Charts & Graphs

I am redpilling an old close friend and I need some pretty basic charts on how to compare/show how National Socialism, Fascism, Capitalism, and Communism is different. If any of you anons have some good pictures/charts explaining it, that would be awesome. Thanks. Also written descriptions or what you think they are, would be great.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=oZUTyrtDkRE
youtube.com/watch?v=y-Yszp3SmxE
youtube.com/watch?v=SQcq-2qXZUk
youtube.com/watch?v=35tGM-Tsahk
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Have some screencaps

...

...

...

...

...

Can someone post the Beaver post on Democracy?

...

...

...

...

I only have the one on violence, sorry.

...

...

youtube.com/watch?v=oZUTyrtDkRE
youtube.com/watch?v=y-Yszp3SmxE
youtube.com/watch?v=SQcq-2qXZUk
youtube.com/watch?v=35tGM-Tsahk


These 3 vids are gold.

LOL

...

wew

You're joking right?

...

...

Is the OP even here anymore?

What the actual fuck?

Yeah, I bet Stalin would be upset.

There must be an absolute influx of people recently. I've seen things continually that wouldn't be here even a month ago.

Looks like that is the case. Lots of pro-capitalism and other non-sense around lately.

wew lad
If you believe this, you need to die.

First and foremost, fascism is an economic system in which a nation’s government plays a central role in monitoring all banking, trade production, and labor activity within the nation. Such monitoring is done for the sole purpose of safeguarding & advancing the nation and its people. Under fascism, the government will not approve of any business activity unless that business has a positive impact on the nation as a whole and the people of the nation–this is the axiom which determines everything within the economic aspect of fascism.
In other words, the government asks, “Is XYZ Enterprises good for our nation and our people?” If yes, it’s approved. If no, it’s not approved. When they ask, “Is it good?” they mean, “Is XYZ Enterprises good for the workers–do they pay a fair wage; do they produce a product or provide a service which advances our nation & our people technologically, morally, spiritually, health-wise, etc?” For example, a pornography company would not be allowed because pornography corrupts people generally and exploits & degrades women particularly. Also, “free” trade agreements–such as what the US has with China–would never be allowed, because such trade agreements result in companies sending jobs overseas where labor is dirt cheap. Such an activity, of course, would undermine a nation’s labor class. This is entirely unacceptable and thus not allowed under a fascist economic model.
Fascism is based on free enterprise, but with constraints–the primary being “Is the economic activity in question good for our nation/people?” Also, a businessman can become wealthy in a fascist country, and the government has no objection to this–in stark contrast to communism. Fascism also encourages private ownership of property–communism, of course…
In a nutshell, fascism basically tells entrepreneurs, “Go ahead and start a business, earn a lot of money, and be successful. Don’t produce any products or services which damage our nation or its people. Make sure you treat your workers fairly and pay them a living wage. If you don’t follow these rules, we’ll shut you down.”
With regard to banking, usury is not allowed under fascism. The government tightly controls all aspects of monetary policy, including terms of lending. The government issues/prints money and lends it, interest-free, as needed to grow the economy and ultimately serve the citizens.
The above is the economic aspect of fascism. There is also a cultural/social aspect to fascism. Under fascism, government plays a key role in monitoring film, theatre, art, literature, music, education, etc. in order to maintain a high moral standard, keep things clean and respectable, promote a strong sense of patriotism and honor, and prevent the dissemination of depraved filth which corrupts society. With regard to legislation introduced by a fascist government, the same criteria is applied. “Will this proposed law benefit the nation as a whole and the people thereof?”
A few other things to mention. Fascism encourages respect for the environment, as fascists understand that nature is the giver of life and thus must be preserved. Contrast this environmental philosophy with that of capitalism, which too often takes a short-term view of natural resources and sometimes believes that pollution is a necessary byproduct of profit. Also, and somewhat related to environmental issues, fascism holds very progressive views regarding animal rights.

Also, under Fascism, if a person doesn’t like the environment, he can leave the country. Under communism, of course, if you don’t like things you’d better keep your mouth shut. And there is no option to leave the country. You will submit or else be sent to a reeducation camp, where you'll be brainwashed to accept the Communist system. If you still resist, you’ll probably be killed. Submit or suffer the consequences.
Further, fascism holds women in very high regard. Women are the carriers of new life. They are expected to be educated, worldly, and well-read. Women are encouraged to pursue their interests and have a career, but only if it won't interfere with their family’s needs. Family comes first. Always. Women are encouraged to be strong, yet feminine. Consistent with these ideas, fascist art often portrays women as heroic and even goddess-like.
In short, fascism is a governmental & social system which authentically serves the interests of the people and nation as a whole. The word ‘fascism’ comes from the Italian word fascio, meaning “the group” or, more specifically, “in consideration of the group.” Fascism is rooted in the notion that people must stay true to two mental concepts throughout their lives: 1) the individual’s needs (themselves) and 2) the group’s needs (their nation), always evaluating how their individual actions affect the group. Thus, fascism rejects the self-centered mentality so common under capitalism. In a fascist nation, each person is expected to maintain a healthy diet & lifestyle. If they do not, they may become seriously ill and thus require expensive healthcare. This would negatively impact the group (i.e., they'd become a financial burden on the nation).
Continuing this line of thought, under fascism, all people of one’s ethnicity are considered the greater family of that person. Hence a fascist nation is thought of as one giant family of several million people. Therefore, just as one mustn’t do anything to hurt their brother or sister in their immediate family, one mustn’t do anything which would hurt the nation/group. This is the essence of fascism–a strong consideration of the group balanced with individualism. During the German Third Reich, the NSDAP followed all aspects of the above system. All copied from immigration-globalization.blogspot.com

Were the economic system of the world to be made right–were it that success in improving your nation’s standing through some tangible contribution be equally rewarding on a personal level–I would love the rich. As it stands, the best way to advance yourself personally in the short term is to dismantle your country in the long term, and thus the rich tend toward being monsters, with some few exceptions. Monsters before gaining wealth, too, but even more monstrous after having obtained it and in their use of it.
A proper nation would see scientific advancement, cultural contributions that don’t subvert the nation and make it tend toward globalism or national self-doubt, and industrial development inside the nation be the most short and long term rewarding ways to live. If you give your people honest and meaningful work that they can be proud of, you deserve wealth. If you can bring new spins on old ideas that glorify the nation in its own eyes and make the nation’s people content, or teach them the old ways and make them aware, you deserve wealth. If you push the nation’s capabilities for defense, improve the nation’s quality of life or other such technological strides, you deserve wealth. On the other hand, if your primary impact on the nation is to sow discontent for personal gain, reduce the amount of room for the nation to grow by taking away its livelihood, or use the nation’s resources to decrease its bargaining position with those other nations that are not its allies, you deserve to have varying levels of your ass beat legally or financially based on severity. Not because they have obtained money in the pursuit, but because they have sacrificed their people to do so.
NatSoc and wealth are very compatible, even NatSoc and capitalism to some extent. Not NatSoc and today’s brand of capitalism, though. Not NatSoc and unlimited and morally neutral free market economics, either.

~:~

Honestly NatSoc always struck me as a better synthesis between the two systems (capitalism and socialism). Hitler recognizes the heart of society’s problems is due to unhealthy economic conditions, yet he recognized during his teenage years of poverty how corrupt the doctrine of social democracy is and how workers basically resort to it out of personal despair or feelings of having no other option. True social democracy–or, as a matter, anything related to Marxism–tries to eliminate anything intrinsic to human nature, because, surprise surprise, people have individual needs and desires that goes beyond sustaining the collective or living in mediocrity. So NatSoc addresses the desire of the individual first while reinforcing this sense of belonging to something bigger than yourself–the nation, your people.
NatSoc still sees the importance of a free market, but also sees the dangers of consumerism that replaces culture (plain materialism) and corporations who don’t put the need of the nations first (corporatism). These two things are inherent problems within any democracy–the individual has the liberty to act on impulse and selfishness without the strong values that is normally found within a prevalent cultural identity, and so he resorts to materialist pursuits by default. The person has no cultural identity (nationalism) to remind him of greater values in human aspect like beauty, brotherhood, compassion, strength, honor, purity, innocence, heroism, free will, hardship, knowledge; these things are far more enriching than boring materialism like sex, food, sleep, depravity and other endless distractions. So nationalism ensures the individual is raised to desires more fulfilling to the human soul, but and still have the freedom of opportunity to achieve these things to his own will.
The nation will have social policies to help workers have the opportunity to success, and while still having enough personal time to read books or spend time with the wife and kids–since families are the basic structure to all civilizations, having healthy economic conditions would ensure families to grow higher quality members of society. Social policies will make sure everyone has a job; and those who fail to lead productive lives are getting kicked the fuck out–like gypsies. No welfare state, everyone has to be productive. To me, it blends the two economic systems well to have the best of both worlds without either’s inherent flaws.

I’ll attempt a simple introduction to it. So as a leftist, you no doubt believe in that ‘socialism’ stuff. Let’s not get too into definitions as they carry too many ‘extra’ meanings, but essentially the fascist idea is that the many are greater than the few. The word ‘fascist’ means “bundle of sticks.” A single stick can be snapped in two with ease, but if you bind 30 together, you will find it much harder, if not impossible to snap. Strength in numbers. True unity. And a single purpose. That is essentially fascism, and the associated nationalism, militancy, and ideological purity are what make it plausible–as opposed to communism, which is simply inhuman.
As you have witnessed from your own existence, most people want to be ‘popular.’ Unfortunately for many, this manifests in a desire to wear some moronic kind of clothing or listen to some faggoty little pop group. But really humans just want to be united, and one’s desire to ‘fit in’ increases with those to which people feel they have a likeness. Now, I don’t know about you, but as a young brown-haired, brown-eyed, white kid, I would always support the brown haired, brown eyed, white cartoon character/ film actor. As a young child, I cared not for any supposed ‘discrimination,’ I just liked what was similar to me. To moronic extremes. However, the appeal or trustworthiness of similarity makes sense. One’s appearance, beliefs and actions unite people.
Football fans will get on well purely because they enjoy football, Christians get on well with other Christians, and most families, even when not getting along well, would die for one another. And so the fascist state starts with the family, the native ‘tribe’, and the political/religious ideology. Militancy is introduced to make people feel ‘a part’ of it.
I’m sure you’ve watched someone make dinner before. Maybe you put some salt and pepper on afterwards, or even stirred it while in the bowl or pan. It didn’t feel like you ‘made it’ though, did it? You only did a small amount of work, if any, and despite being able to eat it and even contribute to its final form, it doesn’t feel like it is your ‘creation’. Because it’s not. Same thing with football team members who never get to play a game. They can be there for all the training, but until they do something, they do not feel a part of the group and may even resent them.
Let them play, however, or make that meal from scratch, and BAM. They are a part of the group. As humans are inherently selfish (or at least tribal), you will now consider an attack upon your team/food as an attack upon yourself or your tribe. You can say you personally wouldn’t, but I’m sure you know a family member who has been offended by some seemingly harmless comment about their food. People do care!
So bam, introduce a people related by blood to a political ideology, and make them ‘militant’–force them to be ideologically and politically active through parades, demonstrations, festivals, or even just feasting events where you each cook something for your fellows–and bam, the people are united.
A united people is a happy people. They are a passionate populace ready for action as any perceived insult upon any of them is an attack upon their own personal honor. They are militant and quick to act, love their own customs, culture, and faith, and will be violently hostile to any who try to tell them they are wrong.
Impervious to traitors, more willing to fight for their causes than other ideologies, loving of each other, and willing to be generous to extreme extents due to their unity. Pride and arrogance, and a competitive spirit centered on their belief that they are superior (or at least should be the best they can be) spurs on innovation and invention.
The key is that it works upon human nature, while communism works upon inhuman ‘ideals’. If humans were ants, perhaps communism could work, but we are not. Fascism plays to our nature, to our strengths and removes our weaknesses. The bundle of sticks truly is fitting, for united we are unbreakable.

There is considerable difference in the socialism of Hitler and that of Marxist doctrine. Die SA explained that the objective of a socialist state is “not the greatest possible good fortune of the individual or a particular party, but the welfare of the whole community.” Marx’s purely economic socialism “stands against private property… and private ownership.” Marx saw socialism as international, unifying the world’s working class people who were social pariahs in their own country. He therefore considered nationalism–advocating the interests and independence of one’s own nation–incompatible with socialist ideals. Die SA argued that since socialism really stands for collective welfare, “Marxist socialism divides the people and in this way buries any prerequisite for achieving genuine socialist goals.”
Hitler saw nationalism as a patriotic motive to place the good of one’s country before personal ambition. Socialism was a political, social, and economic system that demanded the same subordination of self-interest for the benefit of the community. As Hitler said in 1927, “Socialism and nationalism are the great fighters for one’s own kind, are the hardest fighters in the struggle for survival on this earth. Therefore they are no longer battle cries against one another.” Die SA summarized, “Marxism makes the distinction of haves and have-nots. It demands the destruction of the former in order to bring all property into possession of the public. National socialism places the concept of the national community in the foreground. The collective welfare of a people is not achieved through superficially equal distribution of all possessions, but by accepting the principle that before the interests of the individual stand those of the nation.”
It should be noted that in the Soviet Union, the flagship Marxist state, the regime dealt with the non-proletariat far more harshly than what downtrodden labor suffered during the Industrial Revolution in Western countries. The Soviet police official Martyn Latsis, for example, defined the criteria for trials of dissidents: “Don’t seek proof of whether or not he rose against the Soviet with weapon or word. You must first ask him what class he belongs to, what extraction he is, what education and what occupation he has. These questions should decide the fate of the accused.” Russian historian Dimitri Volkogonov wrote that Soviet purges targeted the most energetic, most capable, frugal, and imaginative’ elements in society. Systematic mass starvation, imprisonment, deportation, and execution in the Marxist utopia so decimated the Russian population that Joseph Stalin forbade the 1937 census from being published. Der Schulungsbrief stated in a 1942 issue, “The senseless extermination of all intelligence and talent replacing every impulse of personality with passive herd mentality has wiped out any natural creative aptitude [in Russia.]”
Hitler regarded Marxist economic policy as no less repugnant to genuine socialism as the concept of class warfare. Marx advocating deprivatizing all production and property. State control would supposedly ensure equitable distribution of manufactured goods and foodstuffs and protect the population from capitalist exploitation. Hitler advocated private ownership and free enterprise. He believed that competition and opportunities for personal development encourage individual initiative. He said in 1934, “On one hand, the free play of forces must be guaranteed as broad a field of endeavor as possible. On the other, it should be stressed that this free play of forces must remain for the person within the framework of communal goals which we refer to as the people and the national community. Only in this way can we attain the highest level of human achievement and human productivity.”
Der Schulungsbrief dismissed Marx’ disparate clamor for equitable shares in national assets and equal pay for all work as stifling to personal motivation. “The man capable of greater achievement has no interest in realizing his full potential, when he saw that the lazy man sitting next to him received just as much as he himself. Any initiative to do more and willingness to accept responsibility could only die out under this system.”

Well before taking power, Hitler combated a tendency toward Marxist socialism in his own movement. In November 1925, district party leaders in Hannover proposed dividing large farms and distributing the land among farmhands. The state would require everyone employed in the agrarian economy to join a cooperative. Independent sale of foodstuffs would be illegal. “Critical industries” such as power companies, banks, and armaments manufacturers were to yield 51% of the shares as “property of the nation.” In other words, become state controlled. The program also recommended that the government acquire 49% of other large business enterprises. In May, 1930 Hitler met with a Berlin subordinate, Otto Strasser, who supported a similar program. Hitler told him his ideas were “pure Marxism” and would wreck the entire economy. He bounced Strasser out of the party that July, underscoring his intolerance of Marxist socialism. Hitler considered the opportunity to acquire wealth and property an incentive for “eternal, enterprising personal initiative.” Enabling talented individuals to realize their full potential also elevated the society to which they belong and served.
Despite the unifying influence of the First World War, class distinctions resurfaced during the 1920s. The largely impoverished middle class maintained social aloofness form the industrial workforce. labor was consequently still susceptible to communist propaganda about exploitation by capitalism. The Red Front attracted millions of followers during the politically tumultuous years of Germany’s Weimar Republic. The communists sought power through elections after 1923.
To win labor for his cause, Hitler endeavored to make the destructive nature of Marxism apparent to German working men and women. National socialism described it as a perverse byproduct of the Industrial Revolution. It owed its success to the neglect of the working class by the Imperial government in the 19th Century, liberalism liberalism’s creation of national community, and labor’s abrupt loss of roots. The former farmer or artisan, accustomed to creative, useful work with his hands and bound to the soil, was suddenly displaced and operating unfamiliar machinery in drab, urban environments. A handbook published for German armaments workers summarized labor’s alienation as follows: “The person hatefully regards the machine he feels chained to. It is not his friend and helper. It only drives him in a pointless race for the avaricious interests of individual capitalist employers. It represents unemployment and starvation for many of his fellow workers. The machine distances the person more and more from nature.” According to the 1938 book Der Bolschewismus (bolshevism), “such social conditions facing the German worker were the product of liberalism. Like the Renaissance, it glorified the freedom of action and development of the individual, which means the same thing as unscrupulously advancing one’s personal interests.” In his 1935 work Odal, Dr. Johannes von Leers added, “Liberalism’s preaching about the unconditional rights of the economically more powerful is so blinding that de facto economic slavery is considered progress.” Leers described the impressions of a typical German farmhand entering the industrial work force in order to demonstrate the susceptibility to Marxist preaching. “Everywhere he encounters a merciless system of capitalist commerce. His only value is as the seller of himself as a labor commodity. From poorly compensated work to unemployment and then back to work again for low wages despised by the educated class, watched suspiciously by the police, it’s no wonder he becomes indignant.”

Der Bolschewismus related a further source of resentment as labors’ standard of living compared with that of people in affluent neighborhoods: “The man of the stock exchange and factory owners build villas in exceptional, well laid-out sections of the growing cities. The contrast to their own wretched quarters in overcrowded lodging houses, near the smoking chimneys of the factories, becomes ever more apparent to the masses of workers.” In Odal, Leers wrote that only because Germany society turned a blind eye to the distress of the working people were the communists able to recruit them. “The country’s propertied and educated strata, in contrast to the English upper class which was far more responsible about this, blocked any genuine, concrete social reform. It was their selfish belief in the laws of free trade, their heartlessness and callousness.”
Society’s failure to nurture and accept the working class as equal divided Germany, contributing to Marxist organized strikes and mutinies that sabotaged the war effort in 1918. This circumstance supported Hitler’s contention that various groups within a nation–while maintaining their individual character and function–must work together as a mutually supportive entity for common goals, impartially regulated by the state. To disregard one group was to jeopardize all. Entering politics in 1920, Hitler had to combat the substantial Marxist trend among the workers. At this time many social and economic strata in Germany formed parties championing their individual interests. This was especially dangerous in labor’s case, since it allied itself with communism–an international revolutionary movement employing subversion, terror, and armed insurrection to advance its objectives.
Hitler’s ponderously named National Socialist German Labor Party (NSDAP) departed from political convention of the period by standing for all Germans. Though he privately disparaged intellectuals, the aristocracy, and even the middle class, Hitler recruited from every walk of life. Above the interests of group or individual he set those of Germany. This was the common denominator that welded his diverse membership into a formidable and aggressive political bloc. He stated in 1928 that national socialism “is not a movement of a particular class or occupation, but in the truest sense a German worker’s party. It It will comprise every stratum of the nation, thereby incorporating all vocational groups. It wants to approach every German who wishes only to serve his people, live with his people, and belongs to them by blood.”
Germany’s marxist parties–the social democrats and the communists–did not campaign for labor’s acceptance into the German community but to overthrow the existing social order and supplant it with an international “dictatorship of the proletariat.” They did not solicit followers from among the educated classes. The NSDAP program described the Marxists as “united by feelings of hatred and envy, not by any constructive purpose against the other half of the nation.” Karl Ganzer wrote in Der Schulungsbrief, “Marx did not come from the labor movement but from the liberal sphere. He incorporated the concept of a perpetual struggle within society. Earlier German labor leaders had wanted to solve the social problem through assimilation. With his class warfare ideas, Marx wanted to settle it by bringing chaos to the community.”
Gander wrote that Marx hoped to drive the working people “into a current that carries them further from the society they once wanted to be a part of.” He also pointed out an important distinction between national socialist and marxist perceptions of labor. The NSDAP honored it. Hitler publicly stated “No German should be ashamed of this name, but should be proud to be called a worker.” Gander described the denigration of labor as “the worst crime of marxist teachings. This class awareness Marx did not base on a sense of value, but on a psychosis of worthlessness. Marx gave the sons of free farmers and tradesmen the derogatory name ‘proletariat’. Just 40 years earlier, this expression had meant a social riffraff. In this way, he draped the soul of an entire stratum in gloom.”

I have a severely bluepilled friend and he unironically thinks the american soldiers in ww2 were virtuous do-gooders and the nazi tortured them every chance they got. When I asked were he learn this he looked at me a said "school". (public high school). These people literally have to be treated with kid gloves and you can only teach them one fact a day and let them meditate on it for a few weeks.

Fascism is the one system of government were the jews DON'T thrive.

There's lots of

I've seen a lot of that lately. I wonder if it's kids that found out about this place from people making fun of Crowder and Shapiro. The people my age that a year ago would have been posting Drudge Report stuff are now posting Crowder and Bennie on faceberg. Or it's just the summerfags.

Others can keep jews from jewing, of course, but they have to explicitly include a “no jews” clause.

If you think you can understand the difference between NatSoc, Fascism, Socialism, Communism, Anarchism, etc with a few macros, then you are seriously deluded

This place has also been mentioned repeatedly by various media outlets. Usually because they're horrified about what's here.

...

...