View Poll Results: Please state which ideology resembles your views most

Voters
531. You may not vote on this poll
  • National-socialism

    154 29.00%
  • Zionism

    13 2.45%
  • Fascism/corporatism/solidarism

    32 6.03%
  • National-anarchism/third positionism

    29 5.46%
  • New Right

    30 5.65%
  • Paleo-conservatism

    49 9.23%
  • Neo-conservatism

    9 1.69%
  • Christian democracy

    7 1.32%
  • Libertarianism/anarchism

    52 9.79%
  • Social democracy

    23 4.33%
  • Communism

    18 3.39%
  • (left wing) ecologism

    6 1.13%
  • Other

    94 17.70%
  • I'm not very interested in politics. I don't have any ideology.

    15 2.82%
Page 11 of 40 FirstFirst ... 67891011121314151621 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 398

Thread: What is Your Political Orientation?

  1. #101
    Keeps your Whites Whiter.
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    SuuT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Subrace
    SkandoNordid/Nordicised Faelid
    Gender
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic MeritAristocracy
    Religion
    Heiđinn
    Posts
    1,465
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9
    Thanked in
    9 Posts

    Re: Political orientation

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutch Dennis View Post
    Why hereditary? I just cannot comprehend why anyone could have so much faith in genetics to produce a constant familial line of 'good' people. Does up bringing not play any part?
    Admittedly, I think my ideas are posthumous. The extreme generalities I posted below assume either a consciensious Eugenic programme, and concentrated Euthenics; or, a massive shift in cultural (Read: racial) consciousness that result in a nearly self-eveident caste system. Will there be bad apples in the batch no matter what? Absolutely. And it would be the responsibility of a hereditary system to toss-out these anomalies. Which was a traditional intra-caste measure until the enlightenment opened the flood gates to the world of possibility, and gave birth to formalised 'anti-exceptional beings' doctrines and political systems e.g. you name the Anarchy.

    Would a non-aristocrat not be permitted to take a leadership role? And if they are permitted, how likely do you suppose it would be that hereditary aristocratic class would allow such an outsider to progress?
    If they merited inclusion, sure: it is a standard misconception of the Aristocratic principle that there never was/is a any way to cross caste lines. I further qualify my notion of Aristocracy with merit: meaning, specifically, that there are also ways out of the higher caste - and it should, in my opinion, be death at a certain point of ascendency. Other gradations of exclusionary measures should follow, and be consistent with, this extreme measure. In short: "Heavy is the head that wears the crown" - He who does not, or is unable, to take the responsibility of Nobility once honoured, would have more severe measures taken against him than would a commoner who failed to meet his obligations in the order of rank. You tell me: is that fair?

    I think that as some level you have to have an influence of the Mass population. I would suggest that the influence of the mass would be best at the lowest level, namely, the town or rural area mayoralty.
    If that is how you wish to define "region", I have no objection. You do place the "mass" at the lowest level though (by implication), which is, itself, Aristocratic in so far as responsibility increases with ascendency within caste order.

    The key to selecting the best and most suitable individuals for leadership and decision making roles is the criteria which candidate must abide by. And those criteria is something that I think a population as a whole must discuss and debate and ultimately set down as part of a constitution type document.
    Democracy is an experiment. Aristocracy is an ethos.

    However, and to admit once again, my ideas are posthmous: the West cannot go from Democratic Socialism/Welfare states to MeritAristocracy even inside of several generations. Trust must be earned. So, yes, I think that such constitutions are necessary. But still, those who draft such a document will - more likely than not - be the Aristos of any given population, especially if the document be truly revolutionary.

    Either way, Nobility will be as such - as it has always been.

    The selection procedure for the higher levels of government are up for debate. My favoured process is to leave the selection of each higher level of government leadership up to the collective decision of the combined body of the leaders of each subordinate governing area.
    We agree.

    Each successive Noble is checked and balanced by a council that must object to any one decision by a majority of 70 (or so) percent. This would then be the 'cabinet' if you will of each Nobleman. As we move 'up' the chain, the number of individuals who would be able to trump the decision of any given Nobleman (the Nobleman's 'cabinet') decreases - until we reach a number of 10 (or so) individuals that are empowered to trump the decision of a King by a slightly smaller margin of 60 (or so) percent.

    Each 'cabinet' would be vote-in the cabinet of the Nobleman directly superseding them in the order of Rank - this would control (as much as possible) for special interests, and would make sure that all voices that need to be heard, are.



    For example:

    - Municipality: Mayor, elected by popular election
    - District: Governor, selected by subordinate Municipal Mayors
    - Region: Governor, selected by combined subordinate District Governors and Municipal Mayors
    - Nation: President, selected by combined national Congress consisting of all Regional and District Governors and Municipal Mayors
    We say the same thing but use different words, essentially. I think that this is too many people, though: below your regional governor, I would place appointees with only as much power allocated necessary to provide services, administrate, and manage areas as dictated by the Regional Nobleman. And these individuals would hold a high, yet common standing i.e. riding a caste line: too many voices making noise in your system, methinks.

    How much weight each particular vote carries is up for debate though. e.g. Regional Governor's vote for a president counts for 5 votes of a District Governor or 15 votes of a Municipal Mayor, etc
    Too many votes!

    MeritAristocracy can be representative without robbing the exceptional of their gifts; also, it may well be that very thing that quells the tyranny of the majority.

    Fundamentally, it is an issue of quality vs. quantity.

    I actually have a hard time understanding how there are people out there who believe, in their heart of hearts, that there is no one man, no potential Noble, whose most ruminated decision is capable of being superior, to hundreds of thousands of people's capricious prurience.

    The greatest good for the greatest number, has always eluded the minds of the overwhelming majority.
    "...The moral man is a lower species than the immoral, a weaker species; indeed - he is a type in regard to morality, but not a type in himself; a copy...the measure of his value lies outside him. ... I assess the power of a will by how much resistance, pain, torture it endures and knows how to turn to its advantage; I do not account the evil and painful character of existence a reproach to it, but hope rather that it will one day be more evil and painful than hitherto..." (Nietzsche)

  2. #102
    Ahti
    Guest

    Re: Political orientation

    I guess you could best describe me as a race preservationist with National Socialist tendencies. I believe each and every race and nation has every right to exist and live in it's own natural place, and the silent (or not even so silent) genocide of Europeans and European culture that is happening all around the world is the biggest threat that the world is facing right now.

    I deeply care for all European nations, and also believe there is some kind of a bond between us all... However this bond does not mean Europeans should mix with each other to large extent - I believe all European nations are unique, and that their culture and folk should be preserved as well as possible. I'm all up for co-operation and won't loose any sleep if for example a Finn marries a German, but at the same time I think mixing should not be encouraged too much. I love my nation and everything in it, and I want it to stay as it. Guess I'm also a bit of a traditional nationalist then.

    One thing I'm also concerned about is the preservation of different white subraces. Some (read=the nordic) subraces are indeed under the threat of totally disappearing more than others, and they especially should be protected. What way, I don't know, but something must be done.

  3. #103
    Dutch Dennis
    Guest

    Re: Political orientation

    Quote Originally Posted by SuuT View Post
    In short: "Heavy is the head that wears the crown" - He who does not, or is unable, to take the responsibility of Nobility once honoured, would have more severe measures taken against him than would a commoner who failed to meet his obligations in the order of rank. You tell me: is that fair?
    Corruptio Optimi Pessima - Corruption of the Best is the Worst

    You do place the "mass" at the lowest level though (by implication), which is, itself, Aristocratic in so far as responsibility increases with ascendency within caste order.
    I am a proponent of decentralisation in government. I think that leaving authority in the hands of those that are best placed to make decisions on specific issues is a good way to go. I am not sure, but judging what you have written I suspect you may favour a unitary form of state.

    ...until we reach a number of 10 (or so) individuals that are empowered to trump the decision of a King by a slightly smaller margin of 60 (or so) percent.
    Now, depending on your reply to my above comments regarding the form of the state I think that 10 or so people will be much too small a number to fully advise the holder of the highest government office. In a unitary state system the national-level of government basically makes all the decisions and the results of such decisions then filter down to subordinate levels.

    In a federalist state system most decisions are made at the community level or one level higher. Issues like education, health care, roads, employment, police, courts, etc are dealt with by the people whose lives those decisions effect. A Mayor makes decisions on behalf of the community. Issues that go beyond the territorial sphere of any single authority then become the responsibility of the next highest level of the government. e.g. maintenance of the inter-state highway system, environment and parks, court of appeals, etc

    Eventually, when you get to the highest level of the state there are very few issues left to deal with. Mainly, national defence, border security, foreign relations and a supreme court.

    I actually have a hard time understanding how there are people out there who believe, in their heart of hearts, that there is no one man, no potential Noble, whose most ruminated decision is capable of being superior, to hundreds of thousands of people's capricious prurience.
    But what do you do in the mean time whilst that perfect leader, that benevolent dictator, is being searched for but not yet found?

    The greatest good for the greatest number, has always eluded the minds of the overwhelming majority.
    Indeed.

  4. #104
    Keeps your Whites Whiter.
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    SuuT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Subrace
    SkandoNordid/Nordicised Faelid
    Gender
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic MeritAristocracy
    Religion
    Heiđinn
    Posts
    1,465
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9
    Thanked in
    9 Posts

    Re: Political orientation

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutch Dennis View Post
    Corruptio Optimi Pessima - Corruption of the Best is the Worst
    That's exactly right!

    I am a proponent of decentralisation in government. I think that leaving authority in the hands of those that are best placed to make decisions on specific issues is a good way to go.
    The problem with the idea of decentralisation is that its like squeezing a ballon filled with water: squeeze one portion, and the volume of water displaces and exagerates another part of the ballon, depending upon where the presure is applied. In short, (more often than not) causing an imbalanced and exagerated centralisation in an effort to decentralise! - The new imbalance created always depends upon who is doing the squeezing: who stands to gain power; who stands to loose it. Further, it is a power play: 'decentralisation' from the hands of one group is 'centralisation' into the hands of another group.

    Again, quality vs. quantity.

    The lables "centralised" and "unitary" whilst having neat and clean delineation from one another in theory, result in nothing more than a shift of power dynamics, in practice. In the end, having little effect on the type of government that actuates.

    I am not sure, but judging what you have written I suspect you may favour a unitary form of state.
    All goverments and aspects within any given government end up in a 'practical' Unitary federation. That may sound counter-intuitive; however, if government is understood as a means of distributing power (forget resources), motive becomes apparent. I favour an open order of rank that distributes powers each according to his gifts. Therefore, some will be in a position to allocate (and therefore remove powers); some will be in a position to remove, but not allocate; some will be in a position to allocate, but not remove - and every other possible permutation.

    I don't think we have the right any longer to mull-over essentially antiquated Political Science constructs - unless(!) it is in an effort to piece together the day after tomorrow.

    If we don't get on it, and get on it soon - we're all going to die (read: go extinct).

    Now, depending on your reply to my above comments regarding the form of the state I think that 10 or so people will be much too small a number to fully advise the holder of the highest government office. In a unitary state system the national-level of government basically makes all the decisions and the results of such decisions then filter down to subordinate levels.
    But you and I have agreed on an essential check/balance to this by empowering the immediate lessors of any caste level to choose/elect/vote-in/whatever, the 'cabinet' of the individual above them in the order of rank. Is this measure insufficient? If so, why?

    The "filter down" of decisions are the trusted results of the accepted caste-order within a MeritAristocracy: here imparts the royal "we" - a decision made by (to a certain point in the caste-order) a Noble is as if a decision is made by the King, himself; a decision made by the King, himself, is a decision made by his lessors.

    In a federalist state system most decisions are made at the community level or one level higher. Issues like education, health care, roads, employment, police, courts, etc are dealt with by the people whose lives those decisions effect. A Mayor makes decisions on behalf of the community. Issues that go beyond the territorial sphere of any single authority then become the responsibility of the next highest level of the government. e.g. maintenance of the inter-state highway system, environment and parks, court of appeals, etc
    One of the problems with modernity is that it seems obvious to people that enormous numbers of people are required to make these decisions; and that a geometrically smaller number of people would simply be unable to have all of these things on their plate, as it were. I say that this democratic imprint has its very origins in disorder, and borderline chaos: if I am correct, how can all of these voices making noise do a better job than very few serene and adept minds?

    Quality vs. quantity.

    Appointees of the Regional Nobleman will be advisors; however, the buck stops with the Nobleman. And, as I have stated, the consequenses of Noble responsibility can be grave. Equally, he will partake of the greatest accolades. I think that that is fair, too.

    Eventually, when you get to the highest level of the state there are very few issues left to deal with. Mainly, national defence, border security, foreign relations and a supreme court.
    If only it were so simple! If it were, I would be an Anarchist.

    But what do you do in the mean time whilst that perfect leader, that benevolent dictator, is being searched for but not yet found?
    I'm not talking about Autocracy (at all), so there is no per se "dictator".

    Define "found": do a specific quantity need to be aware of his existence; or, do a certain quality?
    "...The moral man is a lower species than the immoral, a weaker species; indeed - he is a type in regard to morality, but not a type in himself; a copy...the measure of his value lies outside him. ... I assess the power of a will by how much resistance, pain, torture it endures and knows how to turn to its advantage; I do not account the evil and painful character of existence a reproach to it, but hope rather that it will one day be more evil and painful than hitherto..." (Nietzsche)

  5. #105
    Dutch Dennis
    Guest

    Re: Political orientation

    Quote Originally Posted by SuuT View Post
    Further, it is a power play: 'decentralisation' from the hands of one group is 'centralisation' into the hands of another group.

    Again, quality vs. quantity.
    What can I say, i'm a freedom-loving libertarian at heart and resent excessive government intrusion and depersonalisation where it isn't needed.

    I think that 10 mayors can make better decisions about local school planning in their 10 particular communities than 1 governor from any single community.

    Also, I think that numerous diverse communities working on their own small-scale issues have a greater chance at finding better solutions, which can then be mimicked by other communities. Diversity in approaching problems.

    The lables "centralised" and "unitary" whilst having neat and clean delineation from one another in theory, result in nothing more than a shift of power dynamics, in practice. In the end, having little effect on the type of government that actuates.
    I my ideal form of government the various vertical layers of authority would not over lap. What I mean is, you wouldn't have an office dealing with education at one level and then an office dealing with education in the level above over-riding local decisions.

    I don't see the need for centralising all power in the centre, only to be dished out in small bits and pieces by the National Leader.

    All goverments and aspects within any given government end up in a 'practical' Unitary federation.
    Indeed, historically speaking, many states which started as a joining of independent states into a federation eventually morphed into a unitary state with all rights and authority reserved by the centre. Rather than all rights and authority being reserved by the constituent states unless specifically granted to the central authority.

    however, if government is understood as a means of distributing power , motive becomes apparent.
    Ah, but I don't consider government to be the means of power/authority distribution. Rather, I consider government to be execution of the collective will of a people.

    I would like to see an evolution in the ability of European peoples to be civilised. By having an opportunity to put their choices and decision-making process into action I believe such an evolution can take place.

    A community's values, cultural development, history, etc all influence the choices they make. By allowing a community to follow their own developmental path to a large extent an evolutionary process will take place. A community that does not value environmental conservation will likely exploit their natural environment. Communities that under-appreciate academics will likely under-fund higher education institutions, etc

    I think people should be able to make choices as well as experience the repurcussion of those choices. Rather than concentrating authority at higher levels in the hands of individuals that are proven to be reliable.

    I favour an open order of rank that distributes powers each according to his gifts. Therefore, some will be in a position to allocate (and therefore remove powers); some will be in a position to remove, but not allocate; some will be in a position to allocate, but not remove - and every other possible permutation.
    I think that this idea will result in the retardation of evolutionary processes. By only putting authority in the hands of those that 'rock the boat' you ensure that the 'show will go on' as it has in the past. Corret me if I am wrong though. I might have completely the wrong idea here.

    I don't think we have the right any longer to mull-over essentially antiquated Political Science constructs - unless(!) it is in an effort to piece together the day after tomorrow.
    I only explore ideas on political systems in relation to formulating a suitable foundation for a future system of governing.

    But you and I have agreed on an essential check/balance to this by empowering the immediate lessors of any caste level to choose/elect/vote-in/whatever, the 'cabinet' of the individual above them in the order of rank. Is this measure insufficient? If so, why?
    As I mentioned above, I consider it necessary for a state to be a living, evolving structure. By only adopting measures that ensure the stability of a system it retards the evolutionary aspect of the state. A wise man once said "The State is only the vessel and the race is what it contains. The vessel can have a meaning only if it preserves and safeguards the contents. Otherwise it is worthless."

    One of the problems with modernity is that it seems obvious to people that enormous numbers of people are required to make these decisions; and that a geometrically smaller number of people would simply be unable to have all of these things on their plate, as it were. I say that this democratic imprint has its very origins in disorder, and borderline chaos: if I am correct, how can all of these voices making noise do a better job than very few serene and adept minds?

    Quality vs. quantity.
    I am in favour of the 'Leadership Principle'. I think ultimate responsibility should be invested in a nexus individual. Decisions should be made by one person, after having sought council from those with specialised knowledge on the issue at hand.

    how can all of these voices making noise do a better job than very few serene and adept minds?
    I think I may not have been very clear on my stance. I kind of expanded on my view above, about the different levels being seperated in terms of authority.

    Authority should be compartmentalised. What I mean is, one person responsible for one geographical area and only the portfolios of that level of the state. e.g. a District Governor would only be responsible for the decision making on issues in his district and only those portfolios assigned to the district level of the state.

    However, perhaps I am being a little too idealistic. I am talking about the ideal scenario, though. At least, the ideal as I consider it to be.

    I'm not talking about Autocracy (at all), so there is no per se "dictator".
    I am pleased you pointed that out.

    Define "found": do a specific quantity need to be aware of his existence; or, do a certain quality?
    A secret leader? What about all the accolades that the best man or woman of the state rightly deserves? Why would they remain so secretive?

  6. #106
    Keeps your Whites Whiter.
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    SuuT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Subrace
    SkandoNordid/Nordicised Faelid
    Gender
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic MeritAristocracy
    Religion
    Heiđinn
    Posts
    1,465
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9
    Thanked in
    9 Posts

    Re: Political orientation

    Great dialogue D.D.: thank you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutch Dennis View Post
    What can I say, i'm a freedom-loving libertarian at heart and resent excessive government intrusion and depersonalisation where it isn't needed.
    As am I. And it is exactly excessive goverment and depersonalisation that is the net result of every system of goverment that has hitherto been put into practice - with the singular exception of healthy Aristocracies. Yes! - they had their problems, and you bring up a huge one with the traditional motif and schema of hereditary title, which, as Aristocracies became unhealthy,began to abuse.

    I think that 10 mayors can make better decisions about local school planning in their 10 particular communities than 1 governor from any single community.
    And you may well be right. 'What's in a name?": I say much. My concern is the honouring of individuals as Noble who are nothing of the sort (which saw the end of the English Monarchy, for example, into its figure head status of today): when one starts tossing around honourary title and lands and money etc. as kick-backs and favours for a vulgar centralisation of of corruptive power higher up the chain, nothing is any longer occuring that can be called Noble. Therefore, in strict accordance with the principia of caste, we draw a line of Nobleman and commoner. I would call mayoral responsibilities common; and, any mayor (should we ultimately use this term) must merit his inclusion - in a clear and distict way - into the next order of rank if that is an end he pursues. In this manner we get the 'cream' rising to the top, and not the bouyant chunks of curd grown fat off of the blood sweat and tears of a peasant; who, while he be a peasant, can share my bread any day of the week before I would allow some corrupt nominally Noble rat, crumbs from my floor.

    MeritAristocracy requires a re-education as to what is Noble.

    Also, I think that numerous diverse communities working on their own small-scale issues have a greater chance at finding better solutions, which can then be mimicked by other communities. Diversity in approaching problems.
    Operative terms emboldended!

    In my ideal form of government the various vertical layers of authority would not over lap. What I mean is, you wouldn't have an office dealing with education at one level and then an office dealing with education in the level above over-riding local decisions.
    I would be for a 'National Chancellor' (what have you) of education to develop, implement and ensure uniformity of standard, rubric, and curricula: local decisions as to educational measures create vast chasms and a relativism with respect to the terms such as 'passing', 'excellent', 'average', etc. that ultimately fracture a nation, as they border on the edge of nihilism exactly for lack of a uniform standard. If I get an 'A' student from Alabama in one of my classes, he or she is quite different than the 'A' student I receive from Maine: there must be lines, as you acknowledge - and I say they are at the National level. (Here we see one of the many overlaps of MeritAristocracy with Nationalism/National Socialism).

    I don't see the need for centralising all power in the centre, only to be dished out in small bits and pieces by the National Leader.
    Well, I don't either. Perhaps we might particularise the reponsibilities of our hypothetical King/National Leader?

    Indeed, historically speaking, many states which started as a joining of independent states into a federation eventually morphed into a unitary state with all rights and authority reserved by the centre. Rather than all rights and authority being reserved by the constituent states unless specifically granted to the central authority.
    And this is exactly why Anarchy - any form of Anarchy - is pragmatically impossible, however wonderful it may look on paper and in pie charts.

    Ah, but I don't consider government to be the means of power/authority distribution.
    I might not want to consider snow to be white... but it is! - That goverment is the means by which power is distributed is the manifest truth of any govermental system: ideas are easy enough to idealise...

    Rather, I consider government to be execution of the collective will of a people.
    This is the greatest sight-of-hand of Democracy.

    Again, the greatest good for the greatest number, has always eluded the minds of the overwhelming majority. Have you changed your mind?

    I would like to see an evolution in the ability of European peoples to be civilised. By having an opportunity to put their choices and decision-making process into action I believe such an evolution can take place.
    How is this best achieved? And, can "the people" do this on 'their' own...?

    A community's values, cultural development, history, etc all influence the choices they make. By allowing a community to follow their own developmental path to a large extent an evolutionary process will take place.
    Who is it that establishes a community's values and cultural development? What is the essence of a people's history? The community? The culture? The people? - That sounds very circular and amorphous to me.

    Developmental paths and (especially) cultural evolutionary paths are sparked to glorious blaze by Men that make these things happen. "The people" are, almost, an incidental. It is such men that have the genious to recognise ripedness, when revolution is ripe for the taking, that make the quantum leaps, with the mass en train. I want to give credit where it is due. This is not to belittle the common man; but, and rather, to allow the exceptional man to stand, and be recognised.

    I think people should be able to make choices as well as experience the repurcussion of those choices. Rather than concentrating authority at higher levels in the hands of individuals that are proven to be reliable.
    Can you provide a particular example?

    I think that this idea will result in the retardation of evolutionary processes.
    Would you compare and contrast your idea of evolution with what I have provided above?

    By only putting authority in the hands of those that 'rock the boat' you ensure that the 'show will go on' as it has in the past. Corret me if I am wrong though. I might have completely the wrong idea here.
    I would need a definition of "authority" to comment intelligently; however, I agree with the Machiavellian principle of duration contra type.

    I am in favour of the 'Leadership Principle'. I think ultimate responsibility should be invested in a nexus individual. Decisions should be made by one person, after having sought council from those with specialised knowledge on the issue at hand.
    Would you expand on this(?), because as written, you seem to be contradicting yourself - and/or are itterating an Aristocratic principle.

    Authority should be compartmentalised. What I mean is, one person responsible for one geographical area and only the portfolios of that level of the state. e.g. a District Governor would only be responsible for the decision making on issues in his district and only those portfolios assigned to the district level of the state.
    That can work, too.

    A secret leader? What about all the accolades that the best man or woman of the state rightly deserves? Why would they remain so secretive?
    Well, yes - a bit too cryptic. It's allegorical: the mass wouldn't know him if he fell from the sky.

    Yet.
    "...The moral man is a lower species than the immoral, a weaker species; indeed - he is a type in regard to morality, but not a type in himself; a copy...the measure of his value lies outside him. ... I assess the power of a will by how much resistance, pain, torture it endures and knows how to turn to its advantage; I do not account the evil and painful character of existence a reproach to it, but hope rather that it will one day be more evil and painful than hitherto..." (Nietzsche)

  7. #107
    Senior Member
    Papa Koos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Last Online
    Saturday, October 24th, 2009 @ 12:54 AM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Gender
    Posts
    421
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    4 Posts

    Re: Political orientation

    I envision a monarchy in which the clan chieftains gather and choose the strongest, brightest, most noble man amongst them and then swear allegiance to him, and when he dies repeat the process. I believe the early Kelts did this with no thought to an heriditary succession.

    Klaus

  8. #108
    Senior Member
    Hrafn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Last Online
    Saturday, July 14th, 2012 @ 10:00 PM
    Ethnicity
    German/Finnish
    Subrace
    Don't know
    Country
    Austria Austria
    State
    Styria Styria
    Gender
    Age
    31
    Family
    Single
    Politics
    Heliocratic Odalist
    Religion
    Ariosophy
    Posts
    104
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Re: Political orientation

    Odalism



    Odalism (from the Proto-Germanic word ôţalan which roughly means 'heritage,') is a Teutonic Folkish movement based on pride in one's own ancient cultural and religious traditions, rather than adopting those of outside cultures. The boundary of cultural practice is conceived as residing within racial or ethnic lineages, representative of family branches. Following such culture as latently one's own, as it is founded upon atavisms of one's own inherited traits, excluding cultural inceptions originating presumably from different human ancestries for the reasons of it not belonging to ones own human archetype; the archetype which presupposes the structure of the individuality in the person. Its symbol is the Odal rune (sometimes called othala).
    - from Wikipedia

    Wikipedia
    anus.com
    V. Vikernes on Odalism


  9. #109
    Senior Member
    Hrafn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Last Online
    Saturday, July 14th, 2012 @ 10:00 PM
    Ethnicity
    German/Finnish
    Subrace
    Don't know
    Country
    Austria Austria
    State
    Styria Styria
    Gender
    Age
    31
    Family
    Single
    Politics
    Heliocratic Odalist
    Religion
    Ariosophy
    Posts
    104
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Re: Political orientation

    Sorry for Double-Post, please delete.

  10. #110
    Senior Member
    Torquil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Online
    Sunday, April 1st, 2007 @ 03:12 AM
    Subrace
    Borreby/Alpine
    Country
    Vinland Vinland
    Location
    Midwest
    Gender
    Family
    Married, happily
    Occupation
    Freight
    Politics
    Libertarian Nationalist
    Religion
    Asatru
    Posts
    26
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Re: Political orientation

    I'm both a nationalist and a libertarian but voted Nationalist. Different circumstances call for different kinds of government but folkism is always relevant.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: Thursday, June 24th, 2010, 01:39 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •