Just watch out for the AWD types and anyone who seems to want a ‘battle’ or is looking for conflict

^

This is a cultural struggle, not an armed one.

^

If someone doesn't understand that to be the current paradigm, they aren't welcome.

It's also just the way these things are fought and won. Real revolutions never, ever start with armed conflict. It's stupid to expect that.

Yes

I think us and Ie are pretty good interns of not having many spergs

Va and twp, that's a different storry.

We win the hearts and minds first. Then, whatever happens, happens. It's out of our hands at that point.

Does the nat soc message attract more spergs? I think there's a correlation.

^

I don't think it does

Starting a guerilla war in which you plan to hide amongst the people is a plan that's dead on arrival if you've got no people that actually support or are neutral to your message in the general populace. Not saying that's our plan, but it's the plan of others.

@arcloop Tell me more. . .

There definitely is a correlation, not saying it tarnishes the actual quality of NatSoc itself, but those that are drawn in veer too often to making it some type of esoteric religion where Hitler is a god, his generals are saints, and all the soldiers are martyrs.

Beyond that, wanting to cookie-cutter/copy-paste a long deposed regime onto another continent in a new century, is another plan that's a non-starter, and one that's shared by a significant portion of the community.

I think honesty really is key. I would never join a movement that's secretly something else. Stealth is sometimes needed to get the job done, but I want to work with people who are what they say they are.

You counter signal too hard sime times @Thomas Ryan
That being said, German NatSoc won't work in the states. We will build something similar, but our own and relevant to us.

What did I say that you found disagreement with?

That said, I'm not against nat soc per se. I actually have no political affiliation. Whatever helps my people most is the thing that I want.

The deification of Hitler is not the norm with NatSoc types by my understanding. Esoteric hitlerism is very fringe.

But, edgelords and spergs are attracted to it for the wrong reasons.

Openly National Socialist organizations are somewhat of the fringe themselves, for better or worse, and the esotericists always seem to be the loudest and thus most able to veer the message of the group and all that, and when they can't and I shut that stuff down in the past, they freaked out and started splinter groups that amounted to little more than Let's-Hate-Thomas fan clubs, which then made even more noise.

Lol

@arcloop This is all I'm saying. Nat soc is fine in moderation, but that message does disproportionately attract the wrong people.

Then it sorts itself out

I never conducted a formal poll through all the autistic screeching, but the overall emanating vibe was that. The groups never lasted very long because they were based on resentment and negativity.

American Fascism is the future.

^^^

NatSoc can be a good source of inspiration and legend. We need our myths and legends.

I'm gonna get dog-piled here, but America has always been a pretty small govt place. I see some libertarian/fascist hybrid as the way forward.

A Hoppe type covenant society.

Nah man. Small gov is a myth.

Look at all of the people arguing for how gov needs to solve problems. They don't believe in small gov. They believe that gov shouldn't hinder them. Big difference.

Governments had very little power in the way that we think of it before the 20th century. Totalitarianism isn't possible without modern technology. Jacques Ellul wrote a lot about this. I want a return to the limited governance, medieval system of aristocracy and large local control.

Fascism, as I understand it, is like a highly technologized managerial state. I just see it as something inorganic.

American Fascism would very likely be less authoritarian than its European counterparts, but there is a spirit of a national collective that would supplement the centralization of powers in an ideal nation state. People want small govt because they fear oppression and tyranny, and righly so, but the true way to solve such a possibility is to create a system which holds a revolutionary synthesis of the nation and the state as a chief component.

Tyranny occurs when the interests of the State diverge or eclipse those of the nation, but when everything is within the State, nothing is outside the State, and nothing stands against the State, there are no ways in which one entity could oppress the other, because there is merely one national, organic, and cohesive being.

Fascism, in general, is not bound by time or technology as a philosophy. It has existed, in one form or another, as long as humanity, but only more recently been given a name, and political interpretation.

It is supremely organic in that it organizes a nation not by means of artificial voting blocks, or materialistic classes, but by families, communities, and heritage, all of which are bound firmly to our natural state.

@Thomas Ryan I think all of that makes sense. I'm just a big fan of English common law, minus all the Enlightenment baggage. I believe in less government, but strong government, if that makes sense.

I think we want the same things: A return to traditional European governance that puts God, crown, State, and people into their appropriate hierarchies.