Direct Democracy and the far right

No, you don’t see that. No, no one on the far right supports THE FUCKING FOUNDATION OF MARXISM.
Kill yourself. We won’t fall for it.

This. OP is being disingenuous.

And yeah, as for the general idea of NS systems adopting more or less democratic ideals, or being more authoritarian or libertarian, or any other divergences: National-Socialism isn't a political system, it's a worldview.

We don't have a single all-applicable doctrine that can be applied to every nation, as that would be globalism and goes against the very idea of nationalism. NS instead is just a worldview, and it's the responsibility of every nation who adopt it to develop their own political systems within that worldview; ones that best reflect their unique racial and cultural flavor. NS policy for Germany won't be the same as Scandinavia's, as it won't be the same as America's either.

Attached: fixed.jpg (500x500, 170.58K)

I think that the direct democracy stuff is meant to the local level, also maybe it is easier for the masses to accept leader principle if they at the very least get some say in local stuff.

I do agree that the finnic people do not fit into the nation of nords due to them being a whole different nation in their own right. They should maybe have a similiar kind of a structure, but a separate state.

Democracy of any form practised in a group exceeding ~50 people is a clusterfuck. I've seen democracy practised in small groups of men or by an all towns and communities and it always makes me love democracy. Then I see it played out in countries and what do people vote for?

Gibs at the expense of productive workers. Gibs at the expense of whites. Gibs at the expense of strong families. Gibs borrowed against their children's future taxes.

Democracy applied on any large scale is an exercise in greed.

Aristotle declared that

One clue to the ideal form of government can be ascertained by examining Roman history

A nonhereditary dictatorship, each dictator selected by the last, and started by the right man (a hitler) is ideal.

...

I agree. But what NRM has in mind isn't really just to draw some new boarders and calling it a day. They want to localise basically everything and turn the north in to a kind of imperium.
Personally i would just want to totally unify Scandinavia (and maybe the small islands) and call it a nation and at the same time work (under the same name) for a NatSoc Finland (and maybe unite it with Estonia?) and turn them in to our greatest ally.

Look at the republic of Venice. That's what Hitler had in mind.

Oligarchy Republic. Though very efficient one, interesting specimen.

Democracy in all forms is a goddamn joke.

It's very interesting indeed. I know Machiavelli praised it. It started to degenerate during the last years but that it so expect from any form of government.

Referendums = taking measures against immigration approved by most people that can't be challenged because democracy spoke

If you think about it it was very close to how modern corporations are run. Shareholders, Board of directors, CEO. What Venice is a country of merchants? Shocking.

Direct democracy is mob rule, plain and simple.
The left floods in shitskins and mexishits, demand direct democracy, and suddenly it's a leftist 'utopia.'
We have a republic and elected representatives specifically to prevent this. It's not the system's fault that it's been packed full of subversive commie kikes who want to see us dead.

Just like China, except that Xi's ego has ruined the country forever, hubris always fails

True. Never really thought about it that way.

There is nothing wrong with mob rule in homogeneous society. Republic with multistage process of approving (((proper))) elected representatives is way so subvert homogeneous society and push things on society it otherwise would not agree, like importing refuges. Did EU people actually get direct vote on this question? Nope it was not directly elected (((representatives))) who did vote.

Kill yourself. Limited franchise or the country collapses. No women, no nonwhites, no net tax drains.

Do you understand what "homogeneous" means?

Do you understand what limited franchise means? It means not democracy.

Were Ancient Athens Democracy?

Democracy is a method to justify a policy not a policy in and of itself. It's common knowledge that population replacement policies pursued by the state are incredibly uncommon and only possible because of the indirectness of democracy i.e. every mainstream party supports it, non-kosher parties are kept out of power. In places like Switzerland where local direct democracy exists, rapefugee intake is comparatively low despite many people being nominally left leaning as locals don't want it to be their particular village where the invaders get placed.

Incredibly unpopular*

“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”
While I agree with you on democracy being a stupid idea, I'm curious what you want to replace it with.

Also,
If it came down to a choice between rule by the jew or by Slavs, I'd wouldn't hesitate to choose rule by my ethnic kinsmen in Russia rather than continue to suffer under the boot of the kikes.

No they were Jew lovers

It's not because they didn't come to "my conclusion"

It's because they came to the general consensus that's been being pushed by the jews since the inception of our country.

They want to get rid of the electoral college and drown out our vote using their sanctuary cities.

This is either your first day here or you are shilling if you didn't already know that. I want you to know as always that you will become one of us if you stay here for more than a day. Good luck faggot. I tried to do what you are doing 2 years ago. You cant defeat the red pill, you can only be consumed by it.

Attached: 87bdfsa54d3.gif (816x480, 5.42M)

...

True democracy only begins when the will of the Volk is carried out!

I think sir Oswald Mosley had the right idea when it comes to democracy. Mosley supported a system of Industrial Democracy in which employees would become stakeholders in the companies they work for and all profits would go to them and them alone. Employees of all companies over a certain size would become co-owners and elect their own representatives to serve on Boards of Directors. This redistribution of the ownership of industry and commerce will promote greater incentives among the work force as their share of the profits will depend directly on their enterprise and initiative.

He wanted to bring to an end to the party game which he saw as being destructive to the nation. He wanted to facilitate a new system of action suited to the modern age for the system of talk has failed and belongs to the past. For this instance, a Parliament will be strictly a technical office and not a political establishment. The franchise will be occupational and not geographical. People will vote according to their industry or profession and not according to their party loyalty. They will vote for people versed in the problems of their industries, and not for professional career politicians. Under this system everyone who worked in healthcare would choose from healthcare candidates, teachers for teaching candidates, transport workers for transport candidates, retail workers for retail candidates. In such system there's no place for parties and for politicians. The democratic system of political pluralism has failed spectacularly. It's nothing more than a dysfunctional oligarchy run by the usual suspects, their shabbos goys, international banks, special interests groups, big, transnational corporations and the military-industrial complex.

Attached: cooperative.jpg (620x772, 77.38K)

I grabbed the relevant parts for lazy anons to read. I think the system makes sense. I like the idea of senators being selected based on past achievements, not due to skewed popularity contests.

Attached: Screenshot_9.png (591x343 26.56 KB, 76.2K)

Sure point taken, all men are flawed. National socialism was not implemented long enough to see if it could withstand succession, so maybe we are all wrong.

One thing I dont like about Hitler is that he elevated some idiots like Goering to power. Imagine how bad things would have been for the Reich if that retarded fat prude became fuhrer.

Still, Hitler had at first dreamed of a reinstated German nobility - after meeting the italian royslty on a stste visit to Italy, Hitler decided that hereditary power transfer could potentially produce incompetent leaders and so leaders should be chosen by merit and devotion to their people.

lol, rabbi. If we had direct democracy in America CNN would have been shut down ages ago.

Depends what you mean by direct, a direct democracy can have lots of restrictions and still be direct. I think a democracy system only survives if is socially conservative and people respect the constitution that founds it, also, a direct democracy system only works if is heavily restricted (how from the people can vote). Also, for a direct democracy to work it needs free flow of information and cannot be distorted, what pretty makes it s utopia system.

For me, only a citizen republic or a military republic can work properly as a direct democracy, with a heavy decentralized system.

This is great. It's the only to get control back from a system that focuses on guns and abortion during the election, then focuses on transferring wealth to Israel and too jewish to fail corporations.

Proletarian dictatorship is not direct democracy, its only works as a dictatorship system or a aristocratic oligarchic system.

It is democracy, yes, and direct even, implies in citizens debating and voting, it is democracy to its core.
A democracy to be democracy doesn't need every retard to have a voice, you dont allow 4 year old children to vote, nigger.

This seems reasonable. It would go a long way to make giant consumer stores like Walmart a bit less destructive and soul crushing.
My fiancé once worked for a department store and the idiot owners changed the work schedule every fucking day. One day you'd be there at 5 AM and get home at 1 and the next he'd leave at 12 and not get home until 11 PM!
This kind of behavior is inane. It makes people depressed and prevents families from being together. Worst of all, it fucks with an employee's health. And this is intentional.
Anyway, I think that such a system might be very effective. I can envision some drawbacks to collective ownership though. The tragedy of the commons is a real problem. But at least if department stores were stakeholders and had political power within the company, such insane and detructive practices would not be tolerated.

Yeah, that's exactly the kind of cronyism I was hinting at. Hitler was an idealist of undefeatable imagination and drive. He imagined a paradise for Germans and actually created it to a large extent. But alas, the war cut short the dream and created a nightmare.
However, he did exits in the real world and he needed the support of the Prussian elites so that is how unimaginative oligarchs like Goering got promoted to high ranks.
This is what I am afraid of. Totalitarianism is a complete myth. No man rules alone. Every leader needs the support of members of the ruling elite in order to stay in power. In time, you can replace the unimaginative and corrupt. But that takes great skill and great patience. And like gardening, it takes constant vigilance and pruning in order to keep the elites focused on the people, the nation, the Volk. If you relax the less idealistic will slip back into the mud and rule for themselves.

Obviously, any elite, no matter how corrupt or incompetent is preferable to a genocidal gang of psychotic, blood sucking jews. However, I want the best possible form of government for the post-jewish world. A society with meaningful freedom and actual fairness a opposed to the fake freedom and disingenuous "fairness" of the anti-White psychopaths.

White people invent democracy, Athens were a republic, and the germanic tribes elect their kings.

This tradition sorta survives with the HRE form of elective monarchy.

Still, democracy does not mean everybody vote, it means the citizenry as people with responsibility and stake to vote.

Unifying Scandinavia into "basically an imperium" is bad how? Can you clarify what you mean? If it is Fenno-Scandia imperium then I get it.

Your plan considering finns sounds great! It would take into consideration the racial truth and keep the states separated. Doesnt mean that a tight cooperation, trade and defence are off the table. Including Estonia would present some real problems regarding geopolitics but in ideal world, sure.

Statistical representation through lottery draft with public office as a civic duty is superior to direct democracy. AI arbitrated public office draft is the final form.

hi schlomo

Its the same reason jews dont like communism - when everyone is equal, 2% of jews have 2% of power and wealth.

Democracy is still the worst possible way to govern.

Yes and because they were a democracy and retards were allowed to vote, they declared war against Persia and had their city burned to the ground.

And yet all of those democracies came crashing down because the retardation of your average voter.

"Direct democracy" is a code word for "anarchocommunism." Representative democracy is just a softer form of communism. All democracy is shit. As the last two centuries have shown: it has failed almost immediately in every single country it was tried. The future is the witenagemot, and anyone advocating otherwise is either a shill or useful idiot.

Germanic tribes were massacred by christian, and the HRE was ended by fucking Napoleon, not any voters.

Jews love communism, no one can point the finger without being called racism.

Women shouldn't vote because they are natural leftist. Democracy will always turn a society into idiocracy because there are always more losers than there are winners. If we really want voting system, then the vote for each individual should only count as much as the responsibility the man has in his society, e.g. the vote of a army veteran should count more than a man that never enlisted or the vote of a family man should count more than the vote of a childless man.

Real democracy is only way to fight the minorities

Holy shit you are a retarded shill.
Direct democracy doesnt work because of geography you fuck.
You need representation without then turning your entire life into being a full time politician for literally every single issue.
You need a hierarchy and division of work.
No one is going to fall for your bullshit.

Fuhrerious sage

Women shouldn't vote because it breaks homogeneity of the votes. They inherently vote for opposite things than men it means governing system would be constantly fighting itself pulling pulling into opposite directions. Key to the effective governing vie voting system is agreement, total agreement is impossible but it should be at least approached. When voting base is split 50-50 into completely different groups agreement on anything is impossible.

Opposite system is possible. Man shouldn't vote. It is bad but allowing both groups to vote is worst scenario.

Muh democracy in anyform is retarded. Rememer when the Swiss decided to let their plebs choose which JET FUCKING FIGHTER to buy?

This. Humans specialize, despite that dumbshit amerimutt meme.

That is no way a democracy as defined, you absolute brainlet.
And a republic is NOT a democracy by definition. Just because you have an electoral college on some issues doesn't mean you have a democracy.
You dumb fuck.

What the fuck is this thread?

Exactly. It isn't zero which completely disqualifies direct democracy.

One activist in NRM told me about philosophy on the direct democracy part. People dont know what they want and hence you have a non-elective leader. But people really know what they dont want anf hence the direct democracy part.zuo

No they don't. Also wanting is irrelevant. Is it practically doable and is it good for the race are the only two questions that matter.

I actually have no idea how you can claim that the broad masses know what they want.
Most people are followers.

I'd almost believe in direct democracy on a local level, but the main flaw with any sort of democratic process is that the majority of people are often content enough in their own lives to not really care enough about the voting process.
Even if you made voting mandatory, you'll have it where people show up entirely uneducated about any sort of views of most sides because most people follow elections as a tertiary thing.
Republics equally don't work, because in some way or another, you will either get an Andrew Jackson or a Julius Caesar to come along and either make a democracy or a dictatorship out of it. And pointing at Italian republics, I fail to see how immitating a society where half the political process was based on shady back deals and murdering political opponents is a good idea. Republics open a society up to the perils of party politics which history has shown to be a complete shitshow in terms of national stability in the long run. The elected 'president' is still a 'party man', and will always lack the general backing of the people

Attached: the people are often nero.jpg (850x400, 54.68K)

>(((Venice)))

Attached: B14DFFA0-859A-44CE-AFD2-3513D7D0167B.jpeg (1003x959, 257.13K)