National Socialism

If you are unfamiliar with National-Socialism, do NOT assume it is like the “socialism” promoted by Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, or liberal citizens of America, or that it is akin to the “socialism” in the former Soviet Union. This RIGHT wing system is on a different planet from that. Those unfamiliar with National-Socialism, which I call Folk-ism, should see my other posts on politics. If you have heard bad things about Folk-ism, know that they are a COMPLETE DISTORTION. The powers that be slander and libel this system because they cannot use it to take advantage of others.

National-Socialism was not invented in the 1920s. Nationalism and socialism, accompanied by various strict principles, was known by the ancients such as Confucius, before 500 BC. And if you note that millions perished under National-Socialism, keep in mind that mega-millions perished under Marxist-“Socialist” or Communist regimes, and mega-millions perished under Capitalist governments. I can also argue that both Capitalist and Communist governments were responsible for the millions of deaths under National-Socialism because they decided to fight a war against National-Socialists.

Capitalism engenders classism and favors what I call the wealthy race. Class and status is only based on wealth or lack thereof. Marxist governments oppress their citizens who are of a different ethnicity than their government. They seek to create a classless society for the masses which crushes individualism. But under National-Socialism everyone must be of the same race or ethnicity, to foster the sense of an extended family (folks). National-Socialism (NS) recognizes class and status, but only bases it on ability and merit.

Capitalism relies on globalization and exports/imports to/from other countries if it immediately benefits the economy, regardless of later consequences. And under Marxism, everyone is excessively dependent on the government. But under NS the country would strive to end all dealings with other nations, including the elimination of exports/imports as much as possible, for complete self-reliance under all circumstances. While Capitalists, including the police, push laws designed to make money off people regardless of the harm they do, and Marxists have laws that punish those that oppose government tyranny, NS laws promoted common good before private good.

As for freedom of expression and civil rights, Capitalists allow the media and other organizations to say, do, and promote whatever they want for their own financial benefit, whether or not it helps or harms society. And Marxists severely limit freedom of expression and civil rights only when their citizens oppose the government. But with NS nobody is free to sin at the expense of the posterity of the race. This includes forbidding injurious activities and subversive media communication and organizations. Otherwise, freedom of expression is encouraged. While Capitalist governments do nothing to help you find a job, and Marxist governments distribute free welfare while others work to support freeloaders, under NS it is the government’s job to help you find a suitable job.

Under Capitalism owners of private companies determine all jobs and wages for their own maximum profit. Under Marxism governments own all businesses and enterprises or work toward that end, for the government’s maximum profit. But under NS big businesses would be nationalized under government control to prevent them from dominating and taking advantage of citizens. Yet small privatized enterprises and businesses would be free, to maintain the work ethic and a competitive spirit.

Under unrestricted Capitalism some people were literally slaves. Others were sold food products filled with waste material. Regulated Capitalism still had many safety and worker’s rights violations. Even today there are many financial scams, such as selling products that are only a tiny fraction the size they are supposed to be, and companies encouraging sales stampedes where people bow to materialism. Marxism recognizes the so-called slave-master: rich oppressors, as evil, but may treat so-called slaves as good just because they are oppressed. It seeks to force artificial equality without thought as to individual merit. And by enforcing artificial equality among the masses, Marxist governments become the slave-master.

NS however recognizes the “slave-master” as evil while also recognizing that most “slaves” would happily become new slave-masters if given the chance. NS seeks to end oppression, but recognizes that oppression is sometimes justified because some people lack a work ethic, some lack a conscience, and many have inferior morals and other bad qualities.

Under Capitalism childbirth may be allowed to get out of control, as long as someone is making money off the need for childcare, schools, and suchlike. Under Marxism childbirth is controlled, but only so it does not burden the government, not out of consideration for citizens. However, NS would properly control childbirth via eugenics (beneficial selective breeding) and genetic engineering: methods used to create less criminal prone and more productive societies. Happiness would also increase as less people would suffer from disabilities and sickness.

Under Capitalism religious freedom is usually allowed since it is irrelevant to this chiefly economic system. But even harmful religions are allowed, such as various cults that brainwash people, take them from their families, and manipulate them into giving the leaders all their money. Marxists are the other way, being completely anti-religion so that people see their government as their higher power, which seeks to take everyone’s money. But under NS religion is encouraged for strengthening the nation, but only religions which do not endanger the nation’s existence or oppose its moral sense, and which contribute to its unified spiritual sense.

Capitalism has nothing whatsoever to do with charity. Capitalists may act charitably, but whenever they do, they are not practicing Capitalism; they are practicing a form of socialism. Under Capitalism everyone seeks their own private good, including the sale of products that rely on third world slavery and warfare, and products that harm self and/or others. Under Marxism so-called charity is forced upon all of society by heavy taxation, and wealth is redistributed to others regardless of morals or ability, such as free college for everyone and welfare for the irresponsible. Also, the government takes a large portion for itself and sometimes confiscates private property and goods.

Yet National-Socialists want voluntary charity, not force. NS governments would greatly reduce the range of luxury products and services available and terminate speculative investment and such. This would naturally invoke a great increase in helping the poor. Socialism would be implemented only for the deserving, such as State funded education of intellectually gifted children of poor parents, large scale expansion of old age welfare, and suchlike.

Now do NOT believe the Ad hominem attacks on former leaders of National-Socialism. What you have heard about Nazional-Socialism is a pack of LIES. Except for the truth that it is Fascist. To understand Fascism read my post on it. For more information about Nazional-Socialism (Volk-ism) see websites put out by Nazional Socialists themselves. I declare that this system is the ONLY RIGHT WAY and challenge anyone to show otherwise. I advocate its implementation in a peaceful way if possible. Now PRAY that you and your leaders acquire and apply more wisdom.

Marxist Socialism Explained

Without an economic system no society could survive. And the two major world systems are Capitalism and Marxism, or a combination of both. Marxist socialism and Communism are almost the same; the difference is that governments own all private property under Communism, but under “Socialism” most citizens do. Small, devoutly religious groups through history were said to be socialist or communist. But that is misleading since the modern Marxist versions are far different. Marxism became widespread chiefly through Karl Marx, who was of Jewish ancestry, and his book The Communist Manifesto.

To defend Marxism an acquaintance of mine mentioned reading Karl Marx’s entire manifesto. He noted that the book had no logical fallacies, and good points were made. The young man advocated the correction of society’s abuses with socialistic policies found therein. For example, the industrial revolution made Capitalism especially problematic. That is, a bourgeoise class would arise, comprised of those who own all the expensive machinery. They would rule over the proletariat, a working class whose only value is their labor power.

Because the bourgeoise completely controlled them means of production, the proletariat could never get ahead. So some Marxist theory was correct. But it is not primarily about what Marx wrote in his manifesto that’s the problem; it’s the exclusions. For example, although Marxism recognizes the “slave-master” as evil, so-called slaves are treated as good merely because they are oppressed, although most oppressed people would happily become oppressors if given the chance.

The giant problem is what Marx excluded and hid from others. Namely, Marxists do not seek a classless society. They cunningly seek to create two classes: the masses and themselves. Although Marxists rail against social and economic injustice, they have been instrumental in creating those very problems. This caused society to become desperate, and seek a radical solution, such as Marxism. This popular support then gave Marxists greater power and government bureaucracy. After achieving greater power, leaders within their movement sneakily caused even greater economic injustice. This in turn caused people to become even more desperate, and cry even more for Marxism’s elusive promises: a vicious circle.

Interestingly, only a knowledge of the Jews provides the key to understanding Marxism’s inner goal. The overall problem is fallen human nature. If humans were perfectly moral, large scale international socialism might work well. But since we are so far from that, major problems constantly arise. For example, Marxism always requires big government to enforce the redistribution of wealth from those who have a surplus to the needy. These governments abused their power to make themselves rich, keeping a large portion of the tax money, and only redistributed a fraction, leaving all their citizens poorer overall.

Also, by taking large amounts of money from productive workers and giving it to the unproductive, the unproductive lack the motivation to become productive and become even more lazy. It also discourages hard workers from being productive. In my country the Marxist program of welfare quickly became a social disaster. The result is millions of illegitimate and fatherless children. Fathers are disposed of; millions of women are dependent on the government instead. Our Marxist policy of Affirmative Action gives less qualified or unqualified workers preferential treatment because of imaginary racial persecution.

They desire to implement their “socialism” regardless of morals or ability, such as free education for everyone and welfare for the irresponsible. That is because Marxism ignores human differences. So to create equality for the masses, Marxism seeks a classless society for them, instead of class status being based on ability or merit. They go so far to create equality that it eliminates individualism. But again, that is for the masses, not Marxist leaders. For example, race is no consideration for the common people or is considered an artificial construct, while the government is of one united race or ethnicity, which they zealously try to keep pure.

Marxist governments are always huge and powerful. They own all businesses and enterprises or work towards that end. They own most of the money through heavy taxation, and sometimes own all property. Therefore, everyone is heavily dependent on the government. And if the government is evil, it even has the power to murder its citizens, such as the genocides in the Soviet Union under Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin, and in China under Mao Zedong. There have been over a hundred million people killed under Communist regimes, besides people being sent to Siberia under torturous conditions.

We must also consider that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics collapsed. China has been successful, but know that China is over four thousand years old, and the Chinese Communist party did not come to power until 1949. And it was not long before it caused major problems. Consider that in the 1980s China achieved fantastic improvements in agricultural production by abolishing rural communes of a communistic nature and returning land to individual holdings.

Though European countries such as Norway, Scandinavia, and Sweden were achieving great success, that would not have lasted, as Europe was going bankrupt through its Marxist “Socialism”. Therefore Europe put its Marxist “socialism” in check. And those same policies of international socialism certainly would fail in the United States, as America has far more people than any of those European countries, and has a far greater diversity of people. Since people by and large prefer their own ethnicity, conflicts would be horrendous. And Marxists are anti-religion, as religion would give people hope in a higher power other than their Marxist government. Such governments take from their citizens by force, eliminating the free will principle of voluntary charity, which should come from a loving heart. And consider that by adopting Marxist socialist policies, we can eventually arrive at full blown Communism.

Capitalism and Marxism dominate our planet because people can abuse either system by taking advantage of others and aggrandizing themselves. Often the same group of people are behind the manipulation of both systems, and flip flop between the two based on whichever system benefits them more at the time. Both systems can be seen as one monstrous entity, as a giant two-headed skeleton with vampire teeth. However, a third option exists and solves this conundrum. I explain it in some of my other political posts on WordPress.

Jimmy Carter VS. Ronald Reagan

Since my content predominantly features on conservative channels and has been rejected from liberal ones, I shall preach about how great former U.S. President Ronald Reagan was, and badmouth former President Jimmy Carter for the rest of this post. I want to tell people exactly what they want to hear, so that people like me. That’s my life’s goal……………………………… JUST KIDDING. But truthfully, I am a conservative.

However, I’ll present important facts in an attempt to have people open their minds and think objectively. Here they are: First, both Jimmy Carter (James Earl Carter Jr.) and Ronald Wilson Reagan were serious about their Christian faith, which I’m thankful for, since I too hold to the Christian faith. And both men were very intelligent. However, Carter was originally a peanut farmer, a great benefit to our citizens, with the exception of those with peanut allergies.

Reagan had been an actor, which makes me wonder whether people were enamored with a pretend persona instead of a genuine one, since people tend to idolize actors instead of giving them equal treatment like most of us. Another indicator of potential bias was that Carter’s informal style was ridiculed as inappropriate, though it wouldn’t have reflected on his actual ability.

Carter served 2 terms as senator, and 1 term as Georgia’s governor. As governor, Carter supported Affirmative Action, which I COMPLETELY oppose. However, as governor of California, Ronald Reagan broke his promises by raising taxes, increasing spending, and expanding the state government. The worst thing Reagan did as governor, by his own admission, was sign the first “no-fault” divorce bill. That law set in motion the DESTRUCTION of marriage and family.

Now for their presidencies: Carter moved toward closer relations with the Soviet Union, signing the Salt 2 treaty. And the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan led Carter to embargo grain sales to the USSR and order a boycott of the 1980 Moscow Olympics. Reagan failed to do such things, and simply demonized the Soviet Union as an evil empire. As federal spending mounted and oil prices doubled, Americans blamed Carter for runaway inflation.

However, Carter addressed the petrol problem by enacting a 55 mile per hour speed limit on superhighways, which saved Americans money on gasoline, since it burns faster at higher speeds, and he increased public safety, since fatal accidents are heavily linked to higher speeds. Reagan was credited for falling oil prices, which slowed inflation and rekindled economic growth. He’s also credited with passing mammoth tax cuts: so-called “Reaganomics.”

However, due to Reagan’s massive increase in defense spending, including his fanciful “Star Wars” program, which spending outweighed his tax cuts, the national debt began a meteoric rise. Carter had approved a military rescue mission whose tragic failure was blamed on Carter’s supposed incompetence. But Reagan also had a military failure, since he sent U.S. Marines to Lebanon, where 240 of them died in a terrorist attack.

Carter repeatedly pushed for racial quotas and supported the idea of women in power, to have people consult minorities and women as an authority. Although I’m very unhappy about that, especially since Christianity always taught that man was the head of the woman, the Reagans had incorporated astrology, a COMPLETELY irrelevant authority regarding important matters. Besides, astrology has been wholly discredited, besides being against traditional Christianity. Talk about voodoo economics.

Though I vehemently oppose Carter’s approval of anti-Christian and immoral gay agendas, the Reagan administration’s holier than thou attitude toward homosexuals was expressed in their ignoring of the AIDS crisis, which allowed AIDS to run rampant, and even harm straights, including children, via contaminated blood supplies used in transfusions. And Jimmy Carter left a lasting legacy. Note the following: Carter established the United States Department of Energy and the United States Department of Education.

Carter took several measures to counter adverse effects on the environment, such as: his Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, his Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, and his Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. He established the Carter Center to advance human rights and alleviate human suffering. Among its major achievements was the elimination of over 99% of cases of Guinea worm disease, from around 3.5 million cases in 1986, down to 23 cases in 2015.

Yet Reagan’s presidency ended with the Iran-Contra scandal: White House staff secretly sold arms to Iran in hopes of freeing American hostages held in Lebanon, using the profits to illegally fund Contra fighters in Nicaragua. And Carter’s administration was generally characterized by peace, while Reagan’s was more warlike.

So my minor premise is that Carter was the better president, though I conclude that America’s Republican party is FAR better than the Democratic overall. My MAJOR premise, which I should have clearly illustrated, is that you should NOT succumb to an either-or fallacy: Democrat or Republican, should not be satisfied with half-baked solutions, and must think for yourself. For my explanation of Third Position politics, see my BitChute videos on that subject.