Lurker fag here. I have some more specific questions that aren't directly answered in the usual NatSoc General threads. I was hoping for someone more knowledgeable could help me out to help me better refine my political views.
1. What did Hitler to do about unions? I've heard he made some kind of council to help check and balance each other? But it was vague enough that I would like more details.
2. What was the deal Wotan? Were the Pegan symbols simply an embrace of ancestral traditions (that perhaps some took to seriously), or was there an actual movement to to convert and make it religious?
3. Lets say Hitler won, and 30-50 years later he died. Would an election be held, would he choose an heir? I would like to know a bit more about the structure of the government itself.
4. Hitler, Mosley, Rockwell. what are the differences in their ideologies. (If any)
If you have any other answers to questions you can think of, or feel are not addressed enough within the community, Id be more to happy to listen.
Seriously? No one is autistic enough to know this stuff. fuck. I would ask my mate, but he works all the time. dont want to bug him with political shit
James Butler
> What did Hitler to do about unions? I've heard he made some kind of council to help check and balance each other? But it was vague enough that I would like more details.
>What was the deal Wotan? Were the Pegan symbols simply an embrace of ancestral traditions (that perhaps some took to seriously), or was there an actual movement to to convert and make it religious?
Religion was at the centre of national socialism founding. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thule_Society >Lets say Hitler won, and 30-50 years later he died. Would an election be held, would he choose an heir? I would like to know a bit more about the structure of the government itself.
Hitler would have appointed the next furher.
>Hitler, Mosley, Rockwell. what are the differences in their ideologies. (If any)
There were lots of differences. Mosley wasn't a true anti semitic and Rockwell was just edgy.
Evan Campbell
Well obviously not all of may be true but, it's a starter.
1. Busted unions. Basically the entire state is a union, not little unions of some group (within the state) over other groups. This doesn’t benefit the whole of the state.
2. Not sure
3. Just like in nature, the strongest and most fit would rise to the top. That’s basically fascism in a nutshell. Heirs would only inherit the throne (so to speak) if they were the best.
4. There are no differences in true nat soc. Among those you listed, there may be small discrepancies, but they’re likely 95%+ on the same page.
>2. What was the deal Wotan? Were the Pegan symbols simply an embrace of ancestral traditions (that perhaps some took to seriously), or was there an actual movement to to convert and make it religious? they wanted to slowly withdraw from christianity because it is a kike religion. the transition had to happen slowly and be passed on from generation to generation.
Christianity is a hybrid religion that was edited and incorporated with European paganism over the centuries. Celebrating yule aka the''birth of christ'' at Christmas is a perfect example.
Nathaniel Rogers
elections in natsoc would be a good idea, but they should only be done by actually important roles in society, not just elitist, high rank military officials, some owners of businesses and scholars. It should be 5-12% of population but still enough to make an intelligent pick. Of course, it wouldn't be perfect but the system shouldn't rely on one leader two, generally the only way natsoc would work if at least 12% of population were intelligent people who had some governence over it, the governence can be divided between scientists, officers, business owners and so on, but overall it should be regulated who gets to elect the leaders. I think it is possible and would benefit to hold some elections and discourse.
Gabriel Roberts
>heritage is reactionary Do communists actually say that? I don't think they do because that is so fucking retarded
Ayden Cooper
There is far more proof that the nazi were pagan than Christians. In fact I see no evidence of the nazi's being christian at all, apart from some random quote meme. The nazi knew that the majority of germany was christian so therefore they tried to please the public to gain more power by appeasing to the church.
Colton Ortiz
regarding #4 I disagree. if you can point to someone and say "thats what I believe" you don't know enough. Murdoch Murdoch even made an episode about discrepancies in the party. I can think of a couple things Hitler did that I don't agree with. One thing that really saddens me with the movement today is the vitriolic hatred for other races. They cling to hatred because deep down they have lost hope. So many people (particularly the younger ones) seem to believe in things such as actual subjugation. This is not the way. So many times I have to remind others of how much WORSE things were in 1920s Germany. But hey. Nuance is the new N word
I don't think people calling themselves christian like normies do is a huge problem, the problem is when they deny the fact that there is no equality between Greeks, Scythians and jews, there is no king of jews, there is no reason to feel constant guilt and punish yourself, there is zero reason to give away all of your posessions to randoms. In National-Socialism it is possible for people to have religion, as long as there are no evidence that the holy books are inherently bad. We will form however laws against dangerous cults and shit like Judaism will be massively prosecuted, but if religion is based on morals I see no reason it shouldn't be allowed. Again, the bigger problem is fighting people feeling guilt and the entire doomer jewish psyops they are trying to push on the Internet.
Mason Richardson
No differences between hitler, Mosley and Rockwell? Gtfoh meme faggot.
