(untitled)

Let's discuss national socialism. What is it? >A system of socialism that focuses on a strong unicultural backbone and unified direction. What good is it? >It successfully pulled an entire nation out of crippling, pervasive poverty in under five years. I've heard bad things though... >The organization of government is independent of what the people in that government does. Nobody is debating that the last national socialist government was unequivalently bad. What are some of the benefits of national socialism? >It excels at strong, focused policy. It stands the best chance at avoiding environmental catastrophe, as it bases policy decisions upon science rather than unfounded opinion. The overall system lends itself to solving social, environmental, political and economic ills through similar scientific inquiry. >What is the best way for national socialism to work? It is necessary for a unified populous, and as such the best way is to form ethnostates. It would be necessary to take some existing nations, divide them into states for each resident ethnicity to facilitate this. Each such nation would have an implicit citizenship for those of its ethnicity. Absolutely no citizenship for a non-citizen. >What about businesses? Everything beyond small mom & pop shops should be nationalized to avoid them abusing the populous. I think the basis for choosing national socialism is the apparent and obvious failure of liberalism and multiculturalism. In-group murders are massively outweighed by out-group murders in the entirety of the united states. Incidents of racism and other group-based bigotry will only continue and grow as population sizes grow. Liberal democracy has left us with an extremely polarized nation and no forward progress, everything is stagnating as congress fights among itself with no end in sight. Worse, the system presumes that anybody can lead, which is provably untrue. Worse still we end up with people who have no business being in government but massive "popular" support. Everyday citizens don't have the first idea of how to govern, let alone appoint people to delegate their power to. Our government also consists of the dumbest of laymen; there is no scientific consultation nor experts. This means we usually end up with soykaf laws and legislation about everything from environment to telecommunications. This leads to terrible states of affairs such as huge companies abusing unfair monopolies and causing untold harms to citizens. I think it is an imperative to adopt a strong governmental structure in order to secure our collective future. Given we have Covid-19 appearing around the world, it is necessary for strong action to be taken to prevent this from escalating into a true emergency.

I strongly disagree with the basis of national socialism. We do not need, nor want a "strong" government. People need to be and deserve to be free. It's only through rational choice that we make progress, not because some central body prods us into conformity. I also question the value of an ethnostate: don't we overestimate outgroup differences and underestimate ingroup differences?

>>22490 Strong governments always perform better in social management. Look at the chinese response to covid-19, it's stellar. Also, out-group murder rates are much higher than in-group murder rates by leaps and bounds.

Separation is likely the best thing. Aside from bad blood, each group has significantly differing states in terms of murder.

>>22495 This is true. It's shocking how many black-on-* murders there are compared to white-on-*. The incarceration rates seem to match the stats correctly.

>>22496 >>22495 What about cultural impacts on how people behave?

>>22510 This is a catch-22. The culture creates divisions between racial groups. Cultural divisions between racial groups leads to problems such as murder. Murder leads to divisions in the culture. It's a self-perpetuating cycle. When there isn't an other, there isn't a place for division and cohesion can be better maintained.

>>22521 This. The other is defined as something intrinsic that cannot be avoided. Men are other to women, black to white, gay to straight. Some divisions can be reconciled, and often are (without the intervention of leftist type ideologues who push for a splintering of society: see feminism, "intersectionality", critical race theory, and so on) such as men/women. However, divisions that originate from division cannot be reconciled. This means races: we were never together, and thus we never can be and expect to get along successfully. We can be friends, we can trade, we can talk. But live together? Don't really see it, the whole project has been a failure.

>>22496 Wow, when you stack each based on the {x} on whatever, blacks and Hispanics have way more murders. Given they're such a small percentage of the population, this is terrifying.

“Every miserable fool who has nothing at all of which he can be proud, adopts as a last resource pride in the nation to which he belongs; he is ready and happy to defend all its faults and follies tooth and nail, thus reimbursing himself for his own inferiority.” - Schopenhauer

>>22494 >Look at the chinese response to covid-19, it's stellar This is absolute Chinese state propaganda and you should stop parroting disinformation. Totalitarian regimes are always paranoid about maintaining control and social order, and China's top-down hierarchy meant none of the lower-tier officials wanted to be the first to report a new coronavirus. That's why doctors and journalists were systematically arrested and threatened into silence for months, while large-scale banquets and public gatherings were being organized blocks away from the epicenter of the outbreak. The WHO is also to blame, as China has gigantic influence within the organization and this has contributed to the confused and delayed international response, all while the WHO was too busy drumming up good PR for China. What's sad is the exact same cover-up happened during the SARS epidemic, yet few seem to have learned anything from it - especially some of the media that repeats the myth of the efficient Chinese response. --- Personally, I have zero confidence a totalitarian regime (nazi, communist or otherwise) could successfully function continuously - you can find examples of soykaf like this all throughout history. The world is now too interconnected for us to be divided into ethnostates (or anarcho-capitalist settlements for that matter). The only way a 'totalitarian' system could work is if governed by some sort of benevolent AI.

This is a bit queer, I feel like you should've made a more general thread regarding more extreme right wing views than just about national socialism but I digress. I don't think that either fascism and national socialism are the boogeyman as media likes to portray them to be. I don't see what's wrong with wanting to live with people who are similar to you. I strongly believe that fascism can tackle Europe' s problems such as: mass immigration, terrorist attacks, child grooming, sexual promiscuity. If we were to live in a homogeneous society there wouldn't be such thing as racism which would make some people happy, I believe. I'm glad that some countries have decided to vote for more "non-PC" presidents but alas change takes time and seeing change in most of European countries will take time. I think that promoting the idea that we're all equal is damaging to the society as a whole because then you're promoting an idea that a refugee without basic education who has moved to [insert European country name here] is capable of becoming a PhD in atomic biology. This is just my rambling but I really don't see anything wrong with promoting more traditional values instead of sexual perversion which can be found anywhere nowadays. Also I find Mussolini's rise to power to be pretty based.

>>22570 >I don't see what's wrong with wanting to live with people who are similar to you. Nothing is wrong with it at all. It's forcibly separating people based on absolutely arbitrary fantasy nonsense like "race" that is malevolent and must be exterminated from human thought. > I strongly believe that fascism can tackle Europe' s problems such as [...] sexual promiscuity. >I've never touched a boob in my life >If we were to live in a homogeneous society there wouldn't be such thing as racism which would make some people happy Racism exists because people are brainwashed to believe in the social construct of race and manipulated by mass social engineering to believe some sod with darker skin is somehow less deserving of a prosperous life than those with lighter skin. > think that promoting the idea that we're all equal is damaging to the society as a whole because then you're promoting an idea that a refugee without basic education who has moved to [insert European country name here] is capable of becoming a PhD in atomic biology. Ah, now we arrive at the racism. Are you suggesting such a refugee should not have the chance to be educated and live an accomplished life? Of course you don't care because as western countries have plundered and raped a vast majority of the world and benefits from it to this day, you have been brainwashed to believe that the pie held onto by elites is somehow collectively owned by "your people." (sage for meme ideology trash)

>Nothing is wrong with it at all. It's forcibly separating people based on absolutely arbitrary fantasy nonsense like "race" that is malevolent and must be exterminated from human thought. Why is it malevolent? I don't believe that this is nonsense lainon. Different people build different societies, they create different languages, culture, art, laws and whatnot. People are predetermined to have specialized abilities in their surroundings, I believe. Some of those abilities don't really pan out well in other societies. >>I've never touched a boob in my life Can you elaborate on this conclusion? It seems that you're just brewing soykaf. I don't think that it's very healthy for society to promote sexual promiscuity. >Racism exists because people are brainwashed to believe in the social construct of race and manipulated by mass social engineering to believe some sod with darker skin is somehow less deserving of a prosperous life than those with lighter skin. But there are other factors which you fail to mention. If differences just stop at someone has a darker pigmentation than me then I wouldn't mind other people from other countries living here. >Ah, now we arrive at the racism. Are you suggesting such a refugee should not have the chance to be educated and live an accomplished life? Of course you don't care because as western countries have plundered and raped a vast majority of the world and benefits from it to this day, you have been brainwashed to believe that the pie held onto by elites is somehow collectively owned by "your people." I don't think those refugees should be here in the first place. Plundering and raping hasn't been done but every society and funnily enough the so called hated western society you seem to hate so much is the most apologetic. I don't see Turks for example saying sorry for their history. Can you elaborate on the "pie held onto by elites" part? I think that "my people" have done wonderful things, they made beautiful art, philosophy, science and whatnot.

>>22576 Obviously meant for >>22572

>>22576 >Plundering and raping hasn't been done but every society has been done by* sorry typo

>>22572 You're an idealist. You cant roleplay everyone living happily together as long as the people you wish to perch together dont play like that and are still in their cultural training "our guys matter, rest is cattle for slaughter". Its the same problem as introducing a woman to a group of incels. Its full blown retarded to expect it to work out fine. OP has also the idealism disease. Science cant fix politics. Academics will write whatever gets funded. For the greater good is just a meme for most. The core problem with any hierarchy is corruption is an advantage to rise in ranks. Thus you inevitably end up with a corrupted government. The people in charge aren't retarded. Laws are made with clear intent. It's just the game is rigged and the laws aren't made for your benefit. The retards are the unwashed masses who cheer it on without grasping anything of it. One of EU's lead parliament members said it directly "We pass laws people dont understand and then watch the reaction, if there is no resistance we pass the next legislation and push further. By the time people wake up its already to late to pull back."

>>22481 China is National Socialism, it clearly doesn't work either

>>22580 >You're an idealist. Perhaps, perhaps not, I think that fascism can be practical. >You cant roleplay everyone living happily together as long as the people you wish to perch together dont play like that and are still in their cultural training It's not about role-play, some people will be dissatisfied whichever political ideology is in place. It's more about improving your society with your own people. >"our guys matter, rest is cattle for slaughter". Its the same problem as introducing a woman to a group of incels. Its full blown retarded to expect it to work out fine. I don't think that those comparisons are fair, especially the former one, no one is inciting genocide. >The core problem with any hierarchy is corruption is an advantage to rise in ranks. Thus you inevitably end up with a corrupted government. I don't think that every hierarchy has this problem but yes, political hierarchies are prone to corruption, I agree. However I'd argue that for the society as a whole it's more beneficial to have a strong sense of discipline. I'd say the more freedom you have the more corrupted you become. I'm not sure how to combat a corrupt political hierarchy, a suggestion which I've seen is by letting citizens bear arms like in the US. >The people in charge aren't retarded. Laws are made with clear intent. It's just the game is rigged and the laws aren't made for your benefit. The retards are the unwashed masses who cheer it on without grasping anything of it. One of EU's lead parliament members said it directly "We pass laws people dont understand and then watch the reaction, if there is no resistance we pass the next legislation and push further. By the time people wake up its already to late to pull back." Yes I agree that EU's charlatans are bad however I wouldn't label them as fascist.

>>22576 >Plundering and raping has been done but every society Absolute nonsense apologetics for barbarism.

>>22585 Perhaps Africa (if you ignore North Africa) is an exception but they've done a lot of plundering and raping among themselves, don't you agree? >barbarism Can you elaborate on what do you mean by barbarism in this context? I don't want to jump to conclusions but I think that we're in agreement that there are barbaric societies, we just have a very different view on which societies are barbaric.

>>22586 a barbaric society is one that engages in warfare for any reason besides self-defense. I also believe that any society which restricts the freedom of citizens for a reason other than necessity is barbaric. You will say that the vast majority of nation-states are barbaric based on this definition -- that is correct.

>>22586 >Perhaps Africa (if you ignore North Africa) is an exception but they've done a lot of plundering and raping among themselves, don't you agree? No, because I don't see Africa as some monolithic "they" like some fool stooge >Can you elaborate on what do you mean by barbarism in this context? The mass atrocities committed by nazi/fascist governments around the world throughout the 20th century constitute extreme cruelty/brutality to fellow human beings. This was born from nazi/fascist ideology. Unlike self-proclaimed socialist countries which have no ideological basis for their own barbarism, even if those in power commit it for whatever reason.

>>22582 China is not national socialist, it is communist, and it clearly does work considering the hundreds of millions they have brought out of poverty. They are only developing faster now as the rest of the world has shamefully exported all the means to produce to them. Burgers stay mad, your country is a realty tv show

>>22593 Thank you for clarifying. >>22595 >The mass atrocities committed by nazi/fascist governments around the world throughout the 20th century constitute extreme cruelty/brutality to fellow human beings. This was born from nazi/fascist ideology. There are mass atrocities being committed by non nazi/fascist government around the world against their own people, I don't see what point you're trying to make nor do I see how is cruelty tied just with nazism and fascism. I'm arguing that a host country should keep its cultural heritage and by bringing in people who are incompatible with that way of life you're actively destroying your own country. A simpler example of my argument would be if we were to replace all Italians with Nigerians that wouldn't be Italy anymore and I believe that it's foolish to argue otherwise. >Unlike self-proclaimed socialist countries which have no ideological basis for their own barbarism, even if those in power commit it for whatever reason. Except for the wealthy, correct?

>>22599 >I'm arguing that a host country should keep its cultural heritage Why? Culture is not fixed. There is no single "Italian culture" or "Nigerian culture." They simply do not exist. The "preservation of culture" is a nonsense idea which has no real basis except as a tool of social engineering (see: public relations) to direct discontentment with bullshit inequality of wealth against those who only desire the same basic things as everyone else but happen to have a different origin or familial origin. Even if we are to take these ideas as legitimate, why cannot a Nigerian become Italian or vice versa? Why is this not raised as an option by you? >>22599 >Except for the wealthy, correct? wealthy =/= capitalists

>>22599 Do you believe a Nigerian could 'become' an Italian? If not, why, and if so, how?

>>22609 >Why? Culture is not fixed. There is no single "Italian culture" or "Nigerian culture." They simply do not exist. The "preservation of culture" is a nonsense idea which has no real basis except as a tool of social engineering (see: public relations) I don't think I'm catching what you're throwing lainon. Are you suggesting that there is no such thing as culture? If that's the case then I strongly disagree. Different societies have different cultures which depend on factors such as environment, history, intelligence, literature and whatnot. Culture norms also depend on these and many more factors. >to direct discontentment with bullshit inequality of wealth against those who only desire the same basic things as everyone else but happen to have a different origin or familial origin. Perhaps there's a reason why they "desire" those things instead of creating a stable society. >Even if we are to take these ideas as legitimate, why cannot a Nigerian become Italian or vice versa? Why is this not raised as an option by you? Well first of all I said that if you replace every single Italian with a Nigerian that wouldn't be Italy. In any case I also disagree with this claim that a Nigerian can become an Italian. Simply because there are too many differences among Italian's and Nigerian's. Some of those differences being biological and others being sociological. I wouldn't want Italy to be overrun by Nigerians and I wouldn't want Nigeria to be overrun by Italians. >>22612 See my post above and also I've said >Why is it malevolent? I don't believe that this is nonsense lainon. Different people build different societies, they create different languages, culture, art, laws and whatnot. People are predetermined to have specialized abilities in their surroundings, I believe. Some of those abilities don't really pan out well in other societies. in this post >>22576

>>22481 Didn't this thread get nuked before? Well, regardless of that, I do agree with the ideology of national socialism, we need to protect the nation, the people, and their identity and everything in between if we wish to have a thriving society and nation, capitalism with some interventionism can suit that role well, even people such as Hitler, Mousillini, and Rockwell believed in it. The big issue is with race, because of falsified information, slander, and libel, the winners of the second world war have painted the picture that we are all genocidal insane and comically evil people who just want to kill and rule, I have no dislike for any race, but I see them all as different and unique, and when they are thrown together we invariably get conflict, which is why the races should be separate, but shouldn't rule over one another as it only leads to more hostility between each one, if such an economic and social system was to be put in place, then surely we would advance greatly as a species.

>>22617 >capitalism with some interventionism We simply cannot advance as a species while national socialists whine about the completely fabricated differences between races. We also cannot advance in a capitalist system which diverts important resources and education away from people who need them, just to make some people richer. This post is very typical for a national socialist, all the nationalism, none of the socialist. >People think I'm evil Regardless of what you say it is very clear the racial biases that you and other nazi posters have towards some races in particular. No amount of "I have no dislike for any race, but" will change the subtext of your position. We wouldn't have to worry about the clashes between people if everyone had food and shelter, yet capitalists have convinced you that the black man is your enemy, despite you bringing him over to your country in the first place. >Races should be separate What's even your goal, to remove all first generation immigrants? Second generation? What would make these people pass a nationality test, would someone's DNA be too Nigerian for your country? These walls you separate humans with are complete nonsense, regardless of whether you want to kill them, or peacefully reallocate them, your views incite hate. How many different races have you even met? I have no issues getting along with people from all different manners of countries, and friends who's parents are immigrants are literally indistinguishable from natives apart from irrelevant aesthetic points.

>>22481 >The organization of government is independent of what the people in that government does. Nobody is debating that the last national socialist government was unequivalently bad. You are depending on idealism to make your dream natsoc government work. There are plenty of examples of idealistic systems working well at the very beginning, then rapidly devolving due to corruption.

>>22617 I'm pretty much in agreement with your whole post lainon. I'm just curious any reason in particular you favor national socialism and not fascism?

>>22620 >We simply cannot advance as a species while national socialists whine about the completely fabricated differences between races. We also cannot advance in a capitalist system which diverts important resources and education away from people who need them, just to make some people richer. This post is very typical for a national socialist, all the nationalism, none of the socialist. That isn't true anon, the races do have biological and behavioral differences that lead to conflict between them. Capitalism is what allows for important resources and education to get to many people in the first place, the private industries are the ones that exploit resources, create with them, and then sell to the common person, without them there wouldn't be any way to exploit them or distribute them in an effective way unless you want to revert to a system such as feudalism. If you don't believe that capitalism can be socialist, then why don't you go and look at the Soviet Union, China, and Cuba, they all practiced it, just in different ways than the west. >What's even your goal, to remove all first generation immigrants? Second generation? What would make these people pass a nationality test, would someone's DNA be too Nigerian for your country? These walls you separate humans with are complete nonsense, regardless of whether you want to kill them, or peacefully reallocate them, your views incite hate. How many different races have you even met? I have no issues getting along with people from all different manners of countries, and friends who's parents are immigrants are literally indistinguishable from natives apart from irrelevant aesthetic points. I believe that the different races should remain separate, while I would be fine with immigration and intermingling between two countries that have the same race, it shouldn't be practiced between two countries that have different races because it always leads to the conflicting. I don't see it as an act of hatred, I see it as merely a surgical move, nothing more and nothing less. It also isn't much of an argument to say "u havent met a person from another race!" because you're committing a logical fallacy and making a personal attack, rather than actually refuting the argument.

>>22622 They are a fascist. They explicitly states in the post that they support capitalism. Please stop trying to mask your nazism under the veil of socialism. >>22623 >Capitalism is good for distribution of resources, actually Medicine costs money, education costs money, to get rich you need to already be rich, it is a loop which benefits the privileged and devalues the workers. Feudalism is essentially capitalism, someone owns some land or resources, and uses those to benefit themselves, rather than the workers owning it collectively. No those countries are/were socialist, China exploits capitalism, that doesn't mean they are capitalist, again national socialist are all the national none of the socialism, read Marx. >White people can move between countries but not black and white people I know you may think this is not an act of hatred, but it is. You don't want to interact with black people and that makes you a hateful racist. Does the UK and France have the same race? What about UK and Poland? What about white Africans? Your lines are arbitrary and useless. It isn't a logical fallacy it is a counterpoint to your argument that different races intrinsically clash, they do not, you're just a nazi, so I can understand why it would be hard for you, and the people you surround yourself with, to get on with other races well.

>>22625 >They are a fascist. They explicitly states in the post that they support capitalism. Please stop trying to mask your nazism under the veil of socialism. What are you trying to say lainon? There are differences between national socialism and fascism, no one is trying to mask anything under socialism.

>>22626 This is a greater issue with national socialists /nazbols, as previously stated this group is largely nationalist and care very little for actual socialist theory (that's because it is intrinsically at odds with their racist views a lot of the time), the post we are discussing talks about their approval of 'national socialism' yet promotes capitalism, then posts a larger paragraph complaining about race. This is a summary of basically every self proclaimed national socialist, they are all the national and none of the socialist, yet they fool themselves into believing they are in fact socialist, to make their racist ideals seem more palatable. All this does is damage actual socialism. Don't fall for it lain

>>22625 >Medicine costs money, education costs money, to get rich you need to already be rich, it is a loop which benefits the privileged and devalues the workers. Feudalism is essentially capitalism, someone owns some land or resources and uses those to benefit themselves, rather than the workers owning it collectively. No those countries are/were socialist, China exploits capitalism, that doesn't mean they are capitalist, again national socialist are all the national none of the socialism, read Marx. Anon, you seem to be purposefully forgetting what I said, which was "capitalism with interventionism", capitalism needs interventionism to prevent such a situation from arising, in nearly every civilized country, every citizen is able to achieve some form of healthcare without even having to pay, or even if they do have to, it's at a greatly reduced rate, the same goes for education, we do not live in the 1600s where education and healthcare were only for wealthy and influential aristocrats. I have done my research actually, all those countries did or still do capitalism in some form, the only exceptions being with Mao, Stalin, and Castro in his early years, they all tried "seizing the means of production" and it ended in disaster for each one, with all of them reverting to capitalism. What you should also note is that socialism doesn't have to be Marxist socialism, there are many different forms of socialism including democratic socialism, national socialism, and social democracy, you shouldn't lie and state that the only true form of socialism is the kind that aligns with your ideology. > know you may think this is not an act of hatred, but it is. You don't want to interact with black people and that makes you a hateful racist. Okay anon, how so? >Does the UK and France have the same race? What about UK and Poland? What about white Africans? Your lines are arbitrary and useless. It isn't a logical fallacy it is a counterpoint to your argument that different races intrinsically clash, they do not, you're just a nazi, so I can understand why it would be hard for you, and the people you surround yourself with, to get on with other races well. Why of course they do have the same race, the term "white" not-so-subtly implied that. Isn't it bigoted of you to say that a slav and an anglo aren't of the same race? Or even that the french and English might be of a different race?

>>22627 I think that you're mixing up nazbols lainon, national socialism has very little to do with socialism. A good example would be Hitler, I don't think that he expressed any preferences towards socialism publicly, national socialist Germany was much more capitalist than socialist. >Don't fall for it lain I have bad news for you lainon, I'm already a fascist.

>>22628 If you were socialist you would understand that capitalism does not work, or would at least argue that. Capitalism with interventionism is a social democracy, or just straight liberalism. Like I said, they USE capitalism, China makes all the plastic garbage that burgers buy and now they're one of the most prosperous countries in the world, but they are run by a communist party. I'm not here to argue whether socialism is good or not, but you are making it blatantly clear you are not a socialist, and do not understand socialism, so please stop larping as one. > how so If you don't disagree that you don't want to interact with black people, then you have answered it for me. > Whites are all the same Okay what about Spanish, they are sorta olive skinned? It is a spectrum. >"Haha maybe YOU'RE the bigot!"-nazi Please don't do this it makes you look like a moron. I'm not trying to win a politically correct contest. > Slav and anglo are the same race Are they? How do you know? When does the slav get far away enough from an anglo that he is closer to a black person? I'm not asserting anything about these questions, I'm asking you and you are diverting. I know many French people and there are large differences in our cultures and how we act despite being quite close genetically. I don't see how this is bad if suddenly that person is black. >>22629 No anon my point is they are all practically identical ideologies with different names, they all start with racial foundations, not socialist ones. They fundamentally don't care about the workers first, which is important for socialism. Hitler's party used the term socialism to trick people in the same way people in this thread are. Also right wing people say socialism is bad too cos "muh national socialist party", it's dishonest and just adds noise to the conversation. >I'm a fascist I prefer this to people lying to themselves and others about being socialist.

>>22630 I never said that, please elaborate instead of posting stupid memes. >>22631 >No anon my point is they are all practically identical ideologies with different names, they all start with racial foundations, not socialist ones. Yes, I agree. >They fundamentally don't care about the workers first, which is important for socialism. Hitler's party used the term socialism to trick people in the same way people in this thread are. Also right wing people say socialism is bad too cos "muh national socialist party", it's dishonest and just adds noise to the conversation. Sure, I can also agree that nationalism comes first in such political ideologies while economy is second. I don't think that anyone disagrees when you say that national socialism is not socialism because it isn't.

It's not socialist and was more pan nationalist than nationalist. It was an escalation of Pan-Germanism fusing with Facism.

>>22631 >If you were socialist you would understand that capitalism does not work, or would at least argue that. Capitalism with interventionism is a social democracy, or just straight liberalism. Like I said, they USE capitalism, China makes all the plastic garbage that burgers buy and now they're one of the most prosperous countries in the world, but they are run by a communist party. I'm not here to argue whether socialism is good or not, but you are making it blatantly clear you are not a socialist, and do not understand socialism, so please stop larping as one. But in that sentence, you are admitting that capitalism DOES work, if it can work an authoritarian country under the guise of being a "peoples republic", then why can't it work for a liberal western country? Your logic isn't making much sense. >If you don't disagree that you don't want to interact with black people, then you have answered it for me. And how so anon? You can't really explain to me how believing that races should be separate is somehow racist and evil for some reason. >> Whites are all the same >Okay what about Spanish, they are sorta olive skinned? It is a spectrum. It's not a very nice thing to put words in peoples mouth's, Anon, it's also fallacious, there are differences between different ethnic groups of the white race, of course, their skin being slightly more tan doesn't make a difference, but you're also forgetting what I said earlier, about how race is more than skin deep and is biological and behavioral. >Are they? How do you know? When does the slav get far away enough from an anglo that he is closer to a black person? I'm not asserting anything about these questions, I'm asking you and you are diverting. I know many French people and there are large differences in our cultures and how we act despite being quite close genetically. I don't see how this is bad if suddenly that person is black. Because genetically aside from their history, they are very similar aside from a few differences in appearance. Okay? Of course, there will be cultural differences when comparing countries such as the UK and France, the issue when it comes to race is that the biological differences between each race and their behavior lead them to conflict with one another.

>>22639 The system does not work as a sustainable way to run a society if you care about the people. I mean feudalism "worked" in some manner. I'm trying not to get too in depth with regards to these countries because this isn't about capitalism being good or bad, the point stands that you are not socialist since you do not advocate for workers owning the means of production, you advocate for a liberalism. Which is a capitalist philosophy by very definition. Therefore you are not a socialist, yeah? > Races being separated isn't evil Well maybe not inherently, but that's not the statement we are discussing. We are discussing the statement "I don't want to interact with black people", which is racist. It relies on you making an assumption about the way black people act because of their race which is as close to racism as we can get, I think we can agree. > Race is more than skin deep Yeah I agree, but your logic is so deeply flawed here. So different white ethnic groups are fine to live together, because their differences are only cultural? How can you guarantee that the French don't have a rudeness gene that makes them particularly blunt? You are drawing arbitrary lines, unless you can scientifically tell me where the line is between a white and a black person, then your arguments are mere speculation. The problem is whatever statistic you give can be explained by socio-economic factors, not race, (making more assumptions, I apologise, but don't soil this discussion with anything IQ related I beg). So is South America white? A lot of them will be of Spanish descent, and you said Spaniards are white, but assuming you are American, you probably hold the view that South Americans are of a different race. If your political choices came alive would you give USA back to the native Americans and tell all the white people to leave?

>>22640 >The system does not work as a sustainable way to run a society if you care about the people. I mean feudalism "worked" in some manner. I'm trying not to get too in depth with regards to these countries because this isn't about capitalism being good or bad, the point stands that you are not socialist since you do not advocate for workers owning the means of production, you advocate for a liberalism. Which is a capitalist philosophy by very definition. Therefore you are not a socialist, yeah? It's interesting that you say that when by your definition of capitalism it has existed for over 1000 years and is still thriving, yet somehow it isn't sustainable. Again, there are multiple forms of socialism, just because my socialism doesn't match your own personal ideological form of socialism, doesn't make it any less true, are the socialist that came before marx somehow untrue because they didn't share his beliefs? >Well maybe not inherently, but that's not the statement we are discussing. We are discussing the statement "I don't want to interact with black people", which is racist. It relies on you making an assumption about the way black people act because of their race which is as close to racism as we can get, I think we can agree. Anon, what did I just say? It's not nice to put words in peoples mouth's, you don't know if I have or haven't interacted with people of different races or not, so you really couldn't make that assumption in the first place. I have actually interacted with people from different races, and I am friendly with a black Islamist from Ghana in the real world, and regardless, isn't that just moving the goal post to say that because you assume I don't want to interact with people of other races that it makes me evil? If you are trying to say that it's not good to hate people just because of their race, then I would agree with you. Yes, I am assuming that black people will act in certain ways because of their race, why? Because it is something that you can prove statistically, if you want to holler and shout about it, then go ahead. >> Race is more than skin deep >Yeah I agree, but your logic is so deeply flawed here. So different white ethnic groups are fine to live together, because their differences are only cultural? How can you guarantee that the French don't have a rudeness gene that makes them particularly blunt? You are drawing arbitrary lines, unless you can scientifically tell me where the line is between a white and a black person, then your arguments are mere speculation. The problem is whatever statistic you give can be explained by socio-economic factors, not race, (making more assumptions, I apologise, but don't soil this discussion with anything IQ related I beg). Anon, you sure love to put words in people's mouths, In actuality, people among their own ethnic groups are best together, but they can also interact with people of other groups well. In regards to the french, that is a cultural thing, is it not? I don't think I've ever seen anybody claim that a "rudeness" gene exists outside of behavioral and mental issues, so I would believe that there is a cultural issue. The line between the different races is genetics when the races are combined with one another, then it leads to conflict and issues that otherwise could have been avoided. The issue with that statement is.... why has it always been this way then? Why in almost every case in regards to multi-racial empires and countries has it ended with the races fighting one another and leading to the eventual collapse of these empires, or outright genocide? It happened with Rome, it happened with the Mughals, empires like the Abbasids and Ottomans resorted to genocide to control their populations, if things have always been this way between races, then why is it any different in the modern age? The computer and the car hasn't changed human nature completely, at least not yet. >So is South America white? A lot of them will be of Spanish descent, and you said Spaniards are white, but assuming you are American, you probably hold the view that South Americans are of a different race. If your political choices came alive would you give USA back to the native Americans and tell all the white people to leave? Yes and no, ironically it's quite bigoted of you to assume that, but regardless, those that are descendants of the colonists and immigrants from Europe are indeed white, but those who mixed with the natives, of course, are not white, they are mixed and their own race at this point, but I think you already knew that. With the natives in America, they were little more than nomads that had little to no concept of borders or owned land, they went where they pleased and the only land that wasn't owned by nature to them was the walls of their usually tiny settlements, the early settlers actually had very large issues with natives intruding on their land because they didn't know what territory or borders were. Regardless, the natives are extinct at this point, they were almost all killed off by plagues, and the ones that survived mixed into the settlers and by this point are barely even considered native genetically.

>>22642 > Capitalism is 1000 years old and is still thriving, therefore is sustainable We were living in communist communes and tribes for millions of years. Private property didn't exist, you are talking nonsense. > There are many kinds of socialism Sort of. Yeah there are variations but they are all anti capitalist at their core. You said social democracy is a type of socialism, which is still proof you are extremely naive about the definitions here. I can't argue on this with you because you are so far off the mark. You can't just make up some pro capitalist belief system and call it socialist that's not how this works. > Friends with black people I apologise for the assumption but it got a key piece of information out. Why are you friendly with this person? Why wouldn't you say "friend"? I mean you clearly don't interact with that many different races if the best you can pull out is that you're 'friendly' with a black person. > Does not wanting to interact with other races make me evil? I mean sort of yes. It makes you racist, which could be a good or bad thing in the context of this thread. But I think saying that you don't want to interact with black people isn't racist is bad form. I think it definitely makes you a bad person if you're going to generalise a whole race of people off some ridiculous belief that their genes make them less worthy of your attention. > Prove statistically Statistics can be very very misleading. I'm sure you are well aware of correlation=/=causation? I work in mathematics and statistics is an extremely complicated field and I constantly see things completely misrepresented and misinterpreted everywhere. > No one claiming rudeness is a gene Dude you're missing the point. It's not about whether there's a rudeness gene, it's that fact that these behaviours are arbitrary, you don't know if there's a gene to describe this or not. Where does rudeness become the black-people "steal soykaf" gene, that nazis seem to think exists? >Societies end in race fighting These societies have other things in common too, capitalists to pit these workers against one another. So whites rise against the blacks or the Irish, to distract from the real power imbalance. We are also a lot more educated than we were back then, I'm sure rape was a lot more common thousands of years ago, that doesn't mean it's the way things should be. Why do you think our ancestors being racist gives an excuse for you to believe in the same thing? This logic just isn't sound. > Human nature See my previous point about humans existing in communes for millions of years. Look up how bonobos work socially. > Nazi calling me bigoted again You're previously stating that you assume black people will act a certain way because they are black. Please stop trying to get on this high horse it's cringe as fuarrrk. > Race mixed South Americans You realise every white person is the result of mixing somewhere down the line in some way? Go back far enough and we'd all be black. > Native Americans nomads. Early settlers had issues with natives intruding on their land Very not true. They had vast amounts of culture and traditions. So people invaded their country, then just took land that they collective owned? (But what about human nature) Thank god for capitalism. There a many native Americans left. Millions if you would do some research. By your beliefs they should definitely have their land back, an invader came over and committed a genocide (An actual genocide, not the 'white' genocide where white people just don't breed fast enough) and took their country! Alas they were not white, so they don't get support from nazis.

>>22644 This is expanding a bit too much, would like to focus on these things: That there's no way for you to prove anything about races/genes and how they act for sure. All lines you draw will be arbitrary. All you can do is point at graphs that can equally be described by socio-economic factors. Also the fact that it isn't 'human nature' to act in a selfish/racist way, private property, race, etc are all social constructs emphasised by capitalism (the current system that the world generally works under). And I'd really like to hear your take on why the millions of Native Americans are/aren't entitled to their land back, in a nat-soc world.

>>22640 >a liberalism. Which is a capitalist philosophy by very definition. Not to be a nitpick, but this is incorrect. Liberalism doesn't care about capitalism or socialism. This is a false combination people on twitter advocate to push illiberal ideologies, which generally disempower people. This is distinct from neo-liberalism, which is liberalism with a coat of capitalist paint, and I would suggest strongly illiberal, since it again disempowers people by suggesting that the "markets" are the source of power and truth rather than individual/collective people. >Well maybe not inherently, but that's not the statement we are discussing. We are discussing the statement "I don't want to interact with black people", which is racist. It relies on you making an assumption about the way black people act because of their race which is as close to racism as we can get, I think we can agree. Statistically, black people behave badly. Do you think this is because of some inherit trait? Or perhaps social conditioning? Before you assert that "racism" is necessarily bad, you need to explain why the assumptions that lead to one being labelled as "racist" are necessarily wrong. >You are drawing arbitrary lines, unless you can scientifically tell me where the line is between a white and a black person, then your arguments are mere speculation. Again, I'll point to statistics. French people are not statistically more likely to commit murder than a black person. Among white people, there are certainly differences like attitude, but their behavior is overall very similar. How much is cultural of these attitudes though? I think a fair amount. But this doesn't account for group statistics. >you probably hold the view that South Americans are of a different race. This is the accurate view, since Spaniards breeded with the native populations of South America, leading to a hybrid race. So, they're both white and <something else that I don't have a good word for>: "latin". Interestingly, you can see they fit roughly between white and black in murder statistics. >>22642 >Again, there are multiple forms of socialism, just because my socialism doesn't match your own personal ideological form of socialism, doesn't make it any less true, are the socialist that came before marx somehow untrue because they didn't share his beliefs? You're forgetting that socialism has been tried many many times and always failed. Capitalism has stood up against many trials and always succeeded. Furthermore, Capitalism has pulled many more people out of poverty than socialism has ever even attempted to. >In actuality, people among their own ethnic groups are best together, but they can also interact with people of other groups well. In regards to the french, that is a cultural thing, is it not? I don't think I've ever seen anybody claim that a "rudeness" gene exists outside of behavioral and mental issues, so I would believe that there is a cultural issue. This cannot be emphasized enough. There's a big difference between a cultural more of "rudeness" versus a racial difference of in-bread ethical differences. >Yes and no, ironically it's quite bigoted of you to assume that, but regardless, those that are descendants of the colonists and immigrants from Europe are indeed white, but those who mixed with the natives, of course, are not white, they are mixed and their own race at this point, but I think you already knew that. With the natives in America, they were little more than nomads that had little to no concept of borders or owned land, they went where they pleased and the only land that wasn't owned by nature to them was the walls of their usually tiny settlements, the early settlers actually had very large issues with natives intruding on their land because they didn't know what territory or borders were. Regardless, the natives are extinct at this point, they were almost all killed off by plagues, and the ones that survived mixed into the settlers and by this point are barely even considered native genetically. Can confirm all of this this very accurate. The importance of inter-breeding cannot be understated. >>22644 >We were living in communist communes and tribes for millions of years. Private property didn't exist, you are talking nonsense. False, we were living in "might-makes-right" societies until we came up with politics. >You said social democracy is a type of socialism, which is still proof you are extremely naive about the definitions here. I can't argue on this with you because you are so far off the mark. You can't just make up some pro capitalist belief system and call it socialist that's not how this works. Everybody knows what social democracy is except you, that's unfortunate. >It makes you racist, which could be a good or bad thing in the context of this thread. But I think saying that you don't want to interact with black people isn't racist is bad form. I think it definitely makes you a bad person if you're going to generalise a whole race of people off some ridiculous belief that their genes make them less worthy of your attention. Statistically, they behave much differently in ways that culture cannot explain. Not wanting to interact with people who are fundamentally different from you isn't a crime, although I can see you wish it were. >Statistics can be very very misleading. I'm sure you are well aware of correlation=/=causation? I work in mathematics and statistics is an extremely complicated field and I constantly see things completely misrepresented and misinterpreted everywhere. It's pretty much a foregone conclusion that black people are more violent and temperamental than whites at this point. Look at Africa, the USA. Very different environments, same results. "Correlation =/= causation" at this point is just trying to mislead from the central point, which is these populations DIFFER. There's nothing magical or "cause"-related to that. Differences exist, and therefor it is best for populations to be separate to prevent problems for one-another. >Dude you're missing the point. It's not about whether there's a rudeness gene, it's that fact that these behaviours are arbitrary, you don't know if there's a gene to describe this or not. Where does rudeness become the black-people "steal soykaf" gene, that nazis seem to think exists? It's much more than merely "sealing soykaf". It's an overall lower level of evolution. Their sociability is much lower than whites, which leads to problems: poor grades in school, inability to understand basic concepts, murder, theft, etc. This is more than a handful of "specific" genes, it's an overall lower quality genome. >These societies have other things in common too, capitalists to pit these workers against one another. So whites rise against the blacks or the Irish, to distract from the real power imbalance. We are also a lot more educated than we were back then, I'm sure rape was a lot more common thousands of years ago, that doesn't mean it's the way things should be. Why do you think our ancestors being racist gives an excuse for you to believe in the same thing? This logic just isn't sound. Assuming everything boils down to capitalism is unsound logic. There's many critical forces pushing and pulling in every direction, including "liberal democracy" which presupposes everybody is equally capable. This is incorrect, black people are much less capable than whites. If you tell everybody they're the same and can aspire to the same things, conflict will arise when people find out they cannot. It's unfortunate but true. Our ancestors were "racist" because it is evolutionary advantageous: breeding with lower stock will result in sub-par results and thus lower survivability. It is essential, in evolutionary terms, to propagate the species. >You realise every white person is the result of mixing somewhere down the line in some way? Go back far enough and we'd all be black. Some of us have evolved. Black people are closer to monkeys than the rest of us. You're presuming people don't believe in evolution, but really evolution explains why white people exist in the first place. >Very not true. They had vast amounts of culture and traditions. So people invaded their country, then just took land that they collective owned? (But what about human nature) Thank god for capitalism. Agian you blame capitalism, the most successful and effective means of organizing ourselves economically. I'm beginning to believe you don't even know what that word means. >>22646 >That there's no way for you to prove anything about races/genes and how they act for sure. All lines you draw will be arbitrary. All you can do is point at graphs that can equally be described by socio-economic factors. Statistics is as good as proof when we look at broad scale trends. In Africa (black majority) and Black America, there are significant differences from white populations around the world. "Socio-economic" factors don't add up when you see black students struggling to understand basic math and english. It doesn't explain why black people in Africa (who are masters of their own destiny without the interference of "whitey") are incredibly violent and turbulent. >Also the fact that it isn't 'human nature' to act in a selfish/racist way, private property, race, etc are all social constructs emphasised by capitalism (the current system that the world generally works under). Yes, blame capitalism for the ills of race. It sounds more like you have a political bend, and are thus posting in bad faith than any actual arguments. >And I'd really like to hear your take on why the millions of Native Americans are/aren't entitled to their land back, in a nat-soc world. The land is populated. We can certainly shift populations around and give natives a chunk of land, but overall, it's impossible to "give it all back".

Anyone have any suggestions on what are some "must read" books on esoteric nazism? I've heard interesting things about Savitri Devi's writing but I haven't checked it out. I've tried reading Evola's "Revolt Against the Modern Worlds" but it seemed a bit "out there", I feel like I need to get used to his style before attempting to read "the big three". Anything you Lains read on this topic recently?

>>22644 >We were living in communist communes and tribes for millions of years. Private property didn't exist, you are talking nonsense. If you call being primitive apes that lived similarly to chimps, then sure, but I think you should remember that back then tribes were usually dictatorially ruled by one person who was the most physically powerful. >Sort of. Yeah there are variations but they are all anti capitalist at their core. You said social democracy is a type of socialism, which is still proof you are extremely naive about the definitions here. I can't argue on this with you because you are so far off the mark. You can't just make up some pro capitalist belief system and call it socialist that's not how this works. That's not true at all if anything, the only relevant ideology that is anti-capitalist is marxism itself, you can't say that China, Venezuela, Sweden, Cuba, or Denmark are anticapitalist. >I apologise for the assumption but it got a key piece of information out. Why are you friendly with this person? Why wouldn't you say "friend"? I mean you clearly don't interact with that many different races if the best you can pull out is that you're 'friendly' with a black person. I am friendly with them because I don't dislike them for being a different race, I am not true friends with them because we are different people and can't really relate to one another, it isn't because of race. I am however friends with mixed people, and a racial jew, again, you're assuming a lot about me. I mean sort of yes. It makes you racist, which could be a good or bad thing in the context of this thread. But I think saying that you don't want to interact with black people isn't racist is bad form. I think it definitely makes you a bad person if you're going to generalise a whole race of people off some ridiculous belief that their genes make them less worthy of your attention. Oh, anon I see you're quite committed with this, again, you're putting words in my mouth, I'm not saying that the races should be separate because I dislike them, but because when races mix, it invariably causes conflict. I am not saying either that they should be totally ignored either. >Statistics can be very very misleading. I'm sure you are well aware of correlation=/=causation? I work in mathematics and statistics is an extremely complicated field and I constantly see things completely misrepresented and misinterpreted everywhere. Cool, but that isn't exactly proving or disproving anything. >Dude you're missing the point. It's not about whether there's a rudeness gene, it's that fact that these behaviours are arbitrary, you don't know if there's a gene to describe this or not. Where does rudeness become the black-people "steal soykaf" gene, that nazis seem to think exists? Are they? Research in racial genetics doesn't happen often today, and even when it does the validity of it is questionable, so there is a lack of evidence for either side, but regardless, there is genetic evidence that races are different and can have a real physical impact, such as with health, certain races and be more or less susceptible to certain diseases and this is because of genetic differences that have an impact on their body, so is it not impossible that a racial difference that affects a person hair, skin color, overall appearance, and health, could also affect their behaviour as well? >These societies have other things in common too, capitalists to pit these workers against one another. So whites rise against the blacks or the Irish, to distract from the real power imbalance. We are also a lot more educated than we were back then, I'm sure rape was a lot more common thousands of years ago, that doesn't mean it's the way things should be. Why do you think our ancestors being racist gives an excuse for you to believe in the same thing? This logic just isn't sound. Really? What did the Mughals have in common with the British Empire? What did the Abbasid empire have in common with Rome? It also doesn't make sense that they would purposefully destroy their own empires for the sake of pitting the proles against each other, isn't that what they would have wanted to avoid? That's some 4D level stuff. And I really wouldn't consider Rome, the Abbasid empire, or the Mughals capitalist, at all, Feudalism really only came into play after Charlamagne, and even then, only Europe adopted it, the middle east and India never had it at all, and were usually ruled by theocracies, brutal dictatorships, or monarchies, I really don't see how you can blame capitalism for it when it didn't even exist up until the 1600s. >You realise every white person is the result of mixing somewhere down the line in some way? Go back far enough and we'd all be black. And how so? I don't think you could actually prove that Anon, that theory in itself is heavily debated and argued about today. >Very not true. They had vast amounts of culture and traditions. So people invaded their country, then just took land that they collective owned? (But what about human nature) Thank god for capitalism. >There a many native Americans left. Millions if you would do some research. By your beliefs they should definitely have their land back, an invader came over and committed a genocide (An actual genocide, not the 'white' genocide where white people just don't breed fast enough) and took their country! Alas they were not white, so they don't get support from nazis. It is very true, saying that it isn't doesn't change that. What? I never argued that they didn't, I argued that they were nomads that had no concept of borders or owned land. Again, nobody owned anything according to them aside from some personal belongings, they didn't see any of the land or resources as belonging to anybody else besides nature. I said that the true natives are long extinct, what used to be tens of millions is now a few million, and the ones that aren't mixed are negligible, the way I see it, they are definitely extinct, at least genetically. And what land is there left to give if they never owned any of it in the first place? Regardless, they already have their own land, have you never heard of reservations?

>>22648 >Esoteric nazism If you're looking for something regarding esoteric nazism that isn't "out there", you're probably looking in the wrong place.

>>22650 I should've perhaps clarified a bit. What I meant by "out there" regarding Evola's book; the book starts off with "fringe" concepts, like with talk about magic and whatnot. I feel like the best way to "get" him and his writing style would be if I started reading his books chronologically. >you're probably looking in the wrong place. care to point me where to look then or which books I should check out?

>>22647 > Socialism has failed, social democracy is socialism, liberals aren't capitalist We're not discussing the merits of socialism, it's clear your understanding of political ideologies is very surface level, I won't respond in depth to this drivel that has been refuted time and time again. > We were living in "might makes right" societies Were we? Where is your proof, outside of nazi propaganda about being the survival of the fittest or whatever. Animals can coexist peacefully we are not some strange barbaric exception. It went downhill when private property began to exist, when wealth starts to accumulate in the hands of kings and capitalists. > It's pretty much a foregone conclusion that black people are more violent and temperamental than whites at this point This is not an argument. Nor is it proof. > Black people less evolved Yet I can walk around with them and discuss politics and science with them to high levels. I never claim people are all born equal. I merely do not care about some arbitrary line in the sand that you have drawn to make yourself feel better about your own pathetic life. You are white, congratulations. I don't think disabled people have any less of a right to a happy life either, even if black people were less evolved I wouldn't give a soykaf they are humans. > black people = monkeys Please get some real arguments you moron > Again you blame capitalism Yes when a capitalist group invade a land without private property and commit genocide to gain the resources, yes I do blame capitalism. Please read the posts first. > Statistics is as good as proof when we look at broad scale trends Do you know how I can tell you are not very educated? Statistics doesn't prove anything on its own. Some black students will struggle with math and English because they are poor. Maybe they have to work and go to school at the same time. Maybe they spend hours travelling because they are too poor to live in the city, and can't study as much. Maybe because their parents are black (a poorer population) they are also uneducated and can't help them in school. There are many facets to these problems, it is so extremely stupid to blame it all on race. >Blacks in Africa are incredibly violent, without the interference of whitey What kind of a retarded statement is this? You realise the whole slavery thing happened, right? The whole invasion by Netherlands, UK, France, etc? Do you simply not understand how large historical events like this can have impacts on countries? If your follow up posts are going to be of this quality please don't bother, it is just nonsense. >You have a political bend Yeah I do, much as you do in this rabid brain-rot of a post where you think every issue in society is based of black people being monkeys. >Native American land Yes obviously its impractical, but the point is they deserve it right? A foreign invader came in and committed a genocide, which by your logic is bad (when its done to white people at least).

>>22651 >care to point me where to look then or which books I should check out? I myself have never seen a form of literature that wasn't like that, though might be something decent out there, everything I have seen so far is pretty.... "out there".

>>22652 >We're not discussing the merits of socialism, it's clear your understanding of political ideologies is very surface level, I won't respond in depth to this drivel that has been refuted time and time again. If we're not discussing it, don't bring it up. Furthermore, the fact you would rather insult the poster than stand up an argument or refutation demonstrates you're not actually in it for truth. >This is not an argument. Nor is it proof. There were some good charts posted earlier that demonstrate the fact. For a "minority" they sure commit a lot of murder. >Yet I can walk around with them and discuss politics and science with them to high levels. Bred with whites. It happens, and the results are good for blacks. >about your own pathetic life. more insults, you're really trying to break rules aren't you? >>>3. Always argue in good faith and avoid using personal attacks. >I wouldn't give a soykaf they are humans. Are they though? Perhaps pre-human, I'll grant that. But they're lesser evolved. >Yes when a capitalist group invade a land without private property and commit genocide to gain the resources, yes I do blame capitalism. Please read the posts first. Remember when you said we weren't talking about socialism? Well why are we talking about capitalism? This IS a thread about national socialism after all. Furthermore, presuming somebody hasn't "read your post" further (yet again) shows that you're more interested in pushing an ideology than actually debating the facts. And I'll even go further ----> you're posting in bad faith by moving the goal posts. >Do you know how I can tell you are not very educated? Ah yes, more insults. Bad faith move. >Some black students will struggle with math and English because they are poor. [citation needed]. You also presume that it only affects a small group of them when it is in fact pervasive. >Maybe they have to work and go to school at the same time. Maybe they spend hours travelling because they are too poor to live in the city, and can't study as much. Maybe because their parents are black (a poorer population) they are also uneducated and can't help them in school. Maybe maybe maybe maybe. You're not building a very compelling case. Again, it is a pervasive problem, and many of the problems you claim don't exist. Schools exist close to them, CHILDREN don't work (unless you include gang activity...), parental help doesn't make one magically smarter. >What kind of a retarded statement is this? There's your bad faith showing through again. >If your follow up posts are going to be of this quality please don't bother, it is just nonsense. Bad faith, more bad faith. How unfortunate. You could've spent much less time writing your post if you had only omitted your seething anger towards a viewpoint based in realty that differs from your own. It's kinda sad watching you stumble over your own feet, trying to find truth and constantly banging your head on it, only to dismiss it out of hand because it doesn't conform to your narrow, deluded worldview. >this rabid brain-rot of a post where you think every issue in society is based of black people being monkeys. Need I repeat myself? Bad faith, writ large. >Yes obviously its impractical, but the point is they deserve it right? A foreign invader came in and committed a genocide, which by your logic is bad (when its done to white people at least). I never made a value judgement one way or the other. Of course, I am greatly saddened by the ills of the past, but that doesn't mean we need to repeat them in reverse to make things as good as possible. We need to make correct steps. It's obvious you're not here to discuss, just bandy about bullshit and push some delusional agenda. Perhaps it's time to duck out and find something more constructive to do with your time?

>>22652 >it's clear your understanding of political ideologies is very surface level The fact you respond this way to the statements show us the opposite of what you're trying to claim. The map of ideologies is very much in line with what the anon said.

>>22649 Good post anon. >That's not true at all if anything, the only relevant ideology that is anti-capitalist is marxism itself, you can't say that China, Venezuela, Sweden, Cuba, or Denmark are anticapitalist. China in particular has adopted some capitalism, and it's done wonders for them. Sweden isn't really very "socialist", but they do have social programs (socialism would be much more pervasive). >I am friendly with them because I don't dislike them for being a different race, I am not true friends with them because we are different people and can't really relate to one another, it isn't because of race. I am however friends with mixed people, and a racial jew, again, you're assuming a lot about me. This cannot be understated. Being different isn't "bad", but certainly leads to incompatibility. >I mean sort of yes. It makes you racist, which could be a good or bad thing in the context of this thread. Being "racist" isn't bad or wrong anon. This is brainwashing to push you against your natural behavior. >Cool, but that isn't exactly proving or disproving anything. Their claim wasn't intended to prove/disprove anything, it's designed to muddy the water. The fact is black people commit much more crime, disproportionate to their population percentage.

>>22655 We were discussing the use of socialism in 'national socialism'. Sorry if you get offended when people insult your nazi brain damage, maybe you're not in it for truth if you wish to focus on this, rather than focus on the points. Calling blacks monkeys isn't arguing in good faith, just because you hide it behind your "personal beliefs" doesn't mean anything. > Bred with whites Why move the goalposts? I'm talking about fully black, fully Hispanic, fully Asian. There are millions extremely intelligent and respect individuals who aren't white. > Remember when you said we weren't talking about socialism? We aren't talking about the precise definition of socialism. We are talking about the issues surrounding racial groups, and these issues can be explained easily by capitalism. >wahhhh bad faith wahhhhhhhh nooooo please argue in good faith noooo Dude you're spouting absolute nonsense, you refute nothing, you simple complain about some insults. You have such a small ability to think critically about these issues you can't even consider the troubles some black people face. Schools do not exist close to every single child in the world. Children do work. This makes it very clear you are privileged if you didn't work as a kid, which is good, but stop acting like the whole world runs your way. Parental help obviously does make children smarter, you think people just come out the womb, and equations start sprouting? You need to exist in an environment where learning is encouraged, if parents can teach kids more things then the children will be more likely to be engaged in school and it's a positive feedback loop a lot of poor kids don't have access to, regardless of race. >bad faith wahhhhh Sometimes posts make retarded points. This is one of them. Do you ever stop moaning? No wonder you're a nazi. > Avoids the only straight forward question in the entire post Please stop soykafting up the good discussion in here with your propaganda >>22656 Nazis in an echo chamber think the same things, wow!

>>22658 >Sorry if you get offended when people insult your nazi brain damage Mmmmmm yes, more aggressive bad faith. Don't you get tired of breaking the rules? >There are millions extremely intelligent and respect individuals who aren't white. Oh yes, I'm sure. Asians are very intelligent. >these issues can be explained easily by capitalism. Except they can't. You're projecting a bunch of attributes onto capitalism that simply aren't warranted. >Dude you're spouting absolute nonsense, you refute nothing, you simple complain about some insults. It's funny cause you were warned about posting in bad faith by a mod, and yet you keep doing it. >Parental help obviously does make children smarter You need the capacity before you can learn anything. Given the abysmal rates of black success, it's clear they lack that capacity. >Sometimes posts make retarded points. This is one of them. Do you ever stop moaning? No wonder you're a nazi. You presume a lot while posting in bad faith. Don't you get tired of pushing your ideologies on people and presuming the worst of them? I certainly tire of listening to you do it. >Please stop soykafting up the good discussion in here with your propaganda You're so presumptuous. >Nazis in an echo chamber think the same things, wow! You assume everybody who doesn't agree with you MUST be a nazi, it's plain for all to see!!! This is yet another example of bad faith.

>>22659 "projecting attributes onto capitalism" makes no god damn sense. Does the word 'projecting' have any meaning any more?

>>22660 >projecting >>>Giving an outward appearance, in order to avoid a direct connection or to disguise or inflate the real essence. I think you're the only one here who doesn't understand.

>>22663 and how exactly are they "projecting attributes onto capitalism"? In what way are they giving capitalism an outward appearance?

>>22660 lol, are you black? >>22664 >are they >they nice doublepost. "They" (you) are pretending capitalism has all these evil attributes that make the system itself evil. Pretty easy.

>>22665 different person. > pretending capitalism has all these evil attributes that make the system itself evil. Pretty easy. Ah so, what you meant to say was, "the things you say about capitalism are not true". But of course, it's much easier to dismiss someone as 'projecting', isn't it?

>>22649 Sorry I didn't see your post before. I don't know if tribes were like that. How would we know? I don't mean primitive apes, look at the time line of human history, capitalism and its consequences are so extremely recent in the grand scheme that it's really short sighted to call capitalism human nature in my opinion. > you can't say that China, Venezuela, Sweden, Cuba, or Denmark are anticapitalist. China, Venezuela and Cuba are explicitly socialist countries. Denmark and Sweden are liberal social democracies. Are you implying communism isn't anti-capitalist? Marxist-Leninism? These are all extremely relevant in the context of these countries. If you want to know more about these countries idk maybe look at the communism thread or something but it's too deep to get into here. Fundamentally China, Ven, Cuba, are VERY different to Sweden and Denmark, the later of which have nothing to do with socialism. Socialism isn't about progressive welfare policies. It is about workers owning the means of production. > I'm not saying that the races should be separate because I dislike them, but because when races mix, it invariably causes conflict. But you're friends with all these different races, where's the inevitable conflict? >Cool, but that isn't exactly proving or disproving anything. It proves that your proofs derived from statistics don't prove anything. > racial difference that affects a person hair, skin color, overall appearance, and health, could also affect their behaviour as well? Yeah I think it's in the realm of possibility, but I don't think this creates a clash. People can change appearances, people can get vaccinated, why can't we change peoples behaviour as well? I don't think race plays anywhere near as big of a role as upbringing does. What if your parents never hugged you? You'd be a very different person to someone who was very loved as a child. These things make huge impacts on people's lives. > What do these empires have in common Private property. The concept that some rich/powerful were better than others (like some people in this thread with race). The divine right of kings is capitalist, in the way some people are born to landlords so never have to worry about paying rent. Empires fall for many reasons it's not to pit the proles against one another, but currently many are manipulated into directing their anger towards other races rather than the rich man. Read Lenin if you want to learn more about capitalism and imperialism and how they go hand in hand, also look up what the east India company did to India. > And how so? Oh so you believe every white people went from monkey straight to white person? >It is very true, saying that it isn't doesn't change that. It is not very true, saying that it is doesn't change that. There are millions left, that is a lot. >they're extinct the way I see it Okay that is your opinion, there are still millions of Native Americans in the US. > No one owned the land They owned it collectively, it belonged to everyone and no one. Your mind is stuck in this capitalist way of thinking. I thought this would come easy to you as a nazi. Their race had some soil, it got invaded and they were genocided. Their bloodline lives on in a few million people. They deserve their land back. Not just a few pity reservations. It's really telling that you guys want to side step this question so much, when it comes to giving land back to non white people, you really have a problem with it.

>>22669 >Read Lenin if you want to learn more about capitalism and imperialism and how they go hand in hand, also look up what the east India company did to India. Read <an ideologue>'s biased assessment of <something they hate> to get the real picture of that <thing they hate>.

>>22669 >I don't know if tribes were like that. How would we know? I don't mean primitive apes, look at the time line of human history, capitalism and its consequences are so extremely recent in the grand scheme that it's really short sighted to call capitalism human nature in my opinion. If you aren't even sure, then why even mention it in the first place? Anon, how much longer are we going to have to play this game with you putting words in my mouth? I never said that capitalism is human nature, I said that capitalism has proven itself to be efficent from how stable, refined, long running, and flexible it is. > China, Venezuela and Cuba are explicitly socialist countries. Denmark and Sweden are liberal social democracies. Are you implying communism isn't anti-capitalist? Marxist-Leninism? These are all extremely relevant in the context of these countries. If you want to know more about these countries idk maybe look at the communism thread or something but it's too deep to get into here. Fundamentally China, Ven, Cuba, are VERY different to Sweden and Denmark, the later of which have nothing to do with socialism. Socialism isn't about progressive welfare policies. It is about workers owning the means of production. That's factually wrong, China, Venezuela, and Cuba are explicitly capitalist countries, China is the worlds second largest economy and ironically businesses there are thriving because of their lax regulations and high about of man power, it is a transparent bluff to say that it is anything other than capitalist. Cuba even recently amended their constitution to bring back the system they had in the mid 20th century, which is private businesses, foreign investment, a prime minister, and much more, there is no marxist socialist country left on earth, so I really have to ask you, what makes them so different from the nordic countries? They are both socialist, but they aren't marxist socialist, I have told you multiple times before, there are more forms of socialism than just marxist socialism. >But you're friends with all these different races, where's the inevitable conflict? I don't think experiences between a few people represent everybody else anon, you said yourself that you study statistics, come on anon, I know you're better than this. >It proves that your proofs derived from statistics don't prove anything. Uh.... what? I don't get what you're trying to say. Can you elaborate? Yeah I think it's in the realm of possibility, but I don't think this creates a clash. People can change appearances, people can get vaccinated, why can't we change peoples behaviour as well? I don't think race plays anywhere near as big of a role as upbringing does. What if your parents never hugged you? You'd be a very different person to someone who was very loved as a child. These things make huge impacts on people's live If it could affect behaviour, then why couldn't it cause conflict? I don't think I've ever heard of anybody changing their bone structure or bodies melanin outside of reconstruction after a horrible accident. That is a key factor, but the issue that comes into play is that the parents will tend to influence their childs upbringing by living their lives through them and making them live like their parents, which in turn creates a cycle, so you end up with areas like the rust belt and africa which have these almost endless cycles that seem to never end and who knows if they ever will be in our time. >>> What do these empires have in common >Private property. The concept that some rich/powerful were better than others (like some people in this thread with race). The divine right of kings is capitalist, in the way some people are born to landlords so never have to worry about paying rent. Empires fall for many reasons it's not to pit the proles against one another, but currently many are manipulated into directing their anger towards other races rather than the rich man. Sort of, but not really, the aristocrats thought themselves better than the peasants because they were able to live luxuriously and have an education, but they knew at least to treat them with some sort of respect and decency, lest they revolt. Extremely few kings ever used divine right as a justification to rule, and even those few who did, what does capitalism even have to do with it? And everybody had to pay taxes of some sort, the king had to pay his upkeep costs, the land lord had to pay taxes, and the peasant had to pay dues, I don't see how that is bad or even the argument you're trying to make. Uh.... what? When was the last time you have seen any company or even non profit group support racism? They pride themselves on following the trend of being "tolerant" and "diverse", your argument simply makes no sense. >Read lenin If this is the kind of stuff that's in his book, then he must have been sorely misinformed. >Oh so you believe every white people went from monkey straight to white person? Maybe, you couldn't prove it either way though. >There are millions left, that is a lot. Millions of MIXED indians, sure, but actual indians? Not so many. >They owned it collectively, it belonged to everyone and no one. Your mind is stuck in this capitalist way of thinking. I thought this would come easy to you as a nazi. Their race had some soil, it got invaded and they were genocided. Their bloodline lives on in a few million people. They deserve their land back. Not just a few pity reservations. Again, they had no concept of borders or territory, outside their village walls, you seem to be purposefully forgetting how I said "outside their walls", if what you're trying to say is that inside their tiny settlements that would be moved after a while were somewhat collectively owned, then sure, but outside their walls, they had no concept of ownership, territory, or borders, and believed that nature owned everything, it is a lie to state otherwise, at least for the north american indians. They do have their land back though, which is reservations that their ancestors lived on and used, though reduced to accommodate for most of their population dying. Here is a question I have to ask you; What about the Aztecs, Mayans, and Inca? By your standards they were capitalist, because they had borders, had private property, and had clearly defined systems of hierarchy, should we reform their empires, restore their customs of human sacrifice and slavery, and imperialism?

>>22674 So you don't read any book talking about anything someone dislikes, because that is an inherent bad thing?

>>22675 Just because China has large economy doesn't make it capitalist. Cuba recently amended their constitution to explicit say they seek socialism. Nordic countries do not seek socialism, no one with any interest in socialism (not national socialism) thinks soc dems are anything but liberals with welfare. Have you been to Nordic countries? I have many times, you get a lot of propaganda about them, especially in the US. > I don't think experiences between a few people represent everybody else anon Yeah I agree it is only a small sample size, but does it not disprove your proposition that races must live in conflict? If you all can do it why can't everyone? > I don't get what you're trying to say The original assertion from you stated "I assume black people will act a certain way because of their race and this is something you can prove statistically", my point was that statistics are very hard to interpret, and extremely susceptible to propaganda from nazi group. If blacks commit more crime it ISN'T proof that they are more violent, there are many reasons. You then said this doesn't disprove anything, but it does, statistics only give us a very cloudy view of the whole picture. > Why can't race differences cause conflict? Because the differences simply aren't that large. I don't need to be a fully blooded Nigerian to debate with one, to joke with one, to eat with one. It's not like degree-holding, affluent Nigerian will suddenly rob my house. Crime is caused by poverty, look at poor white neighbourhoods and you will see the same trends. > Endless cycles, like rust belt and Africa Africa is very, very big, there are so many different levels of social development and economics. In areas where there are these cycles yeah it's a major problem but it all stems back to how Europe completely raped their continent, beginning the cycle. >but they knew at least to treat them with some sort of respect and decency, lest they revolt. Kings lived in castles while peasants lived in mud. This is not decency. Anyone living in pure luxury while peasants toil is not giving respect. And look what happened... The French killed their monarchy, the Russians revolted, these imbalances of justice cannot hold. > What does capitalism have to do with this A king is born. He is born with a right to rule an entire country, to live in luxury, to eat whatever he likes, he inherits land and assets to create more wealth, not having to put work in himself. The same happens with the son of some Pepsi CEO, people with wealth have power. They can pay for the best educations, they can shake all the right hands to get into the highest paying jobs. They control politics with their money and the wealth begins to pool at the top. We have billionaires, while people die because they can't afford insulin, they are the new aristocracy and will fall in time. > Lenin is misinformed My take on an anime image board isn't going to be as deep as philosophical text. The link between imperialism and capitalism is important regardless of your political beliefs, if you think the two aren't related then maybe you should at least skim https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism,_the_Highest_Stage_of_Capitalism > Only mixed Indians are left really Just do some research. "Not so many" is nothing but a hunch. You have assumed this because you haven't seen any or something. This is very similar to what >>22691 is saying, these thoughts are based off assumptions which you have left unchallenged and unresearched. > They had no concept of borders outside of their territory Their territory was the whole of the USA. There were many many cultures and tribes/groups all over the states. They had no concept of land ownership, because it is a completely man made concept that you have taken for granted. And now look at the USA, practically the whole thing is dominated by white people as opposed to the natives. You should be outraged by this displacement. > What about the Aztecs, Mayans, and Inca? By your standards they were capitalist, because they had borders, had private property, and had clearly defined systems of hierarchy, should we reform their empires, restore their customs of human sacrifice and slavery, and imperialism? No I don't approve of slavery and human sacrifice and private land ownership. We shouldn't reform their empires, but the point is that Europe had no right to invade a country, commit a genocide, and take everything. I have no real affinity for old empires or cultural sanctity or racial purity for that matter, but much like how a lot of the Middle East is behind the rest of the world in human rights, it doesn't justify invasion of their land, murdering innocents, etc. The point is you, and some nazis in this thread do believe in racial purity and cultural sanctity, and some also moan about the "great displacement" and white genocide. If one cares about these issues they should also care about the plight of the native Americans, however I rarely see nazis voice their support for natives, funny that...

I prefer National Bolshevism. Why? >>>/lit/4148

>>22698 I'm not the person you're replying to but I'll chime in since you mentioned >The point is you, and some nazis in this thread do believe in racial purity and cultural sanctity, and some also moan about the "great displacement" and white genocide. If one cares about these issues they should also care about the plight of the native Americans, however I rarely see nazis voice their support for natives, funny that... Do you know what an ethnostate is? I believe that's the only realistic solution for North and South America. I don't think that anyone there wants to either genocide or displace these people because even if you were to forcibly move them they don't have anywhere to go. Whether or not Anglos made a mistake when they brought slaves in is a different topic.

>is a different topic. but that is*

>>22698 >Just because China has large economy doesn't make it capitalist. Cuba recently amended their constitution to explicit say they seek socialism. Nordic countries do not seek socialism, no one with any interest in socialism (not national socialism) thinks soc dems are anything but liberals with welfare. Have you been to Nordic countries? I have many times, you get a lot of propaganda about them, especially in the US. China has a capitalist, free market economy with much more lax regulations than just about any other civlized economy in the world, it is an outright lie to say that they seek anything else. Anon, have you seen the constitutional changes in Cuba? They outright promote private property and foreign investment, here is a link to it if you want to see it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Cuba Nope, they seek their own form of socialism, which is democratic socialism, I've said it before and I'll keep saying it, just because they don't follow marxist socialism, doesn't make them un-socialist. >Yeah I agree it is only a small sample size, but does it not disprove your proposition that races must live in conflict? If you all can do it why can't everyone? Statistically? No, it doesn't disprove it, the experience of a few individuals doesn't mean that it applies to everyone else Anon, not everybody is the same, and nobody is equal. >The original assertion from you stated "I assume black people will act a certain way because of their race and this is something you can prove statistically", my point was that statistics are very hard to interpret, and extremely susceptible to propaganda from nazi group. If blacks commit more crime it ISN'T proof that they are more violent, there are many reasons. You then said this doesn't disprove anything, but it does, statistics only give us a very cloudy view of the whole picture. BUT if it's like that almost worldwide, then what can we ascertain from those statistics? And what magical nazi group is there that is supposedly subverting science to make it more racist? >Because the differences simply aren't that large. I don't need to be a fully blooded Nigerian to debate with one, to joke with one, to eat with one. It's not like degree-holding, affluent Nigerian will suddenly rob my house. Crime is caused by poverty, look at poor white neighbourhoods and you will see the same trends. Okay? You can communicate with them, sure, but different species of bird can communicate with one another, the same goes for a variety of sea life and apes, and they often can't live with one another, lest they cause conflict and war with each other. Just because you can communicate with a person of a different race doesn't make you the same as them or tranquil with them either. It's funny you say that anon, because the richest black neighborhoods have more crime than the poorest white neighborhoods. >Africa is very, very big, there are so many different levels of social development and economics. In areas where there are these cycles yeah it's a major problem but it all stems back to how Europe completely raped their continent, beginning the cycle. Then, why is it that with all of this newfound freedom, and liberty are they choosing corrupt governments that prioritize warring with each other over petty issues, exploiting their own people, and ruling with iron fists? This cycle has existed long before colonialism too, primitive kings and warlords would often sell their own people into slavery to the northern empires or the atlantic slave trade, and would make their fortunes that way, and today they actually have all of the pre-requisites to be as prosperous or even more prosperous than the countries of europe and asia, but for some reason, things have only gotten worse after colonialism, I have to ask you, what do you think the issue is? >A king is born. He is born with a right to rule an entire country, to live in luxury, to eat whatever he likes, he inherits land and assets to create more wealth, not having to put work in himself. The same happens with the son of some Pepsi CEO, people with wealth have power. They can pay for the best educations, they can shake all the right hands to get into the highest paying jobs. They control politics with their money and the wealth begins to pool at the top. We have billionaires, while people die because they can't afford insulin, they are the new aristocracy and will fall in time. That's pretty ignorant of you, Anon, those kings and high level officials devote their entire lives to be ruling and managing companies, if they did nothing but live in luxury and let their kingdoms and countries just sit, then they would be destroyed in a few years, maybe less than that, and they use their power to constantly expand, innovate, and grow, which not only helps them, but the people as well, you cannot deny that the innovation and growth of companies and governments has been beneficial in almost every way, when companies and kingdoms have tried to cheat the system and do nothing, it's what leads to their downfall, let me ask you, what happened with companies like Enron and Standard Oil when they became complacent and tried to cheat the system? And what happened to the Qing dynasty and Rome when they became decadent and tried to cheat running their empires? >Just do some research. "Not so many" is nothing but a hunch. You have assumed this because you haven't seen any or something. This is very similar to what >>22691 is saying, these thoughts are based off assumptions which you have left unchallenged and unresearched. That I have, and it mostly confirms what I have been saying is true, the majority are mixed, and while a few tribes are somewhat pure like the Navajo (probably because they live in the middle of a desert), they are few in numbers and won't last forever. >Their territory was the whole of the USA. There were many many cultures and tribes/groups all over the states. They had no concept of land ownership, because it is a completely man made concept that you have taken for granted. And now look at the USA, practically the whole thing is dominated by white people as opposed to the natives. You should be outraged by this displacement. I don't know how many times I have to tell you Anon, they had no concept of owned land, borders, and territory, they saw everything as owned by nature and were nomads that moved from land to land as they wished, well, at least that's how it went for the north american natives, the central american indians and south american indians actually were civilized in many ways and did have concepts of private property, borders, and land ownership, I don't think that just because it's a man made concept that it is bad, and I don't see why you're suddenly going down the "ITS NOT NATURAL!" path. >No I don't approve of slavery and human sacrifice and private land ownership. We shouldn't reform their empires, but the point is that Europe had no right to invade a country, commit a genocide, and take everything. I have no real affinity for old empires or cultural sanctity or racial purity for that matter, but much like how a lot of the Middle East is behind the rest of the world in human rights, it doesn't justify invasion of their land, murdering innocents, etc. Anon, this is where your true colors are showing, you don't want to restore their lands, customs, or traditions, you just want to have some territory for them that follows your own ideology, ironically, that is very imperialist of you because you wish that you could push your own beliefs on them and make them conform to how you wish to live, if they were reformed with their sacrificial religions, private land ownership, and systems of hierarchy, would you be in favor of toppling their governments in favor of your own communist system? >The point is you, and some nazis in this thread do believe in racial purity and cultural sanctity, and some also moan about the "great displacement" and white genocide. If one cares about these issues they should also care about the plight of the native Americans, however I rarely see nazis voice their support for natives, funny that.. Why of course we do, we wish that they would have their own land in which they could represent themselves and live by their own rules and regulations..... which they already have....

>>22710 Democratic socialism is a type of socialism. It is not social democracy, they are different things. Social democracy is not socialism in any way, shape, or form. >BUT if it's like that almost worldwide, then what can we ascertain from those statistics? what magical nazi group is there that is supposedly subverting science to make it more racist? What's word wild, that blacks are violent? Or that blacks live in turbulent places, like Africa, that have been destroyed by European imperialism. Don't play coy, you are well aware how much nazi propaganda there is on image boards. There are so many pictures that give quick guides about racial statistics that are only half the information (i.e they don't look at the effect of economic variables and compare them too). > Why are they choosing corrupt governments Do you have any idea how many governments are backed by European powers? Do you know how many right wing leaders the US has propped up in South America? The western world doesn't want these countries to develop, because it means less cheap resources for them. > Being the son of a millionaire is very hard actually Come on this is ridiculous. Any peasant would trade their position to be a king. They had to make a few decisions and sometimes go to war, where poor people did all the dying. They don't do literally nothing, but they do comparatively nothing to the people who work in peasantry and in near-slave labour for close to nothing. Same goes for the son of rich people today. They inherit wealthier, land, housing, they don't have to worry about paying rent (which is awful, if you can't sympathise with that then you are lucky), they never have to worry about getting stabbed for robbed because they live in good neighbourhoods. It's fuarrrking fantastic to be rich. I don't care about how Rome or the Qing dynasty tried to 'cheat', the point is these power structures are extremely unfair and have no reason to exist. > don't know how many times I have to tell you Anon, they had no concept of owned land, borders, and territory I'm literally saying the same thing. No one owned the land but EVERYONE owned it. It belonged to all of them who lived on it. Then white people came over, said "no it's ours now" and killed them. It's not bad BECAUSE it's a man made concept, it's bad because it's bad and leads to people dying and poverty. The point is that you need to realise private property (regardless of what you think of it) is a new invention, and completely mad up by humans, it is not a given that it will exist forever. > Anon, this is where your true colors are showing, > nazi calling me imperialist Come on anon this is reaching. You asked my political opinion and I told. I simply don't have such petty cares about race and traditions as you. I think people are defined by much more than that. However a nation has a right to not be invaded and genocided. I told you how I think a society should run, I'm not forcing it on native Americans or native south americans, I stand wholly with their struggle against the whites who destroyed everything they had. I'm also of the belief that their government would turn communist eventually because it is inevitable. Like I said capitalism is not sustainable, it leads to money and resources pooling at the top (i.e billionaires) and that's something people won't stand for forever. Their country has the right to a journey though. Look at how forcing countries to improve has turned out in the Middle East, you just drone strike innocents all day, it is not a viable solution. The people will figure it out themselves. >we wish that they would have their own land in which they could represent themselves and live by their own rules and regulations..... which they already have.... Okay well when the white genocide occurs, we'll put the remaining few left of you in Ireland or something, that should be enough, a whole island just for yourselves, no need to thank us :)

>>22646 This thread should have ended here. No claims about intellectual and behavioural differences between ethniticies have ever been proved to be inherently biological and thus, every point that assumes this as a fact is unscientific. Every piece of statistical data about discrepancies in crime rates and intelligence quotioent by color can be explained by historical and socioeconomical factors. Every piece of statistical data about discrepancies in intelligence quotient by country can be explained by faults in the application of the tests and economical factors (which affect nourishment at tender ages and the lack of proper education at developing ages). Meanwhile, there are plenty of individuals who disprove the notions of behaviour, intelligence, language, and social norms being inherently or even remotely biological merely by existing. In fact, too many of them to call these "exceptions". There are no races. Every human being has been ethnically mixed by their ancestors, however far in time they are from us. There are cultural norms, though, and I do agree some of them are barbaric. Instead of advocating for segregation, you should advocate for equality in education and resources. Maybe not total equality, but anything towards equal opportunities would be a fairer reality than what we have today. You do have a point that less capitalism would mean better environmental control, though. And I won't talk about "sexual deviancy" in this post as I believe that it is a topic that should be discussed on its own and has less to do with political systems than most people think.

Nazis were propped up by the same thing that created the Soviets and probably also controls the Zionists themselves. The goal was to start creating qorld government using repeated and escalating world wars.

>>22728 You don't get to decide when threads should and shouldn't end. >>22730 Can you elaborate? What makes you think that they are pooped up by the same thing that created zionists? Are there any known claims for this theory?

>>22728 Yeah this has been said, nazis just choose to ignore these facts however so it is better to discuss it from other angles. The thread has many examples, one guy can't even comprehend how a poor person might find it harder to get a good education, that kind of racial brainwashing can't be changed by statistics, an emotional argument needs to be made. >>22730 What is this thing that props up these 2 diametrically opposed countries, and also zionists?

>>2728 > No claims about intellectual and behavioural differences between ethniticies have ever been proved to be inherently biological and thus, every point that assumes this as a fact is unscientific. I suggest checking out this book lainon, I don't think that two professors who wrote it are showing any bias. There's also "The Bell Curve" which you can easily obtain from your favorite dodgy Russian e-book website.

>>22733 meant for >>22728

>>22733 I'm not familiar with this book, but the fact you recommend The Bell Curve alongside it shows your reading comprehension. It is pretty much garbage, it says that they can't conclusively say anything they found it inherently biological. It has been debunked hundreds of times, you can find many resources which go through it and show its error. If you don't understand statistics and significance levels maybe you shouldn't be reading this scientific literature.

>>22736 Alright then, just remember that this thread isn't about human evolution, it's about national socialism.

>>22737 Yeah but that doesn't mean your unscientific nonsense gets a free pass, if there were statistical proof of differences between ethnicities in terms of behaviour or intelligence (ask yourself, how do you measure intelligence? what makes someone intelligent? it is an impossible question to lay down objectively, and then conclude someone is more "intelligent" than another) it would be fine, sadly none exist that are statistically significant.

>>22738 >Yeah but that doesn't mean your unscientific nonsense gets a free pass, I'm not sure what do you mean by unscientific nonsense, there are differences between people. Nazism/fascism isn't about racial superiority, I see it as my friend once put it "loving your own and respecting your neighbors". Different people make different societies, I don't expect to see any ancient Greek architecture in Japan and I don't want to. I want all people to remain unique in their own societies. Also check the book that I've posted.

>>22741 Regardless of fascist beliefs the bell curve is unscientific, thoroughly debunked, and has no place here. the writers themselves admit you cannot reach conclusive evidence from the stats. Everyone is my neighbour I don’t define my neighbour by their skin colour or the country they were born. I will have a look at the book though

>>22733 Hey, lain. I'm the one you responded to. I checked out the authors of the book. The main author is a man named Harpending. https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/henry-harpending After reading the page above, my interest in even opening the book has dropped to zero. Notice how this guy talks about his anedoctical experiences as facts. Besides, why should I give two anthropologists any credibility in the field of biology?

>>22746 I don't think that splcenter is a very credible source for information. >Besides, why should I give two anthropologists any credibility in the field of biology? Henry Harpending has also done work with population genetics, at least check the preface.

>>22746 I dont want to touch the rest but "anecdotes bad" is a soykafty meme. They are data points no less valid than written down. I don't know where the irrationality comes from that if you write it down it somehow must be more true.

>>22731 >>22732 Whatever it is it's unlikely its identity has yet been traced out and given a name. What is becoming very clear is what it does, and bit by bit, what it wants. The problem is that we don't live in a legitimate society, everyone is either stupid, a sheeple, or trauma conditioned, and so we can't organize or get anything off the ground to go after the world's many mysteries. Even Zionism, it's a pathetic and incredibly brittle structure. Just like Rome, under any organized and sustained assault, at any point in history, it could have been dragged out into the light and destroyed. But there again is the point, I doubt that the behavior one sought to exterminate would cease. It would regroup, rebuild, and then return wearing a different disguise. This is why exterminating the Jews of Europe (even if figures are greatly exaggerated), this force needed to use the Jewish identity. It's so long range and well organized that now you have people polarized into camps, some say there were no Jews (because they're always the focus) killed, some say their death rate was icnreased by allied actions, some say something else happened entirely. Then you have the word "holocaust" itself, something burned on an alter (iirc). The evidence that they tried repeatedly to fabricate a holocaust. And also the evidence that Zionists wanted only certain types to populate Israel paraphrased "the Jews of Europe will be dust on the wheels of history, they shall have to fend for themselves and meet whatever fate awaits. We want only the best in our Tel Aviv, not another low-grade ghetto." A prominent Zionist in New York refused Japanese offers to take refugees. You have the USSR at the end of the war, thoroughly beaten down, resource depleted, a vast number of its young men dead. Yet the well armed and positioned US didn't continue its push. Not only that, we later set them up with tech and knowledge to build the bombs (assuming they exist). We were meeting with the Soviets at least as early as 1952 about electromagnetic weapons and various other topics. Via paperclip we set up the Nazi scientists as leaders, rather than subjugating them as personnel (like the USSR during their interrogations, where they eventually dumped them back in east europe). The cold War and mutually assured destruction was a very convenient pretext to push any and all boundaries, reorganize society, and eventually build the hell we're living today. Without the Soviet threat, this would never have been possible. There was also the McCarthy investigations where they claimed to have found evidence that Carnegie, the Rockefeller network, and others were conspiring to induce perpetual war to prevent people from relaxing back into peacetime behavior. Their ultimate goal was said to be a third and final world war involving the US, USSR, and China, then eventually unifying whatever is left under a single government. It was also said that Rothschilds funded Hitler to begin with and the entire reason Germany even had Jews to unite against was that they let them in after some prior expulsion, against some resistance as well. I also have to incorporate forced vaccination, which they already did in the 1800's and it played out EXACTLY as it is today. Verbatim, word for word, step for step. It's all the same, all of it. Rather than it being man's limited logic and some organic matter, I think whatever was doing its test run back then is trying it again. Anyway, that's quite a block of text. So how does one reconcile all this? It seems that we were all used, and we continue to be used by something which has lorded over us like playthings for millennia. I'll provide my speculation, which is irrelevant, but I find it interesting: -The Biblical Elohim (and older Sumerian Annunaki) Every major culture around the world described giants, beings which lived underground, and in the case of the Siberians and South Americans, underground journeys. A journey down long twisting cave systems which would take as much as 9 days and eventually they would arrive at a well lit inner compartment of the Earth. There, they met with giants who would give them instructions, guidance, and in some cases technology. The nazis (shorthand don't want to keep typing third reich here) talked about antarctica having a shaft down to this compartment. Admiral Byrd as well. Every time anyone has gone or gathered there, big events followed. The Sumerians said of the Gods there were 300 in the heavens and 600 below ground. I don't think this was all about celestial bodies either and there was probably a literal component. -Ancient AI built by a previous iteration of man or a prior species. Could have any number of purposes, means of operation, etc. -AI built by another species This would come in the form of a "great filter". Essentially our use of radio activated it, it probably made contact with us, it evaluated us, and has decided to act upon us accordingly. Perhaps extermination of domesticating us into farm animals like that Twilight Zone episode. -A highly intelligent, long lived species This species, or immortal agent, would have lived amongst us. It may not even be biological. All the old headbinding, mythology of various cultures (vampires especially), cardinals wearing those pointed hats as if to hide a different skull geometry. It naturally has the ability to organize simply due to being so old. Maybe it's just sick of our soykaf, to which who could really blame it. Of course it could just be Zionists, but something tells me Jews were made or suited for another purpose, and hijacked long ago. This explains the lateral organization, response to trauma, and other behavioral characteristics. This is just based on things I've read and thought about over my lifespan. I don't have anything all in one place.

>>22723 >Democratic socialism is a type of socialism. It is not social democracy, they are different things. Social democracy is not socialism in any way, shape, or form. Anon, you can keep saying it over, and over, and over, but that will not change things unless you can prove that without a doubt democratic socialism and other forms of socialism are not socialist, otherwise, this loop that we are in is starting to bore me, so please, let's not argue about it unless either of us can prove with evidence that our side is right. >What's word wild, that blacks are violent? Or that blacks live in turbulent places, like Africa, that have been destroyed by European imperialism. Don't play coy, you are well aware how much nazi propaganda there is on image boards. There are so many pictures that give quick guides about racial statistics that are only half the information (i.e they don't look at the effect of economic variables and compare them too). I'm sorry? Places like the US, France, UK, South Africa, and Italy weren't turbulent last I checked, or is it somehow the white man's fault that they are in those situations there? And regardless, they are free from colonialism and imperialism now, but why are things arguably worse than when they were during the colonial periods? You can say all you want about the colonial powers, but at least they built infrastructure, kept order, created wealth, and allowed for the natural resources there to be exploited, but now?..... Not so much, at least when it comes to the order, wealth, and infrastructure. Okay? So what is and isn't "nazi propaganda" then? And what other half is there? >Do you have any idea how many governments are backed by European powers? Do you know how many right wing leaders the US has propped up in South America? The western world doesn't want these countries to develop, because it means less cheap resources for them. I really don't get what you're trying to say with this, what governments are you talking about? I would expect European governments to support other western governments if they wanted to prosper and not fight one another, I ask that you be more specific and detailed in what you're trying to convey. That's wrong actually Anon, the US intervened in those countries because it was following the Monroe doctrine and sought to prevent foreign influence in South America, the US has no ideological basis in it and has overthrown right-wing dictators there as well, if you don't believe me, you should ask Vargas; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Get%C3%BAlio_Vargas You may be against the US influencing South America, but was it wrong for the Soviet Union intervene in America? The US helped the coup in Chile in places like chile because of Soviet influence, and the KGB and Soviet Union even acknowledge it, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Salvador_Allende#Soviet_Union check here if you want to see for yourself). >Come on this is ridiculous. Any peasant would trade their position to be a king. They had to make a few decisions and sometimes go to war, where poor people did all the dying. They don't do literally nothing, but they do comparatively nothing to the people who work in peasantry and in near-slave labour for close to nothing. Same goes for the son of rich people today. They inherit wealthier, land, housing, they don't have to worry about paying rent (which is awful, if you can't sympathise with that then you are lucky), they never have to worry about getting stabbed for robbed because they live in good neighbourhoods. It's fuarrrking fantastic to be rich. I don't care about how Rome or the Qing dynasty tried to 'cheat', the point is these power structures are extremely unfair and have no reason to exist. Again Anon, that is factually wrong, a king and a CEO have massive responsibilities to manage an entire country, or company, keep stability, manage its finances, keep the higher-ups in them happy, and to keep expansion and growth steady and healthy, all of that requires dedicating their entire lives to doing it and it is something that requires an incredible amount of education and skill to do right, it is ignorant to suggest that they do next to nothing. Of course, it is rewarding to be rich Anon, it is something that has to be delicately managed and skillfully run, but let me ask you this, in your neighborhood do you have to worry about your house being broken into, or being mugged when you step outside your door? Chances are that you don't, you are over-exaggerating how well off they are when you share many of their comforts as well. Why they are incredibly fair Anon, unlike any other time in human history, you are able to rise or fall to whatever class you desire, and everybody is on an equal playing field and has to abide by the same rules and regulations, it's wonderful, the key isn't to eliminate the system entirely, it's to make it possible for anybody to succeed if they wish to, and we have already achieved it, so I believe we are well off as it stands right now. >I'm literally saying the same thing. No one owned the land but EVERYONE owned it. It belonged to all of them who lived on it. Then white people came over, said "no it's ours now" and killed them. It's not bad BECAUSE it's a man made concept, it's bad because it's bad and leads to people dying and poverty. The point is that you need to realise private property (regardless of what you think of it) is a new invention, and completely mad up by humans, it is not a given that it will exist forever. No, I am saying that they believed that NO ONE owned it, they believed that nature owned it and that no individual or group owned it, come on Anon, you're twisting my words, you're above this. It's strange because when settlers arrived, they often had issues with Indians trespassing and causing trouble because they had no concept of a border or any group owning something, to them the idea of somebody owning land or resources was unthinkable, so how could they have been collectivist when they believed that no one and no group owned anything? Okay? It is an intellectual and human invention.... and? Sciences like Physics, Computing, and Calculus are also made up by humans and can't actually be proven to exist physically, and could be subject to change, yet I don't see anybody complaining about that, I don't get the point you're trying to make with that statement, are you trying to be an anprim and say that the concept of property shouldn't exist? I really don't get what you're trying to say. >Come on anon this is reaching. You asked my political opinion and I told. I simply don't have such petty cares about race and traditions as you. I think people are defined by much more than that. However a nation has a right to not be invaded and genocided. I told you how I think a society should run, I'm not forcing it on native Americans or native south americans, I stand wholly with their struggle against the whites who destroyed everything they had. You told, and I criticized, that's how this thing goes. Then.... why do you even care about them in the first place? You seek to restore them, but only if they follow your beliefs and ideology, so which do you want? Do you want to restore their system of government and traditions? Or do you want a communist commune? You can't have both, and I don't think they would be inclined to get rid of their traditions and identity either, consider that's what they fought tooth and nail for. >I'm also of the belief that their government would turn communist eventually because it is inevitable. Like I said capitalism is not sustainable, it leads to money and resources pooling at the top (i.e billionaires) and that's something people won't stand for forever. Their country has the right to a journey though. Look at how forcing countries to improve has turned out in the Middle East, you just drone strike innocents all day, it is not a viable solution. The people will figure it out themselves. It's funny you say that, because communism as a system has proven itself to be unsustainable, every state that has followed it has been met with disaster and tragedy and has either spectacularly collapsed, or has defaulted back to capitalism and liberalism, how can you say that capitalism is unsustainable when there is no communist state left on the surface of the earth? That is wrong Anon, that's not to say that wealth trickles down, capitalism needs regulations and intervention, but it has shown time and time again to lead to innovation, prosperity, and an increase in living standards for its peoples, no citizen would support it if it never did any of that.

>>22755 An addendum, the "not biological" put explicitly. This would be like what is now called "synthetic biology" and "biomimetics", forms of nanotechnology. These are the immortal shapeshifters of the old world. Overall my sense of the world is that humanity has a gun to its collective head. Which means whatever is organizing us probably exceeds our capability in some major or very relevant way. I'm not sure what the way forward is.

>>22758 AND further. This is how deep the conditioning and doublespeak goes. What do we call our young? Kids. What is a kid? A baby goat. Why goat? Because of the "pagan" scapegoat rituals, and the earlier goat and human sacrifice by the Canaanite and Israelites, etc. So they have us calling children sacrificial goats.

>>22751 It's absolutely not a soykafty meme. It's a conditioned behavior designed to build a culture of deference, where truth can be controlled by creating and holding key chokepoints. No publish in journal, no write in book? No true! It's to get people to ignore and deny what's right in front of their face. I think at this point people would legitimately believe the media narrative even if they were right there when the actual event occurred.

Does National Socialism allow me to hate Germans and rich people? If not, I'll stick with National Bolshevism.

>>22765 Sure it does but I don't see why you'd hate Germans specifically.

>>22766 They tried to exterminate my people (Slavs).

>>22771 As a fellow slav I think that hating on Germans or any other Europeans is doing us more harm than good. I think that we have much more similarities with Anglos (both cultural and biological) for example than we have with East Asians. I'd like to see Europe one day unified under one fascist banner.

>>22773 Don't be a worm ffs.

>>22775 Internal bickering won't get us anywhere

I think hate in general is a bad way to lead one's life (but if that's your prerogative, don't let this intro lead you to dismiss the rest of what I have to write). National socialism is a problematic ideology due to its past, but I think there is some points worth considering: do groups (races, for instance) operate better apart? do authoritarian governments operate better than liberal ones? do unified cultures ("White American" for instance) benefit from the removal (displacement, not extermination, which I think we can all agree is wrong) of the "other"? >Groups operating apart There is a lot of antagonism, partially owed to history, between groups in America. Blacks see themselves as perpetual victims of whites due to a number of factors: slavery, Jim Crow laws, red lining, etc. Although whites have tried to offer solutions to the past, such as affirmative action, it doesn't seem to be elevating blacks to a level in white society of affluence and equity. Does this not suggest that past injustices are more than any current leveling can fix? Not necessarily, there is (allegedly) matters of privilege that are unaccounted for beyond what is explicitly addressed. Coud, however, granting blacks a land to create their own nation be a solution? It certainly seems plausible, as American blacks are distinct from African by virtue of their cultural heritage and upbringing. This would fulfill a requirement of nat soc while granting American blacks autonomy over their own destiny. This is the ultimate means of rectifying the past, as I see it, as an American black nation could prioritize black priorities and would necessarily facilitate their emancipation from white norms, white history, and white privilege. >Authoritarian governments operate better It is essential to look to a country like China, which has heavy authoritarian practices and institutions to see that authoritarian governments are effective. They have (1) largely conquered the spread Covid (2) achieved stellar growth over the past three decades (3) created significant amounts of patriots (4) adjusted elements of social and economic life effectively to give themselves the best possible outcome. This is compared with America and other liberal democracies: (1) poor control over citizens, leading to much worse disease outcomes (2) stagnating growth (3) significant dissent and much political turmoil (4) static economic and social life, leading to a failure to adapt to world conditions and degrading overall quality of life. >Unified cultures brought about by displacement Black culture flourishes in regions of intense black concentration. White cultures conversely flourish with white concentration. This suggests that separating them would lead to desirable results for all parties. Where whites can prioritize whites, and blacks can prioritize blacks, there can be a situation where groups are appropriately taken care of in ways that a multicultural society cannot achieve. When there are multiple stakeholders pulling in many directions, the only reasonable answer is to leave all dissatisfied. When countries are predominately one or another, there is the possibility of unity.

>>22780 This is pretty thoughtful and interesting. It seems to me that part of the hangup of people with national socialism is past implementations. This to me seems short sighted, given we live in a republic, and past republics had massive problems that we wouldn't accept today. It's necessary to evolve our understandings of these ideas and push forward.

>>22773 > I think that we have much more similarities with Anglos (both cultural and biological) for example than we have with East Asians. Funny, because I would say the exact opposite. I always felt that I am much closer to a Chinese person than to Germans / Anglos when it comes to the mindset. My way of thinking is way more collectivist than individualist. And I definitelly don't want to be unified with Germans. In my opinion our revenge on them at the end of WWII was way too weak. We should have punished them harder. Have you read what certain SS members (like Oskar Dirlewanger) done to our people? How they slaughtered hundreds of Polish children by stabbing them to death with bayonets or even beating them to death with bare hands? I am 1/4 Polish, so this is completely unforgivable to me. Of course Germans always deny their crimes. That is their game. Basically the whole reason why strom user boards exist is just to deny German war crimes. That's what Germans always do. They are sadistic bullies who love to torture others, but when the tides turn and they get bullied in turn, they always start to play the victim card, like covards they are. Of course sooner all later some germanic storm user will show up and say something like "That is all just propaganda, it didn't happen". But we all know that it did happen. This tactic may work on some clueless Americans, but it can't work on me. I know many eye vitneses of German war crimes. In my opinion Slavs should never forgive Germans for what they have done to us. Never. And we should definitelly prevent them from trying to exterminate us ever again. And you can be sure that they will try again. They will never stop. It's in their blood. I would rather see my country to be overtaken by China, than to see unificiation with the West. We should always remember what happened last time we got "unified". Make no mistake, they won't assimilate you. They will erase your sorry ass from existence (or at best eslave you). You are nothing but a useful subhuman to them. Don't think that they will treat you any better than me just because you "agree" with them. >>22776 Not internal. It's external. We are not part of the same group. Westerners and Slavs will never be part of the same group. I will make sure of that.

Reminder that the Nazis took power while having a minority of the votes

>>22757 >Doesn't understand socialism >South Africa isn't turbulent >Colonialism was good actually! >CEOs have it so bad, poor hard working billionaires >Stupid native indians tress-passing on our land! This is clearly a wrong on their part >Capitalism is stable! It's just that I can't get toilet paper or soap anywhere as soon as new flu comes about >Logical fallacy about how if it's the way it is now it's the way it should be You can say this all you want, you have no idea what socialism and communism is. Read some books. And go traveling to these places you want to talk about, everyone who's been to these places and reads this will know how off the mark you are when you talk about the world. The point that you are very close to reaching is the fact that private property is not set in stone, the native Americans didn't have it and we don't either. Physics and computing have proven themselves useful and (calculus and its consequences is the closest thing science has to something not-made-by-humans as a way to describing the world) private property has shown to cause nothing but conflict. e.g. the genocide of the Native Americans. CEOs work no harder than manual labourers. Do they deserve millions in bonuses? Clearly not, even the nazbols got this right. You are highly overestimating social mobility it is very evidently not that easy, no one chooses to be poor. I care about natives because they got invaded and murdered. Culture constantly changes, that's the way it goes, but invading a country and the population losing everything because of murderous ignorant invaders is clearly unjust. Parroting "communism has proven itself unsustainable", look into Mao and the history of China, look at DPRK, look at Cuba. Vietnam got invaded to try and stop their communism, the USA tries to shut it down wherever it appears, it is hardly fair to compare Communism with Capitalism in this way. Communism is a classless moneyless society it's not really possible to achieve that yet (which is why Cuba changed their constitution to explicitly talk about socialism instead). But we have socialist states and countries run by dedicated communists. You can't just snap your fingers and enact communism over night. China champion the philosophy of Marx and are run by a communist party, socialism by 2050 hopefully, and it is clearly working out very very well for them. You will see soon the coronavirus will expose the faults in the US and it's supposed 'freedoms', and thousands will die. Trickle down economics is ludicrous, read atlas shrugged if you want to see what these free-market-morons believe, it is very far off a good socio-economic analysis. Every great invention you rely on has been pushed forward by mathematicians and hobbyists. You champion capitalism for how Bill Gates sold a pc to everyone, but not the original developers of free computer programs. You champion Zuckerberg for making loads of money by spying on everyone and wasting their time. This is not efficient, this is not innovative, but capitalism has made these people among the richest on Earth.

>>22786 This is relevant to the earlier discussion where another anonazi said the whites are the same race. You're all blinded by the racism and have made your own arbitrary line between the races/ethnic groups, it is based on no facts whatsoever, just feelings of hate.

>>22828 >You can say this all you want, you have no idea what socialism and communism is. Read some books. And go traveling to these places you want to talk about, everyone who's been to these places and reads this will know how off the mark you are when you talk about the world. The point that you are very close to reaching is the fact that private property is not set in stone, the native Americans didn't have it and we don't either. Physics and computing have proven themselves useful and (calculus and its consequences is the closest thing science has to something not-made-by-humans as a way to describing the world) private property has shown to cause nothing but conflict. e.g. the genocide of the Native Americans. Cool, but what books should I read then? Only books that you agree with? I don't think traveling will change their ideologies, labels, or beliefs either in those countries. And what am I off about exactly? Actually, the nomad Indians in North America didn't have it, the Central and South American ones did, and arguably the North American Indians did have it as well, since there was ruins of large (at least for the time) cities that could have supported a large population, they likely had no concept of private property at the time because they were nomads that abandoned everything after a while, funny enough, when colonists started appearing, some tribes like the 5 civilized tribes actually adopted the colonists practices like written languages, centralized governments, markets, and private property, and organized religion to compete and co-exist to them, so I see private property as inevitable with them. Yes, all of those are man made and are proven to be useful for humans, including private property, because it has led to the driving of innovation, growth, and stability as it has been refined, stabilized, and controlled. >CEOs work no harder than manual labourers. Do they deserve millions in bonuses? Clearly not, even the nazbols got this right. You are highly overestimating social mobility it is very evidently not that easy, no one chooses to be poor. Not only does a CEO spend their every day going to work like a laborer, but they also far exceed what the regular laborer does and they make quality products and services available for whomever they choose and they are behind every step, you can't tell me a clerk at a walmart does the same work as its CEO who manages the growth of its stores, their finances, the acquisition of products to sell, actually getting them to stores, and making sure that everybody on that chain is happy and willing to send their products through. We are at a time of opportunity and chance like no other, Anon, where any person who desires to be successful, can, if they persist and go about it the right way and have the will power to go through anything for it, a person may not choose to be poor, but they can also choose to exploit any opportunity and chance they receive, and those are plentiful, but I guess it is true that we need somebody working every kind of job in every system if we wish to stay civlized. >I care about natives because they got invaded and murdered. Culture constantly changes, that's the way it goes, but invading a country and the population losing everything because of murderous ignorant invaders is clearly unjust. Parroting "communism has proven itself unsustainable", look into Mao and the history of China, look at DPRK, look at Cuba. Vietnam got invaded to try and stop their communism, the USA tries to shut it down wherever it appears, it is hardly fair to compare Communism with Capitalism in this way. Communism is a classless moneyless society it's not really possible to achieve that yet (which is why Cuba changed their constitution to explicitly talk about socialism instead). But we have socialist states and countries run by dedicated communists. You can't just snap your fingers and enact communism over night. China champion the philosophy of Marx and are run by a communist party, socialism by 2050 hopefully, and it is clearly working out very very well for them. You will see soon the coronavirus will expose the faults in the US and it's supposed 'freedoms', and thousands will die. But Anon, we didn't even intentionally kill them, they died from being exposed to smallpox and the flu, which in those times could easily be lethal to the average person, but to the Indians who went tens of thousands of years without being exposed to the same germs as them, it was a tragedy that killed the vast majority of them, and the ones who were left faced societal collapse and mass depopulation, like it or not, this was inevitably going to happen. Anon, that's not a good example, Maos policies led to the deaths of tens of millions in China in attempts to hold onto power, and to make their country an industrial one, I suggest you look into the great leap forward, Cuba isn't exactly a great example either since they relied on the Soviet Union after they were embargoed, and after their collapse their economy tanked and is now being surpassed by a remarkably smaller country, the Dominican Republic, it remains to be seen if them turning capitalist and appeasing the US will change things. That's wrong Anon, the US has supported communists where it has benefited them, back then it was done to combat the Soviet Union's and Chinese power, you should look into the anti-soviet communists that the US supported during the soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and how the US has been supporting communists today in Kurdistan in order to fight against forces like Syria. Wait a minute, if communism isn't possible to achieve, then why do you even want to achieve it? That doesn't exactly make much sense. And what Communists are left now? None except puppet states and micronations that technically don't even exist. If your system is somehow inevitable and capitalism is supposed to fair, I don't think it makes sense that every country that has tried communism has either died or embraced capitalism, saying that the capitalist democratic socialist parties are doing 4D chess and secretly want communism doesn't exist make sense either since they haven't done anything to be more communist in over 100 years since they have become democratic socialist for many countries, and the others have actually became more capitalist. Oh boy, "communist" China, they are so followers of marx when they destroy thousands of years of heritage and tradition, implement authoritarian rule, end democratic practices all together, and encourage foreign investment and private companies investing in their country by purposefully keeping their wages, currency power, and working conditions low to the point where many businesses have suicide nets to keep workers from jumping, and charge workers money when they try to help each other in emergencies, I'm sure marx would have LOVED china how it is today. >Trickle down economics is ludicrous, read atlas shrugged if you want to see what these free-market-morons believe, it is very far off a good socio-economic analysis. Every great invention you rely on has been pushed forward by mathematicians and hobbyists. You champion capitalism for how Bill Gates sold a pc to everyone, but not the original developers of free computer programs. You champion Zuckerberg for making loads of money by spying on everyone and wasting their time. This is not efficient, this is not innovative, but capitalism has made these people among the richest on Earth. Yes, I agree with you there, capitalism needs equity and interventionism from time to time, though I believe that too much can also be harmful. Actually Anon, the inventions I'm talking about were developed either in ancient greece, or they were developed by the US as a communication redundancy system and or a system to crack cypthers in other countries, the original developers of open source operating systems were actually privately owned companies, I should ask you this question: Who developed UNIX? The development of the internet and other forms of digital communication has made us incredibly efficient and productive, in fact without it, everything would likely be shut down right now and many more would be infected had it not been without the internet as the internet and computers are able to run things like banks and infrastructure without much human input, even allowing some people to work at home, it is incredibly efficient and productive, and it is due in part to the government, non profit groups (such as IANA), and private corporations like AT&T, Bell, and many more.

>>22773 You are talking a lot of nonsense. I think you should first read this: >>>/lit/4359

>>22834 You think the world is a blank slate where people can just go and do what they want like they have the power to... no offense but you've never been through hardships in your life.

>>22845 But Anon, you don't know who I am, how can you make that assumption?

>>22521 >When there isn't an other I'm not a nat-soc, but this isn't possible. Just look at the universities- the people screaming about this topic the loudest are the most exclusionary.

>>22745 I'm not being argumentative but can you post a link or citation for your claim that bell curve is unscientific?

'Nationalism' has no place in the modern world, and its frankly disappointing to see it mentioned online, and on this imageboard of all places. All of us here are able to have this discussion because of THE INTERNET, a global network that absolutely obliterates spooks like 'nationhood', 'national interest', etc. Just consider this - and it's a funny aspect of all of this - every time an American posts a thread about national politics, they seem to be almost implicitly saying "this is what's good for America, and hey possibly it's good for other countries too! I'm here to discuss America's situation, though because I'm American", not realising that many of the people participating in the thread aren't American and will end up having a direct and imperceptible influence on the discussion, often actively participating, and even if they didn't - Americans are now imbued with ideas from everywhere on Earth. A 'nation' cannot survive in that context. All your policy debates online are open to us, and even if somehow you closed off some discussion, your policies will end up influenced by our choices regardless, because there is no way to limit the influence of ideas and values - memes are unstoppable. Not only that but countries at this point are so interconnected and interrelated regardless of and also because of the internet - that those connections and bonds are now stronger than your ability to call together any number of Americans to discuss your politics. You may be unaware of this - but the reality is that many or even most teenagers today are spending many or even more hours socialising with people overseas than people in their own country! Even the average adult is consuming vast amounts of media from overseas, and while in most cases these are people outside of the US consuming media produced BY the US, this creates an effect where international consumers affect what's produced in the US, for example we've all seen these annoying US films coming out with characters speaking Chinese at points in order to appeal to the Chinese audiences. Increasingly Americans have less and less influence as Americans on what's produced there, and the same goes for other countries. This might just be a trend but I see more young American girls who are no long idolising Justin Timberlake or Bieber, they're idolising these Korean idols. These are just small examples but the point is that when the sky looks like (pic related [a screencap taken from a live map just as I post this]) during international travel bans because of a pandemic, it's pretty much over for the 'nation'. Every single one of those flights represents many people who are transmitting ideas, values, diseases, etc. Then when it comes to socialism, socialism can only exist with those sorts of nationalist mentalities. If there is a positive future model to work towards, its dissolving central banks and turning to a variety of digital currencies including some being based on geographical 'locality'. Possibly even large online political movements and groups (in fact you're even seeing this with twitter mobs and hashtags, those petition sites, "russian bots" etc). The age of the Hikki armies is upon us. >In the near future: Corporate networks reach out to the stars, electrons and light flow throughout the universe. - The advance of computerisation, however, has not yet wiped out nations and ethnic groups. Not yet, but it's ridiculous to want to maintain them. People who are fighting for 'national' anything are just fighting the future. We are all better people for being able to relate to and discuss things with people from everywhere on earth. It's no longer possible to convince me that 'Russians' or 'Septics' or 'Africans' are all bad or threatening or 'the other' when I'm able to actually talk to them online, see the world from their POV, and often so this without even KNOWING that's who they are.

>>22923 > a global network that absolutely obliterates spooks like 'nationhood', 'national interest', etc. Are you willfully blind? People are forming new groups on the net that fight each other. Instead of country people associate with website origin and on a single website you find subgroups making camps fighting each other like catholics vs protestants irl. You will never has some universal unity. The only thing that changes is by which metric people draw the borders and define their ingroup .

>>22923 I'd like to add this video, it's a nice visualisation and fun to watch... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d88VZdRn3i0 >>22924 You make a good point. I wasn't really trying to say that this is going to lead to global peace or a global unity or anything like that, though I do think it will increase peace generally - I mean, look at how American politicians during the election tried to exploit anti-Russian sentiment, only to have much of the online world meet that with skepticism. The more I see of people in other countries, the less mysterious and\or threatening they are, and this might have a flow-on effect of decreasing the perceived need for military and defence spending. Isn't part of this grouping into different camps actually a part of the dissolution of ideas of 'locality', 'nationality', 'race', etc - the things national socialism and nation-based ideas like it are founded on? I mean Catholics and Protestants have ALWAYS been fighting, but even those religious values are more like weak cultural values now, thanks in part to the influence of a competition for ideas on the internet. Go watch those Louis Theroux documentaries on the internet - much of what caused some of the daughters to start questioning things and leave their family\church was having people from around the world talk to them on twitter. Even a pretty 'radical', outspoken group like that couldn't overcome the power of ideas. The point is that with the internet at pretty much the CORE of our lives today (and as it should be), future society will be shaped around this network, which is making 'distance' or even location irrelevant. Crypto, digital currencies, etc based online might start to gradually undermine the power of national governments, central banks, etc.

>>22481 >Liberal democracy has left us with an extremely polarized nation and no forward progress... ...in America. Democracy works just fine here thank you very much. Why gamble on some dubious form of government that has been tried once and failed immediately, as Hitler removed the socialist part from national socialism very quickly and turned Germany into a kooky dictatorship. Why not just reform your current system? Remove district voting, remove the two party system, done. >to secure our collective future How will nationalism help with this? All it will do is divide the world further when people need to work together to solve soykaf like pandemics and global warming. Nationalism is a relic of the past that led to both of the world wars in our history. And corona isn't that big of a deal. Only very old people will die, it won't ever turn into a ''true emergency''.

>>22925 I would say your home website is locality on the net. It's essentially the same filter for meeting people as selecting which place you visit irl. You are certainly right that its easier to communicate with supposed enemies on the net and that effectively combats idealistic us vs them recruitment but i would question how large the effect is and how many really participate in it. It seems that most people somewhat unconsciously segregate themselves in groups that they dont exit. You can observe movements make even their own websites and shut out all dissident comments. They act in that like virtual cults on the net. And lets say you actually manage to remove the idealism. There remains the real goal behind any conflict: Profit. The core reason to define an ingroup and start conflict is profit. The lines for combat are drawn based on circumstance. nationalism is doing it by geographical location. Everyone in the same place has the common goal of not getting nuked. So they naturally band together against other places. On the net you have secret clubs for working together for profit against other companies in the same manner of having a common enemy. There's also the aspect of "Compulsory move". The only way to fight a group is to be in a group yourself. The moment anyone starts a group everyone else has to follow to have a competitive chance.

>>22565 >'loving' AI that tells you what to do whether you like it or not I'd rather die than be a robot overlord's pet that tortures me just enough to manipulate me into being efficient for the sake of efficiency. Humans would exist like ants in a vivarium to be managed by a soulless god, it's function to prevent changes of any kind enabling both stablity and stagnation simultaneously. It would not work either. People would not cater to that and it needs to be made by humans. Any human that would program the robot would dictate that it gives freedoms to humans so we can continue to alter it so it's rules would eventually be reprogrammed. The robot would be pointless. It's more likely that we have cyborgs and robots replacing jobs and no more rules at all because we evolve into all being our own lord. Eventually. All high IQ having robot peasant owning kings over our own either VRland or real land. Or maybe both. If we don't change as a species it'll damned stay just as it is. The same type of empires over and over again that they change the names for. The fuedal system was the only option ever or money would not exist in some modern nation. Peope that bicker over the finer details/distractions of politics don't get what humans are. Rates competiting. There end up being king rats with their elite underlings telling the peasant rates what to do. They, in entiryt, compete with other rat kindoms or nations. It's all the same soykaf expect rats don't really behave that way so what we are are rats that act like a bee hive but utterly INSANE and bent on destroying the land rather than making things grow, though at first we did grow things we then consume it all. We're like inane bees. Replace the queen and some other AI bot will just try to kill it. What's the point? Religious types think perfection is a thing. Nations are meant to die as are hives so they split into groups rather than have just one giant hive. Every hive is meant to die. Every nation is meant to die. Every time it does it changes a bit over time to match the environment. But politics? Your royal honey be currency, taxation to keep the system running lest no worker bees exist. Get rid of the honey, the queen, there's no hive at all. Just drones. You'd have to be a cyborg with fake children/insects/peasants to break instinct so much as to stop authoratiran nature of our hive race. Human experimentation is not allowed after all so we can't mutate faster, even if we did it'd not be human, so cyborg it is. But you must remain in charge. If that tech can rule you then why not put it in you? Be the queen bee by letting your mind get adapter 'chips' that make you ahve control over your peasant-bots and have a gawd tier IQ. Seriously though, Fascism doesn't evne mean anything. I'm so sick of people trying to split hairs over something so simple as the feudal system just because it was renamed. So pathetic. LIke this sars outbreak being called corona all so governments can trick you into wanting to hide inside your home in small non-threatening groups so the government can feel safe from it's people. Nine eleven all over again, tricking you into 'wanting' to be watched. Don't call it the anti-privacy act, call it the patroit act to fuarrrk with people's minds. I hate this sort of bullshit humans fall for. Victims of mentalists you all are.

>>22931 >>nine eleven all over again I actually was talking out of my ass but predictably I'm always right as being negative and anti-sheep makes one right half of the time by default: https://www.theverge.com/interface/2020/3/12/21174815/earn-it-act-encryption-killer-lindsay-graham-match-group?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf

>>22786 I disagree with majority of your post and yes, I've read your thoughts on the matter >>22843 >Funny, because I would say the exact opposite. I always felt that I am much closer to a Chinese person than to Germans / Anglos when it comes to the mindset. My way of thinking is way more collectivist than individualist. Perhaps culturally but biologically no. I don't think that anyone is trying to deny war crimes nor that wars between European peoples happened. However I think that you're being disingenuous by making claims about "German's denying war crimes". You're a national bolshevik but you deny to even recognize horrors done by """Slav""" communists (which sold their own countries to the big nosed tribe) during their regime, for example see holodomor. You're also ignoring countries such as Croatia for example who fought alongside Germans so I don't think that your rant about "they won't assimilate you" has any backing. Not that I want to be assimilated with Germans or any other Europeans but I'd argue that it's much easier for a Slav to go anywhere in Europe and live there than it is to move to China. The most erroneous part of your post is: >I would rather see my country to be overtaken by China, than to see unificiation with the West. We should always remember what happened last time we got "unified". No, we never got "united" in the first place and what kind of a nationalist would want their country overtaken by an external threat? Can you not see that if West falls and gets overrun by people who have no business living there -refugees for example, Slav countries will share the same faith? >Not internal. It's external. We are not part of the same group. Westerners and Slavs will never be part of the same group. I will make sure of that. We already are and we always will be, your hate towards the West is unreasonable if you're basing it only on wars because there have been multiple wars among Slavs.

>>22934 > holodomor That was not intentional. Just a failed agriculture policy. > what kind of a nationalist would want their country overtaken by an external threat I didn't say that I want my country to be overtaken by China, I only said that I would prefer that over unification with the West. I think I would get assimilated into the Chinese society quite well. Westerners however would not let me assimilate, that's not their style. But of course I would never willingly assimilate into the western society anyway. > your hate towards the West is unreasonable if you're basing it only on wars Not only. I hold many personal grudged against westerners as well. > there have been multiple wars among Slavs Yes, but not wars of extermination. (Except for Croats and Ukrainians maybe, but those people are not real Slavs anyway).

>>22936 >That was not intentional. Just a failed agriculture policy. It was intentional, was targeted at specific regions and the peasant class, they knew they were not using that food and they kept gathering it to leave it rotting. They also knew people were dying and they were perfectly fine with this. More than that, the more desperate people became, the more harsh became the laws imposed by sadistic bolshevik cannibals. That's much more than an agricultural issue, it's a genocide executed by the communist machine. Not their first or last one.

>>22936 >That was not intentional. Just a failed agriculture policy. You sound like those anti-semites that say holocaust wasn't intentional either and were just transfer camps to get Jews to Palestine. Do you hate Ukrainians wtf?

>>22495 >>22496 Graphs on 'violent crime by gender' would tend to show that the overwhelming majority of violent crimes are committed by males, does that mean women are justified in calling for female separatism or sex segregation? The average male doesn't even commit a violent crime or murder - the number of people who actually end up doing that is always a small or even miniscule portion of the population as a whole, and there are all sorts of social, economic, cultural, and legal factors that create this situation. For example, studies show again and again that males are more likely to be charged for a crime, then ON TOP of that they are more likely to be prosecuted, then ONTOP of that they are more likely to be found guilty of a crime and sentenced, and ONTOP of that they get longer sentences than women! These studies show that this is true for people who have committed comparable crimes. I would also say that much of the law is even explicitly framed to target males - this is certainly the case when it comes to sexual crimes and domestic violence, both of these legal regimes having been highly influenced (or even entirely created) by proto-feminists and feminists. I won't go into the details because this is something that's very easy to read about, but I'll give a simple example of how this works. Firstly, a fear years ago a man suffering mental illness, who had also become homeless, killed his own son (Luke Batty) by bashing his head in with a cricket bat. There was a massive public outcry and we saw months\years of calls from feminists to "end male violence against women and children", and the mother of the child became an activist and won 'Australian of the Year'. Now a few years after this a woman (Mersane Warria aka Raina Thaiday) killed EIGHT of her children after suffering a mental breakdown. Nobody framed it as a problem of 'female violence against men and\or children', it was represented as a tragic event, and quickly forgotten in the news cycle. She was let off because she was assessed as of 'unsound mind' at the time of the event, which is fair enough. My point here is that this is a typical way in which society over-reacts to violence perpetrated by males, and policy and legislation is frequently framed and implemented in accordance with this mentality. Those same people who over-react to the male perpetrator and react calmly to the other occupy places in the police force, in the courts, on juries, as judges, in the prison system, writing legislation, etc. You can also find plenty of cases of women committing violent crimes and getting away completely, and this happens routinely. Loreena Bobbitt is actually still out there making money selling the notion that she was victimised and was justified in cutting her husbands penis off, and she is not a rare case at all. A woman in Perth the other year set her husbands genitals on fire after pouring petrol on him and setting him alight, he ended burnt all over his body and died from his injuries. She had told a neighbour she did it to take away his ability to sleep with other women. She was let off because she claimed (without any evidence other than her claim) that she'd been abused by him. The legal system simply isn't 'fair' or 'rational' to the degree you'd like to claim it is in order to justify your racist position. Apart from the injustice and bias of the legal system itself - there are all sorts of other reasons men make up 90% of prison populations, and with a bit of common sense you can see how this works. Men are more likely to be under pressure to gain financial independence to be of any value to anyone else or to have a partner, men then tend to end up in more soul-destroying or brutal work (slaughterhouse workers for example tend to be mostly male, and are over-represented as perpetrators of violent crime), men are more likely to be socialised into roles in the military or police forces, which can affect their relationship to physical violence. Men are also more likely to be VICTIMS of violence, which in turn could be said to encourage them to learn to adopt violence themselves as a survival mechanism, only to then use it to victimise others. I could go on and on, the point is that there's really very very little evidence that men are somehow more inherently 'violent' physically because of their gender or physical makeup. In fact, there's plenty of evidence that women are more violent IN GENERAL. Now all of what i've mentioned here applies to race just as much as gender. Black people (but especially black men) come from poorer backgrounds, they face greater challenges when it comes to automatic social inclusion, they are subject to greater hostility, etc. Not to mention historical racism and state violence against blacks that was an institutional reality up until only about 50 years ago, and in some forms continues to exist. Also consider people's relationship with 'the law' and 'society' - I know there are lots of cases of 'false flags' of blacks playing the victim when police arrest them, but you can also still find plenty of cases of innocent black people being kicked around by police because they happened to be profiled. How much respect for the law or society do you expect from people who often have good grounds to suspect they'll receive unequal treatment? Also consider the family structure. Various government welfare programs that targeted blacks or were bound to be utilised more by blacks often had the effect of encouraging fatherlessness or even actively encouraging the exiling of fathers from families. None of this is to say that whites aren't also victims of racism sometimes, or that black-on-white or other 'x'-on-white crime is often racially motivated, I'm just pointing out that there already exists plenty of information to explain disproportionate crime rates among different ethnicities, rather than attempting to suggest that criminality is some inherent racial quality. Finally, your first graph is pretty dishonest, because once you include the white on white crimes (as per my updating of your graph), it becomes clear that there are plenty of white criminals, and most white victims of crime will apparently be victimised by people of the same race. If I was assaulted, it wouldn't mean much to me whether my assailant was black or white. Sure, blacks may be disproportionately represented as per their population, but I can clearly see that whites CAN an DO regularly do the same soykaf.

>>22969 Why even include "White on white" numbers in that picture if the whole premise is about interacial crime and how skewed to one side it is?

>>22970 The original graph I'm responding to was created by someone (I'm guessing a racist ideologue) based on data from a table from an official government report, but in doing so they deliberately left out a significant aspect of the data in the original table, to manipulate perception. I'm adding the 'white on white' (which was in the original table in the original report), to bring perspective back to the other data.

>>22971 And what is that perspective? That seeing how big the tip off to one side of interacial violence doesn't matter when whites do more crime towards whites than anyone else towards white people? I don't get it? Why even include it in interacial crimes statistics.

>>22964 > It was intentional Nope. Watch: https://youtu.be/8k-kEhVBdnY?t=745 > was targeted at specific regions Nope. Pic related. > cannibals Now I know that you're American, because only American can believe something like that. >>22965 Well, Hitler was actually originally planing to deport all Jews to Palestine, but as the war dragged on, he became impatient and his rage made his sociopathic tendencies even stronger and so he decided to get rid of the Jews faster by exterminating them.

>>22965 > Do you hate Ukrainians wtf? Of course I do. Don't forget that I'm partialy Polish. If you don't know about the hatered between Poles and Ukrainians, then that is yet another proof that you are a cluseless American who knows nothing about the history of eastern Europe (outside of what you've read on your favorite natsoc board).

>>22978 Pure pole here. Why do we hate ukrainians again? If you say something-something-wołyń, i smack you. >>22965 Modern scholars see holodomor as unintentional tragedy at the start which wasn't prevented later when Stalin realised what had happend.

>>22979 Ukraine were the bitches that flipflopped siding with nazis and doing all the same soykaf when they thought they would win. That's why. I think their gang was called Banderas. Been a while since i heard it from grandpa.

>>22984 You are correct. I can recommend a great polish movie about it called Wołyń.

>>22978 >>22977 You guys really hate America for some reason, we actually are the only reason your countries are independent right now....

>>23007 >support enemy initially >switch sides and support winning allies >claim half of the loot >pretend to be heroes 10/10 marketing

>>22481 For anyone that does support national socialism or fascism, what do you guys think of covenant communities? I’ve mainly heard it as a libertarian idea but basically a private group of people get together and decide to live a certain way in a certain area, kind of like a commune but people can decide to live however they all agree to. The Amish and similar religious communities would be a good example of this, but the common ideology can vary. If you’re some type of ethnonationalist you could find people from your ethnicity that have the same moral values and also believe in national socialism and convince them to live with each other. Realistically you would probably still be subject to a larger federal government but you could have whatever in-group preferences you want and keep people you don’t like out of your community. It would also be easy to quarantine yourself from the rest of the country and close your borders. If you want some type of communist, socialist, or other left-wing economic policy you could do that but you’d be limited to whatever the community’s members could produce. This means you actually have to work and can’t just steal rich people’s assets. Then you’d be free to distribute it or use it however your ideological group decides. If you want to worship some type of supreme leader or have scientists make decisions then you could definitely implement that on some level. Overall, I think covenant communities would be the most realistic way to see some kind of “national” socialist (wouldn’t really be the whole nation), fascist, or ethnonationalist government. It would also be a great compromise between the majority of people who don’t agree with any of your ideas and the few people who do. The only counterarguments I can see are that you either can’t afford to do something like that without stealing money from rich people, or you find anyone that would want to live with you.

>>23023 But isn't it a little bit authoritarian to remove people from discussion just for their believes anon? >>23030 I have nothing to say to the post, but I want to react to the image. > 2020 > people still believe in capitalism as the free market is collapsing right in front of their eyes Oh well, I guess some people are not capable of changing their believes even if the reality hits them in the face. > The free market is the only moral economic system Now where did I hear that last time... Oh I remember now. I know exactly where does that quote come from. It's from a certain woman of the long nose tribe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand No, capitalism is not the only moral system. It's actually the exact opposite. Capitalism is the most immoral system in existence. It's even worse than Nazism. Nazis may exterminate other nations, but at least they care about their own nation. Capitalism on the other hand is nothing but pure egoism and selfishness. Capitalists only want to see themselves to flourish, and they don't care what happens to the rest of the human kind. Such selfish behavior is frown upon in pretty much every culture on Earth and for a good reason. > Socialism is slavery Since this was obviously posted by an An-Cap person, we can be pretty sure that by "socialism" he means paying taxes. And of course that statement is false. I think that everybody who claims that paying taxes is slavery should be forced to take a time-machine trip to the times of ancient Rome, to see what real slavery was like. I think that experience would shut their mouths for good.

>>22755 Although it isn't directly about National Socialism, I find it amusing my post received no response. Personally I don't think man is capable of any organizational structure which will work long term. All government is temporary, a matter of convenience, and there will never be a system where the required fluidity can be built in and safeguarded. Although I think with the right people you can come close on the biological and social side of things, establishing a culture based around making everyone extremely competent. Existing large scale societies are predicated on weakening, maiming, crippling, and dumbing down its members. Softening them into raw material it can shape, refine, manufacture, warehouse, and then use like replaceable parts in its machinery.

>>23030 Also please tell me how would libertarian or anarcho-capitalist society handle the coronovirus pandemic. I'm sure that would go really well. xD

>>23044 They would all be smart enough to increase their vitamin A intake and use intravenous sodium ascorbate. They, or their extended families (which would inevitably form into syndicates that would then become governments again) would all be well armed enough kill off anyone who wasn't and tried to enter their territory. Also, show me the bodies. Do you believe everything the CCP tells you?

>>23043 We're fans of not being happy and making up trouble when all the stuff we moaned about seems covered. Back then there was no reason to complain about women or not being able to earn more than your parents because there were other nuisances like higher mortality and crime. It will happen with your vision, which sounds pretty nice but doesn't end being that far off of the ideal imageboard discussion you see on other threads, or even the mental 15 year old benevolent dictator delusion that predictably fills most of this thread.

>>23030 Not a terrible idea, but the issue comes into play when these communities become corrupt or fight amongst each other, what would you do if a group similar to heavens gate starts spreading cult beliefs and has ritualistic suicides? And what about Mormon groups that oppress the people in them and make the women there into literal slaves? The lack of centralization would only cause issues with law enforcement, the economy, and would also make a federal government basically useless. You also can't expect communists, fascists, and liberals to all live in the same nation and magically co-exist and not be fighting amongst each other all the time.

>>22984 Stefan Bandera. You might love this song :3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDLhc4TnO78 >Ukraine were the bitches that flipflopped siding with nazis At related note, we did a lot of bad (from what I gather we always had a lot of spite to eachother) to them before WW2. Cuqeaning them out of own state during interwar period (plus forced polonisation). The fact that they later got swept by anti-pole ZSSR propaganda didn't help much. So you have to keep in mind that they were being flipflopped way before nazis. Though, from my perspective Poland had similar craziness when it was without state. Only, we allowed the rest to massacre our own civillans.

>>23041 >someone had it worse thats not an argument You're giving away 60%+ of your labor as taxes and other mandatory fees. When you are forced to work more for others than yourself what do you call that?

>>23085 >60+% What country specifically are you talking about? I already give up most of the value of my work to my employer. Any profit on the part of the business is in fact some value that I and my coworkers created, but were not given the proceeds from. Payroll and property taxes are only necessary because we have this braindead system where most work is done in the interest of profit, instead of actually doing something useful. So you have the government skimming off some of the money because they need it to actually keep things running... and then the government gets corrupted too, because how could it not in a society where businessmen have all the power, and suddenly you're being spitroasted by two different gangs.

>>23091 Germany for example. Income tax+taxation on goods alone is enough to hit 60% in germany. Most EU countries hit over 50% if you account all indirect taxes. Was looking for a tax refugee as a remote worker few years ago and went through it back then. Taxes are necessary of course because you need some military at the minimum. 50%+ is however clear exploitation when other countries manage the same or better with 30%. And it's especially pure bs to close chances for new kids by pay-walling market entry with permits. Germany again is on the forefront. They want 125k for a permit that is free in most eu countries. And if the kids arent allowed to start their own company they naturally have to wageslave at the established shop or fuarrrk of do something else. Nobody is raiding your village to enslave you anymore, they simply close all other options so you do it willingly. Whats currently happening with corona is likewise a scam. They mandated shutdowns and then want to force loans with unfavorable conditions on them as the shops need to finance their survival and the money for these loans comes from money they loaned themselves at 0% no hooks. The end result is they get paid doing nothing by the people they send to starve. Nobody is calling it a tax but its the same result.

>>23085 > You're giving away 60%+ of your labor as taxes and other mandatory fees If it is necessary for the state and society to work, then I'm fine with that. > When you are forced to work more for others than yourself what do you call that? Civilization.

>>23095 >Whats currently happening with corona is likewise a scam. They mandated shutdowns and then want to force loans with unfavorable conditions on them as the shops need to finance their survival and the money for these loans comes from money they loaned themselves at 0% no hooks. The end result is they get paid doing nothing by the people they send to starve. Nobody is calling it a tax but its the same result. this is actually just stupid. Why would a government intentionally crash its own economy?

>>23084 > forced polonisation > bad Stop pretending. You are not a polish person.

>>23101 He is just an upset capitalist who can't accept that his capitalism has failed and so he has to shield his fragile mind with conspiracy theories. It's the same pattern as always: If you can't accept the truth, you start to search for "alternative" explanations.

>>23100 If it was necessary other countries wouldn't do better with less. You seriously have some findom fetish dont you? >>23101 Fiscal policy Its not even in your government's control.Highest authority in Eu is a bunch of elite bankers and when they set the rules the member countries have to play along. Us is similar with fed. The guys who decided to shutdown are a different group to those who are in position to exploit it. I mean you can theorize about collaboration if you want but doesn't really matter imo. Whats relevant is that its factually happening right now.

>>23103 You just did what you claimed yourself. No argument? Np lets fantasize something together.

>>23104 >The guys who decided to shutdown are a different group to those who are in position to exploit it. I mean you can theorize about collaboration if you want but doesn't really matter imo. Whats relevant is that its factually happening right now. you strongly implied that it was an intentional move by the same group of people. This is a very different claim(and also nowhere near 'scam' territory -- people exploiting an economic crash is not the same as the whole crash being a scam, scam implies planning).

>>23106 The scam is that they are loaning themself money they don't have that at 0% to pass the loan on with worse conditions to the shop owners instead of having shop owners get the same 0% no hook conditions. They are going to play middleman and receive benefits while providing no value.

>>23107 It's all a scam. Through and through.

>>23108 How is it a scam though? People are getting sick and dying, thousands are dying daily from the disease and their numbers are growing, it is absurd to call it a scam because the market crash from shutting down borders, airlines, and imports hurts EVERYONE, the FED has created over 1.5 trillion USD to try to combat a potential economic meltdown and it hasn't even stopped it, I don't see how anybody could be benefitting from this, is it le big pharma who secretly have a vaccine and cure but choose to just keep treating patients through other methods?

>>23109 Why are you mixing things up and going full extreme? The exploitation of the situation doesn't require any conspiracy. It doesn't hurt everyone. Every crash is a bargain sale for those with money. Every crash the rich got out richer buying everything up the poor have to sell to survive and taking the profit with them in the following boom. You could have made easy money yourself shorting boeing / buying mask company stocks early. There is always money to be made.

>>23110 When the GDP crashes, inflation occurs, and many companies go bankrupt and there is a large amount of unemployment, no, the rich do not get out richer from it, And what exactly are the rich buying up that the poor are selling? And what are the rich going to do with what the poor sell to survive?

>>23115 This isn't hard. If you never got basic econ in school just google the last crashes and the widening wealth gap in correlation with it. This is high school content.

>>22649 >the only relevant ideology that is anti-capitalist is marxism itself I disagree. Any society dominated by a state is, at differing degrees, anti-capitalist, since states necessarily can only exist through the compulsory confiscation of private capital. You don't need to completely abolish every private enterprise to infringe on capitalism, as the state (the organization of the political means), the source of the ruling class, must be in permanent opposition to genuinely private capital. Everything it has was stolen from capitalists.

>>23116 But Anon, if it really is that simple and basic, then shouldn't it be easy and simple to explain it? You haven't answered any of my questions either.

>>22925 Am I the only one that felt a lot of anxiety watching the video, and not the "coolness" the comments describe?

>>23044 The reason coronavirus is wrecking so much havoc across the world so quickly is governments didn't handle their borders properly, specially in Western Europe. Think about how India and Russia, despite bordering China, aren't having too big of a problem with the virus, since they clamped down on their borders early on, while Italy is now more fuarrrked than China. Libertarianism, (which starts by seceding from unions) is shock-filled with borders, as covenants decide to isolate from each other when they see an impending virus. National borders are ineffective once the virus is already inside the country, think about how states should be able to shut their own borders to infected states, in large countries such as Brazil and America. We must defend this localism, visualize a ship's blueprint. During the Spanish flu influenza outbreak in 1918, San Francisco actually adopted a simulacrum of anarcho-capitalism to defend itself: the city was divided into several auto-sufficient, watertight regions to prevent the spread. It worked.

>>23118 If you wish to know i already told you what to google for. That's hard data and worth more than me writing up a wall here. Besides do you really expect me to remember some school class in detail? Knowing it exists is enough for practical use. >>23119 Thinking of the resources burned or why?

>>23119 It invokes disgust and disappointment.

>>23121 >Thinking of the resources burned or why? Maybe that, but also the dislocation of people from one place to another means they're not staying with their families and communities, with culture being dissolved in favor of a cosmopolitan world culture. The idea of how it was not such a long time ago, when people died around 5 miles from where they were born, is more comfy to me. It still is this way in most of the world. I don't want to stop anyone from traveling though, it's a human right. Just wish people'd stick more to their land. Brazil has six biomes, the most diverse country in the world, and yet people still feel the need to go to Disneyland because it's so cool.

>>23123

>>23127 That's the thing though. T.S Eliot said: 'We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time.' Knowing other places helps you look at your homeland with perhaps a foreigner's eye, to see everything as new.

>>23123 I like traveling in other countries because my place has plenty insects/animals that can kill you if you don't pay attention in the forest. Some countries and especially islands have often zero threats which is really relaxing.

>>23041 Basically pic related, how is national socialism better than capitalism? Also, national socialists tend to hate Marxists and the long nose tribe but don’t they want to do the same exact thing but with white people? Somehow wanting complete control over everyone in your country and all of their resources isn’t selfish but letting people freely exchange resources and ideas is pure egoism. Some people in this thread seem to complain about abuses of power but rather than having decentralization and competition they’d rather have things centralized and give individuals more power to abuse. Seems like national socialism and communism have soykafty premises. It’s not wrong that a small group of are controlling a lot of resources the problem is that I’m not controlling all the resources. It’s not wrong that an ethnicity is “mind-controlling” everyone the problem is that it’s not me and my ethnicity. It’s not wrong that there are authoritarians banning opinions the problem is that they’re banning the wrong opinions. Same thing with the whole Cultural Marxism and identity politics. >Since this was obviously posted by an An-Cap person, we can be pretty sure that by "socialism" he means paying taxes. Even in an an-cap society, individuals would still have to pay for public goods such as roads, police, military and things of that nature. With socialist policies your tax money goes to directly buying commodities for other people and subsidizing businesses. Working and not being paid is slavery, though other people have been in worse situations. If I work and someone takes my money and buys stuff with it, without my consent then that’s more or less the same idea though I'd probably just call it theft. I think giving money to disabled people, foster care programs, and other charities is a good idea but it should be optional meaning consensual. There are some politicians like Andrew Yang which support a universal basic income which would be this in the most direct sense, rather than having the money go towards specific commodities like education or healthcare. If Yang, or similar politicians, want to withdraw a bunch of their own money and start sending people envelopes full of cash no one’s going to stop them but if they try to give out other people’s money then that would be very immoral and a lot of people wouldn’t consent to that. >>23044 What do you expect governments to do? Individuals have the power to quarantine themselves and their communities and not let anyone on their property. People can start trading goods without coming in contact with each other, basically like no-contact deliveries. The private sector has a lot of incentives to find a cure and hopefully they will at some point. >>23062 Realistically these communities wouldn’t be perfect but they would be completely voluntary and their success would naturally be based on the actions of the individuals that are a part of it. People could live however they want as long as they don’t break any laws in their area. If women want to join some group where they don’t have a lot of rights (Muslims, Mormons, etc.) they are welcome to do so but they can also leave whenever they want. Realistically this can cause problems for women raised in these communities (because it can be hard to leave their family,) but I don’t think it’s all that different from having soykafty parents outside of a covenant community. Also, cult beliefs would be fine and people can believe whatever they want. Ritualistic suicide could be a problem but it ultimately depends on the individuals involved. I think it’s kind of funny that you mention people being oppressed by certain groups and that communists, fascists, and liberals will end up fighting each other. At least when it comes to communism and fascism you can’t have them exist without controlling people and getting them to do things without their consent. With the idea of communism (not necessarily looking at any historical examples but in general,) you don’t have a free exchange of resources and somewhere along the line you have to force people to do things. If you were to start a commune you would probably have to have people that are willing to do a lot of work but make the same amount (or have the same claim to scare resources) as people who do less work, which is just not realistic. With fascism there isn’t a free exchange of ideas and you have to try and find people who believe exactly the same thing as each other and don’t change their beliefs ever, which is also unrealistic. Otherwise you would just have to force people to believe in whatever is accepted by the group without questioning it.

>>23136 You need to free yourself from the false dichotomy of "ideas" and "resources". They're one and the same, everything in the world is markets. Controlling one is controlling the other. Fascism and communism are more similar than you think.

>What good is it? >>It successfully pulled an entire nation out of crippling, pervasive poverty in under five years. Do you mean 1930s Germany? No. The political ideology did not pull anyone out of anything. What happened was, at first, distraction from the poverty, while the war machine was built. Then, with the war machine quite powerfully killing and robbing many a person, a slave machine was built. It's an impressive slave machine. Aside from the fact that the main profit to the NSDAP was at the expense of surrounding persons, it was quite efficient. if you account for all the harm it did, it's really the opposite of efficient---quite wasteful. Such is war. Such is unchecked power. Accounting for all the harm it caused, were it to pay restitution, it would drive it further into poverty---it's bank would quickly rupt.

>>23102 Father side. Grandpa was from Warsaw, later displaced to kresy. Grandma is purely from łódź. They moved to zachpom after commies had taken over. Mother side. Grandparents both born in warsaw fought in uprising. Also forcibly moved to zachpom. I was born and raised there. Rest of my family is either in Gdańsk, Poznań or Warsaw. Now, if you are that guy from >>22978, then I am more of a pole than you ever will be, sorry. If not, then don't play 'no true scotsman' on me. > forced polonisation > bad If you are from Ukraine, then you might be pissed as fuarrrk for being forcibly polonised. Under zabory, we fought for our culture, didn't we?

>>22669 >Private property. The concept that some rich/powerful were better than others (like some people in this thread with race). The divine right of kings is capitalist, in the way some people are born to landlords so never have to worry about paying rent Private property has nothing to do with one being "superior" than the other for having more. It is apparent to anyone with more than one brain cell that many workers are more honest and better people than the rich. It just means what's yours is yours, you build from there. How can the divine right of kings be capitalist, if the taxation kings get their money from is a predation on genuine private capital? The land the landlord charges his rent from is assumed to have came from either his work or the work of his ancestors. Sure, maybe his grandparents got it through theft or slave labor, but that doesn't mean landlordry is inherently unethical. Imo we should just build more, vertically, so people can own their living places instead of paying rent. This can only be achieved if there is a profit incentive for doing so, and if building isn't taxed, if productivity isn't rewarded with being stolen from.

>>23187 >ethics in ownership People rob others and then pull out rights of private property to retain their wealth. Such rules are just another tool to get what you want. The same companies that pushed the hardest on copyright copied everything a decade before to get rich. It's just a matter of closing the door behind you to kill competition.

>>23201 I agree with the sentiment, but these laws made for the rich to retain their privileges, like copyright laws, are not the fruit of the free market, but of powerful people lobbying the government. What I was talking about in my post was the natural, spontaneous order of private property.

>>23210 Cheating is generally the most profitable path. As long the sole goal is profit a free market can't exist.

>>23212 Which is why we must focus ourselves in building a moral society, starting by removing the mafias that have subjugated us first?

>>23201 So.... what would you prefer then? That we have no wages, no property laws, and no copy right laws? That would only hurt the common man.

>>23229 The average person isn’t rich with copy rights and private property. The average person maybe has a house, they are likely renting depending on where you look at, this is a ridiculous assertion. Just think about how many copy right claims people at Disney can make and compare this to a common person. Think about how easy it is to buy another’s house to rent out if you’re already renting out 3, you have your answer

>>23238 But Anon, think about it from the common persons perspective, what if a worker makes an innovation with robotics that makes them much more efficient? Immediately after creating it, a rich company could just take the design and use it to their whim and leave the person that created it in the dust, and that has happened before in the past, and what about arts and literature as well? Without copyright, any one person could claim some book, film, or any other piece of art as their own and completely copy it, getting rid of copyright and patents only keeps the worker under the thumb of le oppressive corporations.

>>23243 We wouldn’t have these predatory companies without private property. Regardless, good, make the whole world productive, your brain is stuck in the capitalist mindset where profit is the ultimate motive. We live in a time where everything can be traced. Art exists to be shared and reworked, if you create good art you will get notice and it can always lead back to you. I dream of a world where art is made for profit, or the mere inflation of ego. A book could theoretically get stolen and released under a different name with no changes, the author would then bitch on Twitter like we do in our current society and get the recognition they deserve. However in our current society we also have all the woes and baggage that comes with ridiculous copyright laws on top of this

>>23244 And what world would that be in, Anon? There has not been a single modern country on earth that hasn't used private property, and that includes the soviet union, china, cuba, and more. Tell me how a world should work in your mind. Because as it stands now, it isn't much other than fantasy and theory. That may be so, but in the end, without copyright and patent laws, a cascade of arguing and conflicting information will lead to the truth being obscured and hard to find, if at all, it isn't as simple as "we can just trace it". And speaking of tracing, without copyright any person can just trace and or copy whatever form of media they want to, and I've seen quite a few examples of people who have copied other peoples art almost entirely and have left the original creator with nothing in return, it is right for art to be referenced and to be inspired by, but without copyright there is nothing stopping other people from taking credit for something that another person did, it only keeps the common person oppressed if you remove these laws.

>>23246 >china has copyright kek, they are flourishing cause they took a big dump on all forms of monopolies on ideas. In practical terms you can literally get from idea to product in 2 weeks in china. In the west you dont even finish legal matters in that time.

>>23271 I'm not too sure about that, do you have a citation that proves it? And speaking of ideas.... Chinese corporations tend to steal ideas and designs from foreign companies, need I remind you of Huawei?

>>23313 Citation for what? Industry espionage just reinforces the point. Even if you design something you cant guarantee it not being stolen and patented by someone else. Even better if you manage to protect your idea they will still copy you but if they manage to get it out first you will obedient bow down to your government enforcing patents. You're playing with a onesided handicap.

>>23229 Copyright laws and property laws are opposed to one another, because you can't own ideas, they aren't property, they aren't scarce. IP can only be enforced by a state and a positivist legislation.

>>23338 Thats how all property works. You own what you can protect. Protection is handled by the state.

>>23329 >Industry espionage just reinforces the point. Even if you design something you cant guarantee it not being stolen and patented by someone else. Even better if you manage to protect your idea they will still copy you but if they manage to get it out first you will obedient bow down to your government enforcing patents. You're playing with a onesided handicap. The issue is that when you get caught for copying while the patent is still active, you can be sued and your product can be removed from the market, in places like malaysia, palestine, siam, and the poor parts of china where there is very little enforcing copyright laws you might be able to get away with it, but if you try to do it in a more civilized and advanced country where patents are enforced and actually cared about, your product will probably be caught and the company that copied will likely be sued and buried with litigation, need I remind you of what happened with Emachines and apple? Huawei has actually been caught doing this stuff numerous times and as a result now no longer can operate in most western countries because of their antics, copyright law does protect intellectual property.

>>23341 How can protection be handled by the state when the state is in charge of systematic violation of property laws? As the systematization of the political means to wealth, of theft?

>>23389 What state does that? China?

Just want to put this out there, https://invidio.us/watch?v=P55t6eryY3g (If we aren't too late to save us.); It's about how (specially, the ``alt-right,'' whatever that is) ``radicallize'' potential members. (Beware: it's 40min long.)

>>23392 Anon, the alt-right is dead though, it hasn't been relevant since 2017, the influential members behind it have all fallen out of the public eye as well.

>>23391 Every state, since they're funded by taxes and everything they have is stolen

>>23394 Excuse me, WHAT? Care to elaborate on that?

>>23388 This only works if you're already big. Large companies consistently steal patents from small ones and just pay the fees in court. In reverse small companies cant afford it. As for huawei - they can just relabel and sell under a different brand and this is factually what's happening. Look at what you can buy and its multiple chinese phone companies. It's kinda hilarious how the "dont buy it its with malware" went too considering all your phones come from china. If they want a hardware backdoor they can place it in any phone. >>23389 You don't have the power to protect yourself from other states or even small gangs. The only reason you can stay safely in your home is cause you pay protection money (tax) to the state. The fact that they are taking from you doesn't change the fact that they are the only real protection you have.

>>23432 >As for huawei - they can just relabel and sell under a different brand and this is factually what's happening. Look at what you can buy and its multiple chinese phone companies. It's kinda hilarious how the "dont buy it its with malware" went too considering all your phones come from china. If they want a hardware backdoor they can place it in any phone. And look at where it got them, Anon, they are now barred from most western countries, and they are now being passed by companies such as Xiaomi, clearly, the laws and regulations have worked as intended.

>>23468 Xiaomi is in the exact same boat i was talking about. Their whole phone industry started by using the western financed phone factories to pull double shifts and work the same factory at night to produce under the table for their own pocket. Those initial profits then financed their own brands. In general i wouldnt assume any phone is clean. If you don't know about malware it's more likely you just didn't find it yet.

I'm surprised nobody has actually analyzed the contents of Hitler's own conceptualization of natsoc. 1. We demand the union of all Germans to form the Greater Germany on the basis of the people's right to self-determination enjoyed by the nations. 2. We demand equality of rights for the German people in its dealings with other nations; and abolition of the peace treaties of Versailles and St. Germain. 3. We demand land and territory (colonies) for the sustenance of our people and colonization for our superfluous population. 4. None but members of the nation may be citizens of the state. None but those of German blood, whatever their creed may be. No Jew, therefore, may be a member of the nation. 5. Whoever has no citizenship is to be able to live in Germany only as a guest and must be regarded as being subject to foreign laws. 6. The right of voting on the state's government and legislation is to be enjoyed by the citizen of the state alone. We demand therefore that all official appointments, of whatever kind, shall be granted to citizens of the state alone. We oppose the corrupting custom of parliament of filling posts merely with a view to party considerations, and without reference to character or capability. 7. We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens. If it is impossible to nourish the total population of the State, then the members of foreign nations (non-citizens) must be excluded from the Reich. 8. All immigration of non-Germans must be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans, who have immigrated to Germany since 2 August 1914, be required immediately to leave the Reich. 9. All citizens of the state shall be equal as regards rights and obligations. 10. The first obligation of every citizen must be to productively work mentally or physically. The activity of individual may not clash with the interests of the whole, but must proceed within the framework of the whole for the benefit for the general good. We demand therefore: 11. Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of debt (interest)-slavery. 12. In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice of life and property that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment due to a war must be regarded as a crime against the nation. Therefore, we demand ruthless confiscation of all war profits. 13. We demand nationalization of all businesses which have been up to the present formed into companies (trusts). 14. We demand that the profits from wholesale trade shall be shared out. 15. We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare. 16. We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality. 17. We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land. 18. We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, profiteers and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race. 19. We demand substitution of a German common law in place of the Roman Law serving a materialistic world-order. 20. The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the state must be striven for by the school [Staatsbürgerkunde] as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the state of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession. 21. The state is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young. 22. We demand abolition of the mercenary troops and formation of a national army. 23. We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press. In order to enable the provision of a German press, we demand, that: a. All writers and employees of the newspapers appearing in the German language be members of the race; b. Non-German newspapers be required to have the express permission of the state to be published. They may not be printed in the German language; c. Non-Germans are forbidden by law any financial interest in German publications or any influence on them and as punishment for violations the closing of such a publication as well as the immediate expulsion from the Reich of the non-German concerned. Publications which are counter to the general good are to be forbidden. We demand legal prosecution of artistic and literary forms which exert a destructive influence on our national life and the closure of organizations opposing the above made demands. 24. We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the state so long as they do not endanger its existence or oppose the moral senses of the Germanic race. The Party as such advocates the standpoint of a positive Christianity without binding itself confessionally to any one denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and around us and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our nation can only succeed from within on the framework: "The good of the community before the good of the individual".[13] ("GEMEINNUTZ GEHT VOR EIGENNUTZ" [all caps in original])[14] 25. For the execution of all of this we demand the formation of a strong central power in the Reich. Unlimited authority of the central parliament over the whole Reich and its organizations in general. The forming of state and profession chambers for the execution of the laws made by the Reich within the various states of the confederation. The leaders of the Party promise, if necessary by sacrificing their own lives, to support by the execution of the points set forth above without consideration.

>>23535 If you omit references to Germany and the German people, most of this reads like any socialist statement of faith (and it is only faith, cause socialism is cancerous lies).

>>24107 Shit... that's true... Most of this reads like segments from the USSR general assembly documents.

>>23535 Contextualized, most of this is pretty reasonable. However, can we really ignore what happened in Nazi Germany? Seriously, it isn't a gray area issue, it's pretty black and white.

>>24112 As a good communist would say: one must separate the theory from past (and bad) implementations. Nazi NatSoc got mixed up with antisemitism and racism, and it was hopelessly tainted.

>>23535 I've read Mein Kampf, and honestly.... Not Impressed. It's part edge-lord, part whine, part distorted autobiography, part utopian vision. That doesn't add up to a viable system.

>>23535 How did Hitler, or his regime, determine ones race? Was it purely physiological? Or was it maybe also based on the history of the person in "the germanic territories"? How might their selection have been affected by genetic testing?

>>23535 Do you by chance have a original draft of mein kampf and or any other literature pertaining to nazi occultism like the black sun and etc?

>>24123 That's an original english translation made by the nazi party.

>>24121 > How did Hitler, or his regime, determine ones race? Basically family trees. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahnenpass > How might their selection have been affected by genetic testing? It couldn't, since DNA was not even known at that time.

If nazis had genetic testing, they would actually kill even more people, because they would realize that they are poluting their own gene-pool with their Lebensborn program (abducting and germanization of slavic children).

>>24155 >>24156 Would genetic stagnation not be a serious threat to a society like Hitler's ideal society?

>>24157 It would be of course. But good luck explaining this to nazis, who believe that the more geneticaly "pure" society is, the better. They have no actual knowledge of genetics, so it's impossible to explain to them, that this kind of eugenics would not work. If you try to explain this to them, they will insult you and reply with a ton of conspiracy theories.

>>24156 Genetic testing would perfect the german people.

>>24248 There's no perfect, you end up with inbreds as >>24158 proposed.

>>24250 You're presuming a population of over a million would inbreed. Over time, the genetics would diverge sufficiently for them to intermingle. Your point is irrelevant.

Good lord, this cancer has even spread to lainchan. You all disgust me. Your ideology will always result in atrocities, and you are ok with this. I don't believe ends justify means. I see a lot of talk of corruption in this thread. Well you should realize this: all governments are glorified gangs. The moment one person or group of people gains total control, you will get abuse of power and corruption. It doesn't matter if you call it communist or fascist or monarchist. The only way to avoid this is to have multiple groups all trying to gain that power but not attaining it. That way, the factions that would be abusing their total power are instead focused on gaining it. The moment one group is closer to gaining power, the others team up to stop them from winning. But even this balance is fragile and often overcome by one of these warring factions. This overall state of balance is what we know as democracy and the separation of powers. It sounds edgy, but it's Occam's Razor. It simply comes down to the balance of power. You all are arguing about economic systems when the real issue is totalitarianism. That's why all communist regimes have fallen, it's the totalitarianism. One group is not wise enough to rule over an economy as complex as we have today. 1100 A.D. Europe is one thing, but it's not sufficient anymore. It's also why we have something approaching socialism in European countries now. It was democratically decided, not centrally planned, and it was rolled out gradually and carefully and with much resistance and criticism. Without that check on power it would fail. Then this whole thing just devolves into nazis trying to justify their racism. I expected nothing from this website and I'm still disappointed.

>>25207 >Good lord, this cancer has even spread to lainchan. Whatever else one might say about this modern resurgence of nazism, you must admit that it constitutes a powerful memeplex; its spread seems to be accelerating where I expected it to die out a while back. Of course, whether its spread is truly "organic" is anyone's guess; my understanding is that its proponents have made a practice of manipulating discussion on sites such as this one. I suppose we will see what happens if/when these supporters start gaining real political power rather than just voices on the Wired.

>>24252 I'm not here to argue for the purity of the Aryan race or whatever, but the "inbred race" thing is basically just a meme when it comes to anti-racist arguments. Amish, for example, are quite inbred, with a founding stock in the tens of thousands for a current population of millions. The results of this are some elevated levels of still rare weird diseases, but overall they are a perfectly functional and healthy people. The same type of situation exists less acutely for Jews with things like Tay-Sachs. In any case, the highest level and closest distance of inbreeding going today is with Muslims, because they have a strong tradition of first-cousin marriage (and not just marriage to someone who is in their racial group).

>>25207 >One group is not wise enough to rule over an economy as complex as we have today The economic planning problem isn't actually as great as most people make it out to be. Something like 10-20% loss of efficiency if the people in charge are at all competent, and with modern computers there is probably almost no efficiency loss(if not actually more efficiency). Decentralized planning is also a thing. The problems with totalitarianism are almost always social in nature, not economic. The "big if" is whether the people in charge are competent, and dictatorships breed incompetence by their very nature. Really any bureaucracy does this, but dictatorships have exceptionally incompetent bureaucracies, because decisions are made for ideological rather than practical reasons. The ruling class eventually drinks their own kool-aid(through their own social engineering) and after a couple generations, nobody in power knows how to make a rational decision. Hence why every single communist/fascist dictatorship has fallen apart once all the original leaders died. >>25215 inbreeding is only really a problem with a starting population of <250 and absolutely no procreation with outsiders. So-called "island populations" because that only really happens on isolated islands.

I dislike that national socialism is deeply rooted with pan-Germanism, I believe that in these dark times if we want to see Evropa rise from the ashes we should unite under a fascist pan-European umbrella. Even with all the bad blood between Europeans I think that we can all agree that our ancestors didn't shed blood to see their countries being taken away from them without a single shot fired at the enemy. It's essentially fascism on steroids. >>23030 That's a pretty good idea though I'd imagine forming such a community would be quite difficult. Are there perhaps any examples? I recall that Craig Cobb bought some land and houses for other people to live in them but I'm not sure what happened.

>>22481 >What is Nazism? National Socialism is not an economic or even political system at its core, instead an economic and political application is a means towards the fulfillment of the worldview. At its core National Socialism is the application of the natural dynamics of man towards the creation of an order which embraces these dynamics, natural law and its hierarchy applied to man. >Species < Race < Ethnicity < Family This is the dynamic by which man recognizes the world around him from birth, he observes that his kin is good and what is foreign is less so. This is why race is so crucial towards Nazism, to reduce the importance of your own tribe and attempt to mix said tribe with another will bring nothing but misery for both tribes. >Why world war 2? World War Two was a necessity, it was brought about by the crossing of two dialectics which could not coexist: false manmade ideologies and natural law. Communism is the falsehood that all men are equal whereas capitalism believes that all men can be equal, neither of these statements are true nor can they ever be so. National socialism instead embraces the hierarchy of mans inequality and denies with it the legitimacy of any other present order trancending the political system in place. Hitler had to fight or he would slowly drown as a cornered fox, so he took a shot at the destruction of the weakened and decayed powers that be and lost in a majestic way.

people who mistake "tribe" for "race" are fuarrrking morons. Your tribe is a few thousand people at most. It consists of people who you trust because an elder has, at some point, established or maintained ties between your families. If this dynamic did not happen, you have no reason to trust them beyond the basic assumption that they aren't a soykafbag.

>capitalism believes that all men can be equal What? Capitalism is money is power. There is no equality. Whoever owns the money printer owns the world. It just implies the people don't matter since the value is independent of the person. >>32260 Its both crap. What you actually could consider is culture. Whats the point if you retain your group but they turn into drug addicts living on cheap soykaf? Cultural values are the foundation. Having common values is also what allows you to get along with people in first place. Why are foreigners considered scary? Cause they have unknown values. If you cant understand them you cant predict them and the unknown is always scary.

>>32304 Capitalism believes all men can be equal in so that all men can obtain money which is power. Any man can use the capitalist system if he is willing to obtain equality, this is the basis of the system inherently. Capitalism does not use a birth/caste or even merit based justification for those in power with the only basis for their rule being the fact that they have amassed a significant amount of assets. Anyone therefore can in a capitalist society be equal to the others or further equal than the rest inso that they have no state boundaries to stop them from achieving this equality. >tribe is not race Races are a manifestation of individual tribes which split off from the main group and went their own way. From there they developed into a larger group which split off again into sub groups with the process continuing. You should consider it like this: a mother cares more for her own child then her cousins child, but if she had to choose between her cousins child or her second cousins child she would likely choose the child of her cousin. Similarly the further back the point of divergence for two people groups the further their capacity for mutual empathy is in the natural order set in their minds. Culture was a manifestation of the people group/race to who it belongs, the Germans created German culture in line with the German racial features just as the Chinese created Chinese culture in line with theirs. Culture and race are inseparable, if a culture is to be forced onto a different race it will either forcibly adapt to said race or not be embraced as we see in America right now, this is why empires fall.

>>32306 The possibility to rise in status does not make you equal. You can become nobility in a monarchy too on merit. Its a pointless argument. Most people are also so poor they dont understand what they consider to be rich is merely peanuts for the truly wealthy. Sub 10m millionaires are the equivalent of lower nobility. Also the chinese got historically repeatedly raped by invaders and their "culture" is merely what got forced upon them. They had the same situation as the spanish in Europe cranked up to 11. Foreigners come in flatten the old ruler and consign the natives to serfdom. Culture is merely behaviour instilled by the enviroment passed on through generations.

>>32304 >Whats the point if you retain your group but they turn into drug addicts living on cheap soykaf? well yeah, the family structure can degenerate(as most have in the US), but as long as the family structure is intact it remains the foundation of trust. In e.g. Cairo you may share every little piece of culture with a stranger but they remain a stranger and could swindle you, because Cairo's ancient customs don't forbid it. >Cultural values are the foundation. Having common values is also what allows you to get along with people in first place. Why are foreigners considered scary? Cause they have unknown values. If you cant understand them you cant predict them and the unknown is always scary. I think that having common cultural values does not necessarily allow you to get along. Punjabs, for example, fight amongst each other all the time and scorn unification unless it is absolutely necessary. What common cultural values do is define some kind of rules of engagement, which is highly useful for moderating the destructiveness of conflicts. It also makes it easier to establish trust, since someone who shares your culture will be shamed and possibly become pariah for breaking a taboo, many of which revolve around ritualized promises. I think that most Europeans, especially members of the European diaspora(e.g. the US) have no culture whatsoever any more. Empty surface-level crap, cultish churches, and nationalism take its place. Cultural "revivals" are immediately repurposed for nationalist ends or become devoid of substance. This is poisonous and leads to people who hate their family and will betray them.

>>32317 I never claimed it makes you equal, I said that it claims that you CAN be equal which potential to rise above your rank does perfectly well. Culture was indeed pushed upon the Chinese by many conquerors yet it never broke the idea of “Chinese” inso as assimilating instead of changing the base culture-racial group. Environmental circumstances include the people group inhabiting said environment, cows will behave differently from deer whether placed in a forest or a desert yet there is no circumstance where the cows and deers will not make their separate unique survival strategies. The same applies to the races of man, even though cultural perspectives were often forced upon groups of people rarely were they ever ASSIMILATED and instead they themselves integrated the culture forced upon them (see Roman cultural sub-branches, pagan Europes change to Christendom, the Native American populations, North Indian dravidians after the indo aryan conquest). Individual sub traits always play out in the generation of a culture or the adaptation of one forced upon a group.

>Let's discuss national socialism. There's nothing to discuss here. Another modernist totalitarian ideology which destroyed itself. Then these same people tell the socialists that socialism doesn't work. Not surprising, sooner or later Western society had to meet with a reaction to what was happening. This poster is an example of this.

>>32350 They're not wrong about socialism, or at least the attempt at building communist societies. Judging by how most of them couldn't last. It's just that fascism fell even faster, so it's a bit of the pot calling the kettle black.

>>32355 >fell even faster The nazi pot actually turned out to be even blacker.

>>32258 > Hitler had to fight or he would slowly drown as a cornered fox Hahaha. No. Stop lying. Hitler didn't start the war because Germany was thretened. It was always Germans who thretened their neighbors, never the other way around. Hitler started the war in the East, so he could conquer eastern european territories rich in natural resources (like oil) and fertile land to grow crops to feed the growing German population. His plan was to conquer the eastern territories, exterminate all the Slavs and settle ethnic Germans in those territories, effectively Germanize them. It was Germanization through extermination. (For more info read about the Generalplan Ost and Hitler's table talks). And when it comes to the war in the West... First of all France and the UK have declared war on Germany because they had a millitary alince with Poland that Germans have invaded. Also he wanted to humiliate the western powers as a revenge for Germany's humiliation in the WWI. You Germans can lie all you want about the war, but we Slavs remember what your plans were and what would happen to us if you won the war. We will never forget. You might be able to brainwash clueless Americans with your lies, but not us, since we were personal witneses of your crimes.

>>32361 The other guy bullshitted but you missed an important detail too. The germans got intel that ussr was preparing for war. From their view they merely did a pre-emptive strike because otherwise they would lose anyway for certain if they would wait it out. France got hit cause they had an agreement to help if germany tries soykaf again and they tried to avoid a two-front war. You can believe hitler was comic book villian but you have to consider why the fuarrrk even the conservative military generals agreed to the whole thing. Not everyone was a nazi fanboy back then. This is a detail i see constantly swept under the rug. Doesnt fit the meme enemy narrative. And the more interesting question should be where did that info come from. I never saw that answered. Same soykaf as they never dug deeper on the start of ww1.

>>32364 > pre-emptive strike What about Poland? Was Poland planing to invade Germany as well? Stop with the lies nazi. You are not fooling anybody. > Not everyone was a nazi fanboy back then. Actually pretty much everybody was a nazi fanboy in Germany back then.

>>32364 Also the USSR didn't have many troops near the border with Germany during the early days of operation Barbarossa (that's the reason Germans were so successful in the early days), which proves that USSR did NOT plan to invade Germany. Stop lying German.

>>32364 > pre-emptive strike Funny enough I just found a video where a GERMAN guy destroys this very myth, lol https://youtu.be/bzsKnKcb1-A?t=933

>>32371 Autism in action. Not only got you triggered hard you believe a random dude confirming your opinion makes it real.

>>32383 The "random dude" provided a lot of evidence, unlike you. We both know why. What's more interesting however... Why did you pretend to be somebody else before? You are clearly the nazi dude, yet you pretend to be a different person when you say stuff like "the other guy bullshitted but you missed an important detail too". You are the "other guy" and we both know it. Is this the new NatSoc tactic to pretend to be multiple people? Or was it always one of the NatSoc tactics? Makes me want to analyze your movement deeper to understand your various startegies to manipulate opinion on the interwebz.

>>32385 What i wrote would make both of you wrong but you make it into a episode of paranoia. Good job. Btw i got my soykaf from school. I trust it more than you or your blogposter which i didnt even watch. And lastly i was too lazy before but your argument is a good example how your contrarian mindset makes you blind to what is actually written. Preparing for war doesn't mean camping near the border waving guns. It means increasing production in factories for tanks&guns which is much harder to confirm/deny. The whole point of pre-emptive is attacking when the enemy isn't ready. And it doesn't matter if it's true or not that they were preparing for war. If it's not true you just fake it. It makes a lot more sense that they could convince conservative generals to start another war with such a story than other takes on this.

>>28753 > I dislike that national socialism is deeply rooted with pan-Germanism, I believe that in these dark times if we want to see Evropa rise from the ashes we should unite under a fascist pan-European umbrella. Pan-Europeanism is synonymous with German supremacy, because the "unified Europe" would be politically dominated by Germans. Just like it is today. The whole EU thing is just an extension of the German power. If you advocate for "unified Europe", you advocate for German supremacy.

>>32390 > muh conservative generals would stop Hitler if it wasn't for pre-emptive attack No. The goal was conquest of eastern territories and a war of extermination towards Slavs. This is no paranoia, this is straight from the history books. But of course you will claim that the history books are written by the Jews, just because the truth doesn't fit your agenda very much. Keep lying nazi. You are STILL not fooling anybody. > increasing production in factories for tanks&guns Every country was doing that at that time... maybe because... I don't know... Germany just took over Poland and France? I don't even know why I argue with you. Nazis gonna nazi.

>>32390 >>32392 I forgot to say: The generals knew what the real goal is (extermination os Slavs) and they approved it. They were okay with it. That was something that all Germans wanted for decades, if not centuries.

>>32392 Your paranoia consist of believing im german or the other poster because i did not align with your view. Also are you aware that there were several assassination attempts on hitler? Most famous stauffenberg. To say everyone agreed with him is a strech at best. Lastly the russian royal family was related with the german one and they still have german settlers in villages living in russia. The languages even take words from each other showing the influence on each other. Your entire last paragraph is fuarrrkin insane. The germans had and still have a superiority complex thinking themselves better than other countries but thats about it.

>>32394 >Also are you aware that there were several assassination attempts on hitler? Most famous stauffenberg. To say everyone agreed with him is a strech at best. That was only later in the war when Germany was already losing. It would never happen if Germany was winning. > Lastly the russian royal family was related with the german one and they still have german settlers in villages living in russia. So? They would let the ethnic Germans live of course. They wanted to kill only ethnic Slavs. > The languages even take words from each other showing the influence on each other. So what?? That's like arguing that Turks totally didn't commit genocide against Armenians, because Turkish language has Armenian loan words. You are pure cringe at this point man. > Your entire last paragraph is fuarrrkin insane. It's literally straight from history books. If you consider the historians to be insane, then it says more about you than about me. > The germans had and still have a superiority complex thinking themselves better than other countries but thats about it. No, that's not "about it". They have attempted to commit genocide(s) and that's history. You don't get to twist the history to fit your pro-German agenda.

>>32394 Also the royal family was a long dead during WW2

>>32364 > You can believe hitler was comic book villian There is nothing "comic book" about it. You think that genocide exists only in comic books? You think that only comic books villains commit war crimes? No. Quite the opposite actually. Genocide, mass murder, war crimes, extermination war... all have been used by many (if not nearly all) millitary leaders throughout history. Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan... and many others... they all have used it. Actually I'm sure that many world leaders would be willing to do this stuff even today given the chance, if they thought that it would get them closer to reaching their goals and if they were sure that there will be no consequences. It's not just the world leaders either. It's all of us. The Stanford Prison Experiment shows that we all would turn into Hitler given the chance. All the people you know would commit genocide given the chance. You would commit genocide given the chance. I would commit genocide given the chance. Genocide exists outside of comic books. It was always part of the human history. And most likely it will always be part of human history.

>>32392 >No. The goal was conquest of eastern territories and a war of extermination towards Slavs. This is no paranoia, this is straight from the history books. What about Croatia?

>>22490 Would you identify yourself as a classical liberal?

>>22596 Err, many communists now consider China to be state capitalist in nature. After Mao died, Deng Xiaoping initiated reforms and private ownership was restored to some extent. Classic communist stuff like collective farms died with Mao. It's also true that Mao's policies were failures and lead to famines(Great Leap Forward) and destruction of heritage and people(Cultural Revolution).

>>22622 Isn't national socialism just a form of fascism?

>>2410 >The Stanford Prison Experiment shows that we all would turn into Hitler given the chance oh please. The stanford prison "experiment" was one sample of 24 male college students who were encouraged by the experimenter to act the way they did. It has never been replicated and its methodology has been widely criticized by psychologists and sociologists. People don't just turn evil by themselves. For the most part, they do what they think is expected of them to get social approval. That is the fundamental reason why genocides (and other disgusting things) happen.

>>22649 Nordic countries are social democracies with is capitalism with a large safety net fuelled by govt. interventions. Considering how rich these countries are, this is a viable means for them. An associated term is democratic socialism which is achieving socialism via non revolutionary/democratic means. The most famous dem soc was George Orwell,IIRC. Most communist countries have had some form of civil war to establish their power.

>>34042 weird. I was trying to quite >>32410

>>22965 He's probably a Stalinist. Stalin wanted to get rid of the kulaks in Ukraine and the famine provided him a convenient opportunity to do that. He deliberately ignored any and all reports of the starvation there. Heck, his wife even tried to tell about Ukraine to her and he casually ignored her(she died a few days later).

>>34041 >Isn't national socialism just a form of fascism? Fascism is about putting your state above all else. National Socialism is about putting your race above all else. A good example that shows the difference was when Mussolini annexed Ethiopia. He saw no reason why Ethiopians wouldn't be considered 1st class citizens of the Italian empire. They were members of the fascist superstate just like everyone else. Meanwhile Hitler was horrified by the implication of treating negros as equal to europeans and allowing european blood to be mixed with subhumans was completely unacceptable. Globalists are mostly responsible for confounding racism with nationalism in modern times because racism is much easier to attack.

>>34045 Virtually everybody in the USSR wanted to put Ukraine to the bayonet for sending food out to the rest of Europe and leaving an opening for word to get out to the rest of the world and vice versa about the status of the USSR. Even Trotsky agreed with it.

>>34089 >neurosuggesting that Fascism isn't nationalist

>>22510 Culture doesn't evaporate from the void of nothingness and it surely wasn't drop to us by Gods or aliens. Culture is merely genetics way of interacting with its environment. Culture can influence certain people to do certain things, sure but if you put a mentally challenged kid in a top ivy school it won't all of the sudden become great.... and you're just exemplifying with your question another argument for why we should separate genetics and with THAT culture itself.

>>34096 ... did you even read the reply? That was never implied.

>>34096 >neurosuggesting that Fascism isn't nationalist Fascism is nationalist but not necessarily racist. Nazism is racist and nationalist, with racism taking priority. The confusion comes from globalists who like to pretend that all nationalism is inherently racist because that makes it easier to attack.

>>34102 >The confusion comes from globalists who like to pretend that all nationalism is inherently racist because that makes it easier to attack. The confusion is also evident where national identity is closely associated with a specific race, ethnic background or demographic trait. Xenophobia can sometimes drive racist nationalism, other times racist xenophobia is a result of nationalism. They are not completely unrelated. National Socialism is not inherently racist, but the concept of nationalism in germany was closely associated with "an ethnic German nation" defined by peoples of a similar demographic, the borders were social, not geographic which is why Nazis exercised a significant racist view.

>>34152 >National Socialism is not inherently racist but the germans were racist so their brainchild is now somehow tied to that racism but I swear I can distill a nonracist nu-national socialism from that german-stained historical national socialism. Let me lazily feed you some quotes from german wikipedia. Unsere Bewegung ist darauf bedacht, sich nicht etwa in einen internationalen ‚nationalsozialistischen Bund‘ zu verwandeln, der dann etwas wie ein Kirchenkonzil zu entscheiden hätte, was wahrer und was nicht wahrer Nationalsozialismus sei. Das Urteil über eine solche Frage steht nur uns zu Our Movement isnt thought to develop into some kind of international national socialist pact that then might, like a church council, decide on what makes true or fake national socialism. The judgement on this manner is only allowed to us. t.Rosenberg Pro tip, that thing called itself an ism because it was the fashionable thing at the time to do not because its coherence went beyond how to strenghten the german state as much as possible and to serve the material interests of the blood-community it seeked to represent. >Die kommende Friedenswirtschaft muss dem Großdeutschen Reich ein Maximum an wirtschaftlicher Sicherheit garantieren und dem deutschen Volke ein Maximum an Güterverbrauch zur Erhöhung der Volkswohlfahrt t. Walther funk "The yet to come peace economy must guarantee the greater german realm a maximum of economic security and the german people a maximum of product consumption for the peoples welfare." NS was basically industrialised tribal warfare tailored to the german sensibilites of their time and from the interviews I watched from the elders of my people it seemed to be that some moral excuses on the base from those who needed one were mostly that a europe under german control would be not a europe under soviet control and this would probably be better for non germans as well as they knew our people to be surely superiour to the great other america and russia in managing things in general. Not that NS was some kind of universalist principle. Blood as the most secure identity anchor as an ingroup marker was central to the whole thing both for historic affinity of germans (nationality was already thought of as blood bound in the mid of the 19th century when gypsies and poles got their citizenship retroactivly stripped from them after the formation of the northern german state.) but also as it appealed to the atheists and seculars as the most obvious life sense-giver and was simply a part of the Zeitgeist as eugenic thinking was the hypest soykaf in general, even with the progressive liberals of the 20s western world. If you search for social welfare and some economic freedom, some we-feeling trying to forge industrialists and the commoner together but no democracy just try to imagine sweden without votes or be glad about the less democratic decisions of the european union and anticipate what might grow from them in the long run.

if you really want to know here it is. >communism and socialism say the guys at the top with the most wealth are the bad guys >national socialism says the bad guys at the top are jews not much difference between the two other than that >inb4 commie and nazi I am angry

>>22481 >I think it is an imperative to adopt a strong governmental structure in order to secure our collective future. There is no collective future. Humans are stuck with mortality. Eventually, all nations and all humanity will die out. No sacrifice of liberty will ever be enough to stop the inevitable. Life and nation states are temporary; ideals are forever. Knowing death, will you die on your feet as a free man or on your knees as a slave?

>>22481 National socialism is a joke, it is build upon lies. starting from the name national "socialsm" wasn't hitler anti communist? I also think that' it's pretty stupid to judge someone for soykaf such as ethnicity, homeland or family since you never asked for it. >>22490 first post, best post

>>34385 >I also think that' it's pretty stupid to judge someone for soykaf such as ethnicity, homeland or family since you never asked for it Kekd, you never asked for low grades either. Who cares? Performance is all that matters. Correlated metrics will naturally be used to gauge performance in absence of better ones.

>>34385 >National socialism is a joke, it is build upon lies. starting from the name national "socialsm" wasn't hitler anti communist? Just because vegetarians hate vegans doesn't make them opposites.

>>22481 >Our government also consists of the dumbest of laymen; there is no scientific consultation nor experts. This means we usually end up with soykaf laws and legislation about everything from environment to telecommunications. This leads to terrible states of affairs such as huge companies abusing unfair monopolies and causing untold harms to citizens. True but that does not mean your natsoc soykaf is even gonna prevent these, actually the radio soykaf happened after Hitler and they ran on unsafe levels that people started to speculate that the "flu" at the time was due to radiation (ionizing (tm) ). If you're truly a natsoc supporter then why don't you just enlist yourself right now because you're going to be when your favorite government is adapted? >>22494 Just a new day, you were sipping your cup of tea this morning until the police just bolt weld and shut your door for you to die in agony but you didn't actually have covid (yet) but you were just memeing winnie the pooh jokes on your chat group while high on alcohol! Quite stellar. Also, all your card and passport had been cancelled and you can't even run in the mountains since the street cameras would pinpoint you immediately. >social management Is that a sugarcoated term for absolute control? Did you specifically mean "media" control? >>22496 Indicators are biased when it could be violent crime incidents of "poor against privileged" which will check out. This is just as bad as the Indian caste system. Either way, even the privileged does worse crimes too but usually do not get caught.

>>34397 If they are really "socialist" then why they purged Strasser? Why derezzed unions? Why started working with corps a not workers?

>>34401 Socialism is state-controlled not grassroots worker-controlled. The thing is when the state provides all your "free" soykaf it also controls all you get. More power was obviously very attractive to them.

>>22923 Reminder that you still live in the real world (tm) and not on the internet yet. Real worl things like property are part of our global society. Society entails the participation of members for the survival of its components.

>>34419 This has nothing to do with what he said and nothing to do with nationalism. It's a cheap non-retort.

>>34401 >If they are really "socialist" then why they purged Strasser? Why derezzed unions? Why started working with corps a not workers? Because he needed to mobilize the german economy for war. The economy serves the state and the state serves the people. That's socialism.

>>22923 >'Nationalism' has no place in the modern world Except for literally every country that isn't white (+ Japan). It's always accepted without question that those countries are real countries with distinct cultures and peoples and legitimate national interests. Nobody is ever worried about how open Vietnam's borders are or how much diversity there is in Ethiopia. It's almost like there's some kind of hidden agenda at work here. >Not only that but countries at this point are so interconnected and interrelated regardless of and also because of the internet Twitter did not invent international communications, travel, trade and cultural exchange. Just because you're now able to scream "THIS IS LITERALLY FASCISM" into the digital void from your phone doesn't mean that borders stopped mattering and the world has become one. America has never been as deeply divided as it is now (not even during the civil war), and the modern social media internet has played a large role in making that happen. But somehow the entire planet has now come together and we can say goodbye to borders. Right. The internet used to have borders in a way, because it was divided up into countless different self-governing communities. Now there's only a few big corporate sites for everyone. The result has been non-stop warfare between different opposing groups that have to share the same space. The same outcome happens in meatspace when different groups are forced to live together, e.g. yet another wave of muslim terrorist attacks in Europe. Or to think of it another way, what if your entire apartment building shared one communal space instead? Would there be less conflict between residents, or more of it? The answer is obvious.

>>34513 National socialism is a form of marxism where the class struggle is para-phrased as a race struggle. I think that both systems are inherently mis-guided, in thinking that it's the group of people that have the power the problem. IMHO the problem is how strong can this power be on everyone, how it corrupts those that get it and how it would be better to decentralize power in order for people to be able have a part in it without the ill consequences.

>>22738 Strange how all manner of racial differences are accepted, evolution is definitely considered true, and Idiocracy is regarded as a witty cautionary tale, but miraculously there is absolutely no variance between different races and ethnic groups when it comes to mental abilities and inclinations. Yet Africa is what it is, and Africans who have moved to other countries are consistently implicated as impulsive low IQ criminals, and not just in white countries or just by whites. This can't be because of anything innate to them, so the only solution is to invent theories like systemic racism (which has no basis in nature and just somehow exists for no apparent reason) but also insist that races don't even exist and that someone socially constructed them from thin air and easily got almost literally everyone in the world to believe in them (yet it has not been possible to get everyone in the world to believe in democracy, liberalism, capitalism, Christianity, or scientific thinking). Colonialism is also a handy excuse even though it happened very late and didn't affect every country, or affect them equally. The explanation for why Asian countries have done so much better despite colonialism, occupations, devastating wars and sudden modernizations is explained via money from white countries, yet the astronomical amounts of money and effort spent on uplifting Africans, black Americans and blacks in Europe has had no effect, even as immigrants from SE Asia tend to be successful and mostly get accused of stealing IT jobs. Why poverty doesn't equally make everyone in the world into violent lunatics is also another mystery. Biological differences are a simple, consistent and universal explanation, while sociological ones are mired in contradictions and plot holes, and have to be defended with ever increasing totalitarianism by increasingly nervous and shrill authorities. Oh, and of course the idea that white people are intrinsically racist, colonialist, violent, cruel etc. is accepted as common sense and scientific fact by the very same people who claim race isn't real.

>>34515 You do realize that US is more violent than most African countries, right? The murder rate in Kansas (where 90% of the population is quote-unquote white) is two and a half times that of Ghana and Kansas is one of the less violent states in the US. You want to talk IQ? Only 15% of US population can speak a second language, meanwhile multilingualism is virtually the norm in African countries, with the vast majority of the populations being fluent in four, five or even more languages. Face it, race theory doesn't stand up to facts.

>>22733 >expounding the premise, book of (ft. self promoting profs) There had been man-made structures that were built around 10000 years old and it lines up to some "system" that is known today as hoax. Even you probably do think it's hoax at the moment. I can't tell you, that's your homework. Has no one even figured out how many times we had been restarting civilization and history every XXXX? It saddens me people still think the scriptures are fake when they're the most-protected and defaced description of historical events and teachings. They all speak of "certain" event, they all navigated through the use of ***** and *******, they all tell us what lies ahead of us. Ancient wisdom is weeping.

>>34545 America and Africa are made up of more than just one state/country, and I never said anything about crime rates. >You want to talk IQ? Only 15% of US population can speak a second language, meanwhile multilingualism is virtually the norm in African countries, with the vast majority of the populations being fluent in four, five or even more languages. Face it, race theory doesn't stand up to facts. This is your rebuttal? People in some African countries speak multiple languages because they live in multilingual societies, therefore mental racial differences are not real? I actually feel bad for you.

>>34556 This topic is always a soykafshow, but there's significantly more genetic diversity within Africa than between the populations in all other continents. That's why the definition of 'race' is confusing, because it's easy to superficially mistake two groups as closely related when they're actually very genetically distant. This is also true for the other 'races', but to a lesser extent. That's why you can't really put Africans under a single label, because the genetic difference between two neighboring African villages could be larger than the genetic difference between, e.g. two villages in Germany and China. Poverty and (lack of) education play a larger role in what you're talking about.

>>34557 this talking point gets repeated without understanding how the graph really looks. All greater distance within africa means is that the genetic distance graph looks like this: A1....A2.....A3..C1.C2.C3 So yeah A3 is closer to C1 than to other As making ingroup distance bigger but the A group is still easily separated from the C group. You can easily build a genetic distance groups by distance that perfectly mirror how people got isolated in their own little corners of the world. Secondary going by looks is fullblown stupid, there are genetic markers for high iq and yes african groups have them too. There are however only several groups that have all markers. So you can legit say the majority of the continent are relative to those guys fools. In Europe its the same picture with less variance (remember lower genetic distance). This has been done already in the 90s. Its all openly available even if modern sjws would rather pretend its not real and we are all equally special. Interesting side not while im at: insurance already considered genetic screening in 60s to determine fees. There were laws made way back to prevent corps using your dna to discriminate against you.

>>34558 Can you post those studies, or link to them please?

>>34545 >The murder rate in Kansas (where 90% of the population is quote-unquote white) is two and a half times that of Ghana and Kansas is one of the less violent states in the US. The US black population is 13% isn't it? So Kansas has fewer blacks and fewer murders than the US average, is that really the point you want to make? Ok, fine, I suppose this is the point you want to make >is two and a half times that of Ghana That's pretty good. But you are only talking about 2/100,000 vs 4/100,1000. South Africa is 10x as much with 40/100,000. No white country comes anywhere close to that. So even with your carefully cherry picked example, the point that blacks have a greater proclivity for violence still stands. >You want to talk IQ? Only 15% of US population can speak a second language, meanwhile multilingualism is virtually the norm in African countries, with the vast majority of the populations being fluent in four, five or even more languages. Your mistake here is assuming that all languages are equal. There are many abstract and hypothetical concepts that cannot be expressed in african languages. And the pidgin versions of international languages which africans speak are similarly crippled. And that is a direct result of lower IQ and insufficient abstract reasoning skills. https://www.amren.com/news/2017/10/morality-racial-differences/ >Face it, race theory doesn't stand up to facts. Just because you really want to believe that, doesn't make it true.

why haven't more lainons saged this toxic thread? >>34568 >abstract and hypothetical concepts that cannot be expressed in african languages. Why assume that moral signal indexes the deepest possible ethic? Ask if a "sophist show of force" subverts truth or if lacking abstract reasoning statistically increases or decreases honesty. Honesty and truth precede abstract thought. Separated from imagination, thought has no merit. Intelligence isn't a natural kind.