Hitler wasn't Right Wing. Change my mind

There is an important distinction to make between Prussian Socialism which was coined by Oswald Spengler and Marxist Socialism which is very different.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preussentum_und_Sozialismus
Educate yourself here.
Nationalism is the belief in the inherent national right of self-determination. It is neither left nor right.

There is no such thing as right wing. There is just marxism and that which opposes marxism.

I'm not a white nationalist, just a regular one. Immigrants are welcome here, just not illegals. The vast majority willing to put up with process of citizenship want to be here and are not a threat.

Socially right wing. Economically he had a war economy while he was in office. If it hadn't been in war time it's "left wing" if you're just defining "left wing = big government" but he wasn't for reducing the efficiency of markets to allow faggots to paint with watercolours. He allowed private property so probably pro free market as long as it benefits the nation, who knows

US white population is reducing by 0.5% a year. Only 8% of niggers voted Trump. Wake up man

correct, hitler's ideology surpassed the pleb level dichotomy communism and capitalism share. commies and cappies are two sides of the same globalist coin.

Yet he didn't, Jews and political opponents had their buisness seized and handed to people pro party. This is not a free market, neither is forceful conversion of a factory to the war effort.
That's no different than Stalin or the Kim's where people more important to the party go to keep the most stuff.

Third position rejects economic pragmatism and utilitarianism. So it's not on the spectrum of left/right in the first place. The social views you could maybe make a case for being "right wing". More like traditionalism desu. National Socialism was idealistic and we reject the materialistic economic utilitarian view entirely.

If right wing = wanting a country and left wing = wanting to import so many Niggers that your country ceases to exist, then he's absolutely right wing

Yes white people will go extinct and unless someone becomes Hitler times 1000 this is an inevitable. Very doubtful a white nationalist fanatic will ever get that much power.

jews and commies (same thing really) were enemies of the german race and thus had no right property. or rights in general. this is the proper way to conduct a nation.

>Germany
>a nation
hahahahahahah

You are only looking at his views on race and not his economics

>I'm ok with being replaced as long as it's done legally

Good definitions

Medieval feudal monarchies and the theocratic power structure of the medieval church practiced socialism, were they left wing?
Capitalism is a leftwing Jacobin ideology.

If you have a free market then make a rule where " anyone who is X is denied these rights" you cease to be a free market.

The fact of the matter is that left and right have been obsolete since the French revolution.

By virtue of its ultranationalism, protectionism and traditionalism, natsoc is rightist.

National socialism is not traditional and nor does it stand for traditionalism.

Well I can't do anything to stop it, and like I said the only solution would be genocide to a scale unheard of. You're never going to do anything about it either.

So, in the French Revolution, the Jacobins were rightists and tge monarchists were leftist? NOPE

It's hard to pin exactly where the Nazis would lay on any typical political spectrum. Hitler was in favor of everything being done through the state, yet he also wanted people to have autonomy and individual power. I think the end goal was to have a superstate that didn't need to trade internationally, thus requiring no gold-backed currency and being immune to inflation. He was in favor of social welfare programs but only as a safety net rather than a means of subsistence. Really, the more I learn about the Nazi platform the more it sounds like the ideal form of government. Only issue is making sure the leadership doesn't fall into the hands of idiots, so I'd like to see some republican system of checks and balances.

Ok, but you fundamentally don't understand NS, because it's not an ideology that necessarily anchored to any specific pov. It shifts with respect to what is deemed good for the race. So conceivably (although this would never happen because idealism refutes it) in order to achieve the ascendancy principle and Aryanism ideal certain social views might be less stringent.

Basically it's committed to what works. No sectarian chains.

Free markets are means to an end. The end is providing for the people. Enemies of the state shouldn't have wealth to undermine the nation

Hitler may have been more right wing in a European sense but his politics were nowhere near the modern American right’s. He wanted gun control, complained about greedy corporations, and loved big government. That wouldn’t look anything like the modern right, despite what the evil democrats would lie to you about.

>X is correct. Prove me wrong
>le burden of proof doesn’t apply to me

You are wrong dumbass. Fuck off.

You're not a nationalist, you're a liberal.

jews/commies having rights is the same thing as roaches having rights. they aren't denied rights they never were privy to anyway

race is more important than economics. the idea that it is otherwise is inherently leftist.

Get a load of this guy

Wrong.

Attached: 1532296526648.png (474x711, 90K)

Define nationalist. I can guarantee your definition is incorrect, because liberalism and nationalism are extremely interwoven.

You are a bigger threat than the immigrants, because it's through your tolerance that our race is being diluted and destroyed. You and your family are a national security threat desu.

Gun control for the Jews, not for real people

No need to do that. If NSDAP wasn't left wing then neither are different Social Democratic Parties.

It places people and ideals over the economic and the material, therefore not modernist.

Seems to me the only reason he's called right wing is he was nationalist, why so nationalism right or left wing? Hitler wanted to make all of Europe Germany through colonization and removal of the " native people". He learned this from Andrew Jackson.
Then was Stalin not a nationalist? He wanted to make the world Russia.

No, he told tales about how guns were evil and dangerous for children, so the people gave them up. Sounds kinda like the modern left, doesn’t it?

They didn't replace the monarchy with a free country lmao.

The cold war is proof that he was, in fact, right.

It's hard to peg because his orienting value seemed to be the interests of the German people rather than following the ideology of this, that or the other at the cost of the people's interests.

>modern American right’s
the modern american right is an embarrassing failure of cuckservatism that consistently manages to outspend and balloon national debt more than their "leftist" counterparts.

OP is a fag. Change my mind

Attached: 257354565.jpg (476x477, 22K)

cant be done

I bet you also call North Korean regime right wing if those are your standards.

I said “the right”, not “republicans”. Yes, republicans constantly agree to blow up the budget despite being the party of financial responsibility. However, that doesn’t change the fundamental philosophy of the right and conservatism.

The German people had guns

It doesn't care about maintaining tradition outside of what is beneficial for the given race explains it well.
National socialists are willing to throw traditions away if they are deemed inefficient or a threat to the volk. They are not inherently traditional, only incidentally so.

And? A 100% unrestricted ancapistan has never been done before and probably never will be done. Freedom of enterprise for the typical citizen won't be negatively affected by the kinds of restrictions imposed.

The classical liberal nationalists of the 19th century opposed hegemonic monarchies. Modern liberalism and internationalism has very little to do with that paradigm.

Actually no we are necessarily traditional actually. Because the concept of volk itself is traditional. And what is good for the volk is always going to be some form of traditionalism, otherwise you will throw out the concept of volk.

It's not moral relativism, idealism is metaphysically coherent.

I disagree. I think liberalism (classical if you really want to call it that, but I think it's idiotic to call it something else because the followers of the ideology have somewhat shifted their focus) is still omnirpresent in our society (as well as the enlightenment) and its consequences have been a disaster for mankind.

Oh. And how many non whites have you killed keyboard warrior? 0? I guess you're a threat too. If you were replaced Trump, tonight, and had 100% reign over all 3 branches, and began committing genocide tonight. You'd have white soldiers refusing to shoot the non whites in the military, you'd have a vast amount of white civilians opposed to killing non whites who would rebel and that you'd also have to kill. And you'd have a problem convincing your military to kill any of it's own people. You think I haven't carefully thought this through.

But Hitler rejected German traditions utterly. He despised the Prussian aristocracy and the monarchy which were so characteristic of the German tradition.

>he’s right
Neck yourself

Non Jewish Germans were the only people Hitler allowed to have guns, and even then there weren’t that many in circulation. He confiscated guns from every place he occupied.

Well he definitely wasn't Left.

If nobody ever challenged traditionalism your volk would still be living in caves.

Define right-wing

>began committing genocide tonight
Lmao what you dumb fucking burger libertarian pleb

National Socialists which are actually serious about the ideology are not autistic comic book villains who want to "hurr kill duh non whites" fuck off with your bullshit cia propaganda.

>the only people

The people he was fighting on behalf of? Yeah let's let recently occupied countries keep their guns, what could go wrong

USA, Europe and the rest of the majority white countries would have stay 90%. Crime would probably very low like that of Norway and Sweden. Tech like today might not develop though.

To add onto that, he also embraced the highly Western if not Anglo-Saxon idea of meritocracy, one which you certainly would not find institutionalized in German history.

>its consequences have been a disaster for mankind.
I agree entirely with this.
Even though it wasn't apparent at the time to liberal nationalists, it has been shown how damaging their line of thought turned out. However, I attribute this to naivete on their part, trying to combine national preservation and independence with an open embrace of capital. What I'm trying to say is that I think it's fully possible to separate the two, and that the intersection of them 150, 200 years ago was mostly incidental.

The problem with labels ITT is that people get too attached to them and start caring more about the labels than the values they claim to espouse. If a tradition is called communist, fascist, hippie, or whatever, it doesn't change what the tradition is or what it stands for. So talk on whether or not NatSoc was "right-wing" kind of misses the point.

He did not despise them, they incorporated many prussian principles in the new order in the SS. He was trying to replace what he perceived was an irreversibly corrupt system of pedophiles, psychopaths, and sellouts which were rapidly leading to the globo homo shithole we see today.

The training regiments for the SS were prussian. The monarchy was a problem because it sold out to the jew bankers, ww1 was basically a sham to create a global order and UN type organization (league of nations). The monarchists were playing with people's lives for fun, he despised this. Hitler fought in ww1 twice, volunteering. He did not hate the idea of tradition and monarchy itself, he just perceived that the system was so irredeemably corrupt with fags like Von Papen and the cuckservative globalist capitalist types that he had to replace many of them.

Science itself came from traditional monarchies subsidizing intellectuals in the court. You dumb fingol.

youtube.com/watch?v=7YMG7zDHbew

Attached: koiookloko.jpg (1680x1050, 267K)

Get a load of this guy too

He brainiacs, he didn’t say “prove me wrong” he said “change my mind”, which means present an argument, not prove something true or false. But instead of doing that you two dickwads tried to flex your intellectual muscles by acting like you’re some great debators when you can’t even understand the initial topic in the first place. You look like douchebags, your contribution amounts to little more than correcting a spelling error, but it’s like you corrected the spelling of an incorrect homophone. Fucking close this thread and never come back, this is too much for you.

>being this naive

Attached: 1530143851000.jpg (677x782, 227K)

>herpy derpy, national socialism is left wing becuz muh socialism
That's like saying the USSR was right wing under Stalin because Stalin wasn't a retard like Lenin and saw the importance of the family unit.

Yeah, that’s kind of the point, retard. He imposed strict gun control on the places he occupied so they couldn’t revolt. That sounds like fucking gun control to me.

JUST GET RID OF THE FUCKING JEWS, I DON'T CARE WHO DOES IT

Wrong. He absolutely despised the idea of holding a position of power through birthright. He forbid all of Wilhelm II's sons from serving in the military because two of the Prussian Princes had died during the fighting, and he feared they would be martyrs to the monarchist cause. Multiple members of the aristocracy also ended up in concentration camps.

The migrants wreaking havoc in Europe are not citizens, and have no desire to be.
The illegals causing harm in MY country are not citizens and have no desire to be.
They will never assimilate because they never wanted to assimliaye in the first place, they came over to be parasites.
Meanwhile, you have other immigrants WHO WANT to be Americans, and WANT to assimilate.

Empire is the way to go. National self-determination and the belief in it which is nationalism are as shitty as democracy in my estimate.

They ended up in camps because they were sellouts like the British aristocracy were and are.

Monarchy may have had some noble periods, I don't deny this, but ultimately they lost power to bankers and allowed bullshit enlightenment anti God anti tradition philosophers and jews subvert their society.

The monarchy was too corrupt to be trusted, and the old aristocrats were complicit with degeneracy of wiemar and jewish usury.

Hitler was the answer to restoring order and tradition, replacing most of the old institutions with new ones which functioned similarly, but with a few tweaks to prevent further corruption.

You're missing the point. If reforms that break the traditions weren't good for the people there wouldn't have been monarchies

I suggest jumping off a bridge. You’re beyond saving

>hey were sellouts like the British aristocracy were and are
Sellouts to who? And when? And how many of them were sellouts? Can you point out any specific examples?
>ultimately they lost power to bankers and allowed bullshit enlightenment anti God anti tradition philosophers and jews subvert their society
This is wrong on so many levels I don't know where to begin. How did they lose power to bankers? The aristocracy continued to hold so much of the wealth in Germany even after the first world war, not to mention some of the influence as well, naturally.
>The monarchy was too corrupt to be trusted
Kaiser Wilhelm II retired to a quiet home in the Netherlands. Explain to me how he was corrupt.
>the old aristocrats were complicit with degeneracy of wiemar and jewish usury.
Any examples?
Hitler was a revolutionary bastard and I'm glad he rots in his grave.

The scientific method is flawed in that the empiricist approach later after the enlightenment both affirms and denies metaphysics.

This is why rate of innovation has been drastically going down, despite increasing subsidization spending on innovation.

>The migrants wreaking havoc in Europe are not citizens, and have no desire to be.
Some of them are now and most are applying for citizenship because it guarantees permanent stay, many rights and benefits. Why would you not want to be a citizen?

>Sellouts to who? And when? And how many of them were sellouts? Can you point out any specific examples?
jews, wiemar period mostly but before as well, a lot the sd investigated several, von papen is one obvious example
>This is wrong on so many levels I don't know where to begin. How did they lose power to bankers? The aristocracy continued to hold so much of the wealth in Germany even after the first world war, not to mention some of the influence as well, naturally.

Bank of international settlements dictating central bank policy worldwide indirectly and sometimes directly. Them holding wealth is irrelevant when the enemy can basically invent money and spend it at will with almost no consequences.

>Kaiser Wilhelm II retired to a quiet home in the Netherlands. Explain to me how he was corrupt.

He engaged in war in an international agreement to create enough chaos to manufacture demand for globalism to maintain stability, thus setting the foundation for something like the EU, UN with the league of nations. It also pushed many people to despise nationalism because so many died essentially for nothing.

>Any examples?

What did they do to stop the degeneracy of the jews and bankers during wiemar period? In many cases conservative media publications owned by aristocrat Germans would applaud reforms by jews. And jewish media outlets would outright post degeneracy like they so often do now.

He was not revolutionary you fool, he was doing what was necessary to eradicate corruption.

I'm not sure why you think a monarchy cannot be corrupt. It is not the worst system in the world, but it is still susceptible to degeneracy.

In America it's better in alot of ways to be here illegally up until Trump started cracking down on them. Still get social services and get to vote through numerous loopholes. Free medical, Easy to find under the table work and will never have to pay taxes, once you squeeze a kid out you get to stay and each kid you have is more government money. I'm not that savvy on how the EU does it.

>totalitarianism
Retard. Totalitarianism is not a political stance. It’s a tool that’s sometimes necessary, for example when the world is full of people as stupid as yourself.

>Papen viewed the November Revolution of 1918 as a disaster that had brought "western subjectivism" to Germany, tearing apart the natural order of things and Germany could not recover from this disaster until the democratic system was destroyed.[57] Like many other German Catholic noblemen in the interwar period, Papen had a profound sense of victimization, seeing himself as the victim of a monumental conspiracy.[58] For Papen, European history from the time of the Enlightenment onward was a continuous tale of woe and decline as the "false doctrines" of rationalism, liberalism, republicanism, democracy and secularism had gained ascendancy at the expense of the "true" Catholic and aristocratic values.[58] For Papen, like many Catholic noblemen, the authors of these disastrous developments were the Freemasons and the Jews.[59] For Papen, the present was culmination of all he hated as he saw various developments like Marxism, women's rights, individualism, "economic egoism", democracy and the "de-Christianization" of German culture as part and parcel of the same conspiracy that had allegedly begun in 18th century France.
This is the one example you have? By Jewish standards he would be a horrible anti-semite.
>Bank of international settlements dictating central bank policy worldwide indirectly and sometimes directly
While I don't deny that the bankers gained influence through the Weimar period, I don't believe it was necessarily at the voluntary expense of the aristocrats. They either had their wealth and thus power seized or they remained as they were. I don't believe there was some deeper plot for them to initiate themselves into some sort of Jewish cabal.
>Them holding wealth is irrelevant when the enemy can basically invent money and spend it at will with almost no consequences.
Much good that will do them with the amount of hyperinflation during the Weimar Period. lol

Fucking memeflag, I apologize.
>He engaged in war in an international agreement to create enough chaos to manufacture demand for globalism to maintain stability
Okay, first, you are saying that he was in cahoots with the Entente in a coordinated effort to promote 'globalism'? That's quite the theory, any evidence? And how do you exactly define globalism and nationalism for that matter?
>It also pushed many people to despise nationalism because so many died essentially for nothing.
You could make the same argument for Hitler. But Hitler wasn't a nationalist, and neither was Kaiser Wilhelm II.
>What did they do to stop the degeneracy of the jews and bankers during wiemar period? In many cases conservative media publications owned by aristocrat Germans would applaud reforms by jews. And jewish media outlets would outright post degeneracy like they so often do now.
See my first post. You mentioned von Papen first, not me. Him merely saying those things alone holds up his own merit and wisdom in my eyes.
>He was not revolutionary you fool
Yes he was. National socialism is inherently revolutionary. It is not a conservative and neither a traditional ideology. Hell, it was even called the 'revolutionary right' during the entire Weimar period. Please read the The End of the German Monarchy by John Van der Kiste.

>This is the one example you have? By Jewish standards he would be a horrible anti-semite.

Lookup the aristocrats the sd arrested. Many plotted to kill the Fuhrer and to sabotage the war effort to win points with the internationalists.

>I don't believe it was necessarily at the voluntary expense of the aristocrats

It is, because the social and economic policy being pushed was not inherently advantageous for the old aristocracy. It was leaning to globo homo. Not all of them were bad naturally, but they failed at protecting Germany from degeneracy and foreign enemies. Hitler restored order and created a wonderful economy and system. I only wish they acquired wmds before the war's end so we wouldn't have to live in this nightmare.

Papen alone clearly had good intentions judging by his views. I would've sided with him in an effort to organize a counter-revolution against Hitler's revolution anytime.

So you blame the aristocrats for failing to match the power of the West and its efforts to influence Germany? Why don't you apply the same standard to Hitler? He failed to match their power as well.

>Okay, first, you are saying that he was in cahoots with the Entente in a coordinated effort to promote 'globalism'?

The evidence is what the sd and gestapo claimed. I don't think they really had any incentive to lie. Wilhelm was not a threat at the time anyways, so dead or alive it didn't matter.

>You could make the same argument for Hitler. But Hitler wasn't a nationalist, and neither was Kaiser Wilhelm II.

He absolute was a nationalist. He was not a colonial expansionist, I know you hate that they annexed czecho slovakia, but it was necessary in order to destroy internationalism. Hitler wanted nothing to do with imperiums. They just wanted the land back versailles took.

>Yes he was. National socialism is inherently revolutionary. It is not a conservative and neither a traditional ideology. Hell, it was even called the 'revolutionary right' during the entire Weimar period

Conservatives are gatekeepers for plutocracy and jewry. They maintain the illusion for them while they plunder and rape our society. National Socialism was not revolutionary against the idea of a traditional order, rather it was revolutionary against international plutocratic order itself. And the direction it was going into. Look at the world today which the aristocracy in cahoots with the banker cunts created. Do you like this world?