https://accelerationist.substack.com/p/the-french-aristocracys-secret-selective
Summary: "Membership is by invitation only, and to my knowledge there isn’t a single rallye that even has a website."
"It’s also telling that the name for the institution is really a nickname, because there is no formal name for it."
If aristocratic families are 0.1% of the population, that's 1 in 1000, as I estimated earlier.
Note that even if every child of an aristocrat is also an aristocrat, the spontaneous generation segment, lowborn aristocrats, have to be no more than 1 in 1000 commoner births for such aristocrats to outnumber the well-bred type. That's before factoring in the larger family sizes of commoners. Naturally nobody does studies on aristocrats so we can't get a clean fertility number.
Also note the harmony with my assertion that the aristocracy wasn't fired, they quit. Popular rule occurs out of necessity, when the upper classers can no longer be arsed. It only even appears to be a fight due to a few stragglers who lose track of the times, who conveniently manufacture some symbolic victories for the rabble.
12 comments:
Modern royals are an argument in the opposite direction, such as the Norwegian prince Haakon marrying the daughter of a criminal, who produced a criminal son. Likewise the kings overthrown violently di not seem wise, such as luis16th, kaiser Wilhelm or tsar nicholas.
Opposite from aristocracy being able to keep ruling, that is.
Yes, loser kings are generally more losers and less kings. If they weren't such cucks they would have won instead. Louis was terribly afflicted with christian [compassion]. Kindness to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent, and he received his just rewards.
Modern royals all permitted Democracy to occur. I.e. the royal family fell a while back, they're merely upper middle class.
Elizabeth was psychopathically impressive, but only on the scale of a mid-sized business. Absolute ace at middle-manager office politics, see?
Monarchy is dysgenic, and it is particularly dysgenic to the royals, who bear the greatest fault.
If the monarchy held any real power, if it was still royal and monarchical, this is the kind of royal who gets dismembered by william the conquerer or william of orange. Because the institution was gutted and is being worn as a skinsuit, they get to linger instead.
If monarchy is dysgenic and democracy satanist than what remains? There were some societies that picked nonhereditary lifetime chieftains. Early medieval norse for a while, and slavs for longer, also some american indian tribes and african kingdoms. Ancient germans too. Example method would be an assembly of warrior age and older men gathers after chiefs death, and they alternate between listening to arguments of respected members and yelling agreement or disagreement to candidates breaklessly for as long as it takes to get clear majority agreement. Or was that system just as bad too?
White government. The heredity is not directly relevant.
If white government can be nonhereditary, this means someone else than previous leader chooses the next one, and since a single person doing that would have been the leader already, it means voting. So do you mean to say that white government can have its leader voted in? But voting for leaders makes politics drive them! And I dont see how can leadership succession that isnt hereditary not involve voting.
If government has Exit political formula, and maybe also doesn't collect rents, it doesn't matter what drives it, but how does a government which has elected leader not immediately go black due to politics. Even if leader is chosen not by commoners, but by say a dozen aristocrats, they could still vote for government leader favourable to some of them at expense of others, and from there downhill to black government.
I guess its like what you wrote sometime earlier that every organization will get corrupt eventually and its point less to fight this, so one should just leave when it does. So the mechanism of choosing leaders matters little, white government is going to have limited lifespan anyway. But is it even possible to go from black government to white government? Otherwise it seems like eventually there have to be only black governments worldwide even if starting from only white ones. Conquest perhaps?
Ultimately you get the government you deserve. E.g. the Amish do not suffer black government.
It's not like a pipe that can leak, but you can fix the leak. It can't not work as intended. This pipe you can only change by changing folk who use the pipe, because what you deserve is determined by who you are, because what you do is determined by who you are.
As always, Revenge is Sour. If the individuals could be changed they would have already been changed.
So merely acting to implement better government wont work even if how its supposed to look like is known and everyone does it? Its the karmic Wealth cap, isnt it?
But Liechtensteiners did something like that, they gave the Prince of Liechtenstein more power including to veto laws, dissolve parlament for a new one to be elected and dismiss prime minister and ministers at will, and it seemingly helped. en.Wikipedia.org.wiki/2003_Liechtenstein_constitutional_referendum I dont think they changed themselves in 2003?
They were changing, therefore, by 2003, laws could be passed.
Post a Comment