Mr. Rockwell was a genius. He explained National Socialism in the American standards
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
The man on the left is a literally who. The man on the right has a day named after him. Fuck everything
That speech said quite a few things that I never knew how to put into words. Literally who the fuck is he and why did (((they))) not give him his own day?
en.wikipedia.org
He led the American Nazi Party. The rest pretty much explains itself.
He was based. People should know who he was.
He shoots small jpegs on the 5DS with saturation +5 so idgaf
Wow, as shit as wiki usually is, that page is exceptionally shit.
They just slander him the whole way down. There's not a lick of good history in there, it reads like the events have all been twisted to make him look like a twat.
Thanks for that user, fucking great video. One thing I don't get though, Rockwell said that he was pro free enterprise and private property, isnt that capitalism and not socialism? How is national socialism different to socialism then, apart from the nationalism? Redpill me goys.
Exactly my point. He founded the American Nazi Party, hence (((they))) could not tolerate his existence and had him assassinated. That wasn't enough, though. It was necessary to assassinate his character and memory as well, so that his good sense couldn't spread among the goyim.
Basically national socialism (even Hitler's national socialism) wasn't socialist in the Marxist sense of the word. Socialism in the natsoc sense is more so to do with a strong united society of people with a government that rewards workers with social programs rather than a shared ownership of the means of production and the elimination of the class structure like Marxist socialism/communism advocates.
Rockwell has something to do with automation? I use Arena software and has the Rockwell logo on it.
I think that what national socialists meant by "socialism" is much different from the communist socialism people think of today. Socialism, in the natsoc context, is the larger principle of self-sacrifice, of giving of yourself to your society in the name of civilization, and the obligations of the state in turn to sacrifice for the good of the nation, including the education and health of the people. it doesn't preclude people from enterprise, but it demands that the pursuits of both the individual and the state ultimately be for the common good. You can be fabulously wealthy as long as you are producing value for your nation, and contributing to the success of your people.
>back when the US was still 85% white
Yeah this makes sense. I always wondered this. Hitler hated communists, but was a national 'socialist' and I always thought "But they're virtually the same fucking thing". Natsoc =/= socialism.
I don't understand though, isn't the freedom and liberty the founding fathers fought for at odds with National Socialism?
Sorry if I sound like an idiot but I don't see how NatSoc is compatible with American liberty or Constitutionalism
...
>You can be fabulously wealthy as long as you are producing value for your nation, and contributing to the success of your people.
AKA the state bureaucracy determines and controls what "value" is and what the "greater good"; and thus controls the entire economy.
National Socialist is EXACTLY what it sounds like: Right-wing socialism. It is state ownership of the means of production; only instead of associating with Marxist Historiography, it focuses on actual history and tradition.
National Socialism is simply incompatible with the American way. America was built on absolute private property rights, and is completely heretical to strong state systems that ignore natural law.
I think it's hard to say what the founding fathers wanted, since they held differing opinions themselves. NatSoc isn't exactly at odds with Alexander Hamilton, for example.
If you're going to take a strong political stand of any kind you're essentially going to be agreeing with some of the founding fathers and disagreeing with others. The founding fathers argued about almost everything. Given that these same founding fathers were often slave holders and advocated expanding in to Native American lands, we can say that they were far more racially inclined than we are today. That didn't stop them from believing in free enterprise. Even the South believed in free enterprise while simultaneously holding slaves. Obviously we have an issue of standards here, and I think we're going to have a lot of difficulty applying what the founding fathers thought to how we should move forward.
What is more useful is to take the Great Experiment view of the United States and say, "hey, this experiment has worked pretty well, but we've noticed a few problems with it that the founding fathers wouldn't have been able to anticipate." How could Benjamin Franklin have anticipated what the union would look like after the Civil War?
I think we should keep the constitution and rights we have and work within it. We mainly need to change our cultural views about moral behavior, self-sacrifice, and pride in the Nation. For example, I think we should offer reparations to blacks by offering them a free plane ticket to Liberia and a reasonable sum of money to settle themselves there. If they refuse, they lose the right to complain or call themselves African-Americans. We should not tolerate the idea of hyphenated Americans. You are either American, or you are not, and if you don't intend to become American then you should leave. You have the freedom to stay or leave, but if you stay you must be a contributor to the American Nation.
I didn't say anything about state bureaucracy, and anyway, anti-trust regulations and such we have now are really no different than attempting to make sure a business has a positive impact on the nation. Basically the state should only intervene enough to make certain that employers are not exploitative of their workers, and that they are open to free competition.
It's mainly a matter of instigating a cultural shift, rather than advocating political revolution of some kind. A matter of creating the common belief in the individual's obligation to the whole, and the obligation of the state to the individual in turn, that creates a viable social contract worth following. Otherwise, we just have robber-barons sending the tax-man to charge us, and are ruled by the richest lobbying for their own benefit, not those with the national good at heart. The nation cannot be directionless. As a people, we must have national aspirations and some sense of working toward a common goal.
>I didn't say anything about state bureaucracy
You think the "greater good" is just something intrinsic to people? It isn't. The "common good" or "value to society" or "common goal" are so vague and subjective that they are nothing more than buzzwords; only the state gives them meaning as directives.
>Otherwise, we just have robber-barons sending the tax-man to charge us, and are ruled by the richest lobbying for their own benefit, not those with the national good at heart.
I don't think you understand. This is what all government is. You pay your taxes to the men with guns, and they do not throw you in prison for another year; and maybe, just maybe, they will give you some concession (drugs, foodstamps, etc) to better motivative you in paying your protection money next year.
The idea that somehow this group of armed men is doing it for """you""" or for the "nation" (which exists independently of government, societies =/= government) is nothing more than slave mortality; Stockholm syndrome on a societal scale.
Be real if everyone followed this view the majority are going to be unhappy with their ugly ass wives.
Being white doesn't discount being overweight folks. That aside get out of that basement and make whites great again.
He is an idiot. Many American died fighting nazis. He is a disgrace.