Integralism

Nothing is of greater importance to man than his surroundings.
The place he lives and works. If a man lives in a run-down and dilapidated place, whether it is his street, his town or his neighbourhood, he will have a miserable life. If he lives in a beautiful, thriving place, he will thrive also.
Realizing this fact can lead us to the conclusion that a man's surroundings need to be constantly preserved, improved and protected.
The mistake the National Socialist ideology makes lies in its' proclamation of the centralized, all-powerful state as the ultimate solution, when this principle fails to put the security of man's surroundings first.
In fact, a centralized state is incapable of adressing the security and prosperity of man's surroundings in and of itself, because the state always governs from outside those surroundings. It can not see what transpires and it can not hear the voice of the people living in those surroundings.
Take the eurocrats in Brussels. They make decrees and amendments on fisheries in Latvia while never having smelled the fish market in Riga. It is nonsense, and they are in no place to make any determination of such nature.
It is the ideology of Integralism which offers a solution to this problem: The State must be localised. No effective policy truly beneficial for the people has ever come out of a central government. It is truly hard to think of any task performed by a central government that could not more efficiently and more successfully be performed by a local government.
Most modern, western states claim for themselves that they carry out the will of the people via their democratic mandate, when for the great mass of people there factually exist no effective means to influence the political process. A citizen living miles and miles away from their government office – how will he bring about any viable change? He can not, as long as politics is not decentralized.

As soon as decentralization and localization occurs, true political participation can again be achieved.
So, tell me again, Holla Forums – Why aren't you Integralist yet?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futurism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Because I'm a national socialist, don't need all these special snowflake variations as if I was a commie or a lolberg

I agree with the sentiment, I'm totally in favor of local government over big government and I'm very optimistic about a decentralization revolution, but like says, I don't really get the need for a label. Some people are way too obsessed with their -isms and -ologies.

There are actual variations of national socialism

Bump for discussion on this version of fascism.

Bump

It's not a bad idea to use the label, I'm a fascist but obviously that term is a no go for normalfags so I say integralist because it's not demonized like the term fascist

How about futurism? I find it fascinating

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futurism

Can the term futurism be applied to natsoc or is it just fashism?

Stop being a pussy and say you're a fascist.if you know how to defend yourself,that is.

...

Who's the guy under the piece of chex mix?

Corneliu Z Codraenu

One more ISM that doesn't REALLY..at the end of the day…matter.

Actually it does.there's a different fascist variant in almost every country so we should be discussing em.

It's a different ideology from fascism .

lol
LOL

Thank you for your great contribution. I almost wanna screencap it.

Gee, I wonder who could be behind them.

Fuck, this was meant to be 3rd pic.

He has to actually make arguments before I can refute them

The arguments are there. You either can't see them because you have low level reading comprehension or you don't want to see them because you're a shill.

You do realise Germany was still federalized under National Socialism, with exactly the sort of local governance (in the form of the Gaue) you espouse. Of course this doesn't mean you can turn your Gau into a degenerate communist hellhole just because you feel like it.

Get the garbage collected on time, then we can conquer the world.

I'm not the guy that has to constantly ip hop. But please, tell me more about how you can solve all the worlds problems with local government.

See, I guess localisation isn't wrong after all.

Local government functions better than a centralized government in pretty much all aspects. Vast central states are inefficient, bureaucratic nightmares (see EU, USA) while local governments have the capacity to allow participation of and benefit the community. What kind of man is happy, when there's trash lying on the street every day?
Globalism is bad, nationalism is good, localism is better.

If only it were that simple. There are trade-offs that come with the freedom of small scale. Although you are far more free to pursue your own self interests, larger nations and coalitions can easily outcompete you militarily or economically. To compete with them, you'll be forced into coallitions where you'll be forced to compromise constantly anyway.
Also, plenty of smaller countries with localist governments have poor living conditions. What's with your obsession with that anyway?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity

Archeo-futurism has already fascist connotations so you could use that.

I think the reason that different fascist ideologies have emerged in different locations is actually tied into your title statement.

"Nothing is of greater importance to man than his surroundings".

Different politics will emerge in response to different national realities. In fact, this is one of the key ideas of integralism itself. While we share key facets in our ideologies, the specifics that emerge in each nation are different, and must be different. We are nationalists, not universalists. German NS developed a strong centralized national government because the German geography, demographics, culture, economy and political situation all demanded it.

Spain developed a conservative Catholic fascism because that is of course what best suited Spain. Italy developed a fascism that de-emphasized the role of race because admixture is frankly a reality in much of Italy (espescially the south).

So what? Kikes probably use the fasces too.

I agree but germany should lead the new fascist europe and get more clay. NS should also be spread in anglo countries tbh.

I've actually thought about this before myself. Centralization has some good points (such as a larger unified military defense against outside threats, or large civil infrastructure projects that require multiple large groups working together to complete) but overall cannot respond properly to the regional needs of the people.

What people in one part of a country might require doing or the way they wish to live might be completely different to what the people on the other side of a country want, yet they are both represented by the same central government which dictates their future and their direction as a people. A central government that in many western nations is elected by a tyranny of the majority. At least the US somewhat manages to escape this trap by being a republic rather than a democracy, as seen by the election of Trump (and yes, I think he won the popular vote. But (((you know who))) rigged the election so that he didn't, the fact that he won in spite of this is amazing and makes me praise Kek harder than ever).

That's exactly what led to the Aegean apocalypse and the sea people. Overly centralized states letting everywhere else but the capital go to seed.

We should work to eliminate differences between regions and unite the volk under the same banner.

That sounds awfully jewish…

Our differences are what make us unique and make the world a more interesting place. However the interests of all these different people are not served well by the current system.

jewish? This is a NS ideal.
And I'm talking about nations themselves. Not "everyone in da world should be the same xd"

Also i'm not trying to say the volk should literally have no difference's like a filthy commie. i mean we should work to be more united which is why a centralized state is a good thing.

I agree, OP. Local governments are integral to a well-functioning society. Larger scale control completely loses touch with the people on a small scale, but the larger whole they're trying to govern is made up of many many smaller groups of people living in different conditions and environments. The man living in the mountains should not be subject to the same regulation and control as the man living in a coastal city.

This is why federal government is best kept small and given power only in a handful of areas that a group of small governments could not handle effectively or efficiently, like the military or international trade.

Even if you have a homogeneous people of similar spirit and ideals, their needs and desires will still vary quite a bit depending on their immediate environment. This is one of the major failings of communist governments, treating people and populations as though they were interchangeable when that's just not the case for many purposes.

I accept that people have different needs.but that doesn't mean we can't try and overcome our differences for the greater good of the nation.

Of course, but it really depends on the particular needs. Some things are best addressed locally, and some things can only be addressed nationally. Differentiating between the two and allocating power appropriately is crucial, especially in very large nations like the US.

Fuck off kike. I like my regional culture. I don't want some bland homogenized America. That's exactly what the leftists want and the only difference between you and them is they want a beige America while you want a white version.

Commies don't try to unify nations. they attempt to brainwash everyone into believing marxist nonsence and force their exact opinions onto people.

You could say the same thing about National Socialism. Obvious NS is better for people and nations than communism. But I'm sure you see my point, trying to treat millions of people exactly the same despite their varying environments and conditions is doomed to failure unless you give the individual, or the local government a large degree of autonomy.

A centralized state can address local issues without any problems though.

You've misunderstood NS as a "white version of gommunism" that wants to eradicate all things regional.

I agree but not autonomy in a "federalist" way which has its own flag,laws etc, since that divides the nation which makes it weaker.

Not without a large bureaucracy and a shitload of inefficiency and waste. A national government will never be as effective in addressing local issues as a local government would be. A smart national government appropriately delegates power to local governments in areas that don't require direct national oversight or control. Imagine the US federal government having to replace bulbs in a lightpost in smalltown Wyoming. It just wouldn't happen, or it would take forever and cost more money than if that issue was handled locally. One single national government must have smaller local governments that it gives appropriate authority to.


It really depends on the size of the country and how much variation you see within it, even if the population was homogeneous. It wouldn't make sense for Alaska to have the same laws as Florida.

Which nation?

A decentralized state makes things too local and not national enough. Local issues will he solved through limited autonomy.
Maybe not in a kiked up multiculti America.but in a 100% Aryan one where the filth is removed it can be possible. it hasn't been tried yet anyway so we'll see once we try ro implement it.

In Ethnic european countries (future or former) and maybe east asian countries like japan too.

So a right wing EU and east asian coalition. That would never work.

I meant indiviual nations having their own centralized states, not a fucking eu or coalition you retard.
Disgusting.

>>>/islam/

There's no way to defend against irrational screeching and yelling

Icarly has pizzagate connections,newfag.

Not everyone cares to scroll through stickied thread #45138 nigger

And how is "We should work to eliminate differences between regions" different from "everyone in da world should be the same xd"?

Lurk moar cuckchanner

...

The japanese transformerstyle logo tho

Reported.

I can tell from your writing you have a VERY high iq.

You proved in many words you have no idea about the philosophies driving National Socialism.


This

I should have stopped right there

...

You said it better than I could, thank you.

Forgot the most important part.
Strength to the Family

The governments of the West have a sinister goal of making individuals less dependent on each other and more dependent on the state. They want to do this to destroy family and local communities and acquire even more power by dependency.
This is done by giving out welfare, free housing, food stamps, you name it.
When an individual needs aid, be it financial aid or simply needing a place to live, you'd used to ask a member of your own community or family to help you. The centralist governments of course don't like that. They want to make you dependent on THEM for help, not each other.

So we need to stop giving handouts to poor people.
And we need to make a divorce much more difficult.

We must educate people on the devastating effects of adultery, single parenthood, and any other things that come to the detriment of the family unit.

The people must learn that consumerism and materialism are toxic.
We must also put focus on rural municipal communities.
What is needed is, in effect, a de-Urbanization of the continent.

Reliance on your local community means strong local communites. Man must be in touch with Mankind.
Strong local communities means a strong people.

This has been addressed elsewhere already. Men should be in charge of central government and women can run local shit. It is really no big deal.

Are you a woman OP?

Are you a shill user?

Are you legit retarded? Do you not understand how government works? In every country, you DO have local governments subject to the central government. The local government decides how a street will be built in that area, where new trees will be planted, etc., while the central government focuses on the big picture.

The rest of your post has been disregarded, faggot.

If your nigger brain would've cared enough to read the post you'd know that that was the point, nigger.

answer my post, OP. It seems like what you describe is literally what is already used everywhere through mayors and similar.

So yes then?

Also local government a shit everywhere. Nobody cares faggot. Where do you think you are?

Central is where its at.

The problem is that too much power is still attributed to central government.
Since centralist lawmakers and politicians have nothing better to do, they will regulate the hell out of their people's affairs.
Business stagnate and can not form due to regulations.
Regional development is halted due to regulations.
We see this in every mayor Western country at this point.
Central governments, if at all, should have no role besides faciliating diplomatic relations and providing military protection.

So yes then?

False premise means shit argument, pleb.

So, theoretically, in one city they will burn fags at the stake, while in the one two kilometres away, refusing to suck dick is punishable by death?

this seems like a (((crypto-lolbergtardarian))) trying to get indoctrinate people into supporting his shitty kiked up ideology tbh.

Replase "city" with "country" and suddenly you have a globalist argument.
Also, that's not the point. Of course you need to have laws that make sense.

Also daily reminder that localism and globalism are two sides of the same coin.

The thing is that those two aren't really interchangeable

You said nothing about central government being a lawmaker. But if the central government IS to be the lawmaker, then we are right where we started, in the current society. "Laws that make sense" is too vague a term to be of any use, since everybody has a different opinion on what "makes sense"

Oh great, meaningless buzzwords for a meaningless post.


So do we need to listen to every normie who thinks their opinions matter? The state needs to benefit the people, this is the first tenet of fascism. However, it does not benefit the people by amending regulations that stifle regional and local developments while being completely out of touch with what the people actually want, even though deluding itself to the opposite by heralding their failed system of "democracy" which doesn't work.

Now you are countering your own ideology. How do you want to place local interests first if you refuse to listen to the locals? If you have the central government appoint its own people there, then it may just so happen that those people "accidentally" share the exact same values as the central government and push its laws.

You're right, I should've put it another way.

And that's exactly why Integralism wants a transfer of power from centralized government to localized government: so that escapist bureaucrats in some government office building hundreds of miles away don't get to set an agenda upon unique regions and their peoples.

But WHO forms the local government? If you have the locals elect someone, then it may just happen that the locals are raging SJWs who will make Sweden seem conservative. If you do NOT have the locals decide, then you will either have the central government appoint someone, placing us back where we started, or tie it to something else like birthright or something, putting us essentially into feudalism

Democracy is definitely a bad idea.
I believe the strongest of a community should be the ones ruling it, then a dynastic system put in place. But which form of government suits a region the best is determined by its' people and their habitat, so I can not make a generalising statement on this.

As Oswald Mosley put it

The Imperial Fascist League was hilarious.
It never took off like the BUF did.
But its founder after he got out of prison after WW2 went on to write some political magazine and it had a section in it called "nigger notes"

Are they white?

This is what small white countries look like, so I don't know which he is talking about.

So, literally feudalism.

Lichtenstein and Monaco have some of the highest quality of life in the world

Yes. Monarchy. The system that has brought order to the West for hundreds of years.
As I said, however, every region should put a government in place according to its' own needs.

How the fuck did that get labelled Liechtenstein? That's clearly Mostar in Bosnia. You can even see the minarets of a mosque in the background.

Huh, that's weird. It's one of the first pics that comes up when you google Liechtenstein.

Democracy is a soft variant of communism, and rarely in the history of ideas has it been taken for anything else.

You do realise the most stable part of Europe (Britain) has not had an absolute monarchy for most of its history now.

France meanwhile persisted in the use of an absolute monarchy and frequently suffered severe problems because of it.

Are you saying that local government formed by aristocracy, that is independent in most matters and whose rulership passes by inheritance, is not feudalism?


Medieval monarchies fought with their vassals constantly over who gets to decide what, with some vassals even aiding a foreign power that promised a better deal. How would your proposed model prevent that from happening? The more modern monarchies solved it precisely by taking power from the local governments

As I said, each region should put a government in place according to it's own needs.

I don't think we should return to medieval/absolute monarchy. But a dynastic system makes sense because rulers will never lose the long-term perspective on governing their country, as their children will inherit it.
This is something the modern politician lacks. He is only concerned with the prospects of the next five minutes.

I would argue, but I don't mean to defend OP.
and sage you faggots

great arguments guys

do you really not see the problem in his very first assertion

Are you gonna keep posting your meaningless non-arguments or actually contribute something to the discussion?

Nigger, what? Hitler talks in Mein Kampf, chapter two of the poor conditions of housing for the workers. Speer talks in his biography about all the plans he had, and a few he carried out. There where high quality, affordable homes built for families, and interest-free loans to furnish them. Great care was taken to making Germany beautiful again, with monumental public buildings, parks, landscaping and forestry.

The Yoke and the Bundle of Arrows or the Yoke and Arrows (Spanish: el yugo y el haz de flechas or el yugo y las flechas) is a badge dating back to the Spanish co-monarchy of the Catholic Monarchs Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella I of Castile. It served as the symbol of the shield of the monarchy of Ferdinand and Isabella and subsequent Catholic monarchs, representing a united Spain and the "symbol of the heroic virtues of the race".[1] It was also an allusion to the names of the monarchs: Y stood for yugo and for Ysabel (in contemporary spelling) and F stood for flechas and for Fernando. Also, the yoke referred to the legend of the Gordian knot, as did the motto Tanto monta; while the bundle of arrows alluded to the Classical moral story advising that arrows can be easily broken one by one, but are unbreakable if tied together.

In the 20th century, the yoke and arrows became a political symbol of the Falange political movement in Spain.[2]

...

I'll skip the first assertion because it needs further clarification (either way is shit though), but it is you who has not yet made an argument.

>Realizing this fact
If there is are cases where this is not true, then it is not a "fact" and the conclusion is not backed up, it's just an opinion.

aka NOT AN ARGUMENT

I've always argued for decentralization but also for deurbanization.

Read the thread, kike.
As they say: Kikes blame their enemies for things they did themselves.
No wonder.

As OP you have to first make a coherent argument if you are telling us we need to follow your system. You have not. You are merely making assertions. Many of which are trite and meaningless.

From this and your combativeness, I assume you are deliberately sliding or D&Cing, reported.

Shut up Varg.

lmao

Source?

Get out, nigger.

...

look nigger, if you still believe in centralization and urbanization while browsing Holla Forums I can only draw the conclusion that you need to lurk moar.

hence;
lmao

t.LIDF shill failing at subversion

Amen brother. Trying to use special terms will only divide us.

The work of the jew

This tbh

...

Dude its on his wikipedia page.
And from what I know of the guy he's sufficiently whacky to have actually done it

To be fair to us fascists.
We're not trying to enforce a common political system on the world.
For the most part we care little of what systems other nations and peoples live by.

Hence why we can cooperate despite differing ideological stances.

Wrong.
We do care because the kikes will control the other countries and fuck our shit up.
Also other countries have shitskins and niggers in them and that is unacceptable.

...

Because certain projects don't scale up, certain projects don't scale down. The level of organization in government must be commensurate with the level of organization required for the project. That's it. When you get discrepancies, things get fucked up.

What other countries do you have in mind?
The Reich should dominate earth, faggot
lol k

I can't remember, but there's an Italian Renaissance artist who's philosophy is the very same.

...

God damn it, this makes me so mad. He just forever ruined his age-old, royal, pure bloodline.
We wuz kangs and sheiit I guess.

The goal of National Socialism is not complete centralization.
Germany had a long tradition of freedom and decentralization under the HRE, and the kingdoms of the German Empire, and NS Germany continued in this matter.
For example, power in NS Germany was much more distributed in the Gaue than it is in the modern states of Germany.
Also, an important part of National Socialism is Blut und Boden (Blood and Soil), which places emphasis on rural living and having and bond with your land rather than being a rootless cosmopolitan.