PeterNo0ne Jul 19th, 2018 1,397 Never
Not a member of Pastebin yet? Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!
- 卐 - Misc Topics
- >Redpills of Zion
- >The Jews
- >The Truth of Races
- >Holocaust Revisionism
- >Negroid facts
- >Hitler was not a Jew
- >Christianity is not Jewish
- >NSG Reading Pastebin with Index
- 卐 - BLACKS
- >We Thought They Were White
- >Pastor Ray Hagins on Adolf Hitler
- >Black people talk about Jews
- >Why Idi Amin kicked out the Israelis
- >Dr. Tony Martin & David Irving - The Jewish Role in the African Slave Trade
- >Highlights and Key Points from: The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews
- >The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews: Volume One
- >The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews: Volume Two
- >Blacks supporting Hitler
- 卐 - MYTHS ABOUT NATSOC
- >"National Socialism is just (((socialism)))"
- Marxist (Left) socialism and National (Right) Socialism are "antipodal zeitgeists engaged in dialectic". That's a fancy way to say they're opposite ideologies designed to clash, like Yin and Yang.
- NatSoc was fundamentally an ideology built around race, while Marxist socialism was entirely different: built around class. Hitler aimed to unite the right and left, including workers and their bosses, into a new German nation based on racial identity. Socialism, in contrast, was a class war between workers, bosses, and owners (Capitalists), aiming to build a workers state in which race and gender were insignificant. Socialists, especially Marxist socialists, were anti-religious atheists, whereas NatSoc went so far as to make Christianity the religion of the state.
- The differences go on and on: Marxist socialism was internationalist, NatSoc was nationalist. Marxist socialism was egalitarian, whereas NatSoc believed that nature was unequal and required competition. Marxist socialism wanted to nationalize all private industry, while NatSoc privatized every major industry except the railroads (it considered these a military asset). In fact, Hitler once joked "they didn't need to nationalize property because they nationalized people". NatSoc drew on a range of pan-German theories, which wanted to blend Aryan workers and Aryan magnates into a super Aryan state, which would involve the eradication of class-focused socialism as a non-German ideology.
- >"National Socialism is just (((socialism)))"
- NatSoc redefined socialism as "Germanism/Volkism", which they saw as "producer-oriented capitalism", as opposed to "Jewish capitalism", aka, international finance, globalism, wall street, etc. In theory, NatSoc economics was a version of Keynesianism, tailored to the Völkisch nature of whichever people adopted it. Its not one dogmatic economic system,and Hitler often joked that the lack of a specific ideology was their strength. NatSoc could be more "free market" as Americans know it, or less. But NatSoc is always in favor of the Volk over economic identity, of "producer capitalism" over "finance capitalism".
- Hitler tried to clarify the distinction in 1938:
- >“’Socialist’ I define from the word ‘social’ meaning in the main ‘social equity’. A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency.
- >Our adopted term ‘Socialist has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. ((((Marxism))) is anti-property; true socialism is not. ((((Marxism))) places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.”
- See also:
- >Private property in the industry of the Third Reich is often considered a mere nominal provision without much substance. However, that is not correct, because firms, despite the rationing and licensing activities of the state, still had ample scope to devise their own production and investment profiles. Even regarding war-related projects, freedom of contract was generally respected; instead of using power, the state offered firms a number of contract options to choose from. There were several motives behind this attitude of the regime, among them the conviction that private property provided important incentives for increasing efficiency.
- >"National Socialism / Fascism was a failed system"
- It's intellectually dishonest to label something that was forcibly crushed a "failed system", implying that a nation bombed into collapse during war is comparable to a system imploding politically during peace-time. The Soviet system failed, as did the Roman Empire, and every Chinese or Ottoman dynasty. Some of these examples of government lasted thousands of years, while some didn't last more than a generation. All forms of government inevitably fail. This has been true since ancient times. Polybius famously articulated this process of Anacyclosis: social organization paradigms rise, fail, and give way to further systems. This is the cycle of history.
- Fascism is not a failed system, it was a defeated system: A.) it was not an economic system, but a social one; B.) the so-called "failed system" had a control group: the US. Germany, Italy, and the US were operating under Keynesean policies; only one of them won the war, and experienced a massive period of growth once their industrial rivals were destroyed. So no, it wasn't a failed system, because both sides were using it, including the side that won.
RAW Paste Data