ϟϟ ETERNAL STRUGGLE FOR ETERNAL GROWTH ϟϟ
/nsg/ is the temporary home of /sig/: self-improvement is a core tenet of the Natsoc world-view, and fundamental to the construction of healthy racial states. Thread for discussion of the Jewish Question, Race Realism, National Socialism, Anti-Communism, Fascism, Traditionalism, White Nationalism, and European Identity Movements. Discuss the improvement of yourself, comrades, community, and folk.
> 卐 - SMASH MARXISM!
> 卐 - PURGE DEGENERACY!
> 卐 - DISMANTLE ZOG!
卐 ARE YOU NEW TO /NSG/ START HERE
youtu.be
youtu.be
youtu.be
youtu.be
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!
PASTEBIN - pastebin.com
Disc_ord . gg / 9yZPqn9
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 - 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
ϟϟ 3rd Reich image archives ϟϟ
mega.nz
/natsig/ 卐 - Natsoc Self-Improvement General
Other urls found in this thread:
youtu.be
youtu.be
voxeu.org
nber.org
historylearningsite.co.uk
youtu.be
thefoodproject.org
archive.org
4chanfit.wikia.com
germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org
youtube.com
worldfuturefund.org
twitter.com
Daily reminder that the steak and eggs diet is the most redpilled diet.
Hitler lost and killed himself.
Is there a reason why, or its just a meme?
>hans zimmer music as background soundtrack for videos calling the jews parasites
What was meant by this?
Ideas do not die. Ideas are simply rewritten or created.
autumn is a good time to set up your new garden for next year
why you should do no dig youtu.be
how to start a no dig garden youtu.be
if you have snow consistently all winter then you could instead use a mix of leaves and grass clippings (or just one of them would work fine) instead of using a tarp. also if you don't have a source of compost then just regular old soil will work fine
>What was meant by this?
Agitprop. It's always to trigger them somehow.
...
.
>unironically supporting the biggest failure of an ideology in history, responsible for the biggest white genocide in history
>unironically supporting the guy who made criticism of Judaism taboo in society forever
Pathetic underage NEETs who would shit their pants and cry to mommy in the event of an actual war
Proof or GTFO David
Hahaha ok commie if your lucky we will get to put your idea to the test soon
,
...
Oh, is this the 'I would be a commissar' version of a Communist? My favourite!
>the biggest failure of an ideology in history
Let's review:
>1.) Elimination of unemployment and poverty.
>2.) Constantly growing GDP
>3.) Constantly shrinking debt-to-GDP ratio
>4.) An empire covering 80% of Europe.
>5.) Sky-rocketing birth-rates, women as mothers, out of the work-force
>6.) The development of all modern technologies and academic developments facilitating the space age of the 20th century
>7.) The complete privatization of all industry previously socialized in the Weimar era
>8.) the reversal of all misfortunes resulting from WWI
>9.) It accomplished all this in 12 short years.
Natsoc was the most successful movement of the 20th century, dwarfing all its rivals. That's why it had to be destroyed. If it became a model, it would have revolutionized the world. After 70 years and trillions of dollars spent stigmatizing it, persecuting those who question that stigma, and advocate for it's successes, it's still subversive and terrifying to the sick men of history: the Marxian Left and the Wall Street liberals.
Why do you fight against your own interest?
Every time you bump a post, you raise it higher and the lurkers never actually read this far down into the thread, they skim over the links and images and leave. If you actually hated the thread, you would let it slide. Basic stuff, really. You're just giving it more exposure, which leads me to believe you are either really dumb, or love the thread.
I think you should cite the claims you just made, because they are pretty big claims. I am aware of information regarding unemployment and privatization, but the debt-to-GDP? I have not heard of this, I thought that, during the war, they were running a huge deficit (logically, war costs a lot).
>the debt-to-GDP? I have not heard of this
I'll source anything specific, just ask. I'm not going to spam a bunch of sources unless asked for specifics. For starters, The basic bullshit we normally hear from shills:
>debt was driving them to war
>growth was driving them to war
>full employment was driving them to war
>not letting women/jews work was driving them to war
>fascism had a conquest mentality driving them to war
>everyone was insane thus driving them to war
This bullshit reminds me of the "women make 70 cents on a man's dollar" zombie myth that never dies: Debt as a percent of GDP was constantly shrinking (standard keynsean policy effects). Growth existed from 1934 to 1938 and is virtually a straight slope; war didn't slow or speed it up. Women only dropped 10% in the workforce, and Jews were less than 1% of the population, so their loss didn't change anything either. This must be standard bullshit they teach in schools since it never goes away.
>German GDP in Billions of Dollars:
>1938 - 351
>1939 - 384
>1940 - 387
>1941 - 412
>1942 - 417
>1943 - 426
>1944 - 437
>1945 - 310
As far as military spending, Germany barely broke the US threshold of 40% of GDP, the entire duration of the war, and spent LESS THAN THEIR RIVALS in preparation building up to war:
>CHART 9 - spending as percent of Germany GDP:
>1935: 8%
>1936: 13%
>1937: 13%
>1938: 17%
>1939: 23%
voxeu.org
nber.org
historylearningsite.co.uk
- 351
- 384
- 387
- 412
The rate of GDP growth took a nose-dive in 1938, so technically, while GDP kept growing, the war actually HURT their economy. It wasn't a strait slope upward.
Thanks, I will consider this new information. I can't read all of it right now, though.
One point of contention, but not regarding sources.
>fascism had a conquest mentality driving them to war
Fairly certain that, at least Evola, described different attitudes towards war that stages of civilization would have. I don't think war or conquest is 'bad'. Maybe on the world stage, sure, if people don't like it, but they would be hypocrites because any successful nation is built on war and conquest.
It wasn't a "nose-dive", just a blip. Which is to be expected. It did cause problems, and Hitler often said the war hurt his agenda for Germany. He really believed he was forced into it, it wasn't what he wanted.
>Fairly certain that, at least Evola, described different attitudes towards war that stages of civilization would have
That's so, but Evola is representative of Natsoc, and not even very representative of Fascism per se. He's his own school of thought to a large extent, he didn't really have a following at the time. To be fair, Natsoc was conservative about expansion beyond the boundaries of what it viewed to be the Reich, including Austria-Hungary, and Prussian territory. It did seem to have an agenda to express hegemony over all "germanic" or Nordic countries, thought it let them have autonomy. Russia it saw as vulnerable to communist subversion unless it was developed into a modern state and "Germanized" (again, brought under German cultural hegemony). It did this while it renounced all claims to colonies outside ancestral German lands and the Eastern wilderness. Those who allied with them in good faith, like Finland, Hungary, etc, they left alone, and even diverted resources to.
So, I would admit that they had an expansionist view that was primarily "restorative" of the traditional "Reich", with a desire to secure the East against threats like communism. But they were primarily inward looking in their worldview on all front, not expansionist. They allowed self-determination within their spheres of influence to a far fairer degree than any other empire of that time.
>Evola is representative of Natsoc
*isn't representative of Natsoc
it was the diet of early body builders like arnold and vince. Its high in protein to build muscles, ketogenic to burn fat and high in cholesterol to increase testosterone production
sup
THIS IS WHAT THE JEW WANTS:
youtu.be
literally the second video in the op
I'm very excited to plant my first garden next year. I've been reading and planning it out at work. If all goes well next year I'd like to expand the operation and sell some produce to faggot hippie restaurants and the farmers market eventually.
Also been getting back into shape. Plenty of swimming and cycling. After I hit a target weight I'm going to start lifting again. Feels like I'm really getting my shit together. Also have a child on the way. All Thanks to Sup Forums which led me George Lincoln Rockwell and uncle Adolf. Life's crazy sometimes.
Please, please share good instructional resources for beginning gardeners. Its important we develop this general to include the best of /sig/. Much of it is lost because the furfags running the 8pol archive shoah'd it, and not much was posted on this board during /sig/ here.
Oh nice. Thanks user.
Hitler smashed unions, increased inequality, and privatized formerly state owned assets to the people who bankrolled his election campaign - the Krupps and the other wealthy families of Germany at the time.
The only thing that makes Hitler different from someone like Franco or Pinochet is his meth addiction, which caused him to chimp out and get into a retarded unwinnable war.
How can you say Hitler did nothing wrong when so many decisions were so obviously meth-inspired? Like declaring war on the USA for no reason, like declaring war on the USSR when Stalin would have rather allied against Britain?
>Hitler smashed unions, increased inequality, and privatized formerly state owned assets
I have no problem with this. No one here is persuaded by such nonsense. Your image macro is full of the same nonsense debunked already here:
Hitler actually kinda sucked towards the end but it was better than being taken over by communist Jews.
heres what i used to start mine. The main thing is soil nutrients and keeping pests away. So best to get some chicken wire and start a compost pile now.
National socialism as an ideology is not necessarily the same as Hitler
Perfect, thank you! Right Wing Gardening Squads soon!
(((iTunes)))
>Right Wing Gardening Squads
lmfao
theres still an old /sig/ thread in the archives if you want the links
...
...
Fascism was a superior system to liberal capitalism, which is why it smashed France and took over mainland Western Europe.
But it was inferior to Socialism, which is why it suffered total defeat at the hands of the Soviet Union.
Even Hitler himself admitted this, probably when on one of his rare meth come downs.
archive.org
At the beginning of the war in the east, Hitler, captive to his theory that the Slavs were subhuman, had called the war against them child's play. But the longer the war lasted, the more the Russians gained his respect. He was impressed by the stoicism with which they had accepted their early defeats. He spoke admiringly of Stalin, particularly stressing the parallels to his own endurance. The danger that hung over Moscow in the winter of 1941 struck him as similar to his present predicament. In a brief access of confidence, he might remark with a jesting tone of voice that it would be best, after victory over Russia, to entrust the ad- ministration of the country to Stalin, under German hegemony, of course, since he was the best imaginable man to handle the Russians. In general he regarded Stalin as a kind of colleague. When Stalin's son was taken prisoner it was out of this respect, perhaps, that Hitler ordered him to be given especially good treatment. Much had changed since that day after the armistice with France when Hitler predicted that a war with the Soviet Union would be child's play.
>tfw the natsoc generals no longer require constant bumping to stay alive
feels good
>The only thing that makes Hitler different from someone like Franco or Pinochet is his meth addiction, which caused him to chimp out and get into a retarded unwinnable war.
Hahahahhahahahaha you actually believe this retarded shit don't you?
Wow, this is going to be quite a task. I see a lot of posts from our pastebin in there, but not a lot on Fitness, Nutrition, Gardening and Botany in their own separate collections. I think we'll need to start a mega archive for each topic. Where to start...?
>But it was inferior to Socialism
And yet you don't explain how or why. Considering that Marxist socialism, including the USSR, stayed alive through constant inputs of financing and loans from Western liberal capitalist banks, its seems you have no examples to make that argument with.
>That's so, but Evola [isn't] representative of Natsoc, and not even very representative of Fascism per se. He's his own school of thought to a large extent, he didn't really have a following at the time.
Fair enough. I just mentioned him because I thought his views regarding war were relevant to a fascistic doctrine.
>So, I would admit that they had an expansionist view that was primarily "restorative" of the traditional "Reich", with a desire to secure the East against threats like communism. But they were primarily inward looking in their worldview on all front, not expansionist. They allowed self-determination within their spheres of influence to a far fairer degree than any other empire of that time.
I would agree with this.
>It did seem to have an agenda to express hegemony over all "germanic" or Nordic countries, thought it let them have autonomy.
I would not say absolute autonomy, more like a puppet state that was semi-autonomous. If it was fully autonomous, it would be independent.
>jihadmarch
INSHALLAH
Is Trump natsoc?
>Fascism was inferior to Socialism
This should be interesting. Please explain.
>Even Hitler himself admitted this
No, he didn't.
>image
False dichotomy, false allegations.
>Hitler smashed unions
And?
>increased inequality
And?
>and privatized formerly state owned assets to the people who bankrolled his election campaign
And?
Also, quite rich considering how the funding of the Nazi campaign from bankers is criticized, when Lenin himself also took funds for the same political aspirations from people like Schiff. Almost as if pragmatism wins out in the end...
Some day it will be back
>But it was inferior to Socialism, which is why it suffered total defeat at the hands of the Soviet Union.
Here I am thinking that it was not true socialism of the USSR when you look at the state-mandated class oppression, but it is when they do 'good things'. Hm...
>If it was fully autonomous, it would be independent.
No state is fully autonomous. Someone is a hegemon, and even hegemons are vulnerable to their client states, who they expend resources to protect and enforce their hegemony over. Much like colonialism was rarely ever profitable for the colonial powers.
>And yet you don't explain how or why.
National "Socialist" Germany didn't abolish capitalism. They just made it more efficient than under liberal capitalism, mostly by eliminating unions and giving free reign to the capitalists.
Capitalists is inherently less efficient than socialism - because under socialism, all surplus value is re-invested. Under capitalism, most surplus value ends up in the pockets of mostly Jewish capitalists - except in National "Socialism", where it ends up in the pockets of German capitalists.
Please add the human population charts, during that same period of time
i dont know much about bontany, but the other 3 are pretty easy. /fit/s wiki has a whole section on /sig/ as well 4chanfit.wikia.com
>the human population charts, during that same period of time
inb4
>National "Socialist" Germany didn't abolish capitalism.
It never intended to. Should I even read the rest of this post?
>No state is fully autonomous.
In our globalist world with heavy emphasis on a tied international marketplace, no.
>and giving free reign to the capitalists.
That's not what laissez-faire internationalist capitalism means.
>all surplus value
*profit. It's called profit and the demonization of this concept is why the USSR had high rates of emigration. Or was it not true socialism?
>Capitalists is inherently less efficient than socialism - because under socialism, all surplus value is re-invested. Under capitalism, most surplus value ends up in the pockets of mostly Jewish capitalists - except in National "Socialism", where it ends up in the pockets of German capitalists.
Ahhahahahahhaha the absolute state of communist "logic".
>National "Socialist" Germany didn't abolish capitalism
You're in the wrong thread, friendo. Maybe you belong in /ptg/ you're as misinformed as they are.
>Considering that Marxist socialism, including the USSR, stayed alive through constant inputs of financing and loans from Western liberal capitalist banks, its seems you have no examples to make that argument with.
You must not have been paying attention to the last 60 years of history then - which was a global war between socialist national-liberation struggles in the Third World on one side and Western liberal capitalist banks and their proxies (MI6, CIA, etc) on the other.
>No state is fully autonomous In our globalist world
Find me an example of a fully autonomous nation going back to 1688. You could go back farther, but that might get complicated. You still won't find an example of a "hermit state" surviving in recorded history. Even North Korea relies on trade and the hegemony of China and even the US in a reverse logic sort of way.
Alright, so that's what happens when you seize the means of production. That's why Nazism is superior, instead of using starvation to force people to coexist, Nazism uses ethnicity.
Why would "the cold war happened" invalidate my assertion that the USSR relied on western liberal finance for the entirety of its existence? Even the revolution was financed by the West. Even Marx lived on the patronage of wealthy western donors.
When talking with workers and left-wing sympathizers, he would talk about how we have to share the wealth, take down plutocracy, etc.
But when he was talking with the Krupp family, he talked very differently. This is from his speech to the Dusseldorf industry club:
I know quite well, gentlemen, that when National Socialists march through the streets and suddenly in the evening there arises a tumult and a commotion, then the bourgeois draws back the window-curtain, looks out, and says: ‘Once again my night’s rest is disturbed: no more sleep for me. Why must these Nazis always be so provocative and run about the place at night?’ Gentlemen, if everyone thought like that, then, true enough, no one’s sleep at night would be disturbed, but then also the bourgeois today would not be able to venture into the street.
germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org
Your posts are incoherent. Nothing you're saying is really relevant or addresses the claims you've made.
Quality quote!
You must be retarded if you couldn't understand the implication of my previous point. Which is that Shitler was a bullshitter who said whatever the person listening wanted to hear, all while insanely tweaked out on extremely high purity methamphetamine.
I'll make some megas. I think I still have space. Post some good gardening vids. Can you think of anything related to environmentalism and outdoorsmanship from the 3rd Reich. I know they were big into the outdoors.
Does this general support Trump and /ptg/?
No. Fuck off back to /r/the_donald
You're addressing us like we share your Marxist assumptive framework about labor, capital, and private property. Apparently you think we defined socialism in your terms. You should lurk the pastebin. We work under an antithetical sense to your views and definitions.
Let's define 'autonomous' first: (of a country or region) having self-government, at least to a significant degree.
Another expansion: acting independently or having the freedom to do so.
If we use 'region', then the isolated tribes in the amazon are technically a region, although not a full nation, that have their own archaic forms of governance (with the tribal elders and the 'chain of command'). Technically, they are fully autonomous.
>You still won't find an example of a "hermit state" surviving in recorded history.
What do you mean by hermit state. Hermit, as in absolute isolation? Sure, I don't dispute that. Humans cooperate with the other people in mutually beneficial relationships. But there are instances of isolated tribes existing, although this is the overwhelming exception to the general rule. But I think autonomy, as in self-government to a significant degree and the freedom to be independent, in some cases, modern nations are autonomous. The US isn't bound by any other legal codes of other nations. But economically, no: it's all interconnected.
No.
You just won +1 chromosomes for that question, great job
But /ptg/ says they hate t_d and kekistani, nobody there likes milo either or says based black men/centpiede. If you want to be taken seriously here why would you post strawmen?
>that have their own archaic forms of governance
That's a big stretch of analogy, but it remains a boundary case even if I make that leap with you for the sake of comparison.
>What do you mean by hermit state. Hermit, as in absolute isolation?
Even mostly isolated, even 60/40 isolated. Its really just hyperbole that the Norks get called "hermits" at all. They're so far up China's ass they might as well be a tributary of China.
>as in self-government to a significant degree and the freedom to be independent, in some cases, modern nations are autonomous.
We're really quibbling over a qualification here. All autonomy is relative autonomy, even when nations are formally independent. History is filled with endless examples of sovereign states that were utterly enslaved to creditors, or hemmed in by neighboring alliances and empires. When I say autonomous in the sense that the Reich allowed it's Nordic neighbors and allies autonomy, I mean to say that they didn't erase those nations and call them "Germany", or even forbid them the choice of particular forms of government that diverged from Germany's own path for itselt (with the exception of communism).
Germany was heavily reliant on "bilateral trade regimes" with its neighbors and allies. Even nations it occupied it set up in a fashion to be autonomous enough to become functional trading partners, both to avoid the costs of a "colony" and because they were sort of trapped in that format by their economy.
>If you want to be taken seriously here why would you post strawmen?
They hate us most of all. They always have. They're 200% cuckpol.
Does it fucking matter? You worship the zionist plant Trump and venerate him as a god. No one is interested in indulging in that garbage with you. /nsg/ was already an established general long before /ptg/ was a thing and the collab with /sig/ changes nothing.
lol. That's one of the most accurate depictions I've ever seen.
From the other thread, one of you defended the Nazis by saying they only wanted to enslave the Slavs, not genocide them.
But how can you seriously support the enslavement and subjugation of another race of people? Especially another group of whites - Slavs - to whom most people on Sup Forums are sympathetic to (Poland is seen as "redpilled" and Russia is seen as standing up to Israel in the ME).
he doesn't need our support, he's already president. Ask something more specific
But look at this. Trump is punished and will get revenge on the Jews, he is also a time traveler.
...
And this more or less sums up why no one likes magapede tards.
>But how can you seriously support the enslavement and subjugation of another race of people?
We don't, no one wanted to enslave the Slavs.
the "Slavs" in 1930s Russia were genocidal jews who already killed 20 million real European Russians. They would have done the same to Western Europe.
卐 - MYTHS ABOUT GENERALPLAN OST AND LEBENSRAUM
===============================================
'Lebensraum' is often intentionally exaggerated by those wanting to push the fractal "Hitler planned to exterminate all races" meme. The actual meaning of Lebensraum referred to the security of the German borders, and the need to provide living space so that Germans aren't threatened by outside forces. The primary focus of Lebensraum were the Volksdeutch (Germans held is former German lands after the redrawn map of Versailles) populations and former German lands used to create Poland and Czechoslovakia under the Treaty of Saint Germain. To claim that "living space" meant "exterminate and re-populate more land than there would have been Germans to inhabit" is absurd, and contradicts the policies of "Germanization" that were ACTUALLY PRACTICED by Germans regarding occupied peoples:
youtube.com
Hitler didn't consider Russians subhuman. He considered them inferior. Because in terms of living, they were. Seriously, look at the living style of the average Soviet, then compare them to a German in 1930, they were, by all accounts inferior. He even talks about how some Russians of the old rich class were Germanic. There were multiple reasons for the invasion of the Soviet Union, for example:
>1. To gain the necessary resources to fuel a long time war, something that Germany was severely lacking.
>2. To prevent the inevitable invasion of Europe by the Soviet Union. If you gonna start a war, it's best to have the first strike.
>3. To disband the Bolshevik and Jewish regime in the Soviet Union, something Hitler knew would be a threat to Germany.
True, the Germans would've gained land from defeating the Soviets and would certainly have sent its citizens into this newfound land, just like the allies did to German clay they gained after WW1 and WW2. The Germans wouldn't have exterminated Russians. They simply would have governed them.
卐 - MYTHS ABOUT GENERALPLAN OST AND LEBENSRAUM
===============================================
In summary...
1. There is absolutely no proof of Generalplan Ost ever existing.
2. Hitler would have been fine with a path through the Polish Corridor. If Poland had agreed to the terms then there would have been no war.
3. Germany did not massively blob into Eastern Europe like wiki suggests, they had very clear borders. The eventual goal was to set up puppet states, not wipe out the populace.
4. If the plan was to exterminate Slavs, then why were there no camps for that purpose? The deaths in Eastern Europe are from starvation and warfare, not extermination.
5. Plenty of Slavs fought alongside Germans in the Russian Liberation Army, SS Galician, and others.
*6. "Dokument 1880' is a letter from Himmler to Hitler discussing Himmler's "Germaneizerung" (Germanization) Plan for occupied peoples of the East. The objective was to forcibly assimilate them in the shortest amount of time, mostly by importing foreign children to Germany and "Germanizing" them with new German names, and German educations. This was also the basis of the "Lebensborn Kidnapping Trials", so the assertion that Germany meant to "exterminate" slavs contradicts the other myth, that Germany "kidnapped" slavic children to "erase their identities". (See Page 147 of www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/NT_war-criminals_Vol-XIII.pdf )
Fuggin saved
why does he need us to verbally support him?! I don't understand this. I don't care if he's not 1488, just help Americans and tell the jews to fuck off for once in US history.
Here is the thread, where your fellow Natsoc posted a letter from Himmler where he talks about enslaving the Slavs and kidnapping "racially pure" Slavic children from their families to raise them in German households.
I can't post a direct link since it's archived:
>1. There is absolutely no proof of Generalplan Ost ever existing.
tehre is no proof of protocols of elders of zion being real yet you idiots run with it...
No one claims that the Protocols are real, only that it is predictive fiction like 1984 and Brave New World.
>1. There is absolutely no proof of Generalplan Ost ever existing.
worldfuturefund.org
no proof whatsoever!
>No one
slimy natsoc loser
>he talks about enslaving the Slavs
Except he doesn't mention slavery once. He talks about assimilation of "subject peoples", by bringing their children to Germany and enrolling them in the Hitler youth and German schools. If that's "slavery" then German children were also slaves. Read the document before you quote it.
>meme flag
We'll just ignore you
Not an argument