Discussion

A National Socialist state is simply not possible in this age of mass communication.

Other urls found in this thread:

radixjournal.com/blog/2016/2/16/the-great-shuttening-video
youtube.com/watch?v=QuYKtwnzG7M
google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1_rNT3k2ZXB-f9z-2nSFMIBQKXCs&hl=en_US
mega.nz/#F!nhVmmD4D!syqlazlshRXkno9SWZ9Enw
nordfront.se/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Our-Path.pdf
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>natsoc depends on a LACK of mass communication
This should be interesting. Tell us about your theory antifa friend.

I am not antifa. Just a bored guy looking to discuss shit.
But it should be clear that fascist governments depend on people's attachment to state more than other forms of governments. Anything that can help the spread of anti establishment ideologies therefore would be natural enemies of such a state.
Especially considering the fact that the rest of the world would be democratic, or at least non fascist, such ideas would be common on internet, or in most mediums of mass communication.
A national isolated mass communication would probably not work either, as it is easy to manipulate such networks, especially the ones that depend on wireless communication.
All in all, it would be hard to control mass media in a world that is mostly non fascist.

>Anything that can help the spread of anti establishment ideologies therefore would be natural enemies of such a state.
Do you believe that the mass media you experience right now is not controlled by the state? I guess that means its working.

>Do you believe that the mass media you experience right now is not controlled by the state?
That is irrelevant. I was mostly talking about the international aspects of mass communication. Read the rest of my post please.

>> a fucking leaf.
communication has nothing to do with it.
shit just has to get desperate enough, (((globalists))) leverage poor labor to make everyone /comfy/
1930s crash happened then the krauts got their schnitzel on.

As someone who used to identify himself as a National Socialist, I completely agree, but not necessarily due to mass communication. I feel National Socialism, Fascism, Hitler, etc. are all objects of the past who, sure, are inspirational but are dead and gone. National Socialism as an ideology was impeccable, and if I had lived during that time I would have considered myself one. But it's dead and gone, and the stigma surrounding will take generations to diminish. Hitler was not a reactionary or ultraconservative, he was a radical for his time, he demanded change and progress, and did not cling to the ideological and sociological restrictions of the past. He would want us to be forward looking as he was, we must move on from National Socialism and form something better.

Yes, one could establish such a nation like that.
I am mostly concerned about how one would maintain it, seeing how easy it is to connect people from all over the globe, how would such a nation protect its national unity and identity without fighting against mass communication?

>That is irrelevant.
No, that's actually the crux of your argument. "Mass media" is a sanitized modern euphemism for "propaganda", which is associated with NS/Fascist regimes, historically. The fact that association persists is a testament to the mastery of mass media by the prevailing systems in the time since. Every form of rebellion is coopted by the state. Why did you think every "revolutionary" on the Left seems to only mobilize in defense of issues vital to the banking oligarchs that currently rule? Illegal immigrants and sanctuary cities?
>antifa is there to defend the state's policies, by "smashing the state"
Race relations becoming problematic?
>BLM is there to terrorize communities and threaten politicians with the charge of social heresy, as a pretext to "further action" to "remedy inequalities", provide more tax money for rent seeking programs, extend affirmative action, etc
And yet, BLM is full of supposed "separatist" groups like Nation of Islam, Black Panthers, etc. Funny how their actions only strengthen the liberal/leftist state.

Because only the left requires censorship to operate. If you truly believe you're right, there's no issue with free speech. The key to preventing resistance is education, and under a NatSoc government many of the dumbest people would be eliminatef

>NS and fascist ideology resurfaces as soon as media and government lose the stranglehold on what people view and believe

No, it's the Great Lie, the end of history, that depends on a lack of knowledge and information among the public.

Sage.

Yes, please don't take what i am about to say as an attempt to brainwash, it is just my mere opinion:

I think it is hard to garner sympathy for national socialism because of its bloody past. It might be easier to use a brand new ideology that is similar, but different enough that it wouldn't repel people like national socialism does nowdays.

Activates almonds.

>Because only the left requires censorship to operate
Dont be stupid, censorship is a universal tool, just like "initiation of force" is; neither is unique to any particular ideology on the spectrum.

It woukd noy work because of the economical system. Look right now ll ghe countries not submitted to the imf. They are incidentally the axis of evil.

But many mass communication mediums allows for international communication as well. Assuming that the majority of the world remains democratic, a fascist state would have trouble shielding its citizens from foreign ideas. That can, potentially, cause a change in ideology in such governments.
Look at the nations that have unpopular ideologies around the world. All of them seek a form of isolation just to be able to protect themselves. NatSoc would be no different.

>very much so this

Pic related could be the answer

>>one could
that wasn't a hypothetical, it actually happened, you tim horton's sipping faggot, it's historical fact.
>>how one would maintain it.
one would assume with roads and taxes and a schools (socialism)
>>protect its national unity
one would assume with a military (nationalism)
you cucked canuck

If anything, it's more possible than ever as jews can no longer suppress ideas that threaten their status.

They did this before, though. Saying bugger off to the financiers and backing their currency with silver. Of course they'll manipulate and call you evil, which is why an alliance would be needed to keep things at trade war level, which they'd immediatly initiate, instead of "liberation", as we saw throughout Baathist ME and Gadafi North Africa, where the resources were nationalized so as not to be picked over by international corporations, where foreign loans were rejected and where exports were not traded on the world reserve currency.

See BRICS, but an alliance of the civilized, not just second-worlders being second-world together, rather than second-world but beholden to the first.

>many mass communication mediums allows for international communication as well.
Communication between countries with the same policies, political philosophies, and oligarchs in charge. Google "the great shuttening", and Anetta Kahane. You already live in an extensive censorship and mass surveillance regime, in which allied countries spy on each others populations if they cant legally spy on their own, then share results. Its been this way for nearly 70 years.

radixjournal.com/blog/2016/2/16/the-great-shuttening-video
youtube.com/watch?v=QuYKtwnzG7M

I am not talking about domestic propaganda. I am talking about other (democratic) nations influencing the citizens of the said fascist state. The state could use mass communication to spread its ideology, but considering the majority of the world would probably remain democratic, they would probably not have the desirable numbers to accomplish such a thing. The outside influence would probably be too much to make make mass communication a hassle, and the state would probably consider keeping such methods of communication a disadvantage, therefore shutting most of them.
Look at the nations on the world that are ruled by unpopular ideologies. They usually isolate themselves to keep their ideologies alive in a democratic world.
Why would National Socialism be different?

this.

military doesn't do shit against domestic ideological drift besides coups.
this is about preventing ideological shift without murdering your own citizens.
If military was truly the solution to everything, we would see more nations focused on military today.

>look all democracies that can't do shit or maintain roads!!!
>we have an ethnostate with 100% employement no crimes 6 weeks of vacation free healthcare and education. Paved roads everywhere no poverty
You really think our citizens would be the obes to protect?

Yes, but the country i live in is the ideological majority.
Things would be different in a fascist country, as the rest of the world is democratic, and you would be openly inviting them to influence your citizens by keeping such methods of communications intact.
A fascist state, at least today, would need a lot of censorship, to the point where they would start banning international mass communication in favor of national networks.

>I am not talking about domestic propaganda
I know, are you even reading what I'm typing -- I said between countries that share the same international financial elites, ideologies, etc. You already have these countries blocking content they find threatening between countries, even within their own countries, such that no one has a clue what's going on. The entire history of the refugee crisis was extensively censored across Europe, and many in north america aren't even aware of all the incidents of rape, attacks, or the statistics related to the countries of origin. People still just call them "Syrian refugees", when the vast minority are Syrians crossing the med. sea in all those smuggler boats. This is just one example. Crime statistics in general are censored, on race and sex, rates of state aid are censored, the list is endless -- bottom line:
>you think you live in an open society where information cant be controlled, and the truth is the extreme opposite
So, why would you presume that any other state ideology would be any different or use these technologies with less skill?

google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1_rNT3k2ZXB-f9z-2nSFMIBQKXCs&hl=en_US

You are underestimating the power of propaganda my friend.
If humans were as logical as you make them out to be, politics today would not revolve around propaganda.
Communication makes a difference.

I disagree a ethicnation is what we need now

>thinks liberal state-controlled mass media is "free and open and cant be controlled"
-t. useful idiot

You underestimate the power of propaganda too. Fascist would be abusing it too probably as much as a current state is doing in the middle east.

god you are dense.
ideological drift? so culture just spreads through osmosis? have you been anywhere in the world? have you lived in a place with lots of races? people are /very/ different.
>>no countries with coups
>>no countries that murder there own citizens
>>no countries focused on military
what is Russia, Thailand, etc. etc.

I never claimed that i lived in a nation where the information was uncontrolled. All i am saying is my nation would need to control information less so than a fascist nation, because it is already in the ideological majority, so it wouldn't need to worry as much as a fascist nation about international communication, as most input would be coming from countries that harbor similar ideologies.
But a fascist nation would be in complete clash with the majority of the international input. So, I argue that they would probably consider such communication to be unfavorable, therefore shutting them down.

>thinks liberal state-controlled mass media is "free and open and cant be controlled"
never claimed that.
I just claimed a fascist nation would need to control information as well, probably to a much higher degree than it is needed in democratic countries.

just make up a new name for it. nobody actually knows what national socialism is really about so if you parroted the same ideas without the name nobody would suspect a thing

Yes, I completely agree.
I am claiming that they would shut international communication, allowing them to filter out international interference and propaganda, enabling them to be the only source of propaganda.
Where do you disagree exactly?

And I'm telling you the key feature of liberal western state propaganda is the curation of the pretense that its not state controlled, censored, adulterated, or manipulated. They want you to think these are all private corporations, "free citizens" crafting the information you're exposed to. If you investigate these matters, you soon realize that there there is no free flow of information in the West. We are just as tightly controlled, only less obviously so, by our states.

To all the newfriends ITT who think they live in a "free speech" society, you have a lot more lurking to do. Enjoy:

mega.nz/#F!nhVmmD4D!syqlazlshRXkno9SWZ9Enw

>>no countries with coups
>>no countries that murder there own citizens
>>no countries focused on military
I never claimed any of those.
I just said that military, by itself, is not enough to prevent ideological change in a country. You can't force people to believe in something. You need to convince or brainwash them.

That might work. Just throw in some irrelevant changes, and new symbols, and you probably got yourself a new competitor to mainstream ideologies.

the thing is that the US is enforcing the world system. if the revolution starts in the us it takes down the whole thing.

alternatively if some countries opt out of the world system we need to force out governments to not act against it.

paradoxically we need to see the axis of evil as our allies.

Because the real evil in the world are the people who have the authority to designate someone as evil

I completely agree.
All i am saying is, a fascist country would need that more than current governments do. Therefore, it might be a valid response for them to just shut international communications down, so that they would have a monopoly on propaganda.

countries with internet access can become dictatorships.

this is one of the lies that they try to say. democracies are not inherently free. certain viewpoints are always suppressed. the thing is since those viewpoints are suppressed, you never realize they are suppressed because you never hear about them.

in our supposedly democratic societies the idea that white people have a right to exist is a suppressed idea. we are only breaking through with that idea now.

>the US is enforcing the world system
International finance owns the US; we can't change the course of our government, so it's not actually a government. It's a front for international finance. Every western nation is.

>a fascist country would need that more than current governments do
I know you're saying that. That's why I keep repeating my argument that in our system, people are indoctrinated to think their media is "free" -- that's the central premise of this thread, that our mass media is somehow """inherently free and uncontrollable""", thus "technology makes fascism impossible", which is nonsense. This was a popular meme back in the 90s and early 00's. It's utter nonsense, mass media has reduced freedom of information.

I don't think you understand communication infrastructures. It's not one sided.

I don't understand what you see in a fascist state that makes it's citizens more likely to be influenced. If anything democracies would be shitting themselves.

>International finance owns the US; we can't change the course of our government, so it's not actually a government. It's a front for international finance. Every western nation is.

this is also why the rest of the world hates us

tl;dr

mass media has reduced freedom of information by flooding us with weaponized disinformation

>this is also why the rest of the world hates us
The rest of the world hates us because they're part of a competitor sphere of "international finance", nothing more (ie, BRICS)

Yes but consider this:

>As a democratic country:
Majority of other nations are democratic. When your citizens go online, they will be mostly seeing people from other democratic nations. This is not a problem, since you are democratic as well. You just need to censor the minority that do not share your ideology, and do a bit of damage control.

>As a fascist nation:
Majority of other nations are democratic.This is completely horrifying as if you allow your citizens internet access, they will be exposed to a whole network dominated by democratic ideas. There would be so much censoring to do! So much in fact that it might be beneficial for you to shut internet down on your country and establish a national network. Even that might be intercepted.

the best chance for ethno nationalism was in 1939... and we all know how that ended.

best bet now is civic nationalism.

An i keep saying that i do not believe that media is free in democratic countries. It seems that we just can't understand each other. I only ask you to read this, and if we still fail to communicate after that, I will take on the blame:

Eh i guess.
If you menage to go completely isolated like North Korea, you might still establish a NatSoc government though.

We don't plan on making a fascist state where you will need to eat dirt. The only point to make a fascist state is to make it better than what we have. No crimes, 100% employment, no usury, healthcare and education no niggers etc.

If you think a fascist state should be like communist china you can fuck right back in your hole and kill yourself right now.

i firmly believe that the ideas expressed by pol are the natural result of true freedom of speech, as such I don't think a Sup Forums based state would require much censorship to exist. if we just spread our ideas it people come to see things our way. The people who stay bluepilled communists can be physically removed.

>> assuming ideological drift is the default course.
>> not that convincing (((media))) or brainwashing is the left hand path.
also,
>> you need to convince or brainwash people they are best served by a government that looks out for their own ethnic group

If you think a fascist state should be like communist china
where did i claimed that?

> No crimes, 100% employment, no usury, healthcare and education no niggers etc.
how do you realistically plan to do that?

>how do you realistically plan to do that?
Alright I guess fpbp go take an helicopter ride

perhaps.
but would you take the risk?
and could that natural power you speak of withstand such amounts of interference?

>> assuming ideological drift is the default course.
I never assumed that.
But if you are constantly bombarded with propaganda, which is what an international mass communication network in a fascist state would result in, don't be surprised if you started to get new ideas.

>> not that convincing (((media))) or brainwashing is the left hand path.
It is a leftist path. But it is a path every nation would take if their ideology was in the minority.

>> you need to convince or brainwash people they are best served by a government that looks out for their own ethnic group
if they are not willing to believe that, that yes, of course you do. You would need to brainwash an anti nazi to make them believe in nazi ideologies.
Similarly, you would need to brainwash a nazi to become an anti nazi.
If people are not willing to change their ideals, then you change them without their consent.

I would love to be enlightened.

I think the reason that we have not been able to question the narrative until now has been precisely because we have not have the internet until now.

In a more Sup Forums state we would not let (((them))) own the mass media so the only people who will be exposed to the interferences would be people who actively seek it.

turkey is effectively a dictatorship but roaches still post here.

the jews win because they control our media. if we retake or even just discredit the mass media our idea would win

the reason i think we are currently winning is because the media is so far up its own ass that the average person is beginning to question it

You don't need to brainwash people to become Nazis you fucking filthy leaf. Ethnocentrism is an immutable truth and people naturally trend towards ethnocentric government unless they are brainwashed to believe that ethnocentrism is evil which is what is happening in white nations right now.

The future White American ethnostate won't need to censor any communications. In fact, seeing the Eurabian beheadings would improve government approval.

if you are willing to prove you claims, i am listening.
but to me, it seems like you are taking your beliefs as the default for every human.
then again, if you can prove that humans tend to shift to ethnocentrism, then we will start getting somewhere.

>An i keep saying that i do not believe that media is free in democratic countries.
So, you contradict your premise in the OP, that media is free and uncontrollable, thus, technology makes fascism impossible. But you still insist your argument holds true. Your argument would be invalid regardless, by looking at modern variants of natsoc like Nordfront, who writes in their manifesto:
>A common misconception, created through extensive propaganda over the course of many decades, is that proponents of the National Socialist worldview support dictatorship and oppose democracy. We are undoubtedly opponents to much of what has come to be associated with the democracy of recent decades, such as mass immigration, feminism, and anti-nationalism. However, in our future society, governing by the people, the right to civic participation, the freedom of association and freedom of speech are all essential rights guaranteed to each citizen.

nordfront.se/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Our-Path.pdf

yeah, but what about the internet? you cannot prevent other countries from accessing it. ((they)) might not be able to control it in your state, but they will be in other states. and these said states can access internet.
and they are the majority. (global population wise)

>So, you contradict your premise in the OP, that media is free and uncontrollable, thus, technology makes fascism impossible.
i never claimed that. if you think that is the foundation of my argument, then i am willing to debate no further.
I claimed that mass communication would make it extremely hard for a minority ideology to spread.
i never claimed that mass communication was free. i was not even a brick in my argument, let alone the premise of it.

it seems i simply need to improve my communication skills. sorry for troubling you. have a good night.

you go on the rest of the internet AND are exposed to (((their))) media and yet your core Sup Forums beliefs don't go away.

the reason I think society is so fucked up right now is precisely because we effectively don't have freedom as speech because """hate speech""" is illegal

but they are the majority. they are much higher in numbers. you would be flooded.
number 1 rule of propaganda, tell someone something enough times, and they will start believing it.

Doesn't appear to be working with you.

Fuck off you dumb leaf.

if you think you can convert someone over a day, you are delusional beyond help.