Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old June 22nd, 2011 #1
Hadding
Senior Member
 
Hadding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,247
Hadding
Default Is National-Socialism Transferable?

The underlying question is whether there is some essence to national-socialism beyond the mere aping of Hitler, some generally applicable principle or body of principles.


17 May 2011
National-Socialism Not for Export?



Sir Oswald Mosley, leader of the British Union of Fascists, as of 1938 was referring to his worldview as national-socialism.


Occasionally some sophomore, somebody hostile to national-socialist ideology, usually somebody wedded to liberal notions (by which I mean a so-called conservative), will argue that national-socialist ideas have no application outside of Germany, adducing as evidence some statement attributed to Adolf Hitler: "National-Socialism is not for export." Ipse dixit!

Isn't it interesting how these people who are basically hostile to our worldview, suddenly, when it suits them, treat Adolf Hitler as a man whose every casual word must be taken as an inviolable commandment? The assumption seems to be that there is no general idea, no substance in national-socialism, except to copy Adolf Hitler on every point.

Let us examine, however, what this statement, in its original context, must have meant.

In 1934 and 1935 Dr. Joseph Goebbels declared that National-Socialism was not for export, as part of an attempt to maintain positive relations with foreign governments, including that of the United States, that were concerned about the influence of National-Socialist Germany on their substantial German minorities. The dictum, "National-Socialism is not for export," was in the first place simply a piece of diplomacy to avoid conflict with foreign governments.

In 1942 when Hitler himself made essentially the same statement in the context of a private conversation, he gave an additional motive behind the position that would have been impolitic to state publicly:

I am firmly opposed to any attempt to export National-Socialism. If other countries are determined to preserve their democratic systems and thus rush to their ruin, so much the better for us. And all the more so, because during this same period, thanks to National Socialism, we shall be transforming ourselves, slowly but surely, into the most solid popular community that it is possible to imagine. [Hitler's Table Talk, entry for 20 May 1942]
Hitler was not saying that other nations could not apply national-socialism: on the contrary, the assumption was that neighboring European states, having adopted national-socialism, would become strong. Hitler was saying that it was simply not in Germany's interest to encourage nations that might eventually come into conflict with her to adopt national-socialism.

At the same time, however, Hitler did not say that Germany should attempt to stifle the development of national-socialism anywhere, only that Germany should not exert herself to bring about such a development. Let the other nations keep their liberal system if that's what they want.

As with many things, Hitler had not been entirely consistent in the application of this principle.

Where it was a question of a nation's becoming strong and nationalist or aligning with Germany's enemies, as in the case of Spain in the 1930s, Hitler provided the necessary assistance for the ideologically kindred forces to prevail.

Also, for a few years Hitler subsidized Sir Oswald Mosley, who as of 1938 was referring to his political creed as national-socialism. At that time Hitler was hoping to avoid conflict and even to have harmonious future relations with Britain as described in Mein Kampf, with Britain ruling the seas and retaining its empire while leaving hegemony on the European continent to Germany. When the war broke out, a plan to have Mosley broadcast to Britain from a transmitter on German soil had to be scrapped.

Ultimately, whether or not to attempt to export national-socialism seems to have been determined in each case based on whether it appeared likely to help or hurt Germany's security.

The statements of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Goebbels about national-socialism being "not for export" did not mean that other nations could not apply national-socialism, only that Germany would not attempt to make the world National-Socialist the way the Soviet Union worked at making the world Communist.

Last edited by Hadding; June 23rd, 2011 at 12:15 AM.
 
Old June 22nd, 2011 #2
Thomas de Aynesworth
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 3,752
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hadding View Post
Where it was a question of a nation's becoming strong and nationalist or aligning with Germany's enemies, as in the case of Spain in the 1930s, Hitler provided the necessary assistance for the ideologically kindred forces to prevail.
I see the German and Italian intervention in the Spanish Civil War as more of an expedient attempt to combat the proliferation of Marxist Socialist doctrine in the region (ie. Spain particularly and Western Europe generally) rather than an attempt to spread National-Socialism. Any other goal would be long term (laying the foundations) but even these would be secondary compared to the military and social crisis that would rise if the Nationalists were to fail there.
 
Old June 22nd, 2011 #3
Hadding
Senior Member
 
Hadding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,247
Hadding
Default Mosley's National-Socialism for Britain

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2aAlbScje4

Sir Oswald Mosley (1896 -1980) was the leader of the British Union of Fascists, and a friend of National-Socialist Germany. (He was also an hereditary baronet and fourth cousin of the mother of Queen Elizabeth II.)

The Westminster Gazette in the 1920s called Mosley "the most polished literary speaker in the Commons, words flow from him in graceful epigrammatic phrases that have a sting in them for the government and the conservatives. To listen to him is an education in the English language, also in the art of delicate but deadly repartee. He has human sympathies, courage and brains."

The original message was recorded by Mosley (without musical backing) in 1938. The original text appears below. Notably omitted from the musical adaptation is Mosley's reference to the national-socialist and also every specific reference to Britain.



Comrades in Struggle
Sir Oswald Mosley
(June 1938)


Brother Blackshirts, my comrades in the struggle:

Our fight is for the soul of Britain, and in that battle we go forward together till victory be won. Our struggle is hard, because we are fighting for something great, and great things are not lightly or easily gained. We are fighting for nothing less than a revolution in the spirit of our people. We must be worthy of our mission, for blackshirts are those who are summoned to lead the people to a new and a higher civilization.

The Blackshirt is a revolutionary dedicated to the service of our country. We must always possess the character of the true revolutionary. It is not the character that you observe in the little men of the old parties, blown hither and thither by every gust of transient opinion, elated by a little success, downcast by a little failure, gossiping and chattering about the prospects of the next five minutes, jostling for place, but not so forward in service, without loyalty, endurance, or staying power, Such a character is the hallmark of financial democratic politics. It is the opposite of the national-socialist.

In the true revolutionary, the first quality is the power to endure. Constancy, loyalty to cause and comrades, manhood, and stability of nature. These are the qualities of the true Briton, and the true revolutionary. In our movement that great character of the British has been reborn. And for that reason we carry within us the destiny of Britain. We care not whether we win tomorrow morning or at the end of a lifetime of labour and of struggle. For to us the little calculations of the little men mean nothing. All we care is that win we will because Britain demands it and no power on earth can hold down the will within us.

Struggles we have had and will have. Blows we have taken and will again. Victories we have had and will have again, yes greater victories than even Britons have ever known. Through good and ill we march on, till victory be won, for this is the character of the true revolutionary. In the great moments of supreme struggle and decision it is easy to hold that character, even in supreme sacrifice. It is not so easy in the hard daily task. It is then even more than in the great fights we have together that I would like to be the companion of every one of you. I would like to be with every action team that carries the message of our new faith to new streets. I would like to be with every man or woman doing the hard but vital job of giving leadership to the people in the block of houses for which they are responsible.

For these are the jobs that count. By the dedication of thousands to that mission of leading the people in their own homes and streets, revolution is won. In that task I cannot in body be with everyone of you every day. But in spirit I am with you alway*, because this work of the dedicated Blackshirt will win the Britain for which my whole spirit is given. Together in Britain we have lit a flame that the ages shall not extinguish. Guard that sacred flame my brother Blackshirts until it illumines Britain and lights again the path of mankind.

_______________________
* "... and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." Matthew 28:20, King James Bible.

Last edited by Hadding; June 23rd, 2011 at 12:04 AM.
 
Old June 23rd, 2011 #4
Hadding
Senior Member
 
Hadding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,247
Hadding
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas de Aynesworth View Post
I see the German and Italian intervention in the Spanish Civil War as more of an expedient attempt to combat the proliferation of Marxist Socialist doctrine in the region (ie. Spain particularly and Western Europe generally) rather than an attempt to spread National-Socialism.
That is what I said.

Furthermore, the establishment of a Spanish government friendly to Germany could be seen as giving a possible strategic advantage over France.

Last edited by Hadding; June 23rd, 2011 at 12:21 AM.
 
Old June 23rd, 2011 #5
vindicator06
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 262
Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hadding View Post
That is what I said.

Furthermore, the establishment of a Spanish government friendly to Germany could be seen as giving a possible strategic advantage over France.
Yes. North American Caucasians have our own unique set of circumstances that requires specific goals and applications of the National Socialist concept. Where do we go from here?
 
Old June 23rd, 2011 #6
Donald E. Pauly
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 4,130
Smile Chinamen Have Adopted National Socialism

It is not generally recognized, but the Chinamen have reduced National Socialism to an exact science. The reason that the Fuhrer, PBUH, did not want it exported, is because it is so powerful for nation states. National Socialism is adaptable to all races except the Jewish race. Zionism takes its place there.

Last edited by Donald E. Pauly; June 23rd, 2011 at 05:10 PM. Reason: typo
 
Old June 23rd, 2011 #7
vindicator06
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 262
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by Donald E. Pauly View Post
It is not generally recognized, but the Chinamen have reduced National Socialism to an exact science. The reason that the Fuhrer, PBUB, did not want it exported, is because it is so powerful for nation states. National socialism is adapable to all races except the Jewish race. Zionism takes its place there.
Very interesting observation!
 
Old July 30th, 2011 #8
Hadding
Senior Member
 
Hadding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,247
Hadding
Default

Apparently some variant of the "not for export" statement is attributed to Adolf Hitler in the fraudulent Hitler-Bormann Documents.

Greg Johnson stepped in it, not only by quoting from a fraudulent source but by giving an interpretation of "not for export" that is blatant off-the-cuff speculation reflecting no research:
“The National Socialist doctrine, as I have always proclaimed, is not for export. It was conceived for the German people” (Hitler-Bormann Documents, Feb. 21, 1945). What he means is that the ideas behind National Socialism may be universally and eternally true, but the National Socialist movement — its political platforms, symbolism, and other external trappings — are the products of a particular time and place.
Thus spake Greg Johnson. Piled higher and Deeper, yes.

Last edited by Hadding; July 30th, 2011 at 06:32 AM.
 
Old July 30th, 2011 #9
P.E.
Geriatric Coalburner
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,825
P.E.
Default

I do not endorse it myself (not wholesale, perhaps certain aspects). However, I'll say this much as a spectator:

When you consider that the masses today are hostile to a pair of words, 'National Socialism', merely because they've been told such is 'evil' by an authority figure, and the questioning of why exactly it is evil, what particular aspects of it as an ideology, if any, are 'good', possible to extract from any discard any that may be undesirable, is never even on the table; this is all very dismal. Many just automatically point to the 'Holocaust', in their humanist ways.

The masses today, even the so-called educated ones out of 'higher-learning', were you to ask them, will simply blanket all of it with 'evil'.

Yet we claim to live in an era where 'God is Dead', the age of Gods, those ideas of 'always good without question', but somehow, we've allowed ourselves to be graced by'always evil without question' devils, who truly do shackle our conscience and pure intentions, and make us believe we are 'evil'.

Well, if any man believes his thinking or actions are evil, he will indeed become only more sickly.

At least the previous mysticisms were healthier.

These people today completely disavow the fact that their ancestors went to other lands, killed and conquered for the sake of their own, against other peoples in the world who were of little or no threat. These people never read Homer, or Thucydides, or any of that era when 'the west' was glorious and expanding.

They call the Greek and Roman militarism evil, whilst sipping their fucking $8 frothy coffee, wearing their made in china faggoty thick-framed black glasses. Or is this all just the cowardly charade of the age of nuclear weapons, where all who would've been warriors and leaders, all who would've pushed for meaningful things in the world in previous ages, now resign their natural ambition, to instead just make some money and get high on random bullshit put in front of them?

And people wonder why we live in an era of the 'flip-flop', where everyone you know is pursuing a new interest every time you see them; they never stick to anything. Maybe because they see it as meaningless today?

In all honesty, the only meaningful thing worth being ambitious about today would probably be playing stock markets as the only remaining 'field of battle' where you could feel some sort of a high in life, since our age is one where everyone in the world looks at everything they see in its value (how often is the immediate mental question arose "how much did that cost?", rather than "what is that worth?" Be honest!). If this were not the case, then why do people oooh and ahh about rather useless shit that is highly-priced or supposedly scarce?

But why even play that battlefield? To tell what great tale? For what great glory? There is no nobility in playing the stock market, no nobility in economics, as much as all of the proponents want to advocate such. Most people will just think you're an asshole. Maybe there is another bit of glory left: that of being among the 1% of people who carry a healthy and radiant body, a strong clear mind, who appear free of all of the modern shackles of bullshit morality, materialism, politics, etc. A true relic of the great men of the past, but even greater, a man who has dodged the bigger boulders of the present to enrich himself on the greater possibilities. No, that's certainly less than 1%. And even then, for what? In the eyes of those around you, you are quickly dethroned the second a nigger football player in a lamborghini with his white mudshark cheerrleader pulls up. At least though, you can feel healthy, enjoy good women when you choose and on your terms, and have the company of your obviously small circle of true friends you've managed to find in that small category, maybe with some well-cooked food.

At least our era is still privy to that! Two or three generations from now, at this rate, won't be able to have a nice backyard meal without great possibility of a swarm of niggers charging in like a football team, or listening to your nigger neighbors music interrupting (many already deal with this, yet it is their fault, as they would not rather fight and possibly die for a more peaceful, nay, cheerful-when-not-fighting! existence).

Due to Christianity, they suffer from needing good reason to expand. They must ask 'did they attack us'? and even then, they only consider being attacked in the immediate physical sense of a weapon in front of you.

A wise man once said on governing: "There are those who govern because they enjoy the power of governing. Then there are those who do so as not to be governed. The latter choose the lesser of two evils".

'Whites' today, for the first time in history, completely disavow either position. They walk as nervous little children on the streets, not in care of what adults govern them, so long as they can still get out their chalk and play hop scotch for a few minutes out of the day before the adults TELL THEM WHAT TO DO! And even worse, these children are such non-thinkers today, that they even need the adults to instruct them as how to play hop scotch; meaning, they get their culture, their entertainment, from others.

This is a testament to an unprecedented age of non-thinking. It is either out of fear/tyranny (much like any other form of historical heresy), or simply out of lack of caring about the positions you hold, because you ascribe most of your positions from others rather than walking your own path.

If the status of the men who are the remnants of the west are of the latter so much that they only see themselves as lifelessly floating, picking up this and that as it comes to them, out of control of their own destinies and seeing everything as 'chance', then that is very difficult to reverse without something very drastic happening (historically speaking, as far as I can see).

Peoples through history seem much like the common Christmas snow globe, needing a genuine shake-up to restore the animation, LIFE!; and perhaps in this case, if not shaken soon enough, the snow sets, permanently.



And so much as we'd all like to point to this and that trivial nicety of the so-called 'NS phenomenon', the fact of the matter is that those people had their pride and belief in their pride shattered when that very generation's thinking men went from what they were in the late 1800's and very early 1900's, to post-Versaille Germany.

In a word, they still had the mental fortitude to say "why should we suddenly be someone else's bitch?"

And how can a white ask that today?! Especially born in America! Especially with few or none of the great classics being inherited through their eyes and into their blood! They weed those great books out of academia because they show how great Europeans are from the rest of the GARBAGE OF THE WORLD! They - unlike the German who felt a jump from a hot bucket to a cold bucket pre/post WWI - grow up feeling a much slower slide into a cold bucket, in reality BORN IN A COLD BUCKET!, which is only getting colder, until it is frozen.

These hypocritical 'peaceful and good whites' are really the most immoral, evil, cruel criminals in history, willingly bringing more of their own kind into a world of slavery and anarchy. Fighting, and all whites even dying out, would be more benevolent than such a slow dragging agony downhill.

Last edited by P.E.; July 30th, 2011 at 11:16 PM.
 
Old July 31st, 2011 #10
Greg Johnson
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 138
Default

Hadding, the reading of that passage from the Hitler-Bormann documents that I offered is perfectly consistent with the context in which it appears IN THE HITLER-BORMANN documents.

You really have a lot of face, little man, to accuse me of making an uninformed and speculative use of that quotation while you yourself are taking it out of its context.

Hadding, I have tried to deal with you in a collegial and civil manner, but it appears that you are worse than a pedantic detail-stickler who gets off on playing "gotcha." No, this proves that you are a dishonest little smear-monger.

But please, go ahead, do all the fact-checking and fly-specking you want. It only makes my work stronger.

The only thing that matters to me is whether there are white people on this continent 200 years from now. Given that goal, one of the smaller prices I have to pay will be occasionally witnessing your pusillanimous joy at finding egg on my face.

Interestingly enough, that passage was pointed out to me by the Dr. Pierce as "scriptural" corroboration of his belief that it is a mistake for National Socialists in the US to cleave too close to the external symbols, platforms, and strategies of the NSDAP.

But in the end, nothing depends on the genuineness of that particular quote. For the idea that it was adduced to support is reasonable and defensible in and of itself.
 
Old July 31st, 2011 #11
Greg Johnson
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 138
Default

Furthermore, the claim that the Hitler-Bormann documents are spurious rests on David Irving's claim that Francois Genoud admitted to him that he made them up. Excuse me if I need more evidence than David Irving's word. I would need to know a lot more about Genoud and also about Irving's dealings with him before taking Irving's claim at face value.
 
Old August 1st, 2011 #12
Hadding
Senior Member
 
Hadding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,247
Hadding
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Johnson View Post
Furthermore, the claim that the Hitler-Bormann documents are spurious rests on David Irving's claim that Francois Genoud admitted to him that he made them up.
Also from David Irving: "Bormann's own diary published by the Soviet author Lev Bezymenski establishes that he was not even present on some of the evenings concerned."

So it's not just David Irving's word.

Last edited by Hadding; August 1st, 2011 at 07:57 AM.
 
Old August 1st, 2011 #13
Hadding
Senior Member
 
Hadding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,247
Hadding
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Johnson View Post
Hadding, the reading of that passage from the Hitler-Bormann documents that I offered is perfectly consistent with the context in which it appears IN THE HITLER-BORMANN documents.

You really have a lot of face, little man, to accuse me of making an uninformed and speculative use of that quotation while you yourself are taking it out of its context.
What makes you think that I am a little man?

The context of the "Hitler-Bormann Documents" is bogus. It's François Genoud's interpretation of Hitler.

You didn't even need context to arrive at your inane interpretation. It's exactly the interpretation that any uninformed person would invent extemporaneously without context. It's the kind of exegesis that a beauty-pageant contestant would give.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Johnson View Post
Hadding, I have tried to deal with you in a collegial and civil manner, but it appears that you are worse than a pedantic detail-stickler who gets off on playing "gotcha." No, this proves that you are a dishonest little smear-monger.

But please, go ahead, do all the fact-checking and fly-specking you want. It only makes my work stronger.

The only thing that matters to me is whether there are white people on this continent 200 years from now. Given that goal, one of the smaller prices I have to pay will be occasionally witnessing your pusillanimous joy at finding egg on my face.
You're a Covingtonista. I noted how you conducted your so-called debate on Covington's Folly. You are quite biased toward the wrong side in that matter, which is really a defining issue, truth vs. lying. That's why I don't post on your blog anymore. You are okay with lying. I am not.

I don't think it's true that my criticism has made your work stronger. That would be true if you had abided by your initial response of acknowledging error and excising the quote. Your ultimate response, as I observe, has been to reinstate and expand the quote from the discredited source while suggesting that David Irving may not be credible. Mark Weber treats Irving's finding as authoritative. You further damage your own credibility by showing resentment toward criticism and clinging to your careless mistake.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Johnson View Post
Interestingly enough, that passage was pointed out to me by the Dr. Pierce as "scriptural" corroboration of his belief that it is a mistake for National Socialists in the US to cleave too close to the external symbols, platforms, and strategies of the NSDAP.
At least from 1993 until Dr. Pierce's death, National Vanguard Books never sold the so-called Hitler-Bormann Documents, also called The Testament of Adolf Hitler, although I remember that Angriff Press sent a couple of complimentary copies along with a case of other books when I was there in the early 1990s. Since it was a small and inexpensive book I think Dr. Pierce would have sold it if he had thought it was both authentic and important as you suggest. Irving's criticism was already published in 1983. I think Dr. Pierce must have known that the book was bogus or at least dubious for a long time before you met him (sometime in the 1990s I assume), and he was careful about such things. I doubt that he really referred to it as you claim.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Johnson View Post
But in the end, nothing depends on the genuineness of that particular quote. For the idea that it was adduced to support is reasonable and defensible in and of itself.
To say that people shouldn't dress up in SA uniforms from 1920s Germany if they want to be taken seriously in 2010s USA is just obvious.

Since the quote is irrelevant to the overall purport of your essay -- indeed all content dependent on it is contained within one paragraph -- I think you just tossed it in to lend some authority to your pontificating. You needed to give at least one Hitler quote to make the reader believe that you really knew Hitler's works. You just happened to pick one that was spurious, so that it ended up having the opposite of the intended effect.

I imagine that bullshitting like that works for you most of the time.

Last edited by Hadding; August 1st, 2011 at 11:33 AM.
 
Old July 26th, 2012 #14
Hadding
Senior Member
 
Hadding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,247
Hadding
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hadding View Post
At least from 1993 until Dr. Pierce's death, National Vanguard Books never sold the so-called Hitler-Bormann Documents, also called The Testament of Adolf Hitler, although I remember that Angriff Press sent a couple of complimentary copies along with a case of other books when I was there in the early 1990s. Since it was a small and inexpensive book I think Dr. Pierce would have sold it if he had thought it was both authentic and important as you suggest. Irving's criticism was already published in 1983. I think Dr. Pierce must have known that the book was bogus or at least dubious for a long time before you met him (sometime in the 1990s I assume), and he was careful about such things. I doubt that he really referred to it as you claim.
I see that Greggy has now published his reminiscences about Dr. Pierce on his blog. He only found out who Dr. Pierce was in 2000, and that was only because he happened to be researching Savitri Devi. Bringing along Michael Polignano, Greggy visited Dr. Pierce for several hours at the National Alliance headquarters on a weekend in 2001 for the purpose of interviewing Dr. Pierce about Savitri Devi. He says that the tape-recording of the interview disappeared, He also never joined the National Alliance.

The important point is that 2001 is WAY after the early 1990s when I was packing books and learned that NVB didn't sell the so-called Hitler-Bormann Documents because it was known to be a fraud, and it's WAY WAY past the date when the fraud was exposed. I am confirmed in my view that Greggy's claim, that Dr. Pierce referred to that book as authoritative when he met him (in 2001), is simply a lie.

Last edited by Hadding; July 26th, 2012 at 02:19 AM.
 
Old July 26th, 2012 #15
Mr A.Anderson
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 4,481
Default

I've had some interesting conversations about NS. Up until about a year ago, I was completely against the notion, and as you've pointed out, blanketed National Socialism under the concept of evil. I seriously blame the US educational system for this. Over time, my perception of NS has changed somewhat. While I don't consider myself a "pure" NS type, I really do believe/want several of the things that is has to offer.

I think there's much confusion on the differences between National Socialism and Marxist Socialism/Communisim. They are NOT the same thing - not even remotely close. About the only similarity is the word "socialism".

I was a hardcore "evil capitalist" as I called myself - who was vehemently against National Socialism. I have learned differently as time went by and I actually educated myself on what NS really is.

In America - ESPECIALLY America - our educational system has purposely demonized National Socialism because of the Anti-NS feelings towards NS Germany during WWII. The propaganda machine of the government was in full swing to demonize everything about the opposition during war - to include their basic way of life. To go back on that after that after the war would have exposed the propaganda for what it was. Enter Marxist Socialism - and NS has been falsely represented and misunderstood for over half a century in America.

I have found that there are many similiarities between a capitalist economic system and a NS political system.

In a modern National Socialist Government you can:

1. Own your own property
2. Own your own business
3. Can get extremely wealthy off the sweat of your own brow
4. Own firearms
5. Not be taxed to death - tax rates are similiar to those in the US in many cases. **NS gov has higher flat rate taxes - but the US hides the majority of it's taxes in everyday products and excise tax unbeknownst to the people**

I really suggest people - especially Americans - really educated themselves on the differences between National Socialism as a political vehicle and Capitalism as an economic system. I cannot say this enough....

National Socialism is NOT Marxist Socialism / Communism.

I think the biggest philosophical difference between the two forms (NS vs Cap US ) is in the US Cap style, we are slaves to the government - fighting for ways to constantly break free of the governments oppressive taxation and redistrobution of weath to parties and citizenry that we don't believe deserves it. In a NS style governmnet - we work with the government - and it us - to provide a better atmosphere /infrastructure/GNP for the citizens WE choose.

In an NS style we are loyal to the conscept of nation, and the government loyal to us and our desires.

In the US style - we are loyal to the dollar, and the government is loyal to itself and the propegation of it's power over us.

In a nutshell, or am I completely off base?

What I want:

1. A free market enteprise that can compete on a global scale that offers competative wages to it's employees, has investment opportunities for it's employees (shareholding), puts out quality products that are in demand, and is NOT allowed to outsource it's jobs and manufacturing. Made in the USA.

2. The ability to have home ownership and property rights without paying almost 3-4 times it's worth in interest over the life of the loan (a typical truth in lending statement indicates you will pay almost $250,000 for an $80,000 home over a 30 year mortgage). A man's home is a man's castle.

3. The right to own and bear firearms.

4. To be taxed on money earned only once.

5. A responsible government that represents the (racial) interests and will of the people. Putting our nation's well being above and forward of any other nation. Clear cut and definitive term of service for ALL politicians. No career politicians EVER again.

6. A system that will put our own people back to work, demand it. No welfare for free loaders - no welfare state - systems in place to train citizens without skills to fill critically needed employment positions the nation needs.

7. A system that encourages and rewards business ownership, allowing a citizen to grow their business to it's full potential (within National Business Guidelines - see #1).

8. A system that will utilize our own natural resources to their fullest extent to wean ourselves off of foreign dependency, and create more job opportunities to develop our resources right here at home.

9. A system that will have fail safes in place so all citizens have the skills and opportunities to be productive members of society, and also ensure that, (in well defined and limited) times of dire need, citizens can be given a "hand up" as opposed to a "hand out".


I'm not a politcal science major, I'm not a student of history or economics. I'm an average and simple man with average and simple desires.

So, what would I be described as?
 
Old July 26th, 2012 #16
Donald E. Pauly
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 4,130
Smile Simplified National Socialism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr A.Anderson View Post
.......
In a nutshell, or am I completely off base?

What I want:

1. A free market enteprise that can compete on a global scale that offers competative wages to it's employees, has investment opportunities for it's employees (shareholding), puts out quality products that are in demand, and is NOT allowed to outsource it's jobs and manufacturing. Made in the USA.

2. The ability to have home ownership and property rights without paying almost 3-4 times it's worth in interest over the life of the loan (a typical truth in lending statement indicates you will pay almost $250,000 for an $80,000 home over a 30 year mortgage). A man's home is a man's castle.

3. The right to own and bear firearms.

4. To be taxed on money earned only once.

5. A responsible government that represents the (racial) interests and will of the people. Putting our nation's well being above and forward of any other nation. Clear cut and definitive term of service for ALL politicians. No career politicians EVER again.

6. A system that will put our own people back to work, demand it. No welfare for free loaders - no welfare state - systems in place to train citizens without skills to fill critically needed employment positions the nation needs.

7. A system that encourages and rewards business ownership, allowing a citizen to grow their business to it's full potential (within National Business Guidelines - see #1).

8. A system that will utilize our own natural resources to their fullest extent to wean ourselves off of foreign dependency, and create more job opportunities to develop our resources right here at home.

9. A system that will have fail safes in place so all citizens have the skills and opportunities to be productive members of society, and also ensure that, (in well defined and limited) times of dire need, citizens can be given a "hand up" as opposed to a "hand out".

I'm not a politcal science major, I'm not a student of history or economics. I'm an average and simple man with average and simple desires.

So, what would I be described as?
To a first approximation, you have reduced the 25 Points of National Socialism to nine. They in turn may be reduced to the one overriding principle which is little known. From thence sprang all of National Socialism. It did not sit well with Wall Street Jews.

Quote:
Abolition of income unearned by work
 
Old July 26th, 2012 #17
Rick Ronsavelle
Senior Member
 
Rick Ronsavelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,006
Rick Ronsavelle
Default

That'z the Labor Theory of Value from jew Karl Marx. Adopted by the not-sees.

It is true that this marxian theory is the basis of socialism. (Along with magical thought and the usual variants of unreason).

2 Thessalonians 3:10 - Online Parallel Bibble

That if any would not work, neither should he eat

 
Old July 26th, 2012 #18
P.E.
Geriatric Coalburner
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,825
P.E.
Default

Whenever I see a white trying to imitate Hitler and the Nazi's wholesale, I feel uneasy.

It is the Asiatics who are the copy-cats (knockoffs of everything from iPad's to architecture) and maze-rats (look how they live, so 'equal', so clustered like rats).

If you are going to borrow the brilliant work of your distant relatives, at least do like the emerging Romans did with the declining Greeks in stealing their religion and renaming some things.
 
Old July 27th, 2012 #19
Donald E. Pauly
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 4,130
Smile Comparisons to Communism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Ronsavelle View Post
That'z the Labor Theory of Value from jew Karl Marx. Adopted by the not-sees.

It is true that this marxian theory is the basis of socialism. (Along with magical thought and the usual variants of unreason).

2 Thessalonians 3:10 - Online Parallel Bibble

That if any would not work, neither should he eat

I have never read that quote in Communism. The Communists were famous for this quote.

Quote:
From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.
The Jews love to be in a position to determine the production quota and their share of it. This is not the same thing as the Nazi quote. They might indeed have gotten it from the Bible.
 
Old October 4th, 2012 #20
Albert Smith
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 6
Albert Smith
Default

Devi, Rockwell, Tyndall, Jordan and others issued the following declaration in 1962 for the World Union of National Socialists to give a basis for post-war NS around the world. The essence of NS can be applied in any country and adapted to the national culture.


COTSWOLD DECLARATION OF 1962

I. WE BELIEVE that an honest man can never be happy in a naked scramble for material gain and comfort, without any goal which he believes is greater than himself, and for which he is willing to sacrifice his own egotism. This goal was formerly provided by fundamentalist religions, but science and subversion have so weakened all traditional religions, and given man such an unwarranted, short-sighted conceit of his "power over Nature", that he has in effect become his own God. He is spiritually lost, even if he will not admit it. We believe that the only realistic goal which can still lift man out of his present unhappy selfishness and into the radiance of self-sacrificing idealism is the upward struggle of his race, the fight for the common good of his people.

II. WE BELIEVE that society can function successfully, and therefore happily, only as an ORGANISM; that all parts benefit when each part performs the function for which it is best suited to produce a unified, single-purposed whole, which is then capable of out-performing any single part, the whole thus vastly increasing the powers of all the cooperating parts and the parts, therefore, subordinating a portion of their individual freedom to the whole; that the whole perishes and all of the parts suffer whenever one part fails to perform its own function, usurps or interferes with the function of another part, or like a cancer devours all the nourishment and grows wildly and selfishly out of all proportion to its task.

III. WE BELIEVE that man makes genuine progress only when he approaches Nature humbly, and accepts and applies her eternal laws instead of arrogantly assuming to ignore and conquer Nature, as do the Marxists with their theories of the supremacy of environmental influence over the genetic truth of race, special laws of biological equality for humans only, and their insane denial of the primitive and fundamental human institution of private property.

IV. WE BELIEVE that struggle is the vital element of all evolutionary progress and the very essence of life itself; that it is the only method whereby we have won and can maintain dominion over the other animals of the earth; that we must therefore welcome struggle as a means of testing and improving us, and that we must despise weaklings who run away from struggle. We believe that life itself is awarded by Nature only to those who fight for it and win it, not those who wish or beg for it as a "right."

V. WE BELIEVE that no man is entitled to the services or the products of the labor of his fellow men unless he contributes at least an equal amount of goods or services of his own production or invention. We believe that the contribution by a member of society of nothing else but tokens called "money" is a fraud upon his fellows, and does not excuse a man capable of honest work of his responsibility to PRODUCE his share.

VI. WE BELIEVE that it is to the advantage of society to see that every honest man has freedom and opportunity to achieve his maximum potentials by preserving his health, protecting his from unforseeable and ruinous catastrophes, educating him to capacity in the areas of his abilities, and guarding him against political and economic exploitation.

VII. WE BELIEVE that Adolf Hitler was the gift of an inscrutable Providence to a world on the brink of Zionist -Bolshevik catastrophe, and that only the blazing spirit of this heroic man can give us the strength and inspiration to rise, like the early Christians, from the depths of persecution and hatred, to bring the world a new birth of radiant idealism, realistic peace, international order, and social justice for all men.

THESE SEVEN PRINCIPLES are the rock of our faith. With them, we shall move the world. The political party program we adopt, based on these principles, can and will change as events and facts change, as we discover better methods. But these seven principles are fundamental, absolute, and timeless truth. They will not change. We bind ourselves permanently and without reservation to these ideals, and the battle to establish them as the only scientific and realistic basis for human society.
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:29 AM.
Page generated in 0.19955 seconds.