To all the Fascists and White Nationalists who despise the authoritarian nature of their preferred ideology

To all the Fascists and White Nationalists who despise the authoritarian nature of their preferred ideology.
Have you ever looked at Mutualism?
It is compatible with white nationalism in anyway.
White people can thrive under Mutualism and enjoy freedom.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory)
I feel like all these lefties dont know that Mutualism can only work among white people.
They are dreamers and we know better!

….so nobody?

National Socialism is the height of political systems. Developed by an Aryan for all Aryans, just as monotheism was. Authoritarianism is fine permitted the one who wields authority is wise and just. That's what the left and neocucks don't understand; they think fascism must be bad because some bad people were fascists, neglecting to remember how great Germany was under Hitler's "authoritarian fascist regime." How's Germany doing without it?

You need 'authoritarianism' before you can have freedom. America's 'libertarian' era only worked because it was preceded by a 'Puritanical' era. The morals of the Puritans ensured that human decency would still be commonplace even without myriad laws and organisations to enforce them.

It was the destruction of the moral fibre of the nation (through atheism, multiculturalism and in general subjectivism) that caused 'libertarianism' to fail. Us reverting to a more 'free' approach at the current time will do no good for anyone. Instead we need an 'authoritarian' ideology to turn everyone (or at least their children) back into decent human beings, and after that they can be allowed increased freedoms until we have all but ridden ourselves of government and legislation. Of course to ensure ongoing safety we'll need to immunise ourselves to the plagues of the world; so we either need to incorporate radical xenophobia and anti-semitism in the masses (so that the subversion can never begin) or simply genocide all others to eliminate any potential threat to our existence in the future.

Warning: Authoritarian is a marxist term for strong white leadership.

...

praise kek

I'm fundamentally an ancap; but I realize it's impossible enact in our current reality. I only approve of authoritarianism for lack of a better solution.
Sometimes you gotta throw some communists out of helicopters to avoid the destruction of everything good about humanity.

(Heil'd)

damn sounds nice

Nope. Thanks for playing.

IT KEEPS HAPPENING

Your digits do not absolve you from your degeneracy, heretic.

Captcha: oau ebn

>>>/Auschwitz/

As far as I can tell this is just a system with a labor backed currency which ignores real value of labor to instead assign a universal one (dirty commie money) and no means of enforcing the legal use of said currency.

This. I'm a minarchist who supports a NatSoc transitional state.

Sorry, what? Akhenaten was an Aryan?

Still sounds like Communism to me.

There is nothing to despise. European societies are historically hierarchical - evidence of this dates back to the Bronze Age. However do not confuse hierarchical with despotic, the latter being a distinctly Asian and Semitic trait.
The only variety of Fascism/National Socialism I can accept is Integralism, and even that would require some modification and tweaking.
As for your mutualism, due to cultural differences, some people lean towards competition rather than cooperation unless forced otherwise by circumstances. Therefore, it does not work. Anarchic and decentralized systems that rely on simple adherence generally never leave the paper.

I'm more of a paleoconservative than a fascist tbh. I have never heard of this mutualism, but that pic is kinda autistic and makes me want to stay away. I might read about it later

Sounds suspiciously like >>>Holla Forums 's transitional totalitarian Communism. NatSoc is the ultimate form of the state.


Akhenaten was the OG subversive, iconoclastic, culture-ruining kike.

I don't go to leftypol except to saltmine*. I just like liberty but realize that liberty doesn't work with niggers.

(checked)
/thread

Like who

The oldest and longest surviving monotheistic religion is Zoroastrianism.

National Socialism was never intended to be a permanent system; it was a means to an end. Hitler planned to revert to a monarchy once Germany was made great again. NS is basically designed to reprogram a group infected by the moral bankruptcy of Jews. Once you rid yourself of Jewish influence there's no need for authoritarianism.

...

Do you have any kind of source for that?
Not trying to be a dick, I'm genuinely curious.

I think it was in Hitler's War

Are you sure you are not talking about Codreanu here? I need some proofs, please. As far as I remember, ol' Adolf disliked monarchy for its susceptibility to corruption and hedonism.

It makes sense. The S.S. becoming the knightly aristocracy was one of the points I've heard before.

Im more for an aristocratic republic with a very clear set racial aspect written in the constitution

sauce me

We don't know when Zoroastrianism appeared, or even when Zoroaster appeared. Some date it to 1000 BC, others 500 BC. Akhenaten's reign predates these dates.

You're right. However, Akhenaten promoted a quasi-monotheism - he enforced the sole worship of the Aten, or simply the Sun. The first single God who had all power, who was all wise, who was all good and just did not exist prior to Zoroaster, and therefore: Zoroastrianism is the first completely monotheist religion in the world, and it was created by an Aryan.

i should add Akhenaten's "monotheism" was in fact quasi-monotheistic, because he merely forbade his people from worshiping other gods, but he still believed they existed.

That's properly called henotheism, and is what the Jews are.

Gentlemen. Gentlmen please. This is not the topic of the thread and as such you are derailing.

The ignorance is astounding. NS is the pinnacle and subsumes the state, transforming it into its most useful form; it is not a transition nor is it temporary, or rather, any transition from it is a degeneration of worldview and any assumption that it is temporary is a show of man's decline into the material realm where the jew dominates and keeps him. The state serves Dharma and Aryans (of which there are very few these days) are living Dharma. It is not politics and it is far above you born Shudras.

Its alright but needs work. It was also a quasi monarchy with hitler as king. If he had won the war he would have established an empire similar to rome

But there won't be any jews after they're all gassed? Besides, I never made any comment on what hitler wanted, just what I wanted.

That's just semantics though. It was a religion that believed that all gods were lesser than Aten: akin to what Christians see as angels, saints and demons. Zoroastrianism has this concept as well, with Daevas and Amesha Spentas. Zoroastrianism does lay claim to being the oldest living monotheistic religion though.

555 come on now

What's wrong with national socialism though?

but that isnt true? Zoroastrianism used the concepts of angels, daevas, God and Ahriman as symbolic of deeper teachings, usually about how humans should live and perform in society. Whereas the Jew takes his God/devil to be literal, likely because while they may have been able to steal and pervert the religion of Zarathustra, they couldn't grasp the finer details.

I just hate kikes, niggers, commies and shitskins tbh

If its not explicitly pro-white, its trash

National Socialism is only tolerable so long as there exist intolerable elements within your society.

Once those elements have been removed or extinguished, the will of the people to accept the inevitable but ongoing heinous acts necessary to achieve such goals would quickly diminish.

Moreover, the burdens of socialism and the chilling effect upon speech would soon grow tiresome.

NatSoc is chemotherapy, and it's goal is to remove the cancer from our society. Once the cancer is gone, nobody wants to put up with the bullshit side effects and destruction to healthy cells that chemotherapy would deliver.

You are free to dwell within your delusions, but National Socialism would not be popular. It may be viewed by a substantial number as necessary, and many others may apathetically go along with it. The amount of people who would actually enjoy the concept are few and far between.

I don't see how you can sustain fascism/NS in the long run. What do you do once you build all the public works that are useful to the nation and produce enough things to meet the needs of all your people? I'm honestly curious, I really don't know.

nigger


kike

That was the magic of a labour based currency.
You work less if there is less work needed. None of this 50 years of running about trying to make stone bleed in overtime for maximum profits. If it isn't broke, don't fix it. If it needn't be sold don't sell it.
Items aren't built for planned obsolescence to fuel more income, and so you design one exceptionally good product and sell it until everyone has one, then move most of your production to the next thing while you have a small team make replacement bits.

Imagine if you put a dollar under your mattress and ten years later it was just about worth the same. That is the magic of working for money based on work.

Or I'm tired and delusional and didn't understand the digested exposition of fellow anons.

have you ever looked into republicanism rather than kike faggotry?

...

user, i hope you realise that this includes:
It would take several decades to shift away from "What will earn us the most money?" to "What will improve our quality of life?" and by that point we'd have the capability to travel through space and begin the process of colonising other planets, which just opens the door to a never ending stream of "Things to do."

And if the impossible happens and there is a universe spanning aryan empire that have their needs 100% met, 100% of the time, then we could always just shitpost on the hypernet's version of Holla Forums.

Have you ever looked into elected emperor reich system? Didnt think so really makes you think huh?

Stopped reading right there. If you're still equating NatSoc with Marxism you should stop trying to give lectures about whether or not National Socialism can succeed or not.

maybe if he meant "authoritarian", Stalin and such would apply.

it seems like you don't know horse shit about natsoc

But I like authoritarianism. Authoritarianism is not totalitarianism.

In many ways it is its opposite. Authoritarianism puts responsibility in one hand, where it is clearly identifiable. Totalitarianism diffuses responsibility throughout the entire system of governance.

...

when the guy who did that invades your airspace with his "satellite" so you murder him for violating the non aggression principle

I did a little digging in Hitler's War and this is what I came up with. The Fuhrer despised the Monarchy, so I doubt there were any intentions to restore it. There was a passage about Hitler's plans for re election, but I'm having trouble finding it.