Isn't National Socialism at its core basically just genetics matter, a nation should congregate people of similar genetics, government should provide social services to people and profits from the labor of people living in the country should go toward the benefit of the country rather than just individuals and especially just individuals who use their profits to benefits communities outside of the nation's community?
At its core everyone should be National Socialist to some degree. The socialist tenants and big government can be argued but the reality of race and nationalist economic policies can't be denied unless they're being denied by bad actors.
The only people who should outright oppose National Socialism in all regards are international capitalists who don't share genetics with the people laboring away in a country to the benefit of the capitalist. Basically, the true colonials of modern times are the only people who should oppose National Socialism in all regards because National Socialism does indeed provide a counter to neo-colonial imperialism in its modern form aka globalism and neoliberalism.
It would actually make sense to me that a lot of National Socialists within a country like Iran would exist. There may in fact be a divide among racially Iranian people and non-Iranian Muslims. The Iranian government likely wants immigrants of any race as long as they are Muslim but this could be a huge problem to racially Iranians. Many racially Iranian National Socialists might not necessarily be Muslim either because they wouldn't see religion as the solidifying piece for their nations but rather genetics.
It makes sense to me that this stuff exists but leftists can't really write about it very well due to a lack of understanding.
I know, that's why I even added in a comment for you specifically because I hate socialism too so I know the feeling:
At its core everyone should be National Socialist to some degree. The socialist tenants and big government can be argued but the reality of race and nationalist economic policies can't be denied unless they're being denied by bad actors.
You're confusing propaganda for ideology. The few elements of it that you have identified positively are neither inherent to, or exclusive to, national socialism.
Nationalism or at least some nationalistic elements are part of any strong society. Nationalism is also not tied to either side of the political scale - actual american nationalists, not the wehraboo larping faggots, are right wing, while national socialists are leftists.
Nationalism or at least some nationalistic elements are part of any strong society. Nationalism is also not tied to either side of the political scale - actual American nationalists, not the wehraboo larping faggots, are right wing, while national socialists are leftists.
Which is why I don't understand this "we're against commies so we must be right-wing"... Or maybe I do, it's just indoctrination, even if you do it yourself. Leftists will always fight each-other. Nationalism is just a flavor, not a full doctrine, you can attach it to a lot of things.
If people want to be right wing, or maybe a little bit more, national-conservatism is a thing.
Another funny idea is that a Jew can 't be nat-soc... as if the German variant is the only one. There's plenty of people they despise, surely.
If there were two candidates to vote for.One was nationalist, anti lgbt , anti immigrant, pro family, pro traditionalism, pro heritage but had somewhat socialist economic values
whereas the other candidate is pro lgbt, pro immigrant, pro open borders but happened to be pro capitalism as well (basically what many lolbertarians support ) who would you vote for? If you vote for the first candidate congratulations you voted for the leftist instead of the right winger according to your stupid logic.
Look at the USSR then, plenty of traditionalism, nationalism etc. a "little" dash of leftism. Are they a bit right wing? Some concepts are not specific to just one ideology. So the choice is between red and... pink? Sure, pink is better then red, so that might be the better vote (until it gets redder), but is anyone in this situation or are we dealing in hypotheticals? You can also vote against both of them, but that doesn't happen by staying at home as some people think.
USSR was never right wing. They didn't value the Russian traditions or heritage at all and they demonized old Russian heroes. . They pushed feminism. And they weren't even run by Russians, but by jews. And look at the book called "affirmative action empire" they promoted minority rights as well. On top of that national socialists remove the international bankers from the country , but communists do not and neither do capitalists for that matter.
And you still haven't answered who you would rather vote for in my previous post.
The wehraboos pretend to be right wing as a psyop. Many of the dumber ones do not understand what actually defines political ideologies at all, but the ones pushing it from behind the curtain have always been the globalists.
It is useful on many levels for them to associate nazis with the right. It is a propaganda tool for them to claim that both sides of politics end in authoritarian hellscapes - horseshoe theory, when that is actually just the result of leftism. It is also a tool to subvert right wing movements, and turn them into supporters of left wing ideology - it's their backup plan, hedging their bets.
The globalists do not care what they have to pretend to believe to seize power. Any ideology that pushes strong centralized power is good for them, because their bread and butter is climbing bureaucracy and corrupting organizations - sociopaths do excellently at that.
What about National Socialism in which they were race first, socialist and nationalist is propaganda vs. ideology? I mean, that seems pretty solidly what they were...
They weren't "race first, with minor socialism". That's the propaganda they fed to the useful idiots. They were a sociopathic leftist cabal leading a horde of useful idiots into an authoritarian death cult that ended in the total destruction of their nation.
In window dressing they claimed difference from communists. In function they were the same.
What part of "planned central government control of economy, purges and war" doesn't sound like communism to you? The part where they pretended to be looking out for their people (communists also pretend that). Which was the propaganda, as demonstrated by the results.
As well, Hitler instigated WW2 alongside the Soviets. Had he actually been benevolent and concerned for his people's welfare he wouldn't have worked with the communists or started invading other nations. He and Zelensky are guilty of similar crimes when it comes to fucking your own people for personal gain.
Are you that ignorant? In actual function, the nazis were just another authoritarian leftist dictatorship that left nothing but ruin in it's wake.
also "against minority groups like muslims"? since when were muslims "minorities" in iran?
Since "minority" became synonymous with "not white".
Maybe they mean minorities on the internet.. Good question
Isn't National Socialism at its core basically just genetics matter, a nation should congregate people of similar genetics, government should provide social services to people and profits from the labor of people living in the country should go toward the benefit of the country rather than just individuals and especially just individuals who use their profits to benefits communities outside of the nation's community?
At its core everyone should be National Socialist to some degree. The socialist tenants and big government can be argued but the reality of race and nationalist economic policies can't be denied unless they're being denied by bad actors.
The only people who should outright oppose National Socialism in all regards are international capitalists who don't share genetics with the people laboring away in a country to the benefit of the capitalist. Basically, the true colonials of modern times are the only people who should oppose National Socialism in all regards because National Socialism does indeed provide a counter to neo-colonial imperialism in its modern form aka globalism and neoliberalism.
It would actually make sense to me that a lot of National Socialists within a country like Iran would exist. There may in fact be a divide among racially Iranian people and non-Iranian Muslims. The Iranian government likely wants immigrants of any race as long as they are Muslim but this could be a huge problem to racially Iranians. Many racially Iranian National Socialists might not necessarily be Muslim either because they wouldn't see religion as the solidifying piece for their nations but rather genetics.
It makes sense to me that this stuff exists but leftists can't really write about it very well due to a lack of understanding.
Username checks out
I know, that's why I even added in a comment for you specifically because I hate socialism too so I know the feeling:
You're confusing propaganda for ideology. The few elements of it that you have identified positively are neither inherent to, or exclusive to, national socialism.
Nationalism or at least some nationalistic elements are part of any strong society. Nationalism is also not tied to either side of the political scale - actual american nationalists, not the wehraboo larping faggots, are right wing, while national socialists are leftists.
Which is why I don't understand this "we're against commies so we must be right-wing"... Or maybe I do, it's just indoctrination, even if you do it yourself. Leftists will always fight each-other. Nationalism is just a flavor, not a full doctrine, you can attach it to a lot of things.
If people want to be right wing, or maybe a little bit more, national-conservatism is a thing.
Another funny idea is that a Jew can 't be nat-soc... as if the German variant is the only one. There's plenty of people they despise, surely.
If there were two candidates to vote for.One was nationalist, anti lgbt , anti immigrant, pro family, pro traditionalism, pro heritage but had somewhat socialist economic values
whereas the other candidate is pro lgbt, pro immigrant, pro open borders but happened to be pro capitalism as well (basically what many lolbertarians support ) who would you vote for? If you vote for the first candidate congratulations you voted for the leftist instead of the right winger according to your stupid logic.
Look at the USSR then, plenty of traditionalism, nationalism etc. a "little" dash of leftism. Are they a bit right wing? Some concepts are not specific to just one ideology. So the choice is between red and... pink? Sure, pink is better then red, so that might be the better vote (until it gets redder), but is anyone in this situation or are we dealing in hypotheticals? You can also vote against both of them, but that doesn't happen by staying at home as some people think.
USSR was never right wing. They didn't value the Russian traditions or heritage at all and they demonized old Russian heroes. . They pushed feminism. And they weren't even run by Russians, but by jews. And look at the book called "affirmative action empire" they promoted minority rights as well. On top of that national socialists remove the international bankers from the country , but communists do not and neither do capitalists for that matter.
And you still haven't answered who you would rather vote for in my previous post.
The wehraboos pretend to be right wing as a psyop. Many of the dumber ones do not understand what actually defines political ideologies at all, but the ones pushing it from behind the curtain have always been the globalists.
It is useful on many levels for them to associate nazis with the right. It is a propaganda tool for them to claim that both sides of politics end in authoritarian hellscapes - horseshoe theory, when that is actually just the result of leftism. It is also a tool to subvert right wing movements, and turn them into supporters of left wing ideology - it's their backup plan, hedging their bets.
The globalists do not care what they have to pretend to believe to seize power. Any ideology that pushes strong centralized power is good for them, because their bread and butter is climbing bureaucracy and corrupting organizations - sociopaths do excellently at that.
What about National Socialism in which they were race first, socialist and nationalist is propaganda vs. ideology? I mean, that seems pretty solidly what they were...
They weren't "race first, with minor socialism". That's the propaganda they fed to the useful idiots. They were a sociopathic leftist cabal leading a horde of useful idiots into an authoritarian death cult that ended in the total destruction of their nation.
In window dressing they claimed difference from communists. In function they were the same.
Are you sure what you just described isn't the propaganda?
What part of "planned central government control of economy, purges and war" doesn't sound like communism to you? The part where they pretended to be looking out for their people (communists also pretend that). Which was the propaganda, as demonstrated by the results.
As well, Hitler instigated WW2 alongside the Soviets. Had he actually been benevolent and concerned for his people's welfare he wouldn't have worked with the communists or started invading other nations. He and Zelensky are guilty of similar crimes when it comes to fucking your own people for personal gain.
Are you that ignorant? In actual function, the nazis were just another authoritarian leftist dictatorship that left nothing but ruin in it's wake.
How old is that screenshot and how long before that change was reverted?
Edit: Lol, It's from "rationalwiki." Of course it's retarded. Even by wiki standards.
Based Iranians, always nice to see Natsocs around, Syria's got another example with the Social Nationalist Party.
Another reason they should be dealt with. Iraq has them also. Nothing new, just Muslims looking for any excuse to be anti semitic.