Thread for discussion of National Socialism, Fascism, Nationalism, and European Identity Movements. Share links, PDFs, reading, videos, and propaganda. > 卐 - REPORT IN FOR YOUR COUNTRY! > 卐 - TAKE BACK THE BOARD! > 卐 - DRIVE OUT DEGENERACY!
>William Joyce – Twilight Over England >Twilight Over England compared the evils of Jewish-dominated capitalist Britain with the successes of National Socialist Germany. archive.org/details/WilliamJoyceTwilightOverEngland
>The Case for Germany: A Study of Modern Germany by Arthur Pillans Laurie >a view of National-Socialist Germany by a Scottish scholar inside Hitler's Third Reich. archive.org/details/TheCaseForGermany
can someone explain why natSOC would be better then every other from of soc. ?!?!
isn´t Soc in itself bullshit?
Jonathan Campbell
One important difference is that the taxes you pay will only benefit your race, and not all the other people not contributing.
Also the NatSoc socialism is different from the "normal" socialism/leninism/communism. For instance, private property ownership and also parts of capitalism build in it.
Also the "social programms" financed by the state with taxes are used to improve the nation, i.e. sport programms for the youth etc. You might get housing and food if you don´t have a job, but it is not a complete redistribution like in socialism.
Basically it strifes of the idea that your life will be worse if your nation becomes weak. Hence they also removed mentally ill from society because nobody wants to pay for that shit.
Both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were examples of Totalitarian regimes in which all activity is controlled and managed by the state for the purposes of the state. Everyone was supposed to obey and sacrifice for the good of the country in both cases. Both regimes were willing to kill off any of their own citizens that did not fit into the plan. The main difference was in Nazi Germany profits were shared with the business owners and in the Soviet Union the businesses were owned by the state so the profits went to the party elite exclusively.
Marxist Socialism: People working for the good of everyone with profits (in a manner of speaking) shared by everyone who is working, driven by market demands.
National Socialism: People working for the good of the country with profits going to the owners of companies, driven by the needs of the state with all conflict between classes suppressed by a heavy-handed state. With the addition that people couldn´t just enrich themselfs as much as they want. If the worker is exploited, the state will come and force him to increase pay/change working conditions and so on. "everything for the race/nation".
Cooper Myers
And to add to that: The socialism part was build into it for two reasons. One was basically the love for your own people that are more important than others. And the second one is always the form of control. Keep people happy through gibsmedats and put it into good propaganda. That´s why it worked good in the end, people are more inclined to give their taxes for your own race instead of random people. Race collectivism.
You could remove the socialist part and you´d get closer to fascism. But then you´d need a bigger state controlling the people (if your leadership sucks).
Christian Taylor
didn´t the gestapo in a way control the people ?
Jack Hernandez
>Both regimes were willing to kill off any of their own citizens that did not fit into the plan how is this good again?
Caleb Ross
You had the gestapo yes, just like in any form of government a body that controls the people. How else would you make sure that chaos isn´t created?
The people were still free and could do what they wanted, except going against the government in public (in private nobody cared). Bit like the current holocaust denial laws. Maybe you mistake that with the Stasi from east germany where you literally had neighbours listening to your shit and reporting you to the government.
>how is this good again? People that can´t contribute by nature get removed so they are not a burden to the others. Could you explain to me why this is bad without using any wishy washy moral highground "logic"?
Oliver Lee
>People that can´t contribute by nature get removed so they are not a burden to the others. Could you explain to me why this is bad without using any wishy washy moral highground "logic"?
if an other "ideologie" comes up and more then 50% support it would you support the notion to kill yourself if you are a burden to this new society?
even if you did not harm anyone direktly?
if you kill people for thinking dif. ... i really can´t see the overall dif. to communism
Jaxson Reed
Daily reminder that nazis killed by far more Europeans than any other group