National Socialist Platform

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program

Maybe racial purity is the first priority of NatSoc? Idiot.

You really had to expose yourself early-on, didn't you. Fuck off.

Thanks, that is a place to at least get me started. I will go from the citations.

Look up the Nordic resistance movement and their party program. I'm not sure if it is available in English though.

Have a blessed day and fight for the white race because NatLib is just American National Socialism dummy.

You mean in his speeches you retard. Or were those written by jews and traitors?

Just search Volksgemeinschaft. It´s the ideology that National Socialism is based around. In short it glorifies "blood and soil" (the ideallic peasant lifestyle), "one nation one race" (self-evident) and more emphasis on culture over everything else, Hitler once said that you could not be a Christian and also a German. Hitler attempted to make life good for workers (through holiday schemes, work for the unemployed and the nationalisation of Germany's banks) but his real aim was to encourage Germans to live in the countryside as this was truly German, working in large cities and in factories pollutes culture. This ultimately failed as more people left to work in cities than went to the countryside but, in the long run, it may have worked. "One nation and one people" was enforced through the creation of a police state and a nation of informants. In Hitler's mind, and this is undoubtedly true, people that did not fit in ruined relationships for everyone around them; for example, a quiet neighbour that did not leave their house and was generally a nuisance to the village that they lived in would have been declared "undesirable" and would have likely been arrested and sent to concentration camps. Hitler understood that for a nation to work and prosper, what was needed was one nation with one culture and, ultimately. one goal. Groups such as Jews, blacks, gypsies and undesirables hindered this and had to be arrested and transported to where they ultimately came from, such as Israel, Africa or Romania. I am not a hundred percent sure what was done with undesirables but many mentally ill people were killed inb4 kike shill in the T4 Euthanasia program.

You just divided by zero, faggot. Stop shilling your special snowflake "ideology", nobody buys it. You've being rekt in every single debate on this board, give up.

Proof or gtfo.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relations_between_Nazi_Germany_and_the_Arab_world
Citations at the bottom for the autistic ones out there.

Our political views
The Nordic Resistance Movement’s goals and visions have been summarized in nine points. These are:
1. Immediately stop mass immigration, and as soon as possible initiate the repatriation of the majority of peoples that are not of North European descent. These should in the most humane way possible be sent back to their respective homelands or regions nearby.
2. With all means possible work towards reconquering power from the global Zionist elite that by force and finance occupy a large part of our world.
3. Create a Nordic self-sufficient state with a common military, common currency and central bank, as well as common overarching laws. Memberships in The European Union and other similar hostile associations will immediately be terminated.
4. Create a powerful state with strong involvement and influence from the people. Important positions should be assigned after competence, and the goal of the state should be to work for the people’s welfare and survival. The state will have an extensive freedom of speech.
5. Nordic mass media shall be owned exclusively by citizens of the new North. Domestic as well as foreign media that act and behave hostile towards the Nordic people, shall be banned. An all to concentrated ownership shall be counteracted.
6. Create a modern society in harmony with the natural order. Laws regulating animal welfare and protection shall be extensive, and prioritize ethics over profits. Nature and natural resources shall be used wisely, keeping the future in mind. The freedom to roam, or everyman’s right, shall be protected.
7. Establish a National Socialist society where the distribution of resources should be done with the entire population in mind – the strong as well as the weak. Every citizen shall have the opportunity to reach and fulfil their full potential. Social security will provide citizens with both rights, and obligations. Basic infrastructure should be owned and controlled by the state. Business life and innovative spirit shall be encouraged.
8. Introduce national conscription and expand the military. All who have completed service in the Nordic military service will keep their weapon and gear. Each citizen should be able to aid in the defense of the nation towards domestic as well as foreign enemies.
9. Create a state based on justice and integrity where all citizens are equal before the law. Educated attorneys should work in the legal system. A people’s court should be established to put on trial grave cases of treason towards the people.

Not an argument, try again.

Then post the fucking citations, I'm not going through this bullshit just to find jewish books or something like that.

I only post on this board.

I didn't come up with it.

If you can't come up with with an argument of why American whites can't be NatSoc and call it what we want for it to be implemented, that we would love to hear it.

P O T T E R Y
O
T
T
E
R
Y

In terms of economic and trade policy, the nationalisation of banks and the rejection of the international bank was one main one. I believe the way that they managed to spend so much money on programs was through the creation of a private business that they borrowed huge amounts of money with before defaulting on those loans, which pissed off the international bank to no end. You'll have to look that up though because I am not a hundred percent certain of this. Horde tactics were also used in the sense that Hitler knew that Germany was losing money but was comfortable in the fact that, through the uniting of German peoples, he would be able to pay the money back, however we do not know what comes after that as the Second World War started. Now trade, Hitler didn't want a single bit of trade, he wanted a self-reliant Germany (hence the emphasis on trying to encourage more people to become peasantry) without any help or relation with any other country. Hitler wanted a strong military to deter invasion and a huge peasant class to preserve culture and feed the military.

National Socialism (and Fascism) was a direct answer to the internationalist nature of Marxism and it's impossible to understand why it arose if you don't know what Marxism practiced.

This shit is probably going to be long, so I'll subdivide it.

Marxism

The core Marxist idea is that of class warfare. In the Marxist conception of history, since ancient times, there has been the capitalist/ruling class and the proletariat, which only survived by selling its labor. Historically, proles were called "serfs", "employees", "craftsmen" (a very low-prestige caste in the past), but the idea always was the same: the proles sold their labor to the owners, while the owners controlled the means of production, that is, land, factories, machines. This owner class was seen as essentially parasitic and dictatorial, and Marx envisioned that the proletariat would eventually rise up, take control of the means of production, and institute an egalitarian society.

I haven't read through Das Kapital yet, so I don't know how Marx himself envisioned this ownership of the means of production, but modern day Communists fall into the collectivist or the anarchist camp: the collectivists want central planning, where production is decided on a political level, whereas the anarchists want free enterprise, but the abolition of wage labor. Under the anarchist regime, companies would be run as co-ops in which bosses would be appointed by the workers themselves and everyone had a say in how the company is run (essentially, they'd be private republics).

Alienation

What's so bad about wage labor? - one might ask. In Marx's conception, which he inherited from the German Idealist Hegel, he saw the natural, autonomous production of good as a "throwing oneself into" the world of objects: you, the subject, the person, imposed your will on the world by shaping objects within it; you threw yourself into it.

Wage labor corrupted this act in his view, as the wage laborer was robbed of his will: had to do what his boss wanted, and he had to produce what his boss wanted. In effect, he became a will-less object, and thus, alienated from himself. By abolishing wage labor and giving back democratic control over (the means of) production to the workers, he hoped to undo this alienation and return us to a sort of primordial innocence, only with factories and cars instead of flint arrowheads.

Leninism-Stalinism

Though Marx himself hypothetisized that a temporary dictatorship would be necessary to 'safeguard the revolution' and to prevent capitalist sabotage - for surely, the capitalists in still capitalist countries would be much afraid of a socialist society and would do everything to undermine it -, Lenin and Stalin made the dictatorship permanent.

They "specified", if we want to be generous, that the ownership of the means of production need not be direct and that it was thus OK if the individual worker had no say in the matter. Trade unions was abolished, since they were regarded as unnecessary and production was decided by 'experts'.

Uncharitably, one could say that the Soviet Union became an utterly anti-Communist country: wage labor still existed, private enterprise was forbidden, and you had no say in the running of the country or your company.

Their policies accordingly alienated many Socialists abroad, who accused them of betraying the revolution. This is the central theme of Orwell's 1984.

Also stop being such a fucking newfag. If you want to understand something go read a book about it and dont just look at infographs and memes. These are only for the newcomers.

It's about setting up everyone in society to fulfill their absolute potential while recognizing that one's role/potential will vary but still loving/respecting the humblest of laborers because of blood bond.

In practice, the Third Reich was a bit more of an 'involved' state due to circumstances, i.e. Jewish vermin within and with-out trying to wipe the German people from the face of this planet. Wartime measures are a lot different than peacetime ( Germany was in war the moment Hitler came to power ).

That's pretty based user, heil og sæl

Some racial purity stuff.

Read this book by Richard Tedor.

PDF and EPUB in the "individual files folder":
mega.nz/#F!B4dB2SzQ!h_pMC30v2a_y31iD0dy0sg

Syndicalism

A few short words on syndicalism: the anarchist system I described above was syndicalism. No wage labor, companies are managed by the workers themselves (through appointments of managers are possible).

Syndicalism had been around during Lenin's and Mussolini's time. A well-known worker-run company that's around today is Mondragon, based in the Basque region, and it's active in a number of fields.

Mussolini and Fascism

In his early years, Mussolini had been a socialist, but, like so many, he became disillusioned with Marxism following the betrayal of the revolution in the Soviet Union and the lackluster results in Western Europe.

Eventually, he abandoned Marxism's egalitarianism wholly, instead embracing the bastardized concept of Nietzsche's Übermensch. Nietzsche himself had conceived of the Übermensch as a sort of guru who was free from the constraints of social convention and would create his own value-system, but in the popular mind, this became bastardized into the idea who know today: somebody who's strong, cruel, unempathetic, intelligent.

Mussolini's central criticism of Marxism was this: the world revolution that had been prophesied had not occurred during WWI, despite Marxists' predictions. Moreover, it would never occur. The Marxists had been incorrect, according to him, in believing that class solidarity would win out and that the proletariat would refuse in that pointless, imperialistic war. Instead, the workers had rallied around their respective nations and willingly, even enthusiastically slaughtered each other. According to Mussolini, placing one's faith in a global class consciousness was fundamentally misplaced, as the typical worker in Spain had no sympathy whatsoever with the typical worker in France, or some peasant in Ghana, or some Chinaman. Though their circumstances might have been similar, ultimately, blood and culture provided the stronger ties, and only these ties would be able to inspire people to action.

With the scrapping of class consciousness, class conflict, too, went out by implication. If the glue of a society was blood & culture, then it would be idiotic wage class war against one's own kin. Instead, Fascists developed the idea of class cooperation, with a body being the most fitting analogy: a body has many different parts that fulfill different purposes, but ultimately, they must all work together if the whole is to survive.

To get more specific, Fascism was the merger of state and corporate power. The corporation had the right to exist as an employer, but it was obliged to serve the collective interests of the people. One was still allowed to employ wage labor, but one would not have been able to, say, peddle porn or homosexuality to the people.

One would be justified in seeing remarkable similarities in the practices of Fascism and Leninism-Stalinism, despite the wildly divergent theories behind them.

If you are wondering or waiting to see if anyone is reading, I am. You present the info well.

National Socialism

National Socialism is very much related to Fascism and could even be seen as a uniquely German variant of it. Sadly, there isn't too much pre-WW2 theory on it and we have to take most of what we know from Hitler's speeches and policies.

National Socialists inherited the idea of the nation as an organic whole, in which all classes had to cooperate for the common good, from the Fascists, but they were also considerably to the left of the Fascists.

I quote the party program of the NSDAP (avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/nsdappro.asp):

The NS did permit private enterprise, like the Fascists, and they even permitted wage labor, but they were against what we would term the financial sector. There would be no financial machination, no interest you could derive from simply having stocks, certainly no derivatives. The central bank didn't simply issue money to private banks, and money wasn't backed by gold either; money was only issued in exchange for produced goods and performed work.

What further distinguishes NS from Marxists and even from Fascists was their extreme ethnocentrism - in fact, the ethno-neutral, internationalist nature of Marxism was precisely what Hitler hated so much about Marxism.

Again from the part program:

The NS essentialized the nation: if you weren't part of it, you couldn't become part of it, nor would you have any say in how it would be run. This very notably distinguishes National Socialism from liberal democracy, and eliminates the reason liberal democracies have for importing foreigners: in a liberal democracy, foreigners are useful because they serve as voting blocks for certain parties, but under National Socialism, they are forever precluded from participating from public life and thus, there's no point in bringing them in.

National Socialist social policy

Despite not being Marxist in their economic outlook, the NS were quite to the left of social democrats: chief among their measures were
* paid vacation
* universal healthcare
* access to certain consumer goods like cars
* youth & communal programs.

The worker was not allowed to be stiffed. Everyone would be obligated to work, insofar as he was able, and everyone was to serve his country, but in return, the state was obligated to provide a good, dignified life to the people.

I was in the same place as you OP when I started to visit this place. The main mistake you do is that you try to look at National Socialism from the perspective of other "isms" and political parties. This is the key which you'd figure out eventually on your own but maybe I can fast forward that.

National Socialism unlike other ideologies or political movements does not focus on improving the state, or improving the economy etc. It focuses on improving the people. Therefore the state acts in what's in the best interest of the people, even if it would momentarily mean lower economic growth. Under national socialism the people don't serve the state but the state serves the people.

Everything within NatSoc focuses on the improvement of the native land, the people, the nature and resources that allow the people to grow and prosper. Therefore it cannot be set in stone what each individual policy is or should be.

I'm a Euro but I'm assuming you're American so I'll use the US as an example. The needs of say Alabama would be very different from the needs of say Wyoming. The state under NatSoc would have separate policies in place for both states while the over all goal and goals remain the same.

When Louisiana gets hit by a hurricane law and order, and the restoration of infrastructure might be priority number one, while in New York it might be to stop international media conglomerates from brainwashing the people. You see NatSoc is very fluid in the way it operates. It adapts to the immediate needs of the people and does so with the long term future of the people as the guiding principle.

This here is the key and it's also the main reason why NatSoc isn't so well defined and why there aren't that many programs etc. available on it.

When Hitler took over he set forth to improve the economic situation of the German people. To stop mass suicides, to bring people from the streets to a warm home. He created jobs by undertaking massive building project such as the Autobahn among others. He pushed industry to focus more on helping the society than just blindly focusing on greed. While at the same time allowing people to be successful and be rewarded for their work, intelligence etc. Massive programs to the youth were started to allow them to learn basic needs for the life as an adult while freeing up time for parents to enjoy their lives.

The pic is very much illustrative of this all. Instead of sitting in an ivory tower dictating to the proletariate what to do, NatSoc gets its hands dirty and works with the people. And by doing so it also has its finger on the pulse of reality and not just a perceived reality.

...

National Socialism vs Liberalism and Marxism

One often hears from Marxists that NS are 'right-wing' and one often hears from liberals (I include all "centrist" parties of today in that category, regardless of leaning) that the 'Nazis were left-wing'.

As you can see, there's truth to both assertions: on the one hand, they had socialist policies that were unpalatable to liberals (and certainly to libertarians), but on the other, they emphatically rejected the worker's revolution and the class warfare advocated by Marxists.

Strasserism

Penultimately, let's talk a bit about Georg Strasser, a National Socialist and eventual enemy of Hitler who was killed in the Night of Long Knives in 1934. Strasser wasn't a Marxist per se, but he was much more radical in his economic policy than Hitler.

Whereas Hitler saw the Germans as a whole as essentially good - including the capitalists among them - and attributed most ills to Jewish influence, Strasser wanted wholly subjugate them.

I cannot speak to his motivations; perhaps he saw Hitler as naive, or as a traitor to socialism. In any case, when he saw that Hitler was collaborating with the industrialists and was moving away from point 11. of the party program I quoted above, he began to speak out against him.

Strasserist ideology isn't well developed, but, from what the Strasser brothers (Georg and Otto) wrote, we can regard it as almost-Marxism: they wanted to break up the large estates and establish a sort of guild system (similar to syndicalism, through on a country-wide basis). These guilds would've functioned democratically, but they would also have been large enough to enable central planning.

Some dispute whether Strasserism was distinct from National Socialism or whether it was just a more radical form of it. In any case, they called Hitler's rise to power a 'half-revolution' and wanted to go further in reorganizing the economy to serve national interests.

National Bolshevism

Finally: National Bolshevism. There's nothing inherently anti-racist or egalitarian in Marxism. It's one tenet, but it can be cut out, and when you do, you get National Bolshevism: Marxist economic policy, coupled with ethnocentrism.

ib4 our Trump shill mods delete or anchor the thread as they normally do these days. Long gone seem the good old days.

National Socialism is just another word for fascism. Fascism is a world view not a political ideology.

T-thanks.

I didn't include any criticism because everyone can imagine why the Marxist ideal of a world-wide workers' revolution, where niggers and street shitters join hands with Whitey, is midguided.

I just hope that after this election everything will go back to normal.

How do you do, fellow fascists?

Did Hitler ever engage in combat at the front in WW2?
If not, then that picture is complete bullshit.
In the end both leaders were what's shown in the top section of it.

National Socialism is race based, fascism is not. Or fascists will say race is spiritual not biological as in Mussolini/Evola

Fascism is a political ideology. National Socialism is a weltanschauung.

Aww your done?
You could have ended it funny like
Nationalist Libertarianism
A bunch of edgelord Americans got into question bitch fit about the world socialism and invented a new ideology which is National Socialism in a cheese burger wrapper to make them feel good.

Rosenberg also says that race is spiritual but not in a meme way that Mussolini/Evola (and Yockey) says it is.

Got into a* bitch fit

It is spiritual and biological, but Evola tried to downplay the biological part.

I understand that. The rhetoric in this thread about National Socialism, or fascism in general, is that its simply just a different esoteric ideology when in fact its not.

...

I really cant stand this National Libertarianism BS

Why? Why can't Americans be National Socialist too?

archive.org/details/FaithAndActionHitlerYouthPamphlet

archive.org/details/GottfriedFeder_TheProgramOfTheNSDAP

archive.org/details/GottfriedFederManifestoForTheAbolitionOfInterestSlavery1919

archive.org/search.php?query=terramare office

But here's the deal with the Feder stuff:
Most of it was never really implemented. Hitler kept Hjalmar Schacht's Freemason ass around (to placate the kikes) until the jig was up and the war was inevitable.

NatSoc is what we desperately need.

Tired of those bullshit skinhead "kosher nationalists" degenerate faggots.

I want virtue.

I want honor.

SIEG HEIL

ROCKWELL ROCKWELL ROCKWELL

They can't be NatSoc because they have no culture no definite race and no bonding with their soil and it's an unnaturally big country.

Yea, that is a point in favor of my argument.
Love the guy. He didn't completely agree with all the specifics of National Socialism, he was always careful to call it American National Socialism.

Thought experiment. Say that there was a politician running for office in America that was National Socialist in ideology. He however calls it, Founderism, "My ideology is making the country how the founders would have wanted it."
Would you have an issue with him gaining popularity and supporting him and the foundering ideology?

The Jews said the same thing about the Germans except they added the word should before have.
Even if it were the case with America, it isn't, shouldn't we strive to make it the case?

Strive to NOT* make

NatSoc just isnt for the US. You cant just make shit up and try to go full NatSoc on this made up stuff. Try something else like Fascism or something something founding fathers

Outside of the facts that Islam has some nigger-tier voodoo magic parts of it or that it's a majority shitskin religion, Islam is still infinitely better than cuckstianity. Also more muslims fought for Germany than brits ever did, its not hard to see why Hitler might have respected them.

Nice try, juden. Pisslame is a jewish plot practiced by mostly semites.

True, but between jew spawned religions, islam is still the only one that isn't entirely cucked. I'd really rather not pick between any semitic bullshit but if that is my only option I would pick islam over christianity every time.

So why can't it try Nationalist Libertarianism?

Who knew the eternal Jew hates the Christ?

Also before anyone (1)'s me or points out my changed ID, I got on my desktop so I could type better.

No leader engages in combat on the front line during war. That would be outright stupid. Hitler did serve on the front line in WWI.

I'm from Finland, and our Marshal Mannerheim didn't fight in the front lines, yet he was a distinguished soldier from before. He saved us form falling under communism like the rest of the countries bordering Russia.

I honestly can't see how your logic works here.

The only reasonable explanation to your comment is that you're a kike. So gas yourself.

>Had Charles Martel not been victorious at Poitiers […] then we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism, that cult which glorifies the heroism and which opens up the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world. - Adolf Hitler
t. (((Gerhart L. Weinberg)))
books.google.si/books?id=fk-aXlliu6cC&pg=PR6&lpg=PR6&dq=Cameron Weinberg Trevor Roper 2007&source=bl&ots=Ok0vC2EfQl&sig=RpCiSYuGEGxGh3ZesErnzHyDJeQ&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjWx8rV6YnOAhVFWhQKHdcSDBQQ6AEIJDAA#v=onepage&q=Cameron Weinberg Trevor Roper 2007&f=false

GAS YOURSEL

Read Mein Kampf and you'll be in the know.

Honestly Mein Kampf doesn't really illuminate the questions OP is asking unless you know what you're looking for.

Add "The myth of the 20th century" from Alfred Rosenberg. This guy was the lead nazi ideologist, helped Hitler write Mein Kampf and had a very thorough view of the history of the European people. Definitely a must-read.

Also OP this: theneworder.org/faq/

Nationalist* Libertarianism
The ist is important.

GAS YOURSELF
THE F IS IMPORTANT

Because "Nationalist Libertarianism" is retarded and contradictory

Wat

Only if you've got a bad education and if you think of libertarianism in the typical american way. Libertarianism is very much right.

Libertarianism is limited small government, and has nothing to do with gay rights and all that shit.

If I had to define myself in detail I'd say that I'm a Conservative Nationalist Minarchist.

Small government, a republican form of government with nationalism at it's core. A libertarian system does not mean free range for niggers and jews, it only does so if you want it. The same way you could have a Jewish National Socialist State.

I remember reading a few times that Rosenberg visited Hitler in jail multiple times, and helped him writing Mein Kampf.

I'd be fine with that. The founders wanted the US to be a white country and it worked pretty well when it was a white country. Would have worked even better if the blacks were sent back immediately and other non-whites were never let in.
archive.is/67r4R

You'd be better off combining Paleoconservatism with elements of National Socialism which is pretty much what Rockwell was doing.

Until you read Gottfried Feder's book on "Debt Interest Slavery" then you will have no idea what NatSoc is about because this book was written in 1919 before the founding of the DAP / NSDAP and it basically explains what NatSoc set out to achieve as an economic ideology. So READ THIS BOOK before you post here (click on the pdf link at the web page below to download it):

archive.org/details/GottfriedFederManifestoForTheAbolitionOfInterestSlavery

You have to understand that the founders of National Socialist ideology are Gottfried Feder and Dietrich Eckart and not Hitler (Feder and Eckart are for NS similar to what Marx and Engels are for Communism).

Just like Communism has a fight between Trotsky and Stalin, NatSoc has a fight between Hitler and Strasser.

So that you can understand what National Socialism is about and then you will understand that Hitler only implemented it half way and he did not stick literally to Gottfried Feder's manifesto or to the 25 point program (Hitler thought these ideas were general guidelines that he could change as he wanted to whereas the Strasser followers took Feder's book more literally and were upset that it was not fully implemented).

It's an anti-state ideology, which just doesn't add up with a nationalist will. Just give up.

Sage for derailed thread. OP asked for Natinal Socialism, fucking shills answer with "Hitler is bad so NS is bad" and "look my favourite ideology you never heard of you ignorant twat".

That seems a bit contradictory especially as German culture prizes quietness and order.

No it's not.

Source? Im not saying you are wrong i just have never heard of such thing. I can totally see him visiting but i find it hard to belive thet he would help him with the book. Maybe volume 2. I have heard that he was more of a narrator in that part.

I didn't mean he was a co-author, sorry, sometimes I have trouble with English.

I think "Nationalist Libertarianism" is retarded because it doesnt understand the deeper meaning of nationalism. Nationalism isnt fapping to a flag and racism.
I get what you guys want (and on the surface it isn't very bad at all) but it lacks the deeper understanding of blood, honor and spiritualism.
What "Nationalist Libertarianism" is advocating is but a mere political idea.
What National Socialism is advocating is an entire weltanschauung.

...

Hitler was a war hero during the Great War, he knows the struggles of the soldier.

Gas yourself.

Use this one instead archive.org/details/GottfriedFederTheGermanStateOnANationalAndSocialistFoundation

Also on thing neither Feder and Eckhart talks about is war. And war is the ultimate extension of politics. If you are in the situation Germany was in 1933 a lot of things must come in second place (not sure if that's the way to put it in english) relative to the preparation of an armed conflict.
Hitler understood this better than most people and this is apparent if you read his second book. So to judge Hitler based on the policies and ideas they made in the 1920 isn't very fair.

fuck off you kike

The jews want make it seem like the NSDAP was somehow multicultural because they had non whites side with them against the threat of communism which was a threat to everyone.

Any idea may be a source of danger if it is looked upon as an end in itself, when in reality it is only the means to an end. For me, and for all genuine National Socialists, there is only one slogan: People and Fatherland. - Adolf Hitler

Somehow I find that hard to believe but here you go:

>>>/pdfs/96
>>>/pdfs/410
>>>/pdfs/567
>>>/pdfs/83
>>>/pdfs/799

Most people here confuse Hollywood Nazism with National Socialism and if they had an actual real Hitler and real Natsocs they would call them cucks because they don't act like Jewish created stereotypes.

...

pretty based forums, Ironmarch. Lurked there a few times in the past.

No. Most people here are fully aware that nazis were not rabid wolves as jewlywood depicts them. Stop projecting.

National Socialism was actually pretty cool up until Himmler and Hitler couldn't hide their faggotry any longer and based their entire fetish of nordic supremacy over their own people without a shred of evidence to back any of it up and almost turned one of their major allies against them because of it.

Good luck getting American "NatSoc"'s to admit there's an aspect of socialism.

Or that putting puny ideas of "God" above the Volk is treason.

Why wouldn't you educate on the subject first, before posting retarded shit?

There's an alternative to the same old larping for 50 years that does not work.

8ch.pl/whitesnetworking/

Stefan Monekike said facts dont matter though.

Caped for prosperiti breddy good :DD

It's just hocus pocus.

National Socialism is a word salad.

go read

Sounds preddy gud to me m80 other than the social security part. That would only work if the population was small enough or it was a supplemental kind of social security (as in people would still have to work or volunteer)

No, but he did fight during the Great War and get wounded a couple of times.

Start hanging yourself anytime.

Take your silly SA maymay back and stay there, shit goon.

That doesn't work, you don't belong here

I find it funny the world Libertarian has become more unpopular than Socialist here.

That's one of Holla Forums's success.

Nice try shill, NatSoc is nothing like your regressive Socialism

...

The Socialism in NatSoc is just a way to pander to the socialists.

The nazis killed socialists in the Nights of the Long Knives.

And repressive, really?

Libertaranism has an actual definition.

Socialism in National Socialism means jackshit, the party in the beginning didn't even call themsleves socialist.

...

It does work.

The problem with nationalist libertarianism is that you want a statist ideology (nat) to mix with an anti-statist ideology (lib).

I like the sound of natlib, if it's just paleoconservatism with an emphasis on nationalism then it's completely fine, but you want something that requires a strong and large government within the framework of a small and relatively weak government.

One of the most basic tenets of fascism/nationalist ideology is "Do what is best for the worker". Specifically, the government is to do what is best for the worker. That absolutely 100% can not work with a small government without having the entire system implode on itself.

You want an ideology with a contradiction at its very core. You're thinking in terms of top-down, try working from the bottom-up.

I should restate.
The tenet is "Do what is best for the people", not just the worker.

Libertarians want open borders and Corporations to run governments.

You are thinking of globalist libertarians.

It is not European libertarianism which over there is a synonym to anarchism.
You can think of it as paleocon with specific nationalist focus.
Also when we want limited government, it applies to citizens and also a non-interventionist foreign policy. If there are non-citizens causing trouble then the government then can be as big and powerful relatively to the foreign threat.

Again, watch my video series on it.
Building the Nationalist Libertarian Ideology.

Good luck engendering nationalist feelings in national libertarianism when someones grandpa who is a veteran is sick and dying and they are in poverty and ask for assistance and you say "the free market will fix it"

Except you can still help him. Being charitable is still a good thing.

This isn't even a straw man, it is just a poorly thought out argument.

It could work. Those two aren't contradicting. Minimal effective government infringement on the citizens (minarchy) with a strong sense of National identity among the people, strong national defense and strong borders.

So, free market economy (not 100% free…VERY basic restrictions where absolutely necessary), social freedom among the proud citizens, strong border control so that the muds cant get in.

The world I want to live in is White National-Socialist Germany, and white Libertarian america. The way things were meant to be. We could both be great partners

Just as many people here need to be taught on the workings of national socialism, people also need to be taught on how a free market economy would actually work.

This post. This post.
You got it man. One of the best posts of the thread.

Then its not libertarian, make up your mind

Way to pull it out of context.
When we say libertarian in America we are referring to the goals of early American political structures and institutions

Dude did you just read my fucking mind?

Sorry but the Libertarians want open borders and Corporations to run governments.

There are no OTHER Libertarians besides oddball posters and blogs to the internet.

Exactly. Libertarians are just SJW thieves who take from other Whites and blame them for being a victim.

Not an argument.

Except there arent sjw on Holla Forums only us and shills. Also
You are the ones who support redistributive economics. We don't have to take anything from our own countrymen.

Dude Holla Forums is not an encyclopedia. It's an imageboard, a place to shitpost.

You're supposed to be doing reading outside of Holla Forums. How can you call yourself a NatSoc if you haven't read Mein Kampf.

MSM go away.

DON'T FALL FOR THIS CHEAP BAIT PEOPLE

THIS IS MIC.COM WRITING AN ARTICLE ON WHAT "NEO-NAZIS AND 8 CHAN .NET THAT TOXIC DEN OF TROLLS" BELIEVE

HIDE SAGE AND REPORT

It would work in regions of the South -

Underrated post
, let me add another of feder works.

archive.org/details/GottfriedFederTheGermanStateOnANationalAndSocialistFoundation

The nation and the state are not one in the same. If you think so, you're nothing but a civic nationalist yourself.

That is one of the last places it would work

Lolberturdians sold everyone out, and we had the privilege of seeing it work out in real-time when they sold us out to Holla Forums on this board. When a cripple shit tried to take over, failed, and handed this board over to IRC teens. With Lolberturdshits cheering it on.

Lolberturdianism is just another brand of 'moderate'.

The times of luxury and fooling around are over.

...

I like the idea of capitalism but i think it needs to be moderated based on nationalist ideas (like does it harm the culture/people/environment/economy/values of that nation).
can anyone give some economic ideologies that might suit me ?(sorry i don't focus on economy i mostly look into social issues like, white genocide, degeneration in societies, etc.)

(politically i am a nationalist (i also don't like the idea with fascism where the government should not be questioned, since if the gov't went against the people then a rebellion should be encouraged))

Nigger what are you talking about?

Nope

Im not a fascist. I know very well that the nation and the state are not the same.

I'm well aware of Rockwell's activities. But in my mind he wasn't a National Socialist. That doesn't take away the achievements he made.

Oh god, the last spring's raid. What a bad fucking taste in my mouth. They could have gotten away too. But then Rand Paulberg came.
Now they are confined to Holla Forums's splinters. A fitting fate I suppose.

I'm going to be honest. All of this "the state works in the interest of the people", "people work for the betterment of the country" and redistributive economics and stuff like that just sounds like the exact same rhetoric that regular socialists and Communists use. Don't get me wrong, I know that obviously National Socialism worked but the way I see it described here sounds exactly the same as I've heard people describe communism.

Is it really THIS faggot again? After he's been BTFO too many times to count? You were shitspewing in another thread just a couple days ago, and I completely deconstructed your trashy arguments. Get the hell out of here.

Except that communist does not describe their ideology that way.

The placing the betterment of the country above all and a large state that supposed to work for the betterment of the people just sounds a whole hell've a lot like how I've heard people talk about communism and socialism. The state above the person and the redistribution of wealth with things like social security just seems like far-leftist rhetoric. What makes it different when the Nazis did it?

Wrong. Fuck off faggot.

It is just a fact of life. Literally any system that worked or existed says this.

the biggest difference lies in their definition of "the people", and the motivations behind their ideology. What you'll find in most leftists is an opposition to "inequality", which is entirely different to a fascist/natsoc worldview. Also, leftists don't recognise race/ethnicity/culture as valid - even going so far as to view them as "problematic". The leftist worldview is founded purely in materialism and the idea that society can be "fixed" simply by changing the system of resource distribution. Maybe some of the rhetoric sounds the same, but when you really analyse the foundational tenets of each ideology, you find that they are incredibly different in both inspiration and motivation.

Ok, i'm no trying to be rude in any way now, but are you new here? Because if you are i dont really feel like explaining everything when you can just lurk your way to the answer. If you arent new on the other hand.

Simply Epic. Literally.

Thank you. I think I understand a little better now. I saw those books on the pdf board that another user recommended so I'll probably check those out as well.

No, I just have some hang ups when people talk about National Socialism on here. I used to be a liberal retard who bought into the whole communism meme and I just don't want to end up being a useful idiot who blindly follows an ideology they don't really understand again. I understood the whys of NatSoc but not necessarily the hows I guess

It will be easier for you to understand NatSoc if you understand communism. So start there.
forgot one crucial thing (in my mind probably the most important). When you figure out what that essential part of communism is, you will understand NatSoc much better.

humans are not equal, and it's human nature to want to better ones people?

I think you misunderstood. What is the most (according to me) essential in communism?

You're being incredibly cryptic. Just say what you want to say

No. You need to learn this basic stuff yourself.

I know the basic stuff, you massive faggot. How about you stop being a cryptic, obtuse autist and just say what you want to say.

Obviously you don't.

what defines a collectivist ideology, what defines a individualistic one.
Then you define Egalitarianism, Universalism, Utilitarianism. Understanding the role they play in different doctrines the real political spectrum began to unravel. The Basic principles transcend and new ideologies are formed (Liberalism, Marxism and many others for both sides of the spectrum)

Most people only know left and right and some understand the Authoritarian,totalitarian paradigm.

I'm trying to decipher your obscurest, obtuse, and autistic posting style, and trying to guess what you're implying. Maybe if you were straight to the point and didn't hop around like a retard, I'd actually know what the fuck you're referring to. Get the hell out of here if you have nothing of value to say, and only want to stroke your own ego and pretend you're "so clever".

Im not trying to stroke my ego or pretend to be clever. Im trying to point at the direction to make you "clever".
If you understand communism you can easily understand NatSoc.

collectivist vs individualist is a false dichotomy, imo. I believe what truly differentiates all left-wing ideology from true right-wing ideology is the belief in egalitarianism, be it literal physical egalitarianism (i.e. all races are fundamentally the same and all perceived differences are superficial and inconsequential), or philosophical egalitarianism (i.e. all people/races/genders are of equal worth/value, and should thus be treated equally in every way regardless of perceived differences). Pic related explains it fairly well

Except you literally can not do anything except act obtuse and cryptic, without actually saying anything at all. You haven't said anything concrete or hinted at what you're trying to imply. Either get straight to the point or fuck off.

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Manifesto.pdf

TGSNT is the biggest piece of wank ever created

Wrong , Right-Left is the false dichotomy. The political spectrum is more complex than you believe. Political doctrines are separated by the values they promote. You can cite Mussolini corporatism being a nationalist collectivist ideology for example (Fascism).

There's no right wing or left wing , only Ideological doctrines . the complex virtues,valors and ideals that each promotes is how you discuss them.

Find the antithesis of the Communist paradigms and you will find NatSoc.
Find the antithesis of the modern utilitarianism and you will find the NatSoc

Yet contrary to popular belief the NatSoc is not a far right wing movement at all.

This board and i cant give you clear answers only the right questions.

Well said!

Your face is the biggest piece of wank ever created m8

Well I would disagree with you. Different ideologies and doctrines hold certain fundamental core values and tenets that distinguish them from certain ideologies, and lump them in with others. When you boil away a lot of the fluff from these different ideologies, you will be able to distinguish whether it is left-wing or right-wing based on whether it holds the idea of "equality", be it literal or philosophical, as a fundamental basis for the belief system.

Right-left is only a false dichotomy in the modern paradigm, where both the "right" and the "left" essentially operate within the same ideological and moral framework of egalitarianism and universalism, but the entire concept should be thrown out entirely.

...

...

...

Yeah fuck off autist. Stop trying to stain the name of National Socialism with your shitty burger capitalist movement.

Disagree , The point between left wing from right wing is arbitrary. It also infer that the politcal spectrum is linear (Another modern lie). The promotion of such framework would always lead to centrism in a democratic system.

>>>Holla Forums

So far so good. Thanks.

Anyone have the webm of Mussolini's speech in Germany and der Führer's response? Mussolini said fascism has ideals of always speaking true and marching with a friend until the end, and Hitler gives a speech later saying that Germany also accepts these ideologies.

Same Trans Nazi shit …Over and over and over…..ad nauseam.

It will never work but they keep on promoting it.

Nice story, rabbi.

Yawn

Remember dont reply to tor posters.

Yea, need to collect IP addresses.

You're not going to find anything solid as far as policy goes, OP. National Socialism and Fascism both focus on what's good FOR THE PEOPLE, AND THEREFORE, THE NATION.

What's good business and trade for one, is fucking retarded for the other. Programs that won't work here, would be excellent over there. Laws and customs that make sense here… You get the drift.

Take Rockwell, for example. He was an American National Socialist. He thought the world of Hitler and his message, but he thought of ways to incorporate Hitler's vision of National Socialism with American customs and history. It'd still be National Socialism, but it wouldn't be quite the same. It's not all cut and dry like our current left/right parties wherein they say "We believe in X, and we are going to do X because we believe in it."

Policy and trade depends entirely upon what's good for the nation and its people.

Meanwhile..nothing ever changes. Ever wonder why?

I've listened to a lot of GLR and I admire him alot, but can you really call it National Socialism if there was no Socialism he was advocating for?

He also said quite clearly he wasn't a Fascist. Basically my understanding he was a Libertarian race realist, which indeed would work well for America I think.

Yeah despite the utter idiocy of letting your main man fight out on the frontlines, it would be complete suicide for the entire movement.

Its not days of old were a king could fight with his men.

0/10 hope the shekels are worth it

In order to fully understand the problems of Marxism and how it came to infect everything that is not NS, we have to look at how it infected the modern society and what logical shortcuts and fallacies it employs.

The chief of them is the perversion of the word "equality" - when the understanding we are after is equity, as in equitable treatment of all in the society - "equal before the law."

This however is extrapolated and perverted through misunderstanding the word "equality" and it's out of context use for the situations that call for a complete understanding of the context and thus give rise to the abominable confusion of legal equality with social and economic equality. From there, all spheres of life and ideas that rest on liberal understanding of the principle become blackened and warped by the Marxist corruption of the concept through the lens of the classist conflict. National Socialism stands alone as a sole ideology that resists this because equality does not exist within it as a concept, only equity which is expressed through mutual respect and communal good of the race where individuals then can fulfil their biological and racial potential in a social environment that protect those qualities, as opposed to having them smothered under the blanket of multicultural "equality".

Given that balance and fairness is a natural state within a race where no large differences in phenotypes and classes exist, there is no need for further elaboration of the point in ethnically homogeneous states. From there arises precedence of equity and focus on order and communal good, as individual liberty is already ingrained and protected through blood affiliation with other members of the community.

Marxism and corrupted liberalism try to prop up the lies of 1789 by infusing them with the poison of 1917 and demanding equalization of mankind not by lifting up the weakest ones, but by cutting done everyone rising above the mean and muddying up the pool so that no one stands out.

From Kikepedia

And this is the citation for the quote: 'Hitler's apocalypse: Jews and the Nazi legacy' Written by (((Robert S. Wistrich))) and published by (((George Weidenfeld))) and Nigel Nicolson.

Kill yourself, Shlomo

Would this just be Scandinavia? ie: Norway, Denmark, and Sweden, or would Iceland, Finland and the Faroe Islands be included too? If so what about the Nordic German areas like Schleswig-Holstein for example? Also wouldn't the lack of a common Language make beurocricy difficult, and the manament of Iceland, and the Faroe Islands difficult? Or would it be no different than Svalbard? And would these former states still retain an amount of sovereignty?

Other than that this seems great. I hope Germany can establish a Großdeutsches Reich soon too

The organization imagine something like the USA, with the different countries. These countries include Norway, Denmark, and Sweden, Iceland and Finland and maybe some baltic country, and here is where my opinion differs from theirs.

In my mind Sweden's first (but not primary) foreign policy should be to lay claim on islands like Åland and Bornholm. These island are primarily of strategic use.
Sweden's primary) foreign policy should be to "anschluss" first and foremost Norway and secondly Danmark. Language problems that might accrue here is next to none. The reason fo these actions is of course to safeguard the nordic people and unite them under a strong leadership and also to obtain enough manpower and landmass to reset a potential war. The power structure throughout this nation should aim to be as local as possible, however, not limited to the old borders, but should always respect its position in the hierarchy.
Islands like Iceland and the Faroe Islands fall under the same category as Åland and Bornholm as they are primarily strategical goals. That is that military action can be justifiable, but diplomatical is always preferable.

The finnish question have a number of solutions.
1. Conquer Finland and either deportor or ethnically cleanse the finnish population.
2. Create a Finish puppet state.
3. Financially and materially support the finnish nationalist movment and make sure the are victorious. And after that have an ally and a shield towards the asiatic east.

Number 3 is the best option in my book. In my mind Finland can never be a part of the Nordic people and nation. The are simply too different from us but that does not take away the possibility for an alliance (see Germany and Italy).

Me too. Germany is the heart of Europe and Europe is nothing without it. A strong Germany is equally beneficial for the the whole of the germanic people as it is for a united Scandinavia.

Oy Vey Neandertal looks like jewish Vin Diesel

I forgot to talk about the sami question which goes hand in hand with the finnish question.
Alternative 1 for the finnish question is the same for the sami question.
Alternative 2 for the finnish question acts like a location for deportation of the sami's. No need for ethnic cleansing in this alternative.
If you go for Alternative 3 in the finnish question you can go with pure ethnic cleansing or keep the sami's in closed reservation and introduce strict "nüremberg laws" in the sami question.

Okay, thanks for clearing that up. When I was newer to nationalism and the red pill I always thought Germany should unify with Austria, take back all of Prußenland, unify with the German speaking part of Switzerland, and the Nederlands, as well as the Nordic countries, but now I see that could never work and is rather dumb. Although I would like an Anschluss with Austria and German Switzerland, I don't think that would ever be possible due to how "different" they are now. And Prussia is dead, any Germans in Poland are either a minority or mixed with the Poles.

Good luck Nordbro, My Danish blood wishes you well.

Prussia should be recolonized.
#polelivesdontmatter

I'd like to see you try, swedecuck. You have no existing military tradition whatsoever.

Sweden is done. You're already a minority in many major cities, and yet you yearn a flash of your old imperial glory - which was created only on the backs of Finnish soldiers.

Åland's going to get Fingolizised, and we will take Gotland and the Lappish Mäen-region for muh reparations.
And then we will see who ethnically cleanses who :^)

Bump, also r/ing all pdfs anyone has of economic tenets of national socialism, especially material printed pre-1945 discussing the nuts and bolts of how hitler managed his economy and valuated the new reichsmark.

Are there any ethnic Prussians left?

Now I am only 3/4 German and 1/4 mix of British/Scottish/Welsh

Could be worse. Still pretty sad though.

My Oma came from Ostpreußen as a child. Her father fell against Ivan, and her mother had to flee with the kids when she was about six years old.

In a nutshell, imagine this:
ban usury and add a healthy dose of ethnic nationalism and you've pretty much got the idea.

What's that supposed to mean? The economic policy of the NSDAP was clearly in favour of and did protect private enterprise.

In comparison to full-blown marxism it was pretty right wing, but you'd be hard pressed to find many economic differences between NatSoc Germany and the European Social Democracies of today. Kike-run central banks and the practice of interest notwithstanding, of course.

Hitler offered free education, free healthcare, free utilities, and other free shit. He also nationalized the banks and some other private corporations and offered them as public services to the German people.

I mean, does the destruction of loan capital really sound like lassez faire capitalism to you?

Although I was born in Kanada, I'm going to Leipzig for uni next year and I plan on staying in the Vaterland until I die.

My Opa's Vater was apparently a very high ranking officer in the S.S. although that is all I know, my family doesn't talk about it because as my mom says "he probably was responsible for the deaths of thousands of people." All I know about my Oma's Vater is that he sent a letter to his wife in Berlin and told her to go to Hamburg, but she was rapped by Ivan scum while my ~2 year old Oma was in the next room. They then fled to Hamburg and My Uropa escaped the POW camp he was in and some how found his wife and my Oma in Hamburg. My Uroma (the one from Berlin) is still alive, she will be 102 in August 2 days before my birthday. I am going this winter to Germany and I hope my German will be good enough to talk to her. I want to hear all about the 30's and what life was like in utopia.

My mom left Germany and met my dad in Canada. She never taught me German because they divorced when I was really young and she had to suddenly find a job. Although I wish she had put more effort in I have to teach myself now. My pronunciation is really good, but I can't roll r's quickly it takes about a second to sound right. When I got my German passport renewed I was ashamed that I had to get them to speak English and every other time I see other Germans.

GREAT BOOK

yea it's honestly fucking brilliant