Authoritarianism vs. Liberalism

Italian Social Republic

Libertarian marxism is much, much better :^)

Though Mussolini was still very fascist.

Libertarian marxism ~ Libertarian socialism
Holla Forums alert

Authoritarianism vs Republicanism
*FTFY

Sarcasm alert. Libertarian "nationalism" is impossible by definition, so anyone can laugh at that stupid user( ).

Ofc he was. He was the fascist.
Im not sure where you wanna go with this.

Oops it was suppose to be bold text and not spoiler text. Guess i havent changed that on this computer.

It works beautifully, the problem is your critical thinking ability is on par with niggers and leftists so you can't rationalize the beauty of Libertarian Nationalism.

I would suggest you work on that instead of just following the herd.

Where?

nice ad-hominem "argument"

Says the libtard. Oh, the irony!

Here is Rosenberg's take on this.

We've already been through this, you're more than welcome to believe whatever you want. I couldn't care less what you believe as I have absolute conviction in my position.

Next time I suggest you submit your queries on toilet paper so that I can get to them in a timely manner. ;)

Then what are you doing in this thread? Just shilling for your version of lolbergism?

Who's shilling anything? I think most of pol knows who I am by now being the resident LN. There are few others here as well, including the NL guy.

We're small in number, but in time that will change once more libertarian inclined people realize their globalist view of the world is fucking retarded.

Compared to Hitler

Aristocratic republic is the best form of goverment

Yea, Hitler was a NatSoc and Mussolini was a fascist. I dont want fascism I want NatSoc.

That's already happening and most of them become NatSoc, Fascist or are researching the possibilities of Nationalist ideologies. Most of them realize that Libertarianism is incompatible with it, so I'm afraid you'll always be a minority here.

I'm fine with that.

Good luck with socialism, shit has never worked and will never work.

Iron Law of Oligarchy is Iron for a reason. What matters most, regardless of the system, is that there are CLEAR delineations of obligation and fault so society knows who to punish and who to promote, who to trust and who to ignore.

More authoritarian and less bureaucratic governments tend to be more transparent. If the King fucks up, everyone knows the king fucked up (or the advisor who did); further, personal discretion is in play for second chances, etc.

If Random Bureaucrat #582 fucks up, no one will ever know, but SOMEONE will be crucified, and there will be no second chances, even for genuine mistakes.

The more bureaucratic a system, the more fucked it will become. The more PERSONAL and authoritarian a system, the more obvious the faults become.

National Socialism and Fascism worked fine, in fact, it worked so great that the whole Capitalist and Communist world was needed to defeat it before it would crush their international (((finance))).
If you don't understand class cooperation and collectivism, both of which are Socialist elements, you can't understand Nationalism, that's why you're still calling yourself Libertarian Nationalist.

I'm not even sure anymore.

After all the misfortunes that found our people, they might not be worth it in the first place. We let this happen to us, by ourselves, under many different forms of authority. On the other hand, liberal aspect showed us that it will too lead to this corruption. For that same reason I put no faith in anarchism, because I put no faith in people.

Perhaps the only right thing to do is to fight for our vision, whatever it is. But even here there is no unique vision. We know what is no-no, but we heavily disagree on what is yes-yes.

For Liberalism to work, it requires a well-educated populace that is willing to be responsible and capable. It results in wild prosperity is done right, but it is very fragile to internal disorder if people forget what is important to keep it going - basically having concerns beyond tits, trade, and taxes. Without powerful roots in place valuing such things as national pride, intellectual inquiry, cultural development, and other sorts of identity points and cultural safeguards, the lack of cohesive identities cause such cultures to become vulnerable to anything that will offer a cohesive identity - good or bad.

Authoritarianism is much easier to make plebs useful to their societies, and under good leadership it can make grand actions happen that benefit the people who practice it. Unfortunately it relies on finding good leaders and comes at the expense of the individual's will and ambition. Naturally any group with power will attempt to prevent any others from taking it by any means necessary, and this unregulated results in the most ruthless getting and keeping control - which usually results in ruination of the country as the leader(s) become stupid and decadent.

It really depends on what places you're talking about, what cultures and values exist in those places, and to what degree of mix between the two are needed to create the best result for those peoples.

Fundamentally, human beings are roughly divided into those that wish to lead, and those that wish to follow. Most people wish to follow because it is way easier to live without huge responsibilities or concerns. At the same time people want to serve greater purposes, as falling into eternal decadence often rings hollow for the human spirit. Authority is therefore a necessary thing for humanity - the question is to what degree do we cede our own capacity/desires in order to find satisfaction in efficacy and grand purpose? And once we figure out that, how can be design a system that can give us the best of Authority and Autonomy for the specific situations and people involved?

bump

What made Italy totalitarian but Germany only authoritarian?

You will have to look up the differences between authoritarian and totalitarianism yourself. But if you read some mussolini he says that fascism is a totalitarian ideology. Hitler on the other hand said that NatSoc is an authoritarian ideology. And like I said if you look up the difference between totalitarianism and authoritarian you will spot the difference. Note that during wartime no ideology is not the same as in peacetime. So if you want an accurate representation look at both pre-ww2.

Generally speaking I'm for republican government (not not not NOT democracy) without universal suffrage.
Liberties should be generously respected by the state and only the basics should be covered as public (fire departments, police, etc).

However, this should be in place if the populace if virtuous and/or educated enough to handle it.
If they should become decadent (which is inevitable), a strong, authoritarian government should be created to create order and facilitate virtue and good education.
Once things are said and done, it should come full circle back to republican government.

bump

Mercantilism i.e. National Capitalism.

Pass.

Ok one last bump. I really like this thread.

What is your definition of 'basic' then? Because basic could mean what currently exists, or what is minimalistic for a functioning economy, or what is necessary for a sense of justice, etc… Without a strong and flexible definition, you're prone to anyone coming along and inserting their own sense of 'basic' in.

My working definition of what services ought to be socialized (i.e. paid for by taxation by all citizens) are those services that, if denied to individuals, would severely inhibit or outright remove individuals from the economy. Examples being fires and crime kill people and destroy property, thus we need firefighters and cops. Furthermore health care that is necessary for survival or the repair of maiming (treating cancer or providing mobility to the crippled) ought to be state-paid, while cosmetics and non-threatening conditions (boob jobs and wart removals) should be paid by the individual because the former removes people from being productive economic entities, and the latter does not.

This definition also doesn't extend to merely to things that 'might improve economic condition' either. So cars, while very useful to people to improve their economic station, are not necessary for you to be a productive member of society, thus you buy your own car if you wish. Public transportation provides a baseline though for helping out those who lack the assets currently to get transportation - same with food banks and homeless shelters that provide just enough to prevent citizens from not participating in the marketplace.

That doesn't happen without destructive revolutions, because those in power very rarely ever simply give it up to anyone else. The door doesn't swing both ways.

There must be a different way to improve the virtue of a citizenry - unfortunately all I can think of is a firestorm of strife and suffering that can do it, and only insofar that such a maelstrom doesn't allow another power to come in and take control in the meantime.

...

I bet my Corporacratic Despotism would beat your Aristocratic Republic any day of the week.

If I wanted to take all your stuff I'd tell you you couldn't be a NatSoc unless you gave me all your stuff.

Thus understood, Fascism, is totalitarian, and the Fascist State - a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values - interprets, develops, and potentates the whole life of a people.
Straight from The Doctrine of Fascism

?

You mean USSR?

USSR was a totalitarian state yes

And how was Natsoc Germany not totalitarian, given that definition?

...

.

Authoritarianism differs from totalitarianism in that social and economic institutions exist that are not under the government's control.

Fascism have a national syndicalism or corporativism economic aspect while NatSoc have more of an free market view. Too quote Gottfried Feder: An economy needs to be as free as possible.

Fascists believe in the supremacy of the State, while National Socialism believes the State is but an end to a means – the survival of the people and race – and never an end in itself.

Fascism: If we work together, we will have the power to achieve any goal we want. (“It is humiliating to remain with our hands folded while others write history.” – Benito Mussolini)

National Socialism: This is our goal. The only way to achieve it is to work together. ( “They are inspired by the feeling that they have a mission to fulfill, and we might just as well egg them on a little.” – Adolf Hitler)

Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived in their relation to the State. - Mussolini

It's not the state which command us, but we who command the state. It's not the state which has created us, but we who have created our state. - Hitler

Totalitarianism is required for "equality" to exist, since it has no basis in reality.

...

Yes, but it is also required to keep the forces of nature from causing everything to naturally "equalize" in the modern world, where if one does not actively resist the flood of lower orders of humanity from entering ones country, the difference between what was previously high and previously low will be equalized; a mess.

That first one about NRx isn't really true. There's plenty of neoreactionaries who aren't technocrats or don't agree with moldbug, including myself. While I think moldbug's analysis of the problem is excellent (the Cathedral and inner party/outer party), I don't like his solution at all and find myself more inclined towards a sort of free-exit feudalism.

Authoritarianism for the unwashed masses of low IQ plebs. Actual freedom is reserved for those who are actually intelligent enough to participate in such a system.

The power belongs in the hands of the people, Hitler said it himself.

The problem is that democracy isn't exclusive. I capped my explanation because its been getting brought up often.

We need to come up with a system of government for our cause. We are, after all, the modern day Thule Society. Our system must be simple and based on the tradition of our people.

step 1 benevolent dictatorship installed
step 2 education and propaganda, through an iron hand, turns everyone into a respectable person, most people are hardworking, non-manipulable, redpill, intelligent and respectful and proud and nationalistic
step 3 total libertarianism can be installed since people love their country and society so much they would kill jews and shills and anarchists and law-breakers without hesitation by themselves
pretty much National-Socialist Germany if it would have lasted for 80 years

And to more specifically answer the topic:

Exclusive democracy. It's an authoritarian system where the members of the society that should hold authority, hold the authority. The men because they're fathers, heads of household, primary builders and inventers of the society, and defenders of the nation. The white men because we aught to rule by right, it was our fathers who built this nation. No foreigner should come here and act as if he has any say in our decisions. It would be against the essence of self-determination.

It's such a simple system, the strong lead. We can't continue to let the dull masses lead lest we be lead off a cliff into an ocean of shit.

What has any society achieved through "libertarianism?" Think about this concept historically.

Any state without rules will fall to chaos, any state without power will fall to the more powerful.

imo a republic, with a fuhrer/king person at its head, the elected officials are voted in by only men who have served in the military.

10/10 post, you really know your shit user, capped.

you have not read my comment, at all (either that or your reading comprehension is null).
i'm going to waste 3 minute of my life rephrasing this for braindead people like you.
society hasn't achieved anything through libertarianism, which is why steps 1 and 2 are crucial.
a benevolent dictatorship achieves; libertarianism only follows naturally once people are intelligent and socially-conscious ("moral", if you like that word) enough to take care of themselves and to not fuck up.
example: people today hate censoring of free speech. why? because some of us are advanced enough to tolerate dissent and to argue rationally against ideas. we also change our minds when new evidence speaks for or against something, some of us anyway (this excludes christians). free speech is libertarianism and it only follows naturally once you reach a decent enough level of intelligence, knowledge and open-mindedness

Not a good idea, a leader should be chosen by merit, not inheritance.

That wasn't mean to be the ideal outcome, but still better than the corpo-globalist mess we have today.

Republics are great, the more spread out the power is the better, but direct democracy is a hassle. I disagree that there should be a king, its not ideal to have someone holding absolute power or anywhere near it. A president is good. Sounds an awful lot like the setup of the USA, we may be overlooking existing systems already. The founding fathers knew their shit and took their time creating a reforming this state and honestly it was one of the most reasonable forms of government to exist in its initial state. Greed from power and idiots voting corrupted us, but remember women and shitpeople couldn't vote initially. I can't stress how crucial it is to strip them of this privilege. I'm not a woman hating MGTOW beta, I want what's best for our people and by extent what's best for each and every one of them. Men will make better decisions for the good of our nation.

Here is how Rosenberg imagined Germany after Hitler.

wait, i have already posted this in this thread.

Why not a Roman style Republic with two leading officials ? Provided we choose the Senate from older, more experienced men with merit instead of potentially worse patricians, they can check on both rulers with the both consuls can keep each other's powers in check.

Very interesting read, quite similar to what I find ideal although no mention of who gets citizenship, if that includes german women or not?

Since this text builds on the third reich i guess those questions is already answered.

He also says later in his memories that this is a basic outline and "all this is mere theorising".

I think the more spread out it is the better, up to a small oligarchy at the top (executive level)

Also the confederation/union system is key to preserving the uniqueness of regions, which may want different things. Each state/nation should have its own system to an extent, like the US and EU.

That post wasn't really cap worthy. There's so much more to it than a post i did in 10 min.

I already know most things about the subject that you're posting, I just find your explanation of differences between NatSoc and Fascism very nice.

these threads are so cringe, they are like when you were in school and asked what you would do with $1 million with the exception that the people here take it seriously and answer
what makes it worse is that you have 100 special snowflake libertarians nationalist, which are just conservatives or cuckolds if you prefer but with a new name, posting about how they figured it out and how you can make republics work. You libertarians nationalist will cringe at thinking about how in the past you held those opinions when you are traditionalist/monarchist. Just like you cringe when you remember your views ofcommunism when you wear a teenager or conservatism at an older age or libertarian before /Holla Forums

So people that actually discussing politics is cringey?
I think you went to wrong site. Try 4chan.

that \are/ actually

yeah, just like communist and socialist are when they talk about politics

...

Shut the fuck up faggot, go bitch elsewhere.

bump

ad hominem. The last resort of the weak. And we know that the weak should fear the strong. Why don't you go back to designing your special unique Republic that has never been tried before. Here's an idea you can only vote when you're dead by putting the things you want to vote for in your will. RO FL I'm too clever for you.

...

What about this?

Kill yourself

Authoritarianism during emergencies and wars, a republic during times of peace.

I believe authoritarianism is more of an ideology to rebuild a country and push it back onto the proper path, then republicanism is used to hand power straight to the people to keep it on said path. I'd much rather have an educated, nationalistic, and paranoid society that can easily vote to remove any public official or law at their discretion rather than an individual who they can't.

In order for this system to work, however, you have to make the country a homogenous society of whites only. No Jews, no Muslims, no Blacks. The second you reintroduce these elements is when everything will turn to shit again.

the German markets were stagnating and collapsing under the sheer weight of government interference in comparison to the American economy. It's just that everyone's economies in Europe were shit at the time, and the nazis were very good at covering their tracks to try and make the economy look better than it actually was. In reality, while German citizens could afford to eat, they could not afford to have luxuries because of how the state-run currency was set up. Many Holla Forumsacks will claim that Germany was trading with other nations under nazi rule, but in general they were either trading with other national socialist nations, or were receiving loans from Britain and America that they had no way to pay off, but that were given in good faith in the hopes that with the growing German economy, they could reinvest that cash back into Britain/America. Obviously Nazi Germany turned around and said "fuck you lol" and prevented American/British interests from expanding in Germany.
The reality of the German economy was that it was a giant bubble built on monopoly money in which virtually every larger business had a hand in the Nazi government, a friend in the Nazi government, or were directly controlled by them. There were only 1 Volkswagen for every 44 people in Germany because the economy was so piss poor when it came to buying power, and the German solution to unemployment was to virtually print more money the same bullshit they used to pay off their national debts to other countries leading to said other countries being pissed off.
The sad part is, you can clearly see that Germany's economy was about to take a massive backhand to the face from her pimp called reality. If Britain/France hadn't have gone to war with Germany, or had waited at least two more years, the German economy would have collapsed and Hitler would have been ousted as a fraud. Instead, their going to war distracted German citizens, and Nazi Germany was able to blame their failing economy/increasing lack of basic supplies to live on needing to ration for the war.

...

Good argument

yea, that sounds like a good idea

Are you actually retarded?

nice job

Go read a fucking book before spewing your Down's syndrome here. The NatSoc economy in Germany was a free enterprise, the only time the government ever intervened was if you were deliberately trying to screw people over for a few extra shekels.

The socialism aspect of NatSoc was in society. Social welfare, free healthcare, and no class distinction were practically the only facets of socialism in NatSoc.

pick one

Yeah you're retarded.

Serious question here, any suggestions? Goes for Fascist Italy, Spain, Portugal as well.

>NatSoc economy archive.org/details/GottfriedFederTheGermanStateOnANationalAndSocialistFoundation

Yeah you're retarded.

Can i bump this out of its grave.