PDA

View Full Version : What System of Government Do You Prefer?



Northern Paladin
Saturday, March 12th, 2005, 10:31 AM
What System Of Government Do You Prefer?

The Horned God
Saturday, March 12th, 2005, 10:50 AM
Democracy, as long as the electorate are patriotic and nationalistic and not divided along lines of class, ethnicity or religion.

Pan-FinnoUgric
Saturday, March 12th, 2005, 10:50 AM
National Socialism and Finnish version of that :)

Suomalaiset voivat lukea sen täältä (http://www.nazi-lauck-nsdapao.com/fin09.htm#Suomen%20uusi%20ohjelma)

Todesritter
Saturday, March 12th, 2005, 11:16 AM
Anything ….? Okay….

Constitutional Monarchy – In the spirit of the genius of Otto von Bismarck, Germany does with Europe, what Prussia did with Germany - King of England, Tsar, and other European Monarchs all bend knee to the Kaiser by 1916. Defeated Powers, Allied Central Powers, & European Neutrals all in accord with Berlin, but given complete internal autonomy to run their own national affairs of language, culture, etc, but encouraged to follow the orderly German political model. Limited individual rights protected by a constitution, which can be amended by the Reichstag, but amendments must be approved by both Kaiser and Chancellor. Reichstag dominated by Junker friendly parties, and National Socialists, Social Democrats tolerated to keep the riff raff happy and for the occasional good idea. Imperial Chancellor able to nullify stupid laws at his discretion, Kaiser able to sack stupid Imperial Chancellors at his discretion. European and German Monarchs, Nobles, and other hereditary aristocracy lose imperial sanction for their family privileges if they fail to marry North European stock, or if they fail to perform genuine service for the people and their regional part of nation on regular basis. Imperially Confederated Europe, as led by Berlin, tells America no thanks to multiculturalism, or any other good idea for fixing Europe. Constantinople returned to Greece – non-European non-assimilationist Jews 'encouraged' to emigrate to Palestine (or New York).

Gustavus Magnus
Saturday, March 12th, 2005, 11:26 AM
Monarchy. Every time in history when Sweden has been great, it has been because of a king. The king must be one of us, though.

jcs
Saturday, March 12th, 2005, 01:45 PM
A monarchy--but one in which the monarchs are viewed as having their authority bestowed from above; the Germanic kings, prior to their Christianization, often claimed to be descended from Odin. Even through the Middle Ages, the sacred nature of monarchy was upheld, with the monarchs claiming that they had a divine right to the throne.
A true ruler must have spiritual and temporal power. Those who have the latter but lack the former ultimately fail.

Couple this with a hierarchal (rule by the sacred) caste system (Jarls, Karls, thralls), and I'd be a happy man.

Such things are, at the present, unlikely to be realized. Therefore, I support any government which best upholds traditional ideals. National Socialism would suffice to help restore normalcy.

Gustavus Magnus
Saturday, March 12th, 2005, 03:17 PM
Such things are, at the present, unlikely to be realized. Therefore, I support any government which best upholds traditional ideals. National Socialism would suffice to help restore normalcy.

Yes, you're right. I believe the ideal situtation would be a National Socialistic king with a National Socialistic parliament picked by the king.

All you have to do really is replace the although exquisite painting with a large swastika :)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b1/220px-Chamber_of_the_Riksdag.jpg

Imagine a NS king living in the castle to the left, visiting the Riksdag in the middle entirely populated by National Socialists on his way home from a little horseback riding through the city. The party HQ would of course be the lovely building to the right of the Riksdag, Rosenbad.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/21/596px-Helgeandsholmen_and_the_Riksdag.jpg

Luh_Windan
Saturday, March 12th, 2005, 04:41 PM
A monarchy--but one in which the monarchs are viewed as having their authority bestowed from above; the Germanic kings, prior to their Christianization, often claimed to be descended from Odin. Even through the Middle Ages, the sacred nature of monarchy was upheld, with the monarchs claiming that they had a divine right to the throne.
A true ruler must have spiritual and temporal power. Those who have the latter but lack the former ultimately fail.

Couple this with a hierarchal (rule by the sacred) caste system (Jarls, Karls, thralls), and I'd be a happy man.
How do you imagine such a situation would ever come about? Of course you realise that absolutist Kings were not challenged as to their divinity because 1) a scant few in their realms knew what they were talking about and 2) nobody really cared...?

People care about their governance today and would never accept such nonsense. Any spiritual and temporal power wielded by absolutists can be found in a healthy constitutional monarchy, plus many layers more, to say nothing of the pratical benefits...

jcs
Saturday, March 12th, 2005, 04:56 PM
How do you imagine such a situation would ever come about? Of course you realise that absolutist Kings were not challenged as to their divinity because 1) a scant few in their realms knew what they were talking about and 2) nobody really cared...?

People care about their governance today and would never accept such nonsense. Any spiritual and temporal power wielded by absolutists can be found in a healthy constitutional monarchy, plus many layers more, to say nothing of the pratical benefits... The dissolution of government--from the fall of sacred kingship to the rise of greed in the aristocracy, to the empowerment of the bourgeois, to the glorification of the common man (be it through socialism or modern "Bonapartist" politics)--has created a great contempt for authority. This mistrust is valid in that authorities have failed, but you must understand that these failures are the result of degeneracy; true authority does not make such errors.

I will not respond further beyond saying this (and I mean no offense): you don't know what you're talking about--the authority of the old kings was not based on "absolutism," despite what moderns want to project upon the past, but upon their truly sacred power.

Northern Paladin
Saturday, March 12th, 2005, 07:50 PM
How do you imagine such a situation would ever come about? Of course you realise that absolutist Kings were not challenged as to their divinity because 1) a scant few in their realms knew what they were talking about and 2) nobody really cared...?

People care about their governance today and would never accept such nonsense. Any spiritual and temporal power wielded by absolutists can be found in a healthy constitutional monarchy, plus many layers more, to say nothing of the pratical benefits...

Autocracy is still possible though all a Monarchy is, is an inherited form of Autocracy.

Northern Paladin
Saturday, March 12th, 2005, 07:59 PM
Monarchy. Every time in history when Sweden has been great, it has been because of a king. The king must be one of us, though.


If Sweden is to become a Monarchy again. The enitre Power structure and way of thinking of the people has to be changed. For one the Social Democrats have got to go. Hopefully one day they will be held accountable for their crimes against Sweden.

Luh_Windan
Saturday, March 12th, 2005, 08:24 PM
The dissolution of government--from the fall of sacred kingship to the rise of greed in the aristocracy, to

the empowerment of the bourgeois, to the glorification of the common man (be it through socialism or modern

"Bonapartist" politics)--has created a great contempt for authority. This mistrust is valid in that authorities have failed,

but you must understand that these failures are the result of degeneracy; true authority does not make such

errors.
A very simplistic approach to the matter that doesn't even begin to address the transition from "sacred kingship" to constitutional monarchy, or my question.

Contempt for authority and distrust for absolute authority are very separate issues; conflating them historically is extremely shortsighted and ignores the legitimate grievances raised against centralised absolutist authority, divorced from any specific instance of failure.

Please differentiate between "true authority" and false authority. Are you suggesting that non-absolutist monarchs (or at any rate monarchs who do not consider their authority rooted in divine right) can wield only false authority and therefore are invariably prone to degenracy? And, if your claim is that the fall from sacred kingship was the result of degeneracy (I presume you implied that the failures of old kings allowed for mistrust and the fall), what was this degeneracy caused by if not "false authority"?


I will not respond further beyond saying this (and I mean no offense): you don't know what you're talking about--the authority of the old kings was not based on "absolutism," despite what moderns want to project upon the past, but upon their truly sacred power.
:rolleyes:

Hold your responses if you wish. But I would call into question your understanding of the issue as well. I didn't say the authority of old kings was based on absolutism, only that their rule was in effect absolutist. They appealed to temporal and spiritual qualities for their base as you stated (and I already agreed with). Those appeals and their use as justification for absolute power were appropriate for the time they existed, i.e one of uneducated masses without complex identity and with simple enough lives so as to have no conflicting demands on their governments. Such rule was both practical and worthy of veneration, and we can call it sacred in a historical context. But the sacredness disappears with those conditions. There is no intrinstic value in such rule and no practical reason to consider it sacred if it were applied in the present.

Which brings me to my original question. How do you imagine the citizens of the various Western countries today would accept such rule again, or lend creedence to the concept of the divine right of kings?

Väring
Sunday, March 13th, 2005, 09:03 AM
Out of these alternatives i think National Socialism is the most preferrable and Theocracy the least preferrable alternative.

Schutz_Staffeln
Sunday, March 13th, 2005, 10:19 AM
Given that all our respected countries have different political ideals and social standards i think National Socialist is by far the because "general idea" but if there was going to be a great Social/Political change like that then it is most likely that anew "fresh" political ideal would arise from the choas like human history has shown us......

Then that would leave the idea of what ideas/qualities should a new/National Socialist/Monarchist government have in it?

Though some of the points already raised by other people are worthy also,

Gustavus Magnus
Sunday, March 13th, 2005, 02:11 PM
Out of these alternatives i think National Socialism is the most preferrable and Theocracy the least preferrable alternative.

That depends on the religion...

Northern Paladin
Sunday, March 13th, 2005, 07:38 PM
That depends on the religion...

I think Sweden was doing quite good under Luthernism. It's when Luthernism and the Monarchy ended that Sweden started getting into trouble.

Erlingr Hárbarđarson
Sunday, March 13th, 2005, 09:49 PM
Theocracy.

A theocracy, whose purpose is upheld by the faith of its folk, is what I believe to be the truest form of government. In a theocracy, there are no rulers but the Gods, or God, of the folks faith. If a theocracy fails, it can only do so by the folks failure in conviction and loyalty to the path of those who bled before them. A theocracy therefor harmonises with the goals and passions of a man who want to preserve the ancient way of his ancestors, and should be the form of government preferred to of all racial preservationists on account of a sworn oath betwixt ancestral seed, spiritual faith and nation, i.e. blood and land.

The core of Nordens heathen faith takes its origo from our heritage and the celebration of who and what was before us, i.e. those by whom we were begot, and I believe that because of a folks instinctual fervour to embrace brotherhood, establish community and strengthen the family unit -in order to survive and remain brother to its ancient purity- a form of government which would unconditionally embrace national segregation and uphold the traditions, values and beliefs of its primaeval architects, i.e. those by whom the nation was built so many Winters since, would be our only true choice for racial, national and spiritual preservation.

Why segregate faith and nation? If we are not to obey the Will of Síđhöttr, whether on a national scale or that of personal one, then I see no reason to continue to preserve some thing to which you are only a threat. Nation...blood...I see no difference and I believe Óđinn to sett eye to the same.

How does every one feel on this?

jcs
Sunday, March 13th, 2005, 09:58 PM
I was debating between theocracy and monarchy. I chose the latter, but think that a true monarchy would necessarily be theocratic, with the sacred permeating every aspect of life.

Northern Paladin
Sunday, March 13th, 2005, 09:59 PM
Theocracy.

A theocracy, whose purpose is upheld by the faith of its folk, is what I believe to be the truest form of government. In a theocracy, there are no rulers but the Gods, or God, of the folks faith. If a theocracy fails, it can only do so by the folks failure in conviction and loyalty to the path of those who bled before them. A theocracy therefor harmonises with the goals and passions of a man who want to preserve the ancient way of his ancestors, and should be the form of government preferred to of all racial preservationists on account of a sworn oath betwixt ancestral seed, spiritual faith and nation, i.e. blood and land.

The core of Nordens heathen faith takes its origo from our heritage and the celebration of who and what was before us, i.e. those by whom we were begot, and I believe that because of a folks instinctual fervour to embrace brotherhood, establish community and strengthen the family unit -in order to survive and remain brother to its ancient purity- a form of government which would unconditionally embrace national segregation and uphold the traditions, values and beliefs of its primaeval architects, i.e. those by whom the nation was built so many Winters since, would be our only true choice for racial, national and spiritual preservation.

Why segregate faith and nation? If we are not to obey the Will of Síđhöttr, whether on a national scale or that of personal one, then I see no reason to continue to preserve some thing to which you are only a threat. Nation...blood...I see no difference and I believe Óđinn to sett eye to the same.

How does every one feel on this?

I think it would give people a stronger identity. I think part of the reason Scandinavians and in general Western peoples are so individualistic is because of their lack of a common faith.

Náttfari
Sunday, March 13th, 2005, 10:02 PM
I chose theocracy. But the faith must not be of the Jew on the stick :biggrin:

Pan-FinnoUgric
Sunday, March 13th, 2005, 10:39 PM
No Feudalism on poll...

Son of a gun
Sunday, March 13th, 2005, 10:43 PM
Hmm...dunno.. one thing is sure though: Democracy and communism is not an option

Erlingr Hárbarđarson
Sunday, March 13th, 2005, 11:03 PM
Hmm...dunno.. one thing is sure though: Democracy and communism is not an option

Who is this strange, ugly man at your foto, finnish warriour? It disturbs me.

Luh_Windan
Sunday, March 13th, 2005, 11:04 PM
All of the listed types of government, minus Communism and Monarchial absolutism, are compatible in the same system. The British Constitutional Monarchy for example employs them all.

Son of a gun
Sunday, March 13th, 2005, 11:20 PM
Who is this strange, ugly man at your foto, finnish warriour? It disturbs me.

Ismo Laitela, my favorite janitor. He's a good man, and therefore no need to get disturbed :)

Pan-FinnoUgric
Monday, March 14th, 2005, 12:24 AM
Ismo Laitela, my favorite janitor. He's a good man, and therefore no need to get disturbed :)

And he is real Finnish Warrior :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:

Lissu
Monday, March 14th, 2005, 12:28 AM
Ismo Laitela, my favorite janitor. He's a good man, and therefore no need to get disturbed :)Awww one of my favourite characters in Salkkarit!! I saw the gym thing on tv, but I couldn't recognize him from your avatar...

*Sorry for derailing* :redface:

SouthernBoy
Monday, March 14th, 2005, 02:01 AM
Benevolent monarchy, or if I can't have my way: a benevolent oligarchy.

Fox
Monday, March 14th, 2005, 09:56 PM
please someone vote Communism just so I can watch what happens :)

Erlingr Hárbarđarson
Monday, March 14th, 2005, 10:50 PM
please someone vote Communism just so I can watch what happens :)


http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/noose.jpg

Nordgau
Tuesday, March 15th, 2005, 02:24 AM
I subscribe to NS. If superhumans with a part and a little moustache are subsumed under the idea of "god", theocracy may also present itself as a comfortable alternative. :tongue:


http://www.tach.ula.ve/on_line/latuya/Hitler.jpg

Northern Paladin
Tuesday, March 15th, 2005, 08:27 AM
I subscribe to NS. If superhumans with a part and a little moustache are subsumed under the idea of "god", theocracy may also present itself as a comfortable alternative. :tongue:


http://www.tach.ula.ve/on_line/latuya/Hitler.jpg

I didn't know you had a Moustache as well. :biggrin:

Siegmund
Tuesday, March 15th, 2005, 10:24 AM
National Socialism, of the sort that Hitler is said to have ultimately desired, with a governing council at whose head he and his successors were to have sat had things worked out differently in the world. But not the chaotic variety that saw all the government services at each other's throats - not enough stability.

Rachel
Wednesday, March 16th, 2005, 01:21 AM
Democracy is a cheap word. Israel has a parliamentary democracy. Need I say more?

http://www.nationalvanguard.org/images/teaser/idf_soldier_aiming.jpg

Luh_Windan
Wednesday, March 16th, 2005, 02:27 AM
Need I say more?
Yes

Extreme_Nord
Wednesday, March 16th, 2005, 04:07 AM
Adolf Hitler is my god; the swastika, my cross; Mein Kampf is my bible. I guess you could say that I am NS.

ErikBloodaxe
Tuesday, April 5th, 2005, 07:26 AM
democracy by far. I would rather choose death than to fight for one man and his perverted desires for my country.