That's Rabbi Cuckstein to you! We all support Israel, right guyz? The USS Liberty was full of Nazis. The Twin Towers? Also Nazis. Those kids trafficked by our beloved Maxwell and Epstein? Also Nazis.
Except that this is an Internet social media forum with a long list of RULES that posters have to follow. Posts that don't follow those RULES should be deported. That's not the government banning speech.
Exactly. And the rules are, patriots only. These neo nazi idiots are the antithesis of being a patriot. And its hard to dispense redpills with facts when so much bullshit is spilling from the anuses of these idiots they call mouths
patriotism
NOUN
the quality of being patriotic; vigorous support for one's country.
"a highly decorated officer of unquestionable integrity and patriotism"
So, based on that definition, let's consider what "one's country" means.
Q)Who was this country created for?
A) Whites of good character, as a means of preserving the people, history, culture, and values of Europe by creating a new system of government that would better protect the liberties of that specific group. A group literally spelled out explicitly, repeatedly, in law and in the debates around the creation of this system of government and law, and which was preserved as such for almost 200 years until finally changed in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 which finally removed the race and country based restrictions meant to maintain the WHITE EUROPEAN racial and ethnic makeup of this nation which had successfully maintained the white European supermajority for almost TWO CENTURIES.
The proponents of the Hart–Celler Act argued that it would not significantly influence United States culture. President Johnson said it was "not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions." Secretary of State Dean Rusk and other politicians, including Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), asserted that the bill would not affect the U.S. demographic mix. However, following the passage of the law, the ethnic composition of immigrants changed, altering the ethnic makeup of the U.S. with increased numbers of immigrants from Africa, the Americas, Asia, and the West Indies.
Following this dramatic betrayal of the American people and this nation that had been created for those of European heritage, the share of non-hispanic White Americans plummeted from a long term ~90% supermajority to the ~60% it's at today, and is projected by the Census Bureau to have whites as a MINORITY IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY within a single generation, by around 2042.
(Also see "The Naturalization Act of 1790 (1 Stat. 103, enacted March 26, 1790 ) was a law of the United States Congress that set the first uniform rules for the granting of United States citizenship by naturalization. The law limited naturalization to "free white person[s] ... of good character", thus excluding Native Americans, indentured servants, slaves, free blacks and later Asians, although free blacks were allowed citizenship at the state level in a number of states.")
The idea that this country was created as a "melting pot" to take in the human refuse of the world, to act as a global nanny, to take the wealth of the American people and dump it into third world shit holes while opening our doors wide open and welcoming them all to come here and live off our hard work and ruin our communities with their low intelligence, crime, rape, violence, murder, etc... degrading the greatest country on Earth that our ancestors built and defended for us...
(And also note that "Birthright Citizenship" also violates the Constitution and those founding principles as well and is limited specifically to the children of citizens and legal residents etc... not to anyone who manages to somehow step foot on our soil. But that's yet another issue that true patriots care about that idiots don't.)
It is quite easy to say that YOU in fact are the unpatriotic one... the one that hates what this country actually was created to be... the one who is the globalists who wants to get rid of our borders, to lie about why this country was created and what its borders were meant to do... the one who wishes to see the American people and way of life erased and replaced with inferior foreign peoples, values, beliefs, and goals for what THEY want this country to become both in blood and spirit.
So spare me your ignorant and demonstrably wrong idiocy and whining about "Nazis" being "globalists" and that somehow they cannot be "patriotic."
It's a matter of understanding history and being able to make a reasonable argument based on actual facts rather than the intellectually bankrupt cognitive train-wreck you just shat on us like explosive diarrhea through your keyboard.
You're free to criticize Nazis for valid reasons. But don't spout off the dumb shit you just did and expect to be taken seriously. There were a number of things the Nazis were right about then, and a number of things various White Nationalists or Neo-Nazis are right about today despite having other things wrong. So if we're going to criticize them, do it from a historically informed and soundly reasoned position, not the reallyreally dumb shit you're spouting.
Not a Nazi and don't like Nazis. But I'm able to point out the errors and false claims being made by OP.
Apparently such critical thinking and being able to defend the accuracy of claims being made about a group you don't like, without actually liking that group or promoting that ideology, are concepts above your intellectual ability.
It's like how one might be able to argue in defense of abortion from a pro-choice person's perspective, without actually being pro-choice.... or how a pro-choice person (say, for example, an atheist) might be able to argue the pro-life person's perspective by hypothetically stating the premises of things like souls and life beginning at conception in that spiritual sense, and thus see any life being ended as being equivalent in that sense.
That doesn't mean the person has to agree with it entirely, or hold that as their own position, but they can understand why someone else would given certain other beliefs that serve as the basis for their worldview.
And some of those kinds of beliefs are SUBJECTIVE, not objective.
For example what do you value more: PERSONAL LIBERTY or the SOCIAL CONTRACT? And to what extent? How important is individual liberty to you? Where do you draw the line between your freedom and the good of the society in which you live?
Speed limits? Gun laws? Free speech? All of these things, even in the US, are related to those kinds of questions, balancing those subjective interests.
One might be able to argue in defense of another position one doesn't personally hold because they can understand the difference in subjective values between the people holding them... and might understand that in a sense they are all valid and that you can only try to persuade other people to change their subjective positions that might sway them toward a different conclusion... or make arguments like many often do claiming that the outcomes of a particular ideology are likely to be negative and thus we should prefer other options that we can argue would have better outcomes. (Even aside from the super obvious holocaust issue with the Nazis, or even the claims of Lebensraum including massacring the slavs etc...)
You might be able to actually understand the aspects of National Socialism that made it popular and turned Germany into the leading Industrial power in the world before WW2. You might be able to pick out those positive aspects while criticizing the aspects that led to the mass murder and destruction of so many lives. Much like you might do with something like a critique of Capitalism or Socialism and try to figure out which parts might actually be useful in order to maybe create an even better system by cutting out the bad and keeping the good.... much like the FOUNDING FATHERS OF THIS COUNTRY DID when they rebelled against their ancestral homeland and ruler and took the best aspects of numerous other systems of law and government from around the world over thousands of years and created the greatest nation on Earth in the history of the world.
Again... maybe it's too hard for you not to see the world in childishly oversimplified black and white... and to see that things are rarely, if ever, 100% good or 100% bad.
If it's so blatantly a failed ideology being astroturfed with fake shills then why is it such a threat to you? Why do you feel the need to cancel it instead of letting it fall flat in the court of public opinions as our forefathers intended?
Maybe YOUR ideology isn't nearly as concrete as you thought.
And how well is Germany doing today by going against the Nazi notion of Germany for Germans and opening their borders to millions of migrants?
Hrm? Please answer honestly. Would they be better off with a Germany for Germans, or a Germany full of Islamists raping their women, running over their children and spouses... increasing loss of freedom, safety, social cohesion and trust, etc?
Compare that to Poland, who chose not to allow the migrants to flood in and has focused on protecting Poland for Poles.
Who is safer, happier, more cohesive today as a country?
Now tell me again why you hate the idea of protecting your own nation and ethnic group?
Id rather let the democrats win then fight with the swastikas.
I would line each and every swastika up right next to your democrat neighbors and commit warcrimes before id let a single fucking ounce of your bullshit pass
Not a fan of da-joos! posts, but censorious fruits like you are even worse & most of the time y'all call anything you don't like a nazi or a communist because you're linguistically retarded
You mean, once again steal the land from Poland that was Polish 150 years prior and got stolen only because THREE european superpowers (Germany/Prussia, Austria-Hungary and Russia) ganged up on them?
Prussia was Polands bitch in 1500s and stopped being so only because of the Deluge, when two European superpowers (Russia and Sweden) ganged up on Poland and Prussia, despite being an ally, betrayed Poland and promised to switch sides only when Polish king promises to set them free from vassal position, and they grown from it over time. But they starting position came from betrayal.
You might like to look back into history just a lil bit more than WW I.
Look at 12th century Prussia... Who's land was stolen from that perspective? You basically just admitted as much. What piece of land on this earth could you not call stolen from some perspective or another? It's childish bullshit.
Look at 12th century Prussia... Who's land was stolen from that perspective?
Prussian land by Teutons, because Prussians were pagans at the time.
But you're right. But I'm also partially right.
Anyway.
My take on Nazis and Hitler? If Hitler would have stay in the borders he already have and fought his domestic problems, he would have been regarded as a hero today UNANIMOUSLY. Because he lifted Germany up in record time and made them into superpower.
But he fucked up picking fights left and right and finally getting his ass handed to him. A take that he was on some great quest to squash communism worldwide is bunch of bullshit, since he basically signed treaties with communists. Up until Barbarossa Germany waged war mostly on oil bought from Soviets.
History could remember him as a hero without any doubt but he fucked it all up. Legend and myths about him, negative myths by jew lovers and positive myths by /pol/ circlejerks are both retarded.
And where was that written? Please quote the Chapter and Verse of where they've said that. The only and ONLY Group who had espoused Global Domination was the Communists. It was call The ComIntern = Communists International. The National Socialists formed because of this. International Bolschevism aka ComIntern, started a Civil War in Germany resulting in tens of thousands killed. Strangely enough, Wikipedia has scrubbed those deaths but foolishly brags about the Soviets helping to try and overthrow the German Government. I'd like to point out that most all of the Communist leadership, aka the Bolsheviks, were jews. This is why the National Socialists formed and why they specifically sought to remove any and all jews from power due to the various Socialist Revolutions they were helping to finance and cause all over Europe and even around the Globe.
So, whoever the fuck you are you're spouting absolute bullshit and it needs to stop.
How would they have conquered the world there sparkystein? They were fighting against the International Globalist Bolsheviks who were trying to take over everything. Nobody said shit about that now did they? Nope. Commies invaded Poland. Commies invaded Finland. Nobody said shit. Why? Because they never...NEVER posed a threat to the International Bankers like the National Socialists did and the Commie Bolsheviks SIDED with the International Bankers and got off scott free!
And Polish fared very well against Soviets on their own, winning the Polish-Soviet war of 1919, postponing westward communist expansion by two decades. No one fucking wanted Germanys "help" because it wasn't needed.
And let's disregard the fact that both socialist nations (Germany and Soviets) signed a fucking friends-chums-forever pact of cooperation for two years. Nazis were basically waging war using fucking soviet oil.
Hitler should have stay in the borders he already had and he would be unanimously regarded as hero today, but he fucked up, bigly.
The fact yall nazi ass stormfagging posters are so worked up is exactly why you dont belong here. Find somewhere else. This place is for american patriots. Not your bullshit.
The LITERAL NAME of the ideology proves you wrong.
They were NATIONAL socialists whose primary argument with the Communists was that the commies were INTERNATIONAL socialists.
The whole point was that the Nazis wanted to protect and enforce German borders, act only for the sake of the German people, etc. Any expansion of their territory they specifically did for the sake of "Lebensraum" or "Living Space" for their people, and the existing people would either be liquidated or used as labor for the German people etc.
They were the polar opposite of the INTERNATIONAL socialists who wanted open borders, a global revolution, and had zero concerns about national identity and ethnic groups... for them it was all about class, the workers vs the capitalists, and of a global concern for "working people" everywhere etc.
The German's didn't give a shit about you unless you were German, or a threat to Germans, or had some resource they wanted to take from you FOR Germans.
False. They are specifically INTERnational socialists. They want OPEN BORDERS and believe that globalism helps out the rest of the world's people even if it harms "our own" (a concept they hate.)
I don't see why this is hard for people to understand. It was the core argument between the Nazis (actual National Socialists) and the Communists (INTERnational Socialists).
I think the mistake many people make is that national socialism specifically refers to nationalism or is at the exclusion of international socialism.
Though difference branches will tie these together fundamentally they're inherently their own things.
National socialism is just one nation under socialism. The distinction is more one of practicality. For many actors they can only rule their nation so international socialism simply isn't an option. National socialism is the maximum socialism usually achievable. Given the opportunity however it doesn't mean they won't go further.
You can talk about taking over a nation as a fairly regular theme but in terms of objectives taking over the world wouldn't normally be viable.
National socialists can be international socialists as well. This might not be true of all branches but it is of the Democrats version of national socialism.
Funnily enough international is often the wrong word as well. That means between nations. Globalist is a better terms because they believe in elevating international organisations to become supernational powers such as the UN and the WHO. They believe in global authority over independence or sovereignty.
First, I typed all this and then realized I can make the point more simply... so you can skip to the end of the comment for when I cut to "the chase."
I think the mistake many people make is that national socialism specifically refers to nationalism or is at the exclusion of international socialism.
First, to be clear, I didn't conflate national socialism with nationalism. Nor did I actually claim to be a supporter of national socialism (which I'm not.)
That page gives a nice list of a variety of National Socialist movements, some related to the Nazis, others not. Many predating the Nazi party and others still existing today that have never been related to the Nazis.
Looking through those makes it clear that a driving force is the goal of protecting and promoting the interests of a given ethnic group and/or the nation comprised of that group. This is in line with Nationalism itself.
Nationalism is an idea and movement that promotes the interests of a particular nation (as in a group of people), especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining the nation's sovereignty (self-governance) over its homeland. Nationalism holds that each nation should govern itself, free from outside interference (self-determination), that a nation is a natural and ideal basis for a polity and that the nation is the only rightful source of political power (popular sovereignty). It further aims to build and maintain a single national identity, based on shared social characteristics of culture, ethnicity, geographic location, language, politics (or the government), religion, traditions and belief in a shared singular history, and to promote national unity or solidarity. Nationalism seeks to preserve and foster a nation's traditional cultures and cultural revivals have been associated with nationalist movements. It also encourages pride in national achievements and is closely linked to patriotism. Nationalism is often combined with other ideologies such as conservatism (national conservatism) or socialism (left-wing nationalism).
As such, it's essentially Nationalism with a focus on a specific sodio-economic framework. Socialism instead of Capitalism. But the umbrella over it is a Nationalist one with Nationalist interests and focus rather than international interests and focus. The two actually are rather mutually exclusive.
You may argue that one MAY be a step toward the other, but in the case of the Nazi party and various others, they are rather explicitly not and seek to KEEP their country for their own people, restrict immigration, focus their efforts inward, respect national sovereignty (which is a hallmark of Nationalism, and which means also not being interested in spreading their ideology to other countries, as they believe countries have the right to rule themselves as their own people see fit... in contrast with the internationalist mentality which believes in things like world government, global revolutionary movements, trying to promote change in other countries to join their movement, etc.)
Again, Democrats aren't national socialists. They do not have Nationalist ideals, nor have any interest in things like national sovereignty, closed borders, etc... they are very gloabalist, internationalist, open borders, hate this country, see it as evil and in need of being torn down and rebuilt as part of a global order, with open borders, whites driven further into minority status, etc.
The only thing Democrats have in common with National Socialists is the Socialism part. They're anti-Nationalist. They're international Socialists.
I wouldn't say they're terribly interested in Communism though as they definitely love having their own property and wealth, love having government exist and be a part of it to control other people's lives etc. They do it for power and to virtue signal and don't ever imagine themselves being the ones to be lined up against the wall should the revolution actually ever succeed.
International Socialism wants to share resources on a global scale... to create a global scale collective.
National Socialism cares specifically about its own Nation or Ethnic group (such as in the Arabs wanting to create a Pan-Arab single entity under it's National Socialism, or the Germans wanting to unite with Austria etc and reunite all the ethnic German people in one nation again.) But their concern is specifically in contrast to the global human collective, and specifically focuses on its own nation contrary to the global collective. National socialism is implicitly contradictory to international socialism, as even state level socialism is not national socialism if its concerns are still on a global scale or with the desire for such a global spread to other nations and peoples. The moment your concerns start moving outward to the world, you are no longer National Socialist. You're just Socialist.
It's not just "oh we're not there yet, or we can't do the whole world yet but we'd like to."
It's "I only care about my own people and the ability of my own people to work for the betterment of our own ethnic group. Our nation will cooperate internally to achieve the goals that we, as a special people, are uniquely capable of, and to preserve our culture, traditions, posterity, history, language, beliefs, etc... and do not care what other sovereign nations or people do."
It rejects the global collective outright in favor of focus on one's own people and nation. It DOESN'T WANT to promote a global collective, because the global collective is CONTRARY TO its interests. It might think all nations adopting National Socialism would be good, but it doesn't advocate it and doesn't want "workers of the world uniting" etc. It wants each nation to do whatever is best for that nation, and it only wants its own people to care about its own people.
A lot of this is really trying to work out terminology. This can be difficult. You can look at what German National Socialists said to explain themselves, conventional meanings or what it was in practice. I tend to lean toward what things are and what they're supposed to be rather than interpretations.
For me national socialism is an abstract concept that's very broad. I could create my own variant of it which would still be national socialism but differ in all the conventional ways from other manifestations. You can only fit so much into a name. I know two people called Bob but they're very different people.
I know two people who are firefighters but they do not have identical philosophies of firefighting or on matters loosely related or unrelated. On things smoking should be banned, one thinks otherwise. It's a mistake to think when you see one that supports the extreme preventative measure is representative of all manifestations of firefighting.
National socialism in its most basic form simply means socialism on a national basis. It's like the National Health System. It means one socialist system for the nation, one society, run by people applying sociological speculation. It is monopolistic and holistic.
National socialism, whether it's on a national scale because that's the maximum extent of its ability to expend or because of some ideological notion is secondary to what really makes a national socialist, it's not truly at the core of the ideology though those with their own specific take would like to make arguments for why it is. They all like to say they're the one true national socialists but to really understand it you have to understand what they fundamentally have in common which can be hard without enough permutations to see what is variable and what isn't.
The Germans were a funny lot because ideologically they wanted it for their own country and wanted to run things their own way with lesser concern for other ideologies globally yet when it came down to it they still did not respect the independence and sovereignty of other nations. Though for different reasons they still converged on the same evil.
Most people today don't really understand what nations are or how they work and the notion that the Germans were bad simply because they were nationalist is nonsense. All nations were nationalist and if you're going to carry that argument then you would have to question whether the Germans were the wrong party in ignoring Poland, France and Russia's among others sense of entitlement to a national status as nations inherently nationalist.
Leaders of nations that lead socialist nations might also believe that model best for the world but they're not world leaders in a literal sense, they're not leaders of the world. There are however a branch of them working in that direction.
As we see modern national socialism it's not as strictly global as you think and it still follows the same underlying principle of the German version. It still picks favourite peoples, races, etc. It's really only different in that it's knocked Germans down in the rankings over other groups. It's very much otherwise the same thing.
One of the reasons that National Socialism was able to rise in Germany is because they at least hit one nail on the head. People in their own country take precedence. The elite at the time one way or another were complicit in effectively policies of German's last stemming from the great war.
Taking on a more global perspective has a lot more to do with simply that they can. If the world were as connected when national socialists were running Germany they then too probably would have further pushed for global reach.
That's like saying Christians don't believe in Jesus because you can make up your own Christianity that doesn't believe in Jesus. It ignores one of the most core tenets of the philosophy and beliefs, a rather defining trait if you will, simply because you say you can change the meaning if you want, as though that negates the existing almost unanimous consensus belief and understanding of those who actually use that label to sincerely define themselves.
That's a little hyperbolic, to make the point, but not much really.
National socialism in its most basic form simply means socialism on a national basis.
That's where I think you're going off the rails in your reasoning. That's not the consensus definition. You're talking about small scale Socialism. That's just Socialism.
National Socialism isn't just referring to small scale socialism. It's socialism that rejects (International) Socialism, which is the main branch of socialism, and sets itself apart by explicitly stating that it is Nationalist in nature. Not internationalist.
The Austrians didn't like immigrants in their workplace, so they created a Nationalist brand of Socialism that would restrict it to their own national interests contrary to the parent strain of international socialism, hence clarifying their opposition to mainstream socialism by denoting it as specifically nationalist. The Germans were the same way. The Arabs were interested in advancing the interests of the Arabs specifically, not others, and thus wanted to group the Arab states together and create a Pan-Arab nationalist movement with socialism being a part of that framework. These are socialist movements specifically focused on rejecting the international aspects of (International) Socialism. Again, the reason for stating it in the name, because it's the exception to the rule. The rejection of the international aspect of mainstream socialism. The rejection of the global community in favor of one's own ethnic group or nation alone.
Again, not merely "we want to but can't", but specifically "we DON'T want to, hence putting it in the name. It's not any part of our goal. We reject that goal in favor of this other mutually exclusive one."
I think toward the end of your comment (you get a bit incoherent toward the end grammatically, but I think I follow what you're saying) you mistake what a Nation is.
A nation is a community of people formed on the basis of a common language, history, ethnicity, or a common culture, and, in many cases, a shared territory. A nation is more overtly political than an ethnic group; it has been described as "a fully mobilized or institutionalized ethnic group". Some nations are equated with ethnic groups (see ethnic nationalism and nation state) and some are equated with an affiliation with a social and political constitution (see civic nationalism and multiculturalism).
It is in this sense that National Socialism exists today in the more "Nazi" sense... the shared identity of whites more broadly, and those of Germanic heritage more specifically.
It is a bit like a diaspora identity and a desire to recreate a system that would act in the interests of that racial/ethnic group specifically, without regard to the interest of other groups, or even to the detriment of other groups. The point being that it doesn't inherently care about "the working class of the world". It cares about the German people or whites in general. The larger ethnic/racial group that it sees as its nation.
There are various other nations as well today, often without clearly defined borders... the "First Nations" here in the US for example.
This gets into philosophical issues like the difference between a NATION and a STATE, and how they combine to form Nation States, and concepts such as ETHNIC NATIONALISM etc.
I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to dig into those concepts. It's too much to get into in a comment here and it's past my bedtime. ;)
We have this thing called English or language. If we're going to call national socialism nationalism you're not conforming to the language. The consensus is of people with an IQ of 100 or less who are incapable of understanding the most basic set theory. They're not relevant. It's like trying to establish trigonometry by asking worms for their opinion.
The major mistake people make is that don't look up what NSDAP means or Nazi is short for. Though the party was particularly nationalistic it's not in their name. It's national, not nationalist. That's a very different meaning. It's much as it doesn't say "Kill Ze Jews" in their name. To truly encapsulate the party's ideological, sociological and political theories takes volumes. It's not consistent either and like most left wing ideology it has a strong potential for being contradictory which can add to much of the confusion.
Generally speaking you need national socialism before moving on to global or international socialism socialism. When you stop at national socialism isn't inherent to national socialism itself.
What's crucial in this is that communism is an extension of socialism, global socialism and national socialism are all branches of socialism. They all have something in common.
They all have class theory in common and though it doesn't necessarily fit into its name national socialism is most famous for applying class theory to race. When you look at the national socialists in the USA they are the same in that respect except for an inversion to the extreme opposite in many cases.
They simply reversed the rankings so for example now disabled people are on the top of the social hierarchy but it's basically the same thing. When there's no more white people in the USA and the master races are dominant you'll start to see a very familiar picture.
The term "National Socialism" arose out of attempts to create a nationalist redefinition of socialism, as an alternative to both Marxist international socialism and free-market capitalism.
Read that as many times as it takes until you get it.
For as much as some of the censorship here is for leftists pussies, the rules do exist. (And not nearly as bad as Reddit, but still clearly inferior to Gab.)
People should get on Gab and not this sycophantic Trump cock sucking site if Free Speech is a serious issue for them... and I say that as a Trump supporter.
This site has Trump's same kind of poor judgment about a lot of things (a lot of the people he promotes or welcomes into his cabinet or appoints to key positions etc), and then adds censorship on top of that to avoid offending certain people in order to make itself more marketable. Effeminate leftist traits of wanting to put "big tent harmony" ahead of "free speech and valid criticism" etc. Same shit lots of other groups have done in the past 15 years under leftist pressure to be more welcoming and less offensive to women and other minority groups etc.
Again, if some "Nazi" here promotes racist arguments, then they're violating the rules and that's that. If one cares about Free Speech, this isn't the hill to fight that battle on.
Funny because that's exactly what the mods told r/the-donald
Dont you realize that policing "hate speech" is anti-american and anti-1A? Thats literally the thing that got Geotus banned from Twitter. Do you also support what they did to him? If someone says some racist shit to me, yeh it'll piss me off but I don't want their words banned. That's fuckin liberal tranny talk
See, just do what the faggot did after reading my comment. Downvote it and stop bitching about it.
The town he was born in is actually in modern day Belarus, so you could argue that he was Ruthenian/Belarussian (the nationality of Belarussians was already there but they were not separate country yet) even, but he spoke Polish and regarded himself as Polish. He was Polish.
The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (called Commonwealth of Both Nations in Poland) was actually a single country back then. With some minor separate governments for Polish and Lithuanian parts but it was in practicality one state. It's not like Lithuania was "ruled" by Poland. They were our partners, the double-state was already formed for a few centuries before Kosciuszko was born.
He is regarded as a hero in Poland, Lithuania, Belarus and USA.
(Third response because of few typos and edit button doesn't work)
And ban Anaconda. Its extremely fishy he's been allowed to stay after all this time when everything he posts is hot garbage on a daily basis. I've seen multiple people get banned on numerous accounts for way less.
This seems like a very good place to present the argument that the holocaust could very possibly have been faked.
Anne Frank's sister says the the Russians admitted to her that the Soviet photos of Auschwitz were staged for publicity reasons (https://files.catbox.moe/a66r8o.mp4). The government of the USSR was primarily jewish (https://archive.org/details/PutinSovietGovernmentWasMostlyJewish8085). All of the rumored mass murdering of jews took place in what was the soviet sector after the war (https://files.catbox.moe/kd2622.jpg). So its not implausible that the justification for the creation of a jewish ethnostate in Palestine was created fraudulently. The means to fake it was available to the jewish dominated USSR, they had the motive and the opportunity was also presented to them.
I don't deny Zionist involvement in many sick, bad things. I'm no jew lover but I also don't hate every single one of them on the planet like some glowposters seem to.
We need to expose the truth about everyone, jews and non jews alike.
But fake jewposting is just dumb, it fucking glows and just makes us look like dumb mofos. The post I linked is 1000% fake and gay jewpost that got debunked yet the OP faggot was hellbent that he's somehow right without any sources, yet he was debunked WITH sources.
Nazis are globalist socialists, who else is a socialist? The democrats.
Umm... you realize your premise is 100% false, right?
The LITERAL NAME is NATIONAL socialists. Their primary argument with the Communists was over the difference between NATIONAL socialism and INTERNATIONAL (globalist) socialism.
You can argue that they are socialists, but seriously... do a little reading so that you don't literally contradict the very name of the ideology and one of its core premises.
If I had to choose between the Democrats and the Nazis, I'd pick the Nazis. That doesn't mean I like socialists or communism etc. It means that if I have to choose between a socialism that wants to erase white people, have open borders, and celebrate and reward degeneracy.... or one that protects its borders, acts in the interest of its own ethnic group, and outlaws degeneracy, then the "lesser evil" couldn't be more obvious.
I suppose you could argue that people who actually value Free Speech should be over on Gab anyway... so whatever... go ahead and call for censorship like a left wing bitch. But hey, at least get your facts straight when you do so.
Fuck off rabbi.
That's Rabbi Cuckstein to you! We all support Israel, right guyz? The USS Liberty was full of Nazis. The Twin Towers? Also Nazis. Those kids trafficked by our beloved Maxwell and Epstein? Also Nazis.
Oh no anyone whose against fake jewposting must be a jew.
Fuck off democrat
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
You know who else cancels the 1st amendment for speech they don't like?
The democrats.
Except that this is an Internet social media forum with a long list of RULES that posters have to follow. Posts that don't follow those RULES should be deported. That's not the government banning speech.
Exactly. And the rules are, patriots only. These neo nazi idiots are the antithesis of being a patriot. And its hard to dispense redpills with facts when so much bullshit is spilling from the anuses of these idiots they call mouths
Let's address this, shall we? :)
So, based on that definition, let's consider what "one's country" means.
Q) Who was this country created for?
A) Whites of good character, as a means of preserving the people, history, culture, and values of Europe by creating a new system of government that would better protect the liberties of that specific group. A group literally spelled out explicitly, repeatedly, in law and in the debates around the creation of this system of government and law, and which was preserved as such for almost 200 years until finally changed in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 which finally removed the race and country based restrictions meant to maintain the WHITE EUROPEAN racial and ethnic makeup of this nation which had successfully maintained the white European supermajority for almost TWO CENTURIES.
Following this dramatic betrayal of the American people and this nation that had been created for those of European heritage, the share of non-hispanic White Americans plummeted from a long term ~90% supermajority to the ~60% it's at today, and is projected by the Census Bureau to have whites as a MINORITY IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY within a single generation, by around 2042.
(Also see "The Naturalization Act of 1790 (1 Stat. 103, enacted March 26, 1790 ) was a law of the United States Congress that set the first uniform rules for the granting of United States citizenship by naturalization. The law limited naturalization to "free white person[s] ... of good character", thus excluding Native Americans, indentured servants, slaves, free blacks and later Asians, although free blacks were allowed citizenship at the state level in a number of states.")
The idea that this country was created as a "melting pot" to take in the human refuse of the world, to act as a global nanny, to take the wealth of the American people and dump it into third world shit holes while opening our doors wide open and welcoming them all to come here and live off our hard work and ruin our communities with their low intelligence, crime, rape, violence, murder, etc... degrading the greatest country on Earth that our ancestors built and defended for us...
(And also note that "Birthright Citizenship" also violates the Constitution and those founding principles as well and is limited specifically to the children of citizens and legal residents etc... not to anyone who manages to somehow step foot on our soil. But that's yet another issue that true patriots care about that idiots don't.)
It is quite easy to say that YOU in fact are the unpatriotic one... the one that hates what this country actually was created to be... the one who is the globalists who wants to get rid of our borders, to lie about why this country was created and what its borders were meant to do... the one who wishes to see the American people and way of life erased and replaced with inferior foreign peoples, values, beliefs, and goals for what THEY want this country to become both in blood and spirit.
So spare me your ignorant and demonstrably wrong idiocy and whining about "Nazis" being "globalists" and that somehow they cannot be "patriotic."
It's a matter of understanding history and being able to make a reasonable argument based on actual facts rather than the intellectually bankrupt cognitive train-wreck you just shat on us like explosive diarrhea through your keyboard.
You're free to criticize Nazis for valid reasons. But don't spout off the dumb shit you just did and expect to be taken seriously. There were a number of things the Nazis were right about then, and a number of things various White Nationalists or Neo-Nazis are right about today despite having other things wrong. So if we're going to criticize them, do it from a historically informed and soundly reasoned position, not the really really dumb shit you're spouting.
Boy thats a lotta words to say "IM A FUCKING RETARD"
Go shave your head at stormfront you fuckin fool.
You argue like a leftist, too.
Or is this your half-baked pilpul?
Tell me, do you think anyone would find your "argument" persuasive who doesn't already agree with you?
No, anyone with a brain would find your nazi propaganda bullshit retarded.
Im just sayin it out loud.
You dont belong here.
Not a Nazi and don't like Nazis. But I'm able to point out the errors and false claims being made by OP.
Apparently such critical thinking and being able to defend the accuracy of claims being made about a group you don't like, without actually liking that group or promoting that ideology, are concepts above your intellectual ability.
It's like how one might be able to argue in defense of abortion from a pro-choice person's perspective, without actually being pro-choice.... or how a pro-choice person (say, for example, an atheist) might be able to argue the pro-life person's perspective by hypothetically stating the premises of things like souls and life beginning at conception in that spiritual sense, and thus see any life being ended as being equivalent in that sense.
That doesn't mean the person has to agree with it entirely, or hold that as their own position, but they can understand why someone else would given certain other beliefs that serve as the basis for their worldview.
And some of those kinds of beliefs are SUBJECTIVE, not objective.
For example what do you value more: PERSONAL LIBERTY or the SOCIAL CONTRACT? And to what extent? How important is individual liberty to you? Where do you draw the line between your freedom and the good of the society in which you live?
Speed limits? Gun laws? Free speech? All of these things, even in the US, are related to those kinds of questions, balancing those subjective interests.
One might be able to argue in defense of another position one doesn't personally hold because they can understand the difference in subjective values between the people holding them... and might understand that in a sense they are all valid and that you can only try to persuade other people to change their subjective positions that might sway them toward a different conclusion... or make arguments like many often do claiming that the outcomes of a particular ideology are likely to be negative and thus we should prefer other options that we can argue would have better outcomes. (Even aside from the super obvious holocaust issue with the Nazis, or even the claims of Lebensraum including massacring the slavs etc...)
You might be able to actually understand the aspects of National Socialism that made it popular and turned Germany into the leading Industrial power in the world before WW2. You might be able to pick out those positive aspects while criticizing the aspects that led to the mass murder and destruction of so many lives. Much like you might do with something like a critique of Capitalism or Socialism and try to figure out which parts might actually be useful in order to maybe create an even better system by cutting out the bad and keeping the good.... much like the FOUNDING FATHERS OF THIS COUNTRY DID when they rebelled against their ancestral homeland and ruler and took the best aspects of numerous other systems of law and government from around the world over thousands of years and created the greatest nation on Earth in the history of the world.
Again... maybe it's too hard for you not to see the world in childishly oversimplified black and white... and to see that things are rarely, if ever, 100% good or 100% bad.
If Biden banned semis and ghost guns, are you gonna follow his rules?
I don't want to be associated with someone with low testosterone.
Free speech has NOTHING to do with government, except that they've been the primary route of censorship for the last two millennia.
Free speech is free speech. Anyone denying humans that right is in the wrong.
Yeah cuz muddling the message of patriots is good for anyone.
I dont give a fuck about fake shilling for failed ideologies.this place is for patriots
If it's so blatantly a failed ideology being astroturfed with fake shills then why is it such a threat to you? Why do you feel the need to cancel it instead of letting it fall flat in the court of public opinions as our forefathers intended?
Maybe YOUR ideology isn't nearly as concrete as you thought.
Nah. It needs to be eradicated. It should have been burned out after wwii
Just like the communists should have fucking died out after the fall of the USSR.
Both are failed ideologies. Both harbor the most scum of "human beings"
Kinda really depends on what you mean by "Patriot" now doesn't it?
If you wanna be your kind of patriot go back to germany, lets see how long your retarded ass lives.
No worries though. Stormfront idiots will be lined up right after the dems are anyway.
And how well is Germany doing today by going against the Nazi notion of Germany for Germans and opening their borders to millions of migrants?
Hrm? Please answer honestly. Would they be better off with a Germany for Germans, or a Germany full of Islamists raping their women, running over their children and spouses... increasing loss of freedom, safety, social cohesion and trust, etc?
Compare that to Poland, who chose not to allow the migrants to flood in and has focused on protecting Poland for Poles.
Who is safer, happier, more cohesive today as a country?
Now tell me again why you hate the idea of protecting your own nation and ethnic group?
I'm all ears so to speak.
LOL your vein of "patriots" is just gonna hide in their houses with their guns until Biden's goons come kicking down their door.
Id rather let the democrats win then fight with the swastikas.
I would line each and every swastika up right next to your democrat neighbors and commit warcrimes before id let a single fucking ounce of your bullshit pass
Nazis are national socialists
Global socialists are glazis
Not a fan of da-joos! posts, but censorious fruits like you are even worse & most of the time y'all call anything you don't like a nazi or a communist because you're linguistically retarded
Nazis are nationalists in name only. Their goal was a one world government.
Their goal was to reestablish prussia, you've bought into communist propaganda
Yeah cuz prussia encompassed france and england.
Boy you are a retarded cunt too huh
France declared war on Germany before anything happened in France. You're going to want to freshen up on your history lad
Because they were guaranteeing Poland.
You mean, once again steal the land from Poland that was Polish 150 years prior and got stolen only because THREE european superpowers (Germany/Prussia, Austria-Hungary and Russia) ganged up on them?
Prussia was Polands bitch in 1500s and stopped being so only because of the Deluge, when two European superpowers (Russia and Sweden) ganged up on Poland and Prussia, despite being an ally, betrayed Poland and promised to switch sides only when Polish king promises to set them free from vassal position, and they grown from it over time. But they starting position came from betrayal.
You might like to look back into history just a lil bit more than WW I.
> look back into history pre WW1
>> You mean STEALING reeee!
> Prussia was Poland's bitch in the 1500s
Look at 12th century Prussia... Who's land was stolen from that perspective? You basically just admitted as much. What piece of land on this earth could you not call stolen from some perspective or another? It's childish bullshit.
Prussian land by Teutons, because Prussians were pagans at the time.
But you're right. But I'm also partially right.
Anyway.
My take on Nazis and Hitler? If Hitler would have stay in the borders he already have and fought his domestic problems, he would have been regarded as a hero today UNANIMOUSLY. Because he lifted Germany up in record time and made them into superpower.
But he fucked up picking fights left and right and finally getting his ass handed to him. A take that he was on some great quest to squash communism worldwide is bunch of bullshit, since he basically signed treaties with communists. Up until Barbarossa Germany waged war mostly on oil bought from Soviets.
History could remember him as a hero without any doubt but he fucked it all up. Legend and myths about him, negative myths by jew lovers and positive myths by /pol/ circlejerks are both retarded.
And where was that written? Please quote the Chapter and Verse of where they've said that. The only and ONLY Group who had espoused Global Domination was the Communists. It was call The ComIntern = Communists International. The National Socialists formed because of this. International Bolschevism aka ComIntern, started a Civil War in Germany resulting in tens of thousands killed. Strangely enough, Wikipedia has scrubbed those deaths but foolishly brags about the Soviets helping to try and overthrow the German Government. I'd like to point out that most all of the Communist leadership, aka the Bolsheviks, were jews. This is why the National Socialists formed and why they specifically sought to remove any and all jews from power due to the various Socialist Revolutions they were helping to finance and cause all over Europe and even around the Globe.
So, whoever the fuck you are you're spouting absolute bullshit and it needs to stop.
Lets get beyond the point of you defending nazisim, a ideology true patriots fought againt.
And lets just use simple logic.
If the nazis only wanted prussia back they would have stopped at the border of prussia you fuckin smoothbrain
How would they have conquered the world there sparkystein? They were fighting against the International Globalist Bolsheviks who were trying to take over everything. Nobody said shit about that now did they? Nope. Commies invaded Poland. Commies invaded Finland. Nobody said shit. Why? Because they never...NEVER posed a threat to the International Bankers like the National Socialists did and the Commie Bolsheviks SIDED with the International Bankers and got off scott free!
And Polish fared very well against Soviets on their own, winning the Polish-Soviet war of 1919, postponing westward communist expansion by two decades. No one fucking wanted Germanys "help" because it wasn't needed.
And let's disregard the fact that both socialist nations (Germany and Soviets) signed a fucking friends-chums-forever pact of cooperation for two years. Nazis were basically waging war using fucking soviet oil.
Hitler should have stay in the borders he already had and he would be unanimously regarded as hero today, but he fucked up, bigly.
The fact yall nazi ass stormfagging posters are so worked up is exactly why you dont belong here. Find somewhere else. This place is for american patriots. Not your bullshit.
You sound like an sjw lol also study history before you speak because you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Nazis are globalists. These fucks are actual neo nazis and anything they say thats factual is pushing ten items that are not factual.
The LITERAL NAME of the ideology proves you wrong.
They were NATIONAL socialists whose primary argument with the Communists was that the commies were INTERNATIONAL socialists.
The whole point was that the Nazis wanted to protect and enforce German borders, act only for the sake of the German people, etc. Any expansion of their territory they specifically did for the sake of "Lebensraum" or "Living Space" for their people, and the existing people would either be liquidated or used as labor for the German people etc.
They were the polar opposite of the INTERNATIONAL socialists who wanted open borders, a global revolution, and had zero concerns about national identity and ethnic groups... for them it was all about class, the workers vs the capitalists, and of a global concern for "working people" everywhere etc.
The German's didn't give a shit about you unless you were German, or a threat to Germans, or had some resource they wanted to take from you FOR Germans.
The Democrats are national socialists and they do work with globalist socialists.
All national socialism means is the same as federal socialism might mean.
False. They are specifically INTERnational socialists. They want OPEN BORDERS and believe that globalism helps out the rest of the world's people even if it harms "our own" (a concept they hate.)
I don't see why this is hard for people to understand. It was the core argument between the Nazis (actual National Socialists) and the Communists (INTERnational Socialists).
I think the mistake many people make is that national socialism specifically refers to nationalism or is at the exclusion of international socialism.
Though difference branches will tie these together fundamentally they're inherently their own things.
National socialism is just one nation under socialism. The distinction is more one of practicality. For many actors they can only rule their nation so international socialism simply isn't an option. National socialism is the maximum socialism usually achievable. Given the opportunity however it doesn't mean they won't go further.
You can talk about taking over a nation as a fairly regular theme but in terms of objectives taking over the world wouldn't normally be viable.
National socialists can be international socialists as well. This might not be true of all branches but it is of the Democrats version of national socialism.
Funnily enough international is often the wrong word as well. That means between nations. Globalist is a better terms because they believe in elevating international organisations to become supernational powers such as the UN and the WHO. They believe in global authority over independence or sovereignty.
First, I typed all this and then realized I can make the point more simply... so you can skip to the end of the comment for when I cut to "the chase."
First, to be clear, I didn't conflate national socialism with nationalism. Nor did I actually claim to be a supporter of national socialism (which I'm not.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialism_(disambiguation)
That page gives a nice list of a variety of National Socialist movements, some related to the Nazis, others not. Many predating the Nazi party and others still existing today that have never been related to the Nazis.
Looking through those makes it clear that a driving force is the goal of protecting and promoting the interests of a given ethnic group and/or the nation comprised of that group. This is in line with Nationalism itself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism
As such, it's essentially Nationalism with a focus on a specific sodio-economic framework. Socialism instead of Capitalism. But the umbrella over it is a Nationalist one with Nationalist interests and focus rather than international interests and focus. The two actually are rather mutually exclusive.
You may argue that one MAY be a step toward the other, but in the case of the Nazi party and various others, they are rather explicitly not and seek to KEEP their country for their own people, restrict immigration, focus their efforts inward, respect national sovereignty (which is a hallmark of Nationalism, and which means also not being interested in spreading their ideology to other countries, as they believe countries have the right to rule themselves as their own people see fit... in contrast with the internationalist mentality which believes in things like world government, global revolutionary movements, trying to promote change in other countries to join their movement, etc.)
Again, Democrats aren't national socialists. They do not have Nationalist ideals, nor have any interest in things like national sovereignty, closed borders, etc... they are very gloabalist, internationalist, open borders, hate this country, see it as evil and in need of being torn down and rebuilt as part of a global order, with open borders, whites driven further into minority status, etc.
The only thing Democrats have in common with National Socialists is the Socialism part. They're anti-Nationalist. They're international Socialists.
I wouldn't say they're terribly interested in Communism though as they definitely love having their own property and wealth, love having government exist and be a part of it to control other people's lives etc. They do it for power and to virtue signal and don't ever imagine themselves being the ones to be lined up against the wall should the revolution actually ever succeed.
https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100007864
Let me try to put it another way...
International Socialism wants to share resources on a global scale... to create a global scale collective.
National Socialism cares specifically about its own Nation or Ethnic group (such as in the Arabs wanting to create a Pan-Arab single entity under it's National Socialism, or the Germans wanting to unite with Austria etc and reunite all the ethnic German people in one nation again.) But their concern is specifically in contrast to the global human collective, and specifically focuses on its own nation contrary to the global collective. National socialism is implicitly contradictory to international socialism, as even state level socialism is not national socialism if its concerns are still on a global scale or with the desire for such a global spread to other nations and peoples. The moment your concerns start moving outward to the world, you are no longer National Socialist. You're just Socialist.
It's not just "oh we're not there yet, or we can't do the whole world yet but we'd like to."
It's "I only care about my own people and the ability of my own people to work for the betterment of our own ethnic group. Our nation will cooperate internally to achieve the goals that we, as a special people, are uniquely capable of, and to preserve our culture, traditions, posterity, history, language, beliefs, etc... and do not care what other sovereign nations or people do."
It rejects the global collective outright in favor of focus on one's own people and nation. It DOESN'T WANT to promote a global collective, because the global collective is CONTRARY TO its interests. It might think all nations adopting National Socialism would be good, but it doesn't advocate it and doesn't want "workers of the world uniting" etc. It wants each nation to do whatever is best for that nation, and it only wants its own people to care about its own people.
A lot of this is really trying to work out terminology. This can be difficult. You can look at what German National Socialists said to explain themselves, conventional meanings or what it was in practice. I tend to lean toward what things are and what they're supposed to be rather than interpretations.
For me national socialism is an abstract concept that's very broad. I could create my own variant of it which would still be national socialism but differ in all the conventional ways from other manifestations. You can only fit so much into a name. I know two people called Bob but they're very different people.
I know two people who are firefighters but they do not have identical philosophies of firefighting or on matters loosely related or unrelated. On things smoking should be banned, one thinks otherwise. It's a mistake to think when you see one that supports the extreme preventative measure is representative of all manifestations of firefighting.
National socialism in its most basic form simply means socialism on a national basis. It's like the National Health System. It means one socialist system for the nation, one society, run by people applying sociological speculation. It is monopolistic and holistic.
National socialism, whether it's on a national scale because that's the maximum extent of its ability to expend or because of some ideological notion is secondary to what really makes a national socialist, it's not truly at the core of the ideology though those with their own specific take would like to make arguments for why it is. They all like to say they're the one true national socialists but to really understand it you have to understand what they fundamentally have in common which can be hard without enough permutations to see what is variable and what isn't.
The Germans were a funny lot because ideologically they wanted it for their own country and wanted to run things their own way with lesser concern for other ideologies globally yet when it came down to it they still did not respect the independence and sovereignty of other nations. Though for different reasons they still converged on the same evil.
Most people today don't really understand what nations are or how they work and the notion that the Germans were bad simply because they were nationalist is nonsense. All nations were nationalist and if you're going to carry that argument then you would have to question whether the Germans were the wrong party in ignoring Poland, France and Russia's among others sense of entitlement to a national status as nations inherently nationalist.
Leaders of nations that lead socialist nations might also believe that model best for the world but they're not world leaders in a literal sense, they're not leaders of the world. There are however a branch of them working in that direction.
As we see modern national socialism it's not as strictly global as you think and it still follows the same underlying principle of the German version. It still picks favourite peoples, races, etc. It's really only different in that it's knocked Germans down in the rankings over other groups. It's very much otherwise the same thing.
One of the reasons that National Socialism was able to rise in Germany is because they at least hit one nail on the head. People in their own country take precedence. The elite at the time one way or another were complicit in effectively policies of German's last stemming from the great war.
Taking on a more global perspective has a lot more to do with simply that they can. If the world were as connected when national socialists were running Germany they then too probably would have further pushed for global reach.
That's like saying Christians don't believe in Jesus because you can make up your own Christianity that doesn't believe in Jesus. It ignores one of the most core tenets of the philosophy and beliefs, a rather defining trait if you will, simply because you say you can change the meaning if you want, as though that negates the existing almost unanimous consensus belief and understanding of those who actually use that label to sincerely define themselves.
That's a little hyperbolic, to make the point, but not much really.
That's where I think you're going off the rails in your reasoning. That's not the consensus definition. You're talking about small scale Socialism. That's just Socialism.
National Socialism isn't just referring to small scale socialism. It's socialism that rejects (International) Socialism, which is the main branch of socialism, and sets itself apart by explicitly stating that it is Nationalist in nature. Not internationalist.
The Austrians didn't like immigrants in their workplace, so they created a Nationalist brand of Socialism that would restrict it to their own national interests contrary to the parent strain of international socialism, hence clarifying their opposition to mainstream socialism by denoting it as specifically nationalist. The Germans were the same way. The Arabs were interested in advancing the interests of the Arabs specifically, not others, and thus wanted to group the Arab states together and create a Pan-Arab nationalist movement with socialism being a part of that framework. These are socialist movements specifically focused on rejecting the international aspects of (International) Socialism. Again, the reason for stating it in the name, because it's the exception to the rule. The rejection of the international aspect of mainstream socialism. The rejection of the global community in favor of one's own ethnic group or nation alone.
Again, not merely "we want to but can't", but specifically "we DON'T want to, hence putting it in the name. It's not any part of our goal. We reject that goal in favor of this other mutually exclusive one."
I think toward the end of your comment (you get a bit incoherent toward the end grammatically, but I think I follow what you're saying) you mistake what a Nation is.
It is in this sense that National Socialism exists today in the more "Nazi" sense... the shared identity of whites more broadly, and those of Germanic heritage more specifically.
It is a bit like a diaspora identity and a desire to recreate a system that would act in the interests of that racial/ethnic group specifically, without regard to the interest of other groups, or even to the detriment of other groups. The point being that it doesn't inherently care about "the working class of the world". It cares about the German people or whites in general. The larger ethnic/racial group that it sees as its nation.
There are various other nations as well today, often without clearly defined borders... the "First Nations" here in the US for example.
This gets into philosophical issues like the difference between a NATION and a STATE, and how they combine to form Nation States, and concepts such as ETHNIC NATIONALISM etc.
I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to dig into those concepts. It's too much to get into in a comment here and it's past my bedtime. ;)
We have this thing called English or language. If we're going to call national socialism nationalism you're not conforming to the language. The consensus is of people with an IQ of 100 or less who are incapable of understanding the most basic set theory. They're not relevant. It's like trying to establish trigonometry by asking worms for their opinion.
The major mistake people make is that don't look up what NSDAP means or Nazi is short for. Though the party was particularly nationalistic it's not in their name. It's national, not nationalist. That's a very different meaning. It's much as it doesn't say "Kill Ze Jews" in their name. To truly encapsulate the party's ideological, sociological and political theories takes volumes. It's not consistent either and like most left wing ideology it has a strong potential for being contradictory which can add to much of the confusion.
Generally speaking you need national socialism before moving on to global or international socialism socialism. When you stop at national socialism isn't inherent to national socialism itself.
What's crucial in this is that communism is an extension of socialism, global socialism and national socialism are all branches of socialism. They all have something in common.
They all have class theory in common and though it doesn't necessarily fit into its name national socialism is most famous for applying class theory to race. When you look at the national socialists in the USA they are the same in that respect except for an inversion to the extreme opposite in many cases.
They simply reversed the rankings so for example now disabled people are on the top of the social hierarchy but it's basically the same thing. When there's no more white people in the USA and the master races are dominant you'll start to see a very familiar picture.
Read that as many times as it takes until you get it.
Wouldn’t that be Reddit level censorship?
Rules are on the sidebar. If people don't want to follow them, they need to find another site.
For as much as some of the censorship here is for leftists pussies, the rules do exist. (And not nearly as bad as Reddit, but still clearly inferior to Gab.)
People should get on Gab and not this sycophantic Trump cock sucking site if Free Speech is a serious issue for them... and I say that as a Trump supporter.
This site has Trump's same kind of poor judgment about a lot of things (a lot of the people he promotes or welcomes into his cabinet or appoints to key positions etc), and then adds censorship on top of that to avoid offending certain people in order to make itself more marketable. Effeminate leftist traits of wanting to put "big tent harmony" ahead of "free speech and valid criticism" etc. Same shit lots of other groups have done in the past 15 years under leftist pressure to be more welcoming and less offensive to women and other minority groups etc.
Again, if some "Nazi" here promotes racist arguments, then they're violating the rules and that's that. If one cares about Free Speech, this isn't the hill to fight that battle on.
Gab is. Follow your convictions.
Funny because that's exactly what the mods told r/the-donald
Dont you realize that policing "hate speech" is anti-american and anti-1A? Thats literally the thing that got Geotus banned from Twitter. Do you also support what they did to him? If someone says some racist shit to me, yeh it'll piss me off but I don't want their words banned. That's fuckin liberal tranny talk
See, just do what the faggot did after reading my comment. Downvote it and stop bitching about it.
Amen.
Truth right there.
Ok spez. Hitler also had rules.
They also need to start banning idiots posting garbage shitting up /New
Exhibit A
https://patriots.win/u/Warcraft1966/
tHe SpHiNx HaS sPoKeN
The sphincter is more like it
Love the name. Kosciuszko was an American patriot and hero.
Also a Polish patriot, Polish born. Hero of many nations.
I just read that he was actually a Lithuanian but at the time of his birth Lithuania was ruled by Poland.
The town he was born in is actually in modern day Belarus, so you could argue that he was Ruthenian/Belarussian (the nationality of Belarussians was already there but they were not separate country yet) even, but he spoke Polish and regarded himself as Polish. He was Polish.
The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (called Commonwealth of Both Nations in Poland) was actually a single country back then. With some minor separate governments for Polish and Lithuanian parts but it was in practicality one state. It's not like Lithuania was "ruled" by Poland. They were our partners, the double-state was already formed for a few centuries before Kosciuszko was born.
He is regarded as a hero in Poland, Lithuania, Belarus and USA.
(Third response because of few typos and edit button doesn't work)
And ban Anaconda. Its extremely fishy he's been allowed to stay after all this time when everything he posts is hot garbage on a daily basis. I've seen multiple people get banned on numerous accounts for way less.
This seems like a very good place to present the argument that the holocaust could very possibly have been faked.
Anne Frank's sister says the the Russians admitted to her that the Soviet photos of Auschwitz were staged for publicity reasons (https://files.catbox.moe/a66r8o.mp4). The government of the USSR was primarily jewish (https://archive.org/details/PutinSovietGovernmentWasMostlyJewish8085). All of the rumored mass murdering of jews took place in what was the soviet sector after the war (https://files.catbox.moe/kd2622.jpg). So its not implausible that the justification for the creation of a jewish ethnostate in Palestine was created fraudulently. The means to fake it was available to the jewish dominated USSR, they had the motive and the opportunity was also presented to them.
Yeah, also complete bullshit fake news posts that get from 100 to 600 updoots
Like this https://patriots.win/p/12i4DQgzdU/the-marxist-jewish-jacek-hugo-ba/
Guy got debunked thoroughly two times by two separate users yet he was persistent that he's somehow right
And such complete bullshit got 600+ updoots here even though comment threads debunking him were 2 of 3 top ones?
Fucking kek, people
Warchman4u has been shitting up everything with nazi propaganda practically sinc ehte site went live. Guy is a complete idiot and probably a glowie
Speaking of 600+...would you believe 600+ groups pledged their support to BLM? Could they be responsible for
Masonry pallets for rioters?
Protection from riot area LEOs?
Judicial leniency?
Positive media coverage?
Hollywood approval?
University BLM/Anti-white indoctrination?
All the things alleged conservative Christians are upset about.
Bet you won't click this link. It's secure, isn't a Google search, has nothing inflammatory or distracting in the search content...
Duck duck go seach:
600+ groups BLM
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=600%2B+groups+BLM&t=brave&ia=web
Checked it. Interesting.
I don't deny Zionist involvement in many sick, bad things. I'm no jew lover but I also don't hate every single one of them on the planet like some glowposters seem to.
We need to expose the truth about everyone, jews and non jews alike.
But fake jewposting is just dumb, it fucking glows and just makes us look like dumb mofos. The post I linked is 1000% fake and gay jewpost that got debunked yet the OP faggot was hellbent that he's somehow right without any sources, yet he was debunked WITH sources.
Umm... you realize your premise is 100% false, right?
The LITERAL NAME is NATIONAL socialists. Their primary argument with the Communists was over the difference between NATIONAL socialism and INTERNATIONAL (globalist) socialism.
You can argue that they are socialists, but seriously... do a little reading so that you don't literally contradict the very name of the ideology and one of its core premises.
If I had to choose between the Democrats and the Nazis, I'd pick the Nazis. That doesn't mean I like socialists or communism etc. It means that if I have to choose between a socialism that wants to erase white people, have open borders, and celebrate and reward degeneracy.... or one that protects its borders, acts in the interest of its own ethnic group, and outlaws degeneracy, then the "lesser evil" couldn't be more obvious.
I suppose you could argue that people who actually value Free Speech should be over on Gab anyway... so whatever... go ahead and call for censorship like a left wing bitch. But hey, at least get your facts straight when you do so.
Hey look, it's a janny wannabe! Fuck you for rejecting your brothers to your right.
"Any organization not explicitly right-wing becomes left-wing over time."
Stop trying to be a censorious leftist, the survival of our people is on the line. Maybe free speech is too much for your fragile sensibilities?
This forum is specifically right wing.
Guess what? Nazisim is left wing. Welcome to reality
So by your definition, authoritarianism is left wing, and anarchism is right wing?
Are conservative social values left wing? Do they become left wing if they're applied through force if necessary? Is corporate elitism right wing?
Just trying to feel out your definitions.
Authoritarian right wing is Monarchy and Theocracy.
Authoritarian left wing is Nazisim.
Then where's communism?
Thats also leftwing authoritarianisim. Its judt not as far as nazi fucks
I see, you're disoriented. Good luck getting your head straight. I believe in you!
Thank you. It's gotten completely insane here.
Insanity is more powerful than sanity.
We're going for the kind of insanity that's more powerful than clown world. Don't worry, we'll settle back to sanity afterwards.