A thought experiment

Suppose you are an intelligent and ambitious man with a small but loyal followership.

Suppose you live in a decadent and failing empire where the two largest competing political ideologies are essentially two sides of the same coin. This has lead to a polarized population that's almost split 50-50.

You want power and you would be willing to do anything to achieve it. What political vehicle would you use to rise to power? What common cause would you propose to unite those two camps under your banner?

What is your objective? Is it the restoration of old europe?

Ideally yes. Europe cannot grow without fighting each other. Our constant wars were a necessary ingredient to filter out the weak and let only the strongest and most intelligent portion of our populations survive. I just wonder how you would convey such a message in this hypothetical situation.

>Our constant wars were a necessary ingredient to filter out the weak and let only the strongest and most intelligent portion of our populations survive

I remember when I was an edgy 14 year old as well, good times, good times.

I would say false flag terrorrist attacks are a good start. You need to regain control of the media too, but before that they must be forced to acknowledge something is wrong.

Burn mosques, churches, museums, food storages, mame people have to choose between them and the outsiders. The first step is to double down on the bad conditions. A crisis is always the first step.

Meanwhile reach for monarchs. For germany i believe the hohenzollern's legitimacy would have to be slowly regained, you should have his support. He should give his word on the conditions of europe every once in a while, have his voice heard.

Meanwhile of course you and your partissns need to make noise too. Well those are fist steps, but we will not live long enough to see it come to life. It's a long process.

Very good! I am amazed, this is exactly what I have also thought about. Now, your part about the monarchs is especially interesting. How would you attempt at connecting a failing parliament, filled with multiple small and disagreeing parties, with the legitimacy of monarchs? Keep in mind that both sides of the mentioned political camps believe in democracy at the current time.

This is just roleplaying.

MAGA

Holy shit Sup Forums, get off the internet for ten minutes and realize that outside of this shit board nobody is going to support some fat autist toppling the government
The levels of delusion you guys have reached are beyond unhealthy

Calm down and don't mind this thread.

>nothing to see here, folks
I'm honestly just laughing at you
You're asking a mongolian parasailing forum for a how-to guide on world domination
This is not how one boldly siezes control of a country

I like your style. What would you do in my described situation from ?

Burn down the Reichstag.
Blame the Russians.

DO NOT DO FALSE FLAG SHIT.

Normally I'd consider it a good idea, but if the muslims denied doing it, there's a very good chance people would believe them, because they usually BRAG about their attacks.
And if the people convince themselves that there are ebil nazis that are trying to frame poor muslims as terrorists, everything is over. Any real attack would be blamed on white people (even worse than usual).

Muslims' own brutality and incivility is our best weapon. Let's not jeopardize it. Let them show to everyone what kind of violent fanatics they are.

And I'm not sure at all using monarchs would be a good idea. We're all too convinced that monarchies are primitive and brutal and unfair. People that would otherwise follow you might keep their distance, if they convince themselves that it's only a ploy ex monarchs are using to regain power.

TL;DR Nobody in Europe wants monarchies in 2016.

Start an Islamo-Christian Party

Interesting. What do you think about finding and extending fractures in the muslim realm? In other words: What do you think about picking a certain and easily controllable school of Islam, where you already know few high leaders, and start promoting them? Picking the most docile one should make the other unwanted elements lose their patience and make mistakes, thus allowing your own power to grow, isn't it?

About the monarchs: What other way of uniting a polarized population is there if not this? Plus, ascending for the sake of somebody else has more legitimacy than trying to establish dictatorship, especially in the modern world.

Ww2 was litterally the reason why Europe fell.
British empire crumbled, no more cash left. EU formed.
Within a couple of decades we were importing niggers.

>What do you think about finding and extending fractures in the muslim realm?
It would certainly be a possible course of action, altough a difficult one and with no guarantee of good results.

Purely teoretically speaking and with no intention of actually suggesting anything (hello NSA):
I would personally use the last years of relative peace to spread my message and make my name and my ideas known. Expand my ranks. It doesn't matter if at this stage I'm accused of being islamophobe and racist.

Then, as soon as the muslims make a really big attack, I seize the moment, increase the confusion tenfold and depict myself as a prophet and The Man With The Answers.
In this situation, during a real attack, false flags could be used with minimal risks: make a few dozens of your people dress like terrorist and shoot a crowd, plant bombs, throw molotovs in a station, always yelling Allah Akhbar.
Make the people fear for their lives, and you're set.

I'd also suggest bringing more of your people (dressed normally) on the sites of the real attacks to help the injured (and make sure plenty of pictures of you are taken). And then spend the following weeks accusing the current politicians of incompetence and repeating your message any chance you get. The media would pick up your message and interview the heroic, brave, young german fighting in the trenches against the terrorists and helping the people, instead of jus talking like any other politician. At that point, create a party (if you haven't done it already) and watch the subscriptions flow.
(Also, get the relatives of the victims to speak against the muslimes on TV.)

About the monarchs: people just don't like the idea of a monarchy anymore. It's seen as worse than a dictatorship, a huge step backwards. It's useless trying to change people's ideas, especially when they're this deeply radicated. It's better to just use them to your advantage.

I'd suggest rising to Chancellor, without changing anything to the institutional system as it is now in order not to be seen as a despot. Don't call yourself Fuhrer or Savior or Emperor, don't create a new title just for you. Just try to become a good old chancellor like all the others, and then change things from the inside discreetly but decisively. Drastic changes hidden from the public or, when not possible, framed as "in defense of democracy and peace and civilization and peace, etc.".
(Won't be difficult: it's the truth.)

How does one justify their own ideals when they suggest a false-flag attack? Are you honest about being power fetishists taking advantage of fear for your own gain, or is your mind so warped by this place that you think it's necessary to protect from the "real threat?"

People are so stupid and lazy they need to be dragged kicking and screaming to their own salvation.

Murdering them and lying to them to instill hatred is your idea of salvation?
And who placed the Sup Forumsacks in a category above the normies, where they know their murders are helpful while the murders of others are malevolent?

>Murdering them and lying to them to instill hatred is your idea of salvation?
Murdering 1/1000000th of them to save the rest, instead of watching passively as they all accept a suffering less intense but a lot more prolonged and ultimately fatal for everyone?
Yes.
One day of pain to avoid a century of agony.

>who placed the Sup Forumsacks in a category above the normies
Nobody needs to place you in any category. Nobody needs to give you permission to do what you believe is right. You just do it because you have the power to do it and the convinction that it's the right thing to do.
If you're asking this kind of questions, you're a mediocre individual.

Media propaganda, then establish laws to increase the amount of birth rates in that country. Invade niggerland and other nigger-tier countries with low populations.

>Our constant wars were a necessary ingredient to filter out the weak and let only the strongest and most intelligent portion of our populations survive.

Mortar fire rips apart retards like you and geniuses all the same.

I like the combination of those two approaches, but in order for this to work, one certainly would need to be a genius as a diplomat and an actor.

I really like this. It's playing this current game to it's fullest extent; utilizing everything within it. I will think thoroughly about your words.

It would be interesting to see how this plays out in the real world, but luckily our talk remains on a hypothetical basis.

>What political vehicle would you use to rise to power?

Slick Youtube videos calling out famous people in charismatic, bombastic and offensive ways.

remove kebabism

More than "filtering" the weak, wars make everyone stronger. If you grow up with the awareness that you're gonna have to fight for your life in the future, your mentality is gonna be different.
Countries become stronger too, more nationalistic.

>What common cause would you propose to unite those two camps under your banner?
The truth.

This is literally indistinguishable from the logic of the terrorists you claim to be protecting people from.
I think the real threat isn't a religion or a country, but people with whatever sickness you have.

Assuming that every man knows exactly what he wants and what's best for him and his people is grave negligence. It means that you yourself are not willing to tackle the real problems.You need to be rutheless sometimes to ensure a good life for your population.

One day, 10 or 20 years from now, we will meet at an international conference. I as the leader of Italy and you as the new Chancellor of Germany.
That day, I will simply whisper "Sup Forums was right" to you, and you will know.

I tell everyone I'll drop communists out of helicopters and then do it.

>This is literally indistinguishable from the logic of the terrorists you claim to be protecting people from.
No it's not. Stop trying to sound wise by spouting idiotic platitudes.
My goal would be to SAVE the majority of the people and make them free to live as they want. Save our entire civilization.
Their goal is to submit and kill to gain a place of honor in heaven.

Evola thought war was the only way for strong people to emerge.
He willingly exposed himself to bombing and ended up a maimed cripple with an eye patch.

Will you be stronger if i cut off your leg off?

Look at France, oh how strong they became after WW1.

Are you really too stupid to understand the meaning of my post?

This is a vocation.

Courage and strength, until the day we meet.

Are you really too stupid to understand analogy in my post?

Look up what slaughter of whole generation o young french did to their society.
Oh, ww1 changed their mentality alright. Just not in the way you claim it shoudl.

Nobody is advocating a mass slaughter like a world war.
When people say that a war every once in a while (usually every generation) makes you stronger, they mean that a country built around that necessity is going to instill a certain mentality in its people and train their bodies and ideas so that they can resist the struggle and keep their country safe from the bullshit we're currently dealing with: exaggerated political correctness, rampant leftism, feminazism, mass immigration.

The ONLY way to avoid these cancers is growing up with the awareness that one day, you will have to fight for yourself and your country. There are just no other ways.

Russia for example never stops fighting small wars that pose no real threat to her, and as a result, they're remarkably uncucked.

French and germans wouldn't be in this situation if in the past 70 years had a couple of small conflicts. They'd be stronger, more prepared to threats from the inside and the outside.

Godspeed and good luck, german bro.

>Will you be stronger if i cut off your leg off?

>people get injured or crippled by lifting weights, so lifting makes you weaker.
Idiot. Cherrypicking exceptions doesn't disprove the theory.

You don't have followers and you won't do shit, but here's my answer anyway:

>Opposing factions only unite when it's against a common enemy
>Everyone already has their own stance on subjects and most of them are more or less set in stone (it would take a lot of effort to make anyone switch sides on a given subject)

Keeping these two things in mind, you might want to consider uniting people against a NEW enemy that nobody really has a firm stance on, yet. From there, you can pivot to whatever cause you initially wanted.

Basically what PETA or feminism do. Are you fucking helping animals by burning down research facilities? Are you fighting for equality by helping only women? Doesn't matter, they took an issue that NOBODY WOULD OPPOSE (help the poor animals/women!) and united a shitload of sheep under it, and now they can do whatever they want, as long as they can mask it under their banner.

You could fight for strong, German engineering to make a comeback! You could fight against overpopulation and its horrible carbon footprint and environmental effects. Whatever your little heart desires. From there, anything that involves whatever banner you're riding under is within the domain of your followers. Want to kick a bunch of uneducated immigrants out of your country who keep popping out uneducated babies? Well either of these banners would be a pretty natural transition. Want to raise taxes? It's for engineering programs! It's for education on safe sex! Want to lower taxes? It promotes industry! We need to cut back on welfare for all these kids to discourage overpopulation! There's just two banners and ways to justify a couple acts, including something and its direct opposite.

All in how you play the politics, Germfag. Nearly anything can be justified as working for nearly any issue. You just gotta unite people under something, and a newer issue is going to be one with less friction.

>

>Nobody is advocating a mass slaughter like a world war.

Except it often ends like this for weaker side of conflict. Are you OK with this? If so, you are psychopath.

>Russia for example never stops fighting small wars that pose no real threat to her, and as a result, they're remarkably uncucked.

USA also is constantly waging war somewhere. Oh look, it seems your theory has some holes in it.

>exaggerated political correctness, rampant leftism, feminazism, mass immigration.

All these ideas were pourposfully implanted into west as part of ideological war waged by soviets. Frankfurt school. This filth didng magically appeared because west were without major war for too long.

>
French and germans wouldn't be in this situation if in the past 70 years had a couple of small conflicts. They'd be stronger, more prepared to threats from the inside and the outside.


Both french and germany mentality were irretrievably
changed due to wars they waged. France stll remembers onslaught of ww1. Germany was castrated after ww2.