Can national socialist monarchy be compatible?

Before I get any flack and yes I do understand that this board can get a bit more elitist when it comes ideological belief and being only pro national socialism or hitlerism 99.9% of the time, but I want you to hear me out on this one. I have been thinking as of late Zig Forums the genius of national socialism and what it had done for germany cannot be in anyway understated, but the main flaw about national socialism I think Zig Forums had not realized or do but never decide to talk about it. Imagine in a timeline where nsdap germany won and defeated the international jew, but there is another problem at least for germany, were hitler to die or decided to kick the bucket is who will replace him? There is a 50/50% a tyrant would replace him or guy who may continue his policies, but never at the extent hitler did or with inspiring speeches but the problem keeps increasing that a tyrant might take over and take power for him self. So I was thinking to my self how to avoid this sort of problem if we were to implement national socialism to any of our nations. I think I might've found the solution, but I have no idea if this can work I propose national socialist monarchy the reason I think this may be a good idea is because of passing your knowledge on to the children and that will continue with your bloodline. This may prevent many problems, if the first leader of a national socialist country were to die or kick the bucket, his child will continue the policies and knowledge his father had left him, as his father will be teaching the main tenets of national socialism to always love your people and to serve their interests and for the common good and to treat your people with love and teach them be strong and self improvement, not only does the population continue to self improvement as it is truth, but so does the new leader of that blood line who continue improving upon the policies and to pass down his knowledge to his child and this keeps continuing I think this solves a lot of problems that national socialism may have had and will serve the reich pretty will at least in my opinion.
Are they compatible and will this be able to work?

Attached: main-qimg-648988ec2a6d27810dcd136a1abb2a9a.jpg (640x640 548.77 KB, 105.27K)

Other urls found in this thread:

resist.com/Instauration/OtherPubs-20120723/NS-BiologicalWorldview-RiisKnudsen.pdf
archive.org/details/NSLM_201604
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assassination_attempts_on_Adolf_Hitler
youtu.be/sTYvTj8Ss6g
youtu.be/7YMG7zDHbew
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Selfless bump for discussion

"A further problem is that of selecting a successor when the philosopher-king dies. Each philosopher-king will have to be able to pre­select reliably a successor whose goals and values are virtually identical to his own; for, otherwise, the first philosopher-king will steer the society in one direction, the second philosopher-king will steer the society in a somewhat different direction, the third philosopher-king will steer it in yet another direction, and so forth. The result will be that the development of the society in the long term will wander at random, rather than being steered in any consistent direction or in accord with any consistent policy as to what constitute desirable or undesirable outcomes. Historically, in absolute monarchies of any kind-the Roman Empire makes a convenient example-it has proven impossible even to ensure the succession of rulers who are reasonably competent and conscientious. Capable, conscientious rulers have alternated with those who have been irresponsible, corrupt, vicious or incompetent. As for a long, unbroken succession of rulers, each of whom not only is competent and conscientious but also has goals and values closely approximating those of his predeces­sor-you can forget it. All of these arguments, by the way, apply not only to philosopher-kings but also to philosopher-oligarchs-ruling groups small enough so that Engels's "conflicts among many individual wills" do not come into play. "

-Ted Kazynski Anti-Tech Revolution Why and How 1.V

*Kaczynski

The Nobles actually supported Hitler, and gave him financial backing. All of the Royals in the 1920's until the actual fighting started between the German Communists and National Socialists would wear their SS uniforms and whatnot.

When I say fighting, they actually were shooting each other in the streets as the Communists had violently overthrown the legitimate government when they found out Hindenburg was very ill and close to being dead

Monarchy doesn't exist in reality. It's an oligarchy.

So how long did that fight lasted or did it went all the way to 1933 and where did you find this information?

no , and your thread sucks

I need some hard core proof's for that.

natsoc is revolutionary while monarchy is reactionary. thus, the two are incompatible. it's as simple as that.

Mind to explain as to why it can't work?

You just need common sense and logic. If it's that hard to imagine, please point out a single example of a monarchy that ever existed.

… What about the monarch during the crusade era?

Let me expand. To learn, read Povl Riis-Knudsen.

resist.com/Instauration/OtherPubs-20120723/NS-BiologicalWorldview-RiisKnudsen.pdf

archive.org/details/NSLM_201604

Povl Heinrich Riis-Knudsen's compelling and intriguing thesis published in 1984, contending that National Socialism is a politically "left wing" ideology, based on its revolutionary nature as contrasted to the perceived merely reactionary ways of the Right.

leftwingers — no doubt about it! We do not want to preserve the present system or any
part thereof. We do not believe in the foundations of a system that has led our people into
the misery of the present time! We do not want to support any institution which is
responsible for two world wars between White nations as well as countless minor wars;
nuclear rearmament; the pollution of the environment; unemployment; the total
disillusionment of young people, who have lost all faith in the future; drug abuse;
pornography; and all the other forms of complete degeneracy which are displayed today.
We National Socialists want the most radical change of all: we want the complete
overthrow of the entire Old Order!

Attached: povl_riis-knudsen_april_20_1989.jpg (652x490, 76.81K)

Nobles, lords, the church, etc., it was an oligarchy.

no , but you should check my dubs before you fucking try to oppose me faggot

stop being dumb, if you want to stay dumb , not my fault

that National Socialists should have devoted so much time and energy to catering toward
traditional right-wing attitudes, whereas they have shunned all openings to the left. Is it
any wonder that all attempts to create a National Socialist movement on this basis have
been utterly unsuccessful?

Shit history books lie to me about that one as well?
If a monarchy didn't fucking exist then what was it in reality is it just as fake compared to communism?

I think natsoc has been unsuccesful due to how powerful jews have been after ww2.
I mean it was about to pick up, but they (((assassinated))) george rockwell and erased dudley pelly.

(heil'd)
Didn't see it user.

I wasn't asking a question. I copypasted the text and it didn't format properly so only the first line is greentext.

I do disagree that he said
I view it as a 3rd position ideology like fascism, hitler and nsdap's main goal was to unite the people under one banner not divide them through (((democracy))) dribble.

Attached: GoebellsJewMediaControlMeme.jpg (722x655, 373.75K)

I would argue it's a term on face only, you either get a prominent member of an oligarch group, or you get the shadow puppet figure.

Disagree with what he said*

oh it's no different in the US with respect to government. Sure we have a president, but government is actually run by the deep state, although their power isn't unlimited because of the laws and need to work from behind curtains.

If a monarchy did not exist at the very least was an oligarchy a good system? I know a lot of ideologies but never studied oligarchy or a monarchy.

Though I will give him a read, I am pretty sure he has a lot of interesting things to say.

The right to rule should never be hereditary. The bloodline of a man offers a genetic template which may be improved upon and built up through the experiences of the individual. But the father will never be the son, nor the son the father. A man isn't just his blood. He is the sum of all of his words and deeds, and those of the people around him. Very few men are able to withstand the hardships which are required to make him into a leader. The son of a king will be sheltered and weak, and he'll never experience that hardening of his soul. He'll never know what it's like to claw his way up out of the darkness, to fight for his life. The sheltered son of a king will never possess the stuff of legends. He'll always be a spoiled bitch.

Fuck monarchy.

Attached: 7c9.gif (320x240, 969.59K)

You only have left and right. The proper way to think of left and right is with the terms revolutionary and reactionary, respectively. Either at the core of your philosophy you wish to be revolutionary or reactionary. Go look up the definitions. You can either be progressive or conservative. There are no other options. NatSoc being revolutionary is therefore leftwing. It does not seek to conserve but instead to move forward and change, even in terms of race. The term Third Position is only really useful for differentiating a small handful of movements away from the modern ideas of left and right, which is necessary when you are talking to people who are limited to a worldview of Marxism VS capitalism.

This may sound ridiculous, but what if the leader sends him and teaching how to survive with a bunch of children and is expected to lead them.

(heil'd)
If it is a really left wing ideology for the shake of the argument, how do we get people to convert after the shit libturds (((establishment))) and degenerates had done and think we may lead them to that dribble, do we tell them the truth or lie and say we are 3rd position?

The hardship has to be organic. Leadership comes from the heart, and from all of the real world experience a man has. It's impossible to teach a man to be a leader. He has to learn that himself. He has to find his own will to be.

The old saying goes that you can bring a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

Nope, oligarchies always fail because the condition for them to be good is dependent on human nature, and human nature by default is greed/corruption/evil. If it's not the first generation of the oligarchy that is corrupt, the generations that follow will be. The fatal flaw in all systems that rely solely on people is human nature.

This is why a Constitutional Republic (rule of law) is the most resilient of all forms of government yet discovered. Of course, it's only as good as the design of the constitution, and therein lies the problem because the constitution is written by humans trying to account for vast complexity.

I guess that makes, since I would say caesar or hitler are the best examples of what you just described.

Sounds like fucking hell and another jewish trick in our history books.
Not even constitutional republic is just as good, is kinda hard to believe national socialism is the only good ideology though we have not seen the long terms of it to see if it will hold up even today.
To bad the kikes destroyed it before we even got a glimpse if it will do good in the future.
Another redpill swallowed.

Yep, Hitler is the best modern example. Many men just like him gave up hope and died in the trenches. Many took their own lives out of despair after the war. What made Hitler unique was his will to live. Every time he was beaten down it only made him angrier and angrier, driving him forward to greatness.

Sounds like the majority of Zig Forums.

NatSoc is Third Position and leftwing. Both are true. Third positionism merely means in opposition to both capitalism and communism. There is no contradiction.

I don't support national socialism because socialism is fatally flawed. I am a hardcore nationalist though. The first iteration of the constitution was simply insufficient to prevent human nature form corrupting the country. After this country collapses and IF we get another shot at it, we need to correct it based on what failed and improve it. Rinse and repeat until we either find a really good framework to constrain human nature, or we're all dead.

Which isn't a bad thing I suppose.

Depends on how you define it, since socialism is not connected to marxism, but something more ancient that includes people while nationalist meaning the nation, while the (((marxist))) skewed the definition on what socialism even is.
Though I am not saying national socialism is without it's flaws, because it certainly does and is the only non kiked system along with fascism we have.

Attached: Hitler thoughts on socialism.jpg (1024x878 820.19 KB, 196.25K)

The majority of Zig Forums will call you a shill if you suggest doing anything offline. There were PNW threads up talking about the Butler Plan but I doubt anyone will actually get off their ass and do something. You know what's lazier than a nigger and cheaper than a kike? A white nationalist. Meanwhile Hitler went marching through the streets and took a bullet.

Zig Forums is nothing like Hitler. Stop sucking your own dick. It's pathetic.

I recommend looking up cultured thug on national socialism he describes it strength's and weaknesses.

>but something more ancient that includes people while nationalist meaning the nation, while the (((marxist))) skewed the definition on what socialism even is.
It had defining elements of what is, in a general and modern sense, socialism, both social and economic. They practised interventionism (price control, etc.) and egalitarian policies, for example. The list goes on. What separates it from Marxism is its belief in hierarchy and the importance of race, the Volk..

I heard about this one post on what hitler went through and he sounds like a badass
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assassination_attempts_on_Adolf_Hitler

This. Socialism is as old as time itself. It just means helping your neighbor whenever you can, with the expectation that they'll help you in your time of need. Communism isn't socialism. Communism is a kosher "gibs me dat fo free" on steroids.

Everything you're doing is wrong. Except for embracing NatSoc. Please lurk a bit

Are you talking about national socialist or marxism?

Instead of just looking at quotes you should look at the history of what they actually did in practice.
This is now what NatSocs practised as "socialism",

It's called an emperor, it's who wrangles kings. Kings are important because they are the blossom of a culture. Please use the options button to learn how to format and try /test/ or /sandbox/ for all your hideously disfiguring newfaggot needs. NIGGER

*not

Socialism is like anti-evolution. It's very nature has to set artificial constraints based on the system in which it exists in order to function. We can't all drive expensive cars, nor should we, it's a waste of resources. So we need market conditions to drive competition and force increases in efficiency, which is what evolution really is.

So no, there is no magical definition of where socialism will ever work in a world that is finite and constrained by scarcity. If they can basically find a source of near unlimited energy and the ability to convert energy -> matter, now socialism becomes feasible because scarcity is no longer a constraint. You would have to deal with human nature however.

Agreed. Discussion closed, devise a better system of ascension. Please and thank you.

I think I have boned all the hot women. Apparently all that's left is the crackhead that won't go away.

Jesus the amount of those attempts.

Since you asked, a capable monarch will allow his sons to be captured for ransom. They will be tortured or bribed, surely both. If he survives intact he may be fit to rule. Tough but true

I'm well aware that the German National Socialist government took over various businesses, pieces of land, and materials for the war effort, and I don't really care. The US did the same shit during this time period. I would expect the same to happen within a modern ethnostate if we went to war. What the fuck do think total war means, nigger? What is eminent domain?

You're a faggot.

Almost like he could see the future

youtu.be/sTYvTj8Ss6g
For requried viewing what you are describing is marxist socialism.

Attached: 1549586085965.jpg (1729x818 92.8 KB, 249.5K)

Kek, zombies groaning. You're more creative than that, right? I'm right , right? I dare you

For people who want a better understanding of the ideology.
youtu.be/7YMG7zDHbew

Oh, a bot. I'll give you guys a bit more than phone love maybe I guess

You can argue the qualifier semantics all you want, socialism simply doesn't work regardless of the flavor because you can't magically wish away scarcity. Maybe take a course on operations research, do a little intro linear programming, then come back and try to tell me the qualifier of the type of socialism somehow negates mathematics.

That argument is for communism not national socialism.
Also you are confusing the ideology of national socialism as an economical term rather than an ideology.

You're not worth the effort. You're just a crackhead.

Any type of monarchy is shit. A man has to have fulfilling labour in his life, providing for himself by himself, then he is happy and competent. But then he is a common free man, not a monarch, at best a tribal chief. If a man has his living handed to him with zero risk and zero effort, he quickly degenerates into a depressed biomass obsessed with make-believe autistic bullshit, be he a God-Emperor or a lowly bureaucrat.
You know the Byronic hero? The rich cuntlet that had the world handed to him, so he doesn't know why live or how to live and invents vanity projects to occupy his intense boredom? Give him the absolute power in an ethnic supermonarchy and see him permanently depressed over his newest grandest palace minutiae while the plebs providing him with free bling die from hunger and exploitation. He might as well turn a couple hundred thousand of his people into field fertilizer for a neighboring country out of boredom and maybe get some cheap war fame undeserved.

Oh right, because ideology can negate physics, math, and all manners of scarcity. The ideology is fucking irrelevant if the solution that implements it doesn't fucking work.

National socialism had a mixed economy and every thing you described is from either communism or a marxist socialist you should also see the video I linked.

You also have to read some economic reformations hitler did which benefited the people a lot.
National socialism is about self improvement not an utopia which you are confusing with communism and thinking natsoc is against evolution which it is not.

I misread user.

That's almost as dumb as people who imagine the political axis to be all about liberty vs tyranny.


There are good reasons to make the right to rule hereditary. People are the most invested in their children and guaranteeing their offspring will inherit their kingdom extends this investment to their kingdom as well. I believe this is a primary reason why certain forces toiled to destroy monarchy and spread democracy. It's obvious that (((corruption))) and (((subversion))) are the greatest problem of democracy, because the rulers have no personal investment in the government whatsoever. This is what allows every single congresscritter to be bought with relatively minor sums of money.


As if any human system is not entirely dependent on human nature. Your constitution has no power on its own and is being/will be completely thrown out of the window as soon as there's a reason to do so. Tell me how much your constitution has protected your freedom of speech when one of the last bastions of free speech in the world are anonymous internet forums and even these can't be allowed to exist and must be spammed by shills 24/7.


Do you realize what you're saying makes no sense?

Attached: 1547945271060.jpg (1024x745, 94.83K)

I've had to do it before, but I'd like you to pay attention to what a bot looks like.


Of all sad words of tongue or pen, the saddest are these

Attached: 1436315442997.jpg (466x600, 39.72K)

And better reasons not to. Namely IT'S BEEN TRIED AND IT'S FAILED

I prefer a strict Constitutional Republic, heavily anti-government and nationalist. This IMO is the only solution that is viable. The found fathers managed to come up with a system that has lasted 200+ years before failing. It was a good first iteration. We just need to study how the system was corrupted by the kikes (gold standard/central bank being a huge reason), and write a new constitution to make that impossible to do again.

Even if it is more strict how do we improve the system without letting kikes find loopholes and takin advantage of it?
Gonna go to sleep looking forward to have a discussion about this.

That's the exact same fail rate as every system tried in the last several thousand years. Meaning it's a failure. 200 years with the last hundred kiked is a failure. You won't found even a 1000 year Reich like that, pleb

Attached: 8f0610936afb30dd988810e85b0f90ceb4ea39c0cd1c47b0870edc1f8f7837c6.gif (350x155, 1.79M)

What do you think the purpose of law is? Law is by nature and design to supersede human nature by outlining the societal enforcement thereof. What's that saying about rules? It's what sets us apart from the animals.

What about scarcity confuses you exactly?

I don't even want a leader with children. I want one who will be fully devoted to the nation and folk. A family will only drag him down in such an important position. Families are for the common man. And no, the US government wasn't bought and sold because these politicians don't have kids. It happened because they're weak. Because they haven't been kicked in the balls enough times to know their right hands from their own assholes. They're morons, and they're unfit to rule.

The current republic/democracy paradigm will pass too. Everything fails given enough time and there's no reason to believe they're replaced with the best. That's a ridiculous argument. Hereditary rule existed for thousands of years in many different parts of the world during much more unstable and difficult times, and none of those societies were so badly subverted by kikes as the USA was in a couple decades.

Attached: 1549415713780.jpg (1024x632, 145.61K)

Well my number 1 would be going back to a gold standard and dropping the entire monetary system into the ovens along with the kikes. I'd also limit who can run for office through heavy testing to qualify, also on who can vote, effectively wiping out the stupid masses from being able to fuck shit up and politicians from manipulating them. Term limits for Congress would be another addition. A better written 2nd amendment that leaves no debate. I remember years ago before Zig Forums even existed on cuckchan there were threads outlining things we should do if there was ever a constitutional convention. I mean shit, there were like 100+ unique suggestions easy.

Point is it can be done.

That's the challenge isn't it? To find a better system that's robust enough to survive longer.

(checked)
Of coursh. But it doesn't have to be quite so fragile. According to my napkin math approximately 1 in 4 humans experiences societal collapse within his lifetime. We could make that 1 in 20 from day one

Attached: 1420081590921.jpg (225x225, 12.21K)

That it is. Hope I found the most capable people on the planet to hash it out for free

We will see how it will do without kikes this time we have not seen national socialism failed either before jews declared war and destroyed it.
Without intervention I would like to see which ideology would last the longest and more beneficial for whites.

Which leads to another question how do we get tough people in office without having cucks 50 years later down the line?

You're doing it wrong. I can see this place needs more tenderizing

Attached: 1468015364628-0.png (959x541, 192.34K)

Founding fathers took ~116 days to write the Constitution. It needs to be corrected to be more kike proof for the next iteration.


Maybe we'll get another shot at it, or maybe we all end up dead. Honestly, I'm leaning towards the latter being the most likely outcome.

Mind posting the cuckchan thread?

I expect nothing less. I have tangible faith in you scurvy lot
ethnoglobalism

Attached: 1430254548694.jpg (500x725, 117.83K)

It's more like adjusting the ship structurally that just so happens to support the deck and chairs, not to mention the engines, living quarters, and everything else, but that isn't as cliche as that easy parrot line you've just regurgitated like an NPC.

I would not mind taking constitutional republic for another go but the problem is taking back control and I would not mind combining that with propertainism which is a lolberg ideology that makes sense.

I saved it, but I'd have to dig through my old archives. I'll put it on the to-do list and start a thread when I find it.

Finally the 666bot didn't steal one of my gets. A 1488 get and I'll observe it myself
You have 5 hours. Go.

Attached: 1467436671099.jpg (400x400, 68.07K)

(sieg heil'd)
Ya making a new thread for discussion sounds nice.

We just need to create a new Constitution and system that is more kike-proof. Honestly I bet if we actually focused all the autism here on such a problem, we could probably come up with a pretty decent rough draft.

Nice fucking get. Heil!

Also the etnoglobe would take centuries to achieve mate.

You underistimate our autism what will most likely end up happening we will be arguing on which ideology was better (since this board is majorly natsoc) but will some will play devil advocate and then discussion the constitution and we will accidently make up a new ideology which does not make sense but it works.

Oh ya one more thing when are you going to make that thread.