>Rose to power by merit, he was called in to fix the economy. Not by ambition.
>Lived modestly, rejected luxury, and remained celibate. No corruption or scandals in 30+ years.
>Built the Estado Novo on Catholic, corporatist, anti-Marxist principles.
>Literal motto: “God, Fatherland, Family”
>Placed faith and tradition above all.
>Avoided war, foreign entanglements, and populist demagoguery.
>Hated both communism and hitlerianism. Crushed one with quiet discipline, wisely distanced himself from the other.
>Controlled dissent without mass bloodshed. Stability without terror
>Kept Portugal neutral during WWII and safe during the Cold War
>Preserved national unity and the Portuguese Empire
>Died poor and without cult of personality. Ruled by principle, not ego
>"We do not discuss God and virtue. The national soul is not to be debated."

Probably one of the most based rulers to have ever lived. A modern philosopher-king.

and the cherry on top
>never recognized "Israel"

>>511065697 (OP)
And portugal to this day has a lower standard of living than several communist countries, for example Slovenija

>>511065697 (OP)
I kneelão

>>511066170
Portugal was also poorer than Slovenia in the early/mid 20th century.

>>511065697 (OP)
This post is half tradcath autism, half reciting Plato's maxims.

>Controlled dissent without mass bloodshed. Stability without terror
Wishful thinking, an adequate use of force and fear is a necessity for keeping a truly corporatist policy. There's no other way to attain such a degree of unity.

>Died poor and without cult of personality. Ruled by principle, not ego
A cult of personality is not about ego, but an extension of corporatist policy and unity around a leader. It is a principle of corporatism, i.e. unity through one person.

>Hated both communism and hitlerianism.
There's nothing wrong with Fascism / Hitlerism.
Only in the cheeky tradcath way do they fault nationalist policies for practicing corporatist policies not centering around the Church, but rather the State.
But call it pagan Caesarism / State worship.

>>511066170
I like countries with a lower standard of living. People don't have the chronic dissatisfaction that is found in places with high standards of living.

>>511067474
>looks at Mussolini's life
>looks at Salazar's life

>>511065697 (OP)
it literally.was the age of Portugal

>>511067661
Mussolini got fucked over by the king and traitors within Fascism as the war ramped up.
Hitler and Mussolini fought a war worth fighting.

>>511065697 (OP)
>>Lived modestly, rejected luxury, and remained celibate.
So crypto-fagg.
>>Placed faith and tradition above all.
Kike worship is not a european tradition.
>>Avoided war, foreign entanglements, and populist demagoguery.
He ruined the economy fighting an unwinnable war to keep Angola niggers in. Failed.
>>Hated hitlerianism.
So possibly crypto-jew on top of crypto-fagg.
>>Kept Portugal neutral during WWII and safe during the Cold War
So, a coward.
>>Preserved national unity and the Portugueseconard.
He lost the portuguese empire.
>>"We do not discuss God and virtue. The national soul is not to be debated."
Cringe kike golem.
I can get behind Franco depsite his kike worship but fuck Salazar. Mussolini is the top fasc leader, followed by Hitler.

>>511067474
Salazar died in bed of old age and after more than 30 years of rule, his PIDE only killed about 32 individuals (who were dangerous subversive agents). Extremely far away from the genocidal abuses of Hitler, or even Franco, although Franco was a good man (unlike Hitler) who inherited a nation ravaged by a civil war that he won, so the context is different.

A cult of personality IS about ego. History speaks for itself. The point of a cult of personality is to rally up the ignorant masses behind a particular figure. Demagoguery. Essentially one of the many vices of democracy. Lowering the collective IQ of the population by not fostering critical thinking, but fanaticism. And also fanatical violence and clashes against their political rivals. It's a way to disturb the peace and make people unintelligent, so obviously something that a man like Hitler would rely on.

There's nothing wrong with fascism if you take away the bellicist and State-worship elements. Mussolini's rule was very good before he stupidly joined Hitler and aimed to conquer other nations. Look at how that worked out for him. He could have gone down in history as the modernizer and pacifier of Italy had he stayed within his own borders.

And then there's nazism, which is an abhorrent ideology contrary to God and based on State-worship, racial hatred, military conquest and extermination. Not simple love of nation or people. Objectively and per Hitler's words and actions, regardless of whether you want to discuss the numbers or not.

>>511067621
Contradictory isn't it?

>>511067474
Cult of personality and nationalism are contradictory. Worship of the state means worship of the Volk, not worship of the leader. The leader is merely a slave of the Volk, not the other way around
Christianity is very correct here

>>511069029
Although musolini was a faggot ihave to disagree on the part about hitler. Natsoc could could have been the next step of state evolution just like democracy was for the monarchies.

>>511069029
>and after more than 30 years of rule, his PIDE only killed about 32 individuals (who were dangerous subversive agents)
Look, it's not only about killing said number of people, but the fact that The National Union was the sole legal political party at the time and others were outlawed -- this is contrary to Aristotle's concord of clans and clearly involved the use of force to rid the other parties.

>A cult of personality IS about ego.
I think it is absurd to say a cult of personality is employed to flatter Mussolini or to flatter Hitler than with the object of its usage rather to unite the public and create a community of pleasures and pains via one ego over all other egos, consolidating the identity of the people.
It is not about demagoguery, but unity around a leader whose capacity it is to bring a people together like a singer on a stage.

>There's nothing wrong with fascism if you take away the bellicist and State-worship elements.
The integrity of the State is the rightful focus of corporatist policies and only by working on strengthening the integrity of their political State do all the rest (i.e. the families and the individuals and all the other professions and classes) fall in line -- to practice that without a degree of High Politics (i.e. "State Worship") is to ignore what politics is for.
You're not going to organize and impact the rest of society and morally order them from parish grounds -- it is a political work to organize the people as a whole and make them integral.

>>511065697 (OP)
You are brown

>>511069863
Hitler supported several monarchists like Franco though

>>511065697 (OP)
How is Miley doing Argie anon?

>>511069389
Use of a cult of personality is to make nationalism.
A people without a personhood is really a lost flock and utterly useless and prey to the caprice of wolves, and lacks a national soul, which a leader and a truly corporatist one-party system brings to the people.
It strengthens and molds a people to bind all of them to the characteristics one person would have, such as physical traits and characteristics within a race... to remove that focal point is to deprive the people of their unity and destroy nationalism, since without this the nationalism is weaker and the identity of a people dissolved without a core.

>>511070738
>A people without a personhood is really a lost flock and utterly useless
Speak for your own people

>>511069960
Which I agree with. I don't have a problem with a one-party system if it closely aligns with Catholic morality and Catholic social teaching.

>It is not about demagoguery, but unity around a leader whose capacity it is to bring a people together like a singer on a stage.
That is essentially demagoguery. Which is why modern politics is inherently flawed and why average civilians should have no participation in decision-making. The problem with this concept is that by appealing to emotion, you are not fostering a long-term vision, you are not teaching the population why they must align with these values, you are simply manipulating them emotionally. As evidenced by history, that failed. Monarchies lasted for centuries. Fascist States for a few years, and now most people oppose them.

>You're not going to organize and impact the rest of society and morally order them from parish grounds -- it is a political work to organize the people as a whole and make them integral.
I agree with this. That doesn't mean war must even be an option in the table, unless for self-defense. It also doesn't follow that because we must give honor to the office, we can displace God. The hierarchy is Church -> State. The moral groundwork for the laws stems from absolute moral authority, not subjective conjectures.

>>511065697 (OP)
>remained celibate

Unironically peak degenerate, the fact you think that's a flex is laughable.

You talk about tradition, family, fatherland, all this shit, yet you don't pass on your own genes and raise prime offspring that would further the cause of the family, fatherland, etc. Why? Because you're gay or have some mentally ill christcuck delusion about virtue based on what some kikes wrote in a desert book 1000s of years ago?

This is pure faggotry and/or loser incel mentality, not aligned with the warrior spirit to conquer and breed, which made whites great and is what whites need more than ever

>>511065697 (OP)
>>511065936

>>511069029
>>511071116

>>511065697 (OP)

Salazar was among the greatest.
But he also failed a lot: He failed in preserving our Empire in the end - he never realised the true magnitude of the commie/liberal power in the 1960s.

Portugal failed to "jump up" which was their goal, to keep the empire for self sufficient and then mannage to become rich "in a jump", this never happened.
We was (rightfully) suspicious of economic development but we wasted lots of men, as in lives, and economic resources to built up the fucking colonies.

There were poor Portuguese in the colonies but the average - AVERAGE - colonist in Angola or Mozambique lived lives that only out upper middle class in Portugal could aspire too.

This led most Portuguese in the colonies to dislike Portugal in a way, they were sort of ungrateful and saw Portugal as a sort of failed state that parasitised the colonies because the whites down there knew they could be much richer with white independences that would in turn degenerate in majority black democracies.

It was called "the building of new Brazils".
Un fucking ironically.

>>511065697 (OP)
>>Hated both communism and hitlerianism.
>>Kept Portugal neutral during WWII

what a useless faggot

>>511070507
Violently based quote.
Also, not too good. He is slightly less bad than the criminal leftist populists, but he is a radical zionist that wants to drag us into a foreing conflict and that wants not to industrialize but to sell out many of our resources to foreign companies, especially English and Jewish ones.

>>511071116
>That is essentially demagoguery.
No, a singer on the stage breathes life into the people; without a direction or core to the people, they are a blob and amorphous mass.
Yes, emotionally as well, the people need to be guided with a shepherd.

>you are not fostering a long-term vision, you are not teaching the population why they must align with these values, you are simply manipulating them emotionally.
The purpose is to give form to the masses.
It sounds like you are speaking Hoppean drivel.

>Monarchies lasted for centuries. Fascist States for a few years, and now most people oppose them.
You are not advancing a monarchist politics to begin with.
You have the culture of High Church, but neglect everything else monarchy.

>The hierarchy is Church -> State.
The pretensions of ultra-clericalism has so far uselessly divided states with this appeal and only served to bring the priesthood against the interests of the polity as a whole and thereby commit the sin of partiality.

>we can displace God.
If Fascism relented to the way High Church ordained things, there would be no nationalism first off and if all nations obliged to the appeal of High Church then there would be no borders, but as it stands in earthly politics this is a needed.

>The moral groundwork for the laws stems from absolute moral authority, not subjective conjectures.
An appeal to morals without an adequate exposition on being integral to these forms is utterly useless, like a faith without works -- the work thereof involved with making the populace orderly and integral as a whole is the work of politics and the pretensions of High Church against this work (a kind of unnecessary anti-politics) is only hindering this order.

>>511065936
>and the cherry on top
>>never recognized "Israel"

True.
I didn't know about that.
Portugal only recognised Israel in 1977, after the coup of 1975 toppled the regime, with the help of the good old US of A (and Canada) obviously, who literally had a "NATO naval training exercise" going on the day of our (((revolution))) which was larger than our entire navy.

Funny enough, at the zenith of the (((revolution))) the revolting troops had to go through down town Lisbon to arrest the President of the Council but they couldn't as they were blocked by one of our frigates stationed by the Tagus in down town Lisbon ready to open fire against them.

However, a Canadian fragate, at the pivotal moment, positions itself between our frigate and the troops, impeding it from aiming or firing.

The commander of our fragate never gave us a real report about that, although it was cought on photographs.
He is / was the father of a guy who became the founder and main leader of Leftist Block, our most leftist most globohomo sort of preying on the youth leftist party which emerged in the 1990s from the union of other far leftist parties.

>>511071861
You were poor because he >>511070507
Demanded "obedience to authority" and fought against "class struggle"
Add two and two together. Who is the authority in question? It is not just the state, it is also the factory boss, the business owner, the oligarch, etc.
So he really was a common capitalist, a liberal who wanted to preserve the capitalist world order. Demand obedience and provide nothing in return. It is no wonder he failed, Portugese were simply demoralized. You can force people to obey the elites, but then their output will be lower and the outcome will be worse. That is why we outperformed you.
>>511071116
Monarchies lasted that long because only a handful of people had access to weapons and knew how to use them. There were many peasant revolts in monarchies, but the peasants were brutally tortured and quartered and fear was used to continue oppressing them.
Not possible today, with guns. Back then one knight could have slaughtered 10 or 20 peasants armed with pitchforks. In 2025 the peasants would have guns and they would win

>>511072248
Anglo nations hard at work

>>511069960
>Muh no political parties

A problem only when it became fashionable to have political parties after WWII, with the UN and all.
Keep in mind that Salazar's regime started in 1926 in revolt against 16 years of multi party politics that completely destroyed the nation. And to keep in mind: Right wing (enough) parties were basically banned in that regime prior to Salazar.
The Portuguese right in the 1920s yearned for an end of political parties. It was based. The problem was that after 1945 and especially after 1961 and the start of the Overseas War in Africa + the constant stabbing of the allied powers... having multiple parties became fashionable again.

For the Portuguese right that came after the 1834-1926 period, political parties were to be destroyed as they were seen as the cause of degradation.

>>511071861
>He failed in preserving our Empire in the end
Should have let them go sooner. You cant go against the winds of history and both the USA and USSR, was a doomed effort. One of the things that holds his legacy back. Also not a big fan of Luso-Tropicalism but thats just me and my personal opinion.
>>511072053
Good to know. We are in an Age of very weak politicians. I saw from the outside Milei as one of the better ones. At least it ws ipressive how he gained power.

>>511072647
That doesn't matter -- do not be fooled by the pretension of political parties or estates, what have you.
The choice is between a corporatist policy or the advent of multi-parties representing Aristotle's partnership of clans.
One-party states are the corporatist policy.
Prior to political parties, this was measured by absolute monarchies and the Estates, the absolute monarchies representing a unitary policy and the estates the mixed constitution and multi-parties. The former (absolute monarchy) organized people as one household under one head, the latter was a multitude of estates... one-party states are the same phenomenon -- to organize the people under one head.
I advocate a State Corporatism.

>>511065936
Shit I didn't realize that. Thanks Sweden rape groyper.

>>511070234
So? How is that relevant to the point i made?

>>511074561
Natsoc is not revolutionary, it is reactionary. It is not the "next" system, it is a rebranding of the previous system

>>511074561
what proxy your on?

>>511072229
I don't think I necessarily disagree with you on many points, when we boil it down to political realism, of course. I still would choose a platonic style of democracy where only cultured individuals under certain political limits (no marxism and no radical liberalism) are allowed to vote, though. However, it is true that in the world of today, with the current system, you need to manipulate intellectually vulnerable masses, for better or worse.

You didn't seem to address the problems of the unnecessary bellicism of Hitler or Italian fascism, as well as the immoral aspects of Hitler's ideology. That's when "clericalism" steps in, to stop abuses and actions that are neither beneficial for the nation or for other nations. To me, the best leaders of Europe in the 20th century were Franco and Salazar.

>>511069029
>Extremely far away from the genocidal abuses of Hitler

>Franco was a good man (unlike Hitler)

this is why "christian nationalists" (a contradictory term btw) are the biggest cucks and faggots on the world.

the people you admire were literal crypto-jews, but I would have expected it from someone who worships a jew.

>>511074909
The Allies won the war and look at Europe today.
Are you happy with these results?

>>511075097
The war would have never happened had it not been for Hitler's expansionist ambitions.

>>511075200
read a book turd worlder

>>511065697 (OP)

>Avoided war, foreign entanglements, and populist demagoguery.

What are the bush wars?
Oh and they let the jeets take Goa.

I'd gladly take a Hitler, a Mussolini, a Franco over a Stalin, an FDR, a Churchill.

>>511075200
The fight was against international jewry.
It was a fight that had to be made.

>>511075312
>still falling for the Stalin bad-meme

>>511075467
Well, it backfired spectacurlarly. During the 1930s, mainstream opinion was that of hostility towards Jews, just like throughout most of history. However, Hitler's abuses led to the establishment of the Zionist State and to Jews brutally dominating media and mainstream opinion by labeling all opponents as nazis or anti semites.

>>511074662

That's literally Communist theology, anything that isn't Communism is reactionary.

>>511065697 (OP)
>>Controlled dissent without mass bloodshed. Stability without terror
kek
it wasn't that long ago, anon
there are people you can talk to TODAY to know what it was actually like
give it a few more decades and this bullshit will actually go unchecked, though

>>511075679
what was good about that fag?
>NOTHING

>>511072484
>fought against "class struggle"

And did well.
Begone, communist!

You add nothing and expose only your missconceptions.
Salazar was based and he was no liberal.
But I grant you one thing: He was too Liberal for me and for the good of the country.
Simply because he did not remove the errors of the liberal regime that preceeded him through most of the XIX century.

>We outperformed you
>A literal Slovakian gypsy

You never outperformed us. Maybe way back the Austrians put you to work in a manner that you produced some more shit than us, I don't know, but both our country's Histories speak for themselves.
What the fuck, anon!?

Every able bodied men here had weapons in the time of the monarchy - especially the True Monarchy.
The point is not that weapons were forbidden but that higher calibre weapons were exclusively for the military.

You really have a knowledge of History that rests upon memes and propaganda.

>>511075924

No, this has been happening since the late 19th century, Jews already controlled most media at this point, California was an enclave of NYC and Jews created Las Vegas.

Hitler dared to point it out, men like Bernard Baruch owned most governments in the world, the British and French governments were (and still are) owned by the Rothschild family.

Hitler was demonised for daring to point it out.

>>511076694
He killled a lot of Russians desu.

>>511072903
>You cant go against the winds of history and both the USA and USSR, was a doomed effort
that made me appreciate him more (as a person). he was truly an idealist through and through

>>511072903
>You cant go against the winds of history and both the USA and USSR, was a doomed effort.

This is retarded. This is a sor of Whig view of History. Literally proto-commie bullshit.
We could have created a third front.
The USA and the USSR did not needed to be the only two dominant powers.
The same is even more true for France and Britain.

We should have persevered, especially because we did so to the point in which we won the wars. We just gave it all away after doing all the effort and achieving victory.
It's fucking retarded.

>One of the things that holds his legacy back

Do you mean that lefties use to cry about it? Who cares?
You're right about Luso-Tropicalism. But on the ground, it almost did not exist. It was just an excuse back then.
But I think it reveals his lack of imagination and dynamism, if you will.
Nobody is perfect. But we're more Luso-Tropicalists now than we ever were under the Estado Novo.

>>511076900
good point if you dont like em

>>511073033
>Aristotle's partnership of clans

So you think we didn't have many factions?
Anon, pardon me my ignorance, but not only am I not familiar with that concept, I can't truly understand what you want to say.

The idea though is that society shouldn't be divided by a plethora of gay parties - or just two that sort of become a uniparty that monopolises everything.
For the Portuguese right the parties have always been a thing of the left: Of Liberals and then Socialists.

Absolute monarchies in the way you talk about them are only post 1600 developments. We never really had that.
I say such monarchies are pretty much impossible to function (without terror or after a huge civil war).

There is something that runs away between us, we're not on the same page as we're not quite sure what goes on the head of the other.

>>511074909
Franco and Salazar were very different.
They were two men for two hugely different situations.

I won't shit on Hitler and Mussolinni because obviously neither of the Iberian ones could have ever withstand the war Hitler and even Musso were faced with.

>>511076398
Negative. For example Napoleon, Peter the Great and Putin can all be seen as revolutionary

>>511076752
You are a shithole lmao, what Slovak? We had 2 months of vacations per year when you still had sweatshops
Thay is what you get for prioritizing obedience to factory bosses over class struggle. You will always be a shithole desu

>>511075200
>The war would have never happened had it not been for Hitler's expansionist ambitions.

That's not true, anon.
Where's that pic that has Churchill saying the power of Germany had to be crushed either be it in the hands of a Jesuit priest of the devil?
And how he said that Germany's gravest sin was to try to detach itself from the international financial system, basically (((them)))?

It was France and Germany that declared war on Germany, not the other way around.
Although I think it's quite clear also that Hitler's view necessitated expansion. Or at least the practical application of his policy.

>>511077414
Plato advocated a unitary politics in Republic / Laws.
Aristotle in Politics advocated a more pluralistic mode of politics with the estates (now represented by multi-party democracies).
Plato Republic:
>That the other citizens too must be sent to the task for which their natures were fitted, one man to one work, in order that each of them fulfilling his own function may be not many men, but one, and so the entire city may come to be not a multiplicity but a unity.

Plato Republic:
>For factions… are the outcome of injustice, and hatreds and internecine conflicts, but justice brings oneness of mind and love.

Plato Laws:
>That all men are, so far as possible, unanimous in the praise and blame they bestow, rejoicing and grieving at the same things, and that they honor with all their heart those laws which render the State as unified as possible

>>511065697 (OP)
Go tl;dr on him or do you recomend a book ?biography etc.
Don't know anything about the guy but you made me curios

Aristotle / Since the nature of a State is to be a plurality
>Further, as a means to the end which he ascribes to the State, the scheme, taken literally is impracticable, and how we are to interpret it is nowhere precisely stated. I am speaking of the premise from which the argument of Socrates proceeds, "That the greater the unity of the State the better." Is it not obvious that a state at length attain such a degree of unity as to be no longer a State? since the nature of a State is to be plurality, and in tending to greater unity, from being a State, it becomes a Family, and from being a Family, an Individual; for the Family may be said to be more than the State, and the Individual than the family. So that we ought not to attain this greatest unity even if we could, for it would be the destruction of the State. Again, a State is not made up only of so many men, but of different kinds of men.

>>511075264
>they let the jeets take Goa.

Goa had less than one million people. The vast majority was pajeets, although I think a slight majority was Christan.
India had an army of 500 million people.

It's funny to think what the year of 1961 was to Salazar:
First the USA exerts pression on Portugal demanding change.
Then in the beginning of the year, the Botelho de Moniz coup (supported by the USA, we can say now) happens in Portugal - basically just 15 years after the end of WWII Salazar is threatened.

Before the Summer of that year India with its 500 million strong population takes Goa with a ridiculous amount of military superiority in relation to our meagre garison there.
And worse of all: With the silence and tactical support of Britain and the USA (and France too), only 5 years after the humiliation of the Suez Crisis which cucked Britain and France for ever to the USA.

Also before the Summer, the terrorists attacks in Northern Angola which violently killed 5000 people in the worst manner of subsaharan barbarism happen.

So many (((coincidences)))...

The orders Salazar sent to Goa by the way was to fight to the last man and to die to the last man.
Those who surrendered were then reprimended when they were freed and arrived in Lisbon. As in they were demoted and shit and there were talks about sending some high officiers to jail.

Aristotle / state is a partnership of families and of clans in living well, and its object is a full and independent life.
And a state is the partnership of clans and villages in a full and independent life, which in our view constitutes a happy and noble life;
>These are necessary preconditions of a state's existence, yet nevertheless, even if all these conditions are present, that does not therefore make a state, but a state is a partnership of families and of clans in living well, and its object is a full and independent life. At the same time this will not be realized unless the partners do inhabit one and the same locality and practise intermarriage; this indeed is the reason why family relationships have arisen throughout the states, and brotherhoods and clubs for sacrificial rites and social recreations. But such organization is produced by the feeling of friendship, for friendship is the motive of social life; therefore, while the object of a state is the good life, these things are means to that end. And a state is the partnership of clans and villages in a full and independent life, which in our view constitutes a happy and noble life; the political fellowship must therefore be deemed to exist for the sake of noble actions, not merely for living in common. Hence those who contribute most to such fellowship have a larger part in the state than those who are their equals or superiors in freedom and birth but not their equals in civic virtue, or than those who surpass them in wealth but are surpassed by them in virtue.

>>511078821
>We had 2 months of vacations per year when you still had sweatshops

Lol
Lmao
You were always slaves.
You're unironically living in your best time ever NOW, just before the shitskin hordes take hold of that suburb of Vienna you call a country.

>>511078942
Correct!

Churchill was the warmongerer here. He and france leeched germany dry.
Our people where sitting in winter cold because they stole our coal.
Our people where starving because they stole our food.

>>511079203
>>511079203
I think I know my Plato. It's Aristotles that I lack.

But more importantly: I still don't get why you think Aristotle is for proto-parties and I still don't get why you think different factions were not represented before the political parties of, say, late XVIII century.

>Absolute monarchies in the way you talk about them are only post 1600 developments. We never really had that.
It isn't whether absolute monarchy is post 1600 development or not, what absolute monarchy did in particular is advocate a unitary idea of monarchy as opposed to the mixed constitutionalist (i.e. Aristotelian) idea that Medievalists celebrate.
This Alfredo Rocco quote explains.
That fear or terror is involved is not something I deny -- like I said, to attain such a degree of unity, there is a need for force since Aristotle's concord of hosts or friendship of clans is inadequate for that end... think of it like trying to paint a canvas with many artists, it cannot be done -- one vision has to override the others.

>>511079281
>the nature of a State is to be plurality, and in tending to greater unity, from being a State, it becomes a Family, and from being a Family, an Individual; for the Family may be said to be more than the State, and the Individual than the family.

Yeah, I disagree, especially with the latest part.

Thank you for clarifying.

>>511079323
That's what state is. Now tell me what Aristotle has to say about nationalism or the church.

>>511079559
>I still don't get why you think Aristotle is for proto-parties
Before political parties, there was the idea of the Estates and this represented the Mixed Constitution, i.e. that the political is an assembly of estates and their heads in -concord-.
Hobbes explains it well.
Thomas Hobbes
>The error concerning mixed government [constitutionalism] has proceeded from want of understanding of what is meant by this word body politic, and how it signifies not the concord, but the union of many men.

Aristotle is -against- State Corporatism or a unitary mode of politics, Aristotle says that political and economical don't have the same science, that you cannot manage the political constitution like a household under one head, etc.
What political parties are now are like the estates (the houses) representing the political constitution as a mixed constitution... except instead of noble houses, political parties.

>>511079323
Thanks. Read it.
Just don't really see where it fits or where you want it to fit.

Aristotle Politics / Anti-State Corporatism / Anti-Absolute Monarchy
>For the people becomes a monarch, and is many in one; and the many have the power in their hands, not as individuals, but collectively. Homer says that ‘it is not good to have a rule of many,’ but whether he means this corporate rule, or the rule of many individuals, is uncertain. At all events this sort of democracy, which is now a monarch and no longer under the control of law, seeks to exercise monarchical sway, and grows into a despot; the flatterer is held in honor; this sort of democracy being relatively to other democracies what tyranny is to other forms of monarchy. The spirit of both is the same, and they alike exercise a despotic rule over the better citizens.
This contrasts with Plato's corporatist idea of policy where many work to form one.

Aristotle:
>The rule of a household is a monarchy, for every house is under one head:
>whereas constitutional rule is a government of freemen and equals.

Plato / There won't be any difference, so far as ruling is concerned, between the character of a great household & the bulk of a small city
>Visitor: Well then, surely there won't be any difference, so far as ruling is concerned, between the character of a great household, on the one hand, and the bulk of a small city on the other? – Young Socrates: None. – It's clear that there is one sort of expert knowledge concerned with all these things; whether someone gives this the name of kingship, or statesmanship, or household management, let's not pick any quarrel with him.

>>511065697 (OP)
>Preserved the Portuguese Empire

King I..

>>511079511
Britain objectively won WW1. I'm not sure about WW2 considering how the USSR started asserting territorial claims under Stalin. Trotsky made Russia give up their territory in Iran to Britain claiming that enlightened socialists have no need for imperialist territory, I completely see why Stalin wanted him dead. At the time this was the most oil in the world, and Britain fully nationalized the oil. Trotsky was also involved with Churchill's cousin and much like how Kaiser Wilhelm sent Lenin to Russia by train, Britain sent Trotsky by boat. They actually had him captured until the secret service demanded he be released. Britain, much like the US, is ruled by two states, and has been since the Glorious Revolution.

Benito Mussolini:
Speech of the Ascension, May 26, 1927
The Unitary State
>But in the meantime I come to an essential point of my speech: perhaps the most important. What have we Fascists done in these last five years? We did something huge, monumental, centuries in the making. What have we made? We have created the Italian Unitary State. Consider that from the time of the Empire onward, Italy was no longer a unitary State. Here we solemnly reaffirm our doctrine concerning the State; here I reaffirm my formula in the speech I delivered at La Scala in Milan: "Everything within the State, nothing against the State". I do not even think anyone in the 20th century can live outside the State, unless they are in a state of barbarism, a state of savagery.

>It is only the State that gives people a consciousness of itself. If the people are not organized, if the people are not a State, they are simply a population that will be at the mercy of the first group of internal adventurers or external invaders. Because, dear gentlemen, only the State with its juridical organization, with its military force, prepared at all times, can defend the national collectivity; but if the human collectivity is broken up and reduced to the mere nucleus of the family, a few hundred Normans will suffice to conquer Puglia.

>What was the State – that State which we took over as it was breathing its last breath, gnawed by constitutional crises, debased by its organic impotence? The State which we conquered at the time of the March on Rome was the one which has been handed down from 1850 onward. It was not a State, but a system of badly organized prefectures, in which the prefect had but one preoccupation: that of being an efficient electoral errand boy.

>>511079576
Extremely interesting.

If you want to discuss the Portuguese scene we never really had an Absolute Monarchy.
Although in the early to mid XVIII century (and perhaps too in the late XVII century) the "cortes" (basically the gathering of the estates) were cancelled and the King became more... supreme... more Absolutist.
Anyway, it was mostly a fad.

The point I want to highlight is that in the Portuguese right we've criticised the Liberal Monarchy of the XIX century in which the King became mostly a pawn of the ascending... burgeousie... by wanting
>not a Absolute Monarchy
>but a Traditional Monarchy

Now you can say it's all semantics that we're playing but I don't think so. The point is that the world does not function on absolutes, there are steps between a (almost Soviet style) Absolute Monarchy and a completely degenerate Liberal Monarchy which is really a crowned Republic.

If you want to discuss the details...

>>511079419
Yes we live the best time because we had smart dictators and you had retarded ones. Isn't that so?

>>511080188
checked bro
remember we are on the same side!
>>511080250
you too

>>511079775
Again, all very interesting, anon...

>>511079775
>What political parties are now are like the estates (the houses) representing the political constitution as a mixed constitution... except instead of noble houses, political parties.

I disagree.
Political parties are extremely degenerate. They are basically jew factions which care not for the Nation.
Especially in Portugal where all political parties are Socialist (or were) and those who have other influences go fetch them from Liberalism.

We don't need political parties like we have in Portugal, the USA, Britain, etc.
These do not come from the people but from internationalists and especially foreign powers.
It's poison.

>>511080250
Fascism and Absolute Monarchy have the same absolutist attitude towards mixed constitutionalism b/c they are both unitary political ideologies.
Fascism is State Corporatism (i.e. the State as one person) and Absolute Monarchy is the supremacy of one actual person.
In Hobbes' Leviathan is State Corporatism:
>And in him consisteth the Essence of the Common-wealth; which (to define it,) is "One Person, of whose Acts a great Multitude, by mutuall Covenants one with another, have made themselves every one the Author, to the end he may use the strength and means of them all, as he shall think expedient, for their Peace and Common Defence.”
In Italian Fascism is State Corporatism:
Gentile
>It is the State that possesses a concrete will & must be considered a person.
Giuseppe Bottai
>However, in speaking of the corporative State, it must not be understood as meaning only all that which pertains to the relations between employers and workers – relations based on a principle of collaboration rather than upon a struggle of classes. Fascism with its new arrangements aims at a more complex end. This, summed up in a few words, is "to reassert the sovereignty of the State over those syndicates, which, whether of an economic or social kind, when left to themselves broke out at one time against the State, subjecting the will of the individual to their own arbitrary decision, almost musing the rise of judicial provisions alien to the legal order of the State, opposing their own right to the right of the State, subordinating to their own interests the defenceless classes, and even the general interest, of which the State is naturally the judge, champion and avenger."

>>511074662
Hitler was not pro monarchist but a friend of those who befrieded him. He did not reinstate the house of Hohenzollern when he could but he didn't do it. Natsoc would have been revolutionary in that it would have created not just a nationalsit state but a state that was the tool and representation of an ethnicity/race. the state becomes the race's tool instead of the state just favouring the people.

>>511080250
>we never really had an Absolute Monarchy
> King became more... supreme... more Absolutist.
Based retard

Here are Fascist writers, for instance, explaining State Corporatism (which is what Fascism advocates w/ Actual Idealism).
Mario Palmieri:
>To make this discipline possible, and the sovereignty effective in practice as well as in theory, Fascism has devised the “Corporazione,” an instrument of social life destined to exercise the most far-reaching influence upon the economic development of Fascist States. (The Italian word “Corporazione” which is currently translated into English by the apparently analogous word “Corporation,” means, more exactly in the Italian language, what the word “Guild” means in English; that is: associations of persons engaged in kindred pursuits. We shall nevertheless follow the general usage to obviate the danger of misunderstandings.)
>Within the Corporations the interests of producers and consumers, employers and employees, individuals and associations are interlocked and integrated in a unique and univocal way, while all types of interests are brought under the aegis of the State.
Fausto Pitigliani
>That the Corporation has no legal independent personality but is an organ of the State Administration.
>To these organs, which take the name of Corporations and link the various productive activities of the country as members of one body
>The Corporations constitute the unitary organisation of the forces of production and represent all their interests.
>In virtue of this integral representation, and in view of the fact that the interests of production are the interests of the Nation, the law recognises the Corporations as State organs.

>>511080081
He did.
He died before the dissolution of the Empire.
And spent the last years of his life fighting for it.
After he died we kept fighting for almost ten more years before it unrevelled.

And yet we had already won the war in Angola and Mozambique.
Only Guinea-Bissau was competitive or only there did we really have trouble. It was the only spot of our Empire where war kept going.

>>511080188
>Britain, much like the US, is ruled by two states

What?
You meant parties?

Here are absolute monarchists:
For clarity, Hobbes Leviathan also takes this stance on the limitation of subordinate corporations and the sovereign relationship of the state corporation:
>Of Regular, some are Absolute, and Independent, subject to none but their own Representative: such are only Common-wealths [or States]; Of which I have spoken already in the 5. last preceding chapters. Others are Dependent; that is to say, Subordinate to some Soveraign Power, to which every one, as also their Representative is Subject.
>Of Systemes subordinate, some are Politicall, and some Private. Politicall (otherwise Called Bodies Politique, and Persons In Law,) are those, which are made by authority from the Soveraign Power of the Common-wealth. Private, are those, which are constituted by Subjects amongst themselves, or by authoritie from a stranger. For no authority derived from forraign power, within the Dominion of another, is Publique there, but Private.
>In All Bodies Politique [Any Corporation under the State] The Power of The Representative is Limited.
>In Bodies Politique, the power of the Representative is always Limited: And that which prescribes the limits thereof, is the Power Sovereign. For Power Unlimited, is absolute Sovereignty. And the Sovereign, in every Commonwealth, is the absolute Representative of all the Subjects.
Jean Bodin also adds.
>Provided that they [the family] are joined together by the legitimate and limited rule of the father.
>I have said "limited", since this fact chiefly distinguishes the Family from the State.
>That the latter [The State] has the final and public authority.
>The former [The Family or Household] limited and private rule.
...
The trend is the same in Absolute Monarchy & Fascism: the estates are limited, the State or Sovereign is absolute to a higher degree of unity.

Salazar is also partly responsible for the country being behind other western European countries in terms of industrialization and education (at least our levels of education have been increasing really nicely these past decades)
If you want a cool Portuguese authoritarian to look up to, Marques de Pombal is 100 times more interesting as a political figure and actually ruled the country well, maybe the last truly great leader we've had

>>511066713
Being poor is nothing dishonorable. God loves the poor.

Mussolini
>For Fascism the State is absolute, the individuals & groups relative.

Giovanni Gentile:
>It must be a will that cannot allow others to limit it. It is, therefore, a sovereign & absolute will. The legitimate will of citizens is that will that corresponds to the will of the State, that organizes itself & manifests itself by the State's central organs

Giovanni Gentile:
>The Fascist State is a sovereign State. Sovereign in fact rather than words. A strong State, which allows no equal or limits, other than the limits it, like any other moral force, imposes on itself.

Giovanni Gentile
>Both Nationalism & Fascism place the State at the foundation–for both, the State is not a consequence, but a beginning.
>For nationalists, the State is conceived as prior to the individual.

Mussolini
>In so far as it is embodied in a State, this higher personality becomes a nation.
>It is not the nation which generates the State
>Rather is it the State which creates the nation, conferring volition and therefore real life on a people made aware of their moral unity.

Giovanni Gentile:
>For Fascism, on the other hand, the State and the individual are one, or better, perhaps, "State" & "individual" are terms that are inseparable in a necessary synthesis.

>>511080239
>Everything within the State, nothing against the State

Under Salazar it became
>All for the Nation, nothing against the Nation

It's rather different.
Plus the situations are very different. Portugal was amongst the most homogeneous nations in Europe, Italy had been a bunch of statlets with at least 4 distinct and clear Nations (in my view) since the fall of Rome.

The Italians just wanted and absolutely needed to create a massive Italian state than kept foreign influence out of Italy.
Too bad they went too far and started to destroy the Italian Nations to form le big Italian State.
But the main goal of all Italians was to unite to ward off foreign influence and domination.
I don't blame them much. But I don't want their fascist system. Because that is not my reality.

>>511080239
>If the people are not organized, if the people are not a State, they are simply a population that will be at the mercy of the first group of internal adventurers or external invaders

>>511080671
I maintain what I said.
Note that "more" is an indication of relativity.

Hobbes Elements of Law
http://www.public-library.uk/ebooks/31/91.pdf
>And as this union into a city or body politic, is instituted with common power over all the particular persons, or members thereof, to the common good of them all; so also may there be amongst a multitude of those members, instituted a subordinate union of certain men, for certain common actions to be done by those men for some common benefit of theirs, or of the whole city; as for subordinate government, for counsel, for trade, and the like. And these subordinate bodies politic are usually called CORPORATIONS; and their power such over the particulars of their own society, as the whole city whereof they are members have allowed them.

>In all cities or bodies politic not subordinate, but independent, that one man or one council, to whom the particular members have given that common power, is called their SOVEREIGN, and his power the sovereign power. which consisteth in the power and the strength that every of the members have transferred to him from themselves, by covenant. And because it is impossible for any man really to transfer his own strength to another, or for that other to receive it; it is to be understood: that to transfer a man's power and strength, is no more but to lay by or relinquish his own right of resisting him to whom he so transferreth it. And every member of the body politic, is called a SUBJECT, (viz.) to the sovereign

>The other error in this his first argument is that he says the members of every Commonwealth, as of a natural body, depend one of another. It is true they cohere together, but they depend only on the sovereign, which is the soul of the Commonwealth
>And though in the charters of subordinate corporations, a corporation be declared to be one person in law, yet the same hath not been taken notice of in the body of a commonwealth or city, nor have any of those innumerable writers of politics observed any such union.

>>511079278
Qrd: Portuguese Dictator of the 20th century. Controversial figure in Portugal, installed the longest lived dictarship in W. Europe.
Book recomendation: Salazar: The Dictator Who Refused to Die by Tom Gallagher

Bodin / The unity of sovereignty
>No otherwise than Theseus his ship, which although it were an hundred times changed by putting in of new planks, yet still retained the old name. But as a ship, if the keel (which strongly bears up the prow, the poup, the ribs, and tacklings) be taken away, is no longer a ship, but an ill favoured houp of wood; even so a Commonwealth, without a sovereignty of power, which unites in one body all members and families of the same is no more a Commonwealth, neither can by and means long endure. And not to depart from our similitude; as a ship may be quite broken up, or altogether consumed with fire; so may also the people into diverse places dispersed, or be utterly destroyed, the City or state yet standing whole; for it is neither the walls, neither the persons, that makes the city, but the union of the people under the same sovereignty of government.

>Now the sovereign prince is exalted above all his subjects, and exempt out of the rank of them: whose majesty suffers no more division than doth the unity itself, which is not set nor accounted among the numbers, howbeit that they all from it take both their force and power…. being indeed about to become much more happy if they had a sovereign prince, which with his authority and power might (as doth the understanding) reconcile all the parts, and so unite and bind them fast in happiness together.

<For that as of unity depends the union of all numbers, which have no power but from it: so also is one sovereign prince in every Commonweale necessary, from the power of whom all others orderly depend

>Wherefore what the unity is in numbers, the understanding in the powers of the soul, and the center in a circle: so likewise in this world that most mighty king, in unity simple, in nature indivisible, in purity most holy, exalted far above the Fabric of the celestial Spheres, joining this elementary world with the celestiall and intelligible heavens

>>511080943
So God loves those nations where majority are dirt poor but there is oligarchs who own everything else? You learn something new every day

>>511080553
>Fascism and Absolute Monarchy have the same absolutist attitude towards mixed constitutionalism b/c they are both unitary political ideologies.

I do not agree.
First of all, what is Fascism? If you're referring to the Italian variant it can even be true, I don't know.
If by fascism you refer to all Authoritarian right wing governments that sprung up in the first half of the XX century - after Italian fascism and inspired by it - I am of the opinion that there is great divergence among them, each case was a particular case, and therefore there is space for less "absolutist attitudes".

I don't know also what you mean by unitary political ideologies.

To me, the focus is on Nationalsm. Supposedly, in my view, those regimes considered the Nation (even if meme Nations like Italy or Spain) as the most good. Perhaps outside of Christ and the Christian salvation. But let's consider the Nation the most good.
How could it be otherwise?
It's based.

But I don't agree with you in principle, there is room for variation.

The State is always "one person" in a way. Because the State is one.
You can have more or less variation in the rulling elite but the State must be ruled as one because it consists on one unity: The state.
This is also why I'm a monarchist.

I already told you that Absolute Monarchies were not that absolute.
The commies were more absolutist. The US regime holds more of an absolute power than any absolute monarch ever held, especially outside the USA.
(I mean it's influence in other countries).

All these quotes above from Plato and Aristotle should suffice to show --
Aristotle's mixed consittutionalism is the policy of many heads in friendship / partnership, which has translated into today's politics as multi-party democracy and political pluralism.
...
Plato advocated a unitary mode of politics, that political & economical (state & estate, city & household, i.e) have the same science & to govern one is to know the other.
...
Absolute Monarchies (& particularly Thomas Hobbes) advocated the same unitary ideals, but Hobbes introduced State Corporatism & the materialistic liberalism which Fascism rejects (but not the State Corporatism). The trend of absolute monarchies towards unitary political ideals was followed against the mixed constitutionalist / Aristotelian political ideals of the Middle Ages (where the only corporatist policy was The Church for the time).
...
Leninism / Vanguardism in Communism developed the one-party system even more until rightwing ideologies would later adopt State Corporatism and use the one-party system to advance rightwing corporatist ideals (which only pre-existed under absolute monarchies for the time, but was called Despotism & lagged behind b/c of HIgh Church sentiment keeping them away from the consciousness of the citizens).
...
Fascism is to multi-party democracies what absolute monarchy was to the noble estates -- a unitary, corporatist policy. Fascism advocates the supremacy of one party over other parties, like absolute monarchy advocates the supremacy of one royal household over the noble estates.

>>511080320
>Yes we live the best time because we had smart dictators

Lmao
You live your best time exactly because you don't have those dictators.
You live your best time exactly because you're ruled by Brussels.

Guess what? Everybody else on the continent was better of when they were free from Brussels/Washington.

Dude, what is even your point in arguing with me?
You think you're gonna convert me to communism?
Repent!
Convert to Christ!

>>511080927
>Salazar is also partly responsible for the country being behind other western European countries in terms of industrialization and education
>
>If you want a cool Portuguese authoritarian to look up to, Marques de Pombal is 100 times more interesting as a political figure and actually ruled the country well, maybe the last truly great leader we've had
Hold up everyone the bigest clown in the thread has arrived.

>>511081829
>The commies were more absolutist. The US regime holds more of an absolute power than any absolute monarch ever held, especially outside the USA.
That is to the disgrace of those absolute monarchies (i.e. that Communist states have outperformed them in being received like prophets while people don't hold their royalty in pre-eminence).
Should we fault North Korea for being a hereditary State and successfully achieving those corporatist ideals as it was intended while royalty today fail to live up to it?
The ideal is that they should be absolute and by being absolute override the divisions of the estates and attain greater unity.

>>511080829
>The trend is the same in Absolute Monarchy & Fascism: the estates are limited, the State or Sovereign is absolute to a higher degree of unity.

Anon, the estates are always inferior to the Sovereign.
Or the State that they intend to influence... which is always or should always been the supreme good.
That is the Estates should focus on serving the State, not the State being there to serve the Estate.

This is just normal.
Liberalism turns it around.

>>511080927
>at least our levels of education have been increasing really nicely these past decades

What a disgusting little son of a whore that you are.
I'll have you know that while the (((First Republic))) here promised much with education that it was Salazar that achieved mass education in Portugal.

Those born under Salazar rarely failed to finnsh the fourth grade, and many more had the unironical option to do it.
Salazar and his regime only and always just focused on the youth. Just search on your own family.
By the late 50s and 60s it was rare the Portuguese that didn't do the "preparatória" (nineth grade?) - meaning ending the studies that would allow him to go to high school.
This was unprecedented.

Nowadays half of the people who go to college shouldn't even have entered high school. Back then it meant something, nowadays even master degrees are just dumb credentials.
Fuck you.

With Salazar Portugal became and industrial powerhouse. So go fuck yourself.

Marquês de Pombal was a faggot freemason. He did good things but he also did terrible things. He literally systematically destroyed much of our heritage.
He was sort of anti Christian.

You have no knowledge of history but the memes you were thought in the 7th to 9th grade.
Fuck you, brainlet. Dig deeper.

>>511066170
Oh shit, you're Slovenian...

Alright, you're better than Slovaks then. Sorry about that.
But you're still just the Slavs outside of Venice and Vienna.

>>511081406
>Dictator
Not really, no...

>Controversial
Only for commietards.

>Tom Gallagher
Never heard of him.

>>511072248
>Funny enough, at the zenith of the (((revolution))) the revolting troops had to go through down town Lisbon to arrest the President of the Council but they couldn't as they were blocked by one of our frigates stationed by the Tagus in down town Lisbon ready to open fire against them.
Absolute bullshit
A simple map of Lisbon will tell what a bunch of nonsense that statement is.
Also, the ship's crew disobeyed commander's orders refused commander's orders to fire on rebels, and raised the ship's guns (a military sign of non-combatant unit), for which they'd be punished (after coup's success...).
>However, a Canadian fragate, at the pivotal moment, positions itself between our frigate and the troops, impeding it from aiming or firing.
Same. Prime minister famously took refuge on gendarmerie's hq, which is nowhere near shor or in sight of any ship.
Picrel:
X: show iff between rebel and loyal cavalry (APCs vs. Tanks)
O: PM's hideout
: non-combatant frigate

>>511082219
North Korea is not corporatist. Here is why.
>>511081030
>It must be a will that cannot allow others to limit it. It is, therefore, a sovereign & absolute will. The legitimate will of citizens is that will that corresponds to the will of the State, that organizes itself & manifests itself by the State's central organs
This suggests that the goal of the state is not to be a tool of the masses like with communism but that the goal of the state is to be a tool of itself. The goal of the state is to be ran for it's own benefit. But the state is not a living thing, it is inherently a tool. So this actually just means that the state is ran for the people who run the state. North Korea is different, because it is ran for the masses or "Volk" so to say. This makes North Korea and communism in general closer to Hitlerism than Fascism. Because Hitler said on multiple occasion that the Volk does not require the state and that the Volk should assasinate and remove any leader who does not work in the benefit of Volk. The difference between national socialism and communism is therefore mostly in the fact that a communist state is a proletarian state while a nazi state is a racial state and the upper classes are just as much part of the Volk as the lower classes.
A communist state is a "proletarian dictatorship" which means that should the upper classes exist at all, they are subservient to the proletarians. This is not the case in national socialism where upper classes can freely participate in the state organs at any level without suspicion or distrust.

>>511082219
I don't understand what you really want.

Yes, Commies became absolute rulers, but only via deception and slaughter and propaganda.
Most rulers (all others but the founder) should come to absolutedom via law, costume and acceptance.

North Korea has become a sort of Nationalist monarchy (dynasties and all) clothed in communist propaganda / past.
It's based. Their goal is to survive, and they've been able to do just that.
It's extremely impressive to me. Not the best system, sure, but the best system for their goal: To survive as a state and as a regime.

The monarchs of today are just puppets of the US. They have no power. And they preside over crowned republics.

>>511081927
>which has translated into today's politics as multi-party democracy and political pluralism.

No.
I've already told you curent day parties are a monstrous degeneration.

>>511065697 (OP)
I miss so much the Mediterranean dictatorships... There was no democracy, but it was not necessary because our leaders were full of wisdom and goodness. Strict but fair, who put the welfare of the country and its people before their own, loved without asking for it... We will never have anything like it again, never

>>511082789
>>Dictator
>Not really, no...
He famously declared "the People isn't ready for democracy".
Estado Novo was the direct successor of the (military) National Dictatorship (to which Salazar had been invited as Finance Minister).

>>511066170
>lower standard of living
Of course this os the only thing that a sloveniajew thinks about

>>511081927
>Leninism / Vanguardism in Communism developed the one-party system even more until rightwing ideologies would later adopt State Corporatism and use the one-party system to advance rightwing corporatist ideals (which only pre-existed under absolute monarchies for the time, but was called Despotism & lagged behind b/c of HIgh Church sentiment keeping them away from the consciousness of the citizens).

I disagree about all this.
Why should we talk of parties when you appear to really be talking about factions with political representation?
The populares and optimates were not modern political powers.
They did not recieve orders from foreign powers.

>>511081944
I place my nation above any God. If Christ comes down from heaven and orders me to kill my nation, I will kill him instead.
You cannot be a nationalist and at the same time genuinelly religious, at least in the abrahamic sense.
Instead, a nationalist state might coopt religion to serve the nation, but in doing so it will change certain teachings to the point of a new religion being formed being unrecognizable compared to the original.

>>511083367
Yes because a state that does not take good care of the people is a degenerate state. A state where everyone is poor and their leader orders them to "obey authority" (authority = the upper class) is a degenerate state

>>511083330
So?
Was he dictator?
He was the President of the Council.

Was it a democracy? Well, it had elections... not the free-est, sure, as there were no other parties, but he was not a dictator. Estado Novo was not a dictatorship.

>>511083160
The pretense of national socialism against fascism is really goofy.
Both believe in ultimately unitary ideals of polity... just that the state should serve the people... for Fascism, the fulfillment of the people is their unity, divide and destroy that unity and the people lose the degree to which they are a people.
Race ideology in Natsoc is none other than Plato's community of pleasures and pains, which likewise demands a higher unity... but instead of abolishing private property to further unite the City, it is about properties of persons (i.e. races) into one property of person (one race as one people)... to make a people stronger as one race, it is as molding them into one personality as a whole and, again, unitary ambitions but with race.
North Korea is corporatist like Vanguardism because it believes in a one-party state and organizes itself like this, stressing unity of mind and hearts of the people behind one leader and being one family... which National Socialism wouldn't understand because East Asians group around their dynastic powers and form national families with their royal houses... which Westerners really don't do.
For North Korea, the Leader is the life of the country... the Leader is their unity... the Leader makes them one family as a whole and as a people.

>>511082812
They were passing through, I don't know where, but I think Terreiro do Paço or a street in that vincinity.
It was a military column with several vehicles.

If you dig deep enough you'll find that it happened exactly as I said.

>>511065697 (OP)
Why does Portuguese looks more White than Spaniards?

>>511083273
>We will never have anything like it again, never

We will.

>>511081406
Thnak u

>>511083453
>at least in the abrahamic sense.

What a faggot.
Nothing of what you wrote makes the least sense.

>The process of the building of our Party is a process of patterning it on the Juche idea. Imbuing all Party members with the Juche idea is a continuation and a higher stage of our Party's historic struggle to model itself on that idea.

>Imbuing all Party members with the Juche idea means, in essence, strengthening and developing our Party for all time into a party of Comrade Kim Il Sung.

>Strengthening and developing our Party into the party of the great Comrade Kim Il Sung implies having him eternally at its head and holding fast to his ideology and line and implementing them throughout all generations.

>The respected Comrade Kim Il Sung is the great leader who has, for the first time in their history of several thousand years, been acclaimed by our People; he is the Teacher and Father of our Party and People."
- Kim Jong Il

>Our Party regarded education in the monolithic ideology as its basic ideological task and carried it out energetically. As a result, a single ideology has prevailed throughout the Party, and all its members have been armed firmly with the Leader's revolutionary idea, the Juche idea, and have come to think and act as required by this idea.

>Another important factor in establishing the monolithic ideological system is to achieve the Leader's unitary leadership absolutely.

>The Leader is the supreme controller of a party, and the party's leadership is precisely his leadership. Our Party has set up a well-regulated system under which all its organizations and members act as one man under the unitary leadership of the great leader Comrade Kim Il Sung, give absolute authority to Party policies and defend and implement them without question.
- Kim Jong Il, The Workers' Party of Korea is a Juche type revolutionarty party which inherited the glorious tradition of the DIU

Kim jong il stresses that they "act as one man under the unitary leadership of the great leader Comrade Kim Il Sung" -- that is State Corporatism.

>>511083675
Anon, nice thread.
I enjoyed exchanging ideas with you and reading your comments.
You were really impressive.

May I inquire what is your educational background and what you do for a living?
How did you collect so much knowledge on all this?

t. Don't dox yourself for me though.

>>511083940
It doesn't make sense to you because you are retarded. I place my nation above God. What is hard to understand here for a swarthy Portuguese?

>>511083835
Fun story:
Franco was Portuguese too. He came from Galiza.

Funnier story:
Salazar's father was Spanish or half Spanish or something.
His father literally originated from Spain.

>>511065936
>>511065697 (OP)
based Antonio Salazar i was completelly unfamiliar with your game
what is portugal like now? another commie shithole like spain? or a poor socialist shithole like mexico?

>>511084055
>I place my nation above God

This is literally an heresy.
Sin no more! Convert!
Nothing is above God - BY LOGICAL REASONING ALONE!

>>511083940
>What a faggot.
>Nothing of what you wrote makes the least sense.
Bro, did you see his flag?

>>511084085
lmao, Spaniards do like to be governed by anyone who is not Spanish, the royal family has not been Spanish for a long time.

>>511084130
>another commie shithole like spain? or a poor socialist shithole like mexico?

I think we're between both of you.
Spain is better than us.
We're not as bad as Mexico.
Yet.

>>511084013
I've larped as an absolute monarchist since 2014 -- so 11 years.
I have a board on 8moe called /monarchy/ and hangout at leftypol /siberia/ in the Royal Colony threads.
I'm kind of an autist.

>>511084278
t. master on international relations and political science.
Was former glowie for awhile.

Good for you anon, have a nice day.
I'll go away now.

>>511065697 (OP)
Liberal kerensky who fucked up everything bent backward contradicted himself and caused a parliament lost everything he was liberal 4th estate based on the of the commoners

>>511084378
If you want to read up, go to leftypol.org and their /siberia/ board and royal colony threads.|
or 8moe /monarchy/ board.
I post everything there.

>>511083599
>Elections
Lol
Sham ones: Humberto Delgado clearly would've won.
>No other parties
Lolwut? Movimento Democrático, ever heard of?
>Not a dictatorship
Ok, lol...
Muh "not-a-dictarorship dictatoship" (a dictatorSHYp?...)

>>511083743
Lol
No.

>>511069029
Wrong satan genocide is not real get that pussy shit off the board you are spewing satanic shit hllphoax cohorts hoaxes rape of nanking hoax

>>511065697 (OP)
I, too, watched Behind the Bastards

>>511084055
>I place my nation above God
Holy based. 17th century created those who dont belive in God and thats fair. But the 21st century created those who dont believe in the Nation, the greatest herey of our age.

>>511065697 (OP)
>>511065936
Trully an underrated chad.
Like Franco tho his biggest flaw was not securing succession after him.
Such is the case with many great men..

>>511075264
Lost a catholic empire fucked over everyone a liberal kerensky he fucked over europe

>>511084606
Didn't work out with Franco either.
Tbh he didn't like the father of the royal he installed so he installed him -- his son -- and the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

>>511084442
Waat?

>>511065697 (OP)
How is he any different from Hitler and why would he hate Hitler?

>>511065697 (OP)
>Salazar

>>511084710
(With reason) Salazar didn't trust Franco one bit...

>>511084450
Thanks.

>>511084681
Msybe the US (Kennedy) shouldn't have been behind UPA (yes) and turned its back on Portugal, in the first place, then...

>>511084606
Franco literally secured succession... he passed it to King D. Juan Carlos of Spain, the father of the present King of "Porque no te callas" fame.

Salazar fell on the shower and became incapacitated. Or so his inner circle said. He was succeeded by one guy of his inner circle.
His regime fell 6 years later.
The guy who succeeded him was the godfather of our current president who is named after him. Pic related. Just an interesting factoid.

>>511085070
>Msybe the US (Kennedy) shouldn't have been behind UPA (yes) and turned its back on Portugal, in the first place, then...

Based anon.
In this I agree with you.
Just tell the mutts that UPA were literal nigger terrorist commies who savagely slaughtered thousands of innocents in the most terrible way imaginable.

>>511084725
Even Italian Fascists didn't trust Hitler (only retard Mussolini) and didn't want to go to war along Germany.

>>511065697 (OP)
You're right. I wish as a leader I can be as competent and as self-sacrificing as he.

>>511085128
>Godfather
That's false

+1 for my bro Salazar, I'm a big fan

>>511085128
Franco did secure succession, I don't deny this.
My point is in being a spiritual father and mentor to D. Juan Carlos, this was not enough to substitute what Franco disliked in his father, Infante Juan.
Royalist thinking is that a son will always prefer his real father over a mentor and Franco chose the son over his father.

>>511085223
>Commies
They were literal high as kikes err kites tribesmen with no notion of even life or death, let alone politics...

>>511085128
>The guy who succeeded him was the godfather of our current president who is named after him
I dont entirely disagree with the Comietards when they say the revolution is unfinished.
We end up the same old tired Elites of the old regime.
Should have spilled more blood. A few public executions would do this country wonders. Portugal é um país de mansos.

>>511065697 (OP)
My favorite leader after Hitler, even though they didn't see eye to eye

>>511065697 (OP)
>we do not discuss god
Hence so many Portuguese people are mentally ill. Brainwashedly afraid of conversation.

>>511084130
The reason mexico is a shithole is because it has mexicans in it.

>>511084155
I don't care about your sins, inquisitor. Go kneel in vatican

>>511065697 (OP)
Reminder that Doctor Salazar was declared the Greatest Portuguese of All Time, by the people.

>>511085612
>A few public executions would do this country wonders.
You were literally one baby step away from having them, in the aftermath of 11/3...

>>511086814
Lol
Country of absolute retards, left and right.
>Campanha do Trigo (anos 50): destruiu o tradicional bocage alentejano, dando origem à monocultura extensiva, que por sua vez deu origem à actual monocultura (ultra) intensiva (nas mãos de estrangeiros)...
>Campanha de Florestação (anos 40): deu origem à actual "floresta portuguesa", que de floresta não tem nada, e de portuguesa cada vez menos (o pinheiro é uma árvore litoral, de solos arenosos e o eucalipto e a acácia, são, obviamente, australianos). Irónica e sintomaticamente, toda a gente, da direita à esquerda mais anti-salazarista, a trata como se de uma vaca sagrada se tratasse...
>Lei do Condicionamento Industrial: impediu a industrialização do país.
Os maiores crimes económicos e ecológicos jamais perpretados neste país, cujas consequências continuam (e se continuarão) a fazer sentir por longo tempo, (se não para sempre).