ϟϟ BLOOD, FATHERLAND, FAITH ϟϟ
Thread for discussion of the Jewish Question, Race Realism, National Socialism, Anti-Communism, Fascism, Traditionalism, White Nationalism, and European Identity Movements. Share links, PDFs, reading, videos, and propaganda.
> 卐 - SMASH MARXISM!
> 卐 - PURGE DEGENERACY!
> 卐 - DISMANTLE ZOG!
卐 ARE YOU NEW TO /NSG/ START HERE 卐
youtu.be
卐 NEW! "Do Not Go To Sleep Forever" by Zonwending 卐
youtu.be
ϟϟ /NSG/ HAS ITS OWN SERIES NOW ϟϟ
youtu.be
卐 IF YOU DO NOT SEE A GENERAL IN THE CATALOG COPY FROM THE PASTEBIN & START ONE! 卐
卐 PASTEBIN - pastebin.com
卐 - SCIENCE LITERACY
youtu.be
>Human Accomplishment - Douglas Murray
gwern.net
>Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations
docdro.id
>Race Differences in Intelligence by Richard Lynn
docdro.id
youtu.be
pastebin.com
humanbiologicaldiversity.com
卐 - LEARN MORE LANGUAGES
memrise.com
duolingo.com
卐 - POLITICAL POSITION STATEMENTS
nordfront.se
natall.com
northwestfront.org
pastebin.com
卐 - NEWS, RADIO, COMMENTARY & FORUMS
spreaker.com
ironmarch.org
infostormer.com
ropeculture.org
thepurityspiral.com
atomwaffendivision.org
americanblackshirts.com
卐 - VIRAL MEDIA
youtu.be
youtu.be
youtu.be
youtu.be
youtu.be
youtu.be
youtu.be
ϟϟ 3rd Reich image archives ϟϟ
mega.nz
/nsg/ 卐 - National Socialism General
Other urls found in this thread:
youtu.be
ironmarch.org
youtu.be
youtube.com
youtu.be
youtu.be
wintersonnenwende.com
mega.nz
wintersonnenwende.com
danzigfreestate.org
archive.is
archive.is
inconvenienthistory.com
inconvenienthistory.com
fpp.co.uk
jane-griffiths-my-book.blogspot.com
worldfuturefund.org
youtu.be
twitter.com
HAIL BASED BREAD!
...
...
...
...
Do you have any archives with Goebbels' speeches?
Bumping with some fresh OC
what font do you use user?
Excuse me wtf is cosmic order?
Also how is "the truth" any different from Ayn Rand's Objectivism?
Swistblink Monthoers + Corosello is usually a nice combination. Motter Sparta + Lazer84 are good too.
ironmarch.org
The difference is that Ayn Rand's teaches a false worldview (individualism) while the universal truth/cosmic order directly is applied in fascist tendancies and teachings.
That's a very IronMarch way of talking, one of them can best explain. It sounds like something esoteric from Serrano of Savitri Devi.
cute
Sometimes IronMarch is strange. I recognize some of what they're talking about from Natsoc sources, but other things just confuse me, like "as above so below" -- I thought that was Jewish Kabbalistic alchemy, like double entry book-keeping, etc. Jewish theology sees the world as a dichotomy that must be balanced, light and dark, etc. Cosmic order sounds like Serrano perhaps.
Do you disagree or just unfamiliar?
Okay I get the cosmic order part but this idea of "the truth" just sounds like empiricism taken to extreme that there is only the objective and the subjective is the millions of lies, I don't understand how this is different than objectivism or general empiricism just applied to social structure, social order etc.
I can't agree or disagree with the infograph because it doesn't make complete sense to me. Seems like a mishmash of metaphysics.
The cosmic order IS the universal truth, and for the empiriscm part, we want to discover what life truly is, search for truth, for purity.
>卐 ARE YOU NEW TO /NSG/ START HERE 卐
youtu.be
So they claim the reason the nsdp reignited ww1 is because of funding going to Russia?
The only thing keeping me from really being a Nazi apologist is the start of the second world war
I really don't buy this as a good reason
> we want to discover what life truly is, search for truth
That sounds awfully similar to my views that people need to be free to pursue their path in life and discover their truth, I think the big schism for me is that I don't think people can necessarily dictate to others what their truth or the truth ought to be and that the experiencing of truth is not in reassurance from other people but something experienced by an individual in their mind/heart/soul.
I can't help but think that giving people power over others hinders that search because power isn't truth imo, or am I misrepresenting there?
I think that harmony to a degree allows both cooperation & the seeking of the truth, why are these additional structures necessary if that is the value or the goal?
Just to elaborate on some of the things I said that were a bit vague.
When I say harmony I mean for example that the ability to trade & divide labour rather than kill & plunder allows people to meet their physiological needs so they are at liberty to engage their faculties & their mind to the pursuit of whatever higher goals their consciousness leads them to. I guess this is similar to the purpose of the homogeneous in-group? Protection & survival in order to pursue something higher?
...
At what time in the video was that?
>I don't think people can necessarily dictate to others what their truth or the truth ought to be
Except we do this from the moment we are born to our children; failure in this regard is child abuse, and the failure of our genetic line. When out parents come from another country to an English speaking one, we don't grow up to speak with the accents, we adopt the accents of our friends in school. There is no time in life where you are not part of a tide of other individuals who together form the nation, a kind of meta-individual. Most libertarians seem to get stuck on the atomized individual as the filter for all their perceptions, minimizing or overlooking all the aspects of the group, ie, race, nation, etc. Within your race is a massive part of your individuality, especially since so much of our IQ and temperament are hereditary. The individual and the group are a symbiotic whole, or they are fractured apart and sickly.
You don't want to pursue "total" harmony because long lasting peace has made soft men who aren't willing to stand up to their true ideals, just look at modern day, basically everywhere. Practicing war is good because it is constantly hardening men.
...
As adults we develop language partly to express our truths to others. However these expressions are opinions, they are normative claims they are subjective. The objective can only come from the expression of opinion & then empiricism right? ie hypothesis, explanation (logic) & evidence. However we derive that opinion from our own individual minds through the interpretation of the sense data of the world around us.
So does the search for truth not rest within individuals & shared between them? How then can one turn this necessity of the subjective & of the individual into force & dictate?
Yes we look after children, we interact with other humans but I don't see the logic follow that just because we can use each other immorally (plunder) or morally (trade), that the individual & their search for truth must be dismissed/denied for the opinions of other individuals in the form of "group" in which disagreements can only ever come between individuals not between an individual and a collective if you know what I mean? If we're saying the truth is the whole point.
I get what you mean about symbiosis, I see it in spontaneous order of individuals interacting peacefully. I see it look from a tall building at the people below engaging in a sort of dance, acting in the play of life while they search for their lifes meaning, ultimately in their consciousness.
Sort of like in science where if you magnify to a degree everything looks chaotic, then you magnify again and that chaos produces an order and so on.
Could the same not be said for technology? A primitivist would say technology has made us fat, yet an individualist would say let the person substitute in exercise, manual work, hardship or sport should they wish it?
I read parts of fascist intellectuals and I hear them declare that the truth of life comes in conflict, with in/out-groups, which sounds so counter-intuitive, like doesn't harmony allow curiosity & exploration?
...
Hiel.
capitalism is one of the only good things in the world you fucking idiot
>The objective can only come from the expression of opinion & then empiricism
I think only observation is really required for empirical, descriptive reality; the rest is elective.
>So does the search for truth not rest within individuals & shared between them?
Yes. The individual and the group are either symbiotic, or they are disjoint and sickly. The "lone wolf" is quickly spotted, hunted, and taken out or harassed into inefficiency and struggle. The modern idealization of the individual occurs within the context of population explosions, and massive nation state bureaucracies so labyrinthine that even the bureaucrats aren't always aware of their own leviathan's behavior. There is a context of elaborate group reality against which the idealization of "past libertarian ages" is set. In reality, the romantic libertarian ideal, set in a time of exploration and colonization, never really existed -- it was also a romantic ideal back when most libertarians imagine it existed in practice. There are no historic examples of truly free markets, for instance -- what accounts for the fascination they inspire, except that they are exotic and unheard of unicorns?
>symbiosis, I see it in spontaneous order of individuals interacting peacefully
But human beings never spontaneously interact peacefully except in small scale extended family groups. Outside various abstracted spheres of kin, there is violent chaos, this is universal in the human condition. We are clannish, tribal. Hence the failure of "multiculturalism".
>READ
where do i start?
>made us fat, yet an individualist would say let the person substitute in exercise, manual work, hardship or sport should they wish it?
Your average joe does not do that stuff, he's a sheep and followers whatever the people in power say, he's a slave to his inner desires and the mass movements of the herd. It's why America moved from a needs based economy to a wants based
Old car ads told you why you needed the car and how it helps you do stuff in your life
New car ads just tell you they have dvd players and how nice they look. Sex sells as an example, slap on some sexy babes and some products just sell more. If people were smart they wouldn't gamble away life savings in Vegas or become addicted to drugs
In fact the people individualists hold up and say they themselves are would be the ones ruling society due to their increased drive for themselves and fascism pushes for everyone to be their best
>crapitlism
This is what you want, hordes of women and men buying products they don't need for degenerate acts to increase the gdp and have profit.
If you actually look at black Friday and the rushes they have and think it's a positive event, your a crypto kike
> The "lone wolf"
This is why Libertarians still have community, the division of labour, trade, communication etc. Merely upholding an individuals right to their path in life doesn't need to contradict human cooperation, because there is harmony in cooperation rather than the conflict that comes from directly and explicitly pursuing division.
> But human beings never spontaneously interact peacefully except in small scale
I think you're missing my point. Humans don't ever interact with lots of people besides a concert or a video, our interactions with people are on the individual level and the small scale which as I mentioned when viewed from an outside angle gives the appearance spontaneous order, how a city of millions can be relatively peaceful in the midst of millions of people interaction on an individual basis.
The addition of group conflict is something that people have specifically pushed, I don't see it as a universal of the human condition but a consequence of scarcity & the benefits of power/plunder. Or in the case of fascists, their eugenic history led to the spreading of the ideas of conflict/groups being necessary for what those guys call "the meaning/essence of life", I don't think most people want to be apart from that only they feel that it is necessary and they are pulled into it.
While conflict exists and people do see others as groups and do spread this idea and do pursue conflict, I think we have to recognize surely the progress from an age of universal plunder (win-lose) with relatively little peace, to an age of large scale cooperation (win-win), interspersed with this continual pursuit of human conflict by certain people for certain reasons.
Have we not gone away from taking food as a given, to trading it, only the minority engaging in theft? For example.
I don't see how potential conflict means that we have to abandon cooperation/defense? Thanks for walking me through your thoughts though.
> Your average joe does not do that stuff,
While I think the current environment is pretty strange and distorted, back to your point for a moment about conflict breading hard men, harmony breading weak men. If technology has a similar effect, at what point is there enough hardship/conflict for you to be satisfied? Or is it the idea that people can be molded to live with technology without being fat? If so then why could people not change to deserve both technology and harmony? If not then where does the need for/degree of hardship end?
>upholding an individuals right to their path in life
This reminds me a bit of the "in the privacy of their own home argument": its easy to say about homosex, slightly harder to say about pedophilia, but if you accept the former its hard to argue against the latter. What we choose as individuals, even within seemingly private spheres, affects society. If I spread in AIDS in the privacy of my home, for instance.
>I think you're missing my point.
No no, we're just emphasizing different aspects as central and peripheral to human relationships.
> in the case of fascists, their eugenic history led to the spreading of the ideas of conflict/groups being necessary for what those guys call "the meaning/essence of life"
This is confusing to me: don't you argue that libertarian values are "eugenic" though?
>from an age of universal plunder (win-lose) with relatively little peace, to an age of large scale cooperation (win-win)
Humanity has not progressed in this respect uniformly. Anyone who lives and works in the 3rd world for any stretch of time knows this painfully well. Pic related I guess.
>I don't see how potential conflict means that we have to abandon cooperation/defense?
That doesn't strike me as a relevant dichotomy.
I'm actually a different guy to the one who was talking about technology i just posted about your average joe,but I'll give my take
>Or is it the idea that people can be molded to live with technology without being fat?
Yes that is so to a degree, if you handed out free scooters and deep fried mars bars they would have to have a controlled allowance of them. Like if today's government just gave out free addictive drugs society would collapse
>If so then why could people not change to deserve both technology and harmony?
natsoc does want peace, what it does not want is weakness. Giving everyone a free scooter and marsbars or giving them very cheap ways to indulge in this breeds weakness. Hence why it must be managed, you can have your mobility scooter but when you start getting fat or start losing muscles you lose it since your being neglectful
...
>what time in the video was that?
About 8 min
> natsoc does want peace, what it does not want is weakness
I see what you mean. The part that confuses me is that when I read the intellectuals that were the basis for Natsoc (at least back then maybe not today) their whole point of strength revolved around from what I can see eugenics and the desirability of conflict over harmony to produce specifically their vision of human evolution genetically, which is why they not only wrotes about segregation & conflict between whites & black but what they labelled the "degenerate mongrel" in reference to even Slavs & Italians over anglo-saxon Brits/Americans.
I even completely agree with you in my own personal/subjective way, I would like and advocate that people should choose to recognize that we live in a modern world and need to substitute in hardwork, exercise or sport etc if they value health, but I'm not too keen on dictating someones approach to health but I also don't want to be forced to work to pay for others poor choices, I'm sure we can easily agree on personal responsibility but maybe not so much on responsibility to others.
I agree we do effect people around us in everything we do, every word we say and every action we take which is why I value harmony & cooperation where possible over conflict especially conflict I see as unnecessary, ie dictate vs defense or resolving disputes
> No no, we're just emphasizing different aspects
Even so doesn't millions of individuals interaction peacefully with each other produce a larger spontaneous order?
> libertarian values are "eugenic"
Not necessarily, it comes back to planning vs spontaneous order. I believe humans progress down trajectories and realistically if people had to be responsible for the consequences of their choices it would produce certain outcomes, but not eugenic outcomes in that of being decided, planned and then inflicted or forced onto society.
> Anyone who lives in the 3rd world
True. I recognize this progress but I still wonder about people in different environments, cultures and social structures.
> relevant dichotomy.
What I mean is, while we may seek harmony, the potential for conflict in human interactions even the potential for the formation of groups and then group fighting doesn't necessarily lead me to the conclusion that an individuals "rights" lets say ought to be taken away because of some other pressing concern people have, be it their fear of security or other fears. Overcoming fear & working through conflict in various ways has got to be integral to human development no? To be able to have a house next to someone else without murdering each other, to be able to trade, trust, cooperate & divide labour, be it small scale or in a larger order planned/unplanned.
You said:
>The only thing keeping me from really being a Nazi apologist is the start of the second world war
Not sure what you have in mind, but here's what I got. Start here:
>Viktor Suvarov - Who started the 2nd World War?
youtu.be
>Hitler's War - the Allies caused the war
youtu.be
Then check out the rest in your spare time:
>Stalin's plans to invade Europe, proving Hitler's invasion of Russia was preemptive:
wintersonnenwende.com
>See also: "The Chief Culprit" by Victor Suvarov in the ebooks archive:
mega.nz
>Polish massacres of ethnic Germans (Note - most bodies discovered as Germans invaded were in an advanced state of decay, thus, the common excuse "they were killed BECAUSE Germany invaded" can't explain why they were dead for so long; many killings involved elaborate desecration, dismemberment, and mocking disfigurements of the bodies - things not done in haste)
wintersonnenwende.com
danzigfreestate.org
archive.is
archive.is
>The Jewish lobby, (((Stephen Wise))), (((Morgenthau))), and FDR
inconvenienthistory.com
inconvenienthistory.com
>The Jewish lobby, (((Bernard Baruch))) and Churchill's 'The Focus'
fpp.co.uk
>Britain's promises to Poland
jane-griffiths-my-book.blogspot.com
worldfuturefund.org
>Why Germany Invaded Poland
youtu.be
Not really, a Nordic model in an ethnic state with a slightly privatized health care is massively superior. Half socialism, half capitalism.
Complete capitalism always wants useless growth, not technological or innovate growth that betters humanity but one that gives the company more profit. It's one of the many reasons for mass immigration, more people to buy your products and more people that work for cheap.
Degeneracy and hedonism also sells, many people are tricked into believing that egoism and complete individualism is what makes you happy when our world has never been as depressed before.
Can someone illustrate what a practical National Socialist might look like? Say you ascribe to the ideology, you think it works, but how does that play out in your daily life? Are you going to actively recruit and persuade others, or do you just engage in Ride the Tiger-mode and wait for everything to crash?
>Are you going to actively recruit and persuade others, or do you just engage in Ride the Tiger-mode and wait for everything to crash?
You can do either. I go through phases. Me and some co-workers formed a "gun club" some years back, and we've turned into an SHTF unit for emergency preparedness and mutual defense. We've added maybe one or two people a year, and some have left when they had a new kid or work got busy. They are still trained and practiced with all of us, so if SHTF and they can hook up with any of us, we'll be fine. Rest of the time its ride the tiger.
...