Most Functional Type of a Political System

it absolutely is. what it isn't is a political ideology.

Monarchy is the best form of government. Plato and Aristotle both said this.

What’s with all these stormfag larpers? Dictatorships almost never last beyond the life of their initial dictator. Hitler’s high command was so stuck in petty rivalries and conflict that the Reich would’ve come crashing down like there was no tomorrow once he was dead.

National Socialism wasn't a dictatorship. It was divinity archieved on Earth

My mistake, I assumed you were referring to a city state as though it was a worldview or ideology.

Hitler achieved power through force and governed Germany as a dictatorship, beyond any doubt.
And divinity on earth is traditional/absolute monarchy, quite literally, as the monarch has authority granted by God Himself.

>imagine actually believing this

Not an argument.

Empire like Star Wars , order and pride , the rebellion is just a wet dream that can't happen in real life.

Attached: star-wars-empire-recruitment-poster-2.jpg (800x1280, 608K)

Hitler was voted in. which makes your claims false and therefore not even an argument

Pretty much any other one.

>Hitler achieved power through force
Paul von Hindenburg was democratically elected, and then gave the position of chancellor to Hitler. As far as he saw it, the socialists were preferable to the communists, so he tried to give them more power. No force was involved in Hitler becoming chancellor of Germany, it was a completely democratic process.

Why’d he go and butcher the entire opposition if he was “voted in”? Clearly the majority didn’t vote for him, if you want to make such claims of “legitimacy”.

I’m certain he would have named an heir before hand, and besides your only modern knowledge of dictatorships are those of communist nations or military juntas, national socialism is not some temporary government that fixes things before handing the instruments of the state back to mob rule, it’s a brand new way of thinking, the purpose of a nation state is the preservation, protection, and advancement of the people, the people will know this well, and these ideals will be looked for when a new leader is needed.

not a fact neither an argument please go back to lebbit

Attached: reddit-alien.0.1521130548.png (1200x800, 119K)

Any system where NPCs can't have any power will do.

NatSoc is statist boomer crap.

>Why’d he go and butcher the entire opposition if he was “voted in”?
because they had already proved they would attempt to overthrow the government if allowed to exist
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Revolution_of_1918–19

When everything was animal powered, yes. Sorry, your city state was a 15minute scenery on the interstate. Stop being romantic, it's not cute.

The goal of national socialism was the protection, preservation, and advancement of the people, if their were those who stood against this ether because of naivety or maliciousness the consequence was the same they divided the nation, they divided the people, and this would hurt the unity, and by extension the power of a nation so they must be stopped.

my wet dream is a nation where the trains run on time

Again, Hitler had to and did use force to achieve total control over the state. I don’t see how him being appointed by a “democratically” elected president has fuck all to do with not considering his reign a dictatorship.
Even if he did, do you genuinely think people like Himmler or Goering would’ve respected his decision and not have tried to seize power for themselves? They betrayed him during Germany’s darkest hour, meaning they weren’t very loyal.
And what if Hitler nominated someone like Speer as successor? Himmler was trying to actually kill the fucking guy via poisoning later during the war.
>it’s a brand new way of thinking
And this is the problem with it. It’s a revolutionary ideology and it is inherently opposed to traditional forms of government and the European tradition as a whole. Also, the Third Reich wasn’t a nation state. It was a pseudo-imperialistic power like the modern US or the USSR.

There is no ideal political system; the "ideal" system is entirely contingent on the ethnie upon which you are imposing said system

Attached: Screenshot_3990.png (923x878, 279K)

The NPCs care only about themselves, they vote for, and pursue only self benefit, if given control of a state they try to take all they can from it, this can be seen very clearly in modern day Europe or America, they have no dreams of glory or greatness, if they had any dreams at all they would be of mediocrity, and stagnation.

>The goal of national socialism was the protection, preservation, and advancement of the people,
Loads of shit, use them at your descretion!
The failure here, is that the individual, thus all groups, are never safe in Nat Soc, because Nat Soc prioritizes efficient state over all. The truth is, following the logic of Nat Soc, that you will die as soon as a machine is more efficient than you. Why should you be kept alive, you're in the way and your complaints aren't valid production for the state's defense of itself.

That’s irrelevant. My point is that he came to total power through force.
Again, the Third Reich wasn’t a nation state. It was a pseudo-Empire. And that’s got nothing to do with my point - the Portuguese guy is denying that Hitler came to absolute power through force.

OP asked for the most functional, the least likely to collapse is the city state, probably because a system formed on such a personal basis is less likely to fracture on ideological lines as these would be ironed out during it's original inception and anybody who disagreed would have probably left, been expelled or executed.

he came to total power through plans laid long before he was alive, Hitler was a fucking Rothschild and you need to stop being a fucking slavshit goy

>Hitler had to and did use force to achieve total control over the state
There is a difference between "came to power" and "achieved total control of the state". Previously, your implication seemed to be that he went from party leader to Fuhrer because he killed people and took the position by force, but that's obviously not the case. Achieving complete control of a state requires you to use force, and Hitler's plans for the state made it necessary for him to control the country on a broader scale than the Weimar government would allow him to accomplish. Getting rid of the communists was just another service he tried to do for his country, they were violent, and were attempting to turn Germany into another Soviet Union, which would have solidified communism's presence in Europe (something the allies made sure to accomplish by literally siding with and aiding communists) and destroyed them.
It wasn't his actions that caused europe to fall to communism, but his failure to carry them out.

I never said "ideal". I clearly wrote functional.

Thank you for your valuable contribution.

Also african dictatorships, there is only a mine, a road to the shore, a port, a castle to the dictator and a huge favela.

This is a very idealistic view of nations and their desires for resources. You'd be very poor, or you'd be at war constantly trying to keep other people from taking your resources cause they were poor.

Allow me to correct myself, then. Yes, he was “democratically” (whatever the fuck that means) given the path to total power, but if he wanted it, he had to take it by force, which he did, turning him into a dictator by definition. Happy? Also, I don’t see how the rest of your post is relevant to anything in my post.

Constitutional, representative, monarchy

Attached: Monarchy.png (1804x2440, 1.18M)

I think you know.

Attached: smughitler.jpg (1000x672, 206K)

Hypothetically had he won the war it’s almost a guarantee his decision would be respected, he would die the greatest German or even European to ever exist, I don’t think anyone would go against him after that, and even if they did no one would support them, as for who the heir would be I’m certain he would have chosen goebbels who stayed with Hitler to the end, and was at his side from the beginning, it stood against unhealthy, and unhelpful traditions for example monarchy which allowed for someone with no qualifications to take control of an empire, the reich wanted to become a truly great power, and one of the points of national socialism is to rise above the mediocrity of the world, and surrounded by enemies their really was only one way things were going to end, also Germany was obviously a nation state just like the USSR, and the USA I don’t know what makes you thing any of these nations would cease to be nation states.

>us monarchists are the real democrats
Worse than “the left are the real fascists” t b h
Why do you want to associate yourself with the rule of the masses?

Same difference desu. A European-American style constitutional republic is not going to be functional for Bantus. A tribal chiefdom will not be functional for an industrial European society. The functionality of government is entirely dependent on the ethnie you are trying to impose said government upon.

Attached: 10665284_912228278809962_1690952328273188974_n.png (891x701, 960K)

I highly doubt that. What he built was a total house of cards, as proven by the year 1944 and 1945 when virtually everyone had abandoned him. Why would Goering or Himmler care about respecting the wishes of a dead man? The Reich was founded on Nietschean ideals like will to power and the ubermensch, who exercised it. Goebbels was far too introverted for running post-Hitler Germany, plus the SS would’ve defected to Himmler en masse instead.
>it stood against unhealthy, and unhelpful traditions for example monarchy which allowed for someone with no qualifications to take control of an empire,
Two points here. Which German/Prussian monarch has ever taken power while having “no qualifications” for it? What the actual fuck are you talking about? Monarchy worked so well and was so stable a form of government in history because the heir to the throne would almost ALWAYS be one of the most well-educated persons in the entire country, especially on the topic of governance. The monarch could always afford the very best possible education and advisers for their heir(s), and an overwhelming majority of the time they did. Also, are you seriously saying that someone with “no qualifications” could run a state for even a few days? Absolutely fucking not.
My second point is that national socialism is inherently opposed to traditionalism, as it is perfectly willing to throw any traditions it doesn’t like put the window. It is no better than the damn Communists or Jacobins in that regard.
Please educate yourself on the history of nation-states which came about as a result of nationalist efforts in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries, and also the fundamental difference between an Empire and a Nation, because they are utterly opposed concepts.

Monarchy, though having quite a broad definition, seems to work for all kinds of peoples. Why do you think that is?

They turned against Hitler because they cared deeply about Germany, and the German people, and to continue fighting a doomed war was not feasible, they wanted an end to the conflict to preserve as much of Germany as possible, what I mean by no qualifications is that it’s completely possibly for someone to be given a high position in a government not because they deserved it, but instead because they were simply the son of a powerful man, this idea is disliked by national socialism because something given has no value, it must be earned for it to matter, their have been plenty of cases in history were the son of a king or emperor takes control of a nation, and dispite the education, and advisors still fucks everything up, monarchy has a stable system of choosing a new heir, but their is no guarantee the heir himself is any good, and the idea of monarchy is a division on the people, national socialism wants to unite the people, and having a tradition in which a farmer can never become king simply because he is not an aristocrat while piss people off, and it makes it difficult for very intelligent, and competent men to ever get a chance at running the state if they are born to the wrong family, if a tradition stands against the people, and glory of a nation then I have no problem dismantling it if it’s for the pursuit of a good cause.

*will piss people off

demonstrably untrue- there are city states that have existed all across the world for centuries. some of the richest are found in europe.
What you're failing to separate in your mind is the idea of a successful political system and one that dominates others. the later of which will always be an unstable and less functional society than the former.

Monarchy is just another version of autocracy which is usually the most common form of government.

Seems like they were trying to run away to save their own hides to me, not because they “cared for Germamy”. Himmler was a fucking animal who authorized dozens of war crimes and if he had gotten caught, he knew exactly what would happen. Is a Himmler one of these “qualified rulers” you keep talking about? Because I sure hope not.
>what I mean by no qualifications is that it’s completely possibly for someone to be given a high position in a government not because they deserved it, but instead because they were simply the son of a powerful man
Perhaps you should say less qualified, because “no qualifications” is an absolute statement.
Do you deny the hereditary factor in IQ? I thought you stormfags were pro-eugenics. Aristocracy is indeed the government of the best, because it doesn’t allow superior individuals to co-mingle with inferior ones. It is an elite of intelligence and wealth, and it is crucial to having a proper social hierarchy. In my previous post I described to you how the monarch’s heir is is almost always the most well-educated person in the country in the affairs of governance (without taking into account the monarch themselves). Sure, they won’t always be perfect, but on average it is a far better way of choosing the best possible person to rule than any other system offers. Also, I could make the same argument for Jews that you are making for peasants. What if you have an extremely intelligent Jew that would be the best possible candidate for running the Reich? He’d never come to power through peaceful transitioning, if such a thing was even possible. Hell, this makes even more sense given how intelligent Ashkenazi Jews are on average, and how unintelligent rural peasantry is on average.

With good reason, it seems.

Monarchs are usually quite intelligent, at least the ones that aren’t inbred, but if one comes along who is obviously incompetent, but he is next in line their is nothing you can do about it, he going to take control, even if he is a bad choice, in a national socialist state the nation would be run by the most intelligent, and loyal because only they would be chosen, I’m not saying the leader of a nation has be a peasant or something like that I’m saying that everyone should get a fair shot if they have the right qualities, Jews would never be allowed into a government because while many are intelligent they are filled with maliciousness, and disloyalties, and would not have the best interests of the people at heart, this is why they will not rule, ignoring the fact that they are racial aliens which would count them out of even being in the country in the first place, as for himmler he seemed incredibly autistic what with his pagan, and esoteric shit, but he ran the SS pretty smoothly, and that’s why he was in charge, it wasn’t until later that his traitorous behaviour should, and he was stopped, but I know full well nothing I say would convince of national socialism, you have loyalty to your own nation, and people, and it was the Germans who took your land, so you will for ever be salty over it.

* traitorous behaviour showed

the reason is only as sound as the people agree it to be. but being a species that is attracted to consistency and safety it makes sense autocracy would be the most popular form of government.

The inbreeding is about as credible a myth as Jews drinking baby blood.
>but if one comes along who is obviously incompetent, but he is next in line their is nothing you can do about it
Depends who you mean by “you”. No, the average peasant can’t do much about it. The nobles can petition the monarch to disinherit him, and the monarch can do so. This was done many many times in history and sometimes the monarch even changed the succession to get a different heir. It is not set in stone and never was.
>in a national socialist state the nation would be run by the most intelligent, and loyal because only they would be chosen
I seriously doubt that Hitler was the most intelligent man in Germany at the time, but that doesn’t matter. The Third Reich, like I’ve stated before was built on the Nietzschean ideal of “will to power”. There is no real legitimacy in such a system, only might and ruthlessness make ‘right’, which in my view is very wrong and leads to mass conflict every time.
>Jews would never be allowed into a government because while many are intelligent they are filled with maliciousness, and disloyalties, and would not have the best interests of the people at heart,
Are all of them like this? Or are there exceptions? Emil Maurice, Hitler’s driver, while not a practicing Jew (he was of Jewish descent) was nonetheless very loyal to Hitler and the Reich, even though people like Himmler tried to have him killed. Are you absolutely willing to say this if every Jew, or is there a Jew that defies all of these generalizations?
1/2

>they are racial aliens which would count them out of even being in the country in the first place
What about Slavs? They are obviously “racial aliens” to the peoples of the Third Reich, but I’m sure you could find a Slav that was competent and loyal enough to participate in the governance of the Reich, could you not? Why would he be discarded?
>as for himmler he seemed incredibly autistic what with his pagan, and esoteric shit, but he ran the SS pretty smoothly, and that’s why he was in charge
Hitler had some pretty odd religious views as well, apparently wishing that Europe was Muslim instead of Christian (according to Speer) and he also convinced Goebbels to remain in his church to keep face with the German people. And Himmler as I’ve already stated was a ruthless and amoral animal who directly ordered war crimes to be committed against non-partisan civilian populations.
>but I know full well nothing I say would convince of national socialism, you have loyalty to your own nation, and people, and it was the Germans who took your land, so you will for ever be salty over it.
I do not have a shred of loyalty to this republican abomination that you call a nation. Fuck it to hell. I’m 100% for reunification with Austria under a common Habsburg Emperor.
And if anyone is salty about the Germans taking the Sudetenland and later annexing Czechoslovakia (I’m really not), they should turn their anger towards those that betrayed them and handed them over to their enemies, not the enemies themselves. Traitors are so much worse than enemies.
2/2

The “people” have never directed affairs in history. It has always been great men that have done so. The players play the game and the NPCs may have some basic reactions, but any unusual reactions like revolutions always have the players behind them, even though it may seem it’s the NPCs acting out of their own volition.

Anarchy might be better if there was any way to go make it work.

Communism would be great once we are replaced by emotionless Robots.

The best system is one where only one person is in power but it is also the riskiest because even if you are lucky and get the greatest leader ever eventually he will die and one day a bad one will ruin everything.

>The “people” have never directed affairs in history.

Complete bullshit

the people want consistency and peace which is why you will see most revolutionary movements result in some sort of autocracy.

Tell me, which revolution in the last 400 years was truly a popular revolution and wasn’t simply the result of the efforts of a few oligarchs-to-be?

which revolution in the past 400 years didn't have a significant portion of the population behind it and survive?

Changing who the next monarch is going to be seems like it would piss of a lot of people especially the heir, and could potentially lead to civil war, and by changing the heir how would that make their system any different from a dictatorship, Hitler probably wasn’t the most intelligent in Germany, but that is just one of many qualities that should be looked for in a leader, Hitler had the will, the loyalty, he cared about more than himself, this can be seen in so many small details that set him apart from other dictatorships for example, he did not award himself a bunch of medals for doing nothing, he only wore the ones he was awarded in WW1, he did not allow an public statues of himself to be made, he did not build a grand palace for just himself, he did not ignore the needs of the people, and he did not want them to be weak, but he wanted them to be as strong, smart, and healthy as possible, loyalty was a big part of the reich, loyalty to ones people, loyalty to the nation, loyalty to the leader, even towards the end of the war when things looks grim, power struggles, and revolts were actually quite limited, and few, and while we never got to see officially how power would be transferred in a national socialist state I am certain people would put the needs of the people, and nation above their own personal desires, the amount of Jews that don’t appear to be nefarious or harbouring any other goals are so few in number, and it’s not uncommon for them to show their true colours eventually, it is much safer just to not have any at all than to take the risk, and while I know Germany had over a hundred thousand Jews, and partial jews in their military, but the loyalty of them can never truly be guaranteed, and those that prove they are dedicated enough to the nation, and are at least mixed to some degree should be given a chance I simply could not trust them with higher positions of power.

A ruler should always look out and do the best for his people. But because humans are easily corrupted, when one gets to power they try to hoard everything for themself(power,money, etc). How do you solve this problem, that's the real question in my opinion. How do you find people who aren't corruptable + have the ability to lead a nation/country.

there are only two, anarchism (the state of the world) and republicanism (the state of society)

I don’t think the Germans actually considered Slavs that far from germanics especially not the more western Slav nations, I know the USSR made it look like the Germans hated Slavs, but that was a propaganda tactic on their part, and a clever one at that, they turned what would have been just a normal war into a war of survival for the Slavic race, you can tell the Slav hatred is bullshit especially considering how many Slavs served in the German military which if they hated Slavs would be a very bad idea to arm them, I’ve heard about Hitler apparently liking Islam before, but he did not like it he just preferred it to Christianity, because Christianity is a meek religion, it promotes pacifism, forgiveness, and charity, and while these aren’t terrible things on their own they don’t actually help a people or make them stronger, islam is a warrior religion, and can not only spread quickly, but also promotes strength, these appealed to him, also the fact Christianity is just a different form of Judaism which wasn’t really to inline with his ideals to say the least, I think he would have preferred a return to the German pagan faith, one of strength, and honour. As for himmler, he was pretty brutal, personally I think he was trying to cope with how fuck ugly he was so he started taking his anger out on everything. You may prefer monarchy, but I’ve seen far to much betrayal from monarchy to ever give them another shot, at least in national socialism I can sleep easy knowing that the point of the state is the betterment of the people, and the land, when it comes to monarchy they can be really hit or miss, and considering what their like today I would prefer to stay away from them.

>but he did not like it he just preferred it to Christianity
My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a
fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded
by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and
summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest
not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian
and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord
at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the
Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight
against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with
deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact
that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As
a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have
the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is
anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is
the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty
to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and
work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only
for their wages wretchedness and misery. When I go out in the morning
and see these men standing in their queues and look into their
pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very
devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two
thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people
are plundered and exposed.”
[Adolf Hitler, speech in Munich on April 12, 1922,]

Just dropping by to post this.

Attached: 1534271665512.jpg (412x373, 47K)

His opinion may have changed as he grew older, and developed his worldview more clearly though he always did have some respect for Christianity even in his later life, perhaps it was just the way he was brought up.

I wouldn't say monarchy works for all kinds of people, but rather that HIERACHY works (or at least seems to work) for all kinds of people. But it manifests very differently in different ethnies- more on that in a moment.
Humans, indeed social animals in general from wolves down to insects like ants and bumblebees, tend towards hierarchy with certain animals at the top to be obeyed and others below to be commanded. Humans are no different in this regard, which is entirely to be expected considering our closest relatives are social apes with rigid herarchies, and the heaps of evidence for the existence of alpha/beta/omega males in humans.
(cont)

Attached: 20637938_1145400808927299_493764269575219915_n.jpg (592x922, 96K)

(cont)
Monarchy, as in hereditary rule with a king/queen as the head honcho (I don't consider "elective monarchy" to be actual monarchism), is just one of the ways that natural tendency towards hierarchy manifests in humans. Put another way, monarchy is just a specific type of hierarchy humans have concocted to help them govern themselves. However there are other types of hierarchy that work for different peoples just as well though- theocracy, kritarchy, stratocracy, even down to very primitive cultures with their village elders or headmen. Even the American republic in its infancy was hierarchical, with only landowning white men (a small percentage of the population) really allowed to participate in government, with the odd exception here and there, usually men who had distinguished themselves through military service. Anyway, getting back on topic, not all of the other systems I listed are necessarily hereditary the way monarchism is, but they are all inherently hierarchical.

Monarchy itself also manifests in different forms as well- Chinese dynasties, Arab emirates, and European kingdoms are all equally monarchies but they manifested VERY differently among three different groups and they aren't interchangeable. So political organization beyond that base level of hierarchy still differs immensely by ethnie, each with its own specific cultural and genetic needs.

Attached: 36cd497d34c620bcfd5444d125724711--film-steampunk-drawing-stuff.jpg (399x541, 35K)