Absolutist Nation State Discussion Thread

Really? I always felt that Italian fascism was very pro Catholic. And the NSDAP was very pro family. Inb4 natsoc is not fascism.

Attached: 3D83002F-FA79-406E-8EF1-B826DA2D0A3E.jpg (1385x1985, 241K)

Mussolini was a militant Atheist, and pic related is in regards to NS.

Attached: kaiser_wilhelm_ii_quote___view_of_hitler_by_yamalama1986-d898h3r.png (975x503, 209K)

Interesting. I thought rome tending to hammer out regional differences. I will have to do more reading.

Wrong thread buddy?

in reality; someone with a lot of money paid other strong men to fight anyone who would rise up and challenge him. The build a castle on the land to operate out of. The people who live on the land now have to pay the rich man otherwise his strongmen will incarcerate them, nothing has changed. The federal reserve is a private company owned by these rich men who loan out their wealth to be used by others at an interest. Elections and the president don't change anything, it's designed to keep making these rich men money, if you don't pay you get incarcerated. They even gave the strongmen "state" authority to kill you if you resist. This was never your land, it was owned by the rich men, they "inherited it" and "bought it" and so it's theirs and we're slaves to this whether we like it or not. They tax you to pay for the money they loan to you. They tax you when you buy something, when you earn something, when you gift something. Then they tell you it's for public institutions, but the education system is shit, the food is shit, the roads are shit, and the politicans working for the rich men don't care because if they did they wouldn't have a job. It's all a lie, they've been indoctrinated since birth. Mickey mouse, Bugs Bunny, sports, pacify and stupify, and there's nothing you can do about it. Your countrymen are brainwashed. The women are whores and fuck every man they date.

historically, absolutism and nationalism did not mix very well. Nationalism was first created as a movement to overthrow the monarchical states and create national states in their place. I think that a this friction would re-emerge if a absolutist nation state would arise again, since a fundamental part of the nation state is that it is a state "for the people", and therefore very prone to be at odds with some kind of droit divin on which absolutism is based.

>implying things aren't failing due to a decline in liberalism
>Implying the situation you described isn't still more free than living in a country with an absolutest government

Interesting quote from a fascinating guy. Not sure if I agree on the atheism charge. Maybe he was himself but he did offer the Vatican to the church and courted them closely. Then again he was a Machiavellian.

you mean
>be lawless tribal shithole
>local warlord offers you land, the most important commodity with literally infinite value to farm and maintain, requiring only a 10% share in exchange for protecting you from bandits and other warlords (no tax if you are willing to take up a bow and support his retainers with a mass archery barrage once a lifetime)
>you now no longer have to be a hunter-gatherer or beggar, get to live in an actual house, be part of a based community and own lots of produce and animals

>All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state
You really think he'd want to tolerate such an independent power structure long term?

He did so because to go against the Pope would start a revolt. That's the problem with Populist movements, you simply can't deviate from the wishes of the majority.

Maybe I used the wrong term. I am referring to a polity like ancient rome or some such, rather than 19th century nationalism. What do you think about the former exactly?

Why does anyone have the obligation to obey your absolute rural?

Don't care as long as it's an ethnostate

*ruler

He offered them a city state. They still have this state. Then again it might have been a way to get them outside the state so he didn't have deal with them and start a long term struggle.

It sounds like the kind of situation you are proposing would benefit from an absolutist leader?

The fed reserve for example is a clear example of infiltration of a free market system. An emperor would be able to stamp this out and put the execs to death for having poisoned the nation's people and finance.

Wilhelm II was an old fool by 1938, divorced with the reality of the times. A relic of the 19th century.

I would say it depends on the polity.

GK Chesterton said that "peopl e didn't love rome because she was great, she was great because people loved her". So it might be a cultural thing. Hitler wanted to install this partly with the Hitler youth.

The other obligation would be broad definition of treason and sedition to mean imprisonment or death would be much easier to enforce.

It could be many mechanism.

17th century Italian city states

Wouldn't it help maintain the ethno state in case of a little (((infiltration)))?

How so? I don't know much about him, but he seems lucid here. What is your criticism of him?

The totalizing nature of global finance and industrial technology quite possibly demanded a totalizing response.

How so? Small states and self ruled cities? I don't know enough about Italy so I'm guessing some were more authoritarian. Milan was a duchy but others were democratic weren't they?

you're such a wimp, you have acess to internet, so I assume you're free, you can travel inside and outside your country, open a business, buy whater you want ,vote, talk shit about your politicians without reprecussion, free press, acess to healthcare, etc... What's your definition of "free"?

I didn't ask how, I asked why. Why does any single individual have a moral obligation to obey you, and not tell you to fuck off for being the usurper you are?

Many of these were available in Natsoc Germany. No internet of course. Only the press was restrained when it came to defeatism and pro Jewish publishing. These could even be seen as emergency measures as there was a war and if the jews were so entrenched in Germany, it would require emergency measures.

His delusional hopes for the restoration of the pre-WWI German order. One of the reasons he supported the NSDAP in the early 30s is his hope that it would eventual morph back into a monarchical system, with the Hohenzollern House again at the helm.

You have an obligation because the state imposes the obligation. No Roman born into rome in 30ad was obliged to act in the favour of Rome, but try and do it and see what happens.

Why do I have to obey the state?

Ah I see. That's a little clingy I suppose. But his statement about the longevity of a nation being placed in the family and the organic structure is sensible I think.

Then again, Hitler belived in the organic state and was very pro family.

So what would you say about the original question yourself?

Like I said, try and do what Socrates did in Athens or what Spartacus did in Rome.

The obligation is because of the deterrent, if you want to call that an obligation.

It's my ideal government type.
Also, may the Great Sun light your path!

I think it is a very interesting idea, but I'm not entirely on board. That is partly because I think that one of the reasons why liberalism eventually beat reaction is because some of the core doctrines of liberalism make for very successful policies (eg comparative advantage, interdependence as a international security strategy and democracy as a way of getting a government that is more in touch with the socioeconomic reality of the population than a monarch and his aristocratic ministers and thus is more capable of helping ordinary people in their daily live than the latter). I agree that there are serious downsides to liberalism as well, that are getting more an more dire today (eg the liberal consumerist world is highly unsustainable and the people living in it are getting weaker and weaker-willed thanks to its interdependence, comfort and lack of value attributed to honour). However, if we abandon liberalism in favour of it's predecessor, we do not only lose the benefits from the edge liberalism had over reaction, but we also risk liberalism defeating reaction again because of that edge.

Another reason why I'm not really on board with your idea is that, right now, it is not a very realistic scenario. And given the fact that the liberal world is becoming increasingly more degenerate and over-encompassing, I think our main priority right now is to realize a way out of that world for the people who do not want to become bugmen and instead want a healthy society to live and raise their kids in. And realizing that,(like realizing anything) requires a more pragmatic approach.

However, like I said, I do see the value in it and I definitely think that the neoreactionary movement is one of the most interesting right wing groups today. If you're not familiar with them, I suggest you read some of their stuff. These are my favourite neoreaction sites:

socialmatter.net/

thermidormag.com/

unqualified-reservations.org/

Ceádmil!

Why is it your government of choice? I am trendy towards it.

Just to stick with the example above, nilfgaard was exactly this but it was welcoming of elves and dwarves so it was not an ethnostate. Obviously it is fiction but interesting none the less.

I assume it is a north korean state.

That's just a naked threat of force, not a justification for an obligation. There is no need for such a concept as obligation or duty in your amoral world. If you have more power than me, you can use it to compel me to do as you wish - fine. If I somehow acquire more power than you, I can force you instead. There is no stable justification for anything at all, all the matters is who happens to carry the biggest stick at the moment.

North Korea is a a kind of authoritarianism but not a hierarchical and traditionalist one.

I'm thinking more of Rome or pre civil war England.

Interesting take thanks for the post user. Yes I know NrX fairly well and I like them too.

The part about democracy in touch with the people is where I would disagree. I don't think the people know what they need or want most often so can't pick a leader effectively.

As for the leaders knowing what is necessary, I would say the born and raised leaders are often better educated. My own nation valued classical Eton style education which was a physical mental and intellectual rigorous program for raising admirals and politicians. This proved effective as we built the world's greatest empire on the back of it.

But you are right, material benefits like growth under capitalism are certainly to be praised. But is it inevitable that this growth leads to luxury and comfort and the vice capitalism you mentioned?

He was a militant atheist up until the end of his life. Supposedly, Mussolini was stuck in Purgatory when he asked a mystic to pray for him.

Radovid did nothing wrong

But by 1940 he kissed Hitlers ass after he had surpassed him

It historically worked best in my country. Slavs in general are not prone for democratic forms of government.
Other than that, bureaucracy at the top of the government is significantly reduced, there is a clear chain of command.
Provided that the we're talking about a system where the rulership of the country is passed down to the ruler's children (best example monarchy, but doesn't really have to be monarchy) ruler has everything to lose and nothing to gain forcing him to think long into the future and carefully weight his every decision, especially today when people are pretty well informed about what their government does and plan to do. This is also the reason why the ruler would carefully choose who gets to be a minister or w/e title lower rank government officials would have.
Because there would be no party system, ruler can pick the best person in the country for whatever job and not the best person in the party.

The negatives are getting a crazy ruler like Nero or something like that, but again I don't think a ruler like that would last very long as the general populace would not tolerate it and quite possibly military as well.

>nilfgaard was exactly this but it was welcoming of elves and dwarves so it was not an ethnostate
An absolutist type of government can be multicultural much easier than democratic one. Nevertheless even there there has to be a clear majority of native population.

The old adage that might is right would suggest that I don't need any justification to rule over you.

If I can do it then I am permitted to. And you can challenge me, but you will lose. This then reinforces the authority I have through fear and through competence.

This means subsequent generations know my ability to maintain my state is strong and do not revolt.

Stability through strength. What other stability is there?

>thinking you are currently free

Do you think pic related is a preferred system? A kind of ancient rome approach to governance?

Then we're no longer talking about politics (literally "affairs of the polity"), but a war of all against all. There is no polity to you, nothing common that holds men together, just isolated individuals waiting for the moment to stab one another in the back. Whoever acquires the force to compel others is immediately legitimate in doing so, for whatever purpose they desire, even if this means destroying your absolutist project. You would have no reason to complain.

I have trouble believing you're actually an amoral psychopath.

Even if we aren't, why should we prefer the kind of naked tyranny advocated in this thread to what we have today?

Is there any way an Emperor can make the transition of power without a civil war breaking out every 50 years when the old one dies?
Been pretty autistic about emperor vs king recently and this is the one thing that keeps be doubtful of the practicality of an emperor even tho I prefer one over a king in pretty much everything else

I don't think I am a psychopath but I wonder why you think that.

Firstly I mentioned above that there were many ways of introducing authority, like Chesterton and his view that rome was loved rather than feared.

You can do it this way, then you would throw out obligation and voluntarily serve your leadership.

But if we are to do it through crushing military and judicial power, I don't believe it will necessarily be a free for all. If done well it will be a powerfully held together nation of people forced into obedient action. Over time this makes for a very stable nation state. See Rome, see Assyria, see pharaonic Egypt (although they used a cult of divinity to achieve this also), see Aztec and Mesoamerican societies, see Spanish empire, see statist Russia. They were generally stable and far more able to quell internal struggle.

To suggest force makes for cynical population and no cohesion is to say this through the lens of someone who grew up in a democracy and has some liberal values engraved in them.

To me nowhere can rival Imperial rome for cohesion. Under Augustus it was love and fear in equal measure.

they rot over time, not stable long term

Who said it has to be tyranny. Most Roman citizens barely even knew what was happening at the heart of the empire. You might never have even seen an imperial patrol unless you were on a main route or on the frontier.

This is a concern of mine too. It would have to be a very open pre appointment of the successor by the leader. Someone competent enough to rule and someone who is trust worthy not to stab you in the back.

It's a tricky problem but you are right monarchs never or rarely had this problem.

How so? My own monarch has ruled with only a few hiccups for nearly 2000 years. Only recently have they been a symbolic institute.

Rome lasted 1000 years in the West and until the ottomans took over in the east.

How long do we expect modern democracies to last? America has lasted 250 years or so and that's a miracle, and the absolute state of political corruption there is sickening. Even now most western democracies are tumbling into nationalism and reactionary politics.

You literally said that might makes right. That is the moral nihilist position. Honestly the phrase is redundant. People obey force by necessity, not will. There is no need for talk of rights if all interactions between people are a calculation of physical force.

>I don't think the people know what they need or want most often so can't pick a leader effectively.
That might be true in when talking about the 'big questions' of politics, but I am talking about very simple, mundane day-to-day stuff. Let's say, for example, a government builds a new 80 km/h road, and the road separates a village from a forest where the children of that village like to play. The local villagers see that dangerous situations occur frequently when the children cross the road and would like to change something. If the village is in a democratic state, a petition to the government to slow down traffic is more likely to be fruitful than in a absolutist state because in a democracy the villagers have democratically elected representatives who want to secure votes among the villagers to get reelected and because power is spread out between more people so the chances of the petition landing into the hands of someone who actually has power is higher.

I think in reality there are many situations where the an action by the government, such as a new law or a new construction, has unintended consequences that are noticed most clearly by the people directly involved with the results of this government action and if ordinary people have more political power, it is more likely that those consequences are properly dealt with, thus making the liberal-democratic state more efficient.

Well if you don't go by your governments rules they will also eventually kill you. And if you have more power than the government you can also orchestrate a coup

If you live under any will that is not your own, you are living under a tyrant.

Again, that is a simple description of fact.

>not prone to corruption
Corruption as in betrayal of the public trust, which does not exist in absolutism?

we need an immortal ruler
like an ai or if we can cure aging

Well you can thrust in a mans judgement even if you have no power over it as an individual. And in a modern society you need to keep the people somewhat happy as modern militaries probably aren't loyal enough to completely slaughter their fellow poorly armed citizens in masses if the ruler is threatened.

Full inheritance of all titles by elder son/ elder child. It's only the Romans that never established the clear succession system and where Praetorians basically chose who rules and who dies.

Early XX century/pre-WW1 european monarchies

Attached: 9 kings 1910.jpg (4606x3070, 1.65M)

so what if it is by force and isn't an agreement? If it works on a political level it may be desirable.

If it was desirable, there would be agreement.

id say the most religious fascist ideology is Falangism

I would counter your example by saying that absolutist states often rule by appointing regional governers. This could easily make situations like shitty urban planning more and more effective as speedy decision making could be taken and so long as the ruler appoints based on the competence of his staff and governers as Hitler attempted to do (his was a supremely meritocratic military and party) then this may never materialise as a problem.

On the other hand, a democracy in this situation could easily be infiltrated by special interests, such as Labour unions or transportation industries that want more road works in progress and more direct routes respectively. This already happens to a degree. In my own country the amount of road maintenance to justify budgets is absurd and the pit holes never go away as real maintenance means less work later so they are putting themselves out of a job.

As for the cutting through forests and ruining communities for the sake of speed and profit, big corps do this all the time. Those who wanted absolute leadership has always been concerned with this and have always wanted national interest to be put first.

As for worries of re-election and being held accountable, a regional governers would be able to be dismissed at any moment given Unpopularity and an absolute leader at the top of the chain should have the health of the while nation as their sole concern.

This.

We live in a world of power and authority already, except we simply cripple ourselves into not using it effectively, or act with timidity.

Do you live under your own will? Unless you have an island to yourself or live in an autonomous commune as your meme flag suggests, you live within a structure of laws and regulations. Are you going to tell me your own will just happily and neatly coincides with your nation state's interests?

Corruption as in the insane lobbying in Washington, the closed door meetings with oil and pharma companies and a congressman they hope to buy. It is not just what the public expect but the putting of purchased interests before the nation's interest.

TL;DR cause tired but you could have a democratically elected senate for all basic tasks or maybe even state specific sub-rulers that don't have much power over the big things if you are completely blackpilled on all things voting

I know this would probably lower morale so maybe the senate would be elected by the ruler so people don't feel betrayed every time the ruler over rules the elected senate

I understood that praetorians only did this towards the latter days of the empire. Some historians mention that the best eras of Rome bar maybe one emperor were those where the emperor appointed an adopted successor rather than the son. The five good emperors were all adopted. Could pre appointment of an heir work rather than just a bloodline inheritance?

You suggest these are the best systems of governance?

If you own everything and aren't retarded or unpatriotic you cant really be corrupted by anyone inside your country

With absolutism you have those meetings anyway, and the door will be closed for every meeting, not just those ones. It wouldn't be corruption only because corruption is not illegal.

Then the king could just appoint administrators then also shit like this happens all the time in democracies and you barley hear anything about it.

Maybe, but not all things are desirable in the moment and not all serve the national interest.

See if the private owners of the federal reserve will stop their predatory lending for the good of the USA. I don't think they ever will. To suggest what I think you are suggesting is to claim there are only ever two interested parties involved and no other groups that might want something different.

Absolutist state doesn't mean that you own everything. It means that you can decide everything regardless of what you own.

I don't know as much about falangists as any other group from the far right in Europe.

Do you think it worked well for them or was to the nation's benefit that they were religious?

Interesting. That seems convoluted and a way of getting a hybrid system with the worst of both worlds. Inefficient democracy, totatilatarian absolutism.

But I know you are not able to stay so thanks for all your input Finland bro. Great discussion.

Isn't that a de facto ownership? You could call it stewardship or custodian roles but it is effectively the emperor's own personal project.

yes

Maybe or maybe not.

Like I said in the op, I am concerned about weak leaders succeeding and doing just this.

But then again if we could ensure strong leadership, a visionary is certainly more likely to lead his people to a better tomorrow than the elected leader. He can't ve bought because he has absolute power. He is certainly richer than the guy trying to buy him. There is no need to secure a career as a speaker or something after the presidency like bill Clinton. It is not a guarantee that this kind of corruption will take place and simply be called something else.

Interesting. Why do you say so? They were not exactly absolute, not all at least although the Tsar was kind of. Just got the right balance?

Only as long as you stay in the country. If other countries don't respect your dictator's rights you might get problems with trade etc. Also, it's only ownership seen from you. Others in the same country will still own and not own things.

>I think historically they are quite stable and not prone to corruption.

Attached: 1534462815364.gif (322x178, 2.56M)

Everyone can be bought. Idi Amin had absolute power but there were lots of people in the world richer than him.

What difference would foreign leaders make? Most absolutist states traded and had good working relations with empires before. Few were self sufficient like feudal Japan.

As for ownership I tho k that is semantics. Sure a person can own something but if the leader can send military units to die at a whim and declaree areas of the nation need to be rejuvenated or urbanized it is essentially their own property. De facto at least.