>All this LARP about what legitimacy is all nullified when a state fails to prove it is absolute or contains a sense of righteousness of its own
Asking for legitimacy of the State, when it's precisely that which confers legitimacy, quickly descends into infinite regress; for then you'd have to ask about the legitimacy of those who legitimize the State, and the legitimacy of those who legitimize those who legitimize the State, and so on.
>Your Catholic dreams of monarchism
I'm not catholic.
>You expect human nature to be unchanging
Where did I say that? What relevance does it have to my argument?
>By strawmanning and failing to understand them?
Anon, just because you don't like the consequences of your own beliefs, doesn't mean they are a strawman :^) you aren't mad because of the jew's stratagems and deception, which is in itself a kind of power, since you yourself proclaim that power is the only thing that matters (and the jews certainly have more of it), you are only mad because you are powerless; you have no objective standard whereby to condemn the jews.
>he was justified in doing so
The just decision would have been for him to right the wrongs of the illegitimate government of Weimar by giving back power to those who had wielded it before; whether it was the most expedient or convenient choice is not to dispute.
>The royals brought this upon themselves for their foolish actions
In a sense, I agree; not, however, that the unjust actions of rulers somehow justifies the unjust actions of their subjects; for, being that in any action there's a patient, the effects thereof have a corresponding effect in that which receives it, so that, say, when one strikes, the other is stricken; so likewise when one commits injustice, the other is injured, and no one is rectified and mended for it, insofar as that which is unjust cannot effect that which is just.
>Asking a question is not an argument anon
I ask you that question for I'm astonished that you claim that something which, by definition, is a kind of destruction is somehow not destruction.
>it was a result of Zionism and its branches (freemasonry) who demanded their puppets to defeat Hitler in order to establish Israel as a state
I'd say rather that it was orchestrated by the zionists; the State of Israel was a result of Hitler's failure.
>The other two wars ended in victory
To the contrary, the barons only held advantage in the beginning of the second war, but once betrayed by their own supporters, they had to settle for a compromise; the king only agreed to pardoning them and restoring their lands, and nothing else.
>The clauses justify the dethroning of an incompetent ruler when he failed to rule fairly
And it was repealed, so England remained absolutist despite you affirming the opposite.
>If you acknowledge that Athens was a democracy did not abide by egalitarian values
But I acknowledged no such thing. Women and slaves aren't (relative to Athens at least) citizens; how could they even be factored into a hierarchy?
>You're are once again moving the goal-post
You asked me if I thought aristocrats were not citizens, the implication being that the aristocrats being superior to others somehow makes them not citizens; I'm not moving the goalposts.
>they are merely a form of government that is ruled by a collective board
That makes them democratic, by definition.
>Nothing stops a republic from instituting itself to be ruled by the best
If you stretch the scope of 'best', that is.
>When I give an example. You botcher all historical facts
So when I contest your retelling of history, I'm "botchering the facts", but when do you likewise it is not? You even had the gall of telling me your conjecture of how the Senate of Rome was formed is somehow more historical than what the Romans themselves reported it, but you don't think you are "botchering the facts".
>you are an idiot thinking that Caesar ruled like a king
But he did; you are just focusing too much on titles and less on substance.
>He also incompetenly directly and indirectly gave power to Rome's enemies
I won't dispute whether this is accurate or not, but what relevance does it have to my argument?
>No that was Augutus who thought he wanted to rule it like an empire
And Augustus was his successor. Sorry, was that supposed to be a rejoinder?
>Which was overrated and fell to degeneracy
It lasted a thousand years; more than you can say for the failed NSDAP :^)
>He still had to appeal (buying the throne) to the "Comitia Curiata" in order to BECOME king
It was the Senate's duty to elect a new king after all. Your own citation makes no mention of him beseeching the Senate to empower him; he only demanded that they hasten the process.
>He even needed the approval by the Roman folk
This has always been a ceremonial aspect of the election, only the Senate had the authority to elect new kings; that said, the king enjoyed imperium exclusively, so he couldn't be deposed (legitimately at least) by the Senate afterwards, and could in fact appoint and remove senators as he pleased.
>believing in the mythology
I don't, but regardless of the mythical elements, the historical fact, that the Senate was primarily an advisory body to the king and did not exceed him in power, remains; all you have against that is conjecture.
>It is possible he originated as fictional character of an Italian Renaissance writer
That is simply impossible; the myth originated with primary sources.
>His position can still be taken away
That is not what I meant by preeminence. Sure, I don't dispute the possibility of the king being deposed by disgruntled officials, but the officials themselves are asunder in their motivations even if they momentarily cooperate as conspirators (if they don't outright betray each other, like in the Baron wars); once they oust the king, they will be simply unable to replace the king with someone else due to their own disagreements, so they will just partition power amongst themselves and engage in petty squabbles, hence no preeminence amongst them either individually or collectively. The king does not partake in similar disputes, for he is not the equal of anyone else, and it's solely on this account that he is preeminent.
>act in his own gains and benefit
No ruler acts on his own benefit insofar as he is a ruler; the perfection of the ruler's art consists on him providing to his subjects, just like the perfection of the doctor's art consists on him healing his patients, and if he does anything adjacent to that, whether good or bad, it is not conducive to his art but something else, just like the doctor receiving payment for his services does not in the least change the nature of his art. To rule is never to the ruler's benefit, and it's a detriment to him if he rules badly, for that depreciates him as a ruler, insofar he's unable to attain his perfection and thus to properly rule.
>states that contain both an assembly and monarchy
The assembly is merely an advisory body to the king.
No, my assumption is that people have different perspectives and ambitions which, like the many themselves, are varied and can be either true or false (that is, probable), and if you leave governance to the whim of the many, either they will refuse to cooperate (leading to fragmentation) or fight amongst themselves; besides, even if people have good intentions, they can still commit bad deeds out of ignorance (i.e. for not knowing that it is bad), and there's no shortage of ignorance within the masses.
>different race from our own tribe
I sincerely cannot make out what you meant by this; this seems like an oxymoron.
Ah yes, that great State always manipulated by sly orators into waging hopeless wars and betrayed by those same orators whenever push came to shove.
Weren't you just saying that Rome was overrated and degenerate?
>Hitler's Germany were quite stable
Why did it last a measly decades then?
>Along with Switzerland, Sweden, Netherlands, and France
You are not serious, are you?
>You just asserted the outcome
I did not assert any outcome, and my point was not to argue from an outcome that something is bad; re-read my arguments.
>the common legal framework of all states are often one of submission and unquestionable loyalty at all costs to maintain stability
The demand for loyalty stems from you enjoying the rights conferred to you, which are conferred insofar as you abide by the State's laws, as the laws themselves prescribe those rights to you; only if you lived apart from the State would you be justified in not upholding such loyalty.
>it consists of arbitrary men who care little for the commonwealth
The State is not reducible to the men that wield power in it; if they do wrong that is their own injustice, and you are not justified in injuring the State for it.
>you're going to argue that they would of cheated on
No, not necessarily, but in the first place there would be no consistent distribution of duties among husband and wife, and even if you argue that such would be defined by force, then you'd be liable to admit that if a stronger man comes and snatches the wife away from the husband, then he is right in doing so; next, if the husband and wife ever reach the point of irreconciliable conflict, there would be no consistent way of either forbidding the separation or, worst case scenario, deciding whom guardianship should rest upon.
>You cannot defend for yourself nor stand for yourself
Are you saying that theft is right, so long as the thieve is stronger than the one he is thieving? Or that swindling is right, so long as the swindler is cleverer than the one being swindled? And that the victim of any crime is guilty, insofar as your premise dictates that he wouldn't have suffered if he had been capable of defending himself? Well, I can hardly see why you despise the jews then, given your arguments imply that it's the whites who are in the wrong for being defenseless :^)
>Republics and democracy are quite unified
If that were true, voting would be meaningless, as well as the so called "checks and balances" (don't you see that the very concept entails disagreement and distrust?) that republicans fancy to harp on; in fact, having a government itself would be meaningless, since everyone would already be in agreement with each other. That's clearly not the reality we live in, nor will it ever be, for opinions are as varied as the masses are.
>you're just going off on the stupid questions again
They are entirely pertinent though; if we are dealing with an all-white State, whiteness is too a vague a criterion for any field, lest you affirm the absurd that anyone, in such a State, qualifies as a doctor.
>A genetic test, background checks, and appearances
But that is precisely what I included in my definition of whiteness; you are just postponing my inference.
>Egalitarianism is the philosophy of just allowing anyone should have equal rights
Which is precisely what you are advocating for.
>I clearly support a patriarchical society
Yet you find the notion of there being a patriarch for the State appalling.
>every man can never be equal
Yet you think everyone in a State (disregarding foreigners) can be nobility.
>you believe that just anyone can be worthy of enough to rule a nation
I've repeatedly stated that only a slim minority is actually capable of ruling a nation; you are the one who wants to broaden that possibility.
>a doctor is not a hierarchical role
It is a hierarchical role in it's own specified domain, whereas Statesmanship concerns the whole commonweal. I mention the example of a doctor to make my point clearer; for when it comes to a established vocation people are less willing to dispute that the most competent should have the final word, but when it comes to politics people (like you) are strangely relativistic.
>Every citizen of nation has a duty to know their politics
In a sense, I agree, following Plato's definition of justice, but what is implied by that is a commoner should mind his own duties insofar he is a commoner, and a guardian should mind his own duties insofar he is a guardian; mixing those classes would lead to one performing the role of the other below the excellence that is expected of it.
>Their numbers on high-IQ individuals represent a small minority
I'm not comparing a few East Asians from academic circles against the average white; the highest average IQ in the EU is Italy's, and it's the highest in the world only below that of East Asian countries.
>It is what gives the aristocrat merit and the capability to manage
It really isn't, or at the very least not the only one. Ashkenazi jews have an IQ equal to that of the average white and they are no better for it; plenty of people have been degenerates in spite of their high IQ, like Schrödinger. Wisdom is not the same thing as intelligence; intelligence merely gauges the level of nuance whereby one conceives information, but not what to conclude and do with it.
>you're under the delusional that the average White man cannot be as worthy of being a statesmen
I'm under no illusion, it only is manifestly so; at least, it has happened neither historically nor actually.
>separating men with good character
I'm not separating them, I'm bringing them together as the highest class; where we disagree is that everyone is equally good, and that being good is the same as having good intent.
>your favorite Emperor Augustus, had no experience in ruling a nation
Experience does not make a good ruler, knowledge does.
>wasn't much different from your average plebian
For clarification, in what regard?
>Plato still states that self-mastery is the key to a nation proseperity
I don't think he expected everyone in his nation to have "self-mastery"; in book II he "tries" to work out an anarchistic pipe dream, but quickly determined in dialectical fashion that such a State would not accommodate expanding borders and the ever increasing needs of the multitude; he also advocated for propaganda and myth to assuage the commoners to the rule of the guardians, so clearly he did not expect everyone to understand philosophical subtleties.
>which you are for
Where have I said that? You keep insisting that I do, but you never demonstrate it.
>philosopher nation was more of a allegory
Why then does Plato speak of the five regimes in book VIII and compares to the inner conditions of the Soul? If it's just an allegory, why did Plato unambiguously declare this:
<"Unless either the philosophers become kings in the cities or those who are nowadays called kings and rulers get to philosophizing truly and adequately, and this falls together upon the same person, political power and philosophy, while the many natures of those who are driven toward the one apart from the other are forcibly set aside, there will be no cessation of evils, my dear
Glaucon, for cities, nor, methinks, for the human race.”
It is clear from the outset that Plato's philosophy has always had a political goal, and his concerns on epistemology and metaphysics only followed from political ones (i.e. from "if a ruler is an expert, and expertise presumes knowledge, what ought a ruler to know?" to "what can be known? What is there to know?"); the point of the Academy has always been to train skillful politicians/rulers and not mere flatterers like the orators and democrats of his day, and for that reason the Academy was a school as well as a community. You did not understand the Republic if you don't even realize this much.
>That's literally what communism is
No, it isn't, communism is a moneyless, stateless, and classless society, with perhaps only the first one applying to Plato's construction.
>Marx asserts that all property must be confiscated by the state in order to seize the means of production for the state to obtain complete control
That is socialism, not communism. Socialism was a preliminary stage where the means of production, developed to the greatest capacity by the capitalist system, would be confiscated by a centralized apparatus for distribution, and even then this same apparatus is envisioned as an instrument of popular participation ("dictatorship of the proletariat"), which Plato's isn't. Communism's goal is for everyone to have ample access to wealth, whilst Plato's goal (at least within the dialectical exercise of the Republic) is to lessen the need for wealth; communism's goal is to abolish the classes (which Marx believed to originate with surplus value), whilst Plato's goal was to instill harmony in the classes, a corollary of his definition of justice; communism's goal is to efface the State, whilst Plato's goal is to heal the State; communism is materialistic and base, Platonism is logical and divine.
>There's nothing that prevents a man of own household
Sure enough, but man cannot manage public affairs as well as he can private ones; for that he needs a statesman and a ruler.
>I literally said nothing contradictory
You don't oppose that a patriarch should be sovereign of his own household and not equal to others in it, yet you are very obstinate about the prospect of a patriarch being the sovereign of his nation, and not equal to others in it; you are indeed being inconsistent, and not only you, but others are peculiarly relativistic when it comes to politics and not anything else.
Well, I'm not sure about you, but I wouldn't call an infant bad for starving in the absence of anyone to procure food for himself. It is just a self-evident fact of life that no one is self-sustainable; this is one of the reasons why States are formed (the other being humans' faculty of reason, planning, long-term memory, and contemplation), and only you are delusional enough to deny it.
>which is very feminine behavior
This is less about me being feminine and more about me being reasonable enough to acknowledge that humans cannot live alone, and that some may be better than I for certain tasks, whereas as you have a puerile and conceited view both of what you are capable of and of politics :^)
>I insisted that White man are for more competent
If that were true then white man's natural state should be that of anarchy, seeing as none of them are in need of being ruled, and not only that but every white person would be as qualified for any field as the next one; neither condition has ever happened nor will.
>Funny you never proved where I've said or implied this
That only follows from your claims; how could there be a racial hierarchy if non-whites are not citizens of white states? Surely you don't think I can simply declare myself to be the king of Atlantis when I'm not even part of it?
>the state should not be so native
Never did, I only maintain that something else besides nativity is required for one to be a ruler.
>Non-Whites are merely visitors
Then they are not part of an hierarchy, seeing as they are not even subject to the law as the natives are; besides, are you implying that non-whites should be living where they don't belong? That's what I take you to mean when you say "visitors", which is rather unusual for someone who longs for an ethnostate :^)
>The are on the bottom of the caste
They are not at the bottom of the caste; they are casteless. Metics in Greece were entirely private residents.
>An absolutist can also take away the custody of your children for no reason
I will not go over that as this juncture, for I was discussing states in the abstract and not any specific form of state; the fact remains that, if not for the State, anyone can take custody away from you for any motive, whether reasonable or unreasonable, with good or bad intent...