The Benevolent Dictatorship Of The Philosopher King Ideals.

These are thoughts of mine regarding the creation of a philosopher king benevolent dictatorship in modern times or more specifically my idea of a national socialist monarchy. They’re a bit unorganized at the moment but eventually I’ll organize a more full summary of my beliefs.

This thread will be an ongoing project of mine.

The type of national socialism monarchy I support would be isolationist moreover the socialist aspect even though there would be a supreme chancellor at the top there would be society built from the bottom up rather than the top down in that there would be generous socialist policies in place for the general public of all citizens. One thing I believe in is a state run public system of education that is free or accessible to all. I also believe in outdoor philosophical agoras being built everywhere so that people can publicly debate philosophy or get together in writing. I would demand philosophy to be taught in all schools. There would be a generous public social welfare system in place everywhere. Such a government would also serve to protect ethnic interests but unlike others I’m not an absolute purist in that some admixtures are fine so long as the dominant genetic sequence of individuals is largely European. Can’t be too extremely picky with small numbers that we already have, I don’t care what others say on that. A 75% European woman genetically will breed 85% European children and so on within every generation of reproduction. As long as they submit their love or devotion to European culture I’d welcome them into the fold with certain restrictions on who would be or not accepted. I also believe in environmental friendly policies of land management.

This of course is all ascertained after the violent revolution first, the end justifies the means and all that jazz. It’s not ascertained now certainly but it could be eventually.

There will be those who say this post is full of prejudice but the balkanization or splitting up of our societies/western nations has already begun, it’s inevitable at this point. I didn’t start all of this but I’ll be damned if I end up on the short side of the stick so to speak as a victim.

The benevolent dictator serves the will of the people being beloved by his people or he is strung up hanging on a lamppost replaced by somebody else in a coup.

The difference unlike now is power would be centered in one person’s hands instead of several hundreds of bureaucrats that make secret dealings with financial institutions behind closed doors. Under this system the financial institutions serve the nation not themselves where if they get out of line the chancellor sends in a small army to their front doorstep until they either get back in line or find themselves shot in the head of their house’s backyard.

Being that the government is socialist its mandatory mission will be to provide for the well being and security of its citizens that not even the chancellor himself would be able to betray. There would be some basic common laws that even the chancellor would not be able to infringe upon even with absolute power. A kind of written charter, oath, declaration, decree, or pact so to speak.

As I said I espouse the continual line of chancellors like monarchies of the past where the heirs of the chancellors become the new chancellor themselves. The chancellor’s heirs assume power only when the current chancellor relinquish their power over to them or if they’re physically and mentally unable to lead any further. This serves as a buffer making it almost impossible for outside parties in trying to take control of the state for their own purposes, we see that in democracies all over the world.

If the chancellor has more than one heir he has the right to choose his own successor and more than likely heirs not chosen to be chancellor would find other areas of the state that they can serve under.

I’ll remind everyone here that monarchy is the oldest form of government and has lasted a lot longer than any kind of democratic, republican, or parliamentary government ever has historically. You can try to argue why those forms of government are better but you will fail the litmus test of time.

How is democracy any better? It is equally imperial in terms of war expansion, creates the same death tolls which it refers to as collateral damage, censors speech, creates social economic inequality, targets people by race or culture, cuts back on people’s independence, and reveres authoritarian power.

What is a president other than a dictator? What makes a president any better to other dictators they criticize?

A president while not a dictator for life is merely a dictator that serves their term of state until they’re replaced by another dictator and chief years later. At the very least real dictatorship supporters are honest in what they support in a straightforward manner instead of hiding behind fake pretentious forms of self righteousness. In reality democracy is no better than a dictatorship but instead is merely a perverted one itself.

Is it the so called right to voting that makes you feel self righteous by comparison? All voting and elections are rigged where all candidates are pre-selected, at least the fascist is honest in having no voting elections at all by comparison as there is little need for the whole pretension of free choice to begin with. Give me an honest dictator over a deceptive one any day of the week.

Once again, how is democracy at all better?

Democracy too is a kind of dictatorship but a perverted one without higher ideals that ends up in a kind of materialist tyrannical regime ruled under a mob of idiots that reduces society in constant chaos unguided.

What separates democracy from other dictatorships is the illusion of freedom, independence, and voting but once you understand those are all mere created illusions of the democratic ruling party this uniqueness of democracy ceases to be anything other than a giant deception. Democracy is no better than other governments it condemns.

Throughout history every nation that adopts democracy doesn’t last very long much like ancient Greece as example and like ancient Greece democracy always succumbs to oligarchy. When it succumbs to an oligarchy where it always does democratic nations are eventually destroyed from within.

In fact the only consistency of democracy is oligarchy in terms of monied interests buying and guiding their so called fair weathered elections of the populace. Since democracy is always guided by the mob of uneducated idiots nobody seems to take notice or cares until it is too late.

Democracy Divided On Minority Ethnicity And Culture.

It has been said many times that democracy is tyranny of a majority against the minority. What happens when an ethnicity that use to be a majority becomes the new minority overtime where the new majority that out numbers them feel under some kind of perceived historical grievances it is alright to take vengeance and retribution against the new ethnic minority?

Not only will the new ethnic minority that use to be the majority in years past have no political influence, no say in anything, and be forced to live in a total disenfranchised existence but it will be targeted under many malicious forms by the new ethnic majority that replaces it thinking itself justified to do so. We see this everywhere throughout the west known as the war being waged against whiteness or even a war against western civilization itself.

Once again democracy fails and only creates division not unity. End democracy now!

Whose philosophy?

Doesn’t that breed a sense of entitlement in the population?

Globalization vs nationalism has always existed. Individual rights vs the rights of the community is an eternal problem.

The nationalists won the revolutionary war, but lost the civil war and have been losing ever since. A sense of entitlement breeds that and prosperity causes empires to cycle since as they get more prosperous, they become weak and crumble before starting anew.

All forms of philosophy will be taught and debated to make for an educated citizenry but the underlying theme will be that the philosophy of the state is superior to all much like the jingoism of any other nation state. The state’s philosophy is final above all else.

No, a social welfare state would not breed laziness because it will be upheld that anybody that can work must labor in order to enjoy the benefits of the state, those that refuse to work that can labor will be excluded from enjoying the benefits of the state.

Nationalism will rise again because globalism is unsustainable. Nationalists will rise again eventually and crush globalists underfoot. Nationalism is the future, globalism will become to be known as a failed abominable experiment of the past in written future history books.

It’s problematic to teach philosophy, at least well, when there are so many philosophical positions it is illegal to have in your country. Teaching philosophy does not mean teaching the correct Ontology, Ethics, Politics, etc.
That’s just propaganda, learning by rote. I cannot see how your country would tolerate teaching philosophy.

What if through studying of all philosophy it is determined that the dictatorship is not the best? Would you have to ban those philosophies? Why ban something better in order to preserve something that is not as good?

How would you create enough work for people to do? We have that problem now with automation taking jobs and much work is just trivial work like “building bridges to nowhere” or over-complicating the tax code just to employ lawyers and accountants.

They’ve been saying the south will rise again for a long time… now the statues are falling. Nationalism will rise from the ashes, but first there must be ashes. We may have to arrive in the south by first travelling north :laughing: