Picture this Holla Forums: A nation with a white homogeneous society and a national socialist government with one man at the top. Now what happens if that man dies and the next has his own ideas? Or if the next starts to use the education system to demoralize the masses and stop any revolution? What happens then?
I've been on this board for a while and I've learned that truth is more important than freedom but what happens when people no longer have the freedom to know what is truth or not? I think that for a national socialist government to endure in the long term that it needs to give some level of freedom to its citizens that is inalienable. In order to implement this kind of freedom all you would need is some kind of bill of rights similar to that of the United States which would allow its citizens to bear arms, educate themselves and have the ability to express themselves freely. Thus if a horrible leader were to come into power all you would need is for the people to remove him by force.
Having complete freedom is madness but having no freedom at all is equally as mad, this is what I think. If you think otherwise then say what you think is wrong with this idea since I truly appreciate what you guys think.
The leadership are chosen through demonstrations of loyalty and personally furthering National Socialism etc. Inept people dont advance. The government loses public support, and falls faster than any democracy which pacifies its public with the false idea that they have political power, and that they can make change through peaceful methods. Its like if people didnt support Assad. He wouldnt have won that war, he wouldnt still be in power. People have the freedom to know what is true because the government makes sure they know it. The public doesnt need to know whats going on behind the scenes, the government should control the media and prevent things like foreign propaganda from penetrating, where it can damage society. There is no bill of rights, the fuhrer leads and we follow. He makes decisions with plenary power, and if people refuse to follow his orders they are punished harshly. His orders carry down through society. Theres your rights. People have freedom, its a split individualist and collectivist society with aspects of both. They have the right to express themselves freely and educate themselves, as long as they arent advocating communism, or educating themselves with the manifesto and Marx etc. Theres no place in society for that subversive drivel, not even under a table leg.
Julian Watson
I'd say it's depending on the current political climate in the world and the geographical location in the world. For example, if there wasn't an incredible amount of kike subversion in the world I see no reason to have a big government in Iceland. Fundamentally, NatSoc is about racial survival and prosperity on all planes of existence.
Camden Sanders
Also, stop being a fucking libertardian.
Jordan Cook
The man under a National Socialist system who is chosen to lead is chosen by the top 200 elite who were originally chosen by the public: none of his ideas are inherently just his own. (Source is Nazi-Sozi by Goebbels for the voting system.) Leader can be partitioned by the public. Also, leader doesn't partake in economics; eocnomics is chosen by public market guilds. Same source, Nazi-Sozi. Read more Rockwell; your idea of National Socialism with an American, small government twist on it is not new and Rockwell did it first and it's the first version of real American National Socialism. More Rockwell in your life is needed.
Hunter Moore
Checked.
Nathan Cox
"Big Government" isn't really a principle for NS/Fascism, only a tool. If the tool is not necessary, it won't be used. If it is necessary, it will be used
Jonathan Brown
You and I have very similar ideas and goals but you put too much trust in future generations. Hard times make strong men, strong men make good times, good times make weak men, weak men make hard times. Even in a perfect society with no non-whites or jews the threat of Goons and other malicious characters will always remain. What if the standards for becoming a fuhrer drop so much that a smart and devoted enough goon gets in? All it takes is one goon to use the media and education system to gradually change public opinion and values and implement another goon fuhrer. Your example of Assad is flawed because we are talking about a perfect society that isn't at war far in the future. Here the only example of loyalty and truth children have is taught to them only by the fuhrer, what stops a goon fuhrer from going full 1984? All we had were the ASSES AND ELBOWS HELP ME I CAN'T STOP SUCKING COCK of our ancestors and the small freedom to search and express ourselves. And thus i believe such freedom should be well defined and preserved for future generations to be able to teach, defend and express themselves. Think of home-schooling, the right to bear arms, the right to free speech short of subversion and propaganda, the right to archive and the right to debate. These and more are a much needed defense against any nefarious influences that seek to one day use the state for their own shallow pleasures. Look at how easy it was to subvert the population from the 1910's to 2010's, now imagine if there was a goon fuhrer that had complete and synchronized control of all media and education.
In order to have a split individualist and collectivist society both sides need to be properly defined. Having such freedoms is only for the worst case scenario and will most likely never be used outside of the survivalists fantasy. But they are necessary nonetheless as the possibility will always remain that a future fuhrer will try and topple it all.
Jaxson Carter
People are naturally nationalistic, that's all that really matters. In that sense if there are any flaws with national socialism those would get corrected over time. But before all of that we need to gas the kikes.
Jose King
Thanks user. I never really took the time to look at rockwell's ideas much and will in the future.
Robert Edwards
if you bend the knee to globalists even fucking ancapistan would work.
Chase Cook
How can the standard for becoming fuhrer drop when there are only one fuhrer?
Luis Rodriguez
How would anyone be able to do that under national socialism?
Alexander Mitchell
Time and pressure. The average man of today won't be the average man of tomorrow and if you described the average beta soy boy of today to the average American in 1910 he'd laugh at the very idea.
Easton Parker
Are you trolling? One of the principles of the nat-soc state would be to elevate everyone to reach their potential.
Landon Baker
Having complete freedom is only madness if you completely disbelieve in the basic virtue of everyone other than yourself, which really goes a long ways towards explaining Africa if you think about it.
Really, what are you afraid of in "freedom"? Take care when hunting chaos butterflies. Good filters are healthy, but bad filters give advantages to malefactors. Any filter that creates victims also creates motives against it.
That's part of why it's vital to notice whether crimes have victims. If a crime does not otherwise have a victim, it certainly does have a victim once the police get involved. It's hard to imagine a fascist order with a fixation on not victimizing people. I don't think history would record that one as fascist. A basic component of fascism is that you just decide history will end in your favor, thereby relieving you from the burden of participating in the inherent reciprocity of society, under which we must attend to the endeavor of not creating motives against ourselves by victimizing others.
Maoist. Maoist. Maoist. Maoist. Not-Maoist.
Daniel Hughes
That looks like the white river by rangely co
Mason Jones
Boy Im glad the mods woke up so they can gas people comparing NatSoc to Maoism now.
Isaac Bell
Hitler was well aware of the problem of "The next guy in charge", and, apparently, he had plans to turn Germany into a NatSoc republic when all was said and done. I would have loved to see how we went about with voting policy/franchise, etc.
The thing about democracy is that it inherently takes power away from one group when the other group wins. This is alright when the only difference between groups is opinion, rather than race, etc. Better yet when everyone who is allowed to vote shares similar opinions with slight variations - Lets say a fascist republic with franchise granted by federal service is having a vote for a seat on the parliament.One voter block is citizens that have done vital infrastructure work for 23 years.The other is a bunch of younger guys who fought on the front for four. How might their vote differ on the yearly allotment for childbirth incentive funds?
Oliver White
Meant to say 13, not 23. 23 is a bit long for voting rights, whatever
Jacob Torres
This thread is arguing about the color of a dress while the whole house is burning to the ground. The answer is that after the purge/rahowa/day of the rope, whatever government organically comes into being is the correct one so long as it is bereft of kikes and muds.
Isaac Martin
What are the 25 demands of National Socialism? And yes perhaps the only mistake Hitler made was not allowing gun rights. The ideal would be an armed populace that would be ready to overthrow someone that strays from the will of the people essentially what was supposed to happen in America youtube.com/watch?v=cgltok5yYeY&feature=youtu.be&bpctr=1513556563
David Reyes
Germans were allowed to own them, do you really think kikes deserved to too?
Christian Gomez
From table talk: As regards the Head of the State, should anything happen to me, it would be as unsound to elect my successor by public vote as it would for, say, the Pope to be elected by suffrage among the faithful, or the Doge of Venice by the vote of the whole population of the city. If the mass of the people were invited to take part in such a vote, the whole thing would degenerate into a propaganda battle, and the propaganda for or against any candidate would tear the people asunder. If the choice is left to a small body—a senate, for instance— and marked differences of opinion should arise in it, I don't think it would matter very much, provided that no hint of these differences was allowed to become public. But once the votes have been cast, then he who receives the majority becomes automatically and forthwith the supreme head of the state. If it is further arranged that the oath of allegiance to the new Head can be administered to the Wehrmacht, the Party and all the appropriate officials within three hours of the result of the election, then maintenance of public law and order can be regarded as assured. I have no illusions, however, that an absolutely outstanding personality will always emerge by this method of selection. But it does at least ensure that the man chosen will be one so much above the average that, as long as the machinery of government is in good order, the State will not be endangered in any way.
Adrian Roberts
Pierce wrote a pamphlet about the gun right in Germany>>>/pdfs/
Chase Thomas
never said anything about kikes owning guns naturally citizens can own guns and jews cannot become a citizen because they are not white, so they cannot own guns.
The NS government basically did that, the economy works as a relatively free market but its just the government maintains the ability to intervene if necessary. A similar concept is applied to individual rights. A full on libertarian society will never work though.
Levi Cruz
There's a book called 'Nazi Ideology before 1933' which has a lot of writing from other people from both DAP and NSDAP before Hitler were they talk about how people would elect the next leader and how much power he would have. Pic related (not from the book) is from Rosenbergs testament.
Nathan Watson
Who chooses them and how are they chosen?
M'kay, I like Assad. I think he is far better than the alternative and I also approve of his anti-Israel policy and I like Ba'athism. But let's not kidd ourselves. Assad has lots of support… from Shi'ites. Which constitute something like 13% of the country. Sunni Arabs and Turkmen dislike him. People do not obey his regime because the majority like him but due to a multitude of reasons. One of the reasons is he is the strongest warlord in Syria with the backing of Russia. But the idea that because someone is in power currently ergo they must be popular is dumb. Stalin wasn't overthrown. Was he loved by the people? Did Ukrainians obey the Soviet regime because they approved of commun$m? No. They obeyed because Stalin was the most powerful warlord in the USSR. And by that I mean the only one. So let's not bullshit ourselves about Assad and his popularity.
Isaiah Martinez
KikeTube's latest wrongthink program has begun.
Dominic Johnson
Assad has over 90% support, all the people in the cities the government controls and most in the cities they didnt. People didnt revolt in Russia because they killed all the intellectuals and were left with nothing but retards. They were the uprising, the white movement is why they failed. You want to know why communists were successful? Because moderates like TRS and the aut-kike. Ukranians were occupied by a foreign government. Germany wouldnt have lasted a minute without high morale troops fighting for what they believed was the right cause. Assads government would crumble in a minute without people giving their lives to ensure government stability. This is a National Socialists board Mkay, just remember were doing you a favor by not banning you for refusing to get in line. This place doesnt exist for lolbergs to post snide hostile remarks towards whites.
Carter Ross
That's laughable. But if you are wedded to that idea, I won't argue with you. Still, it raises the question; if only 10% of the country is apathetic or dislikes him (and thus only around 1% strongly dislike him) and Assad has the backing of Russia, Iran and China, holy shit is that 1% powerful! You're telling me that 1% of the country somehow managed to take over half of the fucking country??? Even with American help that is ridiculous.
If 1% of the public disliking a leader is enough to cripple a nation, why the hell is America still around?
And by the way, where did that magic number come from? 90% Give me a fucking break.
Strawmanning and projecting.
And you never answered my question either.
And one last thing, Arabs aren't White.
Elijah King
The "rebels" werent Syrians. Holy fuck youre new. He held elections btw, and got 92% in one of them.
Asher Miller
So you're telling me that all of these people are foreigners? Why did Assad let them al into his country? There must be millions of them.
As for those election results… um. You trust election results? I'm not calling you an idiot for doing so but I personally don't trust official election results.
And before you flip out again, I need to state repeatedly so you don't forget, I support Assad because he is anti-Israel. I'm just not an idiot who believes whatever "election numbers" some government throws at me.
Jeremiah Flores
Well I am calling you an idiot, and you need to go back.
Brandon Williams
I'll tell you the truth, OP. The reason we like NatSoc is because 1) It actually was tried and worked until three world superpowers had to try and stop and only barely winning with far greater casualties. 2) Desperate times calls for deeply iron marched clutched fists. We're reaching levels of FUBAR that hasn't been seen since Weimar and that requires overwhelming action, something that more libertarian ideologies cannot solve. Ideally, once social cohesion is finally secured again, I know most people here are more open to what you suggested OP or at least more libertarian things like the internet for example and other forms of decentralisation we prevent anything from being single handily Jewed. It's a difficult state of affairs.
Ian Anderson
Okay, I see you're just an idiot who has no idea what national socialism is, how power is transferred in it, what is going on in Syria, and are just plain stupid enough to believe whatever propaganda you're told without questioning it.
In short you're completely unconcerned with the truth and are now just shitposting. Filtered.
Jace Baker
All I wanted was a logical fucking conversation.
Caleb Morris
checked who can argue with those digits libertarians BTFO
Matthew Peterson
Trying to enforce a chain of succession in a way that doesn't eventually fall apart is a fools errand and goes against nature. We are constantly evolving, and any structure that attempts to exert control long term will eventually crack and buckle. There is no permanent solution, each generation must struggle and fight on its own to institute an effective government, and this struggle is eternal. It's not something to fight against either, this struggle is part and parcel with life itself. Our role is not to lock our people into some permanent state, but to give the next generation as much of a push as possible and give them a chance to be better than us. But ultimately, it will be up to them whether that happens.
Carson Edwards
The other day I looked at one of those gore clips on the webm/mp4 thread. I wasn't shocked, just felt deep disgust and contempt, it was the kind of thing that merely tempers my resolve. I'm fairly certain everyone I know in person would recoil in shock and disbelief or at the very least be confused trying to comprehend something so vile, that's how disconnected normal wage slaves are from the reality which they don't encounter in daily life nor see on kike media. In a world that's rapidly becoming hell on Earth there can be no hesitation about taking power, disregarding a slew of liberties and forcing the brainwashed slaves to fight for their future and against their kike masters. Memes will create the perfect explosive atmosphere where slaves will no longer be content with living in their bluepilled reality and then it's merely a matter of a big enough happening to spark the race war into motion. And when we end up facing all the horrors of a world war it'll be men with endless resolve of do or die that'll bring victory for the brainwashed pacifist slaves whether they like it or not. I just hope there will be enough geniuses as leaders with such resolve.
Ayden Rivera
So much this.
Aaron Butler
National Socialism is a philosophy that is a reaction to post-modernism. It is the will-to-power response to utter nihilism and it is the ultimate philosophical position after all else has been exhausted and discarded. Uncle Adolf stipulated the use of the modern nation-state (ethno nationalism) as the best way to pursue this philosophy and that still stands unless you can make an argument otherwise. All of your questions would be answered if you bother to read Mein Kampf.
Cameron Walker
The biggest problems you seem to have with a natsoc government stem largely from it's role while we're on a war footing (and I don't mean just the war with guns, but the larger culture war itself), not only do most natsocs now, but even back in the 30s had planned to roll things back a bit once the fighting was over.
Rather than a smaller government in it's own right, I think I'd rather see things decentralise. That is to say, once we've got things sorted out, the overall government would only concern itself with our military and presenting a unified diplomatic face to other countries, while everything else would be handled at a local level, following a common framework, of course. That would prevent problems like we have today where commiefornia can implement things on us from afar with little to no recourse by those effected by it (such as the leak proof gas canisters, I'm sure you've had the pleasure of dealing with lately).
Mason Hughes
Commifefornia would have no power. What you propose is the opposite of National Socialism, its communism, where peoples councils are set up and the people truly rule. Gas.
