Layout Options
Which layout option do you want to use?
Wide
Boxed
Color Schemes
Which theme color do you want to use? Select from here.
Reset color
Reset Background
Forums
New posts
Trending
Random
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Rules
Libraries
New Audios
New Comments
Search Profile Audios
Clubs
Public Events
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Trending
Random
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Forums
Boards
/rps/ - Religion, Philosophy & Spirituality
The aryan man is superior culturally, they are the founders of civilization Sieg Heil
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Naofumi" data-source="post: 47493" data-attributes="member: 39"><p>at the product itself while in operation, I think this alone will suffice to</p><p>open the eyes of even the most innocent and na'ive person, so that he may</p><p>recognize the absurdity of this institution by looking at it objectively.</p><p>This human aberration is as harmful as it is absurd. In order to see this,</p><p>the best and easiest method is to compare democratic parliamentarianism</p><p>with a genuine German democracy.</p><p>The remarkable characteristic of the parliamentary form of democracy</p><p>is the fact that a number of persons, let us say 500-these days, including</p><p>women also--are elected to parliament and invested with authority to give</p><p>final judgment on everything. In practice, they alone are the governing body;</p><p>for although they may appoint a cabinet that outwardly seems to direct state</p><p>affairs, this cabinet has no real existence of its own. In reality this so-called</p><p>government can't do anything against the will of the assembly. It can never</p><p>be called to account for anything, since the right of decision is not vested in</p><p>the cabinet but in the parliamentary majority. The cabinet always functions</p><p>only as the executor of the will of the majority. Its political ability can be</p><p>judged only by how far it succeeds in adapting to the will of the majority,</p><p>or in persuading the majority to agree to its proposals.</p><p>But this means that it must descend from the level of a real governing</p><p>power to that of a beggar, one who has to beg for the approval of a majority.</p><p>Indeed, the main job of the cabinet is to secure for itself the favor of the</p><p>majority then in power or, failing that, to form a new majority that will be</p><p>more favorably disposed. If it should succeed in either of these efforts, it</p><p>may go on 'governing' for a little while. If it should fail to win or form a</p><p>majority, it must resign. Whether its policy per se was right or wrong</p><p>doesn't matter at all.</p><p>For all practical purposes, responsibility is abolished.</p><p>The consequences of such a state of affairs can easily be understood</p><p>from the following simple considerations:</p><p>Those 500 deputies who have been elected by the people come from</p><p>various dissimilar callings in life; they show widely varying degrees of</p><p>political capacity, with the result that the whole picture is incoherent and</p><p>deplorable. Surely nobody believes that these elected representatives of the</p><p>nation are the choice spirits or first-class intellects! No one, I hope, i s</p><p>foolish enough to pretend that hundreds o f true statesmen can emerge from</p><p>papers placed in the ballot box by voters who are just of average</p><p>intelligence.</p><p>The absurd notion that men of genius are born out of universal suffrage</p><p>cannot be too strongly repudiated. In the first place, those times may be</p><p>1 1 8</p><p>CHAPTER 3</p><p>really called blessed when one genuine statesman appears among a people.</p><p>Such statesmen don't appear by the hundreds or more. Secondly, the broad</p><p>masses instinctively display a definite antipathy towards every outstanding</p><p>genius. There's a better chance of a camel passing through the eye of a</p><p>needle than of a truly great man being 'discovered' through an election.</p><p>Throughout world history, exceptional events have mostly been due to</p><p>the driving force of an individual personality.</p><p>But here, 500 persons of sub-par intellectual qualities pass judgment</p><p>on the most important problems affecting the nation. They form</p><p>governments, that in tum learn to win the approval of the illustrious</p><p>assembly for every legislative step-which means that the policy to be</p><p>carried out is actually the policy of the 500.</p><p>And that's just what it usually looks like.</p><p>But let's pass over the intellectual qualities of these representatives and</p><p>ask what is the nature of the task set before them. If we consider the fact</p><p>that the problems to be addressed are variable and diverse, we can very</p><p>well realize how inefficient a governing system must be that entrusts the</p><p>right of decision to a mass assembly, one in which only very few possess</p><p>the requisite knowledge and experience to properly deal with the matters.</p><p>The most important economic measures are submitted to a tribunal in which</p><p>not more than 1 0 percent have studied economics. This means that final</p><p>authority is vested in men who are utterly devoid of any preparatory</p><p>training that would make them competent to decide on the questions at</p><p>hand.</p><p>The same holds true of every other problem. It's always a majority of</p><p>ignorant and incompetent people who decide on each measure. The</p><p>composition of the institution does not change, while the problems to be</p><p>dealt with come from the most varied spheres of public life. An intelligent</p><p>judgment would be possible only if different deputies had the authority to</p><p>deal with different issues. It's out of the question to think that the same</p><p>people are qualified to decide on transportation questions as well as, say,</p><p>on questions of foreign policy-unless each is a universal genius. But</p><p>scarcely more than one true genius appears in a century.</p><p>Here we are scarcely ever dealing with real thinkers, but only with</p><p>dilettantes who are as narrow-minded as they are conceited and arrogant</p><p>intellectual prostitutes of the worst kind. That's why these honorable</p><p>gentlemen show such astonishing levity in debating matters that would</p><p>demand the most painstaking consideration, even from great minds.</p><p>Measures of momentous importance for the future existence of the state</p><p>1 1 9</p><p>MEIN KAMPF</p><p>are discussed in an atmosphere more suited to the card-table. Indeed, the</p><p>latter would be a much more fitting occupation for these gentlemen than</p><p>that of deciding the destinies of a race.</p><p>Of course, it would be unfair to assume that every member in such a</p><p>parliament was endowed by nature with such a small sense of responsibility.</p><p>No, by no means.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Naofumi, post: 47493, member: 39"] at the product itself while in operation, I think this alone will suffice to open the eyes of even the most innocent and na'ive person, so that he may recognize the absurdity of this institution by looking at it objectively. This human aberration is as harmful as it is absurd. In order to see this, the best and easiest method is to compare democratic parliamentarianism with a genuine German democracy. The remarkable characteristic of the parliamentary form of democracy is the fact that a number of persons, let us say 500-these days, including women also--are elected to parliament and invested with authority to give final judgment on everything. In practice, they alone are the governing body; for although they may appoint a cabinet that outwardly seems to direct state affairs, this cabinet has no real existence of its own. In reality this so-called government can't do anything against the will of the assembly. It can never be called to account for anything, since the right of decision is not vested in the cabinet but in the parliamentary majority. The cabinet always functions only as the executor of the will of the majority. Its political ability can be judged only by how far it succeeds in adapting to the will of the majority, or in persuading the majority to agree to its proposals. But this means that it must descend from the level of a real governing power to that of a beggar, one who has to beg for the approval of a majority. Indeed, the main job of the cabinet is to secure for itself the favor of the majority then in power or, failing that, to form a new majority that will be more favorably disposed. If it should succeed in either of these efforts, it may go on 'governing' for a little while. If it should fail to win or form a majority, it must resign. Whether its policy per se was right or wrong doesn't matter at all. For all practical purposes, responsibility is abolished. The consequences of such a state of affairs can easily be understood from the following simple considerations: Those 500 deputies who have been elected by the people come from various dissimilar callings in life; they show widely varying degrees of political capacity, with the result that the whole picture is incoherent and deplorable. Surely nobody believes that these elected representatives of the nation are the choice spirits or first-class intellects! No one, I hope, i s foolish enough to pretend that hundreds o f true statesmen can emerge from papers placed in the ballot box by voters who are just of average intelligence. The absurd notion that men of genius are born out of universal suffrage cannot be too strongly repudiated. In the first place, those times may be 1 1 8 CHAPTER 3 really called blessed when one genuine statesman appears among a people. Such statesmen don't appear by the hundreds or more. Secondly, the broad masses instinctively display a definite antipathy towards every outstanding genius. There's a better chance of a camel passing through the eye of a needle than of a truly great man being 'discovered' through an election. Throughout world history, exceptional events have mostly been due to the driving force of an individual personality. But here, 500 persons of sub-par intellectual qualities pass judgment on the most important problems affecting the nation. They form governments, that in tum learn to win the approval of the illustrious assembly for every legislative step-which means that the policy to be carried out is actually the policy of the 500. And that's just what it usually looks like. But let's pass over the intellectual qualities of these representatives and ask what is the nature of the task set before them. If we consider the fact that the problems to be addressed are variable and diverse, we can very well realize how inefficient a governing system must be that entrusts the right of decision to a mass assembly, one in which only very few possess the requisite knowledge and experience to properly deal with the matters. The most important economic measures are submitted to a tribunal in which not more than 1 0 percent have studied economics. This means that final authority is vested in men who are utterly devoid of any preparatory training that would make them competent to decide on the questions at hand. The same holds true of every other problem. It's always a majority of ignorant and incompetent people who decide on each measure. The composition of the institution does not change, while the problems to be dealt with come from the most varied spheres of public life. An intelligent judgment would be possible only if different deputies had the authority to deal with different issues. It's out of the question to think that the same people are qualified to decide on transportation questions as well as, say, on questions of foreign policy-unless each is a universal genius. But scarcely more than one true genius appears in a century. Here we are scarcely ever dealing with real thinkers, but only with dilettantes who are as narrow-minded as they are conceited and arrogant intellectual prostitutes of the worst kind. That's why these honorable gentlemen show such astonishing levity in debating matters that would demand the most painstaking consideration, even from great minds. Measures of momentous importance for the future existence of the state 1 1 9 MEIN KAMPF are discussed in an atmosphere more suited to the card-table. Indeed, the latter would be a much more fitting occupation for these gentlemen than that of deciding the destinies of a race. Of course, it would be unfair to assume that every member in such a parliament was endowed by nature with such a small sense of responsibility. No, by no means. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Name
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Boards
/rps/ - Religion, Philosophy & Spirituality
The aryan man is superior culturally, they are the founders of civilization Sieg Heil
Top
