THIS
Natsoc is socialism. (bottom right)
i kinda like the top right panel
>no red person in panel 3
fix your fucking symmetry, moron
until then no bumps
bump
Nah blue guy doesn't have a nose.
boomer
Natsoc = Government controls your life, no freedom. You'll work, but you won't be allowed to think. It's all fake and contrived because you won't have freedom of speech or expression.
Natsoc = ant colony
That's why it works in China.
Everything about this is correct except for the upper right image. That one isn't even good rhetorically.
seems fine to me, red guy is leader and socialists pretend socialism has no leaders
if you're paying attention, note that both "described by capitalists" items actually take place in reality, while both "described by socialists" items only take place in fairy tales
Freedom is for degenerates.
Having a social score and being "disappeared" for disagreeing with the government works for you? The only reason Jow Forums exists is because of our bill of rights, you won't have that in natsoc or communism.
Stop romanticizing it. Natsoc = NPC groupthink.
That makes no fucking sense.
>muh cummies
A bit too much, a certain level of freedom is essential, but too much is a detriment to any and every society.
Paternalism/paternalistic systems such as fascism recognize that freedom for freedom's sake is just as destructive as equality fot equality's sake.
you're thinking of fascism
Faggots fucking in the street during Pride rallies would like a word.
I don't even know what your point is, because if you're going to argue that socialism (fascism/communism) is a better system than a constitutional republic, it's not going to happen.
No, fascism is far too broad to be that. Natsoc is Germanic, Classical Fascism is Italian, and Falangism is Spanish, but eaxh has different views on what freedoms should be provided to the populace.
>the ideal socialism still has less money than capitalism
Seems about right.
Who cares? Gays have always existed. Did they take over the world? When?
Define better, before either of us elaborate. Because if its just freedom, then constitutional republic is just as gulity of obstructing it compared to other systems like ancap or base anarchism. Or do you simply want to debate on where we draw the line on freedoms?
as id hitler didnt take the guns you fucking faggot, also he made people he didnt like do the cuck work
>Who cares?
Anyone with a shred of decency, do you really think faggots should be fucking in the street around children? "B-b-but there are no children" that's a fucking lie, more children go to them things than ever before, they even have hastags to get more people to bring their children. Kill yourself degenerate enabler.
When they made you bake the cake, bigot.
>inb4 muh enlightenment
Y’know user, some people just shouldn’t be allowed to express themselves
German citizens enjoyed firearm ownership under the Reich. You should maybe check those facts.
Fascism isn’t socialism. It’s honestly closer to capitalism.
Correct. Hitler actually had less restrictions on gun laws than (((Weimar Germany))). The American “right” has been brainwashed to believe he was a gun grabber. Unless your were a Jew or a fag, he wasn’t.
Our constitutional republic never had perspective because we didn't have the internet. Finding alternative news was difficult even in the 1900's, and even if you did, how would you wake people up? So that's why communist infiltration gradually took over our republic. Now that we have the internet, people have access to alternative media, and so people are waking up to Marxism, and they want to go back to a nationalist constitutional republic.
So this argument that "America didn't work because it's a flawed system" is false. It didn't work because we lacked the ability to do proper research, to know what it is, and what it's capable of, and who the enemies are. Now we have that ability, and that's why the Marxists are trying to censor the internet.
Really, the real representation of our republic is just starting. That's my point.
Its a bit of both, ties to community, collective identity, and socialization of some aspects reflect its marxist influences, while its influences from capitalism are refelcted in its hierarchy, market competition to a degree, and a finer understanding of human nature than anything marxists could come up with.
>Fascism isn’t socialism. It’s honestly closer to capitalism.
Closer to what socialists say capitalism is, you mean. No centrally planned economy has any relation to capitalism, socialists just don't know what capitalism is, so they call it fascism because they don't know what fascism is either
Whoa whoa whao, maybe you linked the wrong post, but all was asking you was what you consider 'better' you threw that word out without defining or elaborating on it.
What kind of red nigger points a gun at your head when he already has the money? Why are socialists so retarded?
She didn't have to bake the cake at the end.
Chill the fuck out dude. Too many beers last night? The people on the Right don't raise their kids like that, and the people on the Left can't help it. That's just how they are. They do everything that is not normal. Shit like this has ALWAYS existed. What's your solution?
Natsoc conformist confirmed. Antifa/Nazi's = two sides of the same insanity.
this
The post is self-contained so I don't know what you're asking. I'm saying a constitutional republic is superior to natsoc and communism, and that our republic is just starting because now we have the internet. (perspective)
this
>natsoc=antifa
I am curious how you reached such a conclusion.
Antifa are fighting against their own people, try to disarm them, spread deviant behaviours, and are useful idiots of big companies.
Natsoc want to protect their own, have the means to defend themselves, impose decent behaviours as a rule and are willing to serve leaders that they respect. Its like polar opposite. Oh yes. You didn't. You just type your script like a good NPC.
I didn't say it works for me, you illiterate faggot. I said it works for chink insects.
>Natsoc conformist confirmed. Antifa/Nazi's = two sides of the same insanity.
Let me guess, do you think my flag representing right-wing regionalism is actually treasonous? Do you believe that “the democrats are the real racists!!!”?
NEOCON GO HOME
People have already had to hundreds of times, and now quota systems on businesses are gaining steam to strip people of even more civil liberties. Dont act like these problems are going away, your society is allowing groups who actively work against it to out-vote and out-gun you (politicallt speaking, I think we both know who probably has the more small arms).
Superior in what way? There you go stating judgements with no unit of how youre evaluating what it even means. Youve made statements, but not arguments for it being superior.
>socialism has no leaders
you're confusing socialism with the idealized state of communism
This
There's nothing natsoc about most fascists. They look like an ordinary patriot in most cases, and they defend stuff that the constitutional republic has granted them, like the 1st and 2nd amendment, and president Trump.
See, you can't make sense of natsoc because they're like the goths of the Right. They're too fucking edgy to call themselves patriots or libertarians, so they add this weird contradictory shit to their beliefs like the ethnostate and fascism. What I'm saying is that it's orwellian double think: They're fascists, but their actually defending our republic? Which fucking is it???
You can't answer that because it's a contradiction. You're either setting up the fourth Reich in the USA, or you're not. And they're not. They're just libertarians who wear swastika's. It makes zero sense. None of this shit makes sense.
Jow Forums Natsocs are mainly libertarians who realize libertarian ideals are a paradox.
Most of those appear to be oversimplifications.
In a socialist society, the means of production are jointly owned. I don't know why everyone would need a bag of money.
The "Capitalism described by socialists." is inaccurate as well. the people with money don't directly point their guns at people. They rig elections so that politicians will do this.
Hitler used an entirely different definition of socialism though. He even said so himself.
You live in a constitutional republic. What's wrong with it? It's going to come to full fruition in our lifetme. Why do we need natsoc or communism? I know you guys aren't communists, but I don't want either natsoc or communism.
Stop arguing for the sake of arguing. You're that guy. Make a point. What system do you want? Why not jump on board with the system we have now? That's the direction the country is going.
What do they spend the money on though?
Money has no inherent value. Look at Zimbabwe.
"The problem with capitalism is capitalists. The problem with socialism is socialism."
MAXIMUM TRUTH
That description of communism applies only to Leninism.
That description of capitalism is an oversimplification. Corporate welfare and surplus value aren't the same as being directly pickpocketed … even if the outcome is similar.
The description of national socialism is totally wrong. It should have the same pic that communism has.
I cant make an argument for my system without knowing what you consider better. ONCE AGAIN YOU SAY ITS BETTER BUT GIVE NO DEFINITION OF WHAT BETTER MEANS
Here is what youre doing
>
>
>Constitutional Republic is better
Heres an argument
>More personal freedom is good
>The system that allows for the most personal freedom is best
>Constitutional republic is better
See? So for the fourth fucking time, what is BETTER in your book, mong?
>both "described by capitalists" items actually take place in reality
… except that poverty is completely ignored in both items.
Wew
All that money in capitalism could simply be the result of inflation though.
Gun control already existed in Weimar Germany. Hitler relaxed it a little.
Yes.
when will people realize that it's not about political ideology. it's about morality, and without jesus, any system you create will collapse.
Hitler privatized the 4 major German banks.
Not the most "planned economy" I can imagine.
The pic is a straw man.
Our republic is superior to socialism because we aren't forced into some ideal, and we can instead create and ideal from a grass-roots level, which is the only thing that can withstand time. The government that is owned by the people and not the other way around such as in natsoc and communsim. We have freedom granted by the constitution, therefore freedom of speech and expression, and the three branches of government, that allows us to vote democratically to change anything on the federal or state level that we don't agree with.
What's the problem?
>Antifa/Nazi's = two sides of the same insanity.
I don't think that it's appropriate to place destruction of property and torture on the same level.
You seem to think that "spreading deviant behavior" and "imposing decent behavior" are equivalent.
You are forgetting that Antifa have never once used heterosexuals for scientific experiments.
You're fucking delusional if you think we as a people actually own the government. Our "democracy" is also a huge sham anyways. We don't elect who's the most fittest for office, we elect the person who spends the most money flinging shit at other opponents.
This.
Just go after people like those on the right no matter what they call themselves.
>They're fascists, but their actually defending our republic?
To be fair, they have a personal definition of "republic" which conflicts with the standard definition.
Central planning can occur under capitalism. It happens in the private sector as well.
So you measure the success of a society on how much freedom it provides.
The why are you against anarchism ?
>You'll work, but you won't be allowed to think. It's all fake and
Sounds a lot like USA
>What's the problem?
You're just as anti-White as the Liberals, Democrats and Communists.
Democracy could work if the average person knew more about formal logic and the scientific method.
Unfortunately, the media constantly bombards us with sensationalism and hysteria. The goal is the turn us into anti-intellectual drama queens who never end up using the power of logic that all humans are born with.
True.
Antifa are way more destructive, and they use anarchy as a battering ram against our republic, and they want to bring in communism in the end. Natsoc? I think the only good thing they do is spread awareness of forced multiculturalism, Marxism, but otherwise... what do they do exactly? They are racists who like punching commies. The current natsoc is just an excuse of racism and superiority.
Both sides are fucking angry assholes. History moved on since 1945.
You are technically allowed to think in the USA.
However, there is a huge pop cultural propaganda machine in the USA designed to make independent thought a challenging task.
>Natsoc? I think the only good thing they do is spread awareness of forced multiculturalism,
But willing multiculturalism and diversity? Oh you're perfectly fine with that.
>but otherwise... what do they do exactly?
protect the existence of the White race by defending it against the groups (Republicans and Conservatives included) that want to destroy the White race.
>The current natsoc is just an excuse of racism and superiority.
But there's literally nothing wrong with being a racist.
And the White race is superior.
>Both sides are fucking angry assholes. History moved on since 1945.
Do you believe the Holocaust happened?
Start with yourself, guy. Play the game or quit now.
>Start with yourself
you don't win a race by starting at the finish line, retard.
Nowadays I believe that the majority of people are simply not meant to discover this power of logic you mentioned.
I think it is not a condition that has to be created, humans are simply hierarchical.
As long as their basic needs are covered they will just take the easiest way, listening to the people on top, following trends (political/non political), etc. That is why revolution always happened when a majority saw their basic needs endangered.
I think this condition is a given part of human nature, and therefore democracy is inherently unnatural for the human.
That's all changing now. The GOP uses about 1/5th of funds (from what I remember) than what the Democrats use, and they still win due to GRASSROOTS patriotism. In the 2000's, Conservatism is far more classical liberal than it used to be from the 1960's to about 2012. They are far more informed, and they are taking back control of the government. Even the RINO's like Mitch and Ryan are jumping on the nationalism bandwagon.
>That's all changing now. The GOP uses about 1/5th of funds (from what I remember) than what the Democrats use, and they still win due to GRASSROOTS patriotism. In the 2000's, Conservatism is far more classical liberal than it used to be from the 1960's to about 2012. They are far more informed, and they are taking back control of the government. Even the RINO's like Mitch and Ryan are jumping on the nationalism bandwagon.
How can you have a nation (ie: nationalism) and be multicultural at the same time?
My thoughts on freedom and nation are the following:
Freedom cannot exist without power, or to be more exactly freedom is power.
This worlds power structure has it so that the many will always overpower the individual. Hence the need to form social contracts.
Members of the social contract transfer their miniscule individual power to the social contract, in exchange they expect the social contract to provide security, a regulated community and in general representation of interests.
The social contract also redistributes the collected power/freedom between the members in the form of rights/privileges and law.
This redistribution is the characteristic of a specific social contract and is what makes them different from each other.
Power is absolute. Values, virtues and laws become meaningless without power. They hold no value on their own. That means all enjoyed freedoms are nothing without the power of the collective, since they can neither be uphold nor defended.
The optimal society is therefore the one which wields the most power and not the one who grants the most freedom. Of course the two are more or less intertwined, since a society which grants their members absolutely no freedoms is not a very stable one and therefore not powerful.
The ideal society is the one which possesses the strongest collective, actively removing members that want to weaken it, but still guarantee a leadership that acts unreservedly on behalf of the nation.
This last part is the most critical one, since very centralized and authoritative societies often fall victim to a corruption of leadership.
And this last point is the one we have to think about.
How can you ensure the loyalty of the leadership of an authoritarian nation ?
Why do people give governments more credit than their worth?
Would you depend on a rulebook to win the game?
Of course not!
So why depend on the government to fix your problems?
What benefit do you have by genociding life?
Very well put.
An end to all suffering and all evil.
It is the morally correct thing to do.
>non-existence is preferable to a potentially bad existence
Get a load of this faggot.
>potentially
No, I measure it by freedom, law, and order, aka a Republic. Because there's no government in anarchism, who is going to run the police? It's just chaos.
I'm pro white, and against forced multiculturalism. I'm okay with limited immigration and a proper immigration system, including the wall.
Well according to David Irving, there were something like 1.4 million Jews killed and Hitler supposedly didn't know bout it, and the figure keeps going as low as 600,000 with revisionist history. I really don't know.
But natsoc is irrelevant. The white race has woken up to forced multiculturalism and it is going towards nationalism. Nationalism implies sound borders, and sound borders implies integration of non-whites. Notsac isn't needed.
Yeah I'm fine with limited immigration because the human species is one species, and we evolve together.
> Because there's no government in anarchism, who is going to run the police? It's just chaos.
I'll have my private security force protect you and all of your belongings 24/7 at a premium price.
>I'm pro white, and against forced multiculturalism.
You can't be pro-White and support any form of diversity or multiculturalism.
>I'm okay with limited immigration and a proper immigration system, including the wall.
So you think non-Whites have the right to exist in White nations?
>Well according to David Irving, there were something like 1.4 million Jews killed and Hitler supposedly didn't know bout it, and the figure keeps going as low as 600,000 with revisionist history. I really don't know.
So why do you believe everything else said about Hitler and WW2?
>But natsoc is irrelevant.
Because you don't want to consider it.
> The white race has woken up to forced multiculturalism and it is going towards nationalism.
You can't have Nationalism and non-Whites. Republicans and Conservatives don't care about the White race.
>Nationalism implies sound borders, and sound borders implies integration of non-whites.
And what makes you think non-Whites can integrate into White nations?
>Notsac isn't needed.
You don't want it because you don't want to be called a racist nazi.
>Yeah I'm fine with limited immigration because the human species is one species, and we evolve together.
And with that you've proven that you're anti-White.
>is a failure at life
>wants to destroy all life because of his failures.
lol
>and they want to bring in communism in the end.
It is true that some Antifa are communists, but many of them belong to other branches of socialism.
Anyone who has been a far-left site knows that the different branches of socialism bicker all the time. Stalinist/anarchist bickering is especially common. They are just willing to temporarily put their mutual antagonism aside in order to physically assault white separatists.
To be fair, I highly doubt that Antifa are going to succeed at implementing any kind of socialism. They may successfully intimidate white separatists, but they will also have to seize the means of production in order to implement any kind of socialism. Given that private corporations have the power of the state on their side, Antifa are clearly outgunned.
Antifa have only succeeded at destroying the reputation of socialism in the eyes of the general public. They've turned socialism into an edgy adolescent movement with no populist appeal … even though socialism, logically, cannot succeed without populist appeal.
>what do they do exactly?
Murder, occasionally.
>Both sides are fucking angry assholes. History moved on since 1945.
I agree.
We live in the age of the internet, and it's only going to grow from here. It's time for the Socratic method to come back. Political violence is no longer necessary. The people who think that political violence is still necessary are people who fail to see the connection between technological change and social change.