[–] EUSSR-drone ago
No I don't see the problem. Us lazy Whites just have to take back power from the higher levels (National/EU). From then on, like the people of Switzerland who have a democratic tradition going back 1000 years, we need to raise our children with a strong sense of democratic citizenship. Arm them (like the Swiss) and teach them the risks of neglecting their duties.
Weak people make for 'strong' leaders (autocrats, dictators, despots), Strong people make for symbolic leaders. Look at the historic difference between Western Europe (bourgeois, egalitarian, vocal citizens) and Eastern Europe (peasants vs aristocrats, birth decides fate, mute serfs). The other guy responding seems to advocate going back to ye olde times. But trouble only started after WW2 (after WW1 in Germany). Holland, Sweden, the UK, these countries were fine until the 50s/60s.
Don't go 'full retard' and medieval, just go back to before globalism/corporatism. To a nation of middle class, small, medium businesses. Determining everything as local as possible. Before the Brussels-power grab, before our national governments felt justified in determining our lives from cradle-to-grave.
[–] Caesar_Augustus ago (edited ago)
The only power which can force an atomization of power is a power greater than the power to be atomized.
So you either need to make a competing power, and win (revolution), or you need to find and successfully install a leader willing and able to dissolve the great lumbering behemoth (institutional hijacking).
[–] LiberatedDeathStar ago
That line of thought is what brought me back to my roots to either say we should go back to our aristocratic republic origins in America (limited voting to the upper, landed class) or go further back and just put a king in charge. Monarchy seems much better than this democracy stuff. I think Europe might do alright putting kings or dictators or something back in as well.
I'm much on the side of old power right now. Old power like monarchs and other republics gave much more freedom to live our lives and much more honest protection than these democracies. I used to be a libertarian here in the states, and it sometimes makes me intrigued to see my transition to supporting traditionalist governments, like aristocratic republics and monarchies. Then again, looking at the roots of libertarianism, that's no surprise, when I think about it. A lot of libertarians and even some conservatives are becoming really, really dissatisfied with democracy over here. The Tea Party at the beginning was an excellent view into that, where you had people actively talking against democracy as a whole, and talking about resetting our country to the very beginning.
[–] Caesar_Augustus ago (edited ago)
It's hard to say what the future will bring, but one thing is certain: only a strong man will be able to bring the evil to heel. That means leaving the old order behind. Aristocratic republicanism seems ideal, but prone to degenerate into democracy.
Dr. Hermann-Hoppe thinks it has to do with private vs public ownership: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k12teOokSqM
I'm just tired of Rule of the Dollarâ„¢.
[–] LiberatedDeathStar ago (edited ago)
That is my fear, that the republicanism will degenerate back into democracy. It already happened once in the United States, so we have precedent and observations showing that the republic will do so.
I'm thinking monarchy or some form of dictatorship might be the best. I like monarchy more because of the stability it brings over dictatorships, so if a dictatorship is established, it should consolidate into a monarchy.
I'm giving Hermann-Hoppe a watch, but I think I'm familiar with his argument because of things that have cited him. I agree wholeheartedly with his argument, if his is the one I'm thinking of (where the society/nation is property of the monarch, and thus he'll take care of his own nation as his property).