National socialism and fascism

Not to long ago I already seen arguments that national socialism and fascism were actually the same but a bit different, but of the same branch or at least a variation because both are third position of that same truth, with some arguing that they aren't to different from each other and some arguing fascism being a civic nationalist ideology (which I disagree) Hitler admired Mussolini and the ideology but at the same time thought they were many faults in them and learned from it and made it into something else and probably took some ideas. Also I apologize for not having to save that info or link when I had the chance to see where I am coming from.
Itt: Discussing is national socialism the exact same as fascism, a variant, or are different.
Pic related seen anons disagreeing that it isn't simply the case.

Attached: d7d4a0c351ae545fda3efa049d73a014fc723bd52521bde9fca6e744aa0d7231.jpg (480x489, 71.63K)

Other urls found in this thread:

Attached: the true ideology.png (1024x768, 1002.74K)

National socialism is fascism applied in Germany.

The faggots who try to generate this schism are ironically trying to make "nazis" into "antifa".

Hitler was inspired on Mussolini's fascism but vastly improved it (especially with racial nationalism>civic nationalism). Then everything came full circle with Mussolini embracing a more national socialist approach in the Italian Socialist Republic in the last years.

Hitler also took some ideas of Spengler's Prussian socialism as well, but from the arguments I heard anons also said mussolini only played the civic nationalism to gain public support.

how does this quantum sophistry work?

Meant to say they were similar.

Race and folk, in practice, aren't Platonic forms; they have fuzzy borders. What authority, in your pic related, determines who does or doesn't belong to the race/folk?

Attached: 1313973514763.jpg (800x1066, 163.11K)

Ultimately, the people themselves.

Re read this part of my op.
Dumb question, but I'll answer none the less, the germans are you people and your german by default these are your volk, in britain your people are the anglo and your anglo by default these are you folk.

Isn't that a tautology?

Attached: 1321497182895.jpg (514x680, 46.14K)

Nope. National Socialism and Fascism differ significantly.
I have yet to find a fascist organization that prioritized biologic racial integrity on the level of the German National Socialists.

Yes, unironically.

This is a populism movement.

Or you have to have a king that is likened by the people.

Nature ala biology would be my estimate.

Attached: sup faggit.JPG (1720x928, 114.27K)

Checked for this is exactly what I'm talking about.

The problem with Fascism as far as I can see is that, in every case I've examined, it lacks the racial component to a sufficient extent - often it is present, but it is superceded by some other, "cultural" ephemera, which equates to nothing more than a pseudo-civic nationalist perception of culture taking priority over biology, something which I find distasteful and, despite my desires to the alternative, suggestive of a weakness of character or insight.

Whenever some sort of cultural ideology takes precedence over blood ties, I find myself concerned. This is also why I often find myself dishearted by "identarians". I often hear members of these 'white nationalism' movements/organizations of the current year +X discussing the concept of 'identity', which I find disagreeable.

Identity IS a factor of what is of import, in actual terms, which is a matter of biology, not of mere internalized self-description, ie 'identity'; this distinction is important, as merely maintaining an identity into the future is not a means via which to maintain, to secure, our people into perpetuity - we are not a mere identity, we are a biological clade of beings, and this material reality is intrinsic to everything about us and our culture, the summation of which being that from whence our collective identity derives.

I'm going to take a momentary divergence from the base topic of the thread to tear into civic nationalism, given the sort of hypothesis I've just set forth that Fascism tends towards a pseudo-civic nationalist mentality.

Apologies if in any way off-putting.

I can't help but laugh at civic nationalism - its a self-defeating meme.

Look at the US.

We hear civic nationalists talking all about these Constitutional principles that they hold dear.
Freedom of speech. Right to bear arms. Limited government.
Yet these same civic nationalist principles, they claim, demand judgement on the basis of the individual only, not as collectives… Of course, their claims are somewhat suspect, given the men who derived those princples initially were slave owners and created the US as an explicit White ethnostate, but whatever.

The point is, this hyper-individualistic outlook forces them into a cognitive box, limiting the extent of their philosophical-willpower. It does so, in that it forces them to reject judgement in the context of racial groups as a collective, despite races acting as collectives.
For example: Hispanics support gun control (60%+ in favor, 30% against). And hate-speech laws (50%+ in favor, 25% against). And expanded government (70%+ in favor, 20% against). And Hispanics overwhelmingly identify with the left-wing political parties (60%+, increasingly from generation to generation after entry to the country to upwards of 70% by the 2nd generation). AND Hispanics demonstrate an elevated fertility rate relative to White populations in the US (still above replacement levels).

Thus, by upholding civic nationalist principles in judging Hispanics as individuals instead of as a group, many Hispanics would be (and have been) allowed into the country - for example in the amnesty of Ronald Reagan - despite the fact that collectively they do not believe in the principles upon which the nation was founded… Not that they would say as much if attempting to gain entry - deception exists, and civic nationalist arguments as-goes vetting procedures are underwhelming, nevermind the prospect of enforcement of civic values after entry (let alone over generations).

And this last point about enforcement is important, because evidence suggests that, like most ethnic/racial minorities in the US, Hispanics do not demonstrate a collective belief in the civic principles of the US (certainly not to the proportional degree seen in US Whites), but they DO behave as a collective, supporting left-wing political groups in overwhelming majority. Those promoting civic nationalist ideals do not demonstrate the philosophical-willpower to enforce these civic values, have offered no methodology to alter this condition, and all indications suggest they are bereft of such a method - if they were not, the populations which have been in the US for several generations, exposed to the values of the country and civic nationalists' arguments in that vein, would espouse those positions, but they do not.

While on the subject… Why do Hispanics support left-wing groups? Are they actually more left-wing in political view? Yes, but that's not the whole story - they vote as a collective, and they do so to serve collective interests. Left-wing groups in the US are the groups in favor of serving the left-wing predispositions of Hispanics (hate-speech laws, gun control, expanding government with more programs) as well as increased immigration, which they promote loudly, and increased immigration leads to an increase in population for the respective ethnic/racial minority in question, which in turn leads to an increase in the political power, electorally at the very least, wielded by that ethnic/racial minority. Hence, regardless of their political stance, Hispanics support left-wing groups as a collective to serve collective interest. We see the same sort of behavior on behalf of Blacks and other non-Whites.
In fact, we see the same sort of behavior on behalf of Asians, who also primarily support left-wing groups in the US (50%+, increasing generationally), even though polling of their political views suggest they may not actually be left-wing politically - they're merely acting as a collective in serving their collective interest.

Left-wing groups are, for whatever reason (ideology, personal desire for power or wealth, etc), very happy to assist in this endeavor, and in fact, the left-wing political party of the modern US is an amalgam of minority groups acting collectively in their own interest despite an absence of shared political belief betwixt the tribes. They are, effectively, a collective composed of collectives, each acting to serve their own interests, and a great deal of their effort is maintained in securing each individual collective's support and avoiding conflict among those groups where their perceived collective interests conflict. Further, these left-wing groups - aided by left-wing political/social organizations (several particularly influential examples bearing an overt Jewish composition or philosophy) - explicitly advocate for, and support the explicit advocacy of, the respective non-White minority collectives, whilst simultaneously doing everything in their power to silence, slander, demonize and deplatform any and all explicit White advocacy groups through accusation of association with 'racism', 'White supremacy', 'Nazism' and/or 'anti-Semitism', amongst others.

That is to say, the left-wing in the US, particularly the influential Jewish wing, advocates against explicit White advocacy. Which is why no such explicit White advocacy organizations exist in the US today which are not so slandered, and certainly none which exhibit institutional power and perceived legitimacy as might be claimed on behalf of other ethnic/racial groups' equivalents (the latter of which often exhibiting a far more seedy character than the former).
Ironically, this seems to form a neat little circle for the left-wing (especially Jewish) actors: by advocating against White advocacy and White advocates using accusations such as 'racism' or 'White supremacy', Jewish left-wing organizations create anti-semitic sentiment in White advocates and White advocacy organizations, which those same left-wing Jewish organizations then utilize to further slander them through accusation of 'anti-semitism' or 'Nazism'!
Its important to note that the left-wing political factions and their accomplice political organizations in the US also employ such accusations in opposition to any efforts to inhibit left-wing political aims at increasing immigration into the US from non-White sources, promoting globalist multiculturalism and miscegenation, and degrading national borders, even national sovereignty.

The left-wing has been so successful in their efforts in this regard, that the US population demographics are beginning to disintegrate. The White population - the only population which demonstrates anything close to majority support for the ideals which civic nationalists claim to hold most dear - is being displaced.

What conclusion do we reach from such analysis of circumstance?
We can discern that the civic nationalist position is philosophically-unequipped to combat this hazard, in that their civic nationalist ideals demand they make judgements on strictly individual grounds such as to ignore ethnic/racial behavioral trends. They will thus seek to argue in favor of judging a long line of individuals, as individuals, on principle, who can and will present themselves as sharing a belief in the principles civic nationalists claim to seek to uphold if such is required to gain entry to the country, and who will subsequently act collectively in their own interests once in the US such as to create new demographic conditions within the US that are no longer fertile substrate for the individual - and thereby societal - espousal of civic nationalists' proposed ideals.

tl;dr: Non-Whites don't care about civic duties or virtues, they act as collectives to serve collective interests, and civic nationalists do not have any mechanism at their disposal to change, nor combat, this state of affairs, even as they vehemently protest, on the basis of their civic nationalist principles, White advocates attempting such a feat. These civic nationalists are thus demonstrating that they are operating from an obsolete playbook, attempting to espouse civic nationalist ideals of individualism that were only able to be maintained in homogenous White nations bereft of competition from myriad non-White collectives (each serving their own interests), and yet, despite this failure, demonstrable throughout electoral politics in the US (and the West overall) over the last 30+ years, civic nationalists continue to suggest the old playbook is valid. The conclusion is thus that, if civic nationalists are allowed to attempt to carry out their proposed policies in the US, there will cease to exist a substrate for civic nationalists' beloved Constitutional principles and these principles will cease to exist in application in the US. Self-defeating meme.

Finally, I'd like to sink one last nail into the coffin of civic nationalists' hyper-individualistic ideals, specifically surrounding the conceptual notion of individual judgements in the context of immigration.
Regression to the mean.
This is a well-documented phenomenon in population genetics whereby the offspring of outliers within a population tend to gradually 'shift' toward a state more in-line with the average of their ethnic/racial group. The result is that judgement of individuals is an entirely static exercise.
Typically, those promoting such a methodology of selection will dictate a set of standards which are non-biological in origin, but which effectively act to indirectly ensure that only the outliers amongst non-White ethnic/racial groups will be able to gain entry. Of course, this is innately faulty in practice, in that the individual's offspring are not necessarily going to espouse the traits which meet those standards, particularly if the individual being judged initially was an outlier amongst their kind, which will be the case by-requisite as regards non-White ethnic/racial groups, yet those offspring will be granted voting privileges if born within the US.

Professed ideals of civic nationalism require a substrate of individuals who believe in those ideals in order for those ideals to be espoused in society, and non-Whites do not represent such a substrate, such that demographic replacement of White populations by non-White populations eliminates such substrate, resulting in a cessation of populational espousal of those values at the individual, and thus societal, levels.

My point is that you need a decision-making entity in order to define who the folk are. Even if it's something as rudimentary as a council of village elders, it is a state.

Attached: 7ytfn1rs9ttio1_500.jpg (640x481, 143.96K)

I don't think fascists think each race has their strong points mean they become cuck civic nationalist, muh baste nigger americucks.

That's an entirely different point together.

So a king/leader/fuhrer/kaiser.

Many name, but essentially a king, where responsibility and authority rest upon.

No, Nature does that for you. What you need is an organizational framework wherein that conditions is recognized and the participant individuals are held to acting accordingly.

And its less a matter of definition so much as recognition. The definition is already laid by Nature, its simply a matter of the governmental body representing the interests of a group of people recognizing that extant state and acting in accordance to the interests of those so defined.

Nature can define whatever it wants, but without enforcement, it means jackshit.

Same argument for the Constitution.

I didn't suggest it did, necessarily.

I repeat:
>The problem with Fascism as far as I can see is that, in every case I've examined, it lacks the racial component to a sufficient extent - often it is present, but it is superceded by some other, "cultural" ephemera, which equates to nothing more than a pseudo-civic nationalist perception of culture taking priority over biology, something which I find distasteful and, despite my desires to the alternative, suggestive of a weakness of character or insight.

>Whenever some sort of cultural ideology takes precedence over blood ties, I find myself concerned. This is also why I often find myself dishearted by "identarians". I often hear members of these 'white nationalism' movements/organizations of the current year +X discussing the concept of 'identity', which I find disagreeable.

>Identity IS a factor of what is of import, in actual terms, which is a matter of biology, not of mere internalized self-description, ie 'identity'; this distinction is important, as merely maintaining an identity into the future is not a means via which to maintain, to secure, our people into perpetuity - we are not a mere identity, we are a biological clade of beings, and this material reality is intrinsic to everything about us and our culture, the summation of which being that from whence our collective identity derives.

The Falangists prioritization of a cultural regeneration over a racial regeneration is what I'm referring to here, just as an example - that's not to say they were muh baste nigger americucks by any means, but it DOES mean that they believed niggers were, in essence, their equals in some sense, and viewed interbreeding as a viable approach.


Exactly. Of course, the leader can't be too arbitrary in his definitions or he will lose the support of his people. It would be unwise for him to define sheep as part of the folk, for example.

Attached: 3ea640d8a2b34f29f844395530391424d535913cc5f95fa2930f113ef4dd7b8c.jpeg (768x1024, 118.53K)

Quite, and he need not be - he is not DEFINING anything, so much as RECOGNIZING a clade which is already defined by Nature.

Yet, IMHO, that is often what Fascism seeks to do, in one form or another, and this then leads into questions of the ol' slippery slope, in that such openness to outsiders - idealistic and compassionate though it may be - tends to lead towards miscegenation and dilution.

To a great degree, yes, but it still isn't a Platonic form. Inductive reasoning and the scientific method, properly understood, aren't about certainties, but rather about greater or lesser probabilities. IOW all taxonomies, borders and boundaries are to some extent arbitrary.

There's always that risk. Good advisors should help attenuate it.

Attached: 1344556653970.jpg (384x395, 24.74K)

I that any movement that use the neo-hegelian phylosophy as base is a fascist movement.
Of course Mussolini knew about the deep forces of nature, he was a commie before! Usually commies stop being commies when they find out it comes to race and not class!

Seriously! "United we are stronger" - how could it not have biological implications? Add to the equation the fact Mussolini was not very catholic himself (as a neo-Hegelian thinker) and that they were a post-darwinian movement!

At which point you're getting into levels of esoteric obscurity as to be irrelevant outside a philosophers study.

The data we had then, let alone now, is more than sufficient to recognize the patterns of expression which delineate the racial clades, without any real justification for claims of arbitrary placement.

Or you could just avoid it all together, as the National Socialists did, by placing a paramount priority on such matters rather than on mere cultural ephemera.

This is where I always lose ground with self-proclaimed Fascists, and it comes back to their unwillingness to accept the following:

But it doesn't seem like he did, as his earlier material seems to be heavily geared away from race, much of that having come into play post-Hitlerian exposure.

Not that I'm saying Mussolini is shit or was totally deracinated in philosophy mind you, its simply a matter of prioritization.

Therein lies the question - how far does he extend what defines that which can be and should be united? When I said there is a tendency towards miscegenation and dilution before when it comes to Fascism, I should have rather said that there is a tendency towards Imperialistic tendencies, and such tendencies are what lends a tendency in turn for miscegenation and dilution.

You can't rule a multicultural empire and think that's not going to have feedback ramifications, particularly if your foundational ethos does not highly-prioritize racialism. IMHO at least.

It's because fascism occured in southern european countryes. Southern european countryes are catholic, and as catholics they wouldn't put race nor anything before God.
They were also more religious, influencing more than protestants in the north, since catholicism isn't a version of christianism were everything that is beautifull is throwed out, thus people still identified strongly with religion on those countryes.

I can understand that, but do you see how once again that falls into what I've said about Fascism and its expressions in this thread?
Religion is, no matter how you look at it, cultural ephemera. Its the consequence of something else, derivative rather than source.
This is also why I often come into conflict with Christians and, I suppose that makes sense, especially Catholics: From my position, it appears they are ready and willing to prioritize their cult over their blood, and that's death IMHO.

I can appreciate that as a factor, but it amounts to little more than an excuse in my eyes. Doubly so in that I find Christianity generally distasteful, and a great many Fascist organizations historically have held a Christian bent. As such, they just kind of put me off, in that I perceive them to be prone to such cultural ephemeric fetishism on two fronts.

From what I heard, the cathloics or king betrayed Mussolini.

Fascism is garbage. It’s too hardass to learn what it needs to know to succeed. Fascist governments inspire widespread secret resistance to their policies because nobody likes their enforcers.

Religion is contrafascistic. Can you even learn why if the answer isn’t given to you?

Well mate, of course the problem is christianity! Why aren't we naming the disgenic kike cult that placed southern europeans in such a mental state?

Well, there's also that.
My ancestors were Swiss Anabaptist genius-retards so you won't hear me trying to claim Northern Europeans are bereft of capacity to be subjected to Christian-derived bullshit. Not by any means.


Wait, user! And what if fascism is the political project of r strategysts and the GOAL is INDEED to raise a big multicultural empire and miscigenate as hell before it colapse?
I mean, think of the romans! Those guys miscigenated with celts, greeks, britons, some germans and what about the bastard sons italic roman soldiers had all around those areas that hadn't a big roman population…
This may, indeed, be a strategy to propagate the roman r strategist genes!

Religion is contrafascistic because religions teach people that which fascists whine forever about their shortage of: strength. Religious people do not submit while fascists have no dignity and will submit to any atrocity.

Religion is contrafascistic because religions peacefully teach people the honesty and integrity which fascists governments undermine in their every blundering moment. Nobody reveals their sins to a fascist. You know who people don’t even try to hide their sins from? Priests!

I’m a satanist. I take strength even from my beliefs, materialistic though they be. My ideals are profoundly functional in this world. I need no submission.

Let me give you another example. Something secular, because you people can’t win just by undermining religion. Fascists don’t believe in rehabilitation. They run their prisons as hellpits. One of the side effects of that is they don’t learn about crime and poverty in their nation. To a fascist government they are darkness built on darkness governing darkness. The side effects of their policies are invisible and irresolvable.

Deepening the darkness? Those who punish what is revealed become people to whom nothing is revealed. The common experience of fascists is stubborn exclusion every time they get detected. That is right and proper reciprocation.

Kindness is the light. There’s more to truth in this world than just being nice, but it’s important. If you want to learn that which is necessary to govern your leaders need a capacity for honestly trying to help people.

… Ew.

Fuck you, wimp. Come over to real strength. People are nicer on my side of the divide.

They always submit, what the fuck are you talking about? This is already sounding like the screed of the loser I was going back and forth with today about 'bigotry'.


The people on your side of the divide are all cretinous hedonistic ghouls who will not survive what is to come.
You included, I wager.

The people on my side of the divide rule this god-damned world. Your side only “rules” in jails. Guess which of us is trying to make something of blind, short-sighted hedonists? You have to learn superhedonic idealism. The greatest pleasures are of a worthy life.

Religious people die before they submit. You’re just a criminal begging to get your dick plugged in, only qualification: race.

Also, for whatever snarky faggot reply you're going to come back, stop speaking like you're in a Marixst version of a Harry Potter novel, yeah?
It makes you sound like a pillock and I'm in no mood to get into an autistic back and forth with you trying to divine half the vague rhetorical shitposting you unleash between spineless jabs at your collection of strawmen.

Only the most ardent - most just submit.

No they don't. They juggle an assemblage of vases which they've already started dropping.

Less than a century have your ideals held any true sway, and they are already crumbling.

Hahaha! Too cowardly for a (You). That’s the sign of a bold arguer! Retreating into paltry insults and trying to unlink the dispute so the viewers have a harder time following! If that worked I wouldn’t be collecting threadsnipes humiliating you lovely perfectly stable geniuses! But alright. I’ll reciprocate. The general public can hook things together just fine.

Your kind have been dying out throughout history, which is damned impressive. Truth punishing tardragers were the original genestock of humanity. The ascent of better governance was the victory of my ideals, first at the edges, then through the center. Push truth to the side, and it will eat your heart out.

Yeah, but if you have a population that occupy foreign lands and both miscigenates and IS RACIST, so they descriminate against the natives, they will firstly mix somewhat, but will start to gain purity as the time passes and they apply unconscious eugenics and pure migrants arrive. Some may stay pure, some may sacrifice their direct lineage to produce semi-native collaborateurs that will benefit the greather group…
And more, if the race is defined only by like, 10 specific chromossomes and the rest of the genetic material is non-essential, being only a host organism, they will not have to completely replace the original population genetically to "win".
The only problem with this strategy is that miscigenation is alaways harmfull to the resulting organism, since the genetic context in which their alleles evolved is not the same, so the expression of those may be "damaged".

You're one to talk, but then, what do I expect from a self-described 'satanist' if not hypocrisy and faggotry?

No, we've been beating worthless dregs like you into submission throughout history.

Again with the Marxist Harry Potter shit. Your head canon must be amazing.

But your ideals have objectively failed? Everything you've built over the last century or so is collapsing around you. And you can't even see. Too busy stuffing stuff in your butt probably.

Truth? You don't possess any Truth. You've built an ideology out of lies, and now your preen and prance about screeching at your betters, proclaiming yourself wise while exhibiting no evidence of such. Go cry someplace about 'bigotry' or something you pathetic little pawn.

And for the record: You will submit.
I can tell by the way you converse and present yourself, that with a gun to your head, you'd suck whatever dick was presented to you.
You'd probably like it on some sick level no less, for anyone who is a self-described "satanist" is basically admitting they fetishize the obscene and perverse and justify it with weak narratives about power.

Then that's alreadya recipe for disaster.

Which is by no means the case.

So you've now admitted that everything you said before this was invalid. I don't understand why you'd try to jump through all these hoops to justify something you know is undesirable.

I believe one of the grand arcs of history is the redemption of all people and the redress of all ills. We all get to go to Heaven if we’re good enough! That’s not a spiritual comment to me, not exactly; I could explain a scenario that constitutes a materialist argument for the soul, but I consider it gauche to rely upon. Suffice to say I owe no loyalty to Christianity, but sometimes any truly faithful person is onto something.

So I mentioned Heaven. The gist of it is that I believe in the material physical possibility of computronium, and if I’m wrong, I even more strongly believe in the possibility of simulated cognition. We don’t strictly require computronium to get to the necessary computational threahold.

What we do require is sufficient honesty that we won’t torment each other when we get there. We must breach all hells lest we end up within them. We have to find what’s true in deepest darkness.

At this, I believe mankind is winning. Crime rates are down. Wealth is up. Some of the biggest, brightest potentials of this world are stalled for some reason, but the future still looks damned bright. This is Hell, yet we’re cleaning up nicely.

It was just a mental exercise then, I guess. Making those kind of things I got out of marxism.


Oh shit, and I thought that I was a bit too much with my mental exercises… I didn't realized (((Isaac Asimov))) was among us…

But you realized that I kind of described the jewish strategy, don't you?


Funny how this discussion became another thing entirely.

Also, Mussolini was worried he'd alienate the southern Italians by overemphasizing race.

Hitler versus Dollfuss is the perfect historical example. There is a reason why Austrian National Socialists killed the "Austrofascist" Dollfuss, after all.

There is no Germanic DNA is Spain tbh.
Historical myths made people believe bullshit

Lurk more. Fuck off.

They are the expressions of two different peoples of similar 20th century reactionary-revolutionary ideas, more or less influencing each other. Same could be said about Romanian or Spanish "Fascism".
Of course, the difference of the peoples highlighted more or less certain aspects i.e NatSoc the race, Franco Catholicism, Mussolini Romanity, etc…

Attached: 1526375766949.png (686x1920, 1006.96K)

Best discussion I seen for a while.

Attached: fascism not far appart.png (2000x1700, 1.57M)

That's weird because so far I have never met a single fascist who wasn't.
This instantly makes me suspicious of anyone trying to cause fighting between fascists and NSs
In fact, I've noticed more big brained fascists than NSs. I have theories as to why this is so.

Do you neede adecision-making entity in order to define what is a puddle and what is a lake? Do you need a decision-making entity in order to define what is a hill and what is a mountain?
Do you need a decision-making entity in order to define what a family is or who your brothers and sisters are?
Somethings are simply intuitive. Don't be autistic about race and Folk.

they are literally the same thing, only effected by different nations and circumstances.

Someone that has same blood and race.

that may be at best an issue at the establishment of the state; once the state is established, it's quite easy to do so if you want simple schemes for everyday blokes lacking the intellect: ius sanguinis, you are of a folk if both your parents are of that folk, and this rule not only determines belonging but also the proper basic racial hygiene practice of only marrying within your own folk
if for whatever reason one lacked the information about his own parents(which in any sane state should be a very extreme situation at best) then racial science could come in and possibly guarantee pass

German racial science in any case, as it was at the time, didn't think there was a "German race" anyway; they classified the German folk as belonging to a small set of Europid subraces and blends of those, plus at best few outliers(Nordisch, Westische(Mediterranid), Dinarische, Ostische(Alpinid), Ostbaltische, Falische(upper paleolithic)). This is still a system, and like every system carries within itself imprecision, but as far as coming close to a system by which the principle of racial hygiene was upkept, which is what matters most, it was by no means bad, especially when applied in conjunction with genealogical information and so on.
Certainly no negro would ever have the audacity of trying to make himself pass as German within these bounds.

The various Fascist movements and National Socialism have some similarities and common enemies but they came to wildly different conclusions. Firstly, none of the fascist movements achieved the correct position on race and Jews until NS Germany forced them to. Second, none of the fascist movements achieved the correct position on religion except for certain elements within National Socialism and more towards its later years. Thirdly, all the fascist movements were stuck in passe petty nationalism where National Socialism outgrew it's national name over the course of the war, starting as a German irredentist movement that over the course of the war developed into the leader of the pan Aryan revolt against the world Jewish system. Fascism started as a reaction, as an immune response to capitalism, communism and modernity, then National Socialism picked up fascism and took it far beyond what fascism ever was.

Fascism and NS are both third position economics and have central to their ideology the desire for national rebirth, basically make X great again and this causes them to have similar enemies but NS is far deeper and actually has the correct position on race, Jews and religion and was able to move beyond petty nationalism.


I like most of what iron march and slavros did even though he's a steppe nigger. They did great for attacking the alt right for the correct reasons. However their idea that all the fascist movements as well as national socialism are literally exactly the same besides name and national expression is simply wrong. They are very similar and are natural allies but if you're examining them on an ideological basis or on the basis of their government's actions, there were serious differences. It's like saying all communist movements or all christian sects are literally exactly the same. It just isn't true.

Yes there is. Visigothic kings led the Reconquista. Obviously not a whole lot but to deny its existence is folly.

I like how those dates coincide with when Germany forced the Italian state to enact the racial laws. It didn't start out as a whole fully racially aware

what? racial laws in Italy only started being implemented around the late 30s

Exactly. The Italian state only actually took action on the serious racial level when NS Germany made them

that doesn't mean it wasn't racially aware as those quotes show, just that it wasn't a major concern to the point of needing to make explicit laws about it
jews in Italy weren't that many either

Both fascist and natsoc are a variation of truth.
And seek the same thing.

What should I do if

I appreciate your insight. From a fascist, let me put it like this…
I view race as far more important right now because we all share the bond of blood, facing down traitors from within, as well as external animals (I don't say 'human" because we both know the idea of "one human race" is laughable propaganda). In the future, once our existence is secure beyond doubt on earth, and hopefully in the stars, then I believe there will be a place to hold cultural differences as important. Unless our culture becomes monolithic, which could happen I suppose.
The nation of my race is far and away more important than any notion of "civic nationalism". I see my nation every time I look in the mirror. I feel it every time I shake my fathers hand. I wear it every time I go outside. I would choose helping a european over a minority from my home country every day without any hesitation. My sense of "civic nationalism" only goes so far as, having to choose saving a drowning minority from my country over a drowning somalian (if my option to let them both drown was prevented that is, lol).

Hopefully my words makes you feel less uneasy. That being said, always be extremely critical of fascists that say race doesn't matter or is less important, because that means they either interpret facism wrong because they're an idiot, or they're just a kike trying to D/C. Criticism is healthy and helps us reflect.

Attached: caesar.jpg (2448x3264, 1.59M)

Breed with your own women and make your men strong to be a buffer zone for northern Europe to keep out turks and other muds coming in from the south

It wasn't fascism in Spain, it was Miguel Primo de Rivera with the Falangists and JONism which were similar nationalist and socialist ideologies. Although the biggest differences were the importance of "syndicates" and the importance of the Catholic church. Primo de Rivera's vision was probably the most similar to that of Hitler's in the Third Positionist movement.


Attached: mediterranean race the creators of civilization.png (960x642 192.89 KB, 143.86K)

Disclaimer, he believes the khazar myth.

Well I'm from Lazio so….. okay?

Also, northern european naval navigation was far superior. And they gave us redheaded women. Our food is way better though.

Attached: nopowerhere.jpg (666x400, 50.13K)

The main lesson to take from all of this is: fascism is good, as is National Socialism.
Impose your will and the needs of your race above anyone else.
White men can do whatever we want, and others can't. If they try, they must be killed. If other races exist, and are detrimental to our own, we must genocide them simply for existing.
Those are the only laws that must be put above all else. Forget the whole bureaucracy, jewdiciary, (((democracy))) and "fairness". If any act is good for white men, it must be allowed to be practiced without any bad consequences or punishment for white men. If the exact same act is done in the benefit of other races or women, those practicing it must be punished by death.

Attached: 84CD26C5-6B4F-4FC8-8F6C-32DE8300A3C3.jpeg (1536x1746 309.93 KB, 740.69K)

I can do that too

Attached: 89B7D2ED-9F1B-4577-95AA-C696B5B90C63.jpeg (1489x880, 405.48K)

The Führer wearing a Fascist arm patch made solely for him during a meeting with Mussolini. Also of note is the sweet ceremonial dagger on his side gifted by Mussolini. This was the only time he wore either of them.

Attached: truth55-8.jpg (236x155 160.47 KB, 9.72K)

Attached: 7c069-AwJeez_Not_This_Shit_Again_.jpg (300x391, 25.48K)

I don’t really care what the ideology is so long as it gets the job done.
In that order, I think that those are the major and most basic tenants.

One off.

National Socialism is the only ideology worthy of the Aryan man.

Do you consider Slavs to be white when you say pro-white? Because they aren't and are the ones that spam SHITLER and shitpost anti-National Socialist rhetoric on here day in and day out


They're all the same thing. They all want free stuff instead of free access. Like hey stupid people, stuff isn't free but access to it can be.

I never suggested otherwise my man, but race will ALWAYS be MORE important.
And Fascism, in my experience, doesn't share that perspective.

Okay, and?
The jews are dying out even faster than Whites are bud. The fact that for a brief instant in time these wretched parasites have something approximating the upper hand is not indicative of anything more than a tic causing illness to a dog which then chews the tick off and eats it.

Nigger, you're a self-admitted satanist. Nothing you think or say matters to anyone.
I wasted too much time on you as-is.

>>And Fascism, in my experience, doesn't share that perspective.

Killing all White Nationalists might work better. Then Whites might have a chance.