus going people would of never had a reason to even want a change in government.

kill yourself Papist Commie

Uh… buddy…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790

Literally the second law they passed.

Feudal Japan was doing fine. Except under their isolationist policy they were still fighting wars with swords and arrows while we were inventing machine guns.

It's true, aristocracy eventually becomes caught up in frivolity and hedonism. Their are measures that could be taken to get rid of this in a new Imperium.