Where do I lie in terms of a political identity?

Michael Allen
Michael Allen

I've been on these boards for some time (4chan in general since 2006), but I've never quite sat well with any particular political ideology. I wasn't strongly in favor of the Libertarian approach, although it did stick with me a fair bit. I wouldn't consider myself a national socialist, either, yet I retain a lot of pro-national ideals. Still, I certainly wouldn't call myself a liberal. Here's a general outline on what I believe, and my solutions for various problems - perhaps some anons can at least pin down or point me in the right direction. Otherwise, feel free to try and change my view on any of this - I'm open to ideas and changing my mind if it can be adequately argued, articulated, and rationalized.

<Immigration and naturalization
Immigration - legal or otherwise- is effectively one of the worst things a nation can do to itself and the strength of its people, if done on a large scale. Allowing immigrants to flood your nation - regardless of its legal status - will cause them to bring their issues with them that caused them to flee their original nation to begin with. It only benefits the extraordinarily rich who can outright avoid living with the immigrants they mandate acceptance for. However, if done on a very small scale - one that exceeds no more than 0.01% of the population of your naturalized citizens - immigration can be mostly benign and possibly beneficial (if for no other reason than to bring in external workers). But, this process must be thoroughly curated, quarantined, and vigorously gripped. They should be placed into, effectively, a charter school - kept separate from the rest of society during their period of immigration, but of course are allowed to leave back to their original nation to begin with. They should be trained on your nation's language, its culture, and given the resources to do so. If, at any point, they are seen to be non-beneficial, they are rejected without appeal. There would have to be magnitudes of orders of operations in order to accomplish this, and ultimately would only be sensible for a nation that is already extremely well-off already- which then defeats the purpose of "needing" external workers to begin with. Thus, immigration is virtually useless for its home nation, and only seeks to benefit those who would reap the benefits sowed by another. It should then only be done as a service toward those the nation seeks to help unanimously - those who already show allegiance to this nation and this nation alone, and reject their previous identity altogether.

<Deportation, conservation of traditions
Any idea of immigration (pro or against) is ultimately useless unless you consider your view on what should be done with citizens who "break the law" or otherwise go against the grain of society. However, it's not enough to merely deport immigrants - you must be willing to export or exile those who actively seek to disrupt your nation through various actions. While any one subtle action shouldn't be taken as a legal offense, large quantities of these "small actions" - exercising "free speech" to slander, libel, etc at almost all hours of the day - should result in a total consideration of retaining citizenship. Basically, if an individually were to utilize things otherwise seen as "legal" for the express purpose of undermining their host nation, they should be exiled through a verifiable set of rules and regulations. Thus, rather than merely considering the identity of a person or with whom they associate, their actions are merely considered as a whole - their character is called into judgement, rather than any one singular action. This allows for the legality of extremely important rights such as free speech, but still allows your nation to crack down - under no mere arbitration, but rule of law - on any who would abuse these rights. When detached from identities, it allows nobody to simply re-brand themselves and evade your system. When you ban communists, they simply come back as "socialists" or "leftists". The key here is distinguishing that each time you cut the head off of a corrupt group, they merely expand their influence and identity so you can no longer pinpoint them - a hydra, of sorts. I feel as though is extremely important to retain and conserve your nation's traditions because of this.

<Production, money
Currency should be based around the production of goods within the borders of its home nation - but these goods must be useful goods. They must allow the nation to survive - food, medical care, etc are all elements that should bolster the value of individuals who provide them. When you allow something as vague as "GDP" or even "GNP" to determine the value of goods, you let yourself become a nation of useless creations. Any nation which ties itself to debt and the creation of such is controlled under the most oppressive form of slavery known to man.

Attached: 1452077055201.jpg (746.44 KB, 1366x1195)

All urls found in this thread:

worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/Radical Ecology.htm

Lincoln Torres
Lincoln Torres

(continued)

<Equality of opportunity, but not outcome
Everyone should be given a fair chance at applying for certain positions within your society. This is, ultimately, a meritocratic viewpoint, and one that is in staunch defiance of both nepotism and perhaps even nationalism. Rather than favoring the selection process of individuals in any particular pre-determination process, you can give people a chance to prove themselves - if they're truly better than their peers, then they should naturally be given a sought-after position. However, this is only valid and doable if your nation has a strong sense of valuing what matters - this ties in with the above point. It's also only viable if your nation isn't flooded by people who are innately antagonistic (or at best, benign and uncaring) toward your nation. Lastly, it's only viable if you have a proper set of "tests" for each field of work - asking if somebody can pick up a 5lb box for a job requiring 50lb lifting is ridiculous. If you give up any of these things, the opportunity becomes one for those who wish to undermine your nation. Still, if given equal opportunity and one fails to perform adequately and achieve a meritorious outcome, they shouldn't be allowed to hold their position. This keeps people from looking good at first, but falling into bad habits or other issues - the idea of "job security" should be reliant on one's ability to perform.

<Race
Race is not just a social construct - there are clear and verifiable genetic markers which separate large swathes of the population. Along with this are genetic similarities ,which - barring the occasional exception - largely constitute the idea of "race". However, I believe there are also tons of other genetic elements that often get overlooked, and these can often be more important than race itself (though it is a genetic indicator nonetheless). Elements such as learning ability, cognitive processing speed, knowledge retention, physical agility, muscular strength, etc are all major factors that largely differ from person to person, even amongst whites. As a result, while I understand and accept that there are innate genetic differences in people (including racial differences), the best way to filter people in any society is through a meritocracy. This allows "exceptions" to pass through to the upper echelons of society and perhaps even carry on valuable genetic traits, while people who carry negative genetic traits are excluded. Still, if someone carries the genetic makeup of a psychopath, they shouldn't be allowed to hold positions which would allow them to abuse other people.

<Nation, identity
The idea of a nation is innately tied to race, but as stated earlier, I believe it is possible to have a homogeneous culture that doesn't innately need to involve race on every level. The idea of a shared "white" identity is a relatively new one - the idea of Italians, Irish, British, Germans, etc all working together in one nation under the same set of traditions and ideals. This was, for a very brief period, probably one of the greatest nations in the world, with innovations in technology booming like never before and society at peak harmony during this period. This is probably the largest successful case of "multiculturalism", but is very often seen as the Most Evil Race and Most Evil Time by the very same people who espouse the ideals of multiculturalism. So while I accept that most nations require some degree of a racially homogeneous identity, I believe it's possible to circumvent this if there are other culturally shared traditions and values. Obviously, though, this doesn't work when you try to skip this and throw people into societal anarchy.

Cameron Martinez
Cameron Martinez

<Violence, warfare
Enacting violence upon another should only be resorted to when other options are met with violence themselves. The closest action of non-violence that would still be considered "forceful" which should be acceptable regardless would be the forceful removal of individuals who break the law, or are otherwise needed to be deported as outlined above. However, outright killing people who are seen as "undesirable" is morally bankrupt and ultimately more trouble than it's worth, if for no other reason than the victimhood status it grants to said undesirables. Basically, only attack when met with an attack yourself - regardless of how effective this attack from another is. If they throw a rock at your tanks, then they're absolutely a viable target. Don't "pro-actively" try to slaughter people because you're worried about an uprising - if you uphold the other values your nation needs anyway, this shouldn't be an issue to begin with.

<Language
Language is an exceedingly valuable asset, especially in the current age of information. Being able to communicate with other members of your nation and understand one another easily is one of the most basic forms of unity among one another. This is often circumvented when you have people who use the same "words" but mean different things. Miscommunication leads to societal breakdowns, and more headache than necessary. Therefore, it only makes sense to have a focused and perhaps even official form of shared definitions for your language. Allowing people to morph your language leads only to societal dissonance, and is often utilized as a tool of those who would seek to destroy your nation.

<Religion
Separating religion from law is extremely important for the well being of a society, unless that nation's foundation is in said religion (in most cases, it isn't).

<Free speech
As stated earlier, I believe free speech is invaluable, and than banning or restricting an individual simply because they say something disagreeable is silly. However, as also stated, it's equally important to consider the context of this - if they're affiliating with groups which seek to undermine and attack your nation, then their speech should be used as evidence of negative character. In essence, have things that are considered noteworthy, but aren't innately illegal or banned.

<Capitalism, corporations
Capitalism is essentially a modernistic restructuring of the natural, free hierarchy of men. Instead of allowing for proper freedom, it only gives the illusion of such - in truth, it restricts the abilities of men by granting unbridled power to co-operative efforts who, at least, seek dominion over others through profit. This is especially true in the case of "public" corporations - where their actions aren't even beholden to profits, only to the investors which keep them afloat. Thus, any company which sees a certain amount of growth, size, and responsibility of production should be considered to be a form of government - and the entire idea of trading "shares" should be outright illegal. Lastly, corporations should be forced to change the name of their brands each time more than 50% of their company changes from their last brand name change. This keeps the common man from becoming "bait and switched" through what's effectively a long con of brand loyalty.

<Environment
Humans (mainly India and China) are fucking up the environment hardcore, and global warming is absolutely real. Humans are just making it worse, although it's inevitable we'd hit a hotter cycle anyway (though the real threat is the global cooling soon after), so that's kind've a moot point. We need to have properly sheltered colonies and prepare for massive global catastrophes. Stuff like pre-emptively developing a ton of internal farming structures (Hydroponics, etc) and various other ways of farming without relying too much on nature, as well as preserving various species in artificial habitats, is paramount to the long-term survival of our species. The sooner we start on basically large-scale doomsday prepping, the better.

I have plenty of other thoughts on many other subjects, but those are probably the most prominent thoughts I have.

Hudson Foster
Hudson Foster

Nice blogpost, faggot. No one cares. Maybe post in /soc/.

Levi Martinez
Levi Martinez

ask a question, to start discussion
provide details for anons to answer
<a blogpost
I don't think you know what a blogpost is.

Tyler Martin
Tyler Martin

ignore him, hes a angry kike. You're a reasonable green eco-nationalist, welcome to the sane side of Zig Forums.

Jose Wright
Jose Wright

Instant derail by this faggot. Remember to filter.

Noah Sanders
Noah Sanders

Eco nationalist
First time I've seen the term, but, neat. I suppose that's a more fitting title than liberal or nazi, although I'm not sure if it's quite as encompassing for all the major political points I listed.

Michael Ramirez
Michael Ramirez

Where do I lie in terms of a political identity?
Why would you want to know this? It's not black and white. It's not science. People can have any combination of beliefs 'belonging to' similar and or opposing political parties.

Leo Clark
Leo Clark

Identity and fellowship are extremely important elements of human psychology, and keeps us from the madness and degeneracy as purveyed by Our Benefactors.

Adrian Adams
Adrian Adams

Yes, the discussion revolving around YOU. Why do you think you are so important that you deserve your own thread for one random user? It's not all about you. If you care about National socialism and your people, what do you have to give back? In no way does this help the group as a whole. Maybe that will actually help answer your question in a way.

Nolan Cooper
Nolan Cooper

Alright, I'll bite - what are some better threads, then? Threads that I should delete this one in favor of, or should have simply not made this thread in favor of?

Attached: 1344427072134.jpg (69.48 KB, 826x738)

Charles Morales
Charles Morales

There is no answer until two years have passed and at that point you can stop lurking and decide which threads are better than this garbage

Michael Gonzalez
Michael Gonzalez

This thread is fine, it's just on the wrong board. You want to talk about yourself, and there are other boards for that. But this isn't one of them.
If you have specific questions about one of your beliefs, post in QTDDTOT. If you think that question would benefit a larger amount of people, make a thread about it in a way that promotes discussion and is relevant to people.

Ian Brown
Ian Brown

This thread is fine, although you made it too much about yourself and less about the other anons on this board, thus not being able to create a discussion while the OP is away.
This should be a more general thread letting people who are unsure about their ideologies or where they rank exactly on the scale go and talk about their exact beliefs, rather than it being about what YOUR beliefs are.
Other than that good thread tho

Carter Williams
Carter Williams

d-d-d-do i fit in with u-u-u-u guys?
Fucking dumb herd animal…

Jack Hall
Jack Hall

I'm not just trying talk about myself, but rather, the multitude of beliefs I hold and how they may fit into a particular existing identity or category (or making one, if there isn't one). If there's other people who agree with all my points, maybe they're looking for the same thing, I don't know. Maybe they disagree, list their beliefs, and are equally unsure of where they fit - that's cool, too.

less about the other anons on this board, thus not being able to create a discussion while the OP is away.
Good point, I usually try to make threads more open ended, so I sorta fucked up there in not specifying that in the OP. Though, I figured it was somewhat implied, but >implications

Levi Flores
Levi Flores

I NEED TO FIT IN!
What the fuck is mentally wrong with you?

Hunter Scott
Hunter Scott

Nice strawman, retard. Where are your beliefs? Do you even have any?

Logan Gray
Logan Gray

you mean the thing that people post here nonstop? even when something happens thats funny, posters here trip over themselves to dismiss it, like that mexican cop or whoever that was that trashed kike holy books. that was funny and everyone just said
so what! fuggin hes a zogbot hmpf!
over and over. why? to virtue signal and fit in, just like libniggers do irl everyday.

Hudson Brown
Hudson Brown

Sure, I have my ideals, but I don't need them to conform with your or anyone else's ideals, because I'm not some insecure little herd nigger like you. You realize labels are not important. Ideals are. How about you stop trying to conform with a label and just have independent ideals?

John Morgan
John Morgan

He didn't have to be so harsh, but he's right. Zig Forums isn't about some horoscope comparison or personality test. Not mention to be an insult, but are you a female?
You may have some good ideas or topics of discussion in everything you said. Focus on those and you might get more out of a thread.

Jeremiah Richardson
Jeremiah Richardson

You realize a large portion of that is shills trying to derail a thread or stifle any positivity, right? And the few genuine anons that find a need to virtue signal about how they're not a Jew, are white, or are more Nazi than the rest are low IQ. The real anons don't find a need to prove or defend against anything.

Caleb Gomez
Caleb Gomez

Because if everyone has "independent ideals", then you end up with a herd of cock-gobbling marxists parading through streets while onlookers say oh-so-proudly "Wow… at least I'm not marching with them!" before getting bludgeoned to death by the Progress Police. Having some form of shared identity is fucking important - not just a simple, shallow label, but some factor (beyond race) that you can tie to other people. Even if you're not a natsoc, you can find value in this.

Zig Forums isn't about some horoscope comparison or personality test.
I get that, but I imagine there's more that can be said of everything I've listed in the OP - surely, other people are curious. Given the amount of circlejerking people have around "muh natsoc only board", I'm pretty sure a lot of people do give a shit about a shared political ideology.
are you a female?
nope

Also, most times when I start threads on individual topics, they got shot down or bogged down in general because it's not innately about a cohesive set of ideals. Thus, points that would already be covered aren't listed and are harped on, IE: the downfalls of a meritocracy without strong immigration/deportation standpoints and a conservative societal structure. I'm more interested in the particular effects and overall identity one can form over the various interactions of the points listed in the OP, as a cohesive whole.

Bentley Myers
Bentley Myers

Having some form of shared identity is fucking important - not just a simple, shallow label, but some factor (beyond race) that you can tie to other people.
Yeah, that's called race/ethnicity. Heritage. Culture. Not your ideas. We're not successful, unlike chinks, and other similarly more "intelligent" peoples (not more intelligent than whites, just relative to all humans), because we're group-dependent filth. We're successful specifically because we think independently. The only identity we need is who we are as a people. Anything else perverts who we are as a people. For example, marxists, who identify with a social and political ideology over their own people, and thus that identity perverts our culture, heritage, and way of life, the same way your blind adherence to a political identity over a real identity will pervert our heritage, cultural, and way of life just the same. You're a herd animal. That's really all there is to it. An "NPC."

Gavin Barnes
Gavin Barnes

But there's tons of other shitty whites who don't share that heritage or culture, out of rejection - trash, who much more literally fit the definition of an "NPC". It's clearly not enough, especially when you consider the amount of whites who actively betray themselves and other whites.

If all you can offer me as an answer to my question in OP is merely "NPC", "herd animal" or other pejorative bullshit, then maybe you're not as independent as you think.

Dylan Reed
Dylan Reed

Rather than make it about yourself you should discuss your beliefs. No one cares about what you think, they care about why you think. You tell us why you think that your political ideas are superior to ours, and give us some good reasons with references to history and appeals to logic; and we'll argue back and forth a bit, and hopefully we'll all come out a bit smarter.

Just informing us of what your beliefs are and asking us to brand you is not conducive to discussion.

Bentley Williams
Bentley Williams

If all you can offer me as an answer to my question in OP is merely "NPC", "herd animal"
82 IQ at work here. You're so pathetically simple-minded the only think you latched into in the lengthy paragraph I typed were the words that hurt your feelings. Fuck off and sage your slide thread. This shit doesn't belong on Zig Forums. This isn't a blog site.

Henry Mitchell
Henry Mitchell

No one cares about what you think, they care about why you think.
I made this thread specifically for that, instead of just posting it on QTDDTOT with a TL;DR bullet point list in a binary fashion. I've given paragraph summaries as to why I believe the things I do. I mean, shit
Otherwise, feel free to try and change my view on any of this - I'm open to ideas and changing my mind if it can be adequately argued, articulated, and rationalized.
right in the first paragraph of the OP

You're ignoring my points!
user says, ignoring the other poster's points without a shred of self-awareness.

This shit doesn't belong on Zig Forums.
Oh? What does, then?

Luke Johnson
Luke Johnson

Oh? What does, then?
Political news, not your blogs where you beg to fit in.

Connor Ross
Connor Ross

Read OP. Good shit.
TL:DR the thread, looks shit.

Did anyone have a good answer for OP? Sounds very conservative but with some flex. soft classic conservative?

Matthew Rivera
Matthew Rivera

Literally the wrong board if you think that's all Zig Forums is
/new/index.html
inb4 "b-but muh kampfy!"
Yeah, I'm just not as keen on the religious aspect often tied to conservatism is the issue, although I largely attribute the massive destruction of the term "conservative" to (((modernism))).

Camden Diaz
Camden Diaz

You're a national socialist and you don't realize it yet.

Welcome to being a nazi.

Attached: banners.jpg (379.51 KB, 737x918)

Ethan Ward
Ethan Ward

Literally the wrong board if you think that's all Zig Forums is
No, it's "literally" not. This board has long been established as a board for right-wing news of all kinds. It has never and will never be your blog.

Julian Rivera
Julian Rivera

Well, the answer is simple user, you're a fucking faggot.

Attached: 725b3031423080454c75c8484d2ebe8b6751a6aec9451226b8082f4bb26b6ab6.jpg (59.44 KB, 960x783)

Levi Richardson
Levi Richardson

Think so? I figured a good few bits would be at ends with natsoc. Gonna find some good reading material for it then, always figured at least some of the listed beliefs were in disagreement.

long been established
right-wing
Nah, fuck off, cunt.

Oliver Lewis
Oliver Lewis

Nah, fuck off, cunt.
Filtered and reported for making slide threads and blog posts.

Luke Cox
Luke Cox

oh no, I don't like what user is saying!
BETTER REPORT HIM AND CALL THE THREAD A SLIDE THREAD

Attached: 1351989838226.png (80.19 KB, 253x235)

Lincoln Davis
Lincoln Davis

I think the only real point of disagreement is possibly in free speech, but not as much as you'd think. The image of Nazis burning books is a bit of a false image, they weren't burning Plato they were mostly burning books that told you to make your kid into a tranny (ya, that was going on back in Germany back then).

It's a point where I can see both sides. There is value to have educated people debating ideas in society, it becomes a problem where you have large subversive institutions that are trying to lead people astray.

Other than that you'd be surprised how much an overlap between your ideas and natsoc ideas.

Lucas Roberts
Lucas Roberts

Neat. However, I still don't want to go full goosestepping "gas the kikes race war now". I imagine that line of thought is largely persisted by edgy retards, though.

Elijah James
Elijah James

Still, if given equal opportunity and one fails to perform adequately and achieve a meritorious outcome, they shouldn't be allowed to hold their position. This keeps people from looking good at first, but falling into bad habits or other issues - the idea of "job security" should be reliant on one's ability to perform.
Still, if someone carries the genetic makeup of a psychopath, they shouldn't be allowed to hold positions which would allow them to abuse other people.
So while I accept that most nations require some degree of a racially homogeneous identity, I believe it's possible to circumvent this if there are other culturally shared traditions and values.

These are key to my understanding of your thinking. I don't see any racism here, but I fear that others cannot see this difference when faced with groupings of colours and shades that will form based on other factors.
culturally shared traditions and values.
CULTURE AND VALUES
That's all that matters. The war of humans is defining culture and values. Skin colour is not at issue. We all a global animal and our movement and mixing will continue for all time now. Colour is no longer at issue.

John Morris
John Morris

OP, you are a faggot. congrats

Nolan Jenkins
Nolan Jenkins

There are only two meaningful position: ethnonationalism and globalism. Either your blood and soil comes first or it doesn't. Nothing else is really important.

Lincoln Thomas
Lincoln Thomas

May I refer you to the points espoused by the NSDAP:

25 points of the NSDAP
1. We demand the union of all Germany in a Greater Germany on the basis of the right of national self-determination.
2. We demand equality of rights for the German people in its dealings with other nations, and the revocation of the peace treaties of Versailles and Saint-Germain.
3. We demand land and territory (colonies) to feed our people and to settle our surplus population.
4. Only members of the nation may be citizens of the State. Only those of German blood, whatever be their creed, may be members of the nation. Accordingly, no Jew may be a member of the nation.
5. Non-citizens may live in Germany only as guests and must be subject to laws for aliens.
6. The right to vote on the State's government and legislation shall be enjoyed by the citizens of the State alone. We demand therefore that all official appointments, of whatever kind, whether in the Reich, in the states or in the smaller localities, shall be held by none but citizens.
We oppose the corrupting parliamentary custom of filling posts merely in accordance with party considerations, and without reference to character or abilities.
7. We demand that the State shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens. If it should prove impossible to feed the entire population, foreign nationals (non-citizens) must be deported from the Reich.
8. All non-German immigration must be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans who entered Germany after 2 August 1914 shall be required to leave the Reich forthwith.
9. All citizens shall have equal rights and duties.
10. It must be the first duty of every citizen to perform physical or mental work. The activities of the individual must not clash with the general interest, but must proceed within the framework of the community and be for the general good.
We demand therefore:
11. The abolition of incomes unearned by work.
The breaking of the slavery of interest
12. In view of the enormous sacrifices of life and property demanded of a nation by any war, personal enrichment from war must be regarded as a crime against the nation. We demand therefore the ruthless confiscation of all war profits.
13. We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts).
14. We demand profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises.
15. We demand the extensive development of insurance for old age.

Nolan Smith
Nolan Smith

cont.

16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, the immediate communalizing of big department stores, and their lease at a cheap rate to small traders, and that the utmost consideration shall be shown to all small traders in the placing of State and municiple orders.
17. We demand a land reform suitable to our national requirements, the passing of a law for the expropriation of land for communal purposes without compensation; the abolition of ground rent, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.
18. We demand the ruthless prosecution of those whose activities are injurious to the common interest. Common criminals, usurers, profiteers, etc., must be punished with death, whatever their creed or race.
19. We demand that Roman Law, which serves a materialistic world order, be replaced by a German common law.
20. The State must consider a thorough reconstruction of our national system of education (with the aim of opening up to every able and hard-working German the possibility of higher education and of thus obtaining advancement). The curricula of all educational establishments must be brought into line with the requirements of practical life. The aim of the school must be to give the pupil, beginning with the first sign of intelligence, a grasp of the nation of the State (through the study of civic affairs). We demand the education of gifted children of poor parents, whatever their class or occupation, at the expense of the State.
21. The State must ensure that the nation's health standards are raised by protecting mothers and infants, by prohibiting child labor, by promoting physical strength through legislation providing for compulsory gymnastics and sports, and by the extensive support of clubs engaged in the physical training of youth.
22. We demand the abolition of the mercenary army and the foundation of a people's army.
23. We demand legal warfare on deliberate political mendacity and its dissemination in the press. To facilitate the creation of a German national press we demand:
(a) that all editors of, and contributors to newspapers appearing in the German language must be members of the nation;
(b) that no non-German newspapers may appear without the express permission of the State. They must not be printed in the German language;
(c) that non-Germans shall be prohibited by law from participating financially in or influencing German newspapers, and that the penalty for contravening such a law shall be the suppression of any such newspaper, and the immediate deportation of the non-Germans involved.
The publishing of papers which are not conducive to the national welfare must be forbidden. We demand the legal prosecution of all those tendencies in art and literature which corrupt our national life, and the suppression of cultural events which violate this demand.
24. We demand freedom for all religious denominations in the State, provided they do not threaten its existence not offend the moral feelings of the German race.
The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not commit itself to any particular denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and without us, and is convinced that our nation can achieve permanent health only from within on the basis of the principle: The common interest before self-interest.
25. To put the whole of this programme into effect, we demand the creation of a strong central state power for the Reich; the unconditional authority of the political central Parliament over the entire Reich and its organizations; and the formation of Corporations based on estate and occupation for the purpose of carrying out the general legislation passed by the Reich in the various German states.
The leaders of the Party promise to work ruthlessly – if need be to sacrifice their very lives – to translate this programme into action.
* On April 13, 1928, Adolf Hitler clarified section seventeen in the programme in order to stop political mischaracterizations: "Because of the mendacious interpretations on the part of our opponents of Point 17 of the programme of the NSDAP, the following explanation is necessary.: Since the NSDAP is fundamentally based on the principle of private property, it is obvious that the expression "confiscation without compensation" refers merely to the creation of possible legal means of confiscating when necessary, land illegally acquired, or not administered in accordance with the national welfare. It is therefore directed in the first instance against the Jewish companies which speculate in land.

Sebastian Hill
Sebastian Hill

And for the side of conservation of nature:

"The German countryside must be preserved under all circumstances, for it is and has forever been the source of strength and greatness of our people." – Adolf Hitler

Source: Hitler quoted in Raymond H. Dominick III, The Environmental Movement in Germany: Prophets and Pioneers, 1871-1971 (Bloomington : Indiana University Press, 1992), p. 81.

"Nations whose feeling for nature dissipates because they destroy their homeland, carry the seeds of death in them; they only continue as a nation artificially. Nations with a strongly defined feeling for nature, like the Germans and the Slavs, overcome even the hardest blows and have an unlimited capacity for regeneration. Therefore a government that seeks to maintain the feeling for nature of its people is smart, and to that end no sacrifice is too large, no means too small, and everyone who helps with that serves his Völk." – Hermann Löns, Popular Writer in Second Empire Germany

Source: Zeitschrift für Vogelschutz und andere Gebiete des Naturschutzes 1, 1 (1920), p. 44.

"Man should organize his existence meaningfully in the natural sphere of his living space, should make everything that nature offers him useful for himself while being conscious of his responsibility, should be the master of nature but at the same time its protector and conserver." –Julius Wagner, German educator

Source: Julius Wagner, Die Biologie im Dienste heimatlicher Landschaftskunde (1934).

further reading worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/Radical Ecology.htm

You are an ecofascist. Here is a thread

Daniel Thomas
Daniel Thomas

I’m going to copy the OP word for word and run for mayor in Boring, Oregon.

Jacob Edwards
Jacob Edwards

<Deportation, conservation of traditions

This.
Schools tell students that modern democracy has its roots in ancient Athens, but one key element of democracy in that old city-state was Ostracism, a once-per-year secret ballot (using "ostraca" pottery shards) wherein citizens voted for the person they wanted to expel from Athens and its body politic.

Imagine if we could get rid of jews like Sheldon Adelson or George Soros and their corporations, one by one, one booted out each year.

Ostracism, I would argue, is so important to the ancient concept of democracy that without ostracism we don't really have a system that can be called democracy.

Caleb Roberts
Caleb Roberts

This is the literal definition of a blog post.
me me me me
no I swear it isn't about me it's about politics in general!
now back to me me me

Jeremiah Long
Jeremiah Long

You want to talk about yourself, and there are other boards for that
Most other boards give zero fucks about politics though, so I can't imagine OP's thread getting any discussion there. Maaaaybe on /r9k/ since the anons there seem quite redpilled, but even that's a stretch, not to mention it's slow as shit.

Gabriel Turner
Gabriel Turner

To have democracy, you need public vote.
Secret vote is kikery. Everything you do in public that affects state matters, must literally be public in democracy, in function and principle.

More importantly,some points that most people miss:
Statecraft is not a business and it is not for everyone. You need to have Zig Forumsites. Meaning men that have families and property that is tied to the state. Men that own the means of production. kek Not unmarried men. Not women. Not anything else. Not slaves
Those same Zig Forumsites must be oplites. They must own their own armor and weapons. They must be /k/ tier. So your Zig Forumsites are also the heads of the army, those that defend the state. So democracy is effectively a utopian patriarchy for very advanced peoples.

CITIZENS ARE NOT Zig ForumsITES. VOTING ONCE IN A WHILE DOES NOT MEAN YOU HAVE DEMOCRACY. IF YOU DON'T PARTICIPATE IN STATECRAFT, YOU DON'T HAVE DEMOCRACY. YOU, THE PEOPLE, DO NOT GOVERN IN (((DEMOCRACY))). DEMOCRACY IS A PIPE DREAM UNTIL THE KIKES ARE GONE.

Elijah Brown
Elijah Brown

I forgot the most important point. To have any kind of democracy, you need ETHNIC HOMOGENEITY.

Lincoln Edwards
Lincoln Edwards

OP has some good points, but one thing I want to look at is the creation and utilization of goods and money.

First, are these large companies actually producing good and useful tools or devices? Are they environmentally safe?

Second, if they are not, what entity will allow the right people to acquire funding so that decent people do decent things with their economic resources?

Carson Cruz
Carson Cruz

No one asked, whore.

Elijah Hernandez
Elijah Hernandez

Where do I lie in terms of a political identity?
Who in the ever-loving fuck gives a shit about where you are on the politcal spectrum?

Self absorbed faggot kill yourself.

Henry Morgan
Henry Morgan

IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO WE ARE. WHAT MATTERS IS OUR PLAN.

Isaac Thompson
Isaac Thompson

Yeah, those seem to be key points that drive away those who see race as a necessary determining factor, and also those who like to pretend it doesn't exist (while also screaming about MUH RACISM at every corner). It seems to just be a controversial view all around.

no u

The idea of black-or-white dichotomy is, and always will be, ridiculous.

Ahh, this is more like it. Gonna pick out some of the things of note
3
This one's a bit too vague for my tastes - I know Hitler expanded on it in his various speeches, but it leads too much of an open door for "we're taking this because it's ours!" mentality. Still, Germany did get unreasonably fucked over after WWI, so this one's not too outrageous.
4
Specifying jews is a bit redundant, but hey, it's literally Hitler, so
5
I disagree with this one. It allows too much of an issue where people can slip by immigration easily. Unless carefully monitored and easily deportable, you'd see outsiders abusing this a LOT (as was the case, I'm sure)
7
This one's pretty important, and I agree with it. Your people should always come first, but I wouldn't stop at just "food" - other basic necessities should be met as well (shelter, sanitation, clothing/bedding, etc).
9
This one's also too vague. "equal rights" depends pretty heavily on what you consider these "rights" to be, although on a surface level is admirable and desirable nonetheless.
11
I disagree with this, and believe it clashes with point #15, but only with regards to care for the elderly/reasonably disabled. While we shouldn't consider every manchild or tranny schizo to be "disabled", I think genuinely wounded soldiers or people suffering from other disabilities that prevents them from truly working should see some form of living guaranteed. Though admittedly, this could be worked out in the form of direct needs being met, rather than being given NEETbux.
13
This should only really be for corporations that are supplying the needs of your people. Otherwise, free enterprise for luxury items and non-essentials.
16
This one is also a bit too vague, because it relies on a nebulous definition of "small traders", but is again an admirable goal.
17
This one's worded weirdly, but generally is extremely important. It basically lets your nation's governing body create community areas that aren't fucking charging anybody simply because of MUH LAND VALUE. IIRC this is what led to the various free hostels for the Hitler youth.
20
Shit, I forgot to mention education in my OP, but this is 100% important and basically the way to go about it. Quit treating education like a business - it's training for children for a common future.
23
This one's fairly dubious, and while it would probably be fine at first, would reasonably lead to an abused system where only "allowed" news is let in. Even if there's no (((special interests))) to manipulate the press, this still has the simple issue of bottlenecking and arbitrating the value of the press. I think it's better to let the press be free, and only crack down on repeated attacks made via the press as I mentioned in the OP.
24
This one's fine if it cuts out the second bit about "Positive Christianity" and whatnot, mostly because it's redundant, but because it railroads the religious aspect to "Christianity vs Judaism" and doesn't give enough foresight to potential future cancerous religions (see: Islam, Scientology, etc).

All in all, while I have my issues with natsoc, I'd say it's a much more reasonable doctrine if it sticks to these 25 points. At the very least, most European or ethno-centric nations would benefit heavily from its ideology.

Jayden Thomas
Jayden Thomas

Seems like a longer version of a thread we've already had. Sorry OP, tl;dr.

Sebastian Nelson
Sebastian Nelson

Ostracism
Good in theory, but could easily be abused to cull powerful rising forces who would rise against corruption. Imagine if they did this with Hitler in 1929. I mean, they tried, but

Democracy isn't an inherently great system, either. Tyranny by majority rings true especially in the modern age - all it takes is leading along a bunch of retards with some money on a string and stick.

Yeah, I went over this briefly with
Production, money
There's really ultimately 15 things you absolutely need for your society to function and prosper, each split into 3 groups of 5.
Survival
1: Nutrition
2: Shelter
3: Sanitation
4: Temperance
5: Comfort
Civilization
6: Medicine
7: Education
8: Security
9: Art & Entertainment
10: Sexuality
Greatness
11: Truth
12: Faith
13: Love
14: Hate
15: Conservation
all of these must be well defined, of course, but every single one of them must be met and maintained. If any one of these pillars fall, so will the rest of your society. Thus, your currency must reflect the production the first 10, and your civilization must maintain the last 5 to keep producing the first 10.

To answer your questions, though
are these large companies actually producing good and useful tools or devices?
Similar to the NDASP doctrine, you should have a nationalized set of corporations who are tasked with these goals. So they're not beholden to "profit" so they can squeeze money out of people for necessities - they merely produce, if only for the common goal.
Are they environmentally safe?
I would say this should naturally be maintained under any proper nationalized entity.

what entity will allow the right people to acquire funding so that decent people do decent things with their economic resources?
"funding" is a mere means to an end - what's more important is that you have the physical resources to do so, without any means of interference by "market values", brokers, etc. Regardless, the nation should provide these means to its people, so that the people may look after their nation.

Camden Edwards
Camden Edwards

Kike angering bump. keep on evolving and discovering who you are user.

Tyler Cook
Tyler Cook

This one's a bit too vague for my tastes - I know Hitler expanded on it in his various speeches, but it leads too much of an open door for "we're taking this because it's ours!" mentality. Still, Germany did get unreasonably fucked over after WWI, so this one's not too outrageous.
Much of point three is exactly what you said. Various pockets of ethnic Germans were cut off from Germany (and in some places were being persecuted [this is what motivated the invasion of Poland]). Hitler wanted to re-unite the German people under one empire. The concept of "Lebensraum" is all that is mentioned today though. Hitler's motive for invasion was to bring Germans back under German rule.
11 clashing with 15
Think carefully on this one. The reason for this is to eliminate people earning incomes only from investments and money-lending. The development of insurance for old age can still be earned by the person working their whole life for the betterment of their country. With the nationalization of large industries, providing a pension would be equivalent to this insurance.
This should only really be for corporations that are supplying the needs of your people. Otherwise, free enterprise for luxury items and non-essentials.
I think this was mostly geared towards extremely large companies and trusts.
This one is also a bit too vague, because it relies on a nebulous definition of "small traders", but is again an admirable goal.
I feel like language used in point 16 would help combat behemoths like walmart from destroying businesses and communities.

Jackson Hill
Jackson Hill

Bullshit.
There must be a complimentary balance between individuality and community.
Human beings are tribal animals. Civilization is a group effort. Individuality, individual initiative, and individual liberty are important, but they must exist within the context of one's own Volk and must be in consonance with that Volk.
A human can accomplish essentially nothing alone, no matter how strong or smart he or she is.
If you are one of the "peterstein" disciples, then do you know that he is supportive of White genocide?
Also, the White race, and also the various breeds within the White race, is genetic. Culture is very important, but genetics is the foundation of everything living, including humans, their abilities, and their behaviors. Culture is a thin veneer applied on top of individually immutable genetics.
"stay atomized goyi, erh, guys!!!!!" "only "herd animals" ever work together and organize tribally!!!! "STOP ORGANIZING AND FORMING GROUPS WITH SHARED BLOOD TIES AND HERITAGE!!!!!!!!!!!! THAT'S (((OUR))) DEAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
This is how you sound.
National Socialism, essentially. Very close to it, anyway.
Other than
1. Somewhat weak on race. The "best quality" people from other races should still remain separate in their own homelands. The correct way to get more "good genes" is through sensible eugenics policies within your own Volk.
2. While a shared "White" identity is somewhat new, it is genetically plausible. White peoples are closer related to other Whites than to non-Whites. Also, the USA was never even really an "all types of Whites" Nation. 90+% of White Americans come from Northern Europe, mostly from Britain, Germany, Ireland, or Scandinavia. "White American" is Gemanic plus Celtic with some Italians and a smattering of other European groups.
3. Religion is what people believe in. It is an incredibly powerful thing. Some "religions" are seriously harmful, such as judaism and islam. Religions that are harmful to the Volk and the unity of the Volk should probably not be allowed within the homeland of the Volk.
4. On capitalism: ban all foreign corporations and "investment." All companies within the country must be owned and operated by the Volk. Also, massive antitrust measures and policies to prevent "megarich oligarchy" formation must be put in place, otherwise "a hundred giant capitalists who own everything and buy the government" will reform.
False. It is a place to discuss "politically incorrect" topics. It is not "right wing news," although shills try to make it so. Hell, it is not even "right wing" since many, or even most, legitimate posters recognize that much of the "left/ right" divide is a false dichotomy.
THIS IS UTTER BULLSHIT.
GENETICS IS THE FOUNDATION OF EVERYTHING LIVING.
INCLUDING HUMANS
INCLUDING THE BEHAVIOR OF HUMANS
Opposing White genocide is morally imperative for all White people.
The White race is a vast collection of complex genetic factors. It is not "skin color." It is not only cosmetic. Cosmetic differences are the SMALLEST differences. The largest are in brain development.
You support genocide. You are the enemy. You are a monster.
To hell with you.
As a foundational starting point, pretty much this.
WHAT we are is what matters most.
I will point out that the people living in the Danzig corridor before WW2 were mostly German and that that area had been part of Germany, before that Prussia, and before that the (German) Teutonic Order for 700 years or so. There was no legitimate reason for that area to have been given to Poland after WW1, other than out of pure hatred and spite towards Germany.

David King
David King

You're an autistic pseudo intellectual. End of discussion.

Ryder Morales
Ryder Morales

The NatSocs were eco nationalists as well. National socialism is the political system that will send humanity to the stars.

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Confirm your age

This website may contain content of an adult nature. If you are under the age of 18, if such content offends you or if it is illegal to view such content in your community, please EXIT.

Enter Exit

About Privacy

We use cookies to personalize content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyze our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our advertising and analytics partners.

Accept Exit