Is there a word for socially wanting NatSoc (I...

Is there a word for socially wanting NatSoc (I.E good of society comes before want of individual) but economically wanting capitalism? I believe in the capitalistic economic system but society-wise I want NatSoc. Anyone else feel this way?

Yes it's called sanity.

Fpbp

>Fascism

American culture has always been more individualistic than Europe, it would only make sense that our economic policy under nationalism would reflect that.

>also National Socialism(German) was not really full-on* socialism

Yeah, cognitive dissonance.
You don't understand either ideology, you just got meme'd hard by spending too much time on Sup Forums without actually learning.
Start educating yourself or just drop your interest in politics.

it's called "retardation". capitalism and national socialism are inherently opposed.

Always hide your power level.

De facto NSDAP had complete command over German economy. Capitalism relies on freedom of enterprise and respect of private property. Nazis could ignore and did ignore that whenever it suited them.
Reactionary social outlook and liberal economic stance is not NS or fascism. It's practically mutated feudalism.
So you people should call yourselves neo-feudalists.

this stuff

also national socialism for america is retarded. it doesnt make sense for a bunch of mutts to take the ideology. we would need to be homogeneous.

NatSoc is a breeding ground for free enterprise, many of the most successful companies around today were born out of Nazi Germany. Its 100% OK to want free enterprise while rejecting international capitalism.

White Americans are more unified than the majority of western Euro nations.

>many of the most successful companies around today were born out of Nazi Germany
For example?

Off the top of my head, Volkswagen and Adidas.

IG Farben
Siemens

Fuck off why do i know these names yet Mountain Nigger flag doesn't know shit.

i was saying that "white americans" are total mutts. muh 1/2 irish heritage. muh 1/4th italian, 1/4th german

whites are not all the same. and white americans are certainly not more unified than countries like britian, france etc.

I think I understand national Socialism. The society comes above the need of the individual. Be proud of your people and nation, that sort of thing. But it also promotes Socialism economically, which I don't like as much.

IG Farben was a conglomerate and formed in 1925.
Siemens was formed in 1847.
Adidas was formed in 1924.
It seems to me you don't know German Empire was an economic giant. You're just attributing German success of past or present to 12 years of Nazi rule.
That has nothing to do with Nazis nor does it mean anything. Educate yourselves, I'm fucking tired of talking with people here who don't even know basic historical facts.

White Americans are a totally new ethnicity, they are basically "convergent evolution" of a type from different European ethnicities. In addition addition American culture is different from almost every European country.

Ethnic Americans are a new people of their own now, and just like each people they deserve a nation.

Who cares? We have proven capable of living together peacefully and prosperously for hundreds of years, and through our unity accomplished some of the greatest feats of humanity. In the end, a white American sees a white American as a white American, and so do the niggers and spics who wish to kill us off.

Oh okay then very good Mountain Nigger.

Look up the history of those companies and tell me that Nazi Germany was not hugely or even solely responsible for their success.

It's called Hoppe Libertarianism.

Exactly.
And socialism became a blanket term. It covers everything from Soviet-style command economy to having some regulations, depending on who you talk to.
In any case Nazi economic policies were even worse than Soviet ones. Their economy would literally melt down in few years if war didn't happen.

That was my point in this thread, to coin a term for the love of nazi social policies but the love of their economic policies.

Look up history of MiG or Sukhoi and tell me CP wasn't solely responsible for their success.
It doesn't mean anything m8. State-sponsored enterprises are hardly a shining example of capitalist success.

*both not the love of their economic policies.

Just say you're in the
"National Socialist _________ Workers Party"
National Socialist American Workers Party

And I told you those two are incompatible. You can't fetishize state and collective and support individualism (which free enterprise is) at the same time.
Enterprise can't be free when state has the authority to do whatever it wants with little justification.

>White Americans are a totally new ethnicity,

thats simply not true. not yet anyway.

if you wait 500 years for white americans to blend into one ethnic group then yes.

>Ethnic Americans are a new people of their own now, and just like each people they deserve a nation.

im not against the that idea. i simply think a new ideology should be formed for it.

>We have proven capable of living together peacefully and prosperously for hundreds of years

southern whites are more homogeneous. (the european immigration waves all went north and west) and they did try breaking off. the only reason we've had more peace between us is because we have more land between us. less reason to fight eachother.

>who cares?

people who dont want their bloodline to mix into this "white melting pot" like myself. i dont care about greeks, swedes, poles. etc.

id rather keep my identity.

Capitalism dehumanize people, NatSoc on the other hand works with your people interest in mind first and foremost.
>capitalism=globalism

>this guy

The communist party resulted in widespread famine and death while the NSDAP resulted in economic prosperity. Worst false equivalence I've ever seen.

This. Capitalism breeds democracy

NatSoc actually provides the fruits capitalism promises

NS dehumanizes people too, in the sense it equates them with ants who are only a faceless part of the collective.
It's funny how people here use the history argument when denouncing Soviet-style socialims but totally ignore the most succesful society today (USA) is liberal capitalism. Furthermore USA never compromised on it's core ideals in it's 200+ years history. Sure it's not just because of their ideals, but they play a major part. Look at the history of South America as a counter-example.

>Problem: The government sucks
>Solution: Remove government's accountability to the public

Fashies are retards.

Communist party of USSR was in power for 73 years. Famine was in 30's, USSR was second largest economy in 50's.
NSDAP was in power for 6 years before the war. Furthermore their base was a lot better, Germany was a highly developed country.

Then what's your alternative? That every white ethnic group in America balkanize into a separate ethno-state, dividing our people for no legitimate reason at all?

The vast majority of white Americans have no problem whatsoever living with one another despite muh heritage fags like yourself.

you need to read more
hitlers natsoc was hands off capitalism with the only exception is if the corp was working against the nations interests

What NS provides, in practice, is oligarchy and empty slogans. Just like Soviet-style socialism.

oh right
read these

>it was totally capitalism except when unaccountable party official deemed it to be a threat to national interests
Okay.

>communist apologetics

I've heard enough.

Nazi socialism is not Marxist socialism, the party really stressed that point during their rise to power.

>Natsoc ≠ Communism
USA is not succesful thanks to capitalism.
Funny that you mention South America, when USA has been messing with them since their independency, trying to control and/or exploit them.

>USA has never compromised on their core ideals.

That is arguably not true, we've already partially compromised on the 2nd ammendment. The 2nd ammendment in its originality allowed private ownership of artillery like cannons for God sake. There are countless other examples, like the Virginia compromise but I will not list them here.

I have a suspicion that economic liberty with social restriction that benefits society are entirely consolable. It probably wouldn't be true, pure capitalism 100% but I am certain that some compromise can be made.

Are you even reading my posts or you just looked for a mention of communism so you could strawman hard?
I'm absolutely not a communist, I'm just telling you your comparison is awful and by your own standards USSR was a succesful state.

nazi propaganda is pretty crude. You must have a low IQ.

>independency
Sovereignty is the word you want.

>Then what's your alternative? That every white ethnic group in America balkanize into a separate ethno-state?

i think america would be better off balkanized but mostly for different reasons.

the division would help "whites" here in the long run anyway. a unified america = less whites in the future. thats just an inevitability now.

>The vast majority of white Americans have no problem whatsoever living with one another

the majority also have no problem living next to spics, nigs and other various "shitskins" as you might put it.

>despite muh heritage fags like yourself.

pretty obvious you've got some mixed european background. i dont care if you want a white american ethno state or whatever. better than no whites at all. just dont shit on me for wanting something more specific.

>USA is the reason South America is shit
Bollocks. Not saying USA didn't do shitty things there but their main problems are not external.
I meant core ideals, sure there was some compromise and ACW happened didn't it?
But you don't get to practice pure ideology in real life. In terms of longevity and respect for founding ideals, USA is a bright example.
>economic liberty and social restrictions
Somewhat. But not Nazi-level restrictions and outlook.
And pure capitalism is like pure communism. It's a utopian ideal.

it's okay if you like getting but fucked by kikes

National socialism is pro private property and pro markets with a few restrictions.

It has nothing to do with Jewish (((socialism)))

What I mean is USA has been preying over several south american countries since they gain their independency from our empire.
Funny enough, most times USA help them against our crown, when Spain and France help USA against UK crown.
Then, USA expanded their territory over them, conquering or annexing several of their lands.
That's not capitalism, that's imperialism.

Perhaps the more pure ethnics in America could retreat to the countries their ethnicity originated from rather than fragment the nation, I think that was his point anyway.

Anyways, inter-European breeding has occurred for long before America. Truly the various European ethnicities are so closely related that I don't really think it is strictly speaking diluting your bloodline to breed with another ethnic European. If you say that it is, one could argue that the only way to prevent dilution of your bloodline is incest. I am barely mongrelized. I am almost all anglo, with a slight taint of native American from way, way, waaaay back when.

I don't, I don't like getting butt fucked by The Party either.

And I'm telling you that this implication of yours that Soviet Russia was at any time in its history at the level of economic prosperity of Nazi Germany is absolutely retarded.

You honestly sound like a divide and conquer shill. Comparing Germans and Englishmen living together as they have done for centuries to flooding our country with third world hords? How deluded are you?

assuming the party actually buttfucks you, make a pick. Make no mistake it's either one or the other.

The government should ensure that businesses are fulfilling their place in society and not exploiting the Aryan spirit for their own needs, but I agree that capitalism is the most efficient system and the best one for our purposes. Combined with a healthy State that encourages and maintains the individual and collective bonds between all White peoples, it will create a very strong, stable, and prosperous society.

>De facto NSDAP had complete command over German economy. Capitalism relies on freedom of enterprise and respect of private property. Nazis could ignore and did ignore that whenever it suited them.

True, but this was barely excercised (compared to the ussr). It still focused on a competetive market within the country trying to create a strong middle class, i.e. smaller businesses etc... Private property was barely touched and prices fixed also only in rare instances (especially things like the volksempfänger to spread the propaganda to the masses).

So they basically had capitalism with the difference that the state still has power over everything and can move in if they want to/need to... which basically is the fascist economy model.

Problem: The government sucks
Solution: Let's exchange it with another form of government

Why is this do difficult to grasp for you?

>in the sense it equates them with ants who are only a faceless part of the collective.

Why this is basically the "anti-NS" propaganda stance... what is the difference today? Thanks to the atomization of society partnered with hyper-individualism you are just an ant... which isn't even part of anything. Hence I'd prefer a bit more collectivism over the retarded shit we have today.

>totally ignore the most succesful society today (USA) is liberal capitalism.
Be real here, this is mostly because they played devide and conquer perfectly in WW2, successfully crushed 3 empires in that only through industrial strength/man power at home. Would the Nazis have won the war and their system spread in Europe/Asia, then today we would see this as the best system.... and the US did not win because of their liberal capitalist society, same resources and manufacturing strength given to the USSR and they would have came out of the war just as well.

>Comparing Germans and Englishmen living together as they have done for centuries to flooding our country with third world hords? How deluded are you?

i didnt compare the 2 and one is obviously worse. dont strawman me you fucking faggot,

>You honestly sound like a divide and conquer shill.

for saying that your idea is better than nothing?

my point was that individual european groups shouldnt be ignored for the sake of "white" unity. i dont want germans or dutch to disappear as an ethnic group just because you guys think its okay for whites to blend into one.

>Anyways, inter-European breeding has occurred for long before America

it has in some areas more than others yes. but not so much that they are no longer distinct.
>Truly the various European ethnicities are so closely related
again, some more than others. swedes, danes and norwegians are very very similar. but a norwegian to a serbian is a different story.

> I don't really think it is strictly speaking diluting your bloodline to breed with another ethnic European
it is diluting if you're relatively "pure" of one group. but dont misunderstand me. i dont think thats the same as mixing with a nog or something. i just think its unfortunate.

>one could argue that the only way to prevent dilution of your bloodline is incest

you could yea. but thats obviously too close. health problems occur.

You will continue to find Germans and Dutch in Germany and the Netherlands, and as long as Europeans come into America, they will always have a presence here. There is no reason to attempt to undermine the already very well present unity of white America over heritage autism.

I'm not entirely sure I see the huge differences between various Europeans. At least not such huge differences that it results in abominations that could not be passed off as one of the ethnicities of their parents If an anglo and and an Aryan produce offspring, it could easily be sold off as an anglo or an Aryan. At the very least it wouldn't look like "neither" such as Robert Deniro's kids.

>You will continue to find Germans and Dutch in Germany and the Netherlands

not if they mix together into indistinguishable groups. otherwise they're only german or dutch in name.

and just because it will continue its right? i hope you're not trying to say that.

> There is no reason to attempt to undermine the already very well present unity of white America over heritage autism.

fuck off retard. im not undermining your "white unity in america" i simply pointed out that its not there. i even said good luck with creating it. because i think its preferable to becoming brazil.

>I'm not entirely sure I see the huge differences between various Europeans.

well i didnt until seeing the differences for myself. in america you dont really notice it because of how unified our culture is.
>At least not such huge differences that it results in abominations that could not be passed off as one of the ethnicities of their parents

which is why i said its not the same as nog mixing. i just think its unfortunate.
>If an anglo and and an Aryan produce offspring, it could easily be sold off as an anglo or an Aryan.

both aryan and anglo are total memes but that aside yeah. they are similar enough that they could probably pass as natives in either germany or england.
however, there is still a difference. and try the same example with a greek/irish mix.

I was just giving a tip for English, independency isn't a word, independence or sovereignty would fit.

If you say so. I suppose it is unfortunate for complete mixing of Europeans. But perhaps in certain areas like America it is permissible, so long as it dosent happen everywhere and certainly not in the individual countries those ethnicities originate from.

You're living my life.

>i simply pointed out that its not there

What the fuck are you talking about? If White Americans weren't unified then you wouldn't have to worry about white ethnicities mixing together now would you? You also wouldn't see the resurgence of White nationalism that you see today, you would instead see British American nationalism or German American nationalism or whatever random European ancestry group you wish so badly to keep "pure" but refuse to return to.

agreed.

>you would instead see British American nationalism or German American nationalism or whatever random European ancestry group you wish

no no no. that's not what you would see and its certainly not what i want. i don't think americans should artificially create separate european ethno states or some shit. thats seems to be what you think im saying.

i was making the point that american whites are not homegnous enough to follow a national socialism ideology. and that if it were something like the south alone where they are more homogeneous. maybe it would work.

i was saying i think america should have its own ideology that fits its situation better. copy-pasting germany's national socialism onto america just doesnt work.

>i was saying i think america should have its own ideology that fits its situation better. copy-pasting germany's national socialism onto america just doesnt work.

Yeah I agree with this, I think that the constitution should be maintained to keep the government on its toes, for example, but when it comes to ethnic unity and pride, there's no question in my mind that White America is without peer.