An enlightened monarch is the best form of government. And a good monarch will institute traditions. A sucsesser can then rest on the traditions to avoid tyrannical rule.
I’ve realized that a monarchy is a much better system than the ones that we have today. It prioritizes tradition, and protects the identity and sovereignty of the nation
I totally agree with your points ! Although it's worth mentioning & pointing out that *Darius the great was one of the very very few absolutely idealistic emperors of human history just like Augustus* ! Absolute monarchy under such characters is unambiguously the best way possible for human evolution & development ! Since any other alternative way is too prone to corruption ! *just as we see today with democracy which is really nothing other than some corrupted politicians ruining everything & fooling people by letting them think their decisions matter* :"( Also in monarchy if a monarch gets corrupted it's more difficult to fight him since he has an army at his back but the more important thing is that *it's also easier to unite people against 1 corrupted target than several hundreds* !!! With democracy, people can never ever get United against corruption and incompetence , *since there are too many corrupted targets who individually do not hold that much of a power but together make a very powerful corrupted government that is almost impossible to get rid of* !!! I believe the one & only thing that is wrong with monarchy is its tradition in choice of succession !!! ( *otherwise it's the best way or form of ruling possible that will undoubtedly direct mankind to greatness & evolution* ) The concept of *an heir to the throne* should be totally removed from monarchy & be replaced by the concept of *competence* instead !!! Imagine a world that when a competent emperor dies, he's not replaced by an incompetent or corrupted heir but by a competent man/woman who has gone through an extremely difficult contest of competence & then elected as the absolute monarch by the people !!! ( *may he/she be the heir himself/herself or a poor boy/girl in the streets who thought he/she could be more & do more & decided to attend the contest* ) I'm not sure if I could convey myself perfectly :") *That would be a perfect world* This is btw my own dream, so you may find many faults with it , but I myself sincerely believe it's the best the way to evolution :)
I have to say Ryan that you've done a great job summarising. Hence the old saying I guess that Augustus should either never have been emperor or he should have been emperor forever. I hadn't thought of the corruption point before. The only other counterpoint that I have and this is my major one is that with just one leader it means that the state is headed in one person's direction. What works with democracy is that you get this tug of war between left and right which while it wastes a lot of energy as heat it does mean that there is a give and take and there is a middle ground found quite often. Having one leader is great because of the efficiency but even with the best leader it's still just one wo/man's vision and that's raises problems
@@TheLivingPhilosophy Yes indeed I agree ! That old saying is definitely right & the same implies for Darius the great I suppose , since Persia which seemed to be an invincible & all powerful superpower for 1400 years ( considering all the Iranian empires before Islam ) eventually fell *& not because of Islam's power or the muslim conquests in the 7th century ,,, but because of the decisions some of its emperors made which subsequently directed the entire empire to a particular path which resulted to their downfall* ! Also the nearly 800 years of rivalry & conflict & different battles that both Rome & Iran had with each other greatly weakened both empires to their lowest possible points !!! *which even though the names "Iran" & "Rome" take the blame, it really should just be their "emperors" who should take the blame with their decisions that directed their entire empires to 1 particular path which was based on the vision of one man* ! Another important note about monarchy is its relation to other nations/monarchies or its scale & power ; Both Iran & Rome were not only superpowers ( or "the two eyes of the earth" as historians put it ) but they were also neighbors & rivals !!! *In the system of a monarchical world there's always gonna be another equally powerful monarchy who follows the vision of a monarch with a completely opposite or at the very least different attitude & vision, which will cause conflict & often destruction , so other than how much the continuous presence of competence ( like Augustus or Darius ruling forever or never rule anything at all ) matters, another very crucial part is for 1 monarchical system to be accepted by all & rule everything in the world to prevent conflict from ever happening between different nations* ! Perhaps I spoke a bit vaguely so what I basically mean is that both Augustus & Darius should not only have been immortals, they also should have been the ruler of all !!!! Not just one nation even if that nation is as vast & populated as either Persia or Rome , it still is not the entire world & that means at some point another power will rise either in the neighboring lands or in another continent even , that will fight you & your goals. However as I mentioned, *despite of its flaws monarchy is still the best way of ruling possible for mankind which can lead mankind to greatness & evolution, especially if it follows the vision of a competent & patriot ruler, since the alternatives are all simply too prone to corruption & as you ( or Darius lol ) put it : "AT BEST THERE ARE TOO MANY INFIGHTINGS & A LOT OF LEFTS & RIGHTS" which is not just a guess but is proven to be completely true nowadays* . Thank you for the taking the time to read this & hearing me out :)
@@ryansmith8345 Interesting take Ryan and while I can see the logic of one world system under one rule I can see how efficient it would be but ultimately I just don't have the heart for it! I think that such a system would end up becoming ossified and because it is a total system it would have no chance of replenishing itself without total collapse. So while I think the total monarchial system would be the most efficient for the period of its rule I think over a longer time scale it would inevitably collapse and so I would opt for the constant preservation of chaos in the system. Admittedly I feel like we have a little too much now but maybe that's a local phenemenon. I think the chaos allows for a new order to emerge to replace the old as the French and American Revolutions allowed to happen in their countries. At that point the scales had become too uneven and so the chaos in the system set about rejuvenating the system (it took rivers of blood of course which is why I prefer that we be sparing with our revolutions. This long term resilience of the system has got to take precedence over the productivity of the system at any point in time
That s why absolute monarchies failed. The people united against that one monarch's corruption and it was lights out. Thank God for that btw. Just look at Russia and China and France for examples.
Another interesting gem. Thank you! I wonder what Darius would have thought of the arguments exchanged at the Constitutional Convention of Philadelphia, which largely revisited these same issues in a very similar situation. Monarchy forms in a way that might not work for modern societies because it requires an authoritative means for establishing a rightful royal line. In all cases, this authority took form as a state religion to endorse the monarch by the authority of a higher power. The Achaemenid kings had the benefit of a very liberal state religion that welcomed and recognized all others within the empire, which minimized friction, and everyone under Persian rule enjoyed virtually the same religious freedoms most do today. However the king was crowned by the will Ahura Mazda alone --- and nobody dare say otherwise. A model like this might have made sense to people even just two centuries ago. Even enlightenment philosophers, who despised religion, at times argued for the practicality of 'playing along' with the superstitions baked into monarchy (Frederick the Great being among them, despite being crowned in the name of a god he personally didn't believe existed). Today however, most would just find the idea silly and demeaning. There's no going back now. Reminds of that line from the movie Patton where the salty-ass general remarks, "The world grew up, its a hell of a shame."
Thanks Scott!! Glad you enjoyed it! If we set aside the idea of bloodline I think there is room to see it as being far from irrelevant. Look at the likes of Xi Jinping in China or Putin in Russia. These are essentially monarchs (taking monarch in this sense as rule by one rather than the more accurate use of the term as relating to hereditary rulership) in modernity. And looking at the state of the US these days it seems that an enantiodromia might be very close. There's a fantastic article in the economist (link is here www.economist.com/international/2021/01/16/political-theorists-have-been-worrying-about-mob-rule-for-2000-years but unfortunately it's behind a paywall) about Plato and Aristotle's observation that democracy ultimately turns into its opposite - tyranny. The French Revolution and the Roman Republic are the two shining examples of this. With the French Revolution it was an immediate transformation between 1789 and Napoleon's rise to power in 1799. With Rome it took a lot longer and looking at America today it's worth pausing to consider whether we are at such a focal point in history yet again. Religious sanction royal rule might be gone but the First Citizen might just be slouching towards Washington to be born
@@TheLivingPhilosophy This is serously 100% USDA Approved food for thought. No response at this time. This hits a nerve; it's a matter that impacts all of us right now. Democracy is at a crossroads, and autocracy is a sharp and hard-core competator. Here's to team Democracy, for better or worse. As always, thanks for the friendly insights.
@@TheCyberianWonder Haha!! This elicited a giggle from me. I've always aspire to create 100% USDA approved food for thought (ask my friends it's been my motto for years) we certainly live in curious times And as always to you thanks for the top quality comment
People often come up with the argument that we can’t vote out a tyrannical monarch as we could a president but I think Covid showed something different. Look how many leaders who trampled on basic human rights (in the western world) who are still in charge.
I feel like Prussia and Especially the German Empire make a good case for monarchy. They had consistent and effective kings. Like the formation of Prussia as a huge military force in Europe literally required 4- 5 good kings which Prussia got.
I mean Prussia mainly had Frederick II who basically single-handedly made Prussia into a great power. Prussia after that had pretty weak and mediocre kings (Frederick Wilhelm 2, 3, and 4) and Austria reasserted itself as the leading German power, especially under Metternich. It was only when Bismarck took power that Prussia had its major resurgence into dominance due to winning crucial wars in the 1860/70s. Wilhelm I didn't do much as his reign was dominated by Bismarck, Frederick III died after 3 months, and Wilhelm II destroyed his empire. IMO Prussia has only really had one good king since the mid-1700s, Frederick II.
Monarchy under the right rulers is the best, but under the wrong rulers, it the worst, and the exact same thing goes for democracy, oligarchy, or any other system.
" A plan br0ken up into as many parts as there are heads in the m0b loses all homogeneity and thereby becom3s unintelligible and impossibl3 of execution".... This applies to a plan broken up into 2 parts just as well as it applies to a plan broken up into 100. Only a dynastic ruler can elaborate on plans that span hundreds of years in scale, and pass on the knowledge to their heirs properly in order that the plans be executed. We must remember that "Civilization" is not a thing, but a process ("-ization" denotes a process, not a thing), it is the process of shedding our brute and combative tendencies in favor of harmony and peace, and this process requires a considerably large and coherent plan, which a mob of people are incapable of producing. I also deliberately mucked up the first quote because it is taken from a heavily censored source material which would likely result in the instantaneous deletion of my comment.
Good thinkin', man. Monarchy and Divinity are inextricably linked. There's no such thing as a bad Monarch, as long as The Priesthood continually converts His [mis]deeds into Lessons. The so-called "Illuminated Ones" (b. 01May1776) poisoned the world with, among other things, the concept of "separation of church and state". (Of course, it goes back further, but this is the contemporary nexus.) The problem with religion is that it gets too specific, by development of tradition and dogma, to secure power, by specialization and repetition. Q: How do you know that you are suffering? A: You realize that someone else is suffering. If you need to be told, twice, then you're a slow learner. Three times, and you're in trouble. Before the fourth, you're wormfood. Mercy, though, is where Perfection is. Tens, Fifties, Hundreds, Thousands, Officers, and Princes, under The King, subject to The Priests, with Advice of The Prophets, and Blessing of God. Mercy is Perfection, but Ignorance is Death, and The Law is Truth. Read the first 6 chapters of Deuteronomy, and cherry-pick from Proverbs, all you want. There's Jeremiah 31, for You.
Jesus is God, Son of the Father. The confusion comes because “God” can be referring to God the Father specifically or God the Being who is three Divine Persons in one.
None of those systems of government that you listed, would be my recommendation. A constitutional representative republic would be mine. Democracy is one of, if not the worst forms of government ever conceived by the mind of man. It is inefficient, inept, and the raw tyranny of the majority.
I would agree with you that a Constitutional Republic would be best if not for the fact that we tried that in the US, and it only lasted about 100 years before it was defeated. What we now have is a mixed system - partly Welfare Statism - partly Corporatism (fka fascism). My preference would be the design that the founders ALMOST chose: Laissez Faire Capitalism - a system that allows for a government whose ONLY function is the protection of INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. Any power left in the hands of government will attract people seeking power over others. That is why we have such poor leadership today - we ONLY attract power-hungry people. The "good guys" are repulsed by the thought of working within such a system.
I think it’s kind of like index funds(democracy) and picking stocks(monarchy). Where the more stocks you have the more mediocre you perform, and the less stocks the more volatile your outcomes are.( Marcus Aurelius or Nero)
@@mr.mystery9338 I meant Marcus Aurelius was one of the best. Whereas generally Nero is considered the worst, but I honestly don’t know much about his reign.
@@rico14 christian parasites wrote slander about him because he rightfully persecuted them by the scores. This is how the first revisionist historian was born.
@@thekingshussar1808 I do have a question, we hear about a whole bunch of things that emperor Constantine and Charlemagne did like forced conversions, killings, etc but yet we read the church's account of them and it's almost a 180° flip. Were they bad people or no? I've just recently started to study the real churches history and I am learning still and were taught the other side in public school all in all. Will you help a brother out here. Grew up protestant most my life but I'm not anymore I currently attend an Eastern Orthodox Church but before I officially choose I'm also studying and plan to attend a Catholic church for a little while to learn the western side of church history too because catholicism does make sense in context of church history and the east seems to like to forget the west's side of Christian history and the power they held back then. After all the Roman empire was completely collegial in church and state. State east and church west.
@@Johnathan909309 Constantine had a Cult of Sol Invictus upbringing, he wasn't officially a baptised Christian until the last moments of his death so he committed some terrible and sometimes unnecessary things like the murder of his own son (which was done out of a false rumour that his own son plotting usurp him, and Roman traditional family was based on Pater Familias that the Father has ultimate authority of everything even Life) which he later regretted. As for Charlemagne, he did forced conversion of Pagan vassals out of their disloyalty towards him. He had a mix of Frankish and Latin upbringing, he was an unusual product of his time because he united the Frankish lands and was pro-Christian. Protestants like to criticise these figures out of straws to demean the reputation of Catholic history while not presenting the whole historical narrative. And I don't get why would they even dislike Charlemagne because that was literally the necessary actions of Europe's Christianisation surrounded by warrior societies and that earned Christians respect. Even their most revered church father St. Augustine once quoted, "The annihilation of the superstitions of pagans is what God wills, God proclaims, and God commands."
@@thekingshussar1808 agreed and I was jw cuz I find both of their lives rather fascinating based on what I have read so far. How could Constantine believed in Christ and in sol Invictus? If he saw the sign of the cross but continued to worship sol then did he equate the two as one?
@@Johnathan909309 Constantine did equate two as one in a sense of centralising religion and to his advantage after receiving a dream that he'll win the Battle of Milvian Bridge with the sign of the Cross or the Chi Rho. He would later convene the Council of Nicaea to learn what Christianity really is from elders (bishops) who represented once underground Christian communities.
Ah yes but there's the rub. The trouble with these things is how to pick a good successor. One of my favourite quotes about Augustus is that "he should have been emperor forever or he should never have been emperor"
@@TheLivingPhilosophy I think the US should be devided into empires, the empire of California has the kingdom of Nevada, baja California, sonora, sinaloa, Hawaii Colorado and Utah under its sovereignty, the emperor of California answers only to augustus, the ruler of North America. How to pick the augustus? Simple, we leave it to the kings to choose from the emperors, there would be about 12 sovereign empires within the continent to choose from and it would be hurdles and barb wire to make it up there to begin with. So I would trust the vote of the now 75 kings to choose the next augustus. The emperors can vote for themselves, doesn't matter, it would be better to do it in rounds, eliminating the least voted on like in France.
@@jimpachihaihachima1753 it's definitely an interesting theoretical thought but I imagine this would usher in all the same power dynamics that sees the United States choose Donald Trump and Joe Biden out of 400 million people. Sometimes I feel like the Ancient Athenian democracy would be better off and it's hard to believe that you could find a less competent person if you threw a dart into the crowd. It would at least undercut the warped game dynamics that put a straitjacket around any leader who attains power through this tiered sort of system.
Except in the case of Rome/Byzantium, there were some dynasties but often the Emperor was chosen based on them being axios, worthy, and not necessarily choses from royal stock.
The monochord has 2 ends like polarity. 👍 I think you're mistaken. Otherwise 1 person has to play both roles. It's really king and queen so it's two regardless.
" A plan br0ken up into as many parts as there are heads in the m0b loses all homogeneity and thereby becom3s unintelligible and impossibl3 of execution".... This applies to a plan broken up into 2 parts just as well as it applies to a plan broken up into 100. Only a dynastic ruler can elaborate on plans that span hundreds of years in scale, and pass on the knowledge to their heirs properly in order that the plans be executed. We must remember that "Civilization" is not a thing, but a process ("-ization" denotes a process, not a thing), it is the process of shedding our brute and combative tendencies in favor of harmony and peace, and this process requires a considerably large and coherent plan, which a mob of people are incapable of producing. I also deliberately mucked up the first quote because it is taken from a heavily censored source material which would likely result in the instantaneous deletion of my comment.
A republican government does include monarchy, as a holos, within itself by the office of the president or prime minister or commander in chief. Actual monarchs are outdated for the reasons you elucidate in the vid, but the wisdom of monarchy is sustained within a republic by including the office of the monarch. This why a republic is the best model so far because it includes monarchy and democracy, centralization and decentralization.
@@TheLivingPhilosophy I don’t think an absolute monarchy is a good idea to much power in the hands of a man he I think a parliamentary monarchy is better fitting for us
@@TheLivingPhilosophy & Darius the great was one of the very very few absolutely idealistic emperors of human history just like Augustus ! Absolute monarchy under such characters is unambiguously the best way possible for human evolution & development !
the strict dualism between absolute and constitutional monarchy is a meme, all monarchies have an aspect of both in different proportions. Even the Prussian monarchy of which it was said it was an army with a state instead of a state with an army and whose king was the absolute military leader, de facto had significant bottom up input and social mobility from officers, cadets and even common soldiery. The situation is not too dissimilar from representative Vs direct democracy now that I think about it.
You know, Darius was actually brought into power, when his wife, the daughter of Cyrus, told him that someone had taken over her brothers throne. Then Darius comes, defeats his wife's brothers imposter. And is chosen to become the king of kings!
“The Doctrine of Fascism” (1932) by Benito Mussolini Like all sound political conceptions, Fascism is action and it is thought; action in which doctrine is immanent, and doctrine arising from a given system of historical forces in which it is inserted, and working on them from within. It has therefore a form correlated to contingencies of time and space; but it has also an ideal content which makes it an expression of truth in the higher region of the history of thought. There is no way of exercising a spiritual influence in the world as a human will dominating the will of others, unless one has a conception both of the transient and the specific reality on which that action is to be exercised, and of the permanent and universal reality in which the transient dwells and has its being. To know men one must know man; and to know man one must be acquainted with reality and its laws. There can be no conception of the State which is not fundamentally a conception of life: philosophy or intuition, system of ideas evolving within the framework of logic or concentrated in a vision or a faith, but always, at least potentially, an organic conception of the world. Thus many of the practical expressions of Fascism such as party organization, system of education, and discipline can only be understood when considered in relation to its general attitude toward life. A spiritual attitude. Fascism sees in the world not only those superficial, material aspects in which man appears as an individual, standing by himself, self-centered, subject to natural law, which instinctively urges him toward a life of selfish momentary pleasure; it sees not only the individual but the nation and the country; individuals and generations bound together by a moral law, with common traditions and a mission which suppressing the instinct for life closed in a brief circle of pleasure, builds up a higher life, founded on duty, a life free from the limitations of time and space, in which the individual, by selfsacrifice, the renunciation of self-interest, by death itself, can achieve that purely spiritual existence in which his value as a man consists. The conception is therefore a spiritual one, arising from the general reaction of the century against the materialistic positivism of the 19th century. Antipositivistic but positive; neither skeptical nor agnostic; neither pessimistic nor supinely optimistic as are, generally speaking, the doctrines (all negative) which place the center of life outside man; whereas, by the exercise of his free will, man can and must create his own world. Fascism wants man to be active and to engage in action with all his energies; it wants him to be manfully aware of the difficulties besetting him and ready to face them. It conceives of life as a struggle in which it behooves a man to win for himself a really worthy place, first of all by fitting himself (physically, morally, intellectually) to become the implement required for winning it. As for the individual, so for the nation, and so for mankind. Hence the high value of culture in all its forms (artistic, religious, scientific) and the outstanding importance of education. Hence also the essential value of work, by which man subjugates nature and creates the human world (economic, political, ethical, and intellectual). This positive conception of life is obviously an ethical one. It invests the whole field of reality as well as the human activities which master it. No action is exempt from moral judgment; no activity can be despoiled of the value which a moral purpose confers on all things. Therefore life, as conceived of by the Fascist, is serious, austere, and religious; all its manifestations are poised in a world sustained by moral forces and subject to spiritual responsibilities. The Fascist disdains an “easy” life. The Fascist conception of life is a religious one, in which man is viewed in his immanent relation to a higher law, endowed with an objective will transcending the individual and raising him to conscious membership of a spiritual society. “Those who perceive nothing beyond opportunistic considerations in the religious policy of the Fascist regime fail to realize that Fascism is not only a system of government but also and above all a system of thought. In the Fascist conception of history, man is man only by virtue of the spiritual process to which he contributes as a member of the family, the social group, the nation, and in function of history to which all nations bring their contribution. Hence the great value of tradition in records, in language, in customs, in the rules of social life. Outside history man is a nonentity. Fascism is therefore opposed to all individualistic abstractions based on eighteenth century materialism; and it is opposed to all Jacobinistic utopias and innovations. It does not believe in the possibility of “happiness” on earth as conceived by the economistic literature of the 18th century, and it therefore rejects the theological notion that at some future time the human family will secure a final settlement of all its difficulties. This notion runs counter to experience which teaches that life is in continual flux and in process of evolution. In politics Fascism aims at realism; in practice it desires to deal only with those problems which are the spontaneous product of historic conditions and which find or suggest their own solutions. Only by entering in to the process of reality and taking possession of the forces at work within it, can man act on man and on nature. Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal, will of man as a historic entity. It is opposed to classical liberalism which arose as a reaction to absolutism and exhausted its historical function when the State became the expression of the conscience and will of the people. Liberalism denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts The rights of the State as expressing the real essence of the individual. And if liberty is to he the attribute of living men and not of abstract dummies invented by individualistic liberalism, then Fascism stands for liberty, and for the only liberty worth having, the liberty of the State and of the individual within the State. The Fascist conception of the State is all embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism, is totalitarian, and the Fascist State - a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values - interprets, develops, and potentates the whole life of a people. No individuals or groups (political parties, cultural associations, economic unions, social classes) outside the State. Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism to which unity within the State (which amalgamates classes into a single economic and ethical reality) is unknown, and which sees in history nothing but the class struggle. Fascism is likewise opposed to trade unionism as a class weapon. But when brought within the orbit of the State, Fascism recognizes the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which divergent interests are coordinated and harmonized in the unity of the State. Grouped according to their several interests, individuals form classes; they form trade-unions when organized according to their several economic activities; but first and foremost they form the State, which is no mere matter of numbers, the suns of the individuals forming the majority. Fascism is therefore opposed to that form of democracy which equates a nation to the majority, lowering it to the level of the largest number; but it is the purest form of democracy if the nation be considered as it should be from the point of view of quality rather than quantity, as an idea, the mightiest because the most ethical, the most coherent, the truest, expressing itself in a people as the conscience and will of the few, if not, indeed, of one, and ending to express itself in the conscience and the will of the mass, of the whole group ethnically molded by natural and historical conditions into a nation, advancing, as one conscience and one will, along the self same line of development and spiritual formation. Not a race, nor a geographically defined region, but a people, historically perpetuating itself; a multitude unified by an idea and imbued with the will to live, the will to power, self-consciousness, personality. In so far as it is embodied in a State, this higher personality becomes a nation. It is not the nation which generates the State; that is an antiquated naturalistic concept which afforded a basis for 19th century publicity in favor of national governments. Rather is it the State which creates the nation, conferring volition and therefore real life on a people made aware of their moral unity. The right to national independence does not arise from any merely literary and idealistic form of self-consciousness; still less from a more or less passive and unconscious de facto situation, but from an active, self-conscious, political will expressing itself in action and ready to prove its rights. It arises, in short, from the existence, at least in fieri, of a State. Indeed, it is the State which, as the expression of a universal ethical will, creates the right to national independence. A nation, as expressed in the State, is a living, ethical entity only in so far as it is progressive.
Eh. I like how the Romans/Byzantines did it. Members of a dynasty are selectively chosen based on competence. And under the dynastic principle, heirs are trained from birth specifically for rule.
You want a monarchy because you think its a far more effiecient system, I want a monarchy because I want to see castles built. We are not the same.
Based
Grand architecture is the only architecture
I want a monarchy because it's romantic.
@@tulkipper3555I want a monarchy for all of those reasons!
LMAO
Better to have one tyrant than many
A tyrannical monarch is easier to overthrow than a tyrannical democracy.
The king isnt a tyrant
@@jozebutinar44 he was speaking in extreme
One honest leader ruling for life is better than 10 corrupt ‘elected officials’ leading for 4 years
Bro thinks he understands democracy 💀
I honestly believe that monarchy is the most stable form of government.
Hereditary monarchy is by far the most stable form of government
@@Mr-Weiss why not parliamentary?
@@abdimuse7585 because democracy is cringe
Nerd
@@thebulk5137 cringe😂😂😂
An enlightened monarch is the best form of government. And a good monarch will institute traditions. A sucsesser can then rest on the traditions to avoid tyrannical rule.
Why would we need said traditions? And why do they need to come from a monarch instead of coming from the masses themselves?
@@mr.mystery9338 look around at the masses, they are willfully ignorant, boring, reactive and unimaginative. They are incapable of ruling themselves.
@@mr.mystery9338 Because traditions are solutions to problems we forgot we had. And because the masses are stupid.
I’ve realized that a monarchy is a much better system than the ones that we have today. It prioritizes tradition, and protects the identity and sovereignty of the nation
Why would we need said traditions? And why do they need to come from a monarch instead of coming from the masses themselves?
@@mr.mystery9338 Because traditions are an essential part of the cultural identity of a nation.
@@mr.mystery9338 it comes from the masses but the monarch provides continuity and protection.
Both tradition and progression are important
@amirh2527 European traditions
people say that monarchy i outdated even thought democracy existed since 400 b.c.
I totally agree with your points !
Although it's worth mentioning & pointing out that *Darius the great was one of the very very few absolutely idealistic emperors of human history just like Augustus* !
Absolute monarchy under such characters is unambiguously the best way possible for human evolution & development !
Since any other alternative way is too prone to corruption ! *just as we see today with democracy which is really nothing other than some corrupted politicians ruining everything & fooling people by letting them think their decisions matter* :"(
Also in monarchy if a monarch gets corrupted it's more difficult to fight him since he has an army at his back but the more important thing is that *it's also easier to unite people against 1 corrupted target than several hundreds* !!!
With democracy, people can never ever get United against corruption and incompetence , *since there are too many corrupted targets who individually do not hold that much of a power but together make a very powerful corrupted government that is almost impossible to get rid of* !!!
I believe the one & only thing that is wrong with monarchy is its tradition in choice of succession !!! ( *otherwise it's the best way or form of ruling possible that will undoubtedly direct mankind to greatness & evolution* )
The concept of *an heir to the throne* should be totally removed from monarchy & be replaced by the concept of *competence* instead !!!
Imagine a world that when a competent emperor dies, he's not replaced by an incompetent or corrupted heir but by a competent man/woman who has gone through an extremely difficult contest of competence & then elected as the absolute monarch by the people !!! ( *may he/she be the heir himself/herself or a poor boy/girl in the streets who thought he/she could be more & do more & decided to attend the contest* )
I'm not sure if I could convey myself perfectly :")
*That would be a perfect world*
This is btw my own dream, so you may find many faults with it , but I myself sincerely believe it's the best the way to evolution :)
I have to say Ryan that you've done a great job summarising. Hence the old saying I guess that Augustus should either never have been emperor or he should have been emperor forever. I hadn't thought of the corruption point before.
The only other counterpoint that I have and this is my major one is that with just one leader it means that the state is headed in one person's direction. What works with democracy is that you get this tug of war between left and right which while it wastes a lot of energy as heat it does mean that there is a give and take and there is a middle ground found quite often. Having one leader is great because of the efficiency but even with the best leader it's still just one wo/man's vision and that's raises problems
@@TheLivingPhilosophy Yes indeed I agree !
That old saying is definitely right & the same implies for Darius the great I suppose , since Persia which seemed to be an invincible & all powerful superpower for 1400 years ( considering all the Iranian empires before Islam ) eventually fell *& not because of Islam's power or the muslim conquests in the 7th century ,,, but because of the decisions some of its emperors made which subsequently directed the entire empire to a particular path which resulted to their downfall* !
Also the nearly 800 years of rivalry & conflict & different battles that both Rome & Iran had with each other greatly weakened both empires to their lowest possible points !!! *which even though the names "Iran" & "Rome" take the blame, it really should just be their "emperors" who should take the blame with their decisions that directed their entire empires to 1 particular path which was based on the vision of one man* !
Another important note about monarchy is its relation to other nations/monarchies or its scale & power ; Both Iran & Rome were not only superpowers ( or "the two eyes of the earth" as historians put it ) but they were also neighbors & rivals !!! *In the system of a monarchical world there's always gonna be another equally powerful monarchy who follows the vision of a monarch with a completely opposite or at the very least different attitude & vision, which will cause conflict & often destruction , so other than how much the continuous presence of competence ( like Augustus or Darius ruling forever or never rule anything at all ) matters, another very crucial part is for 1 monarchical system to be accepted by all & rule everything in the world to prevent conflict from ever happening between different nations* !
Perhaps I spoke a bit vaguely so what I basically mean is that both Augustus & Darius should not only have been immortals, they also should have been the ruler of all !!!! Not just one nation even if that nation is as vast & populated as either Persia or Rome , it still is not the entire world & that means at some point another power will rise either in the neighboring lands or in another continent even , that will fight you & your goals.
However as I mentioned, *despite of its flaws monarchy is still the best way of ruling possible for mankind which can lead mankind to greatness & evolution, especially if it follows the vision of a competent & patriot ruler, since the alternatives are all simply too prone to corruption & as you ( or Darius lol ) put it : "AT BEST THERE ARE TOO MANY INFIGHTINGS & A LOT OF LEFTS & RIGHTS" which is not just a guess but is proven to be completely true nowadays* .
Thank you for the taking the time to read this & hearing me out :)
@@ryansmith8345 Interesting take Ryan and while I can see the logic of one world system under one rule I can see how efficient it would be but ultimately I just don't have the heart for it! I think that such a system would end up becoming ossified and because it is a total system it would have no chance of replenishing itself without total collapse. So while I think the total monarchial system would be the most efficient for the period of its rule I think over a longer time scale it would inevitably collapse and so I would opt for the constant preservation of chaos in the system. Admittedly I feel like we have a little too much now but maybe that's a local phenemenon. I think the chaos allows for a new order to emerge to replace the old as the French and American Revolutions allowed to happen in their countries. At that point the scales had become too uneven and so the chaos in the system set about rejuvenating the system (it took rivers of blood of course which is why I prefer that we be sparing with our revolutions. This long term resilience of the system has got to take precedence over the productivity of the system at any point in time
That s why absolute monarchies failed. The people united against that one monarch's corruption and it was lights out. Thank God for that btw. Just look at Russia and China and France for examples.
back in your sanity, restore your monarchy 🔥
Another interesting gem. Thank you! I wonder what Darius would have thought of the arguments exchanged at the Constitutional Convention of Philadelphia, which largely revisited these same issues in a very similar situation.
Monarchy forms in a way that might not work for modern societies because it requires an authoritative means for establishing a rightful royal line. In all cases, this authority took form as a state religion to endorse the monarch by the authority of a higher power. The Achaemenid kings had the benefit of a very liberal state religion that welcomed and recognized all others within the empire, which minimized friction, and everyone under Persian rule enjoyed virtually the same religious freedoms most do today. However the king was crowned by the will Ahura Mazda alone --- and nobody dare say otherwise.
A model like this might have made sense to people even just two centuries ago. Even enlightenment philosophers, who despised religion, at times argued for the practicality of 'playing along' with the superstitions baked into monarchy (Frederick the Great being among them, despite being crowned in the name of a god he personally didn't believe existed). Today however, most would just find the idea silly and demeaning. There's no going back now. Reminds of that line from the movie Patton where the salty-ass general remarks, "The world grew up, its a hell of a shame."
Thanks Scott!! Glad you enjoyed it! If we set aside the idea of bloodline I think there is room to see it as being far from irrelevant. Look at the likes of Xi Jinping in China or Putin in Russia. These are essentially monarchs (taking monarch in this sense as rule by one rather than the more accurate use of the term as relating to hereditary rulership) in modernity. And looking at the state of the US these days it seems that an enantiodromia might be very close. There's a fantastic article in the economist (link is here www.economist.com/international/2021/01/16/political-theorists-have-been-worrying-about-mob-rule-for-2000-years but unfortunately it's behind a paywall) about Plato and Aristotle's observation that democracy ultimately turns into its opposite - tyranny. The French Revolution and the Roman Republic are the two shining examples of this. With the French Revolution it was an immediate transformation between 1789 and Napoleon's rise to power in 1799. With Rome it took a lot longer and looking at America today it's worth pausing to consider whether we are at such a focal point in history yet again. Religious sanction royal rule might be gone but the First Citizen might just be slouching towards Washington to be born
@@TheLivingPhilosophy This is serously 100% USDA Approved food for thought. No response at this time. This hits a nerve; it's a matter that impacts all of us right now. Democracy is at a crossroads, and autocracy is a sharp and hard-core competator.
Here's to team Democracy, for better or worse.
As always, thanks for the friendly insights.
@@TheCyberianWonder Haha!! This elicited a giggle from me. I've always aspire to create 100% USDA approved food for thought (ask my friends it's been my motto for years) we certainly live in curious times
And as always to you thanks for the top quality comment
People often come up with the argument that we can’t vote out a tyrannical monarch as we could a president but I think Covid showed something different. Look how many leaders who trampled on basic human rights (in the western world) who are still in charge.
I feel like Prussia and Especially the German Empire make a good case for monarchy. They had consistent and effective kings. Like the formation of Prussia as a huge military force in Europe literally required 4- 5 good kings which Prussia got.
I mean Prussia mainly had Frederick II who basically single-handedly made Prussia into a great power. Prussia after that had pretty weak and mediocre kings (Frederick Wilhelm 2, 3, and 4) and Austria reasserted itself as the leading German power, especially under Metternich. It was only when Bismarck took power that Prussia had its major resurgence into dominance due to winning crucial wars in the 1860/70s. Wilhelm I didn't do much as his reign was dominated by Bismarck, Frederick III died after 3 months, and Wilhelm II destroyed his empire. IMO Prussia has only really had one good king since the mid-1700s, Frederick II.
@@shehannanayakkara4162 Wow - you guys would make really great slaves.
Monarchy under the right rulers is the best, but under the wrong rulers, it the worst, and the exact same thing goes for democracy, oligarchy, or any other system.
This was Darius's argument. His point was that if you had the best of each monarchy would come out on top
@@TheLivingPhilosophy same argument for dictatorships. Under Hitler Germany was more successful than ever.
@@TheLivingPhilosophy still I don't accept inheritance of power and tax exemption
@@konyvnyelv. due to ur envy and jealousy
@@malopephasha5341 due to justice and equality of rights for everyone.
" A plan br0ken up into as many parts as there are heads in the m0b loses all homogeneity and thereby becom3s unintelligible and impossibl3 of execution"....
This applies to a plan broken up into 2 parts just as well as it applies to a plan broken up into 100. Only a dynastic ruler can elaborate on plans that span hundreds of years in scale, and pass on the knowledge to their heirs properly in order that the plans be executed. We must remember that "Civilization" is not a thing, but a process ("-ization" denotes a process, not a thing), it is the process of shedding our brute and combative tendencies in favor of harmony and peace, and this process requires a considerably large and coherent plan, which a mob of people are incapable of producing.
I also deliberately mucked up the first quote because it is taken from a heavily censored source material which would likely result in the instantaneous deletion of my comment.
Good thinkin', man.
Monarchy and Divinity are inextricably linked.
There's no such thing as a bad Monarch, as long as The Priesthood continually converts His [mis]deeds into Lessons.
The so-called "Illuminated Ones" (b. 01May1776) poisoned the world with, among other things, the concept of "separation of church and state".
(Of course, it goes back further, but this is the contemporary nexus.)
The problem with religion is that it gets too specific, by development of tradition and dogma, to secure power, by specialization and repetition.
Q: How do you know that you are suffering?
A: You realize that someone else is suffering.
If you need to be told, twice, then you're a slow learner.
Three times, and you're in trouble.
Before the fourth, you're wormfood.
Mercy, though, is where Perfection is.
Tens, Fifties, Hundreds, Thousands, Officers, and Princes, under The King, subject to The Priests, with Advice of The Prophets, and Blessing of God.
Mercy is Perfection, but Ignorance is Death, and The Law is Truth.
Read the first 6 chapters of Deuteronomy, and cherry-pick from Proverbs, all you want.
There's Jeremiah 31, for You.
No perfect government, no perfect religion, no perfect human. Weird when you see how it can all fall down so easily.
Agreed it's just a little bit scary
Christ is god
@@CaptainNathan-h7r no, he isnt, in Christianity he is the son of god
Jesus is God, Son of the Father. The confusion comes because “God” can be referring to God the Father specifically or God the Being who is three Divine Persons in one.
I really just want better architecture.
🤣
None of those systems of government that you listed, would be my recommendation. A constitutional representative republic would be mine. Democracy is one of, if not the worst forms of government ever conceived by the mind of man. It is inefficient, inept, and the raw tyranny of the majority.
I would agree with you that a Constitutional Republic would be best if not for the fact that we tried that in the US, and it only lasted about 100 years before it was defeated.
What we now have is a mixed system - partly Welfare Statism - partly Corporatism (fka fascism).
My preference would be the design that the founders ALMOST chose: Laissez Faire Capitalism - a system that allows for a government whose ONLY function is the protection of INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.
Any power left in the hands of government will attract people seeking power over others. That is why we have such poor leadership today - we ONLY attract power-hungry people. The "good guys" are repulsed by the thought of working within such a system.
I think it’s kind of like index funds(democracy) and picking stocks(monarchy). Where the more stocks you have the more mediocre you perform, and the less stocks the more volatile your outcomes are.( Marcus Aurelius or Nero)
Both of those emperors were awesome emperors. Who told you they are volatile?
@@mr.mystery9338 I meant Marcus Aurelius was one of the best. Whereas generally Nero is considered the worst, but I honestly don’t know much about his reign.
@@rico14 christian parasites wrote slander about him because he rightfully persecuted them by the scores. This is how the first revisionist historian was born.
@@mr.mystery9338 well I guess I need to learn more then. Thank you for the information
Really enjoyed this video
Christianity created amazing kings when properly followed I agree with imisschristendom
King St Louis IX, Charlemagne, Clovis, Carlos III, and Carlos I were among the best.
@@thekingshussar1808 I do have a question, we hear about a whole bunch of things that emperor Constantine and Charlemagne did like forced conversions, killings, etc but yet we read the church's account of them and it's almost a 180° flip. Were they bad people or no? I've just recently started to study the real churches history and I am learning still and were taught the other side in public school all in all. Will you help a brother out here. Grew up protestant most my life but I'm not anymore I currently attend an Eastern Orthodox Church but before I officially choose I'm also studying and plan to attend a Catholic church for a little while to learn the western side of church history too because catholicism does make sense in context of church history and the east seems to like to forget the west's side of Christian history and the power they held back then. After all the Roman empire was completely collegial in church and state. State east and church west.
@@Johnathan909309 Constantine had a Cult of Sol Invictus upbringing, he wasn't officially a baptised Christian until the last moments of his death so he committed some terrible and sometimes unnecessary things like the murder of his own son (which was done out of a false rumour that his own son plotting usurp him, and Roman traditional family was based on Pater Familias that the Father has ultimate authority of everything even Life) which he later regretted.
As for Charlemagne, he did forced conversion of Pagan vassals out of their disloyalty towards him. He had a mix of Frankish and Latin upbringing, he was an unusual product of his time because he united the Frankish lands and was pro-Christian.
Protestants like to criticise these figures out of straws to demean the reputation of Catholic history while not presenting the whole historical narrative.
And I don't get why would they even dislike Charlemagne because that was literally the necessary actions of Europe's Christianisation surrounded by warrior societies and that earned Christians respect. Even their most revered church father St. Augustine once quoted, "The annihilation of the superstitions of pagans is what God wills, God proclaims, and God commands."
@@thekingshussar1808 agreed and I was jw cuz I find both of their lives rather fascinating based on what I have read so far. How could Constantine believed in Christ and in sol Invictus? If he saw the sign of the cross but continued to worship sol then did he equate the two as one?
@@Johnathan909309 Constantine did equate two as one in a sense of centralising religion and to his advantage after receiving a dream that he'll win the Battle of Milvian Bridge with the sign of the Cross or the Chi Rho. He would later convene the Council of Nicaea to learn what Christianity really is from elders (bishops) who represented once underground Christian communities.
UNEXPURGATED PISH 😊
Archies and Cracies are not equivalent
Whenever I think about monarchy I think of Marie Antoinette and her ridiculous hats.
I'm down for an emperor but not a dynasty, unfortunately they're more often than not one and the same.
Ah yes but there's the rub. The trouble with these things is how to pick a good successor. One of my favourite quotes about Augustus is that "he should have been emperor forever or he should never have been emperor"
@@TheLivingPhilosophy I think the US should be devided into empires, the empire of California has the kingdom of Nevada, baja California, sonora, sinaloa, Hawaii Colorado and Utah under its sovereignty, the emperor of California answers only to augustus, the ruler of North America.
How to pick the augustus? Simple, we leave it to the kings to choose from the emperors, there would be about 12 sovereign empires within the continent to choose from and it would be hurdles and barb wire to make it up there to begin with. So I would trust the vote of the now 75 kings to choose the next augustus.
The emperors can vote for themselves, doesn't matter, it would be better to do it in rounds, eliminating the least voted on like in France.
@@jimpachihaihachima1753 it's definitely an interesting theoretical thought but I imagine this would usher in all the same power dynamics that sees the United States choose Donald Trump and Joe Biden out of 400 million people. Sometimes I feel like the Ancient Athenian democracy would be better off and it's hard to believe that you could find a less competent person if you threw a dart into the crowd. It would at least undercut the warped game dynamics that put a straitjacket around any leader who attains power through this tiered sort of system.
Except in the case of Rome/Byzantium, there were some dynasties but often the Emperor was chosen based on them being axios, worthy, and not necessarily choses from royal stock.
If there is an emperor like Cyrus the great then monarchy is the greatest
Emperorship isn't monarchy though - a monarch gives their children the Kingdom.
A good point
As much as I don't like a monarchy it's probably the most stable. But instead of 1 ruler it needs to be 2. So a Diarchy.
Ah but see then you are halfway to an oligarchy and you've lost the elegant unity of the monarchy
♓️
Double slit experiment dawg
The monochord has 2 ends like polarity. 👍 I think you're mistaken. Otherwise 1 person has to play both roles. It's really king and queen so it's two regardless.
" A plan br0ken up into as many parts as there are heads in the m0b loses all homogeneity and thereby becom3s unintelligible and impossibl3 of execution"....
This applies to a plan broken up into 2 parts just as well as it applies to a plan broken up into 100. Only a dynastic ruler can elaborate on plans that span hundreds of years in scale, and pass on the knowledge to their heirs properly in order that the plans be executed. We must remember that "Civilization" is not a thing, but a process ("-ization" denotes a process, not a thing), it is the process of shedding our brute and combative tendencies in favor of harmony and peace, and this process requires a considerably large and coherent plan, which a mob of people are incapable of producing.
I also deliberately mucked up the first quote because it is taken from a heavily censored source material which would likely result in the instantaneous deletion of my comment.
A republican government does include monarchy, as a holos, within itself by the office of the president or prime minister or commander in chief. Actual monarchs are outdated for the reasons you elucidate in the vid, but the wisdom of monarchy is sustained within a republic by including the office of the monarch. This why a republic is the best model so far because it includes monarchy and democracy, centralization and decentralization.
What kind of monarchy, Absolute??
What other types are there? I know there's like republican but it's obviously not that. Darius was obviously absolute
@@TheLivingPhilosophy I don’t think an absolute monarchy is a good idea to much power in the hands of a man he I think a parliamentary monarchy is better fitting for us
@@TheLivingPhilosophy & Darius the great was one of the very very few absolutely idealistic emperors of human history just like Augustus !
Absolute monarchy under such characters is unambiguously the best way possible for human evolution & development !
the strict dualism between absolute and constitutional monarchy is a meme, all monarchies have an aspect of both in different proportions. Even the Prussian monarchy of which it was said it was an army with a state instead of a state with an army and whose king was the absolute military leader, de facto had significant bottom up input and social mobility from officers, cadets and even common soldiery.
The situation is not too dissimilar from representative Vs direct democracy now that I think about it.
You know, Darius was actually brought into power, when his wife, the daughter of Cyrus, told him that someone had taken over her brothers throne. Then Darius comes, defeats his wife's brothers imposter. And is chosen to become the king of kings!
“The Doctrine of Fascism” (1932)
by Benito Mussolini
Like all sound political conceptions, Fascism is
action and it is thought; action in which
doctrine is immanent, and doctrine arising
from a given system of historical forces in
which it is inserted, and working on them from
within. It has therefore a form correlated to
contingencies of time and space; but it has also an
ideal content which makes it an expression of truth in
the higher region of the history of thought. There is
no way of exercising a spiritual influence in the world
as a human will dominating the will of others, unless
one has a conception both of the transient and the
specific reality on which that action is to be exercised,
and of the permanent and universal reality in which
the transient dwells and has its being. To know men
one must know man; and to know man one must be
acquainted with reality and its laws. There can be no
conception of the State which is not fundamentally a
conception of life: philosophy or intuition, system of
ideas evolving within the framework of logic or
concentrated in a vision or a faith, but always, at least
potentially, an organic conception of the world.
Thus many of the practical expressions of Fascism
such as party organization, system of education,
and discipline can only be understood when
considered in relation to its general attitude toward
life. A spiritual attitude. Fascism sees in the world
not only those superficial, material aspects
in which man appears as an individual, standing by
himself, self-centered, subject to natural law, which
instinctively urges him toward a life of selfish
momentary pleasure; it sees not only the
individual but the nation and the country;
individuals and generations bound together by a
moral law, with common traditions and a mission
which suppressing the instinct for life closed in a
brief circle of pleasure, builds up a higher life,
founded on duty, a life free from the limitations of
time and space, in which the individual, by selfsacrifice, the renunciation of self-interest, by death
itself, can achieve that purely spiritual existence in
which his value as a man consists.
The conception is therefore a spiritual one, arising
from the general reaction of the century against the
materialistic positivism of the 19th century. Antipositivistic but positive; neither skeptical nor
agnostic; neither pessimistic nor supinely optimistic
as are, generally speaking, the doctrines (all
negative) which place the center of life outside man;
whereas, by the exercise of his free will, man can
and must create his own world.
Fascism wants man to be active and to engage in
action with all his energies; it wants him to be
manfully aware of the difficulties besetting him
and ready to face them. It conceives of life as a
struggle in which it behooves a man to win for himself a
really worthy place, first of all by fitting himself
(physically, morally, intellectually) to become the
implement required for winning it. As for the
individual, so for the nation, and so for mankind.
Hence the high value of culture in all its forms
(artistic, religious, scientific) and the
outstanding importance of education. Hence also
the essential value of work, by which man subjugates
nature and creates the human world (economic,
political, ethical, and intellectual).
This positive conception of life is obviously
an ethical one. It invests the whole field of
reality as well as the human activities which
master it. No action is exempt from moral
judgment; no activity can be despoiled of the
value which a moral purpose confers on
all things. Therefore life, as conceived of
by the Fascist, is serious, austere, and
religious; all its manifestations are poised in
a world sustained by moral forces and
subject to spiritual responsibilities. The
Fascist disdains an “easy” life.
The Fascist conception of life is a religious one, in
which man is viewed in his immanent relation to a
higher law, endowed with an objective will
transcending the individual and raising him to
conscious membership of a spiritual society.
“Those who perceive nothing beyond opportunistic
considerations in the religious policy of the
Fascist regime fail to realize that Fascism is not only a
system of government but also and above all a system
of thought.
In the Fascist conception of history, man is man only
by virtue of the spiritual process to which he
contributes as a member of the family, the social
group, the nation, and in function of history to which
all nations bring their contribution. Hence the great
value of tradition in records, in language, in customs, in
the rules of social life. Outside history man is a
nonentity. Fascism is therefore opposed to all
individualistic abstractions based on eighteenth
century materialism; and it is opposed to all
Jacobinistic utopias and innovations. It does not
believe in the possibility of “happiness” on earth
as conceived by the economistic literature of
the 18th century, and it therefore rejects the
theological notion that at some future time the
human family will secure a final settlement of all its
difficulties. This notion runs counter to experience
which teaches that life is in continual flux and in
process of evolution. In politics Fascism aims at
realism; in practice it desires to deal only with those
problems which are the spontaneous product of
historic conditions and which find or suggest
their own solutions. Only by entering in to the
process of reality and taking possession of the forces
at work within it, can man act on man and on nature.
Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life
stresses the importance of the State and accepts the
individual only in so far as his interests coincide
with those of the State, which stands for the
conscience and the universal, will of man as a
historic entity. It is opposed to classical liberalism
which arose as a reaction to absolutism and
exhausted its historical function when the State
became the expression of the conscience and will of
the people. Liberalism denied the State in the name
of the individual; Fascism reasserts
The rights of the State as expressing the real essence
of the individual. And if liberty is to he the attribute of
living men and not of abstract dummies invented by
individualistic liberalism, then Fascism stands for
liberty, and for the only liberty worth having, the
liberty of the State and of the individual within the
State. The Fascist conception of the State is all
embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values
can exist, much less have value. Thus understood,
Fascism, is totalitarian, and the Fascist State - a
synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values -
interprets, develops, and potentates the whole life of a
people.
No individuals or groups (political parties, cultural
associations, economic unions, social classes) outside
the State. Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism to
which unity within the State (which amalgamates
classes into a single economic and ethical reality) is
unknown, and which sees in history nothing but the
class struggle. Fascism is likewise opposed to trade
unionism as a class weapon. But when brought
within the orbit of the State, Fascism recognizes the
real needs which gave rise to socialism and
trade unionism, giving them due weight in the guild
or corporative system in which divergent interests
are coordinated and harmonized in the unity of the
State.
Grouped according to their several interests,
individuals form classes; they form trade-unions
when organized according to their several economic
activities; but first and foremost they form the State,
which is no mere matter of numbers, the suns of the
individuals forming the majority. Fascism is
therefore opposed to that form of democracy
which equates a nation to the majority, lowering it to
the level of the largest number; but it is the purest form
of democracy if the nation be considered as it should
be from the point of view of quality rather than
quantity, as an idea, the mightiest because the
most ethical, the most coherent, the truest,
expressing itself in a people as the conscience
and will of the few, if not, indeed, of one, and
ending to express itself in the conscience and the
will of the mass, of the whole group ethnically
molded by natural and historical conditions into a
nation, advancing, as one conscience and one will,
along the self same line of development and spiritual
formation. Not a race, nor a geographically
defined region, but a people, historically
perpetuating itself; a multitude unified by an
idea and imbued with the will to live, the will to
power, self-consciousness, personality.
In so far as it is embodied in a State, this higher
personality becomes a nation. It is not the nation
which generates the State; that is an antiquated
naturalistic concept which afforded a basis for
19th century publicity in favor of national
governments. Rather is it the State which creates
the nation, conferring volition and therefore real
life on a people made aware of their moral unity.
The right to national independence does not
arise from any merely literary and idealistic form
of self-consciousness; still less from a more or
less passive and unconscious de facto situation,
but from an active, self-conscious, political will
expressing itself in action and ready to prove its
rights. It arises, in short, from the existence, at
least in fieri, of a State. Indeed, it is the State
which, as the expression of a universal ethical
will, creates the right to national independence.
A nation, as expressed in the State, is a living,
ethical entity only in so far as it is progressive.
For me a democratic monarchy is the best.
Eh. I like how the Romans/Byzantines did it. Members of a dynasty are selectively chosen based on competence. And under the dynastic principle, heirs are trained from birth specifically for rule.