Various social technologies.
In his biography of Hitler, I remember Fest commenting on the Nuremberg rallies, saying something about the possibility that those rallied could have evolved into a form of “totalitarian democracy.” Fest did not further explain his meaning, but I have my own interpretation of that, which differs significantly from the “official” Jewish–inspired concept discussed here.
What I have in mind is a situation in which the totalitarian, non-elected leader goes in front of crowds at mass rallies, crowds that represent a cross-section of the population, and presents his views and plans. The crowd, these representatives of the populace, can either (through some mechanism, ranging from mass supporting acclamation or expressed disapprobation to actual voting of some sort) can register either approval or disapproval to these views and plans. If it is disapproval, the leader would need to (at least temporarily) shelve the idea (until the next rally) and/or engage in mass propaganda to convince the people.
Would the leader have the legal right to disregard the will of the people as expressed at the rallies? Would the leader “cheat” by filling the crowd with known supporters of the policies? That may occur, but would run the risk of losing moral legitimacy with the population, if the leader’s policies go against the true wishes of the people. I note that even the Hitler regime kept tabs on popular opinion and had some concern about what the people were thinking – and that with a population with a reputation for discipline, obedience, and following orders.
Those of us, like myself, who oppose the democratic fraud currently practiced in the West need to consider what social technologies can be used to allow the people to have a say in how the nation defends their (genetic) interests, and to create mechanisms that would prevent free-riding from unaccountable elites, working against the people’s legitimate interests. A form of national socialist “totalitarian democracy” may be such a social technology. I have in the past also considered political forms akin to what was extent in the Roman Republic (absent the flaws that doomed that state, such as personal loyalty of the military to their leaders rather than to “the people and senate of Rome”). Thus, revolving dual Consults, a Senate, and a Tribune of the People (Plebs), balancing power and preventing any one person or group having too much control. This could be another form of totalitarian democracy, more similar to the Wikipedia article, albeit with the people having a real say through the powers of the Tribune (who would be elected, but who would act only according to the structures inherent in a nationalist state). Or, some combination of the Fest-Hitler-Rally idea and the Roman idea; the possibilities are endless. One thing is for sure: a system like the current one, in which a plutocratic globalist oligarchy masquerades as a” democracy” while waging war on majoritarian (genetic) interests, is unacceptable.