People can't be trusted to govern themselves

>so let's put all the power into the hands of a few people

Attached: DomesticJewry.jpg (1920x1080, 3.08M)

Obliteration of the self

also, it's false that traditional monarchs have absolute power. The appeal of the monarchial system is the distributed power structure where the hereditary aristocracy and the clergy act as checks on the monarch's power. This is superior to a representative democracy set up with the same idea of checks and balances because

Underrated comment. Politics is just a theatre anyway, the quality of the people that dictates how successful a society can be. A group of persons with good discernment and decents ethics (without exceptions) can have a full dictatorship and it would work the same way as any other system.

Bro more then one way to govern also fascism itself is all about ruling over yourself.

Idiot. People need guidance and control. We vote for people to make the big decisions and to ensure we don't have to worry. But nobody is perfect, no human is free of corruption. You just hope for the best. Anarchy is retarded and society would collapse of people could do as they please

Thing is its only for that country that wants it so the people are mostly led by the same race who's whole objective is moving forward and surviving as a people

Remember when Obama was in power and was abusing executive orders and leftists were cheering?

There was an (unrelated) study that was done, that asked people whether or not they supported the idea of dictatorship, most said no. However, then they went on to ask questions on which policies they supported, then whether they would approve if a politician bypassed the system to implement each of these policies.

The results of the survey was that most people actually do want a dictatorship, but one that reflects their own ideology.

and if our ideology was the nation...

>the majority can't be trusted to govern themselves so lets put power in the hands of a singular person to act outside the mob mentality
FTFY lolbertarian

>We vote for people to make the big decisions and to ensure we don't have to worry
That right there. The average person is passive about the fact that he's a wage cuck, it sucks but alternatively, he doesn't want the responsibility of having real power. He doesn't want to check his leader's power or learn about government because he thinks he needs to be focused on living his own life. In a smaller nation this would be easier to manage but the US is huge, its people are inconvenienced additionally geographically when they have to gather, being so few and far between. There's a lot working against democracy here, so on the surface it makes more sense for the people to relegate power to a fewer number in one place. Trump is starting to turn on the Jews, so he might get my vote in 2020 if he goes full tilt.

The majority can't be trusted. A minority can.

and how did you come to that conclusion?

>Be ruled by a select few violent cunts with a capability and a vision vs. Be ruled by hundreds upon hundreds of beaurocrats and liars knowing only how to take the money and make empty promises.
Tough choice lad.

>be ruled by a handful of people naturally good at business who call their monopoly of state power "individualism" and "libertarianism"

Potato understands it.

Attached: 1538859708438.jpg (630x630, 47K)

>implying the few won't abuse everyone else

>implying there has ever been anything but a handful of people with the money and power in human existence

This. Jews need to rule over us to keep us in check.

>is ought

>Be ruled by a select few violent cunts with a capability and a vision
Mussolini took power in a bloodless mass protest. Hitler took power by election. The events that make these governments "bloody" are few and pretty heavily propagandized.

The fundamental principle of fascism is that it is an ideology by the people for the people. Monarchy has failed. Democracy has failed. Communism has failed, to horrific results. The people wanted an ideology that essentially united all classes, and protected the collective interest and promoted culture and strong morals. This is what fascism was, and no fascist regime was ever formed without public support.

So what is better? A single powerful leader that represents the people, or a huge number of slimy self-promoters that represent the entrenched elites and serve as a smokescreen for their de facto rule?

Absolute dictators have a chance of being tyrants
(((The people))) are always tyrnnical, no exceptions
Democracy is to gang rape as anarchy is to consentual sex

The principle of "the people having power" comes from the peoples' willingnees to act, not from any piece of legislature (which can be repealed, as the Americans are learning with their gun rights) or vote (which can be rigged, where politicians have no obligations to be honest, etc.).

Protesting is power. Armed militias is power. A fascist is a leader put into power to represent the people. It's telling that Hitler repealed Weimar-era anti-gun laws while the communists who also claimed to represent the people disarmed them.

NPC's become mob rule.
That's why we need a few people to lead.

It's even more simple than that, control both parties and you don't need to worry about who wins the (((election))) because they'll do as they're told regardless. This is why, for example, when the Tories are voted in they never undo the changes Labour brought in, and vice-versa.
In order to be able to tell (((them))) to get fucked you actually need a country that is already powerful, like America, and someone in charge of one of those parties who knows (((they))) don't hold real power because (((they))) can't threaten you with yourself, like Trump.
It's why (((they))) are so scared and the reason you don't go all out operation final solution immediately is because Hitler tried that and didn't go too well (not in the long run), and for the same reason (((they))) bring in non-whites slowly over many years rather than all at once.

>>so let's put all the power into the hands of a few people
You mean like you do when you vote anti-Whites and Jews into positions of power who then turn around and harm the White race?

>why are fascists so retarded?
I bet you think the Holocaust happened, don't you?

Too bad they want to be ruled by ONE dumb NPC, huehuehue.

Autocracy, dictatorships, etc are the only forms of government where real change can take place

Attached: 1531905337757m.jpg (273x1024, 52K)

So fascism

our best nationalist scholar and first president was a fascist before Mussolini, despite the state of the modern national movement we're well entrenched in fascism

Attached: pearse full.jpg (600x862, 46K)

a very good, and righteous political leader, with the proper morals, and also ability will dwarf any and all democratic systems. Its basically the best that you can expect, to have as a ruling system. Even the best democratic systems at their peaks just cannot compete.

the problem obviously is getting a good leader. If you get a mediocre one, to a bad one you will get out-competed by democracies.

I mean, look at china. Its pretty much somekind of proto fascist utopia where there is a top down thing enforced on the dumb and uninformed masses and it is outcompeting the world. The people always are and always will be too dumb to rule themselves. Apparently the leaders, who improved themselves enough to the point demi gods, actually are better than most humans that serve them. They are made of better clay, through meritocracy, or through genes, does it matter?