With all the crap going on around the western world...

Exactly, that is what I see with it. I approach it also with the thinking that as above, so below.

I absolutely agree. It works from both the perspective of the theist or the atheist. For the believer - humanity shapes itself after the above. For the atheist, humanity invents the above as it is below - but your observation holds true in both cases.
Again, a very interesting idea which I will think about further since, as I said, I've always had a thing for ancient European mythology.
You also pointed out how the switch from polytheism to monotheism has influenced the evolution of Europe. Fascinating stuff, user - you should research/look into it more.

Direct democracy works only in well developed western countries that have monolithic culture and no diversity.
Not only that, but people need to be well informed ALL THE TIME which id almost impossible cuz jewish media (which is losing its grip due to internet, but still).

In any other scenario direct democracy fails because of apathy and lack of intelligence of general populace.

it's an instinct to want a face that you can blame if things go wrong.
of course in modern politics, we dont kill our leaders anymore and blame is hard to assign so that instinct doesnt really help much

I agree with the other poster though… whites will be fine under pretty much any government
The problem is cucked whites who have been ruined by education systems and media.

Agreed. I'd even say that you don't need the countries to be highly developed as long as they are majority white (since whites have an average IQ of 100, more than enough to sustain a democracy). But I agree that the culture has to be monolithic and as little diversity as possible.
Whites are (still) the overwhelming majority in Western Countries so there's still a chance.
As you've pointed out - the internet can be an antidote to the currently controlled media. As for people being well informed, you'd be surprised how incentivized whites become if given the chance. If people would KNOW they have the power to vote, they'd mobilize very quickly, and even unite. Swiss people are an example of this, they read about current events in Switzerland all the time. They have non-stop debates on issues on television posts, and the population is not only used to the idea of having to research things but also that it has a civic duty. When's the last time you met someone (outside of Holla Forums) who has ANY sense of duty to their country or their countrymen?
I agree that apathy rules, but I believe that people are apathetic because they have no power. Give them the power to rule themselves, and you'll see just how fast the white race mobilizes.

Absolutely agree. Every black-majority country on earth is sufficient evidence for that.

Nice double dubs, and valid point. You can also invert the informed part, meaning it should not be possible to disinform the people. You would have to ban all foreign influence in your country. No use getting people out of your country if they enter via digital means.

Nice double dubs yourself, user. Agreed on the banning of foreign influence. The system can be tweaked and improved.

Very true. It's the ultimate temptation of abdicating responsibility. But in doing so you inevitably get the cucks you mentioned later in your post. If people want to govern themselves, they must accept the responsibility and burdens than come with it. It would be a big culture change, but not only is it proven in a real world scenario (Switzerland) I'd say it's the only antidote to the jew controlled West.

We could use this thread to think about it further.

Concerning the historical evolution in Europe, democracy returned when Christian influence waned and there came a growing secularism. But why a return to democracy? I believe it's due to the memory of the past being retained or recovered through history, archeology, mythology, etc., the culture is still able to practice democracy well enough.

Secularism and scientific advancements went hand in hand, and as you've mentioned led to the popularization of democracy. I think it's not just the past being recovered through history, as you;ve mentioned, even though that's probably the biggest part of it. Larger portions of the population being able to access education and see how our ancestors did it had a role to play as well. But I wonder if there's an innate need for democracy, in as much as - a certain amount of personal freedom, ability to choose, and have a say. Maybe that's what our forefathers saw.
On the other hand I can't deny that most power structures naturally order themselves like a pyramid - the ruling class above and the rest below. Every Pantheon, after all, had a ruler. I'm wondering if it's time to abandon that idea - of the single ruler - in favor of just the Pantheon.

It's only fit to work in a tiny nation. Democracy can only ever work in a tiny nation.

Why?

The majority of people are retards, whether low-IQ or just the uninformed kind that votes based on what the media tell them, as the media are literally the only source of information they have. In democracy, you give these people the power to guide your nation, which is how Jews gained power over the Western world. If there is to be an efficient governing system that is immune to the jew, it has to be one where the power is concentrated either in the hands of one person, or a small group of people, and which is not dependent in any way on public opinion.

Whites have an average IQ of 100. The "everyone is a retarded" meme has to fade away. It's how (((they))) convince you to hand over the power that is rightfully yours as a citizen.
I agree with you there, but the media is losing its stranglehold on the information flow. The internet has surpassed traditional media in views/readers. Only people over 50 watch TV for their news nowadays, and the newer generations prefer the internet for their information. As long as the internet is free, the information can be free as well. The media has also lost a LOT of credibility lately, with only about 20% of people still trusting it in the West.

Think about it. What is easier for the jews to coopt and control - 1 person, or even 1 government, or an entire population who would have to consistently vote against their own interests to further the jew agenda.
I mentioned it earlier, the more you concentrate power into 1 place, the faster it becomes corrupted and the easier it is to be co-opted.

Yes, education is key. The knowledge must spread to the populace in order for democracy to work.

Your idea of a pantheon with no ruler or at least no permanent ruler is already in practice in present day democracies, in that the elite is the pantheon. What should be promoted is the idea of striving to be extraordinary persons that in turn are elevated into that pantheon as told in the hero stories.

I think one big difference is that the members of the pantheon are known to the realm. Those who want to lead with authority or influence should make their identity known. There should be no shadow ruler.

People say they don't trust the media, but keep it as their only source of information anyway with the logic "where is smoke there is fire". Ask the average normalfag and he will fully believe Assad did the chemical strike. Internet is not a realistic or reliable replacement to the media – normalfags simply won't read news unless "the improtant parts" are presented to them in a concise and sufficiently brief manner; they aren't going to do any independent digging since they just don't care. Politics and news are, to most normalfags, just curiosities. What they care about is how much money the earn at their job, whether they've gone fat over the last few months, or whether they should risk flirting with the nice girl at work. If there is going to be a bill about, say, agriculture, the normalfags aren't going to research agriculture, look into the law, and corrobate various effects of various laws on agricultural yields over the past few centuries. They will read the news that say "Vote X!", shrug, and vote for X.

It is definitely harder for them to control one user, than ten thousand normalfags.

Excellent post, and you've accurately described the harsh reality of today's mindset. I don't disagree with any of your observations, only to add that, and repeat, that apathy, I believe, is a result of not truly having power.
If you can't change how things are going (and for the most part, the average person can't at the moment) why would you truly care? You have no responsibility or capacity to do anything, so of course you'll skim the news, and care about frivolous entertainment. That's the trap we've fallen in, the one designed by the ruling classes. I believe that if you give the people a choice, a true vote, they will use it and inform themselves and the culture will shift. But without the incentive, they will become more and more lethargic.

I disagree. 1 user has a million vulnerabilities, and ways to be coerced. 10.000 are much harder to herd in the specific direction you want them to go in. Imagine asking the population if they want to fight wars for Israel in the Middle East, vs getting the approval of a few corrupted politicians and congressmen to approve going to war.

Can you provide any evidence to back that belief up? I cannot imagine Jack from work, whose only interests seem to revolve around Basketball and fast cars, delving into the problems of agriculture, regardless of whether he has power to decide or not. Escpecially when there is a shitload of bills being passed, and he'd have to go vote every other week on a new topic.

Print out a few articles in the news about how Israel is our greatest allies, the only middle eastern democracy, and how the evil dictators around them are gassing children, add that going to said war will help america, and you will have a very, very high number of them on board. Shill it long enough and you get a majority. The point I am trying to make is that in a democracy, you don't need to convince the informed, independent thinkers. Those can go eat shit - they are in the minority. All you need is convince all the Joes that bombing some desert shithole will make gas cheaper for them, and off to war you go. One user with power will be immune to such coercion, and will be very difficult to subvert as he has everything to lose (his power) and the means to defend himself from such attack with legal and military power. Try convincing a monarch to send his troops to a far off country and pay trillions out of his coffers – he'd be harming himself for no reason, and if you try threatening him into doing it, he will have you beheaded. There is a reason why jews had to flee from one country to the next in the past, rahter than subverting the monarch - they simply couldn't. Or if monarchy is not to your tastes, let them try subverting a council of aristocrats, who have been taught politics since birth and who, while not as difficult to corrupt as a monarch, still have vested interest in making sure the regions in their ownership prosper, as they're the direct source of ther power and revenue.

Jews are not above co-opting and indoctrinating the same population who votes on this stuff in the first place. And a directly democratic system is no assurance of quality. Democracy is always shit. There is only one political assurance that is relevant for any given time until the dissolution of a state, and that's a constitution. A constitution cannot be indoctrinated, or corrupted if done right. So then, even if the government is pozzed and the people are ZOGbots, they are inclined to follow un-amendable precedence. Making the constitution of the US open to change was a mistake, some things will never not be true. The assumption that the people will be of good quality and faith is a scarce assumption at least, and through dedicated thought on the subject of the eventual decline of human civilization, there. An be no safeguard against the inevitable social degeneration of a people and it's rebirth. It cannot be helped, entropy is too an un-amendable fact. However more longevity can be achieved with a constitution. For instance, you can't create miscegenation within a state if non-whites aren't permitted to live in the state. However you make a compelling point about political consolidation. In our current political climate, were a National Socialistic state to exist, I find myself wary against free speech bans and propaganda administration hegemony. In planning for the future, some things become necessary to protect likeminded individuals as ourselves from not being silenced, and assurance of the people to challenge a declining government must be guaranteed . And of course there's no safeguard against a constitution being otherwise ignored or corrupted, and in that event it should be encouraged by that same document that people take political action to see it restored and enforced. Even when Jews all die, space empires can still fall.

A swiss-esque model decomposed to take into account population scaling might actually work in high population areas like America. Actually, it's likely inevitable. A big problem coming up for America is likely the population density of cities versus the rest of the country. This has already become apparent with the election, which highlight the experiences and needs of americans are, unsurprisingly, not shared across the country. Sooner or later, people are going to realize that a great deal of their lives are being dictated to them by major cities.

break fucking paragraphs. First seance seemed interesting but not going to read wall of fucking text.

And it's also worthy to note that the more bloated you make the political process, the longer it takes to achieve meaningful political action, in a despotic state, power is consolidated into one person's hands, therefore such change comes easy. Yet it's just as easily bad then good. I believe like many things in life, or at least it seems so, that a medium must be reached that's effective. It's arduous work, perhaps meaningless. Maybe our societies are meant to fail no matter what we think up. It certainly is no small order to ponder governmental processes of this magnitude and find effective and stable solution.

Sorry m8, mobileposting. I can't see what it looks like.

I can cite the Brexit, the (ignored) Austrian referendum not to join the EU, the Swiss referendum not to join the EU, Trump's rise and so on. Now I'm gonna go anecdotal on you - Jack from work isn't the mindless drone you think him to be. He watches sports and entertainment but that it's mutually exclusive with informing himself or caring about real world issues. Most of the people that you call "Average Joe" have some understanding of whatever problem they care about the most. They may not have a grip on every issue, nor does anyone except perhaps career politicians, but they can damn well learn about it if they need to.
The US was against joining WW1 AND WW2 initially, so the appeal to emotion doesn't work all that well when faced with sending your children to die. Nobody wants that, no matter what the cause. You're also assuming that only the zog control the media which I said above that it isn't true anymore.
Most monarchs were controlled by the ruling class, as is it the case now. You somehow thing the ruler is independent when that has never been the case - which is why they got assassinated ALL the time when they didn't play ball, or other means of coercion didn't work.
Education and intelligence are important but have been proven to have no direct correlation with personal ethics or morality which is why you can have jews, which are pretty educated and have high IQs but be mostly self-serving, tribal monsters.
Once again, I really don't understand how you think one individual is harder to corrupt than an entire nation.
Why do you assume direct democracy is mutually exclusive with a constitution. As for a constitution not being vulnerable to corruption, you know that isn't true. It's as powerful as the people allow it to be, at the end of the day. You yourself say:
But that's a self-contradicting statement. A constitution can be corrupted, so make the constitution state that in case of corruption, change to constitution. But if it's corrupted in the first place, how can you trust anything about it?
I agree, and it's a horrid reality, but it's true. Jews jew because WE allow them to. So ultimately the blame lies with us.

I once again refer you to the real-world example of Switzerland. A citizen gathers the signatures for a change he's proposing. It gets the signatures, then is submitted to a canton-wide or nation-wide vote. The nation votes - the law is passed. It's that simple.

I salute you.

I wasn't trying to be a dick, the first sentence looked interesting but then just a huge wall I'd need to print out and read with a ruler. I doubt you can watch this but on chance you can later, here's Dr. Pierce on why democracy can never work:

There lies the problem. The majority of people will only be able to agree to the lowest common denominator of any issue. And anything otherwise is more likely to be a shitty or dumb rule. The majority of people have always been politically ignorant.

Which is why it's foolish to have this style of democratic process in a nation any bigger than Switzerland. To paraphrase Voltaire, "democracy is unfit to work in a state where all partisans cannot know eachother. "

Look up the list of referendums in Switzerland. The issues they decide on are complex, and I truly believe that the fundamental questions of life aren't as complicated as the politicians make them out to be. It's like legaleze for the masses most of the time, and when you break it down, past the word salads, and useless flourishes most people would understand it.
I like that quote and I feel it strengthens my case. In a direct democracy you know the partisans personally, since you interact with them daily. Friends, co workers, random people. Those are the people you talk to and convince or get convinced by instead of pleading with mostly indifferent politicians.

Jews are not above co-opting and indoctrinating the same population who votes on this stuff in the first place. And a directly democratic system is no assurance of quality. Democracy is always shit. There is only one political assurance that is relevant for any given time until the dissolution of a state, and that's a constitution. A constitution cannot be indoctrinated, or corrupted if done right. So then, even if the government is pozzed and the people are ZOGbots, they are inclined to follow un-amendable precedence.

Making the constitution of the US open to change was a mistake, some things will never not be true. The assumption that the people will be of good quality and faith is a scarce assumption at least, and through dedicated thought on the subject of the eventual decline of human civilization, there. An be no safeguard against the inevitable social degeneration of a people and it's rebirth. It cannot be helped, entropy is too an un-amendable fact.

However more longevity can be achieved with a constitution. For instance, you can't create miscegenation within a state if non-whites aren't permitted to live in the state. You make a compelling point about political consolidation. In our current political climate, were a National Socialistic state to exist, I find myself wary against free speech bans and propaganda administration hegemony.

In planning for the future, some things become necessary to protect likeminded individuals as ourselves from not being silenced, and assurance of the people to challenge a declining government must be guaranted. And of course there's no safeguard against a constitution being otherwise ignored or corrupted, and in that event it should be encouraged by that same document that people take political action to see it restored and enforced. Even when Jews all die, space empires can still fall.

(Here, I broke it up for you fagit, I broke it up arbitrarily, but it should be better)

It's not a bad system, but it cannot work in a state as large as America.

Why not?

For the same reason the quote I mentioned says. It's too big, there is too much variance in race, opinion, ideology, and creed. While I don't necessarily agree some of these things shouldn't and can't change, but that doesn't change the fact that the problems that face the system in the first place are amplified.

Not only that, but when you're dealing with a population with a volume of tens of millions of people, there is no way such a system won't end up being a bloated mess. Even purely by what it would take, administration wise, to make sure such a thing runs even semi-fluidly.

The western ideology is still monolithic in the states. As for variance in opinion, that's everywhere, as it should be.
I don't see the problem. Every country votes on a regular basis both nationally and locally. The systems are already there, and they work pretty well. In fact I would say that it would streamline the passing of laws that in their current state get hobbled and corrupted up their way to the Hill, while every politician adds their own modification to a certain bill until it's 500 pages of compromise.

Most of those things have been close calls, especially with Brexit. Kike shilling had, on the contrary, shown that however anti-white the agenda, they can still subvert roughly half the population with it. Now tell me the last time kikes failed to push something that wasn't as obviously anti-white, such as gay rights.

The concept of direct democracy relies on them having a grip on every issue, however, since they vote on every issue. I fully expect Jack from work to know about SOMETHING, but when he doesn't know shit about 90% other things, it doesn't matter.

Yet it still joined, and kike subersion wasn't as widespread back then as now

Your "independent" news sites are more often than not controlled opposition or clickbait. I've seen more than one "based" news site print unsubstantiated rumours (that later turned out to be bullshit), just because they knew their readers would like them to be true.

Except they didn't. Try counting the number of monarchs in history and the number of times they got assassinated, and you'll find out it was a rare occurence

Most were not. The majority of monarchs enjoyed more of a "first among equals" relationship with the nobles, as the monarch too had lands of his own. Besides, a lot of this was the result of feudalism, which is just one of the many forms of monarchy.

If you rely on morals or ethics, in any way, your system will fall apart like the idealistic pipedream it is. The only way to ensure the working of the system is to ensure that even the most immoral person in power will still gain more by using the system as intended, than by being corrupt and bypassing it. If you wish the government to be good for its country, you must make the good of the country directly, personally benefit the people who make the decisions. It's why democracy doesn't work – the politicians in power have no incentive not to take bribes.

and who also happen to greatly benefit other jews. Jews have many shortcomings, but being shit to their own is not one of them.

What is "the western ideology"?

Also my point my was that there is too many people and opinions that any agreement would only be on the lowest common denominator. Furthermore, as a general rule, the average man rarely concerns himself with politics, and is otherwise politically uninformed. This has always been true. Even in Hitler's day, people were politically retarded and he documents this well in his book. So why then would you put the bulk of the political power into the hands of people who most times can't even be in agreement about how the system is run in the first place? It seems foolish to put such power solely in the hands of people who most days couldn't care if said state exists at all, let alone be concerned enough with its welfare to closely study geopolitical events. How silly is it to act in such a seemingly deceptive way when you believe so fervently in nature?

Allowing such a process to exist is nothing but opposition to the crowning natural process; the strongest and best prevailing. If you allow voting at all, please only permit learned and productive members of society in it.

As are many things going to be. I don't see how that's an argument against it. Do you want to win on your arguments, or by force? That's what it boils down to.
Push your own version to counteract them. With the internet you can.

I see what you're arguing, that everything is interconnected and you can't make a fully informed decision unless you know ALL the variables. Show me someone who's an expert in all fields. Again, I think some issues are pretty clear cut, and won't go above the head of the average person. In Switzerland you have an average of 4 referendums a year - not that drastic, and more than enough for the citizenry to inform itself about the issue. Also , as I said, ahead of the voting, there are non-stop debates on TV, the net, in the press arguing both sides. The experts are there to educate, not choose for us. I am leery of anyone advocating for the abdication of personal responsibility and power to a higher authority when it comes to politics (because of course I would defer to a doctor when having a surgery for instance).

It was. And it joined because it was manipulated by the elite.

You can argue that no source is unbiased and pure, and I would agree. But when you say that that's a reason you'll never be informed, you're handing your life over to people who claim they are. That argument defeats any type of system, except an authoritarian one.
Show me the monarch who went against the nobility on a constant basis and lived to tell the tale.
You seem to have the cynical world view that morals and ethics are utopian when they guide our daily lives. You can view it as a cost vs profit paradigm if you wish, but it boils down to the same thing. You will never satisfy everyone in your country, and in striving to do so you usually end up like the equity authoritarians (communists).
I don't agree with the ideology of placating people in power for the sake of it. The government should be serving its people, not itself, which with direct democracy and decentralization it mostly does.
That would be the population voting on laws that benefit itself, not politicians that vote on what benefits them.
Absolutely. I was making the point that education and intelligence aren't enough.

Enlightenment. Democracy. Capitalism.
I replied to this earlier. It's not a surprise that the average person is uninformed when they have 0 power. Would you study something you'd never use or have any capacity of changing? There is no incentive for the masses to involve themselves.
The appeal to nature fallacy is flawed for many reasons. It firstly assumes nature should be a model to be followed in every case. If that was the case, we'd resemble Africa.
Learned doesn't mean wise or good, but productive I completely agree on.