Actually there is something worse -

an immoral man with absolute power

Elective Absolute Monarchy @Simmons ☧

Who are the electors? @Maksim

@Simmons ☧ Supreme Court - requirements for monarch bidding include a confirmed IQ of above 140, being a Nationalist, history of public service, history of generosity

I'm a proud white American

cool

*drops mic and walks away*

Generosity in what sense? In the monetary sense I’d personally prefer a penny pincher to be put in power than a generous man, since the former will be more careful about extravagant spending.

As for IQ, I find that IQ points tend to not be the best indicator of intelligence since it mainly measures how well you can detect patterns.

And the elective nature of the monarchy doesn’t preclude the problems with authoritarian nature of the regime, such as the power hungry sycophants, internal struggles, potential coups etc. Likewise it also invests a lot power in this court which can be used as a political weapon and might encourage partisan tensions.

@Maksim What do you think?

The HRE was elective until the monarchs started getting the electors to keep voting inside of the emperors family, so the Salian dynasty held it for an incredibly long time.

@Simmons ☧

Pattern recognizing is a vital tool in international affairs. Furthermore, my generosity I mean aiding those in need - this might be measured by percentage of income spent on charity as opposed to just how much, since a rich man can obviously donate more but is he donating the same percentage as a poor man is. Extravagant spending I agree is undesirable - but I am not a conservative spender, I definitely lean towards more government spending (but without increasing debt)

If charity becomes a requirement for the title, doesn’t it lead to the purpose of charity (helping you me fellow man) being diluted? Wouldn’t people just give so they can claim to be an altruist rather than because they actually are?

And does that matter in your opinion?

@Simmons ☧ I would suggest keeping this charity requirement not public

So only the electors know the requirement

So not even the prospective kings themselves know?

Yes

Interesting workaround.

So with the IQ issue, would you prefer a pattern minded type rather than a Plato esque ‘*philosopher-king*’ ideal monarch?

Philosophy is a load of horseshit change my mind

I like the introspective kind of intelligence myself, it breeds wisdom I think.

That statement in of itself was philosophy @Maksim

*cries*

oh my gods

Colossians 2:8

**Colossians 2:8 - Good News Translation (GNT)**

```Dust


<8> See to it, then, that no one enslaves you by means of the worthless deceit of human wisdom, which comes from the teachings handed down by human beings and from the ruling spirits of the universe, and not from Christ. ```

gods

Every single one of you here are all Racial Pagans whether you like it or not.

This is a historical fact.

I shall worship the Orishas then

That's just African Paganism..

I’m off to make a sacrifice to Ogun brb

🤦

Bruh what is a racial pagan then?

@Simmons ☧ what you said si correct but you didn't really address my points. Men do seek to profit themselves by grabbing power, that is what "unsecure power seeks to secure itself" means. To claim absolute power is more unstable has only been correct in the context of being took over by an enemy state or group, which is obviously not absolute power.

You seem to confuse absolutism with authoritarianism, which is untrue. To have the power to lead revolutions or overthrow governments, you have to receive that power from somewhere, we can look to the French revolution, or the Russian revolution, the enlightenment, the protestant revolution, classical liberalism, etc all are forwarded by the institutions supporting the power centers. In the instability, you have what is called an *imperium in imperio*, which is basically a state within a state that seeks to undermine the overarching one. The feudal European system was nearly entirely absolutist. The church was an incredibly powerful institution that kept kings and lords in place, the lords served the king, etc. Feudalism is actually used as an example of this, because sometimes lords or kings became power hungry, and would set up their own institutions to grow taxes, war, kingdoms, etc. and would utilize various tactics to gain power. This includes the protestant revolution, and the enlightenment period, which had laughably bad philosophy, but was pushed through the institutions by the Whiggs.

A lot of what you say is directly addressed in most Nrx circles.

It means your ancestors/race were originally Pagans, if you're Gentile then Paganism is your racial/ancestral religion

It was still antiquity when my ancestors converted so I don’t much stock in my mud hut dwelling ancestors and their pre-Christian beliefs.

@Simmons ☧ A king must not be a "Philosopher". He must be a devout Christian as human wisdom is worthless - only divine wisdom matters

That's my stance

Oh then sure, my ancestors before being kidnapped were pagan

I'm talking about tens of thousands of years ago, not recent times. The ancient Pagan civilizations were very advanced while the Christard Dark ages lived as slaves/barbarians

That's is historically untrue