What term best describes your ideology, and why?

submitted by VarangianRasputin from (self.debatealtright)

I'm asking this for two reasons:

  1. No flairs on Saidit yet for some reason. Figured this could help some of us better understand each-others positions before discussions.

  2. To separate the suspicious accounts from the legit ones. Legitimate users will be able to defend and articulate their positions well upon cross-examination. Suspicious users, you know who you are, if you're legit, step up.

Anyway:

I generally use the term 'National Communist', as opposed to National Bolshevik (I used to use the latter term on the reddit sub), considering that the terms 'Bolshevism' or 'National Bolshevism' have no real meaning or history anywhere West of Germany (there were National Bolshevik factions in the NSDAP, not including the Strassers). The term 'National Communist' was used by Romania post-1960 and there was a party in pre-WW2 France called the National Communist Party (later renamed to 'National Collectivist' but the ideology remained the same) who collaborated with the Germans upon invasion. TLDR: it makes more sense to call myself a NatCom because NazBol has no meaning in far North-West Europe. And obviously, no, I'm not a Marxist. Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc all had some good points but Marxism as a whole is fucking retarded.

As in Englishman, I basically just want Mosleyist ideas but with Socialism as opposed to Fascism (Corporate Parliament, Technocratic Council, etc).

all 50 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–][deleted] 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I am a National Socialist, essentially a Nazi.

I believe one people should have their own territory, and their values and traditions must make up the backbone of government policy and the body of law. One people are thus also one nation and one country. This ensures that essentially all citizens play the same "game" (of life, meaning priorities, ambitions, desires, values) by the same "rules" essentially a christian morality, in the case of my people and nation. This is the National aspect.

Now onto the socialist aspect: before Marx came out with his venomous lies of "socialism is the road to communism" which everybody now believe, socialism was understood to be simply "Measures to tilt the balance back from the fatcats to joe average". I am pro-capitalism, pro-socialism, because these go hand-in-hand, and very anti-communism, just like The Great Leader, Adolf Hitler.

Politically, I advocate a codifying of a broad framework in terms of the mores and traditions of my people as a base for local government. I would have direct democracy (the Swiss have a relatively bad version of this), where politicians are held accountable for their electoral promises, and citizens can implement or revoke any proposed, new or existing law, decree (those would not exist under this system) or regulation. Political power would be as localized as possible. This means a borough government can decide to change their street lights without any larger division of power having to authorize it. Each relatively small part of the nation should be pretty much independent and autonomous.

This allows, for example, more agrarian regions to implement measures that make sense for themselves, while the city next door can implement completely different measures, without having a national governement scratching their head and wondering how to fit the triangle piece they have in both the round hole (agrarian) and the square one (city).

[–]AFutureConcern 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

I'm a neoreactionary monarchist. Essentially, I agree with the neoreactionary analysis of power - that we live effectively under a social justice theocracy, and democracy is a complete illusion; it's impossible to give power to the people because power is conserved. Better to have an emperor than a pope with a mass of woke acolytes. I also wholeheartedly agree with the neoreactionary identification of leftism with entropy; leftism is the decay of culture, traditions, institutions and so on over time.

I'd say I'm a parochialist rather than a nationalist, though it's really the same idea at a different scale. I think relations between people are of increasing imporance, from Self > Family > Community > Nation > Race > Species > Life.

I think technology is leading inexorably towards deterritorialization, which is a fancy academic way of saying "GloboHomo". I want to stop this and I think severe restrictions on technology will be needed to do so. Never mind the continued existence of the white race, the human race and even life itself may be subsumed by the technological monster if we don't do something.

[–]Hadza 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I like to ask this, but how far in the future can you project the existence of your society without tech? While there definitely are reasons to slow down and trod more carefully in regards to it, without it, as cliche as it sounds, you won't survive. The most important question to ask in the future would probably be: "Does it help us survive for longer and how close to our original form does it leave us after we apply it?"

[–]AFutureConcern 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

This is a very good point and it's why a lot of people simply embrace technological change. I don't think that slowing down is possible, though. There is no stable state where technology just stops with smartphones and otherwise things keep on going as they were. You can already see - a shock to the system such as coronavirus causes all sorts of change routed around technology. There is a stable state with more primitive technology.

Would a technological society out-compete a non-technological one? In terms of survival of the species, probably not - the birth rates in developed nations are significantly lower. But the technology replaces the people in such a society, and its resource consumption and production goes way up. So it probably would out-compete it, and eventually subsume it.

For this reason the problem is very difficult to solve. We need global collaboration to stop technological growth, in order to stop global collaboration. I don't know the solution - but a promising one is acceleration; I think a large number of people already feel that something is wrong with what social media is doing to our society. If tech accelerates us into full-blown societal collapse it could spawn a new religious movement to rid us of the technological system.

The problem could turn out to be insoluble. We may be inevitably headed towards technological singularity, which will destroy humanity. But take heart! I don't see any alien civilizations in our skies. Maybe singularity is impossible, and collapse inevitable.

[–]Hadza 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Well, I actually meant projecting civilization's longevity faaar beyond one human's life. By tech extending it I meant stuff like asteroid redirection and either a solar expansion limiter gigastructure or migration somewhere else. Red dwarfs can exist for about 10 trillion years, I don't think it's far-fetched to say that humans can retain their form up until that point, beyond that something else of a lower energy state might be necessary. If humanity can potentially exist for thaaaat long, why should we limit ourselves to what our Sun gives us? That's at the very best about 150 mln years. It's a lot on its own, but compared to what we could live?

Yeah, tech arms race is pretty bad, hard to tell how to prevent it from leading us into oblivion. The tech I'm mentioning is relatively simple though.

[–]AFutureConcern 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Well, I actually meant projecting civilization's longevity faaar beyond one human's life. By tech extending it I meant stuff like asteroid redirection and either a solar expansion limiter gigastructure or migration somewhere else.

I see, I don't know if these things are actually possible without technological explosion.

Yeah, tech arms race is pretty bad, hard to tell how to prevent it from leading us into oblivion. The tech I'm mentioning is relatively simple though

I don't think a "solar expansion limiter gigastructure" is "relatively simple", lol. But maybe there's a possibility of a space-faring technology-lite future, like Frank Herbert's Dune.

[–]Hadza 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Asteroid redirection is 100% possible with current tech, just needs more rockets, some space telescopes and tracking centers, others are TBD.

I don't think a "solar expansion limiter gigastructure" is "relatively simple"

It's simple in a sense that it requires a bunch of large dumb things operating together (mirrors, some kind of heavy magnetic current, etc), it's not complex, see, although gigantic. But then comes orbital stabilization issues and a bunch of maths... well yeah, it's simple at least in a sense it doesn't require some special physics like warp drives or something. In cases like these it's good to distinguish new technology from new engineering, where the latter is iterations on known tech while the former is something completely new.

But maybe there's a possibility of a space-faring technology-lite future

I would say we shooould orient ourselves for space and expect to never find any FTL tech, including communications. Even if colonizing with sub-light speed, it won't take neeeearly as much time as you might think to even colonize the entire galaxy if you go the "self-sufficient colony capable of producing more colonizers" route because of geometric progress.

I see going super-spaceborne as a necessity because of this: we're slowly increasing the potential longevity of our species and civilization thanks to knowledge and gain ever increasing knowledge of our Universe's inner works. If fundamental questions like purpose and reasons of existence can even be answered at all, it will take a lot of pondering for us to get there. A lot of pondering that will definitely NOT happen if we die. And maybe our Universe needs us to answer them, either metaphorically or metaphysically. It took us absolutely incredible luck (it really is amazing, I can try to elaborate if you don't know it already) to even get to the point of being able to answer questions. What was it all for, to just impotently wither in a couple of million years? I personally just can't buy it.

I never was religious, but fairly recently I started to feel a sense of much higher purpose and I just can't allow us to sell ourselves short. I really don't want to be subsumed by AI or snowballing genemodding though, at least not yet, I think through simple eugenics and perennial way of living we could become all that we want to without the threats of extinction spiralling. Maybe we will reach a point where our flesh will be too weak to keep on pondering the ever increasingly complex questions, or the Universe will become so old and barren it will be unable to provide our bodies with the energy they need and we'll need to morph into something else, but until that very distant point, we should do everything in our power to keep our human form. Our genes are selfish for a reason and we should keep it that way until we can definitively answer if we should shed them.

[–]Mr9to5 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I’m an American but I’ve always thought of myself in terms of the paradigms of British Nationalism. I like speaking in terms of analogous organizations because speaking of only ideals can be ambiguous. I started out as someone who would have supported an American version of BNP (ie a populist nationalist), spent many years as a radical traditionalist elitist after growing frustrated with the limitations of populism - someone who would’ve liked to participate in something akin to NF Political Soldier. Now, I’m more of a basic 3P type person, perhaps interchangeable with an NF member or an NPD member in Germany. I know my beliefs probably can’t win here but I wouldn’t mind networking with similar people to try to change things at the local level. The key parts of my worldview are the “Social” aspect, solidarity with people I consider like me and the Discipline or “Elitism” aspect, wanting my People to hammer away at themselves to be the best. I consider this the best synthesis of the radical traditionalist and other cadre models and the various Social world views, Left and Right.

The only political group I’ve belonged to has been the Constitution Party but I get the impression they are easing off immigration and going more libertarian, I don’t like it at all. Typical American garbage.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

You know, when you speak of things like 3P, NPD, NF, those are not abbreviations that have meaning outside certain places. The Internet is worldwide.

[–]Mr9to5 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I mean, I’ve indicated which countries I’m referring to. It’s still going to require some knowledge of Nationalist history or at least a cursory reading of the Wikipedia pages to digest it. National Front UK and NPD Germany are both things you should read up on to get a sense of our history, to make it more explicit. NF achieved such a significant breakthrough that it briefly was the fourth biggest party in the UK and laws have literally been changed to try to ban NPD. 3P is used within this board to mean Third Position.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Just naming them is enough. Do YOU know the abbreviations of all the political parties worldwide, where ABC can ONLY mean this or that? I don't think so. Very few, if any, people do.

I know about the National Front in the UK, and the Nationalist Party of Germany (I'm still not sure what the P stands for, you haven't said, but whatever). My point is, we can know the broad outlines of what these parties are, without necessarily associating abbreviations to each political party of every foreign nation with perfect recall. That would be useless mind-clutter.

[–]Mr9to5 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I can’t imagine that there’s a tool on the Internet that you could use to solve this problem besides ranting at people to fix it for you...

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Because the correct way to have a conversation is to sift through thousands of search results for every expression one is unsure of, and communication is NOT about expressing oneself in such a way that the reader understands. Got it.

[–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (26 children)

There are no nazbols. It has always been a meme. Even striker doesn't call himself a nazbol and he addresses this specifically in one of the Strike and Mike Episodes. Nazbol was always just a term to get people thinking about how the third position and national socialism had anti international capitalist elements. Nazbol meme helped to distance the alt right from magatards. The third position is pro volk and pro property rights among volk; communism destroys property rights in the name of workers communes and Jewish influenced mob rule. That's not third position at all. IMO the term Nazcom is even worse than Nazbol. Millions of right wing people have been trained to be on guard for communism. This just jams up terminology and confuses people.

Two terms best describe my ideology: Dissident (since I'm inside a system that hates me and wants to kill me for wrong think and enslave my race); and Blut Und Boden (Blood: race. Soil: ecofascism and nationalism)

[–]VarangianRasputin[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

There are no nazbols. It has always been a meme.

The term 'National Bolshevism' actually predates terms like National Socialism. People just looked at what the Bolsheviks were doing and thought, "Hey, that's cool. But less faggotry please?". Marx had a few good ideas worth noting (not overly-worth studying anymore though, considering that stuff is over 100 years old).

Karl Otto Paetal and Ernst Niekisch, both of whom called themselves National Bolsheviks, were fairly big players in Weimar-Era Germany. Paetel even had a faction in the NSDAP, and tried to reform it to be legitimately Socialist.

Nazbol meme helped to distance the alt right from magatards.

Those 'NazBols' are on the same level as 4Chan Brownshirts. They have their uses but overall they're an embarrassment.

The third position is pro volk and pro property rights among volk; communism destroys property rights in the name of workers communes and Jewish influenced mob rule. That's not third position at all.

In the 1929 Programme of the National Bolsheviks of the NSDAP, Paetel clearly states in points 3 & 4 that:

  1. That only he who is a folk-comrade should be a citizen, – folk-comrades can only be those of German blood. Jews, Slavs, Latins [Welsche] can therefore not be German citizens; non-citizens to be classed as guests and placed under legislation governing foreigners;

  2. That the right to determine the leadership and laws of the state may be conceded only to citizens; therefore, the NSDAP demands that every public office of whatever kind, whether in Reich, state, or municipality, may be occupied by citizens alone;

"Jewish Influenced Mob Rule" can't happen when there is no Jews. Granted I would prefer a syndicated voting system like corporatism.

I think most NazBols wouldn't call themselves Third Position, I think most (including myself) think of us as "Fourth Positionists" a la Dugin, but that might just be semantics to be honest. Plus, full honesty, I'm not that huge on Dugin.

[–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Thanks for catching me up. Wasn't that 1929 programme before Strasser was kicked out though? Weren't some of these points changed when the party dropped the strasserites? Didn't Hitler and Strasser have a big debate about corporations, property rights etc?

Obviously I would be in favor of socialism with strong founding documents that kept jews out of the reich and kept subversives out of office; I absolutely consider myself a neo natsoc and/or natsoc apologist. I'm more arguing about the dangers of using the word bolshvik or communist for a white nationalist group. It might work in local slavic politics but wouldn't work in Europe or the US.

[–]VarangianRasputin[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Thanks for catching me up.

No problem. I understand that my ideology is somewhat niche, I worry that Right-Wing Socialists will make the same mistakes of the past and work against their own interests. Nationalism comes BEFORE Socialism.

Wasn't that 1929 programme before Strasser was kicked out though? Weren't some of these points changed when the party dropped the strasserites?

Yes. While Otto Strasser is an interesting figure, most NazBols don't fully associate with him, despite thinking he was a better option. I'm not entirely convinced either way. While I prefer Hitler for his personality and philosophy, The Strasser's economics I feel would have been a better option, but that's just speculation. Hindsight is always 20/20. I can't blame Otto for his actions against Hitler, such as the dishonest hitpiece which is "Hitler & I". If my brother was shot and left to bleed out like Gregor I'd be pissed off as well, can't say I wouldn't do something similar to be honest.

Didn't Hitler and Strasser have a big debate about corporations, property rights etc?

It's difficult to say. Hitler and Goebbels never openly spoke about inner-party struggles for the sake of party security, and Otto Strasser's word isn't good enough. Strasser was intelligent, no doubt, but considering in "Hitler & I" he says a lot of outlandish stuff, and has a lot of unsupported debates, we must take what he said with a grain of salt. I definitely recommend reading it so you can come to your own conclusion, but it doesn't match up to a lot the other NSDAP memoirs. Cultured Thug covered it in his Strasserism video. And again, if my own brother was killed the way Gregor Strasser was, I'd probably be pretty vindictive too. For example, Otto goes as far to claim that Hitler was never shot during the Beer Hall Putsch, and implies Hitler murdered his niece.

Obviously I would be in favor of socialism with strong founding documents that kept jews out of the reich and kept subversives out of office; I absolutely consider myself a neo natsoc and/or natsoc apologist.

I consider myself a Hitler apologist to an extent, despite my disagreements. While I understand his flaws, calling him the devil on earth is ridiculous. He's definitely one of the most lied about men in history. What I don't like was his (perhaps justified) paranoia about anything remotely resembling Socialism. Also, if the White National Revolution is Capitalist or Fascist, I'd subordinate myself and anyone who listened to me to it. 25% of 100 is better than 100% of 0. Ernst Niekisch and Karl Otto Paetel both were part of the German-Resistance during WW2, which in my opinion is unforgivable.

I'm more arguing about the dangers of using the word bolshvik or communist for a white nationalist group. It might work in local slavic politics but wouldn't work in Europe or the US.

I agree with that but I can't find a better term to describe myself. Plus, "National Communist" or "National Bolshevik" is easier to defend than "National Socialist", to the Right and Left alike. If Whites retake their homelands I'm happy, Socialism is just a preference.

[–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Also, if the White National Revolution is Capitalist or Fascist, I'd subordinate myself and anyone who listened to me to it. 25% of 100 is better than 100% of 0.

Agreed. I share the same sentiment. I will put away all debate, police loudly discordant characters, and get behind the movement which ever direction we get rolling. Unity, strength, trust, and willingness to sacrifice will become of extreme importance if we are to survive. They tyranny we are going to endure as we coalesce into a real political party will be unreal. I'm watching the NJP with cautious optimism.

I agree with that but I can't find a better term to describe myself. Plus, "National Communist" or "National Bolshevik" is easier to defend than "National Socialist", to the Right and Left alike.

Got it. Thanks for clarifying.

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

Bolsheviks

Literally killed gays. So, they were not a bundle of sticks like you've stated. The current National Bolsheviks are largely Zionist, Jewish and degenerates. Mike Enoch and Richard Spencer are examples.

[–]VarangianRasputin[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

Literally killed gays.

Lenin legalized it. Stalin banned it. Marx, Castro, Mao, etc all hated it, yes.

So, they were not a bundle of sticks like you've stated.

I was using the term 'faggotry' to refer to leftist ideals. As in, men being feminine.

The current National Bolsheviks are largely Zionist, Jewish and degenerates.

Who and How? Genuinely interested in hearing that. More reasons to separate myself from the NazBols and be a British NatCom.

Mike Enoch and Richard Spencer are examples.

First, I wasn't aware Richard Spencer was NazBol. I know he pointed out that the Ukrainian famine was a mixture of rapid socialist polices and bad weather, but that's just being honest.

Second, confessedly, I don't even know who Mike Enoch is. I've heard the name, but that's it.

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Look at the Ezra Levant crew. People like Lauren Southern, not her real name, and her other Israeli friends who call themselves the alt-right. Milo is one example. He is a magatard, calls himself an alt-rightist and is a homosexual Jew and Zionist.There are many Nazbols including Mike Enoch, Jewish and Spencer who are Duginists. I believe Southern even traveled to Russia to meet her hero Dugin. And Dugin is a Zionist but a multilateralist Zionist, different than unipolar Zionists, though I'd reckon the unipolarists would switch over to multilateralism if it helped Israel.

Renegadetribune, although I totally disagree with many of their articles, did do a long write up on the people involved in National Bolshevism, at least in its modern form. The article exposed the modern Nazbol's use of ideological subversion and demoralization used to hijack nationalist thinking.

Another book I highly recommend is 'Judas Goats' by Michael Collins Piper which exposes how Zionists hijack nationalism through the left and right. Think Dailystormer... just another Jewish Zionist owned web media publisher that demoralizes and ideological subverts its readers.

I had taken the time to watch many of these self-named alt-rightist Nazbols on streaming services, which they frequent, and the more I spent time listening to them the more they showed their cards. They are all degenerates whose goal is to destroy true nationalism. I'm sure that they are nothing like the NB's of the early 20th century.

[–]VarangianRasputin[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (12 children)

People like Lauren Southern, not her real name, and her other Israeli friends who call themselves the alt-right.

Not NazBol. She calls herself a Libertarian for fucks sake.

Milo is one example. He is a magatard, calls himself an alt-rightist and is a homosexual Jew and Zionist.

Not NazBol. He's a Sargon of Akkad-type "Classical Liberal". He has nothing to do with Socialism or Nationalism.

I believe Southern even traveled to Russia to meet her hero Dugin.

Interviewing someone makes them your hero? Fuck off. You clearly know nothing about Dugin or Lauren Southern.

And Dugin is a Zionist but a multilateralist Zionist, different than unipolar Zionists, though I'd reckon the unipolarists would switch over to multilateralism if it helped Israel.

Your 'reckoning' doesn't mean shit to me, considering you clearly don't know what you're talking about. Also let me quote myself:

Plus, full honesty, I'm not that huge on Dugin.

Did you even read my post are you just trolling?

Renegadetribune, although I totally disagree with many of their articles, did do a long write up on the people involved in National Bolshevism, at least in its modern form. The article exposed the modern Nazbol's use of ideological subversion and demoralization used to hijack nationalist thinking.

Care to share this article instead of just mentioning it? Also get fucked. You don't know what National Bolshevism is; your entire conception of it is 4Chan memes.

Another book I highly recommend is 'Judas Goats' by Michael Collins Piper which exposes how Zionists hijack nationalism through the left and right. Think Dailystormer... just another Jewish Zionist owned web media publisher that demoralizes and ideological subverts its readers.

Calling Andrew Anglin a Fed or Zionist immediately makes me assume you're either a retard, schizoposting or trolling. I disagree with him on some stuff, but that man is definitely legit. Go fuck yourself. He's done more for this movement than you and me combined.

Zionists hijack Nationalism, but they do it for Civic Nationalism, not Ethnic Nationalism. You have no idea what you're talking about.

I had taken the time to watch many of these self-named alt-rightist Nazbols on streaming services, which they frequent, and the more I spent time listening to them the more they showed their cards. They are all degenerates whose goal is to destroy true nationalism. I'm sure that they are nothing like the NB's of the early 20th century.

These 'NazBols' you mention aren't NazBols. In fact if you called them NazBols they'd probably be offended. Get fucked.

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

http://www.renegadetribune.com/cultured-thug-the-nazbol/

http://www.renegadetribune.com/photo-gallery-how-the-alt-right-revealed-themselves-to-be-a-bunch-of-bolsheviks/

http://www.renegadetribune.com/sinead-anglin-is-openly-nazbol-i-told-you-so/

http://www.renegadetribune.com/maga-opus-rise-nazbols/

http://www.renegadetribune.com/matt-heimbach-disavows-white-nationalism-comes-out-as-a-communist-and-calls-for-poor-people-to-get-more-vaccines/

http://www.renegadetribune.com/the-fascifist-gdls-subversive-subhuman-who-pretends-to-be-white/

http://www.renegadetribune.com/alexander-dugin-i-am-against-fascism-against-racism-against-nationalism/

http://www.renegadetribune.com/avoiding-traitors-and-honey-traps/

Lauren Southern (not her real name) is a Zionist. All Zionists are anti-American. All US aid to all foreign countries should be stopped.

[–]VarangianRasputin[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

5 Replies; what the hell are you doing? Stop acting like a Schizo and have some basic structure.

I clicked on those links and it just seems to me RT just calls everybody they disagree with a National Bolshevik. He reaches so hard to try and connect them to National Bolshevism and flops miserably. Just because a guy talks about Dugin, doesn't automatically make him a NazBol. That's retarded. Also, Cultured Thug supports markets. Take a guess if National Communism/Bolshevism supports markets? I have my issues with Anglin, his over-reliance on Christianity being my main gripe. However, you're calling him a National Bolshevik because he made a joke about National Bolshevism? Are you Autistic or something? I'm not joking, I'm genuinely curious. Besides, in that DS article which RT cites as evidence, Anglin actually made it clear he wasn't a National Bolshevik.

You act as if your a goddamn expert on National Bolshevism, and then the have the fucking gall to, in the same breath, ask me to fill you in on it and tell you who the main ideologues are? Fine, I'll humor you; my main inspiration is Karl Otto Paetel. Here is a bunch of his written works.

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

God bless. And Karl Otto is what I'm talking about. Awesome information! Thanks.

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Zionists hijack Nationalism, but they do it for Civic Nationalism, not Ethnic Nationalism.

For which country?

[–]VarangianRasputin[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Britain. Guys like Tommy Robinson, Sargon of Akkad, Paul Joseph Watson, etc. It also happens in America, with guys like Charlie Kirk.

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So, please tell me then, who are your preferred modern day nazbols?

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I know that whatever the US nazbols are, many subversives are hijacking and infiltrating it, as they did with the alt-right who were mostly just a bunch of Jewish subversives.

Have you read 'Judas Goats' by chance?

Andrew Anglin Is a Jewish subversive.

Have fun with your degenerate nazbol family.

Fill me up on Nazbolism? Who isnits leader and what does it stand for and why do you believe it is for a good cause?

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

http://www.renegadetribune.com/christcuckoldry-celibacy-psychopathy-and-the-daily-stormer/

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Even better:

http://www.renegadetribune.com/andrew-anglin-daily-stormer-timeline-deception/

[–]asterias 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

There are no nazbols. It has always been a meme.

Maybe the term is more meaningful in ex-USSR.

[–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah I think you're right.

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

What? Nazbols like Dugin who is a National Bolshevik. They are pro-Eurasianism, Duginists and Zionists. Are you falling for the Nazbol Zionists. It isn't a meme.

[–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Yes. That's correct there's a nazbol group in Russia but OP was talking about american politics. The nazbol party in Russia doesn't even really align with how american white nationalists were using the term when it cropped up 2 years ago.

My comment was american centric and I do forget that this entire pro nationalism pro white thing is much bigger than the United States so I apologize if there was some confusion there.

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I see, then the alt-right in the US at least has been infiltrated by a bunch of subversives.

[–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

All political movements are infiltrated by subversives. Hitler was sent into spy on the small political faction that he would later lead (I do think he became a genuine fanatic though and I don't buy into the Hitler as Jewish agent horseshit). Being infiltrated by subversives doesn't really mean anything. It's all about how effective those subversives can be at whatever their primary or secondary objectives might be. In fact you can effective destroy organizations by just making them think they have subversives.

[–]Minedwe 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's difficult to put into concise words because, as far as I'm aware, no large over-arching ideology covers what I believe. However, to make it (somewhat) concise:

  1. I'm somewhere between A Strasserist and National Socialist in terms of economic ideas, leaning more towards the latter. Welfare and similar policies should exist, but only for those who have a justification for needing it and the government should have a great deal of control over the economy. However, There should be private businesses (even large ones) and they should be left relatively alone as long as they follow the rules and remain productive. Education, healthcare, and other essential industries should be 100% (or very close; any private endeavors into these fields would have to submit to rather extreme guidelines and rules) government owned.

  2. I think there should be a monarch or similar figure as head of state, with a weak constitution and weak congressional body (split into specific fields, with only experts in those fields being eligible for appointment to the Congress) to guide decisions. A secondary executive body, which I have referred to as the "National Committee", would exist as in a similar way to the Supreme Court, except focusing on executive actions such as appointing Congressmen, deciding whether the monarch is fit to rule, and picking the next monarch from a pool of heirs upon the previous monarch's death, senility, or incapacitation. (These heirs would be a mix of the monarch's sons and other qualified military and political leaders, with the best option being voted monarch by the committee) Succession is one of the biggest issues I have with other Third Position ideologies.

  3. The people SHOULD have semi-guaranteed rights, but with caveats that allow them to be limited in specific situations (such as in the case of criminals or others that are mentally or physically unfit to have them, like in the case of firearms). The U.S. has rights that are far to broad in some cases or are unnecessary, but they also are good at heart and could be made very good with modification.

  4. Tradition should be maintained. Christian thought, ethics, and morality should be used to guide laws, as such, capital punishment should be banned, and drugs, prostitution, adultery, promotion of homosexuality, etc. should be illegal. Freedom of religion would exist, but society would be built and focused around Christianity. Degenerate acts that would be unenforceable to not worth it to ban, such as homosexuality itself, would be legal but restricted to prevent their spread (i.e. being gay would technically not be a crime, but the extreme social stigma and illegality of promoting or publicly engaging in homosexual acts would remove the problematic aspects of it from our culture).

  5. Prisons should be transformed in purpose and form, as now they are ineffective and are used by the ZOG of America to produce more hardened criminals and money. Instead of sitting in a cell getting fat or fighting other inmates, inmates would be forced to adhere to strict rules and scheduling, and would only be guaranteed very basic amenities. To encourage rehabilitation, working, taking classes, or otherwise doing required reformative tasks would allow for more privileges. ALL able-bodied inmates would be required to work, either through physical labor or other forms of work or learning.

This isn't all of my ideas, but this is already much, much longer and more in-depth than I really intended to go when I started writing this comment. Overall, I agree with a lot of aspects, especially economic ones, from National Socialism. I didn't get into race/ethnic relations but I would be happy to if someone inquires.

[–]Fitter_HappierWhite Nationalist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Everyone has a right to defend their turf. Just ask any groundhog, starling, snail, fern, deer......

[–]Mr_Tee 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

"national communist" "national bolshevik" "bolshevism" "national communist party" "national collectvist" "natcom" "nazbol" "mosleyist" "socialism" "fascism" "corporate parliament" "technocratic council" Yeah, and I'm a National Market Social Liberal thus making me NatMarSocLib. Calm down all those words. Anyways, I'm just a nationalist. A nationalist.

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Social democrat. Believe that everyone should have the basic living conditions like healthcare, education and so on. Everyone should be treated equally on an individual level but we must also judge groups on group level, it is a balance between two extremes.
I disagree with most here about the jews.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

You mean you aren't informed about the Jews. And "Social democrat" is quite simply SOCIALISM. That's the meaning of the word. It's a good thing: it makes living in a capitalist system worthwhile and comfortable. The other meaning, the one most people believe, comes from a massive PsyOp from COMMUNIST PROPAGANDA.

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

It's not socialism. It's also not democratic socialism.

I'm danish and its the danish understanding of social democrat that I'm using. There is no PsyOp.

It's a mixed economy, where you have capitalism with regulations.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Of course there's a PsyOp. I've studied this stuff for 30 years. The language has devolved tremendously in the last century.

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Not in Denmark.

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[deleted]

    [–]DragonerneJesus is white 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    I don't know if that's true. I think Americans are clueless and don't know what they mean when they say socialism.

    [–]LetssavethefirsworldReturn to Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    I'm basically a Republican without the obviously pro corporate bullshit, soldier worship, and Jewphilia.

    I'm a Christian who values social issues above all and I just want a return to Jesus. I'm also a fan of Queen Ann Coulter (besides her positions on race)

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    I have no fully formed ideology per se, but I'm a White (European) Nationalist.

    As far as economics go, I believe in a mixed economy that is a mixture of capitalism of socialism, but reigns in the excesses of both. I don't believe in the 'free market' or laissez faire, but I'm not keen on punitive taxation or red tape on small to medium-sized businesses either. I do believe in state-funded health care and universities (but only for the brightest students who are studying STEM or traditional humanities/social sciences, not bullshit like media studies, yes I believe in an academic elite and no I don't believe the only purpose of university is so students can land high paying jobs afterwards). The economy should be run for the people, not the other way round. Vital utilities and public transport should only be ran by the private sector if it's genuinely better for the public (cheaper, etc), not just because it saves money.

    I'm from the British Isles, but to be honest, I don't really believe in strict ethnonationalism. You could say in some ways I'm a Civic White Nationalist. I often see people like Laura Towler and other British nationalists arguing with shitlibs and civnats about X European tribe being indigenous. It always devolves into pointless hairsplitting that misses the big picture and often plays into anti-white morality anyway. I don't believe in non-white immigration and I believe most non-whites should be repatriated, full stop. While I do believe in sensible border control that keeps numbers controllable and keeps out scum like convicted paedophiles/rapists/murderers, I honestly don't give a shit if loads of Germans, Italians or Poles live in the UK. I don't care if a British man has a Ukrainian wife, or a British woman marries and has kids with an Italian.

    There is a lot you can criticise about the United States, but IMO, they demonstrated pre-1965 (negro problems aside) that a pan-European society can work well and prosper. Whites assimilate with each other within a generation. You do need some common values, language, etc though.

    In terms of social and other policy, I'm for preserving the environment, renewables, and wildlife conversation. I believe we should adhere to the highest standards of animal welfare possible. I believe in a humane eugenics program which is based on incentivising certain kinds of people to breed and others not to breed. I also believe in investing things like genetic engineering, although it should be controlled.

    I believe in having a strong military, one that isn't only used for defence but to pursue our interests abroad. Nuclear weapons, a strong navy and air force, and ground forces with expeditionary capabilities. Yes, if there is a scramble for vital resources in Africa or wherever, I would send in troops to secure them.

    I'm not religious (I'm agnostic) and I'm not a strict traditionalist, but I believe there should be a common code of decency and degeneracy should not be celebrated or encouraged in the culture. I don't have a problem with homosexuality, but I am against promiscuity, porn (internet porn should be banned), transgenderism and all the other trash.

    I also don't believe in universal suffrage. I believe the minimum age to vote should be 30 and there should be certain qualifications, e.g. long-term continuous residence, property ownership, responsible parenthood, being gainfully employed, military veteran status and so on. Something that demonstrates that you have a vested interest in the future of the nation. Idiot college girls and basement-dwelling NEETs do not need the right to vote.