>Isn't that exactly how Hitler maintained control over Germany, though?
Only by applying those methods to traitors (communists) and non-Germans (Jews). Not to loyal Germans. This is the opposite of how it works in the USA, where tyrannical methods apply only to law abiding whites in favor of criminals and non-whites. The problem is not necessarily criminalization of speech or authoritarian methods. It's the fact that these methods are selectively used against whites to our detriment, and this is necessarily so because whites will never naturally accept being forced to live with criminal parasitic brown people. If it were used against non-whites or social subversives, then there would of course be no problem.
>And your statement about racism isn't 100% correct. Trotsky didn't invent the word at all.
I did not say Trotsky. I said it was invented by communists, which is a fact.
>The Roman Republic
The Roman republic was literally a Roman-supremacist hierarchical society built on subjugation and enslavement of non-Romans. I actually said that this is the only possible way that "civic nationalism" could possibly work here: >>1225300
If America functioned in this way, with non-whites considered subjugated second class citizens or slaves, then it could be maintained for a while. The problem is that we had this in the past and it did not hold, for similar reasons as the Roman republic.
>That being said, what do we do when the human species elevates itself a bit? What system of governance should we be looking for at that point?
A white supremacist state.
>In that sense, I think that race matters less than mentality.
Race creates the parameters of mentality.
>If the public consciousness is higher, than a more complex system of government is needed as people will be much less likely to just give rights up to the state in the end.
People do not have "rights" and do not give them up. Rights are granted by the state and always have been. And there is no "higher consciousness." That isn't how anything works.