Fascism/Nazism

	First and foremost, fascism is an economic system in which a nation’s government plays a central role in monitoring all banking, trade production, and labor activity within the nation. Such monitoring is done for the sole purpose of safeguarding & advancing the nation and its people. Under fascism, the government will not approve of any business activity unless that business has a positive impact on the nation as a whole and the people of the nation–this is the axiom which determines everything within the economic aspect of fascism.
	In other words, the government asks, “Is XYZ Enterprises good for our nation and our people?” If yes, it’s approved. If no, it’s not approved. When they ask, “Is it good?” they mean, “Is XYZ Enterprises good for the workers–do they pay a fair wage; do they produce a product or provide a service which advances our nation & our people technologically, morally, spiritually, health-wise, etc?” For example, a pornography company would not be allowed because pornography corrupts people generally and exploits & degrades women particularly. Also, “free” trade agreements–such as what the US has with China–would never be allowed, because such trade agreements result in companies sending jobs overseas where labor is dirt cheap. Such an activity, of course, would undermine a nation’s labor class. This is entirely unacceptable and thus not allowed under a fascist economic model.
	Fascism is based on free enterprise, but with constraints–the primary being “Is the economic activity in question good for our nation/people?” Also, a businessman can become wealthy in a fascist country, and the government has no objection to this–in stark contrast to communism. Fascism also encourages private ownership of property–communism, of course…
	In a nutshell, fascism basically tells entrepreneurs, “Go ahead and start a business, earn a lot of money, and be successful. Don’t produce any products or services which damage our nation or its people. Make sure you treat your workers fairly and pay them a living wage. If you don’t follow these rules, we’ll shut you down.” With regard to banking, usury is not allowed under fascism. The government tightly controls all aspects of monetary policy, including terms of lending. The government issues/prints money and lends it, interest-free, as needed to grow the economy and ultimately serve the citizens.
	The above is the economic aspect of fascism. There is also a cultural/social aspect to fascism. Under fascism, government plays a key role in monitoring film, theatre, art, literature, music, education, etc. in order to maintain a high moral standard, keep things clean and respectable, promote a strong sense of patriotism and honor, and prevent the dissemination of depraved filth which corrupts society. 	With regard to legislation introduced by a fascist government, the same criteria is applied. “Will this proposed law benefit the nation as a whole and the people thereof?” A few other things to mention. Fascism encourages respect for the environment, as fascists understand that nature is the giver of life and thus must be preserved. Contrast this environmental philosophy with that of capitalism, which too often takes a short-term view of natural resources and sometimes believes that pollution is a necessary byproduct of profit. Also, and somewhat related to environmental issues, fascism holds very progressive views regarding animal rights. Also, under fascism, if a person doesn’t like the environment, he can leave the country. Under communism, of course, if you don’t like things you’d better keep your mouth shut. And there is no option to leave the country. You will submit or else be sent to a reeducation camp, where you’ll be brainwashed to accept the Communist system. If you still resist, you’ll probably be killed. Submit or suffer the consequences.
	Further, fascism holds women in very high regard. Women are the carriers of new life. They are expected to be educated, worldly, and well-read. Women are encouraged to pursue their interests and have a career, but only if it won’t interfere with their family’s needs. Family comes first. Always. Women are encouraged to be strong, yet feminine. Consistent with these ideas, fascist art often portrays women as heroic and even goddess-like.
	In short, fascism is a governmental & social system which authentically serves the interests of the people and nation as a whole. The word ‘fascism’ comes from the Italian word fascio, meaning “the group” or, more specifically, “in consideration of the group.” Fascism is rooted in the notion that people must stay true to two mental concepts throughout their lives: 1) the individual’s needs (themselves) and 2) the group’s needs (their nation), always evaluating how their individual actions affect the group. Thus, fascism rejects the self-centered mentality so common under capitalism. In a fascist nation, each person is expected to maintain a healthy diet & lifestyle. If they do not, they may become seriously ill and thus require expensive healthcare. This would negatively impact the group (i.e., they’d become a financial burden on the nation).
	Continuing this line of thought, under fascism, all people of one’s ethnicity are considered the greater family of that person. Hence a fascist nation is thought of as one giant family of several million people. Therefore, just as one mustn’t do anything to hurt their brother or sister in their immediate family, one mustn’t do anything which would hurt the nation/group. This is the essence of fascism–a strong consideration of the group balanced with individualism. During the German Third Reich, the NSDAP followed all aspects of the above system. All copied from immigration-globalization.blogspot.com

~:~

	Were the economic system of the world to be made right–were it that success in improving your nation’s standing through some tangible contribution be equally rewarding on a personal level–I would love the rich. As it stands, the best way to advance yourself personally in the short term is to dismantle your country in the long term, and thus the rich tend toward being monsters, with some few exceptions. Monsters before gaining wealth, too, but even more monstrous after having obtained it and in their use of it.
	A proper nation would see scientific advancement, cultural contributions that don’t subvert the nation and make it tend toward globalism or national self-doubt, and industrial development inside the nation be the most short and long term rewarding ways to live. If you give your people honest and meaningful work that they can be proud of, you deserve wealth. If you can bring new spins on old ideas that glorify the nation in its own eyes and make the nation’s people content, or teach them the old ways and make them aware, you deserve wealth. If you push the nation’s capabilities for defense, improve the nation’s quality of life or other such technological strides, you deserve wealth. On the other hand, if your primary impact on the nation is to sow discontent for personal gain, reduce the amount of room for the nation to grow by taking away its livelihood, or use the nation’s resources to decrease its bargaining position with those other nations that are not its allies, you deserve to have varying levels of your ass beat legally or financially based on severity. Not because they have obtained money in the pursuit, but because they have sacrificed their people to do so.
	NatSoc and wealth are very compatible, even NatSoc and capitalism to some extent. Not NatSoc and today’s brand of capitalism, though. Not NatSoc and unlimited and morally neutral free market economics, either.

~:~

	Honestly, NatSoc always struck me as a better synthesis between the two systems (capitalism and socialism). Hitler recognizes the heart of society’s problems is due to unhealthy economic conditions, yet he recognized during his teenage years of poverty how corrupt the doctrine of social democracy is and how workers basically resort to it out of personal despair or feelings of having no other option. True social democracy–or, as a matter, anything related to Marxism–tries to eliminate anything intrinsic to human nature, because, surprise surprise, people have individual needs and desires that goes beyond sustaining the collective or living in mediocrity. So NatSoc addresses the desire of the individual first while reinforcing this sense of belonging to something bigger than yourself–the nation, your people.
	NatSoc still sees the importance of a free market, but also sees the dangers of consumerism that replaces culture (plain materialism) and corporations who don’t put the need of the nations first (corporatism). These two things are inherent problems within any democracy–the individual has the liberty to act on impulse and selfishness without the strong values that is normally found within a prevalent cultural identity, and so he resorts to materialist pursuits by default. The person has no cultural identity (nationalism) to remind him of greater values in human aspect like beauty, brotherhood, compassion, strength, honor, purity, innocence, heroism, free will, hardship, knowledge; these things are far more enriching than boring materialism like sex, food, sleep, depravity and other endless distractions. So nationalism ensures the individual is raised to desires more fulfilling to the human soul, but and still have the freedom of opportunity to achieve these things to his own will.
	The nation will have social policies to help workers have the opportunity to success, and while still having enough personal time to read books or spend time with the wife and kids–since families are the basic structure to all civilizations, having healthy economic conditions would ensure families to grow higher quality members of society. Social policies will make sure everyone has a job; and those who fail to lead productive lives are getting kicked the fuck out–like gypsies. No welfare state, everyone has to be productive. To me, it blends the two economic systems well to have the best of both worlds without either’s inherent flaws.

~:~

	I’ll attempt a simple introduction to it. So as a leftist, you no doubt believe in that ‘socialism’ stuff. Let’s not get too into definitions as they carry too many ‘extra’ meanings, but essentially the fascist idea is that the many are greater than the few. The word ‘fascist’ means “bundle of sticks.” A single stick can be snapped in two with ease, but if you bind 30 together, you will find it much harder, if not impossible to snap. Strength in numbers. True unity. And a single purpose. That is essentially fascism, and the associated nationalism, militancy, and ideological purity are what make it plausible–as opposed to communism, which is simply inhuman.
	As you have witnessed from your own existence, most people want to be ‘popular.’ Unfortunately for many, this manifests in a desire to wear some moronic kind of clothing or listen to some faggoty little pop group. But really humans just want to be united, and one’s desire to ‘fit in’ increases with those to which people feel they have a likeness. Now, I don’t know about you, but as a young brown-haired, brown-eyed, white kid, I would always support the brown haired, brown eyed, white cartoon character/ film actor. As a young child, I cared not for any supposed ‘discrimination,’ I just liked what was similar to me. To moronic extremes. However, the appeal or trustworthiness of similarity makes sense. One’s appearance, beliefs and actions unite people.
	Football fans will get on well purely because they enjoy football, Christians get on well with other Christians, and most families, even when not getting along well, would die for one another. And so the fascist state starts with the family, the native ‘tribe’, and the political/religious ideology. Militancy is introduced to make people feel ‘a part’ of it.
	I’m sure you’ve watched someone make dinner before. Maybe you put some salt and pepper on afterwards, or even stirred it while in the bowl or pan. It didn’t feel like you ‘made it’ though, did it? You only did a small amount of work, if any, and despite being able to eat it and even contribute to its final form, it doesn’t feel like it is your ‘creation’. Because it’s not. Same thing with football team members who never get to play a game. They can be there for all the training, but until they do something, they do not feel a part of the group and may even resent them.
	Let them play, however, or make that meal from scratch, and BAM. They are a part of the group. As humans are inherently selfish (or at least tribal), you will now consider an attack upon your team/food as an attack upon yourself or your tribe. You can say you personally wouldn’t, but I’m sure you know a family member who has been offended by some seemingly harmless comment about their food. People do care!
	So bam, introduce a people related by blood to a political ideology, and make them ‘militant’–force them to be ideologically and politically active through parades, demonstrations, festivals, or even just feasting events where you each cook something for your fellows–and bam, the people are united.
	A united people is a happy people. They are a passionate populace ready for action as any perceived insult upon any of them is an attack upon their own personal honor. They are militant and quick to act, love their own customs, culture, and faith, and will be violently hostile to any who try to tell them they are wrong.
	Impervious to traitors, more willing to fight for their causes than other ideologies, loving of each other, and willing to be generous to extreme extents due to their unity. Pride and arrogance, and a competitive spirit centered on their belief that they are superior (or at least should be the best they can be) spurs on innovation and invention.
	The key is that it works upon human nature, while communism works upon inhuman ‘ideals’. If humans were ants, perhaps communism could work, but we are not. Fascism plays to our nature, to our strengths and removes our weaknesses. The bundle of sticks truly is fitting, for united we are unbreakable.

~:~

	There is considerable difference in the socialism of Hitler and that of Marxist doctrine. Die SA explained that the objective of a socialist state is “not the greatest possible good fortune of the individual or a particular party, but the welfare of the whole community.” Marx’s purely economic socialism “stands against private property… and private ownership.” Marx saw socialism as international, unifying the world’s working class people who were social pariahs in their own country. He therefore considered nationalism–advocating the interests and independence of one’s own nation–incompatible with socialist ideals. Die SA argued that since socialism really stands for collective welfare, “Marxist socialism divides the people and in this way buries any prerequisite for achieving genuine socialist goals.”
	Hitler saw nationalism as a patriotic motive to place the good of one’s country before personal ambition. Socialism was a political, social, and economic system that demanded the same subordination of self-interest for the benefit of the community. As Hitler said in 1927, “Socialism and nationalism are the great fighters for one’s own kind, are the hardest fighters in the struggle for survival on this earth. Therefore they are no longer battle cries against one another.” Die SA summarized, “Marxism makes the distinction of haves and have-nots. It demands the destruction of the former in order to bring all property into possession of the public. National socialism places the concept of the national community in the foreground. The collective welfare of a people is not achieved through superficially equal distribution of all possessions, but by accepting the principle that before the interests of the individual stand those of the nation.”
	It should be noted that in the Soviet Union, the flagship Marxist state, the regime dealt with the non-proletariat far more harshly than what downtrodden labor suffered during the Industrial Revolution in Western countries. The Soviet police official Martyn Latsis, for example, defined the criteria for trials of dissidents: “Don’t seek proof of whether or not he rose against the Soviet with weapon or word. You must first ask him what class he belongs to, what extraction he is, what education and what occupation he has. These questions should decide the fate of the accused.” Russian historian Dimitri Volkogonov wrote that Soviet purges targeted the most energetic, most capable, frugal, and imaginative’ elements in society. Systematic mass starvation, imprisonment, deportation, and execution in the Marxist utopia so decimated the Russian population that Joseph Stalin forbade the 1937 census from being published. Der Schulungsbrief stated in a 1942 issue, “The senseless extermination of all intelligence and talent replacing every impulse of personality with passive herd mentality has wiped out any natural creative aptitude [in Russia.]”
	Hitler regarded Marxist economic policy as no less repugnant to genuine socialism as the concept of class warfare. Marx advocating deprivatizing all production and property. State control would supposedly ensure equitable distribution of manufactured goods and foodstuffs and protect the population from capitalist exploitation. Hitler advocated private ownership and free enterprise. He believed that competition and opportunities for personal development encourage individual initiative. He said in 1934, “On one hand, the free play of forces must be guaranteed as broad a field of endeavor as possible. On the other, it should be stressed that this free play of forces must remain for the person within the framework of communal goals which we refer to as the people and the national community. Only in this way can we attain the highest level of human achievement and human productivity.”
	Der Schulungsbrief dismissed Marx’ disparate clamor for equitable shares in national assets and equal pay for all work as stifling to personal motivation. “The man capable of greater achievement has no interest in realizing his full potential, when he saw that the lazy man sitting next to him received just as much as he himself. Any initiative to do more and willingness to accept responsibility could only die out under this system.”
	Well before taking power, Hitler combated a tendency toward Marxist socialism in his own movement. In November 1925, district party leaders in Hannover proposed dividing large farms and distributing the land among farmhands. The state would require everyone employed in the agrarian economy to join a cooperative. Independent sale of foodstuffs would be illegal. “Critical industries” such as power companies, banks, and armaments manufacturers were to yield 51% of the shares as “property of the nation.” In other words, become state controlled. The program also recommended that the government acquire 49% of other large business enterprises. In May, 1930 Hitler met with a Berlin subordinate, Otto Strasser, who supported a similar program. Hitler told him his ideas were “pure Marxism” and would wreck the entire economy. He bounced Strasser out of the party that July, underscoring his intolerance of Marxist socialism. Hitler considered the opportunity to acquire wealth and property an incentive for “eternal, enterprising personal initiative.” Enabling talented individuals to realize their full potential also elevated the society to which they belong and served.
	Despite the unifying influence of the First World War, class distinctions resurfaced during the 1920s. The largely impoverished middle class maintained social aloofness form the industrial workforce. labor was consequently still susceptible to communist propaganda about exploitation by capitalism. The Red Front attracted millions of followers during the politically tumultuous years of Germany’s Weimar Republic. The communists sought power through elections after 1923.
	To win labor for his cause, Hitler endeavored to make the destructive nature of Marxism apparent to German working men and women. National socialism described it as a perverse byproduct of the Industrial Revolution. It owed its success to the neglect of the working class by the Imperial government in the 19th Century, liberalism liberalism’s creation of national community, and labor’s abrupt loss of roots. The former farmer or artisan, accustomed to creative, useful work with his hands and bound to the soil, was suddenly displaced and operating unfamiliar machinery in drab, urban environments. A handbook published for German armaments workers summarized labor’s alienation as follows: “The person hatefully regards the machine he feels chained to. It is not his friend and helper. It only drives him in a pointless race for the avaricious interests of individual capitalist employers. It represents unemployment and starvation for many of his fellow workers. The machine distances the person more and more from nature.” According to the 1938 book Der Bolschewismus (bolshevism), “such social conditions facing the German worker were the product of liberalism. Like the Renaissance, it glorified the freedom of action and development of the individual, which means the same thing as unscrupulously advancing one’s personal interests.” In his 1935 work Odal, Dr. Johannes von Leers added, “Liberalism’s preaching about the unconditional rights of the economically more powerful is so blinding that de facto economic slavery is considered progress.” Leers described the impressions of a typical German farmhand entering the industrial work force in order to demonstrate the susceptibility to Marxist preaching. “Everywhere he encounters a merciless system of capitalist commerce. His only value is as the seller of himself as a labor commodity. From poorly compensated work to unemployment and then back to work again for low wages despised by the educated class, watched suspiciously by the police, it’s no wonder he becomes indignant.”
	Der Bolschewismus related a further source of resentment as labors’ standard of living compared with that of people in affluent neighborhoods: “The man of the stock exchange and factory owners build villas in exceptional, well laid-out sections of the growing cities. The contrast to their own wretched quarters in overcrowded lodging houses, near the smoking chimneys of the factories, becomes ever more apparent to the masses of workers.” In Odal, Leers wrote that only because Germany society turned a blind eye to the distress of the working people were the communists able to recruit them. “The country’s propertied and educated strata, in contrast to the English upper class which was far more responsible about this, blocked any genuine, concrete social reform. It was their selfish belief in the laws of free trade, their heartlessness and callousness.”
	Society’s failure to nurture and accept the working class as equal divided Germany, contributing to Marxist organized strikes and mutinies that sabotaged the war effort in 1918. This circumstance supported Hitler’s contention that various groups within a nation–while maintaining their individual character and function–must work together as a mutually supportive entity for common goals, impartially regulated by the state. To disregard one group was to jeopardize all. Entering politics in 1920, Hitler had to combat the substantial Marxist trend among the workers. At this time many social and economic strata in Germany formed parties championing their individual interests. This was especially dangerous in labor’s case, since it allied itself with communism–an international revolutionary movement employing subversion, terror, and armed insurrection to advance its objectives.
	Hitler’s ponderously named National Socialist German Labor Party (NSDAP) departed from political convention of the period by standing for all Germans. Though he privately disparaged intellectuals, the aristocracy, and even the middle class, Hitler recruited from every walk of life. Above the interests of group or individual he set those of Germany. This was the common denominator that welded his diverse membership into a formidable and aggressive political bloc. He stated in 1928 that national socialism “is not a movement of a particular class or occupation, but in the truest sense a German worker’s party. It It will comprise every stratum of the nation, thereby incorporating all vocational groups. It wants to approach every German who wishes only to serve his people, live with his people, and belongs to them by blood.”
	Germany’s marxist parties–the social democrats and the communists–did not campaign for labor’s acceptance into the German community but to overthrow the existing social order and supplant it with an international “dictatorship of the proletariat.” They did not solicit followers from among the educated classes. The NSDAP program described the Marxists as “united by feelings of hatred and envy, not by any constructive purpose against the other half of the nation.” Karl Ganzer wrote in Der Schulungsbrief, “Marx did not come from the labor movement but from the liberal sphere. He incorporated the concept of a perpetual struggle within society. Earlier German labor leaders had wanted to solve the social problem through assimilation. With his class warfare ideas, Marx wanted to settle it by bringing chaos to the community.”
	Gander wrote that Marx hoped to drive the working people “into a current that carries them further from the society they once wanted to be a part of.” He also pointed out an important distinction between national socialist and marxist perceptions of labor. The NSDAP honored it. Hitler publicly stated “No German should be ashamed of this name, but should be proud to be called a worker.” Gander described the denigration of labor as “the worst crime of marxist teachings. This class awareness Marx did not base on a sense of value, but on a psychosis of worthlessness. Marx gave the sons of free farmers and tradesmen the derogatory name ‘proletariat’. Just 40 years earlier, this expression had meant a social riffraff. In this way, he draped the soul of an entire stratum in gloom.”

~:~

	INNER PEACE
	National socialism wants to realize a universal socialism for the whole nation. Liberalism praises diversity and supports minorities, it tries to disaggregate the nation into elementary parts, rather than to unite it. Marxism praises class socialism, which means a harsh inner fight.
	OWNERSHIP
	National socialism keeps the producing tools in private hands, but it states, that the aim of production is to be useful for the nation. With other words, production advances the society, and with it life gets easier and nicer. Liberalism also keeps the producing tools in private hands, however the purpose of production is solely to make the owners richer. Marxism forbids producing tools in private hands, with this it completely suppresses the individual, therefore there is no harmony between the individual and the society.
	ECONOMY
National Socialism prefers national products and production against foreign ones, therefore the system economically also supports the existence of the national state. Liberalism supports motion of materials and goods without limit, opposes protection of local production, eliminates customs duty, supports multinational companies. Therefore it endangers inner production and national life. Marxism socializes economy, it aims instead of national production an international-Bolshevistic economy. With this it ravages local production and cripples commerce.
	HONOR OF WORK
	National socialism supports work on every level. It stops fraud and usury using hard rules, while prizing and honoring every kind of productive and creative work. It also honors the stay-at-home working woman and mother, who cares for her children. Liberalism supports usury and fraud indirectly by not really stopping it by proper regulations. It gives almost free hand to banks to ransack people through usury and financial tricks. Bolshevism creates a stone age, underdeveloped economy, in which neither physical, nor intellectual work is honored, and it pays starvation wages for all, except for the foreign clique, that usurps the
	FAMILY
	National socialism supports a rational social system, especially free schooling up to the university degree, or professional master degree. The frame of medical attendance is created in a way, that medical care is high quality and available for everyone. Liberalism supports family very little, if possible, it eliminates all social care, like schools and medical care. With this it undermines the culture and health of the nation. Bolshevism explicitly attacks family, it forces women to work due its starvation-wage system, and aims to raise children in state supported groups, hoping that they become brainless supporters of bolshevism. Bad school system and medical care undermines the culture and health of the nation. By using compulsory immunization or compulsory marriage advisement, and things like it, intervenes into the most private life of the people.
	HOUSING
	National socialism considers as one of its most important task to provide good quality and payable housing for the people, providing enough living area for each person. It provides, therefore, a very effective construction program that is combined with a family aid program. With this, after 3 or four children, young families do not have to pay interest any more, and also part of their debt is released. Liberalism supports housing, but it does not stop effectively usury and speculation. Therefore it is easily possible that people use their housing due to debts. Bolshevism knowingly refuses all support for housing. People cannot pay for housing from their starvation wages; the Bolshevistic state knowingly stops the development of public utilities and also construction licenses are hard to achieve. The state builds solely bad quality block of flats providing very little living area for a person, and to maintain such block flats is very expensive due to bad construction quality and bad heating systems.
	PERSONAL SUPPORT
	National socialism considers the state as the property of the people, and it considers each member of the society as valuable person. It does not throw money out the window to support "minorities". Minorities are given a fair chance to become a useful part of the nation by assimilation. Liberalism does not give any support to the members of the nation. In opposite, it is minority-centric, and aims that members of the majority give most of the result of their work to unwanted aliens for immigration and dwelling. Besides that, it gives money to cultural degeneration and wars for alien purposes. Bolshevism does not give any support to members of the nation. In opposite, it supports “proletariat internationalism,” members of the nation are harshly drained, and hordes of aliens are imported, as "proletarians to be supported.”
	ASSOCIATIONS
	National socialist states allow all associations that are not foreign steered (like scouts), and are not enemies of the national socialistic state or the nation (like AIPAC). The national socialistic associations (Hitler-Jugend, NSDAP, SS) are nationalistic and constructive organizations. The liberal state allows associations that are not too national oriented from its point of view. It prefers to prohibit national organizations. It gives horrendous amounts of many to protect perverse associations’ organizations, like the marches of exhibitionistic homosexuals. The Bolshevistic state tolerates only Zion-Bolshevistic organizations, like the young pioneers, the communist youth organization the party and the Bolshevistic “unions.” It forbids and chases any other association especially the Christian associations.
	WORLD AFFAIRS
	National socialist states inform the people about all events of the world. It does not hinder the movement of information except if the information providers want to destroy the state or the nation from inside. Liberal information is broad, however the information sources are typically Zionistic, and the informations are one sided and biased. Bolshevistic information policy is based on filtering and modifying the informations. Lots of information is suppressed, others are formed into Bolshevistic propaganda text. It tolerates only bolshevistic press. Even the private usage of typewriters or copying machines is limited or forbidden.
	POLICE
	National socialism works with a relative small police corp. Members of the police force behave correctly. Liberal police force behaves generally correctly. In a number of cases they show helpless in case of outrage, especially, when "minorities" push around against natives. Bolshevistic police force is trained for brutality and hatred of the people. Bodily outrage by police force is common, instead of protecting the people the protect the ruling foreign clique.
	CULTURE
	National socialism supports native culture that stems from the nation; it provides high quality culture and arts. Liberalism supports multi-culture, which leads to the elimination of the state building nation. It eagerly supports all kinds of degeneration in culture and in arts, there are exhibitions of pictures, that even an ape could have easily painted, liberalistic films parrot hate of the nation and love for the alien and the perverted. They also eagerly support all kind of sexual perversions. Bolshevism provides a primitive and one sided culture. All written has to praise Marxism, and also art go down to the same level.
	SPORTS
	National socialism considers sports as a mean to become happier and healthier. Sport is available for everybody, and is supported by the state. It is not a business and not a mean to help aliens to infiltrate the national socialistic state. Liberalism considers sports as a business and as a mean to help to infiltrate the state by aliens. Even the national teams are filled with aliens of different races. Considerable money is used to protect sport events, which are mom similar to a circus than to a mean to help people to stay healthy and happy. Bolshevism considers sport to be a mean for propaganda. It supports elite sport, and not mass sport. Sport is the only legal way for people to travel abroad, therefore young people are eager to became sport stars. The state itself is highly dishonest. It states, sport stars are amateurs, even though they nominally have a job, but in reality they do sports all the day.
	INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION
	National socialism wishes the cooperation of equal nations, its ideology is not based on hatred, since it will cooperate constructively with anyone except of conscious internal parasites. Liberalism does all the time liberal propaganda, it considers liberal or sometimes Bolshevistic states as preferred partners, it fantasizes about “western values,” and at the same times, states, that see through its unfair play, are considered as “enemies” and they try to eliminate these states with propaganda or with war. Bolshevism advertises hatred against all non-Bolshevistic states, calling them “imperialistic” or “suppressor,” while among the Bolshevistic countries it prefers unprincipled “comrade love” based on adulation.

~:~

	Germany’s economic reforms would never have been so successful without overhauling the tax structure. In the Weimar Republic, state and local governments had raised revenue for operating expenses, reparations payments to the Entente, and public aid through steadily increasing taxation. The drain on working families’ budgets had reduced purchasing power, restricted the demand for consumer goods, decreased production and caused lay-offs. As more people lost jobs, unemployment pay-outs were augmented, placing greater demands on those still in the work force. Municipalities collected taxes and fees according to local needs without a nationally coordinated revenue system. Costly, inefficient, and overlapping bureaucracies burdened citizen and economy alike.
	Tax reform was a major element of Reinhardt’s recovery program. Initial measures legislated to this end demonstrate what a crippling influence the Reich’s runaway taxation had previously exercised on commerce. The first to benefit from tax relief was Germany’s automotive industry. The Motor Vehicle Tax Law of April 1933 abolished at one stroke all operating taxes and fees for privately purchased cars and motorcycles licensed after March 31 of that year. The reduction in consumer costs to own and operate a car was so dramatic as to significantly boost sales. While the industry produced just 43,430 passenger vehicles in 1932, the number rose to 92,160 during Hitler’s first year in office. New car production increased annually. The number of people employed in automobile manufacture climbed from 34,392 in 1932 to 110,148 in less than four years. From 1933 to 1935, the industry built 15 more assembly plants.
	The government recovered the revenue lost from repealed automotive taxes through reduced payments of jobless benefits, income tax from newly employed auto workers, highway tolls and corporate tax. The state collected an additional RM 50 million by offering owners of older cars the opportunity to pay a one-time reduced fee to permanently eliminate their annual vehicle tax liability. The government devoted the entire amount to improving roads, thereby hiring more people for pavement and bridge repair. Others found work in industries that manufactured machinery. The tax law ratified on June 1, 1933, eliminated fees for the replacement and purchase of tools and machinery, as long as buyers opted for German-made articles. This measure breathed life back into industrial equipment production.
	Reinhardt demanded the creation of a simplified, centrally supervised tax structure. New tax laws and instructions used every-day German, easily understandable to taxpayers. He emphasized in his 1933 Bremen speech, “Not only will the number of taxes be substantially fewer, but the tax laws and new payment instructions will be worded so that the Reich’s Finance Ministry will no longer have as much latitude as before in interpreting the tax laws. The fact that the room for interpretation of tax laws was previously so broad, was a serious blow to the protection of taxpayers’ rights."
	Under the Reinhardt system, the government gradually supplanted the plethora of municipal, provincial and state taxes and fees with a single national tax. The finance office calculated the budgets of local and state administrations, collected all revenue and distributed it to agencies and municipalities. During the year, each citizen received an annual income tax invoice and paid the amount in twelve monthly installments. This covered his or her total tax liability. The arrangement greatly reduced administrative costs of mailing local tax bills, collecting individual fees and pursuing delinquencies. It also simplified the accounting of private corporations no longer required to determine withholding taxes on employees’ salaries.
	In the long run, Germany’s policy of reducing taxes to promote commerce increased public revenues. During the first half of 1939, the finance office reported over RM 8.3 billion in revenue, compared to RM 6.6 billion in fiscal year 1932/33. These were evenly assessed taxes in 1939, paid by a fully employed population; not an imbalanced, excessive liability burdening working people to provide jobless benefits for the less fortunate.
	In a Nuremburg speech in 1936, Reinhardt described income tax as “the main source of revenue. Income tax is measured according to (the citizen’s) actual income and is therefore the most socially just form of collecting taxes." A 1933 Swedish study comparing taxation among Great Powers established that the German people paid 23 percent of their income in taxes. In the United States the amount was 23.4 percent, in Norway 25.1 percent, Britain 25.2 and Italy 30.6 percent. (The figure did not take into account America’s numerous hidden taxes that were non-existent in Germany.)
	No program to restore German prosperity could omit international trade. Deprived of its colonies, the Reich had to develop foreign markets to acquire raw materials for industry and a portion of the food supply. With gold reserves exhausted, the National Socialist administration had to create an alternative source of purchasing power. Despite objections from Hjalmar Schacht, president of the Reich’s Bank, Hitler withdrew Germany’s money system from the gold standard. Gold was the recognized medium of exchange for international commerce. Over centuries, it had become a commodity as well. Financiers bought and sold gold, speculated on its fluctuations in price, and loaned it abroad at high interest. Hitler substituted a direct barter system in foreign dealings. German currency became defined as measuring units of human productivity. The British General J.F.C. Fuller observed, “Germany is already beginning to operate more on the concept of labor than on the concept of money."
	In January 1938, the Soviet diplomat Kristyan Rakovsky commented on the German money system. Rakovsky had held posts in London and in Paris and was acquainted with Wall Street financiers. He explained, “Hitler, this uneducated ordinary man, has out of natural intuition and even despite the opposition of the technician Schacht, created an especially dangerous economic system. An illiterate in every theory of economics driven only by necessity, he has cut out international as well as private high finance. Hitler possesses almost no gold, and so he can’t endeavor to make it a basis for currency. Since the only available collateral for his money is the technical aptitude and great industriousness of the German people, technology and labor became his ‘gold’… As you know, like magic it’s eliminated all unemployment for more than six million skilled employees and laborers.”
	Germany’s withdrawal from the gold-based, internationally linked monetary system in favor of a medium of exchange founded on domestic productivity corresponded to Hitler’s belief in maintaining the sovereignty of nations. This was an unwelcome development in London, Paris and New York, where cosmopolitan investment and banking institutions profited from loaning money to foreign countries. Germany no longer had to borrow in order to trade on the world market. Foreign demand for German goods correspondingly created more jobs within the Reich.
	– Richard Tedor

~:~

	The limitless acknowledgement of personal right to property and legal claims on the whole must logically lead to the damaging of the public interest through the selfish exploitation of this basically inverted anti-social legal idea in opposition to our state principle “Public interest before self-interest.” In contrast to the false fundamental formulation ruling among us, the capitalistic, is the other extreme, the Marxist idea of the state and economics. The fundamental idea of this economic form is the denial of private property. The Marxist doctrine goes so far as to explain property directly as “theft” (Proudhon) It demands. in the foreign jargon that is so unclear especially to German proletarians, the “expropriation of the expropriators”–in other words, the dispossession of property! This state-, people-, culture-, and economy-destroying doctrine has found its extreme but logical realization in Russian Bolshevism. In its economic aspect this extreme can be summarized in the sentence: “Everything belongs to everybody.” We have here to do with a depersonalization of property, with a transfer of all property to the anonymous property of the whole. The extreme still ruling among us of an unlimited right to property. on the other hand, has led us already to the last step before the temple of the god Mammon, on whose door stands in golden letters: “Everything belongs to the One.” Even this frightening economic form must equally lead to a depersonalization of property–only in another way–in that, finally, all of working mankind is here pressed into a frightful debt slavery to an anonymous financial power. In starkest contrast to the just described economic extremes of Marxist socialism and high capitalist Mammonism of the western democrats, the economic ideal of National Socialism demands the realization of the principle, “To each his own.”

~:~

	Have you ever thought about why they are so horrified by the idea of “fascist dictators” while simultaneously trying to excuse all the atrocities committed by the communist ones? Whether or not they admit it, these people are on some level deeply and painfully aware of their own weakness. Communism promises to bring everyone else down to their level. This is easy for them, because it requires little change on their part. They can continue to be the same weak, petulant, backstabbing drones they’ve always been, only now society will reward them for it. They will take the same joy reporting their neighbors to the secret police as they would reporting the crimethink they currently see on Twitter.
	Fascism, on the other hand, requires something of them. It wants to build everyone up to a position of strength–the old meme “the weak fear the strong” really is true; these people fear strength–they despise it. That is why they hate white culture and celebrate nigger “culture.” More importantly, they despise the idea of making an effort to better themselves. The rallying cry of leftism is “do whatever makes you happy,” thus we have faggotry and trannies, rampant hedonism and debauchery, fornication, drug abuse, leeching off of welfare, going to college for useless degrees, and all other myriad forms of degeneracy. Fascism requires more of a person. It requires you to grow and leave these childish things behind. It requires effort. It requires change. It requires that maybe you don’t only do things that make you happy, but instead you sacrifice for the greater good. This is completely foreign to these self-absorbed entitled little twats. No handouts; if you don’t work hard, you go hungry. This is antithetical to everything they are. No more doing whatever the fuck you want without consequence. No more leaving messes for everyone else to clean up. It is the rebellious child vs the strict parent. The child cries out, “I hate you!” even as the parent feeds and clothes and cares for the child. Petulant children, the lot of them.

~:~

	That “socialist part” was very different for what today passes for socialism or Marx’s definition thereof. It doesn’t mean class war, where the enemy are all other classes but the working class. National socialism is about uniting all social classes under one banner–that whether you’re rich or poor, you must help your comrade in need and to work together as one people for the betterment of the nation and the state.
	Socialism in national socialist ideology looks on economy as a means to an end and is inseparable to the word national as nationalism cannot exist without socialism, and vice versa. It was not called “third position” politics for nothing. You cannot put it on today’s left/right grid. Now let’s see the National Socialist stance on economy. How did NSDAP manage to pull Germany out of its hyperinflation and enormous debt and make it a world superpower in such a short period of time?
	The key naturally lies on base of the currency. For over 2 centuries, our world didn’t how to value currency beyond precious metal and debt, because of the infestation of parasites–tricksters that make money out of money. And what is money, anyway? It is a tool for universal exchange of goods produced. The amount of money and its value thus should be based on amount of goods produced. The mindset that capital creates work is a hoax made by the bankers and other usurers so they can leech off of your work. Work creates capital. So the currency in the Third Reich was based on production of goods. In order to keep it stable, there can’t be a middle man–no middle man that makes money out of money. So there should be only one bank, controlled by the state, which must regulate it based on the increase/decrease of work/goods produced. Money collected through taxation must be steadily injected in various projects to enable more work/goods produced. Every worker‘s salary is increasing/decreasing based on how many goods/work he produces. This doesn’t just encourage the worker/farmer/craftsman/what have you to work harder, but it also binds him to the product and the work he invests in it.
	Let’s go back to the name of this ideology–national socialism. It means socialism within the national frame, so every national socialist is as socialist as he is nationalist, and he will strife for perfection to make his nation stronger. How much stronger he can make a nation depends on how strong he himself is. Thus, national socialism also encourages the individual to keep perfecting himself spiritually, mentally, and physically. National socialism is not just a political movement or a mere economical model. It is an ideology that unites the social and individual properties of a man together with his instincts and spiritual needs and binds him together with laws of nature as the constitution in a platform on which the economical model and all laws are built.