Thread for discussion of National Socialism, Fascism, Nationalism, and European Identity Movements. Share links, PDFs, reading, videos, and propaganda. > 卐 - REPORT IN FOR YOUR COUNTRY! > 卐 - TAKE BACK THE BOARD! > 卐 - DRIVE OUT DEGENERACY!
>William Joyce – Twilight Over England >Twilight Over England compared the evils of Jewish-dominated capitalist Britain with the successes of National Socialist Germany. archive.org/details/WilliamJoyceTwilightOverEngland
>The Case for Germany: A Study of Modern Germany by Arthur Pillans Laurie >a view of National-Socialist Germany by a Scottish scholar inside Hitler's Third Reich. archive.org/details/TheCaseForGermany
卐 - NATSOC ECONOMICS EXPLAINED ------------------------------- >One of the most plagued questions we get when talking about Fascism is economics, normally brought up by people still stuck in a liberal mentality and limited scope of perception, where everything is defined in term of social and economic policies, rather than principles derived from the notion of a singular Truth and Order that dominates the world. The variety of historic economic plans and practices maintained by various champions of our Struggle likewise distorts any comprehensive answer to the question. All in all we've simply answered people that economics are secondary, they don't matter in such a way as to be a fundamental and defining element of Fascism. The answer didn't change, however there is now a way in which we can describe this attitude to economics, and it's actually a word we've used repeatedly in reference to Fascism anyway: Socialism. >Our Socialism, however, is not in of itself an economic system, it is not the Socialism of Marx and co and stands in direct opposition to both Communism and Capitalism. It would be more accurate to say that to Fascism, Socialism is the definitive social structure which is more comparable to the structures of Individualism and Collectivism, yet it stands in opposition to those two structures as well. >Our Socialism, however, is not in of itself an economic system, it is not the Socialism of Marx and co and stands in direct opposition to both Communism and Capitalism. It would be more accurate to say that to Fascism, Socialism is the definitive social structure which is more comparable to the structures of Individualism and Collectivism, yet it stands in opposition to those two structures as well. (Continued) archive.is/7CUMq
Ryan Lee
...
Liam Nguyen
卐 - NATSOC ECONOMICS EXPLAINED (cont’d)
>“’Socialist’ I define from the word ‘social’ meaning in the main ‘social equity’. A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency. >Our adopted term ‘Socialist has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.” - Adolf Hitler 1938 - 卐 - CLASSIC PROPAGANDA youtube.com/watch?v=cfNQaE-FPwU youtube.com/watch?v=_7vVst4qpKg youtube.com/watch?v=7wU2m064iaQ youtube.com/watch?v=RPh6yJoyZbk youtube.com/watch?v=AOBXc5exrL8
卐 - MYTHS ABOUT NATSOC (Part 1) >"National Socialism is just (((socialism)))"
Marxist (Left) socialism and National (Right) Socialism are "antipodal zeitgeists engaged in dialectic". That's a fancy way to say they're opposite ideologies designed to clash, like Yin and Yang.
NatSoc was fundamentally an ideology built around race, while Marxist socialism was entirely different: built around class. Hitler aimed to unite the right and left, including workers and their bosses, into a new German nation based on racial identity. Socialism, in contrast, was a class war between workers, bosses, and owners (Capitalists), aiming to build a workers state in which race and gender were insignificant. Socialists, especially Marxist socialists, were anti-religious atheists, whereas NatSoc went so far as to make Christianity the religion of the state.
The differences go on and on: Marxist socialism was internationalist, NatSoc was nationalist. Marxist socialism was egalitarian, whereas NatSoc believed that nature was unequal and required competition. Marxist socialism wanted to nationalize all private industry, while NatSoc privatized every major industry except the railroads (it considered these a military asset. In fact, Hitler once joked "they didn't need to nationalize property because they nationalized people". NatSoc drew on a range of pan-German theories, which wanted to blend Aryan workers and Aryan magnates into a super Aryan state, which would involve the eradication of class-focused socialism as a non-German ideology.
卐 - MYTHS ABOUT NATSOC (Part 2) >"National Socialism is just (((socialism)))"
NatSoc redefined socialism as "Germanism/Volkism", which they saw as "producer-oriented capitalism", as opposed to "Jewish capitalism", aka, international finance, globalism, wall street, etc. In theory, NatSoc economics was a version of Keynesianism, tailored to the Völkisch nature of whichever people adopted it. Its not one dogmatic economic system,and Hitler often joked that the lack of a specific ideology was their strength. NatSoc could be more "free market" as Americans know it, or less. But NatSoc is always in favor of the Volk over economic identity, of "producer capitalism" over "finance capitalism".
Hitler tried to clarify the distinction in 1938: >“’Socialist’ I define from the word ‘social’ meaning in the main ‘social equity’. A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency. >Our adopted term ‘Socialist has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. ((((Marxism))) is anti-property; true socialism is not. ((((Marxism))) places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.”
Blake Robinson
...
Juan Reyes
...
Tyler Thomas
卐 - MYTHS ABOUT NATSOC (Part 3) >"National Socialism / Fascism was a failed system"
It's intellectually dishonest to label something that was forcibly crushed a "failed system", implying that a nation bombed into collapse during war is comparable to a system imploding politically during peace-time. The Soviet system failed, as did the Roman Empire, and every Chinese or Ottoman dynasty. Some of these examples of government lasted thousands of years, while some didn't last more than a generation. All forms of government inevitably fail. This has been true since ancient times. Polybius famously articulated this process of Anacyclosis: social organization paradigms rise, fail, and give way to further systems. This is the cycle of history.
Fascism is not a failed system, it was a defeated system: A.) it was not an economic system, but a social one; B.) the so-called "failed system" had a control group: the US. Germany, Italy, and the US were operating under Keynesean policies; only one of them won the war, and experienced a massive period of growth once their industrial rivals were destroyed. So no, it wasn't a failed system, because both sides were using it, including the side that won.
>Lebensraum: 'Lebensraum' is often intentionally exaggerated by those wanting to push the fractal "Hitler planned to exterminate all races" meme. The actual meaning of Lebensraum referred to the security of the German borders, and the need to provide living space so that Germans aren't threatened by outside forces. To claim that "living space" meant solely "to exterminate and re-populate more land than there would have been Germans to inhabit, for several generations after the war" is absurd, and contradicts the policies of "Germanization" that were ACTUALLY PRACTICED by the Germans regarding their Slavic allies:
Hitler didn't consider Russians subhuman. He considered them inferior. Because in terms of living, they were. Seriously, look at the living style of the average Soviet, then compare them to a German in 1930, they were, by all accounts inferior. He even talks about how some Russians of the old rich class were Germanic. There were multiple reasons for the invasion of the Soviet Union, for example: >1. To gain the necessary resources to fuel a long time war, something that Germany was severely lacking. >2. To prevent the inevitable invasion of Europe by the Soviet Union. If you gonna start a war, it's best to have the first strike. >3. To disband the Bolshevik and Jewish regime in the Soviet Union, something Hitler knew would be a threat to Germany.
True, the Germans would've gained land from defeating the Soviets and would certainly have sent its citizens into this newfound land, just like the allies did to German clay they gained after WW1 and WW2. The Germans wouldn't have exterminated Russians. They simply would have governed them.
-
卐 - MYTHS ABOUT NATSOC (Part 5) >generalplan ost: 1. There is absolutely no proof of Generalplan Ost ever existing. 2. Hitler would have been fine with a path through the Polish Corridor (pic 1). If Poland had agreed to the terms then there would have been no war. 3. Germany did not massively blob into Eastern Europe like wiki suggests, they had very clear borders(pic 2). The eventual goal was to set up puppet states, not wipe out the populace. 4. If the plan was to exterminate Slavs, then why were there no camps for that purpose? The deaths in Eastern Europe are from starvation and warfare, not extermination. 5. Plenty of Slavs fought alongside Germans in the Russian Liberation Army, SS Galician, and others.
Mongrel nationalist here, what could be done about racemixing aside from making it culuturally unacceptable? People like me have no racial identity and are barred from participating in any NatSoc movement that's not the castrated civic nationalism. Should we breed the nonwhite genes out? Or simply avoid reproducing? Some kind of sterilization program could be mandated, perhaps.
Chase Hughes
Move to mexico or whatever mongrel shithole you're from and make it better? Or are you referring to something like black/white? Then mix with another mulatto.
Hunter Phillips
1/4 black, 1/4 french canadian, 1/4 Italian, 1/4 Polish
I feel like this is too wide a spread, I'm fucked.
Jordan Ortiz
Is the codex fascismo worth a read? It seems pro-fascism, and has a section specifically on the natsocs, and it isn't written by (((them))) as far as I can tell.
Camden Bell
Yes it's a great book. And keep in mind that a lot of jews were supporting Mussolini on the first years until the Duce decided to follow Hitler's ideas. I believe our best chance to push for a fascist state is to include nationalists, even jews or muslims in the first time against the (((globalists))). Seems like the most possible way to achieve that to me, but I guess some others nat/soc comrades will disagree with that idea. Check brazilian fascism for exemple, they were divided on that question.
Cooper Davis
So, I've been looking around, and I can't seem to find part 1. I found parts 2-9 on amazon, but do you know where I can find 1?
I feel I'm too new to this to really say one way or another, but I think you are probably right. It might be good to try and forge an alliance, for example, with the Hoteps.
Elijah Sullivan
I'm a nonwhite myself, Mum was aryan and dad was half arab. I got European facial features and little brother came out full aryan. Just be an activist and use your skin colour as a leverage. eg "Even I can see that it is in our best interests to keep whites as the majority in their countries, as their civilisation has been the most effective and advancing throughout history
