Sup Forums when we consider the actual policies of National Socialism in the 3rd Reich, am I right to say, it was like modern day Scandinavian socialism, but instead of embracing a globalist multiculturalist, consumerist ideology it embraced nationalist, homogeneous, self dependent core economics?
So really not very right wing conservative at all despite their love of tradition and culture in a moral way, the actual system was socialist (even anti monarchy)
Other urls found in this thread:
31.media.tumblr.com
ub.edu
townhall.com
jstor.org
mises.org
youtu.be
youtube.com
youtube.com
pitt.edu
twitter.com
Meh.
National Socialism is like right wing socialism.
its neither left or right wing its a centrist movement
OP is an idiot.
YES, NS WAS ANTI-CAPITALIST YOU FUCKING GENIUS.
It was called the "third way" for a reason. A supposed rejection of capitalism and communism, so basically wahtever the fuck Hitler felt like doing.
Economically left-wing but socially right-wing.
Damn, why's the swastika so pretty?
It always intrigued me. It's so symmetric.
so is it left wing nationalism or centrist nationalism.
sorry just trying to work it out
no need to call me idiot
People need to stop trying to talk about 30s German politics in the frame of modern American politics.
I didn't mention USA. You are projecting internal feels.
Other question Sup Forums, as we are now kind of stuck with multiracial western countries, could a form of National Socialism potentially work in the modern day, with our minority populations told to embrace the selfless patriotism for the betterment of the Nation or leave if you place your loyalty to a religion or distant homeland over the Nation you live in.
and would such a compromise ever be considered or accepted by our fundamentalist, white supremacist natsoc brothers and sisters?
I thought the point of Nazi ideology was to fight against an already prevalent concept of multiculturalism within country, a to each there own way of life.
centrist authoritarian
This really. NS was more of a spiritual movement than anything else. Hitler had no rigid economic or social plan. The endgame was to bring about the uberman so whatever that would take NS did.
'isms' when followed blindly to their conclusions, never work out for the best. People never behave as expected
By the way fascism was a French concept derived from national syndicalism and adopted by italians and spanish. Mussolini's ideology was fascism proper, a materialist ideology, whereas NS was a spiritual movement using materialism as means to an end.
hence all the "blood and soil" stuff
Left wing nationalism would be something like Strasserism or even Stalinism. Fascism is basically centre-right nationalism.
I don't believe so, it radically changed the actual system, via laws. They had brilliant plans for the economy and society.
The alleged ideals of a 'Master Race' have been vastly hyped and twisted by the victorious allied powers almost as much as the 6 million gassing holocaust
That's left wing globalism/communism you're describing. Stalin wanted to expand and over throw other states.
>I don't believe so, it radically changed the actual system, via laws. They had brilliant plans for the economy and society.
That doesn't negate what I said. I already mentioned Hitler used matierialism as a means to an end.
I've read enough of mein kampf (before falling asleep) and his speeches to know how much of an influence nietzsche had on Hitler (or at least his interpretation of his ideas). Ayranism and Germanic empowerment were central to NS after Hitler joined and changed NSDAP
>Other question Sup Forums, as we are now kind of stuck with multiracial western countries, could a form of National Socialism potentially work in the modern day, with our minority populations told to embrace the selfless patriotism for the betterment of the Nation or leave if you place your loyalty to a religion or distant homeland over the Nation you live in.
I don't believe so. National Socialism does not promote civic nationalism, for example, the average patriot in the United States feels today.
Ethnic nationalism is at the core of the National Socialism, as it believes that the cohesion and solidarity of a nation is the only way to truly create a state that is forged from the will of the people, and that the nation and the state are an inseparable force and of one mind. Different ethnic groups are incompatible with this ideal, as different groups will always look for their own interests, as is at the foundation of mankind's highly social nature.
In our hearts and minds, we are still tribalists that identity, trust, and bond with most closely with our own blood kinsmen. This applies to all races and peoples of the Earth within their respective nations.
National Socialism is a highly collectivist ideology that attempts to form a society that has the potential to form the highest cultural expressions of mankind and eventually refine man into the best possible expression of himself that he and his trusted nation of kinsmen can be.
Defining it as either left or right wing does a disservice to analyzing the movement because it combines elements of what the average person might consider to be either "left" or "ring" wing ideology. An earlier poster stated that it was at its foundation a spiritual movement that sought to give the nation its best conditions for bringing about the ubermensch. Note that Hitler never directly quoted inspiration from Nietzsche, but the movement shares many ideological premises with his work.
>Stalin wanted to expand and over throw other states.
True, which is why I was sort of reluctant to include him. However if you compare him to Trotsky for example, Stalin wanted to create a fortress USSR rather than pursue the goal of global revolution.
That was one of the reasons he barely supported the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War.
>That's left wing globalism/communism you're describing
What?
That's a fantastic post friend. Tell me, do you have any formal education on this matter or have you studied this yourself?
>Defining it as either left or right wing does a disservice to analyzing the movement because it combines elements of what the average person might consider to be either "left" or "ring" wing ideology. An earlier poster stated that it was at its foundation a spiritual movement that sought to give the nation its best conditions for bringing about the ubermensch. Note that Hitler never directly quoted inspiration from Nietzsche, but the movement shares many ideological premises with his work.
I wish more people knew/thought about it in this way
Some have written that the SS was essentially the prototypal emergence of the ubermensch - a collection of people transcending even race and political ideology. Fascinating stuff.
Thank you very much! My interest began when I started getting interested in the second World War, and came upon the life of Albert Speer. Through reading his writing, I then became interested in the ideology of National Socialism itself.
Recommended reading for those that are interested, feel free to ask any questions about the specific books:
Inside the Third Reich - Albert Speer
The Spandau Diaries - Albert Speer
Mein Kampf - Adolf Hitler
Hitler's Second Book (German Foreign Policy) - Adolf Hitler
Hitler's Revolution - Richard Tedor
Hitler's Table Talk - Martin Bormann
The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich - William L. Shirer
Thank you for taking the time to clear that up for me. Much appreciated.
I'd say the reason NS is classified as right-wing is because of its connection to fascism and also a lot of neo-Nazis are right wingers (whether or not this really has anything to do with it, idk).
After the Treaty of Versailles, Germany's economy got fucked and Hitler gave the German people hope. The Nazis kicked out the Jewish bankers and shop owners and started to print there own money.
The thing is we never really got to see where the Reich was going to take its economy because they lost the war. I don't think they'd necessarily be free market, but remember the Nazis hated Stalin and the Stalinist Bolsheviks, so I'd wager that communism was off the table.
By the way, for anyone that doesn't quite have the constitution to stick with Mein Kampf, read Hitler's Second Book (German Foreign Policy). It's a much shorter and more digestible presentation of National Socialism and will give you a great deal of insight into what Hitler really believed. If you found it valuable, then try to tackle Mein Kampf.
Can someone here give me the For Dummies analysis if "The Greatest Story Never Told" is factually accurate or not
Results on Google are definitely biased
It's mostly legit. It just leaves out all of Hitlers personality flaws
For once a serious and interesting discussion on pol. Thanks for the reading list.
Your image encapsulates perfectly the spiritual and cultlike personality of national socialism.
I always found Hitler's last words, as Berlin crumbled, regarding the fate of the German people perplexing until I understood the nature of national socialism. For Hitler to say "the german people deserve this fate" speaks volumes of the struggle for perfection one can only obtain through victory. Very darwinian imo, almost as if he gave them the option for transcendence if only they could obtain and keep it.
Left wing nationalism is Stalinism
Just to throw it out there: Alistair Crowley claimed to have given Hitler the idea for the Swastika. Another nod towards spirituality.
>Can someone here give me the For Dummies analysis if "The Greatest Story Never Told" is factually accurate or not
You're wise to ask. Just keep in mind that you are viewing media that is intended to make you believe a very specific way. My main criticism with the documentary is that it is heavy-handed which will turn away the average viewer. If something doesn't seem to add up, note it down and do your research. Pen and paper is a great way to do this.
>I always found Hitler's last words, as Berlin crumbled, regarding the fate of the German people perplexing until I understood the nature of national socialism. For Hitler to say "the german people deserve this fate" speaks volumes of the struggle for perfection one can only obtain through victory.
I like this perspective a lot and have found myself thinking of this final statement similarly. While it's easy to take his turnabout comment of his own nation as sour grapes, I think there's more to it than that. His statement aligns with National Socialist doctrine. Paraphrasing, but I know part of that whole quote is him stating that the Slavic peoples proved to be the stronger race.
Do you have a contact address you'd be willing to share for questions?
Also meant to reply to
Joseph Goebbels gave speeches on how he thought that if they succeeded in their quests then they would do well in the eyes of God. They said that they worship national socialism, and Christian values, but not necessarily any defined Christian church
This. Centrist authoritarianism, to be precise.
NatSoc > Capitalism > dogshit > Gommunism
Yes and that is why it was great. (((Consumerism))) and (((capitalism))) are IDEOLOGICALLY IDENTICAL to (((social progressivism))) and (((multi-culturalism))). Well done for finally waking up, you pointless little prick.
>Do you have a contact address you'd be willing to share for questions?
Thank you, but no. I enjoy participating in these threads when I see them come up and will gladly answer what I can here. I still have a lot to learn but the literature I provided in an earlier post laid the foundation.
>Hitler's Table Talk - Martin Bormann
To add yet again, I highly recommend Hitler's Table Talk. The reason I found it so valuable is because it contains transcriptions of Hitler's conversations with guests at dinners, meetings, etc. and can be read in small segments. This was very helpful for reading small, understandable examples of National Socialism in practice. You also get a sense for how his attitude and outlook changed over the course of the war.
The left- and right political spectrum is bullshit anyway. You can't place every ideology out there on this simplistic left-to-right scale.
Hitler's war against international jewry was not left vs right, after all the kikes running the banks weren't left-wing, they're laissez-faire capitalism and all that. Just like the current conflict we're facing now, it's about Nationalism vs Globalism.
Globalism seeks to basically eliminate nation states, or at least the relevance of them. This is so that the multinationals can control everything, everywhere. No pesky authoritarian state, like the Third Reich, saying "fuck off".
After the threat to globalism (Hitler) was defeated, the globalists felt unstoppable. Until recent times with the current rise of nationalism in the western world.
If there's gonna be a WW3, it's gonna be Nationalist states vs Globalist-controlled 'states' (those'll only be countries on paper, at that point). It won't be some silly, artificial "Left vs Right" thing.
The most devastating effect of the defeat of national socialism and the victory of Bolshevism, international socialism and World Jewry is, not the defeat of a military power, or the loss of land for my country, or even the millions of dead. The real catastrophe is the metaphysical and spiritual defeat and obliteration of Europe and its Holy Spirit itself. It was a fight not only about world dominance or between superpowers, it was about the future of mankind and its spiritual and human condition. What we have inherited was neither freedom nor liberation, neither triumph of morality nor evangelization of the soul. It was oblivion and the death of the European himself which lived in Rome, which lived in Greece and which lived for a brief moment in Germany again.
As Rome bows down before St. Paul, so does the world bow down before Goldman Sachs, Holly Wood and Google. And what we are left with is a world alien to us, a life unnatural to us and a condition degrading for us.
As Himmler put it: Germany will have the choice between becoming the greatest empire which ever was or nothingness . - So then, we got nothingness.
>The most devastating effect of the defeat of national socialism and the victory of Bolshevism, international socialism and World Jewry is, not the defeat of a military power, or the loss of land for my country, or even the millions of dead. The real catastrophe is the metaphysical and spiritual defeat and obliteration of Europe and its Holy Spirit itself.
Whether one sympathizes or despises National Socialism, there can be common ground found here. It wasn't just the Germans that lost - it was all of Europe and her descendants. This is a very important point to understand framing the modern times that we live in now.
I mean I definitely think that Nazism has been vilified more than it should have but I don't reject the fact that they did what they did.
Whether it was 13 people or 13 mil that died in the Holocaust, we have SS members that worked at camps like Auschwitz that talk about the gas chambers and such.
I mean, just compare the sheer difference between the people that died under the Reich and then the people that died under the Stalinist regime.
But, Stalin was on the winning side of the war, so history tends to turn the other cheek.
>While it's easy to take his turnabout comment of his own nation as sour grapes
This is exactly what I was taught in school and how I imagine most people view it. On the surface Hitler and his ideas seem easy to explain but most are just scratching at the surface.
>Whether one sympathizes or despises National Socialism, there can be common ground found here. It wasn't just the Germans that lost - it was all of Europe and her descendants. This is a very important point to understand framing the modern times that we live in now.
Especially now. Look at the mass migrant crisis in the EU countries. People are literally being raped (both literally and metaphorically) in their own sovereign nations and then being told its racist to not want a bunch of immigrants in your own homeland.
And the globalists/progressives get away with it because Europe is predominantly white and the migrants are obviously from Africa, Middle East, etc.
While I think that NatSoc and Hitler definitely fucked up in their management of immigrants (i.e. they definitely did not need to kill people because they were "different"), they merely perceived the threat as more dire than we do today.
Everything that goes around, comes around, and I predict that in the close future we are going to see an explosion of events regarding the migrant crisis. And it won't be pretty.
These are good points all around. A mentality like this is important to really start understanding what this fascinating movement was really all about.
Interesting. This goes hand in hand with Himmler's obsession with folklore and nazi mysticism.
>So really not very right wing conservative
you've set yourself to have a non-sensical or non-existent definition of "right wing" if you're going to shoehorn natsoc into the "left wing" box. There's no way to consider natsoc left-wing and remain intellectually honest, especially not with how they purged any actual socialists from the party fairly early after gaining power.
I know autistic libertarians -- especially (((ROTHBARDIANS))) and (((AYN RANDIANS))) -- treat it as a tenet of their faith, but its objectively false. The only way to consider them leftist is to pretend Marxism didn't exist, and wasn't what it was, and that "statism = leftism". Convenient only for libertaradians.
>“’Socialist’ I define from the word ‘social’ meaning in the main ‘social equity’. A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency.
>Our adopted term ‘Socialist has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. ((((((Marxism)))))) is anti-property; true socialism is not. ((((((Marxism)))))) places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.”
-- Adolf Hitler 1938
>Against the Mainstream: Nazi privatization in 1930's Germany (Germa Bel)
ub.edu
>townhall.com
>jstor.org
>mises.org
youtu.be
What's most telling to me is not even the migration crisis of 2015 and all its implications. It is the very nature of the state I live in today and every day I have to have in mind that it was created as the antithesis to and erradication of Nazism. Looking at its injustice, decadence, weakness, cultural nihilism, lack of identity or sense of self worth, of a destiny and faith in ones own people, makes me question the narrative about NatSoc. A LOT.
>A mentality like this is important to really start understanding what this fascinating movement was really all about.
Well it's the topic that no one wants to speak about - the white elephant in the room, if you will. The fact of the matter is, if you look at Nationalsozialismus and its BASIC, BAREBONES core values, its very much about pride in your country and supporting your fellow countrymen.
Europe is currently in a critical time in their life. Angela Merkel and the EU continue to allow mass migration from places like Africa and the Middle East into West European nations.
These people are being raped, literally and metaphorically, in their own sovereign homeland.
Yet, when they try to speak up about it, they are immediately shut down as racists and xenophobes - in their own country! Look, I'm not one to really entertain conspiracy theories, but I ask you, why is when there's ever a crisis like this (whether its the bankers running the world, etc), the Jew is always involved?
I want to make clear, I don't hold any negative or hateful animosity towards a person or people just because of their beliefs or the color of our skin. We are all humans, part of the same animal kingdom.
It's kind of like the comparison that not all Muslims are radical Islamic terrorists, but all radical Islamic terrorists are Muslim.
Yet, as a white person, I cannot speak out about that. I cannot bring an issue to the table that I think directly places the life of my heritage and my people in direct jeopardy.
This is why you have people like Hitler and current neo-Nazis. I'd argue to say that maybe most of those people that are now part of white nationalist groups or neo-Nazi groups were once people that tried to take the peaceful route, but MSM and minorities wouldn't listen to them and instead imposed "White shame" and "White privilege".
NatSoc was a progressive movement in reality. Remember that Nationalism originated in jacobin France and was anti-aristocracy and monarchy. Nazis disliked monarchy as well. And they disliked christianity, especially roman catholicism
Anyway, every ideology is in the end a negation of any existence. This is why NatSoc is a war ideology, because it can last only for short, because it doesn't affirm the world, it only prepares for one political act, like for instance a war. Once that goal is reached, NatSoc loses any legitimacy, because it's too empty and shallow
Anybody who wants to be treated seriously must adhere to classical political thought because it is affirming towards the world
NatSoc and ideologies = suicide
Christianity and classical political thought = life and existence
>highly recommend Hitler's Table Talk
I would regard those with healthy skepticism
Clarify. Are you making an argument against NatSoc or for it?
I'm not claiming that NatSoc is good - it was used for evil purposes and was a very dark road to walk down filled with hate.
But no economic/political system is inherently evil. It is on the individuals that use systems of governance that dictate whether or not its "evil". It's all in how its used.
Pretty much.
I am making an argument for it, but an even stronger argument against the current condition of the German state. youtube.com
>And they disliked christianity, especially roman catholicism
Hmm they may have disliked the church but on appearance they cosied up to them very much.
>Anyway, every ideology is in the end a negation of any existence. This is why NatSoc is a war ideology, because it can last only for short, because it doesn't affirm the world, it only prepares for one political act, like for instance a war. Once that goal is reached, NatSoc loses any legitimacy, because it's too empty and shallow
I'm not so sure about that. The way I see it war was the early phase; the preparation and ground work for making way for the key goal of attempting to create a model society and the model man. I seem to remember one of hitler's men having a "thousand year plan".
>Nationalism originated in jacobin Franc
I think Louis the 16th, as a quintessential symbol of French nationalism, would beg to differ:
>Je m'en vais, mais l'État demeurera toujours.
I am going away, but the State shall remain
>L'Etat, c'est moi.
I am the State
Sounds pretty nationalistic for a monarch...
Also, 'Rule Britannia!' was written in 1740. The Jacobins were 1789. It couldn't have started with the Jacobins, too many examples of nationalism before then.
I remember our history teacher having us discuss whether Henry VII started the ball rolling for nationalism after he created a standing army and went after the nobility who had their own separate armies, and he was 15th century.
>but on appearance they cosied up to them very much
Yup. Goebbels wanted to kill August von Galen and Dachau is a place of martyrdom of catholic priests. Also the nazi Lugenpresse has depicted catholic priests in pornographic contexts
>the preparation and ground work for making way for the key goal of attempting to create a model society and the model man
Ideologies like NatSoc can't exist without a war, because they don't have plans for the time of peace. The only political thought that has thoroughly described times of peace is the classical thought. Affirming peace = affirming the world
When you speak of "preparing ground work", you're describing EVERY typical ideology. It promises everything what's best and a paradise on Earth, but there's only one little condition before that can happen - everything must be destroyed. That's the feature of every ideology and the goal of every ideology - destroy and deny. This is why the Left is so good in destroying things but terrible at building things - Soviet Union is an example
The word nationalism originated during jacobin France. Afterwards nationalism got its new meaning in the late 19 century thx to french writers like Maurice Barres. So there are two nationalisms - the jacobin and what can be described as anticosmopolitanism
Whether Sup Forums likes it or not Trump was running around giving a lot of leftist rhetoric, insomuch as outflanking Hillary from the left with his populist message.
>The word nationalism originated during jacobin France
No, it originated with Johann Gottfried Herder in Prussia.
pitt.edu
>When you speak of "preparing ground work", you're describing EVERY typical ideology. It promises everything what's best and a paradise on Earth, but there's only one little condition before that can happen - everything must be destroyed. That's the feature of every ideology and the goal of every ideology - destroy and deny. This is why the Left is so good in destroying things but terrible at building things - Soviet Union is an example
I suppose it depends on what you define as an ideology. Is democracy an ideology? Republicanism? Monarchism? I don't think they they're based on destruction.
Also, while I don't know what plans Hitler et al had for after their victory, I expect they did have some plan for peace time.
Volk =/= Nation
Volk is more like peasantry, lower social ladder people, something like that
Germans have never had any strong representative entities so you can barely even speak about a proper german nationalism
>I expect they did have some plan for peace time
Soviets also had some plan for peace time
>Is democracy an ideology? Republicanism? Monarchism?
No. They are spontanious forms of governments
Ideology is based on the denial of human nature which is equal to denial of realism
Thus every ideology is denying the existence of the world. Catholicism means affirming and embracing the existence of the world
...
>Volk =/= Nation
Is your English poor, or you are just lazy and not reading closely? Herder used both words interchangeably.
Don't be one of those typical Sup Forumstards that can never admit he is wrong even when its rubbed in your face with solid sources. It's embarrassing.
holy shit this image is so fucking based imma spam it every-fucking-where
>Ideology is based on the denial of human nature which is equal to denial of realism
That's an interesting definition, I like it.
>No. They are spontanious forms of governments
Not sure how they're spontaneous though.
>Catholicism means affirming and embracing the existence of the world
Ok but it's also the embracing of unfalsifiable ideas, though, just like all religions. I take it you must be a devout catholic or theist of some sort.
>stalin's doctrin was literally called socialism-in-one-country
/thread
there are many bankers who are pure anglo. Soros is atheist, and confessed about stealing from jews that were going deported.
You should judg people from their actions. This Jewry is the best meme ever invented to shield the real evil dinasties.
what
This text explicitly says that Volk = peasantry, so very similar as the "3rd estate" of the Jacobins. And btw. the usage of word "Naród" in polish is waaay older than some Herder guy
Anyway this text proves my point that Volk is merely peasantry, not an actual "cultural nation"
What wouldve happened if stalin hadnt rose to power and warped lenins ideals? Was his system so flawed that if it wasnt stalin it wouldve been someone else? or was stalin a special kind of asshole who took advantage of his relationship with lenin?
manbaby