
Hitler's definition of 'Socialism'
Hitler's definition of 'Socialism'
NOT the same as the current/Marxist definition:


I heard an interesting bit recently where the term NATIONAL SOCIALISM was described as:
"Socialism without Internationalism, and Nationalism without pure Capitalism"
I find these distinctions interesting.
Wonder honestly if Germans in the 30's felt like their individualism was indeed respected, or if they just felt the pressure of a new/worse groupthink

"Socialism without Internationalism, and Nationalism without pure Capitalism"
I find these distinctions interesting.
Wonder honestly if Germans in the 30's felt like their individualism was indeed respected, or if they just felt the pressure of a new/worse groupthink

"Communism wages a war of the poor against the rich. Capitalism wages a war of the rich against the poor. Neither serves the national community."
This is basically what it feels like when you go down a dark rabbit hole on bitchute lol

Luigi wrote:This is basically what it feels like when you go down a dark rabbit hole on bitchute lol
Indeed, lol
Would pre-WWII Nazi Germany have been a heaven? Or a hell?
If this revisionist history is true by any measure, perhaps it really was a peaking of humanity, a sudden burst of enlightened society and uplifting of morals and values and direction.
On the other hand, it could have been a total nightmare of groupthink and obsessive/forced single-minded propaganda.
Maybe it was both, at times.
I find the whole thing fascinating. I really don't like how it's been so caricatured and simplified in our history and media. There is so much to learn from it but nope don't go there.
I appreciate a forum where we are free to discuss it openly.
They had a lot going for them, an autocratic yet fully modernized government rooted in an ideology which does a fairly good job of sticking to ideas that historically benefit societies, yet still unburdened by some of the newer revolutionary ideas that discard what works. Their biggest problem was that they were also rooted in the absolute butthurt of losing WW1 and their desire to reverse WW1 was so powerful it seemed to trump everything else.

I think it was their desire to not let it happen again. Bolshevik Communism threatening from the east, Anglo-American-Zionist Globalists threatening and demonizing/boycotting from the west... they were about to be eaten again.
They didn't pick the fight imo
They didn't pick the fight imo
They didnt pick the fight with the West, but Barbarossa was a gamble they couldnt afford. Should have played the long game, as communism spread around the world sell themselves as the greatest bulwark against it, influence America using culture and soft power the way Japan does. Of course hindsight is 20/20.

when a people, such as the example of the Mafia, engage in some not so "love thy neighbor" acts of villainy it kind of cancels out any nobility they may have enjoyed. It doesn't mean we have to close our eyes to any good ideas they expressed or engineered but once they choose the VILLAINOUS path then they lose their place on the HIGH HORSE!
I dont think there are any major world powers who dont crack a few eggs. Its certainly a lot easier to morally justify the Nazis than it is to morally justify Western democracy or Communism.

Return to “The Grand Chessboard”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests
