Post: #26

(12-10-2016 07:37 AM)I DIDNT KILL MY WIFE Wrote:  No wait hold on hold on...


You see...


It's them....


Democrats are the REAL racists!

It really has nothing to do with racism. It has to do with their ideology and the fact that we are vehemently opposed to the ideology pushed by the left.

(12-10-2016 09:30 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

(12-10-2016 06:25 AM)Valentine Wrote:  ...

What's the difference between left wing economics and right wing economics?

By definition economics is strictly an authoritarian vs libertarian issue.

Left wing economics tend to advocate for strict controls ranging from price controls and subsidies, to specific sector stimulus and labor regulations.

It's not just economics. Look at the Nazi planks and look at the amount of control that is advocated.

(12-10-2016 09:54 AM)nomadbrah Wrote:  Stopped reading at 'nazis are progressives'. Nazism was a direct and very defined opposition to progressiveness. Blood and Soil agrarianism and romantication of rural living and values. City life viewed as degenerate and unnatural. Nazi top brass were Wodanist pagans and took it quite seriously.

Overall, lacking in knowledge but good effort, 5/10.

Then why did so many of the progressives of that era call the Nazi's progressive? They didn't see the Nazis as opposition.

Post: #27

Y'all need to understand that there is a difference between cultural and economic Marxism. Both the Nazis and Soviets glorified rural agrarian life to get the masses on their side. It's impossible to market your ideology on the basis of "we're gonna take some of your stuff and give it to foreigners that will replace you."

Post: #28

(12-10-2016 10:21 AM)armenia4ever Wrote:  Then why did so many of the progressives of that era call the Nazi's progressive? They didn't see the Nazis as opposition.

Begin by defining progressive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism

Quote:Progressivism is a philosophy based on the Idea of Progress, which asserts that advancement in science, technology, economic development, and social organization are vital to improve the human condition. Progressivism became highly significant during the Age of Enlightenment in Europe, out of the belief that Europe was demonstrating that societies could progress in civility from barbaric conditions to civilization through strengthening the basis of empirical knowledge as the foundation of society.[1]

I don't think this is the definition of 'progessive' you are thinking about, am I right?

Don't judge people with today's morals. Progressivism, the idea of knowledge and technological progress as base for society, how is that different from today?

You are probably thinking more along the line of 'modernist':

Quote:Modernism is a philosophical movement that, along with cultural trends and changes, arose from wide-scale and far-reaching transformations in Western society during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Among the factors that shaped modernism were the development of modern industrial societies and the rapid growth of cities, followed then by reactions of horror to World War I. Modernism also rejected the certainty of Enlightenment thinking, and many modernists rejected religious belief.[2][3]

Nazism fully rejected modernism.

Otherwise I agree with you that nazism and 1488ism is stupid and deplorable in both its ideology and particularly as a meaningful movement. There are no 1488ers on this forum and very few in general.

Post: #29

(12-10-2016 10:45 AM)YoungBlade Wrote:  Y'all need to understand that there is a difference between cultural and economic Marxism. Both the Nazis and Soviets glorified rural agrarian life to get the masses on their side. It's impossible to market your ideology on the basis of "we're gonna take some of your stuff and give it to foreigners that will replace you."

A man who lives of the land (farmer) is considered one of the main antagonists to Communism. Does not matter which "strain" of Communism is in question.


In the small head of every Communist dipshit, from Marx to Barney Sandals, a farmer has the chutzpah to work and keep his produce and his hard earned money for himself and his family. And what is even worse, he is not willing to give it willingly!


That is why many kulaks (well to do farmers) in Russia continued their careers as fertilizers, while surviving ones were forced into collective farms (kolhoz in Russia, zadruga in Yugoslavia). Instead of camps, nowadays we have high taxes (read Barney's and Hitlery's tax plans).


Nazis did a little better in that regard. Yes, they did glorify a farmer, but still, he had very limited freedom. If the Fuhrer decided that you are to grow barley this year instead of wheat, and sell it for a certain amount to him, that is what you are going to do. If you disobey, you and your family are going to the new 5 star hotel that just opened in Auschwitz. It is so good that there were no complaints.


Both ideologies are collectivist. Communism more, Fashism/Nazism less. After all, they both share the same roots. Read the official names of most of these parties, and you will see the connection.

Post: #30

(12-10-2016 10:13 AM)Valentine Wrote:  

(12-10-2016 09:30 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  What's the difference between left wing economics and right wing economics?

By definition economics is strictly an authoritarian vs libertarian issue.

Left wing = collectivism, right wing = individualism; whereas authoritarianism vs libertarianism is whether this is state-imposed or voluntary.

Left Wing Libertarianism/Anarcho-Syndicalism is straight retarded. There's no such thing as voluntary collectivization and giving up of property rights.

Post: #31

Irenicus,

Not saying they didn't have their issues with farm economy in practice, that's why they had collective farms, after all. The idea is simply that the hard labor of farm life was admired and celebrated, as is evident from soviet social realist art.

Post: #32

(12-10-2016 12:08 PM)Irenicus Wrote:  

(12-10-2016 10:45 AM)YoungBlade Wrote:  Y'all need to understand that there is a difference between cultural and economic Marxism. Both the Nazis and Soviets glorified rural agrarian life to get the masses on their side. It's impossible to market your ideology on the basis of "we're gonna take some of your stuff and give it to foreigners that will replace you."

A man who lives of the land (farmer) is considered one of the main antagonists to Communism. Does not matter which "strain" of Communism is in question.


In the small head of every Communist dipshit, from Marx to Barney Sandals, a farmer has the chutzpah to work and keep his produce and his hard earned money for himself and his family. And what is even worse, he is not willing to give it willingly!


That is why many kulaks (well to do farmers) in Russia continued their careers as fertilizers, while surviving ones were forced into collective farms (kolhoz in Russia, zadruga in Yugoslavia). Instead of camps, nowadays we have high taxes (read Barney's and Hitlery's tax plans).


Nazis did a little better in that regard. Yes, they did glorify a farmer, but still, he had very limited freedom. If the Fuhrer decided that you are to grow barley this year instead of wheat, and sell it for a certain amount to him, that is what you are going to do. If you disobey, you and your family are going to the new 5 star hotel that just opened in Auschwitz. It is so good that there were no complaints.


Both ideologies are collectivist. Communism more, Fashism/Nazism less. After all, they both share the same roots. Read the official names of most of these parties, and you will see the connection.

Not the farmer he means. The "Farm Worker Proletariat that gives up his produce to the state" is what was idealized and I think it was what he meant by that. Pretty easy to see in context.

Also the farmer was no different than the serf(as serfdom was just recently abolished) before the Russian Revolution. So yes they were considered noble savages back then as it was that needed to be "enlightened" by the Soviets.

Kulaks were all farmers that didn't want to collectivize.

Post: #33

Nazi and Sovjet agrarianism are entirely different. Nazis and particularly Hitler saw Blut und Boden, Blood and Soil as the root of all human life, that the races sprung from the literal earth and had an almost magical connection to the environment they developed in. It was a spiritual take on Charles Darwin applied to humans. This is why claims of Nazism as progressive ideology are wrong. While the nazis embraced technology, they saw as their primary objective to use technology to revert to an idealized Germanic past of warriors, farmers and housewives. This is evident in their art everywhere.







This is not Sovjet progressivism. The family is at the center of it all, the mother, the child, the connection to the earth.







They could not be more different.

Post: #34

(12-10-2016 12:47 PM)YoungBlade Wrote:  Irenicus,

Not saying they didn't have their issues with farm economy in practice, that's why they had collective farms, after all. The idea is simply that the hard labor of farm life was admired and celebrated, as is evident from soviet social realist art.

In that context yes, I agree.

Post: #35

I think it's important to remember that Hitler never took the "socialism" of National Socialism seriously. The NSDAP "party platform" was (as Hitler himself and his cronies admitted) mostly a grab-bag of demagogic goodies to attract votes. It was pieced together in in the 1920s when the party was competing against the apparent attractiveness of real socialist and communist parties. He needed ways to steal the thunder of the socialists and communists, and to make it look like he cared about the "workers."

It is true that there was a "left wing" faction of the NSDAP that proved to be a thorn in Hitler's side for a long time. This wing of the party, headed by Gregor Strasser, actually did take the socialism of National Socialism seriously. But once Hitler rose to power, he shunted these people off to the sidelines, or had them purged in the Night of the Long Knives. Hitler knew that he would not be able to build the kind of war-making state he wanted unless he had the support of the big industrialists (e.g., I.G. Farben, Krupps, etc.) and the army. And he couldn't do it with these idealistic "socialists" on board. So he used them while they were useful, then discarded them.

What mattered to Hitler was power, not socialism. If you want to know what he really believed in, look at the Nuremburg Laws setting up a rigid racial caste system, look at his aggressive foreign policy, and look at what came after.

Again, to truly know a man, look at his character. Ideologies can be discarded or added on a whim. But a man's track record...well, that very often speaks for itself.

Post: #36

(12-10-2016 10:21 AM)armenia4ever Wrote:  ...

(12-10-2016 09:30 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

(12-10-2016 06:25 AM)Valentine Wrote:  ...

What's the difference between left wing economics and right wing economics?

By definition economics is strictly an authoritarian vs libertarian issue.

Left wing economics tend to advocate for strict controls ranging from price controls and subsidies, to specific sector stimulus and labor regulations.

It's not just economics. Look at the Nazi planks and look at the amount of control that is advocated.
...

This is my point. You can't have left wing economics without the authoritarianism to enforce it, and neither can you have totalitarianism with free market principles. The point of a chart like the one above is that you have to have a reasonable example of what each corner might look like. The chart above cannot provide an example for the bottom left corner or the top right.

Replace "left vs right economics" with "globalism vs nationalism" and you'll see what I mean. You can have liberal globalism (full retard, no border libertarians), nationalist liberalism (small government patriots like the USA used to be based on), nationalist authoritarians like you see in any dictatorship around the world and globalist authoritarians as we see at the UN.

But believe me, there is no freedom under left wing economics. None. And by definition there can be no economic freedom under totalitarianism.

Post: #37

(12-09-2016 08:33 PM)armenia4ever Wrote:  gypsies, and all sorts of other "Whites" weren't in his plans.

The biggest leftist statement I have heard since I stopped watching mainstream. Gypsies are white, this could have come just from an American, gypsy or some sort of ultra-leftist.

Sorry mate, if right wing means gay rights, race mixing, democracy, capitalism etc. none of those nazis, StormFront and whoever you are talking about is interested. Politics and economy are considered to be lesser issues.

Of course I come from lands that the original Nacional Socialists were in and we don't really associate "right wing" with conservative and "left wing" with liberal/progressive. This is pure American bullshit. Right wing politicians here are mostly more liberal than fucking commies.

Post: #38

^. I mean right wingers, especially guys like Richard Spencer also claim that the Egyptians were white. Which anybody with a brain knows that not to be the case.

Post: #39

Don't know what Richard Spencer said about Egyptians but the truth is that a lot of Egyptian aristocracy was white viz. Ptolemaic dynasty (Kleopatra etc.). In esoteric hitlerism circles, which is more closer to what Nacional Socialism is about, there are beliefs that Indians were "whites". To put it simply - Indo-European tribes came, conquered India, installed the cast system and occupied the high casts, Brahmans(priests) and the other two with aristocracy and warriors. After time they race mixed to the point that they are no longer really white but truth to be said Hinduism is the most closest religion to original European tradition (paganism so to speak) and I met some blue eyed Indians. This is probably not exactly accurate explanation, you would have to do your own research - Savitri Devi, Serrano etc.

Post: #40

(12-11-2016 11:20 AM)John Twist Wrote:  ^. I mean right wingers, especially guys like Richard Spencer also claim that the Egyptians were white. Which anybody with a brain knows that not to be the case.

Anyone with a brain can make a sentence that starts with "When anyone with a brain knows...". You see how silly you sound?

Step away from the politics (and potentially race) thread, newbie.

G

Post: #41

(12-11-2016 11:57 AM)Geomann180 Wrote:  

(12-11-2016 11:20 AM)John Twist Wrote:  ^. I mean right wingers, especially guys like Richard Spencer also claim that the Egyptians were white. Which anybody with a brain knows that not to be the case.

Anyone with a brain can make a sentence that starts with "When anyone with a brain knows...". You see how silly you sound?

Step away from the politics (and potentially race) thread, newbie.

G

I know what Im talking about. There's hypocrisy all over the place. You can't just pick and choose who you want to be white and who you don't just because it's convenient. So Gypsies aren't white because the consensus and perception around Europe is that they are beggars. But hey the Egyptians who had this marvelous civilization way before people knew what Paris was are?

And when I say anyone with a Brain I truly mean it. Where is the evidence that the ancient Egyptians were white? When guys like Richard Spencer throw things out like "The Egyptians were white". How? Cause I want to hear this shit.

Post: #42

Skeletal structure, the fact that they had a whole era called "The Time of Black Pharoahs" after the nubians conquered them (aka the 25th dynasty), their description of themselves and their gods being fair skinned in the book of the dead.

Basically all of the evidence.
https://infogalactic.com/info/Egyptians#Genetic_history
https://infogalactic.com/info/Twenty-fif...y_of_Egypt
https://infogalactic.com/info/Book_of_the_dead

Post: #43

(12-10-2016 09:43 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  This is my point. You can't have left wing economics without the authoritarianism to enforce it, and neither can you have totalitarianism with free market principles. The point of a chart like the one above is that you have to have a reasonable example of what each corner might look like. The chart above cannot provide an example for the bottom left corner or the top right.

The two axis can be regarded as economic freedom for Left-Right and personal freedom for Libertarian-Authoritarian.

The bottom-left Libertarian Left would be the Zeitgeist movement - using technology to produce boundless resources and distributing them equally. Though we know this would be difficult to impossible to achieve due to globalists blocking the release of such technology.

The top-right Authoritarian Right would use the strong arm of the law to protect individualism and human rights. This can be seen as what America is heading towards (whereas it's currently Authoritarian Left, with tons of wealth redistribution collectivist globalist policies).

Post: #44

(12-11-2016 12:29 PM)John Twist Wrote:  

(12-11-2016 11:57 AM)Geomann180 Wrote:  

(12-11-2016 11:20 AM)John Twist Wrote:  ^. I mean right wingers, especially guys like Richard Spencer also claim that the Egyptians were white. Which anybody with a brain knows that not to be the case.

Anyone with a brain can make a sentence that starts with "When anyone with a brain knows...". You see how silly you sound?

Step away from the politics (and potentially race) thread, newbie.

G

I know what Im talking about. There's hypocrisy all over the place. You can't just pick and choose who you want to be white and who you don't just because it's convenient. So Gypsies aren't white because the consensus and perception around Europe is that they are beggars.

No, they are not white because they're from the Indian Subcontinent proven by DNA studies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romani_peo...c_evidence

Post: #45

(12-11-2016 12:29 PM)John Twist Wrote:  

(12-11-2016 11:57 AM)Geomann180 Wrote:  

(12-11-2016 11:20 AM)John Twist Wrote:  ^. I mean right wingers, especially guys like Richard Spencer also claim that the Egyptians were white. Which anybody with a brain knows that not to be the case.

Anyone with a brain can make a sentence that starts with "When anyone with a brain knows...". You see how silly you sound?

Step away from the politics (and potentially race) thread, newbie.

G

I know what Im talking about. There's hypocrisy all over the place. You can't just pick and choose who you want to be white and who you don't just because it's convenient. So Gypsies aren't white because the consensus and perception around Europe is that they are beggars. But hey the Egyptians who had this marvelous civilization way before people knew what Paris was are?

And when I say anyone with a Brain I truly mean it. Where is the evidence that the ancient Egyptians were white? When guys like Richard Spencer throw things out like "The Egyptians were white". How? Cause I want to hear this shit.

They were most definitely "white", but I'd venture that they'd look fairly similar to modern day fair-skinned Latin people.

Also those things called Gypsies certainly aren't human. Might as well be aliens the crazy bastards.

Post: #46

(12-11-2016 12:49 PM)YoungBlade Wrote:  Skeletal structure, the fact that they had a whole era called "The Time of Black Pharoahs" after the nubians conquered them (aka the 25th dynasty), their description of themselves and their gods being fair skinned in the book of the dead.

Basically all of the evidence.
https://infogalactic.com/info/Egyptians#Genetic_history
https://infogalactic.com/info/Twenty-fif...y_of_Egypt
https://infogalactic.com/info/Book_of_the_dead

Next up, try debating with a Greek that the Hellenic tribes were blonde (runs for cover).

Post: #47

(12-11-2016 04:27 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  

(12-11-2016 12:49 PM)YoungBlade Wrote:  Skeletal structure, the fact that they had a whole era called "The Time of Black Pharoahs" after the nubians conquered them (aka the 25th dynasty), their description of themselves and their gods being fair skinned in the book of the dead.

Basically all of the evidence.
https://infogalactic.com/info/Egyptians#Genetic_history
https://infogalactic.com/info/Twenty-fif...y_of_Egypt
https://infogalactic.com/info/Book_of_the_dead

Next up, try debating with a Greek that the Hellenic tribes were blonde (runs for cover).

Reposting for the lulz

Post: #48

^^^

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Post: #49

(12-11-2016 12:49 PM)YoungBlade Wrote:  Skeletal structure, the fact that they had a whole era called "The Time of Black Pharoahs" after the nubians conquered them (aka the 25th dynasty), their description of themselves and their gods being fair skinned in the book of the dead.

Basically all of the evidence.
https://infogalactic.com/info/Egyptians#Genetic_history
https://infogalactic.com/info/Twenty-fif...y_of_Egypt
https://infogalactic.com/info/Book_of_the_dead

You know Arabs are Caucasian, right? And that there are light-skinned Arabs?

Post: #50

(12-10-2016 08:48 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  I think it's important to remember that Hitler never took the "socialism" of National Socialism seriously. The NSDAP "party platform" was (as Hitler himself and his cronies admitted) mostly a grab-bag of demagogic goodies to attract votes. It was pieced together in in the 1920s when the party was competing against the apparent attractiveness of real socialist and communist parties. He needed ways to steal the thunder of the socialists and communists, and to make it look like he cared about the "workers."

It is true that there was a "left wing" faction of the NSDAP that proved to be a thorn in Hitler's side for a long time. This wing of the party, headed by Gregor Strasser, actually did take the socialism of National Socialism seriously. But once Hitler rose to power, he shunted these people off to the sidelines, or had them purged in the Night of the Long Knives. Hitler knew that he would not be able to build the kind of war-making state he wanted unless he had the support of the big industrialists (e.g., I.G. Farben, Krupps, etc.) and the army. And he couldn't do it with these idealistic "socialists" on board. So he used them while they were useful, then discarded them.

What mattered to Hitler was power, not socialism. If you want to know what he really believed in, look at the Nuremburg Laws setting up a rigid racial caste system, look at his aggressive foreign policy, and look at what came after.

Again, to truly know a man, look at his character. Ideologies can be discarded or added on a whim. But a man's track record...well, that very often speaks for itself.

Well Hitler gained his political popularity by organizing his "Beer Hall Putsch" which was a union-led failed coup attempt in early November 1923, and union politics are inherently socialist. Hitler was injured and went to prison for his crimes, and it was during this imprisonment that he wrote "Mein Kampf". Although I will concede that many of the "brawlers" of the Putsch were, like Hitler, ex-soldiers and German nationalists opposed to Marxism, the Putsch itself was inspired by Mussolini's successful march on Rome in late October of 1922, and Mussolini was so very socialist. There is a great deal of socialism in Hitler's character and actions, particularly during his rise to power.

Certainly he began to abandon socialism after he achieved absolute power and toyed with other systems. He even considered Shintoism and Islam as national religions because he considered Christianity to be "flabby and meek". The reality is that Lenin was right... the end goal of socialism is communism. Hitler started out as a socialist but he was on an inexorable path to communism, which is why he eventually recognized Stalin as his greatest rival in the game of communist global domination. Which is why he took on the Russian winter like an idiot and got bogged down in strategically useless Stalingrad merely because it bore his rival's name. In the end, Hitler was just a rabid SJW making stupid mistakes. Socialism gave him absolute power, and corrupted him absolutely. Hitler was definitely a socialist.