You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
3
BreadandWinePilled on scored.co
14 days ago3 points(+0/-0/+3Score on mirror)1 child
Not going to turn this thread into yet another quote-block mess, but simply said:
- Intangible Idealism (a somewhat redundant term) is the lifeblood of any and all practical actions and movements. Man does not live by bread alone.
- As for your examples of National Socialism-less countires that were (nominally) free of Jewish control- Syria was rife with Jew-puppet agitators even before the Syrian Civil War, North Korea is literally Marxism with the Jew Levi "Karl" Marx replaced by the Kim family, Libya under Gaddafi and Iraq under Hussein were National Socialist in everything except name, Iran is a hardline Islamic theocracy, and Venezuela is literally a starving Communist shithole.
- Every other country besides Germany that ocuppied any semblance of the Third Position also had massive socioeconomic issues on account of their failing to use National Socialism.
- The only version of National Socialism worth paying substantial attention to is Hitler's- there's a reason it won out in the marketplace of ideas.
In conclusion, I would *far* rather deal with a legion of Nazi LARPers who are at least brave enough to tout their ideology publicly than deal with so-called "prudent" men who smother their power level out of fear. I can teach men to hold a more nuanced understanding of Hitler and the Reich, but there's no instructing a man to courage.
14 days ago2 points(+0/-0/+2Score on mirror)1 child
I'm on mobile, so you are forewarned my turning this into another quote block disaster because it's the only way I can see what I'm replying to. My apologies.
Anyways,
>Intangible Idealism (a somewhat redundant term) is the lifeblood of any and all practical actions and movements. Man does not live by bread alone.
And a man without bread cannot live period.
>Syria was rife with Jew-puppet agitators even before the Syrian Civil War
Probably because it was being infiltrated by the most powerful country on earth continuously. Can't really fault them for that. No system is going to protect you from that, really.
>North Korea is literally Marxism with the Jew Levi "Karl" Marx replaced by the Kim family
They have officially replaced marxism with "juche" in their constitution. It is not a marxist country anymore. At this rate, we may as well call fascism marxism because it *technically* evolved from a current of it. North Korea doesn't do a single thing remotely communistic and they haven't since the 90s.
>Libya under Gaddafi and Iraq under Hussein were National Socialist in everything except name
These countries cannot really be compared to each other because Libya was a theocratic country and Iraq was entirely secular. Both of them used a system closer to soviet socialist economics than to german socialist economics, but with some differences particularly in the belief in private property. In terms of social policy, they were somewhere between the soviet union and fascist italy, but did not really cross paths with what the Germans believed about social politics. Even the jewish question was a pretty middling issue in Iraq and Libya, but the jews had no control over them regardless.
>Iran is a hardline Islamic theocracy
And? It works for them
>Venezuela is literally a starving Communist shithole.
Venezuela isn't communist and it's also been on americas shitlist of nations to be destroyed for quite a few years now. If america didn't exist, who knows how it would be doing. Probably not great, because 3rd worlders, but probably a hell of a lot better than it is.
>Every other country besides Germany that ocuppied any semblance of the Third Position also had massive socioeconomic issues on account of their failing to use National Socialism.
Italy sure as fuck didn't have socioeconomic issues.
>The only version of National Socialism worth paying substantial attention to is Hitler's- there's a reason it won out in the marketplace of ideas.
No, I disagree. The strassers have something to offer, although I think the original DAP's "drexlerism" was quite self destructive and incapable of doing anything. In fact, what Otto Strasser believed in before and after he was exiled was what drove a majority of the people into the party up until that point to begin with. Hitler waa saying pretty much the same shit as what strasser was saying early on, but he had a change in goals, or maybe he never did but thought a different path was necessary, Strasser stuck with the NSDAP orthodoxy. Whose ideas were better? Hard to say, neither of them actually got to fully implement them, but it is true that strasser's ideas were pretty much the ideas of the early party including hitler.
And hitler did not even have an iron grip on the party until the night of long knives. The SA at its peak had about 4 million people who served as his left-opposition and disagreed with what he was doing. That's enormous. The fact that he maintained control was just because he chopped off the head. If he hadn't been as thorough, or if he hadn't done anything at all, it's likely, almost cerrain, that a coup would have happened. And we would have had a germany led by strasser or röhm with göbbels still as chief propagandist. But the fact that there were 4 million who had a different idea than hitler but with the same goal to free the nation is telling that there are absolutely alternatives and he was very far from the only person to take in anything from. Furthermore, the ability of the strassers to weave propaganda in North Germany was probably greater than hitlers own. The nsdap was originally unpopular in northern Germany, but the strassers managed to siphon a metric fuck-ton of Northern German communists and socialists into the SA and turned it into one of the biggest voting blocs that the nsdap had.
Furthermore, I consider that Israel must be destroyed.
14 days ago2 points(+0/-0/+2Score on mirror)1 child
You sound like a Tankie who somehow came to hate Jews. While I'm glad for that part, at least, you are fully delusional on everything else. Venezuela is literally a starving Communist shithole. North Korea is as Marxist as they have ever been, save the minor rebranding that only works on the exceptionally gullible. Neither Libya nor Iraq were ever *anything* resembling Communist (well, not under Gaddafi and Hussein, anyways).
If you think that basically nationalizing everything to turn a nation into a Command Economy run by what were essentially cartels acting at the government's behest while skimming off the top and leaving the common people as impoverished as ever DOESN'T constitute socioeconomic issues, then I've got a bridge to sell you.
>Venezuela is literally a starving Communist shithole
No. It's still not communist. Look up bolivarianism. It's a quasi socialist 3rd world shithole. Hell, if I remember correctly most of the venezuelan businesses are private. In fascist italy it was 70% nationalized. The actual Venezuelan communist party is in opposition to Maduro. I wasn't necessarily pointing out every *good* country that isn't jewed, just all the ones that *aren't*. And, yes, pretty much every single one of them is going to have severe socioeconomic issues because, well, every part of the world that is jewed (most of it) wants non-jewed countries to go away. Maduro is an incompetent retard and venezuela never diversified its economy, while that's true, it's also true that Venezuela would be a lot better off without oil sanctions.
>North Korea is as Marxist as they have ever been
Here's the biggest counter point: ethnonationalism, which is absolute poison to marxist dogma and which North Korea is absolutely abundant in. North Korea is syncretic at best. At any rate, they have evolved well past where they started at.
>Neither Libya nor Iraq were ever anything resembling Communist
They were somewhat close, but they were also syncretic. The Arab world exists in a weird state where communism and nationalism are not really diametrically opposed (with some exceptions) and often give and take from each other. Why? You can mainly blame israel for that, as well as, capitalism, and the west+israel that represents it, being seen by both sides as a big enough threat that they need to work in tandem. Hamas is in coalition with Palestinian communists, for instance. The arab ideals of socialism are quite a bit different, but they ultimately drew quite a few things from leninist orthodoxy - with some differences - and applied those things to society. Mass-scale nationalization, welfare, secularism, womens suffrage, protectionism, planned economies, free education, etc. They differed from the soviet union in atheist dogma (especially Libya), class warfare, and private property, but agreed on enough that Iraq was probably the best friend of the late-era ussr abroad.
>If you think that basically nationalizing everything to turn a nation into a Command Economy run by what were essentially cartels acting at the government's behest while skimming off the top and leaving the common people as impoverished as ever DOESN'T constitute socioeconomic issues, then I've got a bridge to sell you
How the hell did mussolini leave the average italian impoverished? They had the first economic miracle and completely sidestepped the great depression. Mussolini was adored by almost everyone until he entered ww2, which was a fucking disaster, but doesn't reflect particularly much on his domestic policy which was overall incredibly well received by Italians and foreigners. Mussolini did precisely what he wanted to do and he did it well. Take everything good that the ussr was doing, take everything good that the capitalist west was doing, and remove all of the bad things from them.
Mussolini was good enough at domestic policy that hitler was very much inspired by *most* of what he was doing, but believed in more liberal economics (but not exactly. The closest modern parallel would probably be china's economics), but that's fine. Italy did fascism with corporatism and Germany did natsoc with quasi-capitalism. They both worked. The biggest difference was that italy had less industry in existence to begin with, Germany was already one of the most industrialized countries on earth. Italy needed more time to develop an industry capable of war, and before the late 30s, an industry for war wasn't even a priority for mussolini. This is why ww2 was a disaster for Italy. Germany didn't need much to Kickstart its already existent infrastructure and shift it into 5th gear. For Italy this capability simply did not exist. Although mussolini did make Italy industrialized, there were a million other problems on the plate for him in the 20s that diverted attention away from the issue. Creating the infrastructure for industry to even happen in the first place was a paramount one.
Most of the problems that italy had came about after the war started. It was a terrible idea to enter ww2, which you can fault mussolini *and* hitler for, their communication with each other was absolutely piss-poor. Italy wasn't ready to enter but Germany, with some exceptions, wasn't exactly the best ally either. Hitler had big problems in properly communicating with mussolini and had a tendency to just do shit, the worst example was barbarossa which blindsided the italians entirely, as Germany had promised them 2 extra years to prepare for war by 1943 (and that didn't happen, evidently). Mussolini in turn had pretty much the same issue, he never communicated the invasion of the balkans. Which stalled barbarossa, which mussolini didnt even think was supposed to happen yet. Fuckery all around. Regardless, his policy at home was pretty damned solid.
Furthermore, I consider that Israel must be destroyed
- Intangible Idealism (a somewhat redundant term) is the lifeblood of any and all practical actions and movements. Man does not live by bread alone.
- As for your examples of National Socialism-less countires that were (nominally) free of Jewish control- Syria was rife with Jew-puppet agitators even before the Syrian Civil War, North Korea is literally Marxism with the Jew Levi "Karl" Marx replaced by the Kim family, Libya under Gaddafi and Iraq under Hussein were National Socialist in everything except name, Iran is a hardline Islamic theocracy, and Venezuela is literally a starving Communist shithole.
- Every other country besides Germany that ocuppied any semblance of the Third Position also had massive socioeconomic issues on account of their failing to use National Socialism.
- The only version of National Socialism worth paying substantial attention to is Hitler's- there's a reason it won out in the marketplace of ideas.
In conclusion, I would *far* rather deal with a legion of Nazi LARPers who are at least brave enough to tout their ideology publicly than deal with so-called "prudent" men who smother their power level out of fear. I can teach men to hold a more nuanced understanding of Hitler and the Reich, but there's no instructing a man to courage.
Anyways,
>Intangible Idealism (a somewhat redundant term) is the lifeblood of any and all practical actions and movements. Man does not live by bread alone.
And a man without bread cannot live period.
>Syria was rife with Jew-puppet agitators even before the Syrian Civil War
Probably because it was being infiltrated by the most powerful country on earth continuously. Can't really fault them for that. No system is going to protect you from that, really.
>North Korea is literally Marxism with the Jew Levi "Karl" Marx replaced by the Kim family
They have officially replaced marxism with "juche" in their constitution. It is not a marxist country anymore. At this rate, we may as well call fascism marxism because it *technically* evolved from a current of it. North Korea doesn't do a single thing remotely communistic and they haven't since the 90s.
>Libya under Gaddafi and Iraq under Hussein were National Socialist in everything except name
These countries cannot really be compared to each other because Libya was a theocratic country and Iraq was entirely secular. Both of them used a system closer to soviet socialist economics than to german socialist economics, but with some differences particularly in the belief in private property. In terms of social policy, they were somewhere between the soviet union and fascist italy, but did not really cross paths with what the Germans believed about social politics. Even the jewish question was a pretty middling issue in Iraq and Libya, but the jews had no control over them regardless.
>Iran is a hardline Islamic theocracy
And? It works for them
>Venezuela is literally a starving Communist shithole.
Venezuela isn't communist and it's also been on americas shitlist of nations to be destroyed for quite a few years now. If america didn't exist, who knows how it would be doing. Probably not great, because 3rd worlders, but probably a hell of a lot better than it is.
>Every other country besides Germany that ocuppied any semblance of the Third Position also had massive socioeconomic issues on account of their failing to use National Socialism.
Italy sure as fuck didn't have socioeconomic issues.
>The only version of National Socialism worth paying substantial attention to is Hitler's- there's a reason it won out in the marketplace of ideas.
No, I disagree. The strassers have something to offer, although I think the original DAP's "drexlerism" was quite self destructive and incapable of doing anything. In fact, what Otto Strasser believed in before and after he was exiled was what drove a majority of the people into the party up until that point to begin with. Hitler waa saying pretty much the same shit as what strasser was saying early on, but he had a change in goals, or maybe he never did but thought a different path was necessary, Strasser stuck with the NSDAP orthodoxy. Whose ideas were better? Hard to say, neither of them actually got to fully implement them, but it is true that strasser's ideas were pretty much the ideas of the early party including hitler.
And hitler did not even have an iron grip on the party until the night of long knives. The SA at its peak had about 4 million people who served as his left-opposition and disagreed with what he was doing. That's enormous. The fact that he maintained control was just because he chopped off the head. If he hadn't been as thorough, or if he hadn't done anything at all, it's likely, almost cerrain, that a coup would have happened. And we would have had a germany led by strasser or röhm with göbbels still as chief propagandist. But the fact that there were 4 million who had a different idea than hitler but with the same goal to free the nation is telling that there are absolutely alternatives and he was very far from the only person to take in anything from. Furthermore, the ability of the strassers to weave propaganda in North Germany was probably greater than hitlers own. The nsdap was originally unpopular in northern Germany, but the strassers managed to siphon a metric fuck-ton of Northern German communists and socialists into the SA and turned it into one of the biggest voting blocs that the nsdap had.
Furthermore, I consider that Israel must be destroyed.
If you think that basically nationalizing everything to turn a nation into a Command Economy run by what were essentially cartels acting at the government's behest while skimming off the top and leaving the common people as impoverished as ever DOESN'T constitute socioeconomic issues, then I've got a bridge to sell you.
No. It's still not communist. Look up bolivarianism. It's a quasi socialist 3rd world shithole. Hell, if I remember correctly most of the venezuelan businesses are private. In fascist italy it was 70% nationalized. The actual Venezuelan communist party is in opposition to Maduro. I wasn't necessarily pointing out every *good* country that isn't jewed, just all the ones that *aren't*. And, yes, pretty much every single one of them is going to have severe socioeconomic issues because, well, every part of the world that is jewed (most of it) wants non-jewed countries to go away. Maduro is an incompetent retard and venezuela never diversified its economy, while that's true, it's also true that Venezuela would be a lot better off without oil sanctions.
>North Korea is as Marxist as they have ever been
Here's the biggest counter point: ethnonationalism, which is absolute poison to marxist dogma and which North Korea is absolutely abundant in. North Korea is syncretic at best. At any rate, they have evolved well past where they started at.
>Neither Libya nor Iraq were ever anything resembling Communist
They were somewhat close, but they were also syncretic. The Arab world exists in a weird state where communism and nationalism are not really diametrically opposed (with some exceptions) and often give and take from each other. Why? You can mainly blame israel for that, as well as, capitalism, and the west+israel that represents it, being seen by both sides as a big enough threat that they need to work in tandem. Hamas is in coalition with Palestinian communists, for instance. The arab ideals of socialism are quite a bit different, but they ultimately drew quite a few things from leninist orthodoxy - with some differences - and applied those things to society. Mass-scale nationalization, welfare, secularism, womens suffrage, protectionism, planned economies, free education, etc. They differed from the soviet union in atheist dogma (especially Libya), class warfare, and private property, but agreed on enough that Iraq was probably the best friend of the late-era ussr abroad.
>If you think that basically nationalizing everything to turn a nation into a Command Economy run by what were essentially cartels acting at the government's behest while skimming off the top and leaving the common people as impoverished as ever DOESN'T constitute socioeconomic issues, then I've got a bridge to sell you
How the hell did mussolini leave the average italian impoverished? They had the first economic miracle and completely sidestepped the great depression. Mussolini was adored by almost everyone until he entered ww2, which was a fucking disaster, but doesn't reflect particularly much on his domestic policy which was overall incredibly well received by Italians and foreigners. Mussolini did precisely what he wanted to do and he did it well. Take everything good that the ussr was doing, take everything good that the capitalist west was doing, and remove all of the bad things from them.
Mussolini was good enough at domestic policy that hitler was very much inspired by *most* of what he was doing, but believed in more liberal economics (but not exactly. The closest modern parallel would probably be china's economics), but that's fine. Italy did fascism with corporatism and Germany did natsoc with quasi-capitalism. They both worked. The biggest difference was that italy had less industry in existence to begin with, Germany was already one of the most industrialized countries on earth. Italy needed more time to develop an industry capable of war, and before the late 30s, an industry for war wasn't even a priority for mussolini. This is why ww2 was a disaster for Italy. Germany didn't need much to Kickstart its already existent infrastructure and shift it into 5th gear. For Italy this capability simply did not exist. Although mussolini did make Italy industrialized, there were a million other problems on the plate for him in the 20s that diverted attention away from the issue. Creating the infrastructure for industry to even happen in the first place was a paramount one.
Most of the problems that italy had came about after the war started. It was a terrible idea to enter ww2, which you can fault mussolini *and* hitler for, their communication with each other was absolutely piss-poor. Italy wasn't ready to enter but Germany, with some exceptions, wasn't exactly the best ally either. Hitler had big problems in properly communicating with mussolini and had a tendency to just do shit, the worst example was barbarossa which blindsided the italians entirely, as Germany had promised them 2 extra years to prepare for war by 1943 (and that didn't happen, evidently). Mussolini in turn had pretty much the same issue, he never communicated the invasion of the balkans. Which stalled barbarossa, which mussolini didnt even think was supposed to happen yet. Fuckery all around. Regardless, his policy at home was pretty damned solid.
Furthermore, I consider that Israel must be destroyed