Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 85

Thread: National Socialism, Fascism, and Communism

  1. #11
    Senior Member velvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Online
    1 Hour Ago @ 06:13 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Northern Germany
    Subrace
    Faelid
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    North Rhine-Westphalia North Rhine-Westphalia
    Gender
    Age
    45
    Zodiac Sign
    Sagittarius
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Pestilent Supremacy
    Politics
    Blut und Boden
    Religion
    Fimbulwinter
    Posts
    4,699
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    829
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    977
    Thanked in
    397 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Grimston
    National Socialism is ideologically moderate between Fascism and Communism, because of the relation between Nationalism and the former, Socialism and the latter. We see on the map of Europe National Socialism in Protestant areas, Fascism in Catholic areas, and Communism in Orthodox areas. ... but it is notable that Germany was split into a Nationalist West Germany and a Socialist East Germany. All of this is very organic looking. ... Germany apparently chose the best of both worlds in a bipolar Europe, and tried to unify under those principles...
    That's rather simplicistic view, and also a problematic interpretation because there is not much of "organic" development to either. West Germany also was not "nationalist", and East Germany was given by the Allies to Communist Russia. It was by no means their "choice", as West Germany's "choice" to be democratic and not nationalist was made by the Allies too. To regard either as "natural development" from a "failed" NS experiment would be in all honesty out of all ranges of events and possible interpretations thereof.

    It is, btw, open to discussion which form the new FRG after the reunification actually took on. Considering the level of censorship, media control, brainwashing, party banning etc, one can actually doubt whether it continues to be (the likewise illegal though at least on paper democratic) FRG or if it not became Communist, and they just forgot to mention that. And no, like the above, this is not at all a development that comes from the people, it's not their choice and they dont have any say in matters anyway. That's the cool thing about cultural-marxist-newspeech, you can be a dictatorship and no one says a word when you just call it "representative democracy" instead and have your voting-sheep trotting to the scaffold... eh ballot box every 4 years so that the OECD is happy. You vote for who presents the party-line that still comes from elsewhere, not more.

    In contrast to the 1933 election. There has never been a secret about the intentions of the NSDAP to eradicate democrazy, and yet people voted for them, enough so that they were the second strongest power and Hitler becoming Reichskanzler was not a "Machtergreifung" but a perfectly normal and regular act of the coalition formed under democratic principles. Oh the irony
    Ein Leben ist nichts, deine Sprosse sind alles
    Aller Sturm nimmt nichts, weil dein Wurzelgriff zu stark ist
    und endet meine Frist, weiss ich dass du noch da bist
    Gefürchtet von der Zeit, mein Baum, mein Stamm in Ewigkeit

    my signature

  2. #12
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Last Online
    Wednesday, July 11th, 2018 @ 05:09 AM
    Ethnicity
    Ethnicity
    Ancestry
    Ancestry
    Gender
    Age
    36
    Posts
    2,129
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,488
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    128
    Thanked in
    106 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by MCPThree View Post
    No. NS is a merger of Nationalism and Catholic-Social conscious (see Karl Lueger, pre WW1 mayor of Vienna, Hitler's idol)

    You have neither read Mein Kampf nor did any genuine studying, because most of your claims are bizarre and fictional.

    And if you had read the memoirs of Hartmann Lauterbacher (former NSDAP Gauleiter of Hannover, born Austrian) you would knew that this merger (NS) is of Austrian origin. The title of his book is: "Erlebt und mitgestaltet"

    Hitler's and Lauterbacher's NS is inspired by the Christian-Social movement of the early 20th movement in the Austrian Empire.


    False conclusion based on your previous false statement.


    False claim based on previous fiction. Catholic-Croatia was NS, while Catholic-Italy was Fascist.
    Britain (Protestant) would have, if Mosley and the BFU(British Fascist Union) had prevailed, Fascist, not NS.
    NS requires the Republican form of government as it calls for the overthrow of the system. Hitler always talked about that it was Mussolini's greatest mistake to not expel King Victor Emanuel. Hitler was right, when Victor Emanuel finally dismissed Mussolini as PM.
    Mussolini's second regime (because traitor King Victor Emanuel defected to the British)1943-45, the RSI, was NS. RSI stands for Repubblica Sociale Italiana or Italian Social Republic.

    It has this flag:


    While the Kingdom of Italy (until 1943) had this flag.


    Notice the difference?


    Who says so? You, Lord Vansittard and WSC?


    ???
    Now you are ridiculous . Any evidence?

    Or are you talking about the (Soviet-Allied occupied) German Zones after 1945?

    Answer that !


    What a pack of nonsense. You talk like Churchill, one false statement after another, therefor wrong conclusions, which then are backed with more fiction...until everything is turned around. Are you from the Uk ?

    If yes then you better read Capt. (RN) R. Grenfell's (a military historian) "Unconditional Hatred" rather then to talk about things you obviously have no clue of.
    http://www.vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres5/Grenfell.pdf
    He already writes as early as 1953 that "future generations may well have to pay a high price" for what Churchill and his yes-men did, namely to base perception and policy on fiction rather than on facts, and to spread hatred based on atrocity tales. According to Grenfell this will lead to a situation for his beloved England that at one point in the future everything is going to be on its head..

    Sorry about me sounding harsh, but this opportunity is simply just too good as a showcase example of what Grenfell meant 58 years ago.
    You are correct that I have not read Mein Kampf, or at least all of it. While I understand Germany's reasons for war (Realpolitik) I do not care for the rabble rousing propagandas employed to that end which apparently drive most apologists of the Nazi period. I do not take Guido von List seriously from what I have read of his theories, as a parody of Germanic traditions. I have not even read any passages whatsoever of the Communist Manifesto either, although Marxism is very obvious wherever it is in play. This is apparently Germany's national embarrassment (yes, so don't blame other countries), and I can understand the fury leveled at it in the Weimar period. I have read small excerpts from/about Nietzsche and Freud, but both seem ridiculous to me. The only German literature I have read from back then, was Siddhartha by Herman Hesse. I disagree with the attempt by mysticists to marry this with Germanic traditions as well. You might find this strange, but I agree more with Hitler than with Himmler about Germanic cultural origins and traditions.

    I am aware that there was a difference in Kleindeutschland and Grossdeutschland as the way in which Germany ought to have proceeded, and this is more relevant to your statement on Austrian origins to National Socialism. WWI tried the former, and WWII tried the latter. Prussia and Austria previously fought alongside one another to extract Schleswig-Holstein from Denmark. Neither style of Prussia, nor Prussia with Austria apparently worked for a world war (although they did succeed in defeating Denmark again, a "fellow Germanic nation"!), but I really do not see why either matters, since the Holy Roman Empire before was not very successful anyway. Germany has had to live with such defeats time and time again. I assume this failure to go "toe to toe" with her neighbors, all of whom are Gentiles, and in failing to bring "lesser Germanic peoples" to heel under German leadership, are just more "reasons" to cry foul over world Jewry though.

    I am not taking anti-Churchill sentiment very seriously. He was from an illustrious family renowned for their service to the nation--Re: John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough in England and Prince of Mindelheim (afterwards Mellenburg) in Germany. I would not slur the proud name of Bismarck either (which some Germans might expect others to do in ignorance), nor the House of Savoy (Victor Emmanuel accrued an imperial title in Ethiopia, which is more than Mussolini ever achieved!). No, I am not UK-based. I simply come from a UK family recently established in the US.

    Quote Originally Posted by MCPThree View Post
    False statement. The Falange and Franco were a copy of Mussolini and the Fascist Party of Italy. See above post.
    Yes, the Latin style of ruling hardly varies over all, regardless of time period and whether in Europe or Latin America. All of these wops are so predictable.

    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    That's rather simplicistic view, and also a problematic interpretation because there is not much of "organic" development to either. West Germany also was not "nationalist", and East Germany was given by the Allies to Communist Russia. It was by no means their "choice", as West Germany's "choice" to be democratic and not nationalist was made by the Allies too. To regard either as "natural development" from a "failed" NS experiment would be in all honesty out of all ranges of events and possible interpretations thereof.

    It is, btw, open to discussion which form the new FRG after the reunification actually took on. Considering the level of censorship, media control, brainwashing, party banning etc, one can actually doubt whether it continues to be (the likewise illegal though at least on paper democratic) FRG or if it not became Communist, and they just forgot to mention that. And no, like the above, this is not at all a development that comes from the people, it's not their choice and they dont have any say in matters anyway. That's the cool thing about cultural-marxist-newspeech, you can be a dictatorship and no one says a word when you just call it "representative democracy" instead and have your voting-sheep trotting to the scaffold... eh ballot box every 4 years so that the OECD is happy. You vote for who presents the party-line that still comes from elsewhere, not more.

    In contrast to the 1933 election. There has never been a secret about the intentions of the NSDAP to eradicate democrazy, and yet people voted for them, enough so that they were the second strongest power and Hitler becoming Reichskanzler was not a "Machtergreifung" but a perfectly normal and regular act of the coalition formed under democratic principles. Oh the irony
    I never said it was perfect, but could you argue that a Fascist or Communist style of governance could take place in origin among the Germanic peoples? These were developed elsewhere, and Germany suffered trying to test her mettle by experimenting with them, only to be run over doing the middle of the road approach, between France and Russia (and failing to accurately gauge the responses of fellow Germanic industrial power competitors). So too it made sense that the Allied partition and occupation was shared along natural geographic lines of West for France (known for Fascism, so why not Nationalism in FRG?) and East for Russia (known for Communism, so why not Socialism in GDR?). Those would be the expected influences shared by a National Socialist Germany with her Fascist and Communist neighbors because of the geopolitical reality wherein Germany is situated among the great powers. I am not making apologetics for the Allied powers, only making sense of the situation as it was.

    I wonder why, though, you place a high esteem on mob rule, as instituted in 1933. I liked the country when in the hands of aristocrats, most of whom were Prussian or Austrian. There was a certain dignity in WWI unknown in WWII.

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Online
    Friday, May 11th, 2012 @ 09:24 PM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Teutonic
    Ancestry
    Germany, England, Scotland
    Country
    United States United States
    Gender
    Politics
    Natural Law
    Posts
    152
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Grimston View Post
    France (known for Fascism, so why not Nationalism in FRG?)
    The FRG is not and was never a nationalist country. It's a liberal puppet regime set up by the Allies.

    Also, since when is ultra-republican France known for fascism?
    Last edited by Huginn ok Muninn; Sunday, December 25th, 2011 at 08:59 AM. Reason: ad hominem

  4. #14
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Last Online
    Wednesday, July 11th, 2018 @ 05:09 AM
    Ethnicity
    Ethnicity
    Ancestry
    Ancestry
    Gender
    Age
    36
    Posts
    2,129
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,488
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    128
    Thanked in
    106 Posts
    Compared to the GDR (with Weimar, Berlin and its Prussian ties to the east) and anything else under the Iron Curtain, the FRG based in Bonn (closer to France, Aachen [Charlemagne's capital], Frankfurt [site of the German Confederation], Strasbourg and Brussels, etc) was very Nationalist. The GDR was just another amorphous Soviet "collective" without any sense of heads or tails to its existence. This is what I mean about the splitting of Nazi Germany into a Nationalist West and Socialist East.

    Marshal Petain was a Fascist, yes or no? The France of today still uses the Fasces as an official government symbol. A government under the principles of Fascism does not have to be run by a single ruler, and Paris is a very good example of Fascist bureaucracy. Just ask anybody in France, especially the Bretons, Basques, and Alsace-Lorraine!
    Last edited by Aeternitas; Sunday, December 25th, 2011 at 03:39 PM. Reason: personal disputes and response removed.

  5. #15
    Senior Member velvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Online
    1 Hour Ago @ 06:13 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Northern Germany
    Subrace
    Faelid
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    North Rhine-Westphalia North Rhine-Westphalia
    Gender
    Age
    45
    Zodiac Sign
    Sagittarius
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Pestilent Supremacy
    Politics
    Blut und Boden
    Religion
    Fimbulwinter
    Posts
    4,699
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    829
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    977
    Thanked in
    397 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Grimston
    You are correct that I have not read ...
    So, essentially you know nothing, but of course, you have an opinion. Interesting.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grimston
    I am aware that there was a difference in Kleindeutschland and Grossdeutschland as the way in which Germany ought to have proceeded, and this is more relevant to your statement on Austrian origins to National Socialism. WWI tried the former, and WWII tried the latter. Prussia and Austria previously fought alongside one another to extract Schleswig-Holstein from Denmark. Neither style of Prussia, nor Prussia with Austria apparently worked for a world war (although they did succeed in defeating Denmark again, a "fellow Germanic nation"!), but I really do not see why either matters, since the Holy Roman Empire before was not very successful anyway. Germany has had to live with such defeats time and time again. I assume this failure to go "toe to toe" with her neighbors, all of whom are Gentiles, and in failing to bring "lesser Germanic peoples" to heel under German leadership, are just more "reasons" to cry foul over world Jewry though.
    You jump over like 600 years of history from the HRE directly into the 1930s, and you manage too to place, despite that there is no reason to do so in the context you started this paragraph with, to mention "world Jewry".

    In addition, the latter part of the paragraph reads like written and thought by a non-Gentile.

    There was and is good reason for what is commonly called "anti-Semitism", because first and foremost, they dont belong here but into Israel. But parasites have trouble to live among themselves and so they sneak out into the world and fuck over everyone. In fact, they should be contained in Israel and be blocked from traveling outside.


    You may want to explain your profile
    Ethnicity: Danish
    Ancestry: Swedish
    Country: England
    State: Yorkshire

    This doesnt make that much sense.


    Quote Originally Posted by Grimston
    I never said it was perfect, but could you argue that a Fascist or Communist style of governance could take place in origin among the Germanic peoples? These were developed elsewhere, and Germany suffered trying to test her mettle by experimenting with them, only to be run over doing the middle of the road approach, between France and Russia (and failing to accurately gauge the responses of fellow Germanic industrial power competitors).
    NS is hardly a "middle of the road" approach, and even less between fascism and communism. But we already established above that you know nothing but have an opinion.

    NS is a consequential policy of already existing concepts Blut und Boden and folkish socialism, which already grew from the industrial revolution (Britain also developed, though never consequent, a sort of socialism for its lowest and working classes against exploitation and abuse). NS formed this into policies to combat the exploitation and human abuse by multinational corporations who dragged out large amounts of the produced wealth from the national economy and forced the economic cycles to remain by and large within Germany (see above). The early forms of that came about as counterconcepts to the capitalistic system which denied large portions of the populace human dignity. But when you claim love for your folk, it's only consequent that you implement systems which give back your populace as a whole human dignity. It was in that a natural counterreaction to the starting globalisation and internationalisation, the eradication of ethnic uniqueness in favor of "uniting classes around the world" (as proclaimed by communism), control over national finances and policies through "international investors" etc. The same ills that still run our world into ruin.


    Industrial power competitors? LOL. Funny.

    Britain ruled an empire in which the sun never set. They had a vital home industry and endless resource supply from her colonies. The only reason to jump into the war against Germany was envy and fear. They couldnt stomach that there was a country going to become a strong nation that was able to rule and lead the continent, something Britain was never able to do on the continent. The price for Britain to fight Germany, out of fear and envy (and a good portion of greed), was her empire.

    France had already governed itself out of any position to rule the continent, they have become already around 1900 so liberal, multicult, tolerant and equality-obsessed (specially for the scum that roamed their streets from their colonies), that they simply had no time to care for their industry. When Germany marched into France in WWII, it took some 3 weeks to take it. There was no significant resistance, in addition, they maybe werent so unhappy to have someone bring back some order. Would have spared them figures like Strauss-Kahn, Sarkozy who do their utmost to ruin France (and Europe) once and for all.

    Oh, right, another of that ilk is "Call me Dave" Cameron.

    You see, their envy, fear and greed, their hybris to deny Germany its rightful place only defeated themselves, their empires and their nations. The policies that won out is not what the soldiers fought for. They fought for their nations and for their folk, riled up through propaganda from 1933 onwards, that year in which world jewry declared war on Germany. But they have been betrayed. And now their countries are flooded with the world's scum and Jews rule their countries and disseminate cultural-marxism, anti-white-racism, self-hate and self-loathing.

    "Our Jewish interests demand the final destruction of Germany." - W. Jabotinski, founder of "Irgun Zwai Leumi" (January 1934)

    "Not the political doctrine of Hitler has hurled us into this war. The reason was the success of his increase in building a new economy. The roots of war were envy, greed and fear." - Major General J.F.C. Fuller, historian, England


    "We made a monster, a devil out of Hitler. Therefore we couldn´t disavow it after the war. After all, we mobilized the masses against the devil himself. So we were forced to play our part in this diabolic scenario after the war. In no way we could have pointed out to our people that the war only was an economic preventive measure." - US foreign minister Baker (1992)

    "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 couldn´t profit anymore. ...We butchered the wrong pig." - Winston Churchill, The second World War (Bern, 1960)


    Even Churchill, though too late, realised that the war against Germany was a grave mistake.



    Quote Originally Posted by Grimston
    So too it made sense that the Allied partition and occupation was shared along natural geographic lines of West for France (known for Fascism, so why not Nationalism in FRG?) and East for Russia (known for Communism, so why not Socialism in GDR?). Those would be the expected influences shared by a National Socialist Germany with her Fascist and Communist neighbors because of the geopolitical reality wherein Germany is situated among the great powers. I am not making apologetics for the Allied powers, only making sense of the situation as it was.
    Look, the FRG was not nationalistic. And in fact the only reason why West-Germany became an own state and not the originally planned (by another of that ilk, Morgenthau) "Free Trade Zone" (with NO National Rights and Protection according to Völkerrecht!) was that the Soviet Union cancelled their deal with the West and closed herself up, with that becoming a "threat" to their New World Order. Germany became a state to be a bufferzone.

    The GDR became Communist (and in fact way more nationalistic than West-Germany which was almost immediately subject to cultural-marxist propaganda) was simply because it was the only approved form of govt by the Soviet Union. Btw, one thing why the Soviet Union suddenly was an enemy again was that they reformed Communism and made it very much nationalistic. While Moscow was a multicultural city out of necessity, to have represents from all regions, and they did shuffle around some populations too, race-mixing, unlike in the west, was heavily frowned upon and there were no cultural marxists telling them not to be so racist.

    When you want an organic example of what happens when an empire (as in multinational state) dissolves, rather look at the Soviet Union (or Yugoslavia). When it crashed, the nations did indeed emerge along ethnic lines. The divide of Germany was not at all organic.

    Another interesting bit is, that because they essentially had national communism, which they learned to hate though and also learned that communism doesnt really work, most of those nations today have strong national-socialist movements.


    However, you still try to interprete the post-WWII reality as if it was a natural development, and even more, you consider the Allies as benevolent "liberators" who took the "national dispositions" (which you wrongly apply to Germans and Europeans) into consideration when dividing Germany (and Europe) into the different zones. Nothing could be further from the truth though.


    Quote Originally Posted by Grimston
    I wonder why, though, you place a high esteem on mob rule, as instituted in 1933. I liked the country when in the hands of aristocrats, most of whom were Prussian or Austrian. There was a certain dignity in WWI unknown in WWII.
    WWI knew no dignity either. It was the first war in history in which technology trumped the soldiers' abilities, where in fact, the soldiers were reduced to cannon fodder. It wasnt a war in which one country fought another, in which one army fought another army and at the end the side won of whom the most soldiers returned home. It was a war everyone against Germany (not because Germany was a real threat, see above, but because of envy, greed and fear), in WWII even more so than in WWI. Both were wars where those sides "won" which could throw the most bombs, which had the most tanks, the most machines guns and the most ammunition and thus could sustain the mass destruction longest - and of course the profit-making for those which are the enemy of all of us.
    Ein Leben ist nichts, deine Sprosse sind alles
    Aller Sturm nimmt nichts, weil dein Wurzelgriff zu stark ist
    und endet meine Frist, weiss ich dass du noch da bist
    Gefürchtet von der Zeit, mein Baum, mein Stamm in Ewigkeit

    my signature

  6. #16
    Senior Member NatSozArbeiter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Last Online
    Saturday, April 7th, 2012 @ 10:18 PM
    Ethnicity
    Pennsylvania-German
    Ancestry
    Southern Germany
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Pennsylvania Pennsylvania
    Location
    Eastern PA
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Tradesman
    Politics
    Strasserist National Socialism
    Religion
    Asatru
    Posts
    52
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    There is a really simple difference between the three systems.

    Fascism - State has control over corporations, state directs economy, private property is maintained.

    Communism - No state, no borders, shared property ownership, "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs". Basically free access atheist utopia.

    National Socialism - Nationalism and Socialism. Socialization of private enterprise to meet the needs of each individual member of the folk community, strong democratic principles.

    It is only cause of the Hitler system that National Socialism is compared to fascism. The Hitler system was not National Socialism, it took on a more fascist approach to the economy. Private property was maintained and the state managed corporations through party reps. This doesn't mean the Hitler system didn't bring a lot of good to a broken Germany itself, only that Hitler had abandon any sort of socialism for totalitarian corporatism after he got out of jail.
    Anti-capitalist and anti-communist!

    "Hate must be born of love. One must be capable of loving to know what is hateful, and so have the strength to destroy it." - Otto Strasser

  7. #17
    Senior Member Vectis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Last Online
    Thursday, January 19th, 2012 @ 03:26 PM
    Ethnicity
    Atlantic RhD-
    Ancestry
    England,Asturias,Scotland
    Country
    England England
    Location
    Isle of Wight
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Politics
    Imperialism
    Posts
    51
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    These days National Socialism, Communism and Fascism are irrelevant, just like the terms 'left wing' and 'right wing'. What we have now is a globalist liberal-socialist system where individual governments have little control over their choices.

    All mainstream political parties in Europe and the Westernised world are subscribers to a global financial system, controlled by a few thousand people via Central Banks and the IMF. All governments, even so called Conservatives, are influenced by marxist thought to some extent, just look at home much benefit money, third world aid, social housing, public sector jobs, subsidies etc the 'right wing' Conservative government in Britain gives out! This form of Marxism is reduction of society to its lowest level, to create a 'diverse' (mixed race, immoral, ignorant and lazy) cultureless mass that is easiliy controlled.

    I see National Socialism as the opposite of the current system, where a nation has full control of its spending and policies, while putting a lot of significance on national culture and the native race of people. It should be ruled for the benefit of the individual nation rather than for an international finance system.

    National Socialism movements were based on a 'volkisch' sentiment which is probably gone for good now as a result of urbanisation and industrialisation. This lack of national identity happened first in Britain since it was the first fully Industialised country and led to the situation we have now, with people like Blair saying 'being British is not about the colour of your skin or where you were born, it is about a set of values' (as he opened the floodgates of immigrants and Indians, Slavs and Blacks were welcomed as 'New Britons'). I doubt National Socialism could make a comeback now the connection of people and land has become so weak.

  8. #18
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Last Online
    Wednesday, July 11th, 2018 @ 05:09 AM
    Ethnicity
    Ethnicity
    Ancestry
    Ancestry
    Gender
    Age
    36
    Posts
    2,129
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,488
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    128
    Thanked in
    106 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    So, essentially you know nothing, but of course, you have an opinion. Interesting.
    I appreciate Hitler's own rational views on the war, German pride, and motivations behind many of the things he said and did. I might have been a volunteer for his own service if I myself was German. He himself was not as fanatic as his followers! Well, except his anger over his art career, lol. Hitler was alone in that battle.



    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    You jump over like 600 years of history from the HRE directly into the 1930s, and you manage too to place, despite that there is no reason to do so in the context you started this paragraph with, to mention "world Jewry".

    In addition, the latter part of the paragraph reads like written and thought by a non-Gentile.

    There was and is good reason for what is commonly called "anti-Semitism", because first and foremost, they dont belong here but into Israel. But parasites have trouble to live among themselves and so they sneak out into the world and fuck over everyone. In fact, they should be contained in Israel and be blocked from traveling outside.


    You may want to explain your profile
    Ethnicity: Danish
    Ancestry: Swedish
    Country: England
    State: Yorkshire

    This doesnt make that much sense.
    You angrily Jew-bait because you know nothing of the richness in English tribal heritage and local geography over the centuries? Do you all believe we are Celts, West Germanic, or French? How convenient that ignorance of fellow Germanic culture leads to anti-Semitism! Thanks! What rational reason can you give for the invasion and subjugation of North Germanic countries, not to mention fellow West Germanic neighbors like the Dutch? Did they have the Star of David hoisted on their soils? (Would that alone be reason to invade? In your point of view, I suppose everybody had a Zionist Occupied Government but Nazi Germany? Oh, and Imperial Japan! LOL) It is not as though English has its own Jewish branch language like German has Yiddish. Look to your own society before you judge me and mine so harshly for not sharing your polarized views.

    See, this is the problem in trying to speak with reason to ardent ideologues. I have no passion to any ideology except Christianity, the Greek philosophies, and perhaps the sagas if they qualify as anything more than folklore. Sure, I like political theory but am not a fanatic like some here, and the ones they oppose. Straw men are not my forte, and I am not going to tolerate straw man portrayals of my positions on anything. I bet it would not be a stretch to assume because I would rather listen to Celtic folk music or American country music that makes me a fool for not being enthused by Wagner and Beethoven. Don't make everything so personal, and don't talk down to me! Do you really wonder why people view the Continent as full of snobbery? Stop saying between the lines: "If you are not with me, you are against me!" Debates are more than black and white.

    If you want to amuse yourself with Jewish stereotypes, as I do:
    http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=146507


    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    NS is hardly a "middle of the road" approach, and even less between fascism and communism. But we already established above that you know nothing but have an opinion.

    NS is a consequential policy of already existing concepts Blut und Boden and folkish socialism, which already grew from the industrial revolution (Britain also developed, though never consequent, a sort of socialism for its lowest and working classes against exploitation and abuse). NS formed this into policies to combat the exploitation and human abuse by multinational corporations who dragged out large amounts of the produced wealth from the national economy and forced the economic cycles to remain by and large within Germany (see above). The early forms of that came about as counterconcepts to the capitalistic system which denied large portions of the populace human dignity. But when you claim love for your folk, it's only consequent that you implement systems which give back your populace as a whole human dignity. It was in that a natural counterreaction to the starting globalisation and internationalisation, the eradication of ethnic uniqueness in favor of "uniting classes around the world" (as proclaimed by communism), control over national finances and policies through "international investors" etc. The same ills that still run our world into ruin.


    Industrial power competitors? LOL. Funny.

    Britain ruled an empire in which the sun never set. They had a vital home industry and endless resource supply from her colonies. The only reason to jump into the war against Germany was envy and fear. They couldnt stomach that there was a country going to become a strong nation that was able to rule and lead the continent, something Britain was never able to do on the continent. The price for Britain to fight Germany, out of fear and envy (and a good portion of greed), was her empire.

    France had already governed itself out of any position to rule the continent, they have become already around 1900 so liberal, multicult, tolerant and equality-obsessed (specially for the scum that roamed their streets from their colonies), that they simply had no time to care for their industry. When Germany marched into France in WWII, it took some 3 weeks to take it. There was no significant resistance, in addition, they maybe werent so unhappy to have someone bring back some order. Would have spared them figures like Strauss-Kahn, Sarkozy who do their utmost to ruin France (and Europe) once and for all.

    Oh, right, another of that ilk is "Call me Dave" Cameron.

    You see, their envy, fear and greed, their hybris to deny Germany its rightful place only defeated themselves, their empires and their nations. The policies that won out is not what the soldiers fought for. They fought for their nations and for their folk, riled up through propaganda from 1933 onwards, that year in which world jewry declared war on Germany. But they have been betrayed. And now their countries are flooded with the world's scum and Jews rule their countries and disseminate cultural-marxism, anti-white-racism, self-hate and self-loathing.

    "Our Jewish interests demand the final destruction of Germany." - W. Jabotinski, founder of "Irgun Zwai Leumi" (January 1934)

    "Not the political doctrine of Hitler has hurled us into this war. The reason was the success of his increase in building a new economy. The roots of war were envy, greed and fear." - Major General J.F.C. Fuller, historian, England


    "We made a monster, a devil out of Hitler. Therefore we couldn´t disavow it after the war. After all, we mobilized the masses against the devil himself. So we were forced to play our part in this diabolic scenario after the war. In no way we could have pointed out to our people that the war only was an economic preventive measure." - US foreign minister Baker (1992)

    "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 couldn´t profit anymore. ...We butchered the wrong pig." - Winston Churchill, The second World War (Bern, 1960)


    Even Churchill, though too late, realised that the war against Germany was a grave mistake.
    Germany does not have a trademark on Nationalism and Socialism, nor the intersection of those ideologies as National Socialism. They can fit any country that wishes to use them, of course. It just so happened that Germany was perfectly poised to do so, and I argued on behalf of that because of Realpolitik and geopolitical conditions in which Germany had to work in the midst of the two Roman-spawn systems in the ex-Latin (French) West and the ex-Greek (Russian) East. Perhaps the reason why the English speaking peoples did not join in Germany's plan was because oceanic buoyancy is preferable to being tethered to the mainland by an infrastructural stranglehold of bureaucratic relationships. Everybody knows this! It has nothing to do with favoritism to Jews! The Kikes have their purposes, lol. We Gentiles make them and break them, as has been done for 2,000 years. Consider the relationship between Augustus and Herod the Great. Look, I am not going to join your ideological bandwagon. I am not a conformist to anything so neurotic as the propaganda being bandied in reply to my post. I am an old fashioned nationalist, and prospective socialist--I would feel fine marrying them in other ways than the way you idolize, than that has been done before.

    I miss the industrial revolutionary competition between the Big Three. It would be more preferable to East Asian domination!



    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    Look, the FRG was not nationalistic. And in fact the only reason why West-Germany became an own state and not the originally planned (by another of that ilk, Morgenthau) "Free Trade Zone" (with NO National Rights and Protection according to Völkerrecht!) was that the Soviet Union cancelled their deal with the West and closed herself up, with that becoming a "threat" to their New World Order. Germany became a state to be a bufferzone.

    The GDR became Communist (and in fact way more nationalistic than West-Germany which was almost immediately subject to cultural-marxist propaganda) was simply because it was the only approved form of govt by the Soviet Union. Btw, one thing why the Soviet Union suddenly was an enemy again was that they reformed Communism and made it very much nationalistic. While Moscow was a multicultural city out of necessity, to have represents from all regions, and they did shuffle around some populations too, race-mixing, unlike in the west, was heavily frowned upon and there were no cultural marxists telling them not to be so racist.

    When you want an organic example of what happens when an empire (as in multinational state) dissolves, rather look at the Soviet Union (or Yugoslavia). When it crashed, the nations did indeed emerge along ethnic lines. The divide of Germany was not at all organic.

    Another interesting bit is, that because they essentially had national communism, which they learned to hate though and also learned that communism doesnt really work, most of those nations today have strong national-socialist movements.


    However, you still try to interprete the post-WWII reality as if it was a natural development, and even more, you consider the Allies as benevolent "liberators" who took the "national dispositions" (which you wrongly apply to Germans and Europeans) into consideration when dividing Germany (and Europe) into the different zones. Nothing could be further from the truth though.
    Communism is the opposite of nationalism, and a state like the FRG would not be a hotbed for cultural Marxism. You have inverted the two parts of Germany very unfactually. Everybody knows the embarrassment that the GDR represented for Germany, and now you practically make apologetics for the Red Army! Otherwise, it is true what you said about there not being perfect alignment between the folk and the state. That is obvious around the world, but beside the point, and failing to note the obvious regional distinctions as blocs with some overlap. Indeed, that was one of the major reasons why Germany fell, a magnet being in the spheres of conflicting influences.




    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    WWI knew no dignity either. It was the first war in history in which technology trumped the soldiers' abilities, where in fact, the soldiers were reduced to cannon fodder. It wasnt a war in which one country fought another, in which one army fought another army and at the end the side won of whom the most soldiers returned home. It was a war everyone against Germany (not because Germany was a real threat, see above, but because of envy, greed and fear), in WWII even more so than in WWI. Both were wars where those sides "won" which could throw the most bombs, which had the most tanks, the most machines guns and the most ammunition and thus could sustain the mass destruction longest - and of course the profit-making for those which are the enemy of all of us.
    Yes, you are correct about the trenches. It is also true that WWI made WWII inevitable, so the cultural decadence began then, and became manifest in total for the follow-up.

    Quote Originally Posted by NatSozArbeiter View Post
    There is a really simple difference between the three systems.

    Fascism - State has control over corporations, state directs economy, private property is maintained.

    Communism - No state, no borders, shared property ownership, "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs". Basically free access atheist utopia.

    National Socialism - Nationalism and Socialism. Socialization of private enterprise to meet the needs of each individual member of the folk community, strong democratic principles.

    It is only cause of the Hitler system that National Socialism is compared to fascism. The Hitler system was not National Socialism, it took on a more fascist approach to the economy. Private property was maintained and the state managed corporations through party reps. This doesn't mean the Hitler system didn't bring a lot of good to a broken Germany itself, only that Hitler had abandon any sort of socialism for totalitarian corporatism after he got out of jail.
    Interesting point of view. I would like to explore more of the socialistic side to the Nazi party, because I think the Communists demonize the Nationalist ties to Fascism far too much, and always under count the contribution made by their own ilk to the combined ideology. It is a struggle for ideological purity between one wing and the other, but I like the attempted balance in the National Social concept as some form of "Third Way".

    Quote Originally Posted by Vectis View Post
    These days National Socialism, Communism and Fascism are irrelevant, just like the terms 'left wing' and 'right wing'. What we have now is a globalist liberal-socialist system where individual governments have little control over their choices.

    All mainstream political parties in Europe and the Westernised world are subscribers to a global financial system, controlled by a few thousand people via Central Banks and the IMF. All governments, even so called Conservatives, are influenced by marxist thought to some extent, just look at home much benefit money, third world aid, social housing, public sector jobs, subsidies etc the 'right wing' Conservative government in Britain gives out! This form of Marxism is reduction of society to its lowest level, to create a 'diverse' (mixed race, immoral, ignorant and lazy) cultureless mass that is easiliy controlled.

    I see National Socialism as the opposite of the current system, where a nation has full control of its spending and policies, while putting a lot of significance on national culture and the native race of people. It should be ruled for the benefit of the individual nation rather than for an international finance system.

    National Socialism movements were based on a 'volkisch' sentiment which is probably gone for good now as a result of urbanisation and industrialisation. This lack of national identity happened first in Britain since it was the first fully Industialised country and led to the situation we have now, with people like Blair saying 'being British is not about the colour of your skin or where you were born, it is about a set of values' (as he opened the floodgates of immigrants and Indians, Slavs and Blacks were welcomed as 'New Britons'). I doubt National Socialism could make a comeback now the connection of people and land has become so weak.
    Well, economics always drives the belly of society. The other two parts are the Church and the State. There is supposed to be an equal trifold division between the Estates. I won't argue the rest you put in there. I am a populist rather than elitist myself (I'm not a progressive!), but suffer elites that do well to the masses, and don't abuse them through delusions or artifices.

    Also, I notice that the only organizations subservient to the UN you complain about are the ones based in America (World Bank and IMF).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...d_institutions

    This is anti-Americanism, and not anti-Semitism. Please do not conflate American and Semitic...Also, if I were you, I would complain instead about the World Health Organization and International Labour Organization, both based in Switzerland, because of policies on contraception/abortion, and international labour movements. You can blame the Jews if you wish, and confuse the Swiss with Jews as well. It would fit some people's agendas quite well to shift the blame instead of deal with the actual issues at hand.

  9. #19
    Senior Member NatSozArbeiter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Last Online
    Saturday, April 7th, 2012 @ 10:18 PM
    Ethnicity
    Pennsylvania-German
    Ancestry
    Southern Germany
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Pennsylvania Pennsylvania
    Location
    Eastern PA
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Tradesman
    Politics
    Strasserist National Socialism
    Religion
    Asatru
    Posts
    52
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Vectis View Post
    These days National Socialism, Communism and Fascism are irrelevant, just like the terms 'left wing' and 'right wing'.
    Not at all. Each are a system of government and the ideas will have a direct influence on how we govern a future WN state. Left wingers wish for a change in the current system while right wingers wish to keep it in tact. It has been that way since the French Revolution. That is where the terms "left wing" and "right wing" originate.

    What we have now is a globalist liberal-socialist system where individual governments have little control over their choices.
    True, but it has very little to do with socialism. Modern European economies can merely be described as Social-democratic, as was the Weimar Republic, in which public services and welfare programs are handed out while capitalism and the private control of the nation's resources are left in tact.

    All mainstream political parties in Europe and the Westernised world are subscribers to a global financial system, controlled by a few thousand people via Central Banks and the IMF.
    Aye, which is why the central banks and the IMF must be eradicated. It is my opinion that Ethnic-Europeans nations definitely need some sort of monetary cooperation, it needs to be reformed and totally democratic though; unlike the IMF.

    All governments, even so called Conservatives, are influenced by marxist thought to some extent, just look at home much benefit money, third world aid, social housing, public sector jobs, subsidies etc the 'right wing' Conservative government in Britain gives out! This form of Marxism is reduction of society to its lowest level, to create a 'diverse' (mixed race, immoral, ignorant and lazy) cultureless mass that is easiliy controlled.
    Don't just spout off random terms. If one studies Marxism, public sector jobs, aid, social housing, and subsidies have nothing to do with Marxism. I know for a fact, as one point I was a Marxist (albeit somewhat of a NazBol). Social housing, subsidies, etc are part of socialism. What makes Marxist thought unique is that Marxists think that a transitory stage of socialism will lead to Communism, a free access society in which people consume according to their needs. Also unique to Marxist thought is the belief in historical materialism. The idea that history has been one big class struggle of exploited versus exploiters. Along with other things Marxist Materialism entails, that is one reason why Marxist Materialism ought to be opposed.

    The system we live under is not Marxist though. We live under a bourgeois regime in which property owners have the ruling power and can influence government at their will. Ever since the rebellion of the Third Estate the world has been under a capitalistic world order. Prior to the rebellion of the Third Estate in the French Revolution, peasants could not own property and citizenship was based upon ethnicity. After the rebellion, peasants could now own property and enter into competition with each other. What also changed was the definition of citizenship. For example Negroes could now enter into competition and have a say in how to govern things. This didn't happen everywhere, but mainly bourgeois France. The purpose of National Socialism is to undo the bourgeois world and return ourselves to our folkish values while at the same time doing away with oppressive feudalism and ensuring well being and democracy for all of our folk.

    By the way, "Marxism" isn't about making everyone one race, religion, etc even though some neo-Marxists subscribe to such insane thoughts. Marx and Engels wrote little to none about race and what they did write could only be classified as vulgar racism and not nationalism of any sort.

    I see National Socialism as the opposite of the current system, where a nation has full control of its spending and policies, while putting a lot of significance on national culture and the native race of people. It should be ruled for the benefit of the individual nation rather than for an international finance system.
    Yes, both National and Socialist. The race must have full control of the nation, and part of that is the nation's resources.

    National Socialism movements were based on a 'volkisch' sentiment which is probably gone for good now as a result of urbanisation and industrialisation. This lack of national identity happened first in Britain since it was the first fully Industialised country and led to the situation we have now, with people like Blair saying 'being British is not about the colour of your skin or where you were born, it is about a set of values' (as he opened the floodgates of immigrants and Indians, Slavs and Blacks were welcomed as 'New Britons'). I doubt National Socialism could make a comeback now the connection of people and land has become so weak.

    Indeed, the alienation caused by the oppressive practices in the industrial revolution is one of the main problems we are suffering from today.
    Anti-capitalist and anti-communist!

    "Hate must be born of love. One must be capable of loving to know what is hateful, and so have the strength to destroy it." - Otto Strasser

  10. #20
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Last Online
    Wednesday, July 11th, 2018 @ 05:09 AM
    Ethnicity
    Ethnicity
    Ancestry
    Ancestry
    Gender
    Age
    36
    Posts
    2,129
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,488
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    128
    Thanked in
    106 Posts
    Thanks NatSozArbeiter! It is nice to see some original thought put into the discussion! I do not agree with everything but you seem to be arguing as much from fact as from opinion. I do not expect anything more from anybody... Good job!

    I too have disdain for the materialist view of history, except the feudal/manorial and mercantile view for simply tracking the course of success and failure outside the battlefield and aristocratic courts. I do not know how to measure religious accomplishment along such lines, although I believe such developments ought to be pursued in serious study.

Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 66
    Last Post: Sunday, September 12th, 2010, 12:20 AM
  2. National Communism
    By Taras Bulba in forum Political Theory
    Replies: 97
    Last Post: Sunday, October 18th, 2009, 10:02 AM
  3. Chauvinism, National-Socialism or Racial-Socialism?
    By Lusitano in forum Political Theory
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: Thursday, May 4th, 2006, 06:02 PM
  4. Replies: 22
    Last Post: Friday, November 5th, 2004, 03:08 AM
  5. National Socialism or Fascism?
    By Pera_Z in forum Political Theory
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: Monday, April 12th, 2004, 01:07 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •