PDA

View Full Version : Authoritarianism or Libertarianism?



Ederico
Wednesday, May 28th, 2003, 11:11 AM
Vote in this poll regarding the question of Statism in a Racialist Society. Expose your points in the thread and explain the reason for your choice preferably.

Götterschicksal
Thursday, July 17th, 2003, 09:47 AM
I went with the 4. down. I find that an authoritarian government is not needed after Europa has been cleaned. Start with racial authoritarian and then once that is finished, we can maybe afford liberty.

Jack
Sunday, December 7th, 2003, 08:21 AM
Post whether you're authoritarian or libetarian.

I'm Libetarian, obviously.

Siegfried
Sunday, December 7th, 2003, 09:04 AM
Depends on the issue. I'm authoritarian when it comes to certain economic aspects (not the economy as a whole); I want the State to outlaw selling land to foreigners, importing foreign workers, etc.
On various other issues, I'm libertarian; citizens should be allowed to keep and bear arms (the best deterrent to crime and oppressive government), express their political opinion freely, etc

Ederico
Sunday, December 7th, 2003, 04:43 PM
In the past we had similar polls as to whether a Folkish Racialist State should be Authoritarian or Libertarian (LIBERTARIAN KEN NOT LIBETARIAN). The position was a bit more defined as you should know no state of affairs is permanent, as someone said change is the only thing constant. I personally lean towards an Authoritarian approach for a positive development in all areas to be made in a Society which requires a radical revaluation of values in order to comply with any sort of Folkish Racialism/Nationalism.

As time progresses and a positive root has been implanted in the midst of the people, the State would lessen its Authoritarian position and drift towards LIbertarianism on certain grounds. In other words, if there is to be a Folkish Revolution it must be headed by an Authoritarian Structure, Radical and Active on all fronts. The aim of this is the implanting of positive Folkish values amongst the people. This is of particular importance in Europe which is my main sphere of concern personally. MIght I say that this is only my temporal position on the matter, but frankly I have been holding it for a few years now, and I do not really see a Libertarian movement gaining any sort of positive and radical victory.

Eventually I am not the type of person that commands people around on what to do.

Moody
Wednesday, December 17th, 2003, 07:41 PM
Authoritarian.

I believe that every human group produces that 5% who are destined to lead.
A healthy Folk nutures these leading individuals and gives them the scope to make things happen.
In return, the group gives its loyalty to such leaders who, so long as they act in the group's interest, will be able to rule with as much freedom as they need.

I also think that only through
Command, through
Decision and through
Will is anything
Great created on this Earth.

Only when a Caesar is given the reigns of State does the State do great things; only then are things changed and formed.

The Leader is the Flower of the Race.

The Aryan race has produced Great Leaders.
It is the duty of the Aryan Race to Lead other races.

As there is no equality, then the superior must have Authority over the Inferior.

No Authority, no politics.

Libertarians are the Enemy - they must be crushed by a Strong Leader.

Why? - because they nullify POLITICS ITSELF!

I voted the first one, even though 'authoritarianism' [like racialism iitself] has been made into a dirty word by the current ruling liberal elites.

I believe that Authority is a fact of life; it even operates in a liberal society, but is there ashamed to speak its name.

I prefer Authority to be Honest and speak straight.

It is Honourable to lead from the front rather than pull strings from behind the scenes.

Authority is 'open government' in that sense alone!

There are dangers, of course, so mechanisms must be used to keep the Authority fresh and keen and healthy.
Authority must have respect.

What has Authority?
The voice of the Race as it speaks through its best men and women.
That is Authority.

True, there is no 'pure' Authority, any more than there is 'pure' Freedom.
However, politics should be the realm of Authority; let us use all we have learnt to make that Authority work for the Race and the Race only.

And when we lack Authority, then too do we lack Race.

Braveheart
Thursday, December 18th, 2003, 01:17 AM
It's been my experience that white nationalists (at least those in America) have much in common with libertarians and paleoconservatives.

We WN's are in agreement with libertarians and paleocons on several issues:

1) The elimination of government in private/personal matters (i.e,, we all hate the Patriot Act)

2) We hate Marxism and that watered-down version of communism called "socialism"

3) We believe fully in the freedom of association

4) We are fully opposed to America's interventionist foreign policies of the last 50+ years; we don't want our government to get tangled up in the affairs of other states.

Libertarians have shown a tendency to be anti-political correctness, and the paleocons even more so. Both, however, stop at a certain point, and both groups never seem to address the Jewish question.

For reference, some interesting libertarian sites are www.lewrockwell.com and www.antiwar.com. A paleoconservative site is www.amconmag.com.

Moody
Thursday, December 18th, 2003, 04:30 PM
Braveheart; "We WN's are in agreement with libertarians and paleocons on several issues:1) The elimination of government in private/personal matters (i.e,, we all hate the Patriot Act)"

Moody; But where do you draw the line between public and private? - THAT is the question.
If someone wants to marry someone of a different race, is that private?
Or if someone wants to marry someone of the same sex - is that private?
Also, I would say that what matters most is the NATURE of the State.
A State dedicated to Racial Nationalism will interfere if necessary in those areas which are destructive to WN [such as immigration].

Braveheart:"2) We hate Marxism and that watered-down version of communism called "socialism"
3) We believe fully in the freedom of association"

Moody; Again, there is a vagueness here; surely there must be some limits to freedom - or not?
I agree generally with the anti-Leftist stance, but I also think that the so-called Libertarian Right [Conservatives etc., etc.,] have nothing to offer to those who want to preserve/enhance Europid race and culture. Their record in power proves that.

Braveheart: 4) "We are fully opposed to America's interventionist foreign policies of the last 50+ years; we don't want our government to get tangled up in the affairs of other states.
Libertarians have shown a tendency to be anti-political correctness, and the paleocons even more so. Both, however, stop at a certain point, and both groups never seem to address the Jewish question".

Moody; There you have it; the Jewish question is fundamental, because all political-correctness springs from it. And while I agree with your view of International non-intervention, it is interesting to note that the USA's current interventionism [master-minded by Jewish neo-cons] is done in the name of 'Liberty'.

So the fundamental flaw of this position is revealed in one term: it is Jew-friendly [I am not saying that you are, but by your own admission, the libertarian/conservative position is pro-Jewish].
We cannot promote European racial/cultural Renaissance and Judaic Internationalism at the same time; indeed, I would say that both are mutual enemies.

NormanBlood
Saturday, December 20th, 2003, 07:11 AM
I picked the first, mostly out of caution. Ok so we implement an authoritarian government which is for the most part dedicated to White/European preservation. We then come to a point where our people are fully "rehabilitated"...then what? It doesnt' mean that the "plague" won't strike again. So then we slowly move to a libertarian society then one day people start "respecting" other cultures and trying to implement these aspects of other culture into their own lives. Then we have "multiculturalism" all over again and not much can be done because we don't have strict authority anymore..we do not have absolutism. Of once European lands are restored we will obviously have a more "Free" society because we won't have as much to worry about. But it would still be for the most part perminantly authoritarian, I believe that is the only way to safeguard.

Moody
Sunday, December 21st, 2003, 05:12 PM
I agree with you; I do not think it wise to make any kind of 'libertarian' state on the back of Authority; liberalism=weakness.

However, I do think we must be aware that even within the confines of an authoritarian Racial Nationalism, there may be an alternative cluster of valid standpoints.
Indeed, this forum alone suggests that this is true [not that I think ALL standpoints on this forum are healthy].

Therefore, those competing aspects WITHIN the body politic - providing that they are 100% loyal to Race and Nation - should be allowed the chance of accepting governance.

I suppose I am suggesting that it is always inevitable that various factions will evolve due to the organic nature of the State, just as a family branches out into different houses. This is acceptable given the agforementioned strict criterion [no State should tolerate disloyal, alien or communist factions within it, for example].

To that end, various Noble elements within the Racial State may lawfully compete for the 'crown', so to speak.
A level of competition is necessary for health, anyway.
Of course, any openings for civil war must be eliminated as far as possible - this is the art of statecraft.

Disease
Sunday, June 13th, 2004, 01:32 PM
As you can see from my 'Politics', this is a hard question for me to answer, so I didn't vote.

I have many conflicting sociopolitical theories - and this causes much confusion within me :x

Hell, I could very accurately call myself a radical-anarchist, primitivist, radical-environmentalist, national socialist, totalitarian...

Sometimes it all comes down to current environment and mood, but I usually have the core of all those ideas listed above in my theories at all times.

*sigh*

Agrippa
Sunday, June 13th, 2004, 03:39 PM
Gradual implementation of an Authoritarian State to permit Social Engineering in order to create a loyal Racialist Society

Thats what I think fits in best to reach the progressive Collectivism with a biologistisch (biologial oriented worldview) perspective.

Both a strong social normalization and human Eugnic should be used.

The aim is to reach the most effective and better organized, higher developed society with as human means as possible.

The means are secondary, the goal is what counts.

If its possible to gain power and reach the goals without too much Authoritarianism its fine, if Authoritarianism is necessary, its fine too. It depends on the society and how fast the goals can be effectively reached.

Scoob
Sunday, June 13th, 2004, 10:40 PM
"Liberalism" is a facade for plutocracy in most cases.

I am for a collective authoritarianism - and since humans haven't quite evolved to that point, an enlightened participatory authoritarianism a la Plato's Republic.

Tryggvi
Sunday, June 13th, 2004, 11:12 PM
The poll outcome is very progressive and gives hope. Really blew my expectations.

King Yngvar
Saturday, September 25th, 2004, 03:08 AM
Permanent Authoritarianism implemented upon seizure of power for any reason (state reason)

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Thursday, May 31st, 2018, 04:31 AM
I picked the first, mostly out of caution. Ok so we implement an authoritarian government which is for the most part dedicated to White/European preservation. We then come to a point where our people are fully "rehabilitated"...then what? It doesnt' mean that the "plague" won't strike again. So then we slowly move to a libertarian society then one day people start "respecting" other cultures and trying to implement these aspects of other culture into their own lives. Then we have "multiculturalism" all over again and not much can be done because we don't have strict authority anymore..we do not have absolutism. Of once European lands are restored we will obviously have a more "Free" society because we won't have as much to worry about. But it would still be for the most part perminantly authoritarian, I believe that is the only way to safeguard.

"An Authoritarian State to serve as a buffer State during a Racialist take over to be subsequently substituted by the gradual development of a Libertarian State retaining a Racialist outlook on Society." (my choice)

It looks like a circle or cycle of social life. One regime change after another. Periodically spilling blood is actually a literal mantra among the IRA. Either way, authoritarianism makes its presence felt. Logically speaking, It is natural to have ebbs and flows and checks do not exist without balances.

Personally, I follow Locke and not Hobbes.

Wuotans Krieger
Friday, December 21st, 2018, 05:47 PM
In the words of Errol Flynn: "Let no man make laws for me!"