There’s different ways to do aristocracy, for example, you can have a small or big aristocracy, you can have an aristocracy of 10, 100, or 1000 members.
Membership can be determined constitutionally by merit, and/or by first come, first serve, for example, the first 100 members could be made aristocrats.
Then aristocrats could hold referendums and elect the representative or representatives including the chief representative.
When an aristocrat dies, if he had foreknowledge, he could pre-appoint a successor, and if he didn’t, another aristocrat or aristocratss could appoint one to replace him constitutionally by merit, and/or on first come, first serve, or on whim.
Right I think we can come to an agreement on racial nationalism and socialism but I’m not sure if we can come to an agreement on government.
You can combine dictatorship with aristocracy too.
You could have the dictator, and say an equally powerful senate.
They can both make constitutionally viable laws for everyone and give constitutionally viable orders to the army, and administrators, as well as veto one another’s actions.
Honestly just having one dude, with near absolute power, and responsibility, seems very, Asiatic and, irrational to me.
It’s the Euroepan way to hold a no holds bar debate, and while perhaps extending the vote to every Tom, Dick and Harry might be equally irrational, that tradition of wise men honestly, openly, brutally and boldly speaking their minds, having a frank, offensive discussion before laws are made, and decisions are finalized, is the essence of what it means to be, European, it’s what separates us from them.
Otherwise, we might as well just have White Sharia and book burnings, virgin births and prophets speaking in tongues.
I find the idea of wise men cowaring and tip toeing around the kings feelings, rather revolting.
If you understand the time of Machiavelli and the merchants of Venice the aristocrats who I don’t really separate from oligarchs(Aristocracy/ oligarchy, same thing) became so wealthy in trading that they threatened the very power of the monarchy or worse would have the means to influence the monarchy financially. You cannot allow powerful independent entities to flourish in any nation in that they become corrupt, decadent, and largely self serving. The only way centralization can work efficiently is by restraining or having total control over them.
Incidentally this isn’t just a problem for a monarchy or autocracy but also is very problematic with democracies that you embrace where the manifestation of this aristocracy or oligarchy is corporatism.
The dictator can also be corrupted by financial interests from within or outside his state, or he can just be plain corrupt, on his own.
Compared to other ethnic nationalists my beliefs are quite mild in that they would say that I’m not extreme enough. Also, me allowing just a little admixture with my 75% rule of traceable genetic lineage is practically heresy to many in that for them the general rule is zero admixture. Yes, I am unwavering in my stances towards an autocracy, that won’t change.
My views on European ethnicity is more in line with Pan-Europeanism in that all European heritage or ethnicities is allowed under my ideal state although being German and French myself I won’t deny my bias more towards each. 
Nonetheless, I view all Europeans as being brothers and sisters of a much larger family or community where all would be accepted. For my views on being against both aristocracies and oligarchies see my previous post above.
As for religion I am a secular atheist which is also heretical with a majority of nationalist movements these days as they’re practically all Christian. I am very honest in my disgust with Christianity in that I dislike it very much but nonetheless this is problematic in that a majority of Europeans are Christian. I’m therefore forced to tolerate Christianity despite my own personal dislike of the religion itself. As an atheist I understand religious people very well despite not being such myself. At any rate if it was up to me I would settle for a paganism revival over Christianity any day of the week simply because for me it it is far more aesthetical culturally over Christianity. I suppose for me at least atheism, Christianity, and European paganism would be tolerated where all other religions would not be especially Judaism. Eventually I’d like to see European people reject Christianity as I view it as being particularly damning to us culturally or existentially for numerous reasons but I won’t hold my breath on that one.
Well we have similar ideas in many areas, but very different ideas in a couple of areas.
I believe in dividing powers, that way if one gets corrupted, the others can reign it in.
I’m not fanatical about race either, rather than count percentage points, I would just say, if you look, think and act basically white, you’re white, good enough for me.
Many whites have a few percentage points of this or that Non-White, some of these percentage points going back centuries-millennia, we’d end up excluding half the white race if were to commit to the 100% rule.
Give you an idea of what I am talking about we’ll use Jessica Biel as an example. She is half Dutch and half native American. I would have no problem incorporating people like her in my ideal state so long as they declared loyalty to European identity. [Too bad she is a dumb neo liberal in real life.]
For me she is a great example amongst others of my 75% genetic lineage rule of thumb.
Alicia Silverstone is half White half Jewish, but she could easily pass for White if it weren’t for her liberal thinking:
Well, that and the name Silverstone.
So long as they publicly renounced zionism, Jewishnes,and Judaism I wouldn’t have a problem with previous example. The problem of course comes with those that unlike us have a zero tolerance approach. I still don’t know how to remedy that as it is very problematic with those of us in our world view. It’s a very contentious subject that is still argued back and fourth of who is accepted versus who isn’t. Who can be classified as a white European and who can’t be.
Most people can only think in terms of short term thinking instead of the long term.
No, I’m far too lazy and lackadaisical to be the leading dictator myself. I would settle for being a military general, national spokesman/ philosopher, or manager of the national media myself. 
At this point in my life at least I don’t see myself taking on such a giant undertaking, I don’t have that ambition.
I don’t know, for me I think the philosopher king or dictator will be an individual that is a great victorious soldier and statesman that has yet to come. Such an individual will make themselves worthy of that title to lead and more importantly when they enter the world stage nobody will be able to deny their power. Let us call it destiny…
Agreed, Alicia Silverstone looks white, and if she were to take a DNA test, I bet she’d get mostly white, perhaps 20%-30% Ashkenazi Jewish.
If she also thought white, and acted white, I could accept her.
As for hardliners, purists, I don’t think there’s anything that can done about them, white nationalists are going to be divided on some things, you already brought up how many are Christians, where as some are atheists or pagans like us.
Some are capitalists, where as others are socialists like us.
Few of us are going to agree on every single issue, but what matters is you have enough in common with someone ideologically that you can be friends and work together on things.
Not every white nationalist is going to be a friend, such is life, they’ll have to go their separate ways.
Same here, I’m too lazy, I’d settle for philosopher, senator or spokesman.
Yes, it really upsets me that a lot of European nationalist groups excludes anybody that isn’t Christian and view all atheists in contempt as a part of some kind of marxist conspiracy. Just goes to show there are idiots in all movements.
Yes, that is a problem with today’s European nationalist groups, nobody can agree politically, ethnically, or economically what kind of society that we all want. I imagine there’s going to be a lot of infighting amongst ourselves not just with others when the time of reckoning or social upheaval comes. You have purists and exceptionalists like ourselves, you have Christians versus everybody else [They even fight each other on denominations],pagans, secular atheists, anarchists, democrats, republicans, corporate fascists, technocrats, libertarians, monarchs, and national socialists.
How we rise above all that in unity I haven’t the slightest clue. We might just have to settle for a fractured unity or maybe some global catastrophic event forces us to work together despite our differences.
A constitutional autocracy resonating with national socialism is what I have in mind, I can’t support anything else. I won’t support anything else.
Unlike all other historical constitutions that are vague or nonspecific leading into various misused interpretations it would have to be very specific where it couldn’t be open to interpretation and debate. It would consist in great length concerning articles, laws, and provisions.
Right, and that disagreement, whether most of it is natural or socially engineered, plays into the hands of the elite, the ol’ divide and rule, controlled-opps routine.
Just as there was an anarchists without adjectives movement, there could be a white nationalists without adjectives movement.
That is to say, if you’re a white nationalist fascist, a white nationalist communist state is still preferable to a multiracial fascist state, and likewise if you’re a white nationalist communist, a white nationalist fascist state is still preferable to a multiracial communist state, or in other words, it doesn’t matter so much what characteristics this white nationalist state takes on, it may take on several ideologies at once, so long as it is white nationalist, it’s still worth supporting.
However, race for me is not even the most important issue, they’re all important, race, sex, ethics, values, politics, economics, the environment.
I’m working on building a holistic paradigm rather than focusing all my attention on one or two issues.
The last several centuries have witnessed the globalization of the world, even fascism and Nazism were a kind of globalization, in that they were seeking to make there be only one culture and one race, just as capitalists and communists are trying to do, it’s just they went about it differently, the former by exterminating or at least subjugating all the other cultures and races of the world, the latter by merging all of them into one, multiculturalism being a mere stepping stone towards global monoculturalism, or rather supplanting culture with consumerism or communism.
I agree with what you were saying regarding the Balkanization of North America and the world.
Slowly but surely, or perhaps suddenly, I think we’re seeing a shift away from the new world order towards nationalism and regionalism, and this shift has to occur, one way or another, because our present civilization is totally unsustainable economically, environmentally and socially.
So there will be more room for different ideologies, races and religions to diverge, go their separate ways, which’s probably how it should be, we’re never going to see eye to eye with most people on everything, even the fundamentals.
Perhaps several ideologically differing white nationalist states will arise in North America, perhaps even dozens, and that is fine, in fact it’s cause for celebration, as I support ideological diversity and true racial diversity: separatism.
Yes, it’s quite possible of whole entire nations splitting into twenty different territories each with their own political, economic, cultural, and social programs. Perhaps that is nature’s way of harmony concerning our species by allowing us our own autonomous regions to govern ourselves as we see fit collectively. I think the biggest contention of disagreement is socialism versus capitalism. I cannot see me even wanting to live in a white nationalist capitalist state, I despise capitalism that much with a passion as I have lived most of my life as a working class slave under it. I say let them live in their capitalist dystopia until they come crawling and begging to enter our socialist societies after they’ve completely ruined their own, perhaps that is what it will take to finally change their minds.
Yes, a dictator can be corrupted also but the difference is that a dictator is one head that can be taken out quickly if they abuse their power. What you propose is multiple heads that can be hundreds if not thousands of people which is not easily remedied as one person is.
Like the story of the Lernaean Hydra if you strike one head off multiple others will just pop up in replacement. It is better to worry about just one individual instead of thousands, think of it in terms of simplification or containment. Once again a majority of the populace is too ignorant to lead themselves or have any discernment in the affairs of society and state.
Just got done watching an interview where a teacher is forced to move in with her parents because she only makes $51,000.00 a year where her along with teachers all across the nation are demanding higher wages. Boohoo, cry me a fucking river…
Dumb bitch, how do you think workers making $20,000.00 or less a year feel without healthcare and benefits? How do you think we survive? Oh that’s right, the United States working class isn’t important enough to get news time on mainstream media broadcasts. Fuck all of you wretches! :-"
May the social upheaval continue until the day the whole dam breaks, may it happen quickly.
Violent uprising and revolution when?