Restore the Aristocracy, end democracy.

Sitting here waiting for my tooth brush to charge listening to Waltz No 2. 

I am in favour of restoring the Aristocratic High State, which was in power in Britain until the 1906 general election. I feel they will know what to do and will restoring a functioning state. 

England has gone down hill massively since 1906 and there is no way this current progressive Liberal ideological interventionist state can fix any of the problems in the country, because they created all of them to begin with by melting in society. 

The High state created common law, Parliament, the currency, the English language, the Anglican Church, the Royal Navy, the civil service so on and so forth. The low state has destroyed all of it in the name of English progressive Liberalism and destroying the High State itself. 

All High art, High culture, High Church Anglicanism, investment in the arts, university, theater, technology and innovation come from the willingness of the Aristocracy to uplift society, rather than changing it. 

The welfare state, NHS, abortion, national trust, privatization of the railways, utilities, post office all comes from the criminal state control of the progressive low state. We had the finest integrated railway network in the world and they ripped it up because they were poor commoners and bought off by the car industry, they used WW1-WW2 to force through there ideology, when there ideology caused those wars and murdered 1,000,000 British people for nothing. 

They also brought forth this new generation of rich people who create nothing of beauty and lasting value, as opposed to the Aristocracy. England was a self-governing society, a union of the High culture and folk culture, which created a wonderful, rich, powerful place. Since the overthrow its become a depressing, poor, weak place which can't function on its own terms, it can't even maintain basic rights like Jury trial. 

  • I feel that the focus is on the deadbeats, the ones who run away if they knock up when the girlfriend's pregnant. There isn't any focus on the guys that step up to the mark, apart from - perhaps - Ladbaby.

    The need to make the State do the parenting is encouraged by the media assuming every struggling family is welfare-dependent. Most Food Bank applicants struggle with mortgage repayments, even though both parents work. It's inflation, and Fiat Currency, destroying our way of living.

  • I don't think you can blame mothers for the internet. You can't blame women for men's behaviours.

    What about fathers? Do fathers not have anything to do with being male role models. 

    Don't regurgitate ideas just cause you've heard them on the internet without thinking them through.

  • Britain is supposed to be a Constitutional Monarchy, just as America is supposed to be a Constitutional Republic.

    The Constitution is what determines Free Society, as opposed to the 'Cater to the Greater' which is Democracy. The manipulation of Public Consent cedes control of Public Life to a Clandestine Cadre who envy the thought of people enjoying themselves. They want to pigenhole us into Cliques, and Tribes, from the Schoolyard to the Workplace. Such division of interest is unable to build morale in a team environment. Choice is now an illusion.

    Plus, there's also the lack of Positive Male Role Models in scoiety. Mothers these days tend to mollycoddle their Sons, and don't allow them out to learn how to cope in the big-wide world. They 'Don't want anything Bad happening'. So, now, a generation of Young Men seek their Identity from Internet, and Movie, sources rather than from Generational passing of values.

    The obsession with Safety killed us with kindness.

  • That’s what I suggested here earlier. The idea is so bananas that it can’t be anything else.

    No matter how many arguments in favour of an Aristocratic High State and references to an Aristotle form of government which he claims people don’t know of, who would want to end up enduring intense suffering and death when such a system wouldn’t work in the individual’s favour.  has said either here or in a previous thread that he doesn’t exclude himself from such a system, so that’s where his argument is implausible. 

    I’m not going to bother any more about this. I’d rather talk about something important like the way Twitter/X and other social media sites are dictating government policies in countries around the world, or Trump’s threats to put tariffs on countries that support Greenland’s legitimate right to decide their own future away from the US.

  • I often wonder if theads like this aren't a wind-up? Someone says outrageous stuff and everyone starts flapping and expending a great deal of energy refuting stuff that I'm never sure is meant seriously.

  • Given what you stated you support in your original post and your responses, I don’t think it is necessary for people to know what the Aristotle form of government is or to know even the finer points of what an Aristocracy involves.

    There is more than enough information on this thread to allow everyone who has responded to make up their minds. 

  • Hi everyone,

    Please be mindful of Rule 7: Be respectful in discussions
    Disagreements are fine, but personal attacks, insults, and swearing are not. Respect other viewpoints and avoid escalating arguments.

    If there are any comments that concern you, please flag to moderator. 

    Best wishes,

    Olivia Mod

  • The Ancient Greeks considered the 'best' to be those with the highest levels of 'arete', meaning those who strive for excellence. This concept was at least partly behind Alexander the Great's career of conquest.

  • See Plato's 'The Republic', where Kallipolis (the good/beautiful city) is ruled by wise 'Guardians', both male and female. In this, Plato, in the guise of Socrates in dialectical mode, says that political structures go through a predetermined series of stages, aristocracy to timocracy (rule by the propertied), to oligarchy, to democracy, to tyranny. It concludes that the optimum type of society is one governed by philosophers - an intellectual meritocracy.

  • If aristocracy has no positive moral value, why support its restoration to power?

  • We are much less 'freedom' and in far greater serfdom today, then we were under feudalism or the High state. 

    With regard to feudalism, could you please clarify in what way we have 'much less freedom' today than serfs/peasants did under feudalism.

    https://www.britannica.com/topic/serfdom

    Thank you.

  • So Aristocracy means rule of the best and Oligarchy means rule of the few. Interesting. 

  • Who decides who is the best? How is it decided? Has any other form of rulership generated a better ruling class? Was Pitt the Elder or Robert Peel or Lord Salisbury not superior to Churchill/Attlee/Thatcher. 

  • Who said the Aristocracy was moral, superior or good? Your point literally illustrates why the Aristocracy works in line with human nature and the political life of the nation. You can be a talented commoner, marry or become rich or in a battle or gain favour with the state and your family will be raised to the Aristocracy. What's wrong or bad or immoral about it?  

  • I posted it because I know its a unusual political perspective to have. And it isn't bonkers when it was literally the system we lived under for centuries. I just think people don't view it as a option so they reject it. Most people don't even know what the Aristocracy is or the Aristotle form of government. Most people don't know about High Toryism. Or even the High state/High Church, High culture.  

  • The problem is that the society functioned and saw massive progress, wealth, power and improvements in the standard of living, it had a proper culture and customs, the state was far less involved in the life of the nation and the British military was good too. Where was the oppression? People had recourse to Parliament to the common law. Like I don't get it. At any point the Aristocracy was like 5,000 people in a population of 30 million in the late 1800's. Millions of people who not in the employ of the Aristocracy and abused by there position. 

  • So you mean the Aristocracy paid people to serve them, the people had no other choice so the Aristocracy treated them terribly? And they had no recourse because the Aristocracy had money and power? 

  • Its because the Liberal low state claims to be something it isn't. Whereas the High state did what it says on the tin, didn't pretend to be something it wasn't. 

  • We are much less 'freedom' and in far greater serfdom today, then we were under feudalism or the High state. 

  • Sorry you family member was treated like that

    Thank you for that comment, however I cannot understand how you would have any sympathy for people who were servants when you want to restore the aristocracy?

    Surely you can't have an aristocracy without servants, therefore you must think it's ok for people to have to go into domestic service to survive?