The actual name of the Nazi party was 'National Socialist German Workers Party'...

The actual name of the Nazi party was 'National Socialist German Workers Party'. Explain to me again how they were right wing?

reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/6dzv6n/the_actual_name_of_the_nazi_party_was_national/

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=Tb8cErokGFs
haaretz.com/israel-news/one-in-three-israeli-families-receive-welfare-aid-statistics-show.premium-1.502058
articles.latimes.com/2010/may/10/world/la-fg-israel-idle-20100511
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_von_Coudenhove-Kalergi
taubcenter.org.il/helping-hand-social-welfare-spending-in-israel/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Don't ask stoopid questions, goy! Remember the 6 gorillion, goy!

What is "right wing"?
They were conservative socially. And there's literally nothing wrong with socialism if the society is homogeneous.

the Nazis were right wing. Ledditors, especially le donald fags are the biggest good goys ever.

Pretty much.

Over the past 5 years or so I've increasingly judged someone's "conservative" status based on how ethnocentric they are, or at least how opposed they are to the left's anti-white message.

Economics? I prefer a freer market but it just doesn't matter to me beyond a certain point. I'll take the "socialism" of Sweden over the "free market" of a country that is 99% niggers any day. Race matters much more than economics.

>judged someone's
*judged white peoples'

They are only called right wing because they valued the blue eyed, blonde aesthetic, white people in general and were devoted to the discovery of knowledge. Otherwise they were definitely a form of Authoritarian Socialism, which is usually called leftwing.

The ethnocentrism part is pretty important tho

Because you're using a faulty classification system for dividing "left wing' and 'right wing". By the time of the 1900's, political division wasn't an issue of structural administration; it was an issue of social networks. Leftism is like a club: you can't just say you're a leftist, and be one. You have to actually be accepted into the club. You have to be part of the Left, and if you're not you are part of the Right - ie, the set of all those competing with the Left. On a social network graph, it's very obvious who is and who isn't. And National Socialism was never, ever part of the graph. It had very few friends, connected very weakly, in the US and Britain. Compare it to Leninism, and you'll see the difference instantly.

Left wing means for the good of a collective.
Right wing means for the good of the individual.
Ironically, fascism is described as collectivism but also right wing. It contradicts itself which one would expect from progressives.

Socialism is a leftist ideology as it sacrifices individual liberties for the sake of the collective.

third position mang

>nothing wrong with socialism if the society is homogeneous.

Conservatism would have been supporting the old structure of the Prussian government which was probably one of the most non-liberal in Europe at the time. There was a reason for the SS, and that was because the conservatives in power(military, unelected officials, nobles, clergy) did not trust Hitler. I would say the nazis were progressive honestly. The political climate was very different in Europe back then. To call them right wing is meaningless.

The National Socialists were centrists

They saw the communists and financial capitalists as degenerate.

The farhest right you can go is supporting the monarchy/warlordism, which the National Socialists, fascists, Falangists, etc all opposed.

The farthest left you can go is communism/anarcho-communism which was also opposed.

Fascism itself directly rose out of opposition to communism in Italy, but also out of opposition to monarchy/aristocracy which had shown to be a complete failure in dealing with communism and in managing society in general.

There's everything wrong with socialism. Socialism is rooted in utilitarian greater good theories, that we must all submit to societal rules that benefit the majority of that society as defined at a particular point in time, but as HLA Hart stated the GG allows for individual liberties to be infringed if considered to be a benefit for the majority. Further, socialism implies a strong federal government. One ivory tower ruling over a land inherently leads to a geographic power concentration while ignoring the rest of the governed lands. Socialism also disincentivises individuals striving for greatness.

There is nothing to explain. They were obviously left wing even by their name. There is a reason why its always referred to as nazis rather than national socialists. Nsdap had way too much in common with most of modern parties policies and they are well aware of it.

National Socialism isn't communism or very much related to it. For one under National Socialism there is private ownership of the means of production.

>we must all submit to societal rules that benefit the majority of that society

As opposed to all of us submitting to rules that benefit the king or some landed aristocracy.

The whole idea of republicanism, democracy, utilitarianism, etc comes out of the opposition to feudalism/monarchy.

But the old system failed in WW1 and had been discredited. After that it was replaced with the Weimar government, which again failed, largely due to the allied desire to punish it with debt rather than let it function.

well nationalist is rightwing and socialist is leftwing so on balance theyre really centrist

They aren't related at all to modern parties, because the National Socialists were for their own races while modern political parties openly hate white Europeans.

The "socialism" in National socialism just meant they didn't support the aristocracy.

In the modern world we have a new aristocracy, the parasitic financial class that is Wall street speculators who leech off and destroy the economy with debt, bubbles, etc.

Here's the thing, history is a bit more nuanced than the cliffnotes shit you get on pol. The National Socialists party name was a hurler psyop designed as a workaround to the German laws which were actively banning right wing parties after the Beer Hall putsch. Hitler just renamed his party the '... socialists...' to fuck with the government and exploit their loopholes

I'm going to use the traditional definition that came from the French Parliament
>The terms "left" and "right" appeared during the French Revolution of 1789 when members of the National Assembly divided into supporters of the king to the president's right and supporters of the revolution to his left.

you can spin it either way. if you think Hitler supported restoring Germany, you could say he was right wing. if you think Hitler supported revolution against the jewish monopoly of cultural institutions, you could say he was left wing.

forget about labels. consider just the ideas

You misunderstand. Democracy is one of the 6 types of governance Plato identified. It is fundamentally different from theocracy, meritocracy, monarchy etc. within democracy there are numerous subtypes, just like baptists, Catholics, etc are all subtypes of Christianity. Of the subtypes of democracy, socialism and libertarianism are the two most opposed theories. All of them have their flaws, for obvious reasons. Libertarianism as defined by Hart promotes a core retention of individual liberties as paramount, while socialism competely eschews this belief.

Much more to it than that, although the modern bastardized concepts of what you wrote is fairly accurate. All of the socialist/communist regimes of the EU in the early 20th century were fiercely nationalistic. Pretty much every regime was until the globalism meme gained traction in the late 20th century. Globalists have hijacked the concept of socialism to appeal to the soft-brained who don't want to work hard to reap rewards as a gateway to a League of Nations 2.0. Socialism never wanted to abolish national sovereignty as was actually practiced in historical regimes.

This

Also this

If you aren't a monarchist by the original French parliament definitions you are "left wing"

Ironically libertarians are closer to being "radical right wing" monarchists than anyone else since they believe in the supreme authority of a sovereign landowner i.e. a king.

libertarians are still utilitarian in the sense (some) believe that libertarian ideology will result in "the greatest good for the greatest number"

Of course in practice deregulating all economic activity, having no public services or infrastructure, and letting land owners and bankers control everything just results in a new aristocracy/feudal order taking over society.

>I'll take the "socialism" of Sweden over the "free market" of (rest doesn't matter)
You do realize Molyneux would be disgusted by the likes of you right?

Molyneux's problem with niggers and spics is that they will vote in socialism.

So to him, you're worse than a nigger.

Every educated iibertarian I've read doesn't ascribe to that hard anarchy type shit that Sup Forums thinks is libertarianism. Personally I think most libertarians are full of shit, but you're greater good interpretation of libertarianism is more akin to 'ideal rule utilitarianism' than moral or natural right libertarianism

Hitler never nationalized private German industry to any great extent. In that respect, the regime wasn't "socialist." He simply ordered private German industry to mass produce regime-enhancing war materiel in order to put the German people back to work and build the war machine.

But so did US industry during WWII, as a matter of necessity.

So, who's the Nazi?

It's the ethno-nationalism and the actually fascistic engine behind it, stupid, not the name.

Why am I even responding to this...

Too bad he was born to a shitty race that couldn't pull it off

>tfw actually living in an ethno-nationalist state.

It doesn't matter what system non-whites vote for, they will always bring in a shit society with them.


I'm just responding to the most popular kinds of libertarianism.

youtube.com/watch?v=Tb8cErokGFs

>moral or natural right libertarianism

I'd say the old US was the closest we ever had to "natural right libertarianism" but they were still to the left of the British government they rebelled against. Britain was, and remains a parliamentary monarchy, although the privileges of the aristocracy were dramatically decreased in the 1800s.

This

The American, British, and German war time governments and economies were near identical.

And also not run by Bolshevik Jews

>It doesn't matter what system...
Sure sure... just as long as you're aware that to Molyneux you're pure scum

>reddit
These are the fags who also say "the liberals are the REAL racists." They're not exactly the intellectual type.
Based black man fucked my Trump-supporter feminist girlfriend! Maga my fellow 'pedes!

>>/back
also nazi's more right leaning but not far right

an ethno-national socialist one to be precise

Israel has a welfare state after all

I'm not terribly concerned about what ancaps think of me.

Fucking Israel. I really wish the allies had just given you some shithole piece of land in South America to do your thing instead of dropping you in an Arab infested shithole that we are constantly having to prop up with military hardware and proxy wars. How's that ethno nationalist state working for you, considering half your county is Arab and sees it as a holy responsibility to eradicate you? And don't even get me started on your Ethiopian Jews. Ethno state my fucking ass

This user knows what he's talking about

>Ironically, fascism is described as collectivism but also right wing. It contradicts itself which one would expect from progressives.
Typically, fascism indicates an authoritarian state. Left-wing fascism is usually decried as "socialism" or "communism".

>he thinks the allies had a choice

You realize the only reason the Balfour declaration existed after World War 1 was because the Jews had heavy lobbyist control of the British Empire already right?

The creation of Israel (British Palestine) was not in the interest of the Empire or the British people, it was in the interest of the acolytes of Theodor Herzl and other zionist lobbyists.

Don't get butthurt that you're too fringe to be considered a real racist by t_d. What those fucks are talking about is affirmative action and modern liberal identity politics, which is racist per se, and they only say that shit to fuck with the liberals who believe they're bullshit views are free from fault and as pure as the driven snow. T_d is cringy as fuck but I politically Identify more with those normies than the shareblue marxist larders who have infested this board

Is that you Molyneux? That guy is a self inflated sack of shit whose only utility is redpilling teenagers. Who gives a fuck what he thinks

I think you're spot on, it's just unfortunate that people base their political and philosophical views on what they read on image boards without digging a bit further. Also pretty much every elected politician in US would be considered far right in Britain. Oh you support states rights to allow citizens to arm themselves? You don't support online hate speech police? Britain is truly fucked.

Israel is less socialist than most European states.
Healthcare is mandatory but privatized (you are obligated to pick one of the private firms)
welfare is very low.
Taxes are high mainly for military expenses (about 50% budget)
So no. not socialist by any modern standards

>Bans novel
obviously you understand this is just a provocative way of saying "takes out of curriculum", right?
unless to you it's particularly socialist to make choices about what goes into the educational curriculum and what not?
Private schools are allowed to teach what they want, this is about public schools and what's in the SAT's

Nice research bubba

>what ancaps think of me
confused you with previous user

They weren't right wing.
They were socially right wing.
Economically left of center.
And authoritarian.
The "muh far right!" meme is a result of them being opposed to communism. But when you're as far left as full blown communism everything else looks like the far right.
It really shows how our political graphs and spectrums don't work past a middle school level of complexity.

Realize and agree. Fucking Israel.

>The actual name of the Nazi party was 'National Socialist German Workers Party'. Explain to me again how they were right wing?

Typical cuck talk. Dems R Real Racists. That's how losers think they can win working class voters. Philosophical rubbish.

This guy

...

Why don't you take personal responsibility?

...

How bout you read the thread Hans? While doing so, dont raise your right arm too high, you might get arrested

I prefer to bitch and whine on image boards

>Explain to me again how they were right wing?
Cause they weren't communists. Realistically communism and fascism are much more similar than American constitutionalism, which is considered right wing

>less socialist

But still "socialist"

>welfare is very low.

haaretz.com/israel-news/one-in-three-israeli-families-receive-welfare-aid-statistics-show.premium-1.502058

Supposedly 1 in 3 Israeli families are on welfare. That's 33%, while Israel is only 20% Muslim. Assuming 100% of Muslim families are on welfare, that means the other 13% is jewish.

I assume welfare is low in Israel because you know most money would got to Muslims.

>particularly socialist to make choices about what goes into the educational curriculum

Depending on what form of libertarian/ancap you are even having public education is considered "socialism"

But Israel banning race mixing books was a sign that it is ethno-nationalist anyway, which is a point you were arguing for not against.

I just thought it was a funny little article.

They weren't. Nazism and communism were competing leftist ideologies. The real right wing is classical liberalism.

is my claim that a real hardcore right society is libertarian-darwinist? true meritocracy leads to a social darwinist type of environment, where the strong outperform the weak and reap the rewards in proportion to that.

based on this assumption it becomes evident that a right wing society given enough time will outperform (technologically, scientifically, economically) a left wing egalitarian collectivist society which favours 'economic redistribution and egalitarianism' at the expense of the common progress.

true or not?

>liberalism is right wing

lol

You do realize that the origin of the left-right divide was with republicanism one the left while monarchism was on the right, correct?

How could classical liberalism, which was on the left originally, be the "true right"?

The farthest right you can go would be some sort of Mongol type tribal warlordism

How could it be when monarchy is the original right wing?

I guess in the sense that a chaotic society with no government will eventually result in some form of monarchy/feudalism you are correct, but only in a very roundabout way.

i showed you my dick, answer me

>The real right wing is classical liberalism.
This is not even close to true. You can have an authoritarian or even totalitarian right wing government. Authoritarianism and totalitarianism are not compatible with classical liberalism.

>I assume welfare is low in Israel because..
reasons are reasons. Fact is, by global standards - not socialist.

>But still "socialist"
>even having public educatio
On a spectrum.
Relative to "ancap utopia" anything is socialism

>banning race mixing books
banned =/= not obligatory in public education

>is ethno-nationalist anyway
No argument there

>pic
yeah those are our nazis

Reddit.

Opinion discarded. I don't debate with greasy niggers and shitskins.

Reddit fag, GET OUT!

The real right wing was monarchists.

>How could it be when monarchy is the original right wing?
>I guess in the sense that a chaotic society with no government will eventually result in some form of monarchy/feudalism you are correct, but only in a very roundabout way.

hm interesting. but then in a right-wing persons mind, what's so wrong about a jewish one world government as a quasi-hyper-monarchy? it's like authoritarian monarchy on steroids then, no?

>Molyneux's problem with niggers and spics is that they will vote in socialism.
First off, Molyneux is a full-blown race realist and understands there are more downsides to niggers and spics than their politics, which is that they're stupid and violent.

Second, who on earth gives a fuck what Molyneux is disgusted by you stupid jew?

>in a right-wing persons mind, what's so wrong about a jewish one world government as a quasi-hyper-monarchy?
You realize the right wing in American politics wants this, right?

articles.latimes.com/2010/may/10/world/la-fg-israel-idle-20100511

>Officially, Israel's unemployment rate is about 8%. But that doesn't include Israeli citizens who are not trying to find work, either because they feel disenfranchised, such as many Arab Israelis, or because they've chosen a life of state-subsidized religious study, such as many ultra-Orthodox Jews.

>Nearly 27% of Arab men and 65% of ultra-Orthodox Jews don't work, government figures show. The non-employment rate for ultra-Orthodox men has tripled since 1970, Ben-David said.

>"We support a lifestyle of nonworking that is pretty unparalleled in the Western world," said Ben-David, who is also a Tel Aviv University professor. "On the one hand, we have this state-of-the-art part of the economy. Then there is the rest of the country that is like a huge drag."

>What worries Ben-David most is that the nonproductive part of Israel's population, which survives largely on welfare, is also the fastest growing.

Arabs+ Ultra Orthodox live on welfare in Israel

>by global standards
>On a spectrum.

That's my point. You can call any form of government socialism assuming you are a libertarian.

If you look at the proto-Globalists not only were they far right wing monarchists but they also believed in race mixing in order to create their own sort of "slave class" who would ultimately be "owned" by international finance.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_von_Coudenhove-Kalergi

Just look at Kalergi who was not in fact Jewish (but was 1/4 Japanese)

If you want to look at the future of human society earth just observe the ling conditions in Brazil, a mixed race under class lorded over by a few wealthy financial "aristocrats"

You got some foam on your lips there buddy

Way to show off your critical thinking skills user. Totalitarian/authoritarian governments are a separate concept from the classic left/right dichotomy. You can have both a. Left wing and a right wing authoritarian regime. Completely unreated to what previous user was talking about, who unlike you, appears to have read a book or two and can form coherent arguments

The NSDAP was left-wing in the sense that it was a revolutionary movement. Take the Munich Putsch for example, conservatives place an emphasis on opposition to radical change, revolution and law and order and did not wish to participate. The left-right paradigm originates from the French Revolution when the revolutionary Jacobins would sit on the left side of the chamber and the Monarchists would sit on the right side. The National Socialists were more similar to the Jacobins. They did not want to merely conserve society they wished to radically change it. While there was a right wing element in the government, the NSDAP ruthlessly redistributed wealth through a racial welfare state.

More misunderstanding. Republicanism vs monarchism are competing forms of ruling a population. Classic left vs right is best defined the ideological battle between the individual vs the collective. Classic liberalism puts the greatest emphasis on individual liberties.

Shame, I'm sure you would have really enlightened us

>classical liberalism
>totalitarian government
Pick one.
Ever think you're the one who needs to read a book?
Go read On Liberty by John Stuart Mill and tell me if that classical liberal ideology would accept a totalitarian regime.
I hope you replied to the wrong person, because I said that classical liberalism is not "the real right wing" and made the argument that you can have a right wing dictator.

Sorry, your article is outdated and mistaken.

tradingeconomics.com/israel/unemployment-rate
>April 17 - 4.4% unemployment

>state-subsidized religious study
Wrong.
in total the government provides 70000 penguins with aprox 200$ a month (for 2-3 years) and another 30000 get about 120$ a month. A travesty sure but, in a state of over 8 mil pop does not constitute socialism.
Keep in mind that the cost of living in Israel is among the highest in the world. They are funded by their wives and relig orginizations
(goog translate should be enough to find the numbers)

>65% of ultra-Orthodox Jews don't work
That's just wrong
It's 47% for men and 37% for total (their woman work more), Again, admittedly this is a travesty but this constitutes aprox 3% of pop.
With Arabs the unemployment is actually 12% and that's largely because of the opposite - their woman don't work, and the men provide for them.

The point is, the governments role in all this is very small. So yes, culturally there are groups that are extremely anti-work, but there is nothing non-libertarian about it as long as it's not forced out through taxation.

>Arabs+ Ultra Orthodox live on welfare in Israel
Bottom line - no they don't. Their unemplyment is off the charts but it's not funded by the government (mostly) - it's funded by an ascetic lifestyle (did you know the poorest town in the US is Jewish-orthodox?)

>You can call any form of government socialism
well that's redundant isn't it?

>the NSDAP ruthlessly redistributed wealth through a racial welfare state.
Not really there were still plenty of millionaires and large corporation owners in the regime and this "welfare" first required you to be helping the community in some form and leechers and niggers get none of the welfare and infact get kicked out of society.

The real truth is it's neither left nor right it's the Third position, it dosn't screw itself with communism and actual socialism but it doesn't screw it self with good goy capitalism

Ugh.

Sauce ("+"=.gov.il)
knesset+/mmm/data/pdf/m03737.pdf
knesset+/mmm/data/pdf/m00980.pdf
"-"=co.il
globes-/news/article.aspx?did=1000555397

Sorry for hebrew.. you can figure out the necessary parts I'm sure

What an argument.
If you'll read what I wrote I didn't say authoritarian was right wing, or the real right wing.
Maybe that level of nuance is tough for your pea brain.
I can spell it out for you it helps.
Classical liberalism is a form of right wing ideology.
You can also have totalitarian right wing ideologies.
Totalitarianism and classical liberalism are incompatible, however.
Does that help, you exasperated faggot?

Also, hes a jew

You know the National part that goes in front of Socialism . Well it's way better then your pathetic "We're all Americans man!" piece of shit Kosher Nationalism.

"Individual liberty" is a dead meme.
>Socialism also disincentivises individuals striving for greatness
Because the greatness that's attainable by individuals pales in comparison to the greatness that's attainable by a harmonious society.
See: the entire history of human civilization.

Retarded r/t_c faggots with this bullshit argument again.

...

if your country is raking in the tax money, you might aswell spend it.
half of US tax goes to keeping your promised land illusion alive

>Government social welfare expenditures in Israel come in two forms: first, through cash transfers intended to ensure the social security of all residents of the state, and second, through services targeting disadvantaged and vulnerable populations. Israel’s public expenditure on welfare was about 86 billion shekels (22.8 billion USD) in 2014. As can be seen in the graph below, this expenditure has shown slow, steady growth since the middle of the past decade, principally due to an increase in state old-age pensions (cash transfers) provided through Israel’s social security programs. By contrast, the expenditure on other social service programs dropped slightly between 2000 and 2014.

>The vast majority – 90 percent – of social security expenditure is for National Insurance benefits. These benefits, both the universal ones and those targeted to low income individuals, reach a very large percentage of Israelis and include such benefits as general disability, work injury, unemployment, and maternity.

taubcenter.org.il/helping-hand-social-welfare-spending-in-israel/

How is this not a form of "socialism" at least by you average right libertarian standard?

Jesus man, I'm beginning to feel like we're going in circles here.
Obviously I'm talking /relative to other countries in the world - not relative to fantasy-non-existent-libertarian-utopia

With all due respect to your diligent research
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state

1. go to "social expenditure as a percentage of GDP for selected OECD member states" list
2. scroll to bottom of list
3. find Israel
4.???
5. Profit

You need to read up on the formation of the Nazi party. You dumb fucking cunt

Democratics are the real racists goyim

I could've, but it's not worth my time. No worries there's probably some other user who would love to enlighten you, I'm so sure.

...

>We are against the political bourgeoisie, and for genuine nationalism! We are against Marxism, but for true socialism! We are for the first German national state of a socialist nature! We are for the National Socialist German Workers’ Party!
What the hell? is this true?

The working class is the most nationalistic of all classes, as their entire lives and livelihood are rooted in their own communities, rather than bourgeoisie whose interests are often spread elsewhere beyond the nation in various international business ventures. It makes far more sense for a nationalist party to be a workers' party than for a nationalist party to be a bourgeoisie party. Most bourgs don't care for nation as they do not depend upon it for their livelihood, businesses can move seamlessly nation-to-nation, the rich are inherently globalists.

I would like to add that Marxists refer to our nationalist working class as "lumpenproletariat" and see us as the enemy, we are to them a grave threat, and that is why national socialists can not work with Marxists - they call us lumpenproles, they see us as an enemy that must be eliminated along with the bourgeoisie in their revolution.