Also mind that the further back you go, the more genetics is a function of geography as well. This geography is in the mix with culture, genetics, and language.
The first thing is to assert that all distributions, genetic, race, cultural, political are by nature a Bell Curve and whilst one can make generalisations there will be 'outliers' on both sides of the 'norm'.
The second assertion is that individuals will tend to align with the norm, both by nature and by pressure to fit in with the group around.
Thus a race which has high testosterone will also exhibit high aggression and low self control eg Hamitic/negroid races. They will be fractured and there will be completion for resources. Scandinavians although 'pioneer' and plunderers were (are) very tribal and competitive of resources.
Both societies tend to Monarchy or Dictatorships as very strong individuals seize control. Once they have it, there is a very strong incentive to maintain it through dynasties.
Indian and Chinese were much more co-operative societies and have a comparatively low testosterone. They tend to minimise competition and thrive on 'one party' organisation of politics and culture. The differences between tribes and cultures are minimised and accepted without competition or threat.
When a race culture is in a significant minority they adopt entirely the culture of the major race. EG in 1820s there were about 30,000 black 'slaves/workers' in great Britain. They were not repatriated but became totally absorbed into British society. Both men and women were prized as mates and by 1920 it was hard to find any 'blacks' in Britain, their 'black' culture was totally gone.
Similarly whites in India and Africa when in small numbers went 'native'.
To infer that political systems arise from culture or race is unfounded. Political systems come and go as power structures are rearranged through force or access to resources.
Multi-party Democracy as a system is nonsensical. It never lasts and is designed to provide a facade over coercion.
All politics is based on power hierarchy and there is always an individual or very small group holding the power.
Watch any parliament, and I mean all of them, in action, and see what a farce they are. All decisions are made long before they are 'debated' in the House or Congress.
The only difference is whether the 'Despot', no matter how designated, is benevolent or rapacious.
In general the western/European style governments are rapacious and the Eastern style are (more or less) benevolent.
Needless to say the West despots hate the East despots because they show just how 'evil' the west is.
If you live in the west, your brain is scrambled from birth by horrendous propaganda, such that the French resistance are heroes but Hamas are terrorists.
Japan is another example of nobility strengthened by frontier confrontations. The less powerful noble families were expelled from the capital to tame the bandits in the hinterlands in Japan. They did so and became strong, until they could dominate the nobility in the capital. (The samurai then competed to "control the gates to the emperor's palace." The emperors were impoverished, forced to live on a pittance, and had to repair their old clothes, and even had to sell their stamp signature to get money for food. They had to marry away their daughters to the daimyo who controlled the gates. But I digress.)
Theophilus, I believe you forget one way of ruling, the party rule. A one-party state as a way to create a sort of modern nobility, though more fluid than in the past. Those who took part in the founding struggle form the basis and decide who will get to join after that. A system where eventually the original revolutionaries are few and old, replaced by the usual opportunists, much like in the Soviet Union and China. You better make sure then that you have a good White people and a non-insane economic system, so you can do fine despite the lack of vitality in politics.
(But I believe the most likely future system for most countries, nationalist or not, will be a de facto one-party state masquerading as a democracy. Something like Turkey today. The party's permanent power won't be assured, but that is the case in any system.)
As for White Nationalists thinking that a certain system of politics is inherent to a race, I have never heard anyone say that. Everyone knows that Whites can have monarchy or democracy. The only thing we consider unique for Whites in politics is the invention of citizen rights. That the rulers shouldn't be able to treat the subjects as their own property.
Also mind that the further back you go, the more genetics is a function of geography as well. This geography is in the mix with culture, genetics, and language.
The first thing is to assert that all distributions, genetic, race, cultural, political are by nature a Bell Curve and whilst one can make generalisations there will be 'outliers' on both sides of the 'norm'.
The second assertion is that individuals will tend to align with the norm, both by nature and by pressure to fit in with the group around.
Thus a race which has high testosterone will also exhibit high aggression and low self control eg Hamitic/negroid races. They will be fractured and there will be completion for resources. Scandinavians although 'pioneer' and plunderers were (are) very tribal and competitive of resources.
Both societies tend to Monarchy or Dictatorships as very strong individuals seize control. Once they have it, there is a very strong incentive to maintain it through dynasties.
Indian and Chinese were much more co-operative societies and have a comparatively low testosterone. They tend to minimise competition and thrive on 'one party' organisation of politics and culture. The differences between tribes and cultures are minimised and accepted without competition or threat.
When a race culture is in a significant minority they adopt entirely the culture of the major race. EG in 1820s there were about 30,000 black 'slaves/workers' in great Britain. They were not repatriated but became totally absorbed into British society. Both men and women were prized as mates and by 1920 it was hard to find any 'blacks' in Britain, their 'black' culture was totally gone.
Similarly whites in India and Africa when in small numbers went 'native'.
To infer that political systems arise from culture or race is unfounded. Political systems come and go as power structures are rearranged through force or access to resources.
Multi-party Democracy as a system is nonsensical. It never lasts and is designed to provide a facade over coercion.
All politics is based on power hierarchy and there is always an individual or very small group holding the power.
Watch any parliament, and I mean all of them, in action, and see what a farce they are. All decisions are made long before they are 'debated' in the House or Congress.
The only difference is whether the 'Despot', no matter how designated, is benevolent or rapacious.
In general the western/European style governments are rapacious and the Eastern style are (more or less) benevolent.
Needless to say the West despots hate the East despots because they show just how 'evil' the west is.
If you live in the west, your brain is scrambled from birth by horrendous propaganda, such that the French resistance are heroes but Hamas are terrorists.
Just three notes, if I may:
Japan is another example of nobility strengthened by frontier confrontations. The less powerful noble families were expelled from the capital to tame the bandits in the hinterlands in Japan. They did so and became strong, until they could dominate the nobility in the capital. (The samurai then competed to "control the gates to the emperor's palace." The emperors were impoverished, forced to live on a pittance, and had to repair their old clothes, and even had to sell their stamp signature to get money for food. They had to marry away their daughters to the daimyo who controlled the gates. But I digress.)
Theophilus, I believe you forget one way of ruling, the party rule. A one-party state as a way to create a sort of modern nobility, though more fluid than in the past. Those who took part in the founding struggle form the basis and decide who will get to join after that. A system where eventually the original revolutionaries are few and old, replaced by the usual opportunists, much like in the Soviet Union and China. You better make sure then that you have a good White people and a non-insane economic system, so you can do fine despite the lack of vitality in politics.
(But I believe the most likely future system for most countries, nationalist or not, will be a de facto one-party state masquerading as a democracy. Something like Turkey today. The party's permanent power won't be assured, but that is the case in any system.)
As for White Nationalists thinking that a certain system of politics is inherent to a race, I have never heard anyone say that. Everyone knows that Whites can have monarchy or democracy. The only thing we consider unique for Whites in politics is the invention of citizen rights. That the rulers shouldn't be able to treat the subjects as their own property.
There are 4 types of governments:
1. The poster agrees with.
2. The poster does not agree with.
3. The poster agrees with but for entirely different reasons.
4. The poster does not agree with for entirely different reasons.