Daily reminder that NatSoc as a system is completely unproven to work or not...

Daily reminder that NatSoc as a system is completely unproven to work or not, since the Third Reich only existed for 8 years without wars. If you are willing to defend NatSoc, remember it's just a different flavor of Socialism made to slowly make whites an entitled race spoonfed by the gov't because aryan blood.

archive.is/a3ml4

Other urls found in this thread:

userpage.fu-berlin.de/roehrigw/fisher/
trustcurrency.blogspot.com/2010/10/stamp-scrip-in-great-depression-lessons.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

The holocaust never happened, but it will.

fpbp

I agree with OP to some extent but white ethnostate is worth being crypto-commies.

Sage

No one has never gone that way, attempted and lasted more than Hitler. It took 6 years to start WW II. 6 years of peaceful government is not enough to say a system works or not. Advocating it's the best government is one thing, but to say it "totally worked" is fallacious.

You want to be pro-NatSoc, that's fine, as long as you know it has never been proven to work in the whole world. We know how Socialism went in other countries, though, and we know it never did well. I listed the archive here because the conversation went really well, just started on the wrong end with fucking AnCap cancer.

Turning Wiemar Germany into prosperous Germany pre-WW2 in only 6 years with 1930s technology is proof by itself that policies applied by Hitler work. It took the whole world against the axis to bring them down during the war. Fuck off cuck.

6 years of prosperity. That's quite an accomplishment. And I'll give you that it was a good thing. Just so happens that it proves nothing of how effective the government system is as a whole.

Did it tingle your fee-fees that I said Hitler-senpai couldn't prove to the world NatSoc works?

What do you suggest in its stead, OP? I say this since I'm not a NatSoc and am curious to what you would proscribe to them instead.

Their labors created great infrastructure and machinery. With their labor, they created great material wealth.

Fuck your jew gold, the only thing that matters is getting shit done. They did that exceptionally well until the (((English))) decided it was time to shit on the continent again.

So what you're really saying is that not playing ball with the jewish monetary system isn't a viable plan because the jews will bomb you to hell and back if you cross them. You're saying we shouldn't fight because we could lose. You have a slave mentality.

I'm spassing out. I gotta interject some truth here. The OP is a faggot, and his 'Daily reminder' is 100% wrong.

The most amazing thing about Hitler's econommic miracle is how is was proven in the worst of times. Germany was held under crushing debt, and yet because of Hitler's economic system, pulled itself out of the hole. But the theories that resulted in the Bundesbank didn't originate with Hitler.

for people who want to read what actually happened, not what bullshit is posted by some faggot OP, read Irving Fisher's Stamp Scrip.

userpage.fu-berlin.de/roehrigw/fisher/
and for background on that
trustcurrency.blogspot.com/2010/10/stamp-scrip-in-great-depression-lessons.html

You're a fucking idiot and people that think Germany needed a war to stay afloat are just as stupid as you

I'm not suggesting anything. I'm just pointing out that you can't make a fallacious argument that NatSoc works, because it hasn't been proven yet.


My jew gold? I'm not sure if you checked the archive link; I actually like NatSoc policies, I just think stepping the gas on it doesn't. But, as said there, today's world makes NatSoc something that nations could benefit, and maybe we DO need a NatSoc country, exactly to prove these theories.

I'm not spinning anything, just stating the hard truth you don't want to hear. Success of 6 years (with no wars) means nothing for a long-term government ideology.


Germany was winning during the first years of the war and conquered a lot of territory in Europe. They benefitted from the war because of that. There's no instance in the world where conquering territory means less economical prosperity for a nation.

Name me a single socialist or commie country whose people enjoyed prosperity after enduring poverty to the point of exploitation, retard. Even with the whole old Anglosphere, France and its colonies, China and the USSR against them they still managed to fund their survival effort and expand through most of Europe, even if it wasn't their original plan.

They originally only wanted the territories which were still inhabited by Germans who were exploited (IE ex-Prussia), then Britkikes declared war and refused every single peace treaties because Churchill was a drunk piece of shit who did everyhting Judea told him and he absolutely did not want anything competing against the British might at the time (which kikes gave to America when they saw Brits were about to fail).

/thread

OP stinks of Gefilte fish, this whole thread reeks of it too.

Tried in smaller communities in Brazil, and in the US, before being adopted by Germany. Those were longer 'experiments' than six years. The system worked in every instance, and was just bought out by the greater banking systems.

The same theories can be extrapolated to the computer age and applied to today. I wrote a paper on how to do so a few years ago.

There will be all the time in the world to have discussions about national socialism or what system should be used,It will be discussed once all non-whites are gone from white countries tho.


Side note why are there so many British people on here who continue to act like the traitorous kikes of the whites?

Socialism and left policies, regardless of race and competence of the people involved, does not work. After the money runs out, socialism/marxism fails hard.

Gas yourself.

I dont think Germany wanted a war with a much more wealthy/powerful British/French Empire as well as having a growing USSR to their back. Even if they gained territory they dont have enough soldiers to guard all of Europe against partisans and wage a war going as far north as Finland to Northern Africa.

Watching OP flail around in his thread is pretty fun.

Do you consider yourself alt-right at all?

use some more caps, I don't think you got your point across.

no seriously, what was your point?
if it was to come off as the autist we all expect you to be, well done, you have won.


the last post shows xir is getting upset

I'm not even touching the argument of Hitler wanting or not wars to fund his government.


Right-wing ideologies should be incentivized in a world so leaning towards the left. Alt-right is anti-estabilishment, but wants National Socialism enforced, which is just another brand of Socialism. I'm more leaning towards old Republican values than Nat Soc, but the republican party in US, for instance, is cucked beyond belief and talks of republican values while being sold to (((lobbies and interest groups))). So, essentially, they talk of being republican but are traitors.


My point is that we spark a conversation about using NatSoc as a successful government ideology when it wasn't proven so far. Which is not something bad, it's just not a valid argument for it.

Brits were kiked in the 1600s. Even if they are white, pretty much all of them are oblivious to Jewry since they culturally have been part of it for centuries (and sadly the same could be said of pretty much all of the Anglosphere).


NatSoc is related to socialism only in name but you dishonest kike wouldn't look into both policies, would you?

So do you have a better alternative or not?

Daily reminder that OP is a faggot

Okay so if its Government funding isn't a problem you believe that a National Socialist state will weaken the German people?

Im not sure if you're acting retarded or not.

If a US President came into office and had 2 terms of constantly rising national success, everyone would be up his ass with praise. Don't fucking kid yourself that 6 years means nothing.

Oh, so it's socialism, but it's not socialism? Ok, got it.

Why not simply call it "Nationalism" then?


Don't mention NatSoc as a successful goverment ideology. You'll get crushed by anyone with a remote grasp of history of the period. Mentioning it's short but successful economical success even with the Treaty of Versailles wrecking the economy is something that is true.

Then prepare yourself to receive the counter-argument that it's an unproven ideology that brings instability exactly because it wasn't proven to work long-term.


Long term, a NatSoc state will weaken the strongest of humans due to a policy of entitlement due to factors decided by childbirth, not personal effort or work.


If a president has 2 terms of success, but leaves the 3rd term president with crushing debt, then no, it wasn't a success.

If a president has 2 terms of success, but after several years it proves to weaken the country due to long-term effects of their policies, it wasn't a success.

Do you mean like constitutional republican views?

Most of my people actively hate freedom. Brit/pol/ threads are just embarrassing (they don't actually believe in civic nationalism, though. You'd have to be a yank to think those posts are serious).

By the way, foreigners were treated as honoured guests, including other races (a negro would be treated better in Nazi Germany than in America for example).

Racialism is understanding the differences among peoples; nationalism is safeguarding the differences that make up your people (Volk) and honouring them as something worth safeguarding.

Okay, thank you. Good reply.

...

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 nonproletariat 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." The 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 the Soviet dictator, 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 was. Marx advocated de-privatizing all production and property. State control would supposedly insure 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’s 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 had 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 percent of the shares as “property of the nation,” in other words become state controlled. The program also recommended that the government acquire 49 percent 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 in life also elevated the society they belong to and serve.

Fuck off, libertarian faggot.

All good governments over time weaken their people. Strong people make good times, good times make weak people, weak people make hard times, and hard times make strong people. It just history and human nature but at least with National Socialism the biggest internal malignant parasite is gone.

I take issue with the idea that a Natsoc state would be like modern progressive liberalism, only it would hand out gibs to whites instead of niggers (and gas the kikes).
While a very limited welfare state, and "free" medical care are noble goals, a Natsoc state would in no way make "not working" a viable lifestyle choice (running a household and raising children would be "work", though).
What of by-necessity chairbound office jobs? Capitalist Japan and Commie China already have rooftop workouts for office workers, don't see why Natsoc couldn't.

Yes, there's a distinct lack of those.

Well yes, I agree with your statements; but safeguarding a society just because they are your people is a recipe for failure. If one of your people murder someone not from your people, would the same judgement be had for the inverse, but exact crime? Would your people receive more welfare because it's your people? Would your people be in an easier way of life simply because they're your people?

This is socialism. Socialism does not work.


Socialism breeds weakness. Strong governments in a socialist country over time will cripple your people.

Have you never looked into the more spiritual ideology of National Socialism? No lazy people or class distinctions are promoted, all is for the Fuhrer, your folk, and yourself to reach your maximum potential, to become a new man, a greater woman, mother, a new race of evolved beings. National Socialism is a new consciousness, a new way of seeing the world, and as long as enough of the population was converted by it, it would be a self-sustaining cycle of true progression based on nature's laws that would naturally reject all that was unhealthy for these racially awakened people.

You do know Hitler treated him better than the US president, right?
He couldn't even use the front door at the hotel where a reception was being held in his honour.

yes, give me one legitimate reason this is wrong.
just one.

I dont think you understand what the Socialism in National Socialism means. You know people were allowed to be rich during the Third Reich. The only sort of socialism was more for children/elderly people that really do need financial help and to grow Germany's population after the combination of stolen land/ WW1/ paying for Versailles Treaty/ and the great depression.

>Let me tell you why it wont work without suggesting a sound argument

1. OP is retarded.
2. Don't fall for the Alt-right meme. Literal faggots, tranny's and Larers.

Polite sage

All things fail user.
It is a decent solution to the issues at hand now.
If you imply we "stay the current course" with "Kang" nigger and Shillery, you can fuck off right back to >>>Holla Forums from whence you came.

Well what defines the "whole community"? A city? A town? This is vague as fuck. When the "whole community" is defined as not you, but your "people", it's socialism.

Self-interests need to be accepted for the betterment of everyone, otherwise there's no point of pushing yourself to perfection, since all my effort is going to "the community". If "the nation" wants to destroy my business for the betterment of the "community", i'm not doing business anymore. And this leads to very sketchy situations. If someone doesn't like me, it's simple; they'll claim i'm not part of the "community" and kick me out. It's grounds for being abused as an ideology.

I applaud Hitler's initiatives against marxism and against classic socialism, but until we have a country with more than a generation's worth of success through natsoc, you can't claim it's successful.


Culling the weak works. But after a period, those same people will start to define who's the weak on their own. If they don't, then they become hypocrites to their own ideology.


Maybe, but you didn't touch the argument of the crime.


Welfare breeds inefficiency. Socialism breeds inefficiency. Socialism works as long as there's money, hence why socialist countries often have small surges of economical growth after implementation. NatSoc gives grounds for your people to live off welfare and government funds. Serving your people and your nation works as a doctrine for short terms, but no one knows how it would turn out in one generation in the modern world, because it hasn't been tried.

I don't think you still haven't captured the argument that I'm in favour of implementing the system for the sheer value of curiosity on how it would work.


NatSoc policies also enforced welfare for the homeless and the unemployed.


Yes, unproven for long terms. Proven for short periods of time. Exactly like many other countries which adopted Socialism.

Small communities are completely different from whole countries. This is my argument.


The one true question is what fails the least? Because we know capitalism failed during economical crisis, but still managed to correct itself, as badly as it was, to keep it running. I'm as curious as anyone else here to know how natsoc would behave, but contrary to most, i'm very skeptical.

You missed the part where the entire thread's argument that I dismiss natsoc because it has left-leaning practices.

Aye, we can speculate upon everything as much as we want, all the while forgetting that people will always change. IE there is no single "Right" that will always work. We find the one that works for are needs now.


Oh darn, I didn't feel like shitposting my pov on it before reading a shit load of other peoples opinions before hand, I'm sure EVERYONE here does just that before posting EVERY TIME. I'm sure you also ALWAYS read those "terms of use" things before installing shit on your system too huh?

I'm not a "110% RWDS" drone like most people here seem to love to virtue signal. I don't mind a few leftist things to interweave with an "ideal society" so long as there ONLY for the WHITE PEOPLE.

"NatSoc policies also enforced welfare for the homeless and the unemployed."

Of course you fucking imbecile, dont you understand anything about the economic situation in Germany before Hitler?

What is wrong with right wing deportation squads,user?

You missed the part when I called you a faggot.

You're a disingenuous piece of dog shit. Filth that will be purged in the coming years. Subversive in the most ham-fisted way, utterly confident in your bullshit.

My method of dispatch will be hanging you upside down, bound at wrist and ankle, from a Sycamore tree, and using a paring knife to cut small bleeding wounds all over your extremities. Then, I will sip lemonade as you wither in pain for hours, casually tossing lemon juice in your cuts to induce excruciating pain, before culminating our time together with a single puncture in your neck via an ice pick between the 2nd and 3rd vertebrae, allowing you to experience in full your death via loss of muscle control and ultimately suffocation.

It's a Good Thing™.

I never implied that there was anything wrong with them, but everyone around here mostly "I've been here all summer" fags is so wrapped up with the fucking virtue signaling, that they simply go along with any narrative rather discussing, learning, thinking for them selves. This hinders peoples ability to contribute to the group as a whole as well as hindering them selves.

Tl;Dr: RWDS good! Lazy followers simply parroting Holla Forums bad in the long run.

yeah fuck him he shouldn't get shit back for his service to the country, fuck welfare!
Do you think veterans deserve to sleep in gutters and be ignored by society at large? you are coming off as that sort of cunt.

Welfare in itself is a positive to society when applied correctly.
You are either purposefully blinding yourself to the designed application or choosing to only see it as what happens currently in the jewified, bastardised versions that are seen today.
The idea is to support those who need it, not make classes of people dependant on it.

90% of families in my country rely on government payments to remain financially viable.
THIS is a welfare problem.

once you can move past this demonstrably (and has been in this thread) false assertion you might make some headway.

still hanging on that legitimate reason though.

Double checked.

Don't for get to hook them up to an I V for longer lasting fun.
Oh and salt…. Salt is good on wounds.

checked again
That is some copy pasta worthy stuff,user
sure you meant wither and not writhe tho?


yep

Reminder that national socialism is not a system. It is a worldview

"What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproduction of our race and our people, the sustenance of our children and the purity of our blood, the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe. Every thought and every idea, every doctrine and all knowledge, must serve this purpose. And everything must be examined from this point of view and used or rejected according to its utility."

It is a paradigm and ethos of putting the well-being of the race first. Contrast to today, which is the paradigm and ethos of hedonist utilitarianism (maximize "pleasure" for the most amount of people).

So whether national socialism "works" or not can only be evaluated under this. It cannot be evaluated from a bourgeois worldview.

I meant wither.

Like a plant who has lost its source of nutrition, or a media whore who has lost their source of controversy. A gradual loss of vigor and a recognition that they are destined to exist no longer.

Writhe? Yes. They will writhe in pain at first, but that is secondary. Pain is fleeting and easily ignored with enough fortitude. The creeping realization that you are ceasing to exist? That can never be undone.

Putting a blade between the 2nd and 3rd ensures an experience that, although realistically only lasts for at most a minute or two, seems like eternity for the unfortunate participant.

"I have No Mouth and I Must Scream."

But scream they can't. They can only die writhing in unadulterated, helpless terror.

this is some old school tier Holla Forums shit

i love it.

– Winston Churchill, 1935.

and as a bonus

Winston Churchill: "We will force this war upon Hitler, if he wants it or not." - Winston Churchill (1936 broadcast)

"Germany becomes to powerful. We have to crush it." - Winston Churchill (November 1936 to US-General Robert E. Wood)

"Germany's unforgivable crime before WW2 was its attempt to loosen its economy out of the world trade system and to build up an own exchange system from which the world-finance couldnt profit anymore. …We butchered the wrong pig." - Winston Churchill, The Second World War (Book by Winston Churchill, Bern, 1960) [Amazon]

"The war wasn't only about abolishing fascism, but to conquer sales markets. We could have, if we had intended so, prevented this war from breaking out without doing one shot, but we didn't want to." - Winston Churchill to Truman (Fultun, USA March 1946)

"Should Germany merchandise again in the next 50 years we have led this war (WW1) in vain." - Winston Churchill in Times (1919)

Were you observing the rising GDP of germany every year they were in power up to the war? Its a pretty good barometer of "is this working".

What is a proven ideology or even a "more proven" ideology.

This guy is leftypol

...

I would be surprised if you had any clue where that clip came from.

or do I smell a slight hint of snags and XXXX?

It is from a movie called wolf creek

Hwhat?

self check

checked

sonofabitch i stand corrected, put down your VB and accept a firm handshake as your reward.

not a lot of people know about the series at all.
theres #2 and #3 coming fyi

You totally misinterpreted what he said and missed the point hard. You seem really dumb.

pretty sure he quit this thread after the subversion didn't work

Might have been the user's grand imagination in ways to kill him.

Probably the closest modern counter-part ideologically to Nazi Germany would be North Korea, in the sense that an obscenely high value is placed on race and nationality, and government positions are determined more by familial status and bureaucracy than public approval. And surprise, surprise, after the first few decades, losing the price signals associated with a free market have taken its toll. They have been experiencing a massive food shortage for several years now, and basically only exist because of foreign aid at this point.


How generous, only taking 51 and 49 percent shares. This resembles how communism spread in China. Fully or partially nationalize some particular business->place party members in cushy management position of that business->industry becomes slightly less efficient overall->blame inefficiencies on remaining private sector->repeat. At least the system works while you still have people to steal from.

I wouldn't doubt North Korea is getting demonized because they refuse to fully bow but since you can't slaughter millions of people now a days without someone noticing, just starve them out. I don't doubt that most of their problems are created by the same (((people))) who caused WW2

Tho I am not 100% educated on North Korean history/politics so they might of just fucked themselves

Why did we do it?

Why did we do any of it?

I've been on Holla Forums for a few days and I fucking cried watching these, knowing what I know now.

Why did we fight him? What did we gain?

More importantly, what did we lose?