American National Socialism vs German National Socialism

ITT: We discuss which version of National Socialism is better, George Lincoln Rockwell's American National Socialism or Hitler's National Socialism.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=DB9oUqIcX-c
aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/altruism.html
youtube.com/watch?v=tYCCOiBSJW8
youtube.com/watch?v=x5r_fZ98514
youtube.com/watch?v=e52IMaE-3As
youtube.com/watch?v=wgPh3mSYf0M
youtube.com/watch?v=8vMypCinkRk
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

They're both shit. Fuck socialism

There's no such thing as American National Socialism. National Socialism is a uniquely German form of Fascism. Rockwell was just a LARPing racially aware Paleolibertarian/Paleoconservative. And the German version of NatSoc is obviously infinitely superior.

Fuck off faggot.

We all have the same goal. Securing an existence for our people and a future for white children. Who gives a fuck about economics & other minutia?

I'm pretty sure they are the same
rockwell got most of his ideas from hitler

>American National Socialism
Superior for America. It's the same philosophy without obsession over Nordic phenotype and accessible to all NW Europeans who immigrated to the US.

>Who gives a fuck about economics
You're a fucking nigger

This is why we lose elections and haven't taken over the world yet. This is why the Allies fought against Germany. You kikes would rather bitch & moan about "muh shekels" and you'll kill your white brothers over it instead of joining forces and focusing on what really matters.

American National Socialism have the interests of hispanics in mind, since they are the majority.

>You kikes would rather bitch & moan about "muh shekels" and you'll kill your white brothers over it instead of joining forces and focusing on what really matters.
You must live in a trailer park to be this disconnected with reality. This is straight commie, kill the bourgeois tier. This is why those faggots always starve to death.
Do you really think if you get rid of all the jews everything magically fixes itself? That's exactly what niggers say about whites. How about combining our attractive social policies with a coherent economic policy first?

I just simply want discussion here, people from both followings discuss which they believe is better and why. Light debates I suppose you can say to a extent.

ITT: Pic related.

The implementation of an economic policy isn't our primary goal or purpose. I never said things would get magically better.

Explain your idea of a sound economic policy then? How would it be different than the mixed model interventionist system we have right now in most countries? The only difference i see is that it's not controlled by Jews and it's productivity is centered around helping the nation's people instead of international corporations.

Bring your autism somewhere else you subversive JIDF faggot

German Nat Soc for respective Germanic territory, this includes expansion under lebensraum. I still envision America as a place where all Europeans would congregate and mesh together in a nation not based on strict ethnic guidelines. (Europeans only ofc)

>anyone who calls out jewery is a jew

>The implementation of an economic policy isn't our primary goal or purpose
It's absolutely necessary when defining a nation.
>How would it be different than the mixed model interventionist system we have right now in most countries? The only difference i see is that it's not controlled by Jews and it's productivity is centered around helping the nation's people instead of international corporations.
wew lad, this is a lot different from your original post. I think I misinterpreted your point.

Yeah my point is that we can decide on economic policies AFTER we have established ethnostates. But until then, and until Fascism and National Socialism start to take control, until the race wars start, talking about economics seems relatively pointless.

Reminder that Capitalism>All.
Objectivist NatCap Minarchist Meritocracy is the only and best world in which a free man can live. And not in my opinion either.

>And not in my opinion either.
Yeah, there's all kinds of kikes that agree with you.

Have fun letting the Jews take control of your economy the way they did America. I on the other hand, choose to not revert to the same thing that got us in this mess, hoping for a better outcome.

There is no discussion. The German Nazi version is better. Mainly because they got BTFO BEFORE the bomb was ready.

Japan? No so lucky.

Sorry Japan. It was coming anyway. And your the one that got tagged.

Heil American 4th Reich.

That pic is why Rothbard is inferior to Rand.

The entire philosophical baseline of libertarianism is disgusting and we reject it out right. Take your epicurean shit somewhere else.

Anyone have a good link explaining Rockwell's American National Socialism?

I don't know if you're able to watch this at the moment, but do when you're free

youtube.com/watch?v=DB9oUqIcX-c

I was just about to show him that one! Nice catch on that!

Rand's quote here is based; you just don't understand why Altruism is the great primordial evil in the world.
Her explanation why it is is irrefutable. aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/altruism.html
>LaVey
Oh I see this cheap comparison a lot by lefties and cyrypto-lefties (NatSocs).
LaVey did once famously say that his satanism is
>"just Ayn Rand's philosophy with ceremony and ritual added".
But he was full of shit; he gave lip service to Rand's egoism but incorporated NONE of it in Laveyan Satansim. His was merely a cheap rehashing of of Nietzschean Egoism.
And as far as Egoists go: Ayn Rand>Max Stirner>>>Frederick Nietzsche
Observe: youtube.com/watch?v=tYCCOiBSJW8

Now debate me. I understand your bullshit image better than you do.

>LITERALLY who with cosplay outfits vs. Hitler

thanks! I added it to my watch it later.

>Now debate me
Don't let the thread die

This^^

>The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.
Correct, she then goes on to bastardize the concept with pilpul, useless semantics that correlate DUTY with meta-physical shackles.
>it evades the task of defining a code of moral values, thus leaving man, in fact, without moral guidance.
Unless penance is paid to where we derive our morality and how we able to achieve such a civilized state where we had such luxury as, morality.
I'm going to read your link and watch the video, it might take a while.

Sure

I don't think there is a better version. Rockwell NS is for America, Hitler NS is for Germany. Neither Is superior, only specialized for individual countries.

I'm sorry but the German version was better. In terms of philosophers, Germans fucking destroy Americans. That includes the left side too, i.e. Marx. Fuck, all our trannies in universities are learning theories by the guy invented the word "transvestite," a German Jew named Dr. Magnus Hirschfeld, the founder of "sexology" and gender studies.

Germans are just more complex than us with their thinking. We like simple shit. German Nazism is a Luger compared to the rugged simplicity of American Nazism which would be represented by a good ol' 1911.

Hitler was the real deal
Rockwell was just a LARPer put on a pedestal by /nsg/ threads

>Do you really think if you get rid of all the jews everything magically fixes itself?
>That's exactly what niggers say about whites. How about combining our attractive social policies with a coherent economic policy first?

I agree that economy is important and needs to be discussed but to be fair if all the jews died today a very large number of the worlds problems would solve themselves overnight. There is no denying it.

>Altruism declares that any action taken for the benefit of others is good, and any action taken for one’s own benefit is evil. Thus the beneficiary of an action is the only criterion of moral value—and so long as that beneficiary is anybody other than oneself, anything goes.
In NatSoc there's a coherent message of whom these "others" are that receive altruistic action. Her analogy of the beggar is irrelevant. The parameters of the definitions for self-serving action and altruistic action are so large, they become useless.

Does Rand consider rest and leisure as activities that are inherently self-serving? They surely are at the individual level if observed from a purely hedonistic perspective. What if this self-serving action is taken out of necessity to better serve in production of altruistic action?

The entire Rand concept of altruism seems to imply that there is no self-serving principal in that of selfless service. Is there no pleasure to be found in a hard days of labor? No pleasure to be found in the painstaking process of properly raising children?
>“It is selfish to uphold your convictions, you must sacrifice them to the convictions of others.”
As is expected from anyone joining a nation. The concept of community and state dissolve if every man is a slave of his own respective vices and follower of his own creed. The idea is to form like minded communities where the demand for adherence to a set of guidelines ands laws doesn't call for large deviation from one's own individual desires. This is why government has continued to exist in its many forms from since the beginning of recorded history. It forms out of necessity of cooperation.

bump

I'm still reading btw. I haven't read the fountainhead since high school

You are debatable. I am going to dial down the defensiveness I was prepared to deploy a notch.

>she then goes on to bastardize the concept with pilpul, useless semantics that correlate DUTY with meta-physical shackles.
Epistemic ones actually, but yes they are shackles IF duty is taken as it's pure conceptual intent and not the faux-synonyms attached to it. Such as Altruism being attached to "Kindness".

Duty's objective counterpart "Obligation" is the intent of the term duty taken only to what is objectively needed, applicable, and required in carrying out a given intent/goal. Obligation among men may be honorable (as Duty claims it can acheive) but only in recognition of a given principle; the Law of Causality.
A quote:
>In reality and in the Objectivist ethics, there is no such thing as “duty.” There is only choice and the full, clear recognition of a principle obscured by the notion of “duty”: the Law of Causality.
>The proper approach to ethics, the start from a metaphysically clean slate, untainted by any touch of Kantianism, can best be illustrated by the following story. In answer to a man who was telling her that she’s got to do something or other, a wise old Negro woman said: “Mister, there’s nothing I’ve got to do except die.”
>Life or death is man’s only fundamental alternative. To live is his basic act of choice. If he chooses to live, a rational ethics will tell him what principles of action are required to implement his choice. If he does not choose to live, nature will take its course.
>and how we able to achieve such a civilized state where we had such luxury as, morality.
Full stop. Morality is not a luxury. Morality is the ever-present neccessity a rational man needs in order to treat with the world.
A more concrete way to put this escapes me at the moment, but look up a part of Galt's speech >"it is on a desert island that he would need it the most"

>Why must he be a sacrificial animal? Why is that the good? There is no earthly reason for it—and, ladies and gentlemen, in the whole history of philosophy no earthly reason has ever been given.

It is easy to contemplate how selflessness might seem menial and anachronistic when the environment doesn't seem to necessitate for either. How could one not take for granted the luxury of speech, both written and spoken.
What was the right of men to ordain that universal language should be used within their respective territories? How could the rights of the individual supersede the potential that would arise because of it?

>Morality is not a luxury
This was an error on my part of trying to convey that adherence to morality creates luxury. Without adherence, comfort is impossible for the vast amount of men.

>mistakes natsoc for socialism
fuck off newfag

>faux-synonyms attached to it. Such as Altruism being attached to "Kindness".
I agree that kindness can be a misplaced when referring to the expectation of altruistic action. Righteous punishment also fits within the parameters of duty, obligation, and altruistic action. The idea is that whom the sacrifice if committed is an intrinsically exclusive group.

This first:
>In NatSoc there's a coherent message of whom these "others" are that receive altruistic action
Irrelevant. Rand is arguing here that the mere act of the pathological urge to serve the other is destructive, and always will and only can be. No matter how what constitutes this"other" changes; the "destruction" remains unchanged. The "other" is an 'variable' that does and will not change the formula, if that makes sense.
>Does Rand consider rest and leisure as activities that are inherently self-serving?
See this is the kicker; what she is arguing is not that selfishness is how you should live your life, but that that is how you already are. At all times for everything.
>The entire Rand concept of altruism seems to imply that there is no self-serving principal in that of selfless service
Continuing from above, since you are selfish at all times (even if you don't realize it or even reject the notion) there is ALWAYS a self service principle (actual or pseudo) involved. Even for something as bad as "selfless service" (of which there is no such thing.
>What if this self-serving action is taken out of necessity to better serve in production of altruistic action?
Watch it. You just committed one of those faux-synonyms I mentioned. The word you should have used was "productive" ect, not altruistic.
Actually correction; your usage (still bad) is tolerable IF you understand the rhetorical notions of "big-A Altruism" vs "small-a altruism". Of which the latter is still that faux-synonym.
>As is expected from anyone joining a nation. The concept of community and state dissolve if every man is a slave of his own respective vices and follower of his own creed.
No, what is expected to be 'sacrificed' is not something so integral as a mans convictions but merely his predilections.
An it isn't "sacrifice" but rather his convictions *subordinated* to those of the Nation's, take note, *as price for being a part of it*.
Which is proper.

>No matter how what constitutes this"other" changes; the "destruction" remains unchanged.
It doesn't if you view "the other" as an extension of the self, specifically through bloodline and the mechanism of the state to ensure its survival.
>selfishness is how you should live your life, but that that is how you already are
I see this as a semantical game and even entertaining it, caving to the primal side of man. Just because one has the freedom to do, or the predisposition to do, does not mean one should do. Showing self-discipline might fall under short-term selflessness, but long term selfishness based on the desired outcome it yields. It's the utilization of time preference.
>as bad as "selfless service" (of which there is no such thing.
See above for interpretation of the self
>o, what is expected to be 'sacrificed' is not something so integral as a mans convictions but merely his predilections.
This isn't applicable to the current state of affairs in the West. There's a legitimate call to sacrifice conviction instead of subordinate. This is most commonly observed with the introduction of an Islamic populace into Europe.

bump

>It doesn't if you view "the other" as an extension of the self
This is a supremely selfish act. This is called giving a person knes "esteem". To affirm the greatness of ones self in the person of another. And THIS is only valid when deserved. Rand had a near-pathological hatred for the undeserved.
>Just because one has the freedom to do, or the predisposition to do, does not mean one should do. Showing self-discipline might fall under short-term selflessness, but long term selfishness based on the desired outcome it yields. It's the utilization of time preference.
You just stated a core tenet of Objectivism near-verbatim. No issue.
>This isn't applicable to the current state of affairs in the West.
Current affairs are irrelevant to the principle discussed. And by "a mans convinctions" I said this assuming said convinctions are good and validly held. Bad ones are not to be sacrificed but destroyed. The current affairs regarding joining a notion in the west are simply borne of wrote irrationality. It's not like NatSoc or anything else is the solution to this problem. The cessation of that irrationality is all that need occur. All else follows from here.

>To affirm the greatness of ones self in the person of another
This is fighting against thousands of years of social structure based around the idea of passing legacy based on blood and name. She believes that men are inherently self-serving but should disregard the strongest of all self-serving principals?
>assuming said convinctions are good and validly held
a matter of mere perspective
>Bad ones are not to be sacrificed but destroyed
Within our claimed territory, agreed
>The cessation of that irrationality is all that need occur
This is false. If the west is to remain the west, large swathes of the population must be "forcibly removed" as your other philosophical brethren lays out. Not only does irrationality have to seize, action must transpire.

Also, I also can't understate the importance of meritocracy, and that there's no man ordained by god to rule.

That being said, the idea that no action has ever been done under the true categorization of selfness is insane. As most vividly characterized on battlefields in which men knowingly accept their doom, many times to no glory, solely for their compatriots in arms.

Is it just me or have the anclaps gone mad? All this shilling against European interests and for good goyim NatCapitalism stinks.

Anyways the original image is applicable as the ideology is branched from godlessness.
Godlessness in the underlying belief there's no greater principal (or other possible principal for that matter) worth serving than that of the self.

New ID
This is a bit stream-of-consciousness tier but I'll address it.
>What was the right of men to ordain that universal language should be used within their respective territories?
Simple obervations of their nature and what that necessitates for man's life is what ordains it. >How could the rights of the individual supersede the potential that would arise because of it?
Who determines this potential, and how? Therein the affirmation of the individual is the only possible solution.
>Righteous punishment also fits within the parameters of duty, obligation, and altruistic action. The idea is that whom the sacrifice if committed is an intrinsically exclusive group.
What on earth did you mean by this? It's like you have some crucial detail in your mind that you forgot to share with me as you worked this out in your head. I need it.
>This is fighting against thousands of years of social structure
Yes, and? Good. She and I intend to reject it. Mysticism of the blood is not to replace objective race realism. Of which I subscribe.
See I (and I suspect Rand) actually do indeed hold every observation and determination that the racist posses; just that we drop the -ist. And not by any desire not to seem "mean"; don't give a shit. RacISM is simply opperationally unworkable since it is just another subjective Tribalist notion.
>If the west is to remain the west, large swathes of the population must be "forcibly removed"
Yes, this is one of the "Alls" in "All else follows from here.
>Also, I also can't understate the importance of meritocracy, and that there's no man ordained by god to rule
See I am of the belief that God (if he exists) despises the notion of a Theocracy.
>That being said, the idea that no action has ever been done under the true categorization of selfness
Oh it has and is being done under the *rationalization* of being selfless, sure.

My internet blew up for some reason, I'll try to get it back to continue. Phone posting btw

K. Me too

>Therein the affirmation of the individual is the only possible solution.
This is clearly not the only possible solution as evidenced by history. The entire world would be radically different if empires hadn't extended their will on their own populations and those in which they swallowed. Such exertions would've been impossible if individual prosperity was the the sole philosophical glue binding them together.
>What on earth did you mean by this?
I was referring to the wide casting net she uses as "altruism". Giving up members of your own tribe who are convicted of treason for instance can be categorized as altruistic in a variety of cases.
>Yes, and? Good. She and I intend to reject it
And here is an irreconcilable splintering for me. The elevation of the family is possibly the strongest shareable quality that all men (should) empathize with. If this is a cornerstone philosophical constituent, most other values should align, creating the best possible outcome for prosperity.
>All else follows from here.
Why not the logical progression to soft eugenics? Why not the expulsion of groups of people who have undesirable effects on the whole?
>See I am of the belief that God (if he exists) despises the notion of a Theocracy
It'd would make sense due to the existence of free-will

how do you expect any kind of ideology or party to take control of government without having a plan of what they will do once in power?

Woah what are those helmets?

I love how beautiful they make Nazi America in that show.

>This is clearly not the only possible solution as evidenced by history. The entire world would be radically different if empires hadn't extended their will on their own populations and those in which they swallowed.
Yeah and tbis works off on off on in perpetuity until th fundamentally different advents of Rome, Greece, then Britain then us change shit at an explosive rate never witnessed before.
I would posit then notion that Aristotle, John Locke/Thomas Jefferson, and Ayn Rand are the greatest individuals to ever walk the face of the earth. For the sheer magnitude of intellectual achievment they represened.
>I was referring to the wide casting net she uses as "altruism". Giving up members of your own tribe who are convicted of treason for instance can be categorized as altruistic in a variety of cases
You are trying to lend Altruism a subjective felxibility where only it's ironclad objective meaning is possible.
She is RIGHT to give it that wide castimg; these are it's corollaries and the effects that naturally procede as far as she (and Objectivists in general) can reason them out through observation.
~cont.

I don't have a full understanding of American NS but from what I can tell they are more just anti-communist and anti-race mix. but I like them both

Pt 2.
>The elevation of the family is possibly the strongest shareable quality that all men (should) empathize with
What she outlines does NOT degrade the family. Get this scarmongering notion out of your head. Acknowledgement of objectivist self interest will only make familial relationships more earnest if perhaps at the cost of occasional frankness. Domestic emotional spats csn do nothing but upgrade from their current sorry state.
>Why not the logical progression to soft eugenics?
All for. Go, do.
>Why not the expulsion of groups of people who have undesirable effects
Fine, if the reasons for doing so are inarguable and ironclad. The expulsion of the Jews for instance was too much a mix of legitimate greivance of actual corruption they gathered as a racial class (their nature) AND the mindless demonization of them by being rich. Socialist need "The Great Enemy" for the same reason Stalin 'needed' the Kulack and Mao the city dwellers.

Rockwell American natsoc focused on the fact that humans are inherently tribalistic, and that it is something that should be embraced. That each race is basically a tribe, and should be preserved on it's own, and not mixed. Which is why he got along with the black nationalists at the time, who also disagreed with racemixing.

it's basically like Germany Nazism, but without the aryan genes stuff. just general nationalistic race preservation

Bump

Holy shit I needed to spell check this post. Fuck phoneposting

...

everything German is automatically a failure

Good to see my thread is still alive, was busy with some lads over at AntiCom. Seems there has been some intriguing debates going on, I shall go catch up on what everyone has been debating on

>Ayn Rand one of the greatest individuals
This is a misnomer by way of actual influence
>it's ironclad objective meaning
is meaningless because it takes great strides to encompass the least moral common denominator for self action.
> she outlines does NOT degrade the family
What she outlines is the "right" to pursue and act as one sees fit. She also sees it fit to manipulate and target individuals, families, women, and children alike with influence to push them to consume whatever it is that is profitable. Is this a misunderstanding?
>AND the mindless demonization of them by being rich
This is not a hate of wealth, it's disdain for the wealth gained from exploitation of a people by an outside tribe and force
>Holy shit I needed to spell check this post. Fuck phoneposting
No worries dude. It's a motherfucker

bump

youtube.com/watch?v=x5r_fZ98514

Soundtrack bump

youtube.com/watch?v=e52IMaE-3As

American Natsoc for America , Nazi Natsoc for Germany

You are a fucking idiot

American NS and German NS are the same worldview, along with any other fascist movements.

We are not white nationalists. We are NS

youtube.com/watch?v=wgPh3mSYf0M
Chopin>Rand

>Nazis having more in common with SJW's than they would like to admit
feel the bern

>This is a misnomer by way of actual influence
Have to concede to you that. Objectivism was patently rejected by the culture and academia. She was before her time.
>it [I assume Objectivism] takes great strides to encompass the least moral common denominator for self action
Such as? Whiches srtide to what purpose does it take and to what common denominator?
>manipulate and target individuals, families, women, and children alike with influence to push them to consume whatever it is that is profitable.
Remembering to take "manipulate" at it's widest (bad, neutral, good) possible defintition; yes. Do not forget Rand's affirmation of our responsibility to our fellow man. That it is 1:1:1 the responsibility we owe ourselves and material reality itself.
You will find that Objectivism is perfectly upwards-scalable and upgradable; Ayn Rand never claimed to posses the expertise and (more importantly) specialization of the economics of Von Mises or Milton Friedman. Among other specializations. That's the beauty of Capitlaism; it's compartmentalized whereas Communism/Socialism (yes NatSoc too) is centralized.
>This is not a hate of wealth, it's disdain for the wealth gained from exploitation of a people by an outside tribe and force
You say that as if one were better than the other. All Capitlaism is is exploitation of all people to all people. The word is intimidating but to "exploit" is actually an utterly morally neutral term. It depends. Capitalism can be said to be a system of interlocking exploitation. And that's not only fine; it's desirable. The Win/lose, dog-eat-dog attribution to Capitalism is a myth. It's real nature is exploitation:exploitation Win:Win/with some lose cause life unfair nigguh.
This is not to say German Jews weren't nepotistic; they were and fuck them. But do not open your mouth to tell me there did not exist some common german men butthurt over being legitimately outcompeted by the non-kike jew. Both got treated the same and you know it

Explain to me the socioeconomic system in national socialism, retard

thanks for the bump, have a (you)

Best mp

>Such as?
>Observe what this beneficiary-criterion of [the altruist] morality does to a man’s life. The first thing he learns is that morality is his enemy: he has nothing to gain from it, he can only lose
This is only a true statement if it is solely looked at from the perspective of the individual and the restraint he's subjected to in the form of "morality" or virtue, is impeding his ability to swindle. This leads me back to the entire criticism of the philosophy being "godless" at it's core. The only tenant that is omnipotent is capital. It reminds me of this speech given by Mosley. (not necessary to watch)
youtube.com/watch?v=8vMypCinkRk
The statement boldly claims there's nothing to gain from acting in a manner in what some would describe as civilized. That's a little much. Maybe it's supposed to be hyperbole.
>Remembering to take "manipulate" at it's widest (bad, neutral, good) possible defintition; yes. Do not forget Rand's affirmation of our responsibility to our fellow man
In which always is lead by profit. Capitalism is blind, and it will naturally take the path of least resistance in operation. Preying on weakness and vice.
>But do not open your mouth to tell me there did not exist some common german men butthurt over being legitimately outcompeted by the non-kike jew
Of course, but identifying those who are innocent doesn't fall within the realm of pragmatism. Even the most guilty would have redeeming qualities is inspected thoroughly enough. The vast majority had to go. Like you said. Life is unfair.

oh shit another edgy sperglord who read Rand at 12 and thinks it is the pinnacle of social commentary, grow the fuck up, she was just a materialistic selfish cow.

>Rockwell is the closest we will ever get to having an american Hitler/proper National Socialist

feel like shit just want Rockwell back

...