Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 85

Thread: National Socialism, Fascism, and Communism

  1. #21
    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
    Concerning the superpowers of WWII...If I could characterize the UK and US relative to Germany, as regarding France and Russia, then the English speaking world would be the same as Germany, but without the Continental integration which ensured the coalescent formation of National Socialism as a Central Axis upon which Fascism and Communism pivoted. So, Germany has an historical intersection of cultures and is or was not idiosyncratic in origin but its character profile is the result of an amalgamation between the three types of occupying forces in the aftermath of WWII. The post-war conditions wherein Germany was situated were the same as those beforehand (status quo ante bellum), except that Germany used to be the boss of the surrounding blocs, and not at their mercy. This is the only unhistorical part of the settlement as engineered by the Allies, and consequently, a large reason for resentment ("Jew" who? Irrelevant unless you wish to call fellow Gentiles "Jewish" rather than be honest about the balance of power!).

    I do not believe that conflict between Germany as Mitteleuropa and the rest as satellite states should be constant--there has to be some balance, and that is apparently what was supposed to have been achieved by the formation of a united "Europe". I would agree that Germany seems logical for the government of Europe, and Hitler's plans might have had very sound basis on merely Continental lines, but the UK is more logical for the site of capital because of its position between the Old and New Worlds, and should interface directly with Germany in order to indirectly deal with France and with Russia as the polar extremes of Europe. The US is on the opposite end of this spectrum from the Continent, and would only be directly dealing with the UK in order to deal indirectly with Germany, and so on.

    I believe that the EU (imperial union) and UN (colonial union) should be conflated into a primary organization and a secondary organization, respectively. The permanent members of this global group should be Germany, the UK, US, France, and Russia. No other country should have any say in such a "European United Nations" of the Earth. This means no Asians (no Japanese or Chinese, all right?!) or Africans (unless you mean Afrikaaners or Rhodesians!) would have any leadership over their own fates save for that delegated by the White Man's Burden, and ultimately, White Supremacy would be the rule across the world. Compare the political cartoons of China being carved by all the great powers.





    Perhaps German National Socialism can rule Europe from Berlin, French Fascism can rule Africa from Paris, Russian Communism can rule Asia from Moscow, the UK can rule the New World from London, and the US can rule the Moon from Washington, all of these countries in charge of Earth domain through policies of Enlightened Absolutism. You see that there are overlapping jurisdictions here, but they are natural in focus.

    I am an imperialist, yes. I don't shout WPWW but those seem like wonderful aspirations.

  2. #22
    Bloodhound
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Jäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Atlantean
    Gender
    Posts
    4,387
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    19
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    64
    Thanked in
    37 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Grimston View Post
    Germany does not have a trademark on Nationalism and Socialism, nor the intersection of those ideologies as National Socialism.
    Nationalsocialism is not the intersection of "Nationalism" and "Socialism". It is rather strange that you would start this thread while admitting you don't even know what Nationalsocialism is (i.e. you haven't read "Mein Kampf" nor "Der Mythus", nor any theoretical German work of that era).
    This renders most of your comments pointless.
    "Nothing is more disgusting than the majority: because it consists of a few powerful predecessors, of rogues who adapt themselves, of weak who assimilate themselves, and the masses who imitate without knowing at all what they want." (Johann Wolfgang Goethe)

  3. #23
    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 Jäger View Post
    Nationalsocialism is not the intersection of "Nationalism" and "Socialism".
    Actually, historical National Socialists disagree with you.

    National Socialism takes for itself the pure idea from each of these two camps. From the camp of bourgeois tradition, it takes national resolve, and from the materialism of Marxist dogma living, creative socialism - Adolf Hitler

    From the Right we shall take nationalism, which has so disastrously allied itself with capitalism, and from the Left we shall take socialism, which has made such an unhappy union with internationalism. Thus we shall form the National-Socialism which will be the motive force of a new Germany and a new Europe. - Gregor Strasser

    It also goes without saying that every race was encouraged to take up the banner of National Socialism and fight for its own independence from the international capitalistic banking system.
    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

  4. #24
    Exiled
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Ingwë's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Last Online
    1 Week Ago @ 02:07 PM
    Ethnicity
    Schläsinger Deutsch
    Ancestry
    Austro-Prussian Frontier
    Country
    Australia Australia
    State
    Silesia Silesia
    Gender
    Age
    31
    Politics
    Völkisch
    Posts
    88
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    7
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Hauke Haien View Post
    From a liberal perspective, any non-liberal ideology is of course bound to look similar, quite simply because of the fact that it is non-liberal. The Nationalsocialists, however, saw themselves and were seen in their historical context, which was far from liberal, as a particular direction within what is now (broadly) termed the Conservative Revolution, where we can also find the Völkisch movement. Germany has always lacked a significant indigenous liberal tradition. Even among the 48ers, the liberals were mostly national-liberals, who had not yet noticed the inherent contradiction in this ideological construct.

    For this reason, there is not much sense in trying to categorise the Nationalsocialists in Anglo-American categories. The major struggle between Nationalsocialists and Communists was folk vs. mankind, not the mode of economic operation, where NS policy was essentially pragmatist and subservient to non-economic ideology.

    The attempt to paint NS as left-wing is, quite obviously, an attempt to either slur left-wingers or redeem NS in their eyes, and along with it a whole host of related ideologies. I have nothing against doing this for either purpose, but in the end it is still necessary to explain in unique terms how social systems are approached in this specific line of thinking.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hauke Haien View Post
    Rather than treating "national" as a modifier of "socialism" (i.e. Nationaler Sozialismus), one can interpret the whole construct as a compound noun consisting of "national" (= ethnic group) and "social" (= system of common life). An -ism, finally, denotes a distinctive system of beliefs, myth, doctrine or theory that guides a social movement.

    Nationalsocialism therefore self-identifies as an attempt to give the folk community spiritual and political life.


    http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=97573&page=3

  5. #25
    Bloodhound
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Jäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Atlantean
    Gender
    Posts
    4,387
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    19
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    64
    Thanked in
    37 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by NatSozArbeiter View Post
    Actually, historical National Socialists disagree with you.
    No, they don't. You may want to revise your knowledge about the theory of sets. It may be a conjunction, depending on the actual definition of these words.
    If you take one aspect of one set, which is not present in the other, then it can't be an intersection.
    "Nothing is more disgusting than the majority: because it consists of a few powerful predecessors, of rogues who adapt themselves, of weak who assimilate themselves, and the masses who imitate without knowing at all what they want." (Johann Wolfgang Goethe)

  6. #26
    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 Jäger View Post
    No, they don't. You may want to revise your knowledge about the theory of sets. It may be a conjunction, depending on the actual definition of these words.
    If you take one aspect of one set, which is not present in the other, then it can't be an intersection.
    Lol. Mere semantics. National Socialism is both Nationalism and Socialism, and if we know anything about the German language Socialism was the second word only to put emphasis on it.
    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. #27
    Bloodhound
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Jäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Atlantean
    Gender
    Posts
    4,387
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    19
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    64
    Thanked in
    37 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by NatSozArbeiter View Post
    Mere semantics.
    Without semantics we wouldn't be able to communicate.

    Quote Originally Posted by NatSozArbeiter View Post
    National Socialism is both Nationalism and Socialism ...
    The ambiguity lies in the definition of "Nationalism" and "Socialism", since both have been rejected as plebeian ideologies at one point, Nationalsocialism can't be the mere merger of both, at least not if we still keep the definitions of that time.
    I.e. Rosenberg redefined, better put purified, the definition of Socialism. Now it seems the thread starter wanted to do the same, and he admitted he didn't even made an effort to understand how it was understood by NS, so the point of this whole thread still eludes me.
    "Nothing is more disgusting than the majority: because it consists of a few powerful predecessors, of rogues who adapt themselves, of weak who assimilate themselves, and the masses who imitate without knowing at all what they want." (Johann Wolfgang Goethe)

  8. #28
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member


    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Last Online
    Friday, February 1st, 2019 @ 12:04 AM
    Ethnicity
    Old Prussian / English
    Ancestry
    Baltic Prussian, English, German
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    Pommerania Pommerania
    Location
    Croydon
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Retired
    Politics
    Anti-Globalist
    Religion
    Early pre-trinitarian Christiani
    Posts
    734
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    24
    Thanked in
    14 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Grimston View Post
    How convenient that ignorance of fellow Germanic culture leads to anti-Semitism!

    See, this is the problem in trying to speak with reason to ardent ideologues. I have no passion to any ideology except Christianity,
    Hi Grimston, as an aside in view of your admirable admission for a passion for Christian ideology.
    My own so called "anti-semitism" world views, I principally base on Jesus own words about our own time in Revelation where he states that the "Great city, and Harlot has a kingdom over the kings of the Earth"

    :- 18 The woman you saw is the great city that rules over the kings of the earth.”

    So, a great city that controls all the worlds governments, now either Jesus was lying, or just before the establishment of the one World Government, there would be a group of people who do indeed have undue influence on the worlds individual nations, and who is this group of people or what is this city?

    Revelation 18 v24 In her was found the blood of prophets and of God’s holy people,
    of all who have been slaughtered on the earth.”

    Now compare that verse with the words Jesus addressed Jerusalem and the elite ruling Jews of the time with at Matthew 23

    29 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees,
    35 And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth,
    37 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets



    Now that to me is just a small part of the evidence that Jesus identifies it is indeed Jews that are controlling our governments in our time, and I have yet to find evidence that he was wrong whenever I search deeper.

  9. #29
    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 Jäger View Post
    Without semantics we wouldn't be able to communicate.
    Obviously, but it is a problem when we use semantics to sidetrack and distort. Whether it is an "intersection" or a "conjunction" is really irrelevant.


    The ambiguity lies in the definition of "Nationalism" and "Socialism", since both have been rejected as plebeian ideologies at one point, Nationalsocialism can't be the mere merger of both, at least not if we still keep the definitions of that time.
    I.e. Rosenberg redefined, better put purified, the definition of Socialism. Now it seems the thread starter wanted to do the same, and he admitted he didn't even made an effort to understand how it was understood by NS, so the point of this whole thread still eludes me.
    Alfred Rosenberg's "re-definition" means very little, and he most likely attempted to redefine it to justify Hitler's departure with his original socialist program, which he was elected on.

    Socialism as it has been used by theorists both Nationalist and Internationalist alike has always been a revolutionary doctrine that calls for the expropriation of land and property to meet the needs of the community. It has been used in the sense of extending democracy to the economic sphere of a people's life.

    Now the 25 points called for democracy and were very Socialist; however these were never fulfilled under the Hitler regime. So now we have two camps, those who take the Socialism seriously and those who see it as a pesky word and try to re-define it.

    I respect Herr Hitler for the good he did bring, however, I think he had a very minimal understanding of Socialism. I think it would be wise for those advocating a regime like the Third Reich to use a new term.

    Talk about semantics.
    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. #30
    Exiled
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Ingwë's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Last Online
    1 Week Ago @ 02:07 PM
    Ethnicity
    Schläsinger Deutsch
    Ancestry
    Austro-Prussian Frontier
    Country
    Australia Australia
    State
    Silesia Silesia
    Gender
    Age
    31
    Politics
    Völkisch
    Posts
    88
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    7
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    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.
    Yet again I highlight the posts I linked:

    Quote Originally Posted by Hauke Haien View Post
    From a liberal perspective, any non-liberal ideology is of course bound to look similar, quite simply because of the fact that it is non-liberal. The Nationalsocialists, however, saw themselves and were seen in their historical context, which was far from liberal, as a particular direction within what is now (broadly) termed the Conservative Revolution, where we can also find the Völkisch movement. Germany has always lacked a significant indigenous liberal tradition. Even among the 48ers, the liberals were mostly national-liberals, who had not yet noticed the inherent contradiction in this ideological construct.

    For this reason, there is not much sense in trying to categorise the Nationalsocialists in Anglo-American categories. The major struggle between Nationalsocialists and Communists was folk vs. mankind, not the mode of economic operation, where NS policy was essentially pragmatist and subservient to non-economic ideology.

    The attempt to paint NS as left-wing is, quite obviously, an attempt to either slur left-wingers or redeem NS in their eyes, and along with it a whole host of related ideologies. I have nothing against doing this for either purpose, but in the end it is still necessary to explain in unique terms how social systems are approached in this specific line of thinking.

    ''He who has seen in National Socialism only a political movement, has seen nothing''
    -Adolf Hitler


    NS is a folk philosophy for the German people which advocates duties before rights. It is nothing more than an initiative to facilitate power for Germany and create an enviornment where Germans may advance biologically, culturally and spiritually within a hierarchical organization with Nordids and Faelids to be the priority in the nations biological expression. It is a phenomenon restricted to Germany. Your definition of what NS is and the very undertanding of the word is shallow and simplistic focusing on its economic system without considering the wider spectrum of the philosophy surrounding NS (this is where Nationalsozialismus truly becomes distinct from the petty Nationaler Sozializmus). Therefore clearly shows you know very little about NS, likely attributed to the fact that you are American.

    "The state is a means to an end. Its end lies in the preservation and advancement of a community of physically and psychically homogeneous creatures. This preservation itself comprises first of all existence as a race and thereby permits the free development of all the forces dormant in this race" - Adolf Hitler.

Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345678 ... 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
  •