Is national socialism an alternative?

For discussions of culture, politics, economics, sociology, law, business and any other topic that falls under the social science remit.

Is national socialism an alternative?

Postby above us only sky » Mon Jul 24, 2017 9:15 am

National socialism, previously known as 'Nazism' is hated because of its anti-Semitism and national expansionism.

However, If Winston Churchill lived long enough to visited Russia and China to experience this new form of national socialism in the year 2017 he probably would not say 'Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others'.

Here are the reasons:

National socialism is the combination of the right ( nationalism) and the left (socialism), what it is trying to achieve is the nationalist goal (unity, national prestige and strength), it recognize capitalism yet use state socialism to balance different social class to achieve this nationalist goal.

This new form of national socialism rejects anti-Semitism and national expansionism, because anti-Semitism creates conflicts among people and it destroys the unity of a country; and national expansionism actually can hurts the nationalist goal.

Here is a video on national socialism

Is this modified national socialism an alternative? Does it have the potential to replace liberal democracy?
User avatar
above us only sky
Posts: 187
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2014 2:46 am

Re: Is national socialism an alternative?

Postby Is_Yde_opN » Mon Jul 24, 2017 3:38 pm

above us only sky wrote:National socialism, previously known as 'Nazism' is hated because of its anti-Semitism and national expansionism.

It's hated because National Socialism is the stand-in today for Europeans advocating and working towards their own interests as a race and or ethnicities and that's the big No-No in the post WW2 order.
It is so because "anti-semitism" really means people not doing what a particular tribe wants them to do.
This is also why any form of ethnic nationalism will inevitably be "anti-semitic" because ethnic nationalism means excluding or discriminating against other ethnicities and or tribes and that's what that particular tribe does not want other ethnicities to do. They depend on this, they need other tribes.

This is also where the anti-Trump hysteria is coming from because his voters are implicitly, some even explicitly pro-White.
The far-left understands this much better than the basic conservatives - They know when something is implicitly White, they know that the story about equality is just a farce, a tool to attack your ethnic adversaries.

What do they say in the Declaration of Independence? - "All men are created equal."
And why did they say this? What was the purpose of this? To gain the moral justification for independence, the moral justification to separate and discriminate against your so called equals.
It always has been just a ploy and it will never be anything else because it does not describe reality, thus it's never morally neutral, it's always a way to justify your ambitions, as a person or as a group or alliance.

Pro-White is a hate crime. It's the only relevant hate crime because the establishment is overwhelmingly anti-White.
Hence why it is also anti-European-nationalism. It doesn't get any more anti-European than that.
You prohibit a group of people to effectively defend themselves and their genetic integrity. You make it morally reprehensible and illegal for this group of people to defend themselves as a group.
You can adhere to all kinds of more or less silly ideologies, be a capitalist, be a communist, whatever, but don't be Pro-European because that's actually something tangible, something that actually matters, something that could actually oppose the dominant ideology with its many sprouting heads and variations.

What's so different about ethnic nationalism, what makes it so different than all the other ideologies? It's anti-semitic. The tribe which needs other tribes to thrive within has reduced access to these societies. Ethnic nationalism is an obstacle to such people because it offers forms of protection to the host societies.

It also reduces class struggles because it creates a sense of shared goals. It promotes an elite which identifies with the other classes and doesn't see them as exchangeable cogs, to be replaced by some other biped humanoid life-form which can be taught to sweep the floor.
Class struggles are also an angle of attack for the tribes which thrive on operating within other tribes.

As for expansion, that was an inevitability at that time, the question was who would be the imposing his world view and the tribe within other tribes came to expand his influence mimetically. Hence why it's all imploding where they have managed to spread their message of permanent dis-ease.

How this anti-National-Socialism sentiment is being kept up in the West is via massive propaganda efforts and guilt tripping the host populations. No examination is possible for most because they have been taught about it being evil. The one evil that exists in the world of 'secularised' contemporary Western people.
User avatar
Posts: 786
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 9:43 am

Re: Is national socialism an alternative?

Postby Otto_West » Mon Jul 24, 2017 7:56 pm

Tribalism is the future especially after globalization tears itself a part.

In the future nations will be redefined as they split a part in fracturing.
Your entire world of fantasy and make believe is doomed, have a nice day.
User avatar
Doom Pornographer
Posts: 898
Joined: Thu May 04, 2017 7:40 pm
Location: Dumbfuckistan- Will Work For Depreciating (FRN) Shekels.

Return to Society, Government, and Economics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]