ok

Thanks for summarising. Essentially it is a secular ideology. Easily debunked when one understands that spirit is prior to matter. Still you are most honest than some of the other "National Socialists" who pretend to find in it some esotericism that even Hitler would have deplored.

I am nationalist in so far as it pertains to national solidarity and the return to hierarchical and authoritative order. But I still affirm the principle of imperium, which recognises the common origin we share as Indo-Europeans, sharing the same traditional legacy. That includes the Danes.

And I reject socialism, which sees evil in social institutions. Rather, the evil lies within man and the need to be reborn.

So should I be an African Polythiest?
just asking

I see

Revolutionary models are noted for their negation of hierarchy. By refuting traditional principles, one comes to a democratic, egalitarian, levelling. Quite frankly National Socialism is a revolutionary model with too many reactionary elements. It deplores the race-mixing which it regards as degenerate, but it still belongs to the revolutionary discourse, and having mixtures of both traditional and anti-traditional make the manifest power within National Socialism weaken than that of Liberalism and Communism. @Deleted User

Weaker*

This is why I would ban libertarians, capitalists, National Socialists from the Right Cafe. Anyone who fails to acknowledge spirit before matter.

I think that the Germans in the 30s were far too Liberal with their policies.

hitler wasnt really atheist tbh he was more just anti clerical and anti christian
he still held some spiritual beliefs

although if youre trying to claim that hitler was a devout pagan or occultist then youre also wrong tbh

I'm saying the fact that he allegedly genocided people and also was anti christian was pretty bad

oh

I'm just saying that he wasn't really very esoteric

@Alric the Bretwalda you would have to prove that spirit is prior to matter, or above nature. In my eyes, humans are a creation of nature, and so i look to nature for how to create my society, while you believe we are the creation of a God, and so you look to that God for how to create your society. I am just very convinced that God is in fact not real, and the definite highest power in the universe is the laws of the universe itself.
If what you are trying to say is that National Socialism does not have hierarchy because it doesn't have God, then i hope i just explained to you why that is not the case. Our hierarchy just lies in nature and not the paranormal.
If you are saying that National Socialism is non-hierarchical because it is revolutionary, and revolutionary ideologies are commonly without hierarchy, then that is just poor equivalence. It's like saying bricks are small, a wall is made of bricks, therefore the wall is small. Revolutionary ideologies tend to be against hierarchy or without hierarchy because they tend to be left-wing and in favor of social and/or economic equality. National Socialism is revolutionary against that mentality, hence why Fascism has so far only existed in societies that were exceedingly progressive to communistic. It's true that National Socialism wants social equality, but it is absolutely in favor of hierarchies. The strong must dominate, the weak preach equality.

From National Socialism - The Biological Worldview
"In all events, the present tendencies of disintegration in all fields of society cannot fail to make people insecure and unhappy. Only in a real. harmonious community consisting of people with the same cultural, historical. and biological background and with the same spiritual aspirations for the future can the individual find the peace of mind and the inner security that it needs. Only here can the human being feel that it is a natural part of a greater whole. of something that is mightier than the individual itself and which will continue to exist when the individual is no more. just as it has existed before the individual was born. Only in such a national community of fate does man find the eternal life he has always sought. In our children and our people we will live forever but that is the only share of eternity we have. Without that we might as well never have lived!

If, on the other hand, man must seek his identity and his goal in life outside the national community, this community has lost its meaning and will inevitably fall apart like a marriage where the partners have nothing but the address in common.
This is a fundamental Nationalist viewpoint.

However, loyalty within a group must be reciprocal. It is not only the citizen who must be loyal to society -it is also society that must be loyal to the citizen. Loyalty thus presupposes just social conditions and an economic system where nobody is exploited and where everybody does all he can for the common good to sustain the order that safeguards the common values, guarantees the life and happiness of its citizens, and gives each individual his share of the people's eternal life.
This is a fundamental Socialist viewpoint.

Nationalism without Socialism is absurd - and the other way round: Socialism without a clearly defined community has no meaning."

^^this is also why i believe Socialism is a part of Nationalism, and why you cannot be a Nationalist without being a Socialist

@Deleted User You are spiritually weak. I see no point in arguing with you. You would simply reinterpret all my proofs. You are a monkey and I have no interest in carrying this farce any further.

But I know that you believe in some Nietzschean psychopathic "might is right" delinquency with absolutely no legitimacy.

it's might makes right, not might is right

Okay, Thomas Carlyle. Anything else?

yeah, i don't think turning your nose towards the sky and pretend like the guy responding reasonably to your critiques of him is making a 'farce'

what makes might right?

shouldnt it just be survival?

i'm guessing who is really guilty of making a 'farce' when you call me spiritually weak and a monkey

@czechmark you are misunderstanding what is pretty basic. It is just saying the same as "it is the victors who write history", and/or "in the end, power emanates from the barrel of a gun"

paraphrasing mao on the latter quote

so then "weak" and "strong" are relative to those who can survive/kill their enemies, no?

no, "the strong must dominate" and "the weak preach equality" do not have anything to do with "might makes right". I believe Zirc is making that comparison, or whatever you'd call it, but they are not relevant to eachother

Then excuse me for misunderstanding, thanks for explaining.

@czechmark Do you hear what this man is saying?

no

Power emanates from the barrel of a gun.

i just wanted to ask what he meant

Are you willing to follow that?

National Socialism is just naked political power. It deserves no sympathy.

@Deleted User and his ilk will not succeed fortunately. They caused more than enough damage to Europe.

I didnt catch that, i need to be better at that. i was just wondering where he was coming from. I just thought he was making a sort of contradiction

if thats what its called