Only National Socialism can fix the white demographic situation in America...

So basically you’re perfectly fine with thebracial demographics of America and you want it to remain that way.

Makes sense. The NSDAP were experts in eugenics, idiot.

AGREE WE NEED TO PUSH BACK

Fascism is the overall term for the ideology. There are sub-sets of Fascism like Italian Fascism, or the Iron Guard of Romania or (maybe) Falangism. National Socialism was the German form of Fascism and it was much more race focused than the other ideologies.

>So basically you’re perfectly fine with thebracial demographics of America and you want it to remain that way.
user are you a /leftypol/ shill trying to make NatSocs look retarded or are you genuinely a fucking window-licker who is unable to read posts?

Attached: ae3e5169076ba0b6533a50ae7d0dbe50dcnvsra.jpg (684x1024, 488K)

Are you being intentionally stupid? user is clearly not advocating civnat cuckery. Learn to read or stop trolling

>The eternal Anglo tries to give a lecture of what National Socialism is

You played a role in destroying it.

Attached: 2DBF253A-80F7-465A-8C59-64A385DE54C4.png (500x389, 46K)

Please tell me what part of my post is wrong about National Socialism.
I've stated that it's a uniquely German ideology focused on the Aryan race with the goal of expanding eastwards for Lebensraum.

Attached: xdd.jpg (323x453, 19K)

Yes, it was created by Germans for Germans but literally every nation can adopt it as long as every nation is an ethnostate.

>The “Red” Pill has nothing to do with Republicans because they are “red”
nobody thought that was the case

What would you call me if I want America to be pure white. I am socially conservative, isolationist, America first. I think I'm economically right wing, however lately I'm not so sure. I dont believe in the free market as the paragon of existence, it is great but it isnt perfect. Globalism is the free market, no borders is the free market probably. I'm not foolish enough to believe I'm the smartest most clever person ever and utterly irreplaceable. As such I believe in protectionism. In an ethnically homogeneous society I would not be opposed to social safety nets, much the same way parents help their children from time to time, I'm okay with helping my countrymen assuming they share my blood. There is honor in work. Tradesmen literally build this country they shouldn't be despised as they are. I also believe profiting off of essential services can very easily be immoral. Landlords for instance. I read the manifesto for abolishing debt slavery and it sounded convincing. I've been watching videos about how the federal reserve and interest are evil. I'm not too sure of my economical beliefs because it isnt my training, my main belief is that race is of the utmost importance, you can change ideology you cannot reverse miscegenation. A leftist or libertarian can be converted, a mutt is forever. I guess I would say white nationalist first and foremost but with heavy fascist tendencies and in favor of social safety nets

Look how many are shilling for the Republican Party here. Do you even lurk?

we should all just abandon north america and each go back to which ever european place we came from..at least then we can say without a doubt, this is ours, GTFO niggers

No they can't because the core tenets are unique to Germany.

A nation can adopt the flag and the name, but they would have to change the actual meat of what makes up the idea of national socialism. For example you can't have national socialism in Sweden because there's not a massive amount of Ethnic swedish diaspora in the surrounding countries. You can have Ethnonationalism but that isn't synonymous with National Socialism. The United States pre-1960s was an Ethnostate of sorts, but it wasn't National Socialist.

An Ethnonationalist Social Democrat, I guess. Basically any ideology can be EthNat in nature.

I guess I'm confused why you're saying national socialism is uniquely German. Aryanism could be uniquely German, but why national socialism? If you're a nationalist I think you would naturally support some social things to help your extended family, ergo nationalist and socialist. Labels get confusing

i swear you are the only faggot that posts with that memeflag, your writing style is the same

why dont you make another thread about christianity and blather about like a spaz

Best news i’ve heard in months.

Attached: 598B2AE6-0FF3-4D3B-9B15-C6AE7BD3874B.jpg (271x400, 28K)

other anons can be the judge, but his cringeworthy and spastic posts plus the memeflag is pretty consistent with this thread a few days ago

Attached: ten principles of national socialist thought.png (1332x971, 188K)

Ah, you fell for the "National Socialism is Socialist" meme. It gets pretty confusing, its understandable.

National Socialism doesn't mean "Nationalist Socialists". Socialism is a specific Marxist ideology where the workers own the means of production. When Hitler talks about Socialism he's referring to his own version of Socialism, which you could call Aryanism based around the German "Volk"

The reason why National Socialism is unique to Germany is because its much more than just a safety net for Germans. It involves aggressive militarist expansion to unite the German diaspora in the East and to create "living space" to make way for German colonisation. All elements of society was geared around the idea of preparing for this, and the Hitler wanted a form of self-sufficiency where Germany didn't have to rely on foreign imports.

Obviously this simply wouldn't work if you were to drop it and make the "National Socialists of America" and its mainly why Rockwell's group had no defining features except White Nationalism and just copying the designs of the Nazis.

Attached: 1525457215171.gif (880x946, 3.93M)

Seems like we are missing one key compent.. hmmm..

Remember when Churchill killed a shit ton of soldiers bc of his stupid ass plans in WWI because he didn’t know shit and was a retard like u

Is Lieberman hoping to make another sacrifice?

You can apply the principles of national socialism to any race. If China or Mexico wanted to implement national socialist policies, they could do it.

Attached: 1524520043364.jpg (1224x1445, 125K)

youtube.com/watch?v=43B1J4smUBk
Forgot this

sargon of akkad, sephan molymemes. all of them are part of the tribe

read the fuck huge wall of text
National Socialism isn't just Ethnonationalism.

Also, by fighting the Axis instead of making peace he threw away the British Empire.

ok retard, what do I do as an individual to help a nazi uprising?
hitler was voted in, do you think a person running in america today, from the nazi party would win?

that's no meme it is a subbranch of socialism , in ideology but applies different in practies , only socialists denie it, because they need the enemy to be lead by the capital

>6 million
you've got to be fucking kidding me, but I know you're not.

realistically bro, an all white nation will have to contend with its citizens being NS to all sorts of crazy christian fundamentalist sects to larping pagans, and will have to make sure we all get along reasonable well, say reinforcing the fact that white is good, safe and healthy and non white is bad, dangerous and untrustworthy, that goes double for (((them)))

It's really not. It's a third-position and is neither Capitalist nor Socialist. The closest thing to National Socialism being Socialist were the Strasserists. NatSocs upheld private property, privatised a fuckload of businesses from banks to transportation and obviously hated class warfare.

Attached: 1530089329924.gif (500x549, 1.18M)

you retard the expansion of the soviet union was only a matter of time even non nazis saw this, and that's why even before the nazis came into power the reichswehr started to look into new military technologys and such,
but the situaton in politics made it impossible for the conservatives alone to start rearming germany to faith the comming war, and so they alleid with the nazis against the marxists who both saw as larger threat,
both in the country as well from sovietrussia.

surpringly , if you are not wel read in geostrategy, germany had an interest to have the border of military movement as far as possible in the east, so it could cut of the head of russian forces and then march deep into russian lands, and russia at the same time had an interest in having it's border as far west as possible which is an old russian doctrine, so in case of attacke the war would be fought not in the large plains where the enemy could out maneuvers the russian armys, but in the eversmaller getting end tip of the east europeanplain, where the enemy would have the back to the wal of mittegebierge which would complicate troop movements.

stalin had not thought about the nazis actualy taking into account these facts.

so roughly the german position would be drastically impoced by sharing poland(which could not been made a trustworthy alliefor germany as it seems) with soviet russia. as now the russians had their forces far in the west, which means their supplie lines were much longer and the german supplie lines were shorter for the bulk of the fighting , this lead to the axis powers basicly annihilating the soviet main forces.
and pushing the lines deep into soviet terretory just as planned.
large portions of soviet industry were destroyed. etc and if the nazis had not miscalculated and underestimated the support the soviets would get from the western allies soviet union might have been shattered by one powerful stroke.

and why this risky strategy?

i study history.
it literaly is, there were even marxists who worked together with jewish merxists etc who turned sides and then proclaimed the national socialism

fascism and natsoc are hegelian synthesis of socialism and nationalism, with the goal of overcoming marxism

>you retard the expansion of the soviet union was only a matter of time
Krautanon, it looks like you've put a lot of effort into your post and it was an interesting read but it's entirely pointless. I never claimed that the Soviets weren't planning to attack, just that the idea of expanding eastwards was a core idea of National Socialism.

>fascism and natsoc are hegelian synthesis of socialism and nationalism, with the goal of overcoming marxism
No, it wasn't. It wasn't in any way Socialist if you're going by the "workers owning the means of production" definition. The only way you could conceivably call it Socialist is going the route of saying they nationalised industries, which would be dumb because they were number one in Europe for privatisation with the term 'privatisation' literally being coined to describe the economic policy of Nazi Germany.

Attached: 000.jpg (500x500, 21K)

because germany was under no circumstances able to win a war of atrition with the soviets.
this is the reason they put working economics and such before their socialist ideals as they wanted to overcome the soviets first.

the nazis main goal since the drei jahresplan or the virjahresplan(i think it was actualy the second 3 jahresplan) was to overcome the threat of soviet russia.
and it was clear germany could not win a defensive war against the soviets due to lack of man power and resources.
also the german reservist system was paused during weimar for some years which further shortened the pool of troops to draw from.
germanys only possible shot at defeating the soviets was in an aggressive war starting as far as possible east.
in any other case over long or short the soviets who have shwon themselfs willing to expand, would have attacked first and very likely overcome a weakly armed germany,
also the russian new russian tanks that were used in the war were developed for a while and had a clear direction of being fast and relatively modern (even though the T34 was not as revolutionary as many think)

i am very sure that the soviets would have expanded rapidly on its own , even without the axis attacking them.
there are theories, i do not relie on for these mentioned views above, saying that the soviets were planning and actualy preparing a massive offenssive when the nazis attacked them in an preemptive strike, , i can neither veriefie that or denie it as i lake data about it.

yeah ofc it was a core idea russia had land given to germany in the treaty of brest livitosk, (or how it is spelled) what is wrong about claiming land that you rightfully own?

no i was not saying it was marxist socialist.
damn
it was socialist in: "the means of production will e used to further the goals and the wellbeing of the nation"manner

I'm not making a moral judgement on it or saying there's anything wrong with it. I'm saying its a core part of the ideology.

>it was socialist in: "the means of production will e used to further the goals and the wellbeing of the nation"manner
which I addressed after
>The only way you could conceivably call it Socialist is going the route of saying they nationalised industries, which would be dumb because they were number one in Europe for privatisation with the term 'privatisation' literally being coined to describe the economic policy of Nazi Germany.

Attached: 92f42e4c83f6a97db7e7fcfacffbb371.jpg (600x900, 175K)

>>muh civic nationalism
what
How did you get that from his post

still the state effectively controlled the major industries, by cooperation and reglementations.. damn...

btw the first few years went under a conservative policy not an necessarily all ideological one,
schacht was not a socialist. yes, but what he did was not the core ideology of the party.

bumping

pol needs to be a natsoc board again

Nationalism is good

Nationalism Socialism has been forever discredited due to the numerous war crimes committed by Nazi Germany especially against the Slavic peoples. We have to push for nationalism for all peoples. At the same time we have to acknowledge that the economic nationalism works.

Yes, the state controlled major industries. They also privatised many companies based off what they saw would be beneficial. Socialism doesn't just mean "public control" of something, otherwise the Russian Empire would be Socialist, or Britain during the World Wars. The idea of Socialism meaning government control of t
businesses is a recent, and in my opinion incorrect, definition of Socialism. Hitler certainly didn't define Socialism as that, instead choosing
>Whoever is prepared to make the national cause his own to such an extent that he knows no higher ideal than the welfare of the nation; whoever has understood our great national anthem, “Deutschland ueber Alles,” to mean that nothing in the wide world surpasses in his eyes this Germany, people and land — that man is a Socialist.
and
>Socialism is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism.The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists. Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution.

Attached: 1533755810113.jpg (750x1000, 43K)

The Hunger Plan was a warcrime as was the massacre of civilians as collective punishment for partisan activity. The fact that the Nazis knew invading the Soviet Union would result in millions of dead Slavic civilians from hunger alone should have stopped them from attacking and had them wait for a defensive war which could at least then be justified.

sure and then we made a quater of the fighting soldiers of the 6th army at stalingrad russian volunteers.
idk but this does not realy add up
i saw videos non propaganda soldiers filming with things like dead german corpeses burned out planes and tanks of germans,
where russian civilians were seeking shelter at a german PAK position.

how atricious and bad has your government to be that you decide to seek shelter at the defensive positions of an invading army?

and yes war prisoners were treated horribly, for one because there were no treatys and because germany had not the resources to feed so many capitves. as germanys food resources were already stretched and supplies in the east even worse.
as germany suffered vehicle loss and fuel shortages.
yes probably the kommandos killed uncountable.
but why? idk,
it seems to me things in the narratives do not allign perfectly
i guess there were differences between troops.

Anime gif originally posted from leftypol
You've been exposed faggot, now go back

well socialism is school of ideology, in which the purpose of the individual is to serve the community,
societas , means community,
any ideology putting large emphasis on the community is socialist.
marxism wanted a socialist community stage before then advancing towards real communism, you see it is rather a wordplay, to get different stages for them.

in national socialism the nation is the community on that the emphasis is layed. and yes it developed from socialist thought of the time,

the anthem of the germans is older than the nazis and their ideology,
it even precedes the marxist socialism.

Policies similar to national socialism, yes. We need explicitly nationalist, pro-white policies.
Actually calling it NatSoc is just larping and self-defeating. If Hitler himself saw people clinging to the vilified label rather than doing whatever got results, he'd be ashamed.

14 is far more important than the 88.

Artifiical wombs will potentially raise White fertility rates, and make it easier for autists to reproduce.

Attached: futureofwomen.jpg (1957x1296, 1.16M)

Its true.

Attached: Thepeoples.jpg (980x639, 89K)

Your posts read like a faggot shill who's never been on Jow Forums before trying to sound NatSoc, OP.
neck yourself

Maybe the optics have to change but the ideas are what is needed

Attached: socialistworkers.jpg (1368x1026, 235K)

>stalingrad russian volunteers.

Volunteers were actually fed food while many Russian POWs were left to starve.

>there were no treatys

Germany had ratified the Geneva convention which said that you can't starve people to death and you can't massacre civilians EVEN IF you are fighting a country that has not ratified the Geneva Convention like the USSR. We know that Germany knew about these clauses because for the most part in the West they stuck to the Geneva Convention with British and American POWs.

>germany suffered vehicle loss and fuel shortages.

Operation Barbarossa Planners knew in advance of the critical food and fuel shortages and it's documented that they predicted "x million Civilians" would die simply of starvation alone. They knew that and attacked anyway.

>but why? idk,

They killed civilians to attempt to ensure a compliant population and reduce partisan activity. But no population is going to be compliant while it is starving to death. Also massacres did more to increase partisan activity and it created sympathy for the Soviets who before the invasion most peasants hated.

fuck missclicked lost a complete fucking post.

ok marxism is socialism, there are a lsot of socialist concepts even communism is socialism in other words, but the commune is then as large as the world, etc. thomas morus utopia also resembled a socialist model as well as the diggers ideas, you do have to not let you fool by the inner marxist differentiation between marxism , the ideology, socialism, the seizing of the means of production, and communism the utopian society.

how would you else punish partisans? also what did the british do in ww1? whn they blocked the german food supplie with their fleet?

It's Katawa Shoujo you fucking brainlet newfag and I got it off /vg/.
>well socialism is school of ideology, in which the purpose of the individual is to serve the community
That's the etymology of the word "Socialism" but the ideology itself either means worker ownership of the means of production OR "government ownership" if you're a brainlet.
>any ideology putting large emphasis on the community is socialist
No, any collectivist ideology is not Socialist. That isn't how it works.
>in national socialism the nation is the community on that the emphasis is layed. and yes it developed from socialist thought of the time
They were collectivist in terms of Race and Nation, that doesn't make them Socialist.
>the anthem of the germans is older than the nazis and their ideology,
>it even precedes the marxist socialism.
I'm not sure how that's relevant.

Attached: 1451847894290.jpg (176x186, 17K)

Ah yes, the ideology that got millions of whites killed and made nationalism a taboo ideology. mhm

yeah read above the soviets would also invade the rest of europe in any case, russia was espansionist/the soviets were, in nature.
the soviets used russian civilians evidently as meat shields when mining and detonating towns and cities taken by the axis with civilians not evacuated and when refusing to evacuate civilians to motivate the soldiers to fight on instead of surrendering or falling back

user, I know Historical materialism and the advancement of Primitive Communism to Feudalism to Capitalism etc etc and I know about Thomas More having proto-Communist ideas in his book.

None of this has any bearing on the fact that Socialism is a very specific ideology and widening it to "public property" or just ""collectivisation" is pointless and means that pretty much every state in existence is now Socialist.

Attached: suu.png (444x499, 149K)

national socialism = paganism.

you fucking nerds need to understand the roots of our people.

>The fact that the Nazis knew invading the Soviet Union would result in millions of dead Slavic civilians from hunger alone should have stopped them from attacking

What kind of ass-retarded logic is this? The allies were more than willing to carpet bomb cities, and gave the green light to outright nuking every major city in Germany and Japan if it came to that. They had active policies for reprisals against civilians just as the Germans did. War is hell, no shit, but pretending like you should just give up whenever your nation is threatened because of innocents is simply going to encourage the snakes threatening you to keep doing it.

germany could in no circumstance win a defensive war against the UDSSR , in no way, germany had neither enough resources, soldiers or even reservist to win a war of atrition with the soviets.
which is why they lost in the end as the soviets were supported with transport and vehicles, fuel and supplies by the western allies which changed the fast strike into basicly a war of atrition.
major industrial centers of the UDSSR were already destroyed enclircled or cut off from the railsystem. many people also in the western allies expected the sovietunion to just collapse under the fatal blow of the axis powers, which also put everything on this bet as they overextended their supplie lines and were not equipped for a long war.
if the germans had waited what then? germany was not able to keep the level of militarisation up for a long time, which was why schacht was set back. and autarky was amde the new goal of the economy,
germany had a limited timeframe for its overdeveloped military to use,
they could not just wait. it was either now or never.
i wished it could have gone other wise, and a conservative german government may have reached a defense pact with the western allies but that seemed unlikely , they did not help poland despite such a treaty.
why should they help germany that they hated?and humiliated? .
for the time maybe there was no other way

>how would you else punish partisans?
By killing partisans and not innocent civilians. Also normally there is a trial, but the Barbarossa Decree in 1941 elimnated any trials and allowed officers to execute whoever they felt like executing. Those are war crimes according to the Geneva Convention.

>what did the british do in ww1? whn they blocked the german food supplie with their fleet

That was also a war crime that violated (ironically) the Decree of London which was an international treaty signed by all the major powers

etymology is connected to actual ideological developement you uneducated brit.....

they still fucking were socialist, brickwall...

they regulated the means of production for the goals they percieved necesaary for the wellbeing of the damn collective...

>not relevant idk you brought it into the discussion .

as far as i am concerned yes pretty much every western state is socialist. as there is redistribution of wealth, and varrieng degrees of state ownership/control over production.

why do you think the literal marxist want to defend"their" democracy?

how did you differentiate between partisans vietkong and civilians in vietnam?
dirty tactics get dirty answers

i know about london treaty and yet germans are accused of the mistreatment of soviets prisoners who had by no treaty rights as the soviet union refused to sign such treatys.
in war treatys most often mean jack shit.

>russia was espansionist

The only expansionist policy taken after 1920 that Russia took part in was done when it helped Germany invade Poland.

Carpet bombing civilian populations I believe was also a war crime.

> give up whenever your nation is threatened

Germany wasn't actually threatened by the USSR in 1941. In fact the USSR was supplying them with critical resources that allowed the invasions of Poland and France.

>germany could in no circumstance win a defensive war against the UDSSR

It couldn't win an offensive war that much is for sure. A defensive war might have been possible especially because the UK, France, US, etc would have been more willing to back up Germany. The whole reason the UK opposed breaking up Germany in 1919 was because it wanted a barrier against Russia.

>were supported with transport and vehicles, fuel and supplies by the western allies

When Germany was invading France, Poland, Yugoslavia, etc many of its critical resources came from the Soviets.

>why should they help germany that they hated?and humiliated

Before 1941 there were no friendly allied relations with the Soviets, in fact most foreign policy had been aimed to containing Russia, not Germany. In was only Germany aggression against Poland, with the aid of Russia that turned everyone against Germany.

>etymology is connected to actual ideological developement you uneducated brit.....
Barely nigger, the actual root word doesn't define how the ideology is used.
>they still fucking were socialist, brickwall...
Is Tsarist Russia Socialist?
>they regulated the means of production for the goals they percieved necesaary for the wellbeing of the damn collective...
Collectivism ISN'T socialism and neither is nationalisation.

>as far as i am concerned yes pretty much every western state is socialist.
So Tsarist Russia was Socialist? Britain during the World Wars was Socialist? Republican Rome was Socialist?

This is a fucking retarded definition, because it encompasses everything everywhere. If everything is socialist, nothing is.

Attached: 1541189244316.gif (512x512, 469K)

What was the Soviet-Polish War?
What is the Winter War?
What is the occupation of the Baltic States?

God damn, you are one dense fuck...

The US committed countless war crimes in Vietnam that's all been well established, the CIA Phoenix Program acted like the SS

Geneva Convention requires the signer to treat the POWs humanely even if the POW's nation hasn't signed the Geneva Convention.

>Winter War, Blatic States

Those were all done with the apparent approval of Germany after the Molotov-Ribbentrop Nazi-Soviet Pact. Russia also helped Germany dismantle Poland.

It seems disingenuous to worry about Soviet expansion when your state actively helped them invade other countries.

>root word does not define how ideology is used
never stated that as a general notion only true in this frame,
socialist ideology in their recent forms developed from the times of the french revolution and expanded egalitarianism etc...

>was tsarist russia socialist?
well did it act upon the notion of progressing towards a better society of some kind? where certain conflicts are then non existent?
usualy socialism has some form of egalitarianism which fascism and national socialism lacked to some degree, ...
damn stop being dense...

well the republic of rome, while not being anywher ein the context of modern socialist ideology, was certainly to somedegree fascistic,
as the overarching good of the res publica was put over the interests of the individuam.
yeah not in ideology but in practice.
britain was certainly becoming more socialist over time. as egalitarianism and restrictions on the economy were expanded.

problem is i here sure socialist to describe not the ideology well except with britain i could imagine there were socialist influences at work, like well labour.

on what purpose? being even easier overcome as the redarmy as priconers eat the german troops foodsupplie? if bullets weren't that expensive we might have shot them.

i already explained that germany needed to start the invasion more east under all circumstances

>well darn, looks like the republicans have failed us. should we look back to an older model of the republic and try there?
>nah let's install this foreign ideology that would completely undermine everything that our ancestors built and fought for.
>yes. hell fucking yes.

Germany is not my state nigger. You're saying that Russia's only expansionist policy was helping Germany invade Poland. Even though they were also trying to take the Baltic nations and Finland. Not even mentioning the fact that they tried taking Poland and failed in 1921. Having Europe in control of the puppet governments controlled by Russia was always their goal. And they semi-succeeded after they took down Germany and the western allies told them to fuck off.

>socialist ideology in their recent forms developed from the times of the french revolution and expanded egalitarianism etc...
Using the context of what Socialism meant THEN and what it means NOW we find that, using both definitions, the Nazis are lacking. pre-Marxist definitons of Socialism might have meant something different but those definitions don't matter for the current conversation.
>well did it act upon the notion of progressing towards a better society of some kind? where certain conflicts are then non existent?
So socialism is "Nationalising stuff with the intent of societal change for the purposes of creating a better society"?
As opposed to Nationalisation for Nationalisation's sake?
You must see how retarded this is.
>usualy socialism has some form of egalitarianism which fascism and national socialism lacked to some degree, ...
What. Are you arguing that National Socialism is Socialist or not?
>well the republic of rome, while not being anywher ein the context of modern socialist ideology
So its wrong to anachronistically apply socialist labels to Rome but A-ok to do it with Nazi Germany?
>problem is i here sure socialist to describe not the ideology
user we're having a fucking discussion about the ideology of Nazi Germany. What do you mean you're not using socialist to describe its ideology?

Attached: 1530412357205.jpg (1062x1500, 552K)

Imagine being so retarded you think concepts like Lebensraum can’t just be adapted to other ethnic nationalist nations. You’re an autistic moron user

How can the very specific ideas of Lebensraum, which related to annexing territory for the Germans and uniting German Diaspora in Europe after the first world war be achieved in a nation like Sweden where there is no Swedish Diaspora or the United States where its ethnic group is a mish-mash of simply "white"

One day the masses will wake up and realize the truth - that Hitler wasn't evil, he was the greatest White man of the 20th century and a visionary leader who was centuries ahead of his time. May God bless him!

Attached: hitlerwasright1.jpg (648x648, 93K)

hitler himself said lebensraum is the adaptation fo the american manifest destiny

So true op.....So true

Attached: 1537232409556.jpg (600x812, 166K)

your fate is sealed globalist kike

Attached: ss.png (318x499, 483K)

Beautiful picture. A reality I hope to see realized in my life time. There is nothing more beautiful than loving Aryan families living in peace and prosperity!

Attached: NSfamily.jpg (236x340, 21K)

ok you do not get it,

socialism developed, ok you can understand so far?
then based on socialisma split occured, and some socilists took some part of socialism and mixed it with something else.
and got fascism/natsoc.
it's like tetrapodes and mammals.
tetrapodes developed, and then some of them became mammals,
does the average tetrapode look like a mammal? overall no,
but is the average mammal a tetrapode? very certainly
you do understand??

well you fucking switch to ask if tsarist russia was socialist which is only possible in descriptive, but even then it is no

while we are argueing the case of national socialism/the nazi partys ideology
not nazi germany in general,
because the nazis never came to fully establish their ideals as, they deemed the threat of marxism (ironically one of their ideals on the other side) as more important.

also ideology does not directly translate into policy,
if we are talkin bout nazi germany we are talking about if the state fits the description,
not about if the ideology of the nazis is socialist.

i am argueing that the nazis were ideological socialists, even though the policys they enacted out of necassity were not always socialsitic.

make your mind up if you want to talk about national socialism, or nazi germanys actualy policys,

>anachronistic to label nationalsocialist germany socialist.
holy fuck.

>well communism did not acualy work out so the UDSSR could under no circumstance be called communist

that's your argument there.

inb4 alse equivalence,
it is because i am noch aiming at anachronistic but the general notion of being socialist.

anachronistic is retarded because socialism in its ideologically farm was already developed before the nazis and the natsoc ideology developed from it. like i said

No, we need absolute monarch.

NatSoc is deader than dead. It's a uniquely 20th century uniquely European ideology. It wouldn't work in the USA thats for sure