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.
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.
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.
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?