Five of swords

Nothing is hidden about it. https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4978285/user-clip-white-minority-status-bad-thing

Trump was not even able to arrest rioters in 2020. What on earth makes you think he would consider abolishing the vote? Lol.

But you are just making that up. Of course I knew about the Treaty. Now you seem to think that because business sounding stuff happened in Germany it could not be a planned economy. Does not follow.

Because you are always wrong about the basics and just refuse to believe it. Planned economy precludes market socialism.

Market socialism is to be contrasted with a planned economy. National socialism was absolutely a planned economy. They had autarky, land reform, prohibition on usury and stock dividends and land speculation, etc.

But you are wrong. The economy of Germany was very much planned by the state. It was absolutrly a planned economy

Lol...well okay they weren't interested in giving everyone a free ride. If that is what you think socialism is then whatever. Concerning your page out of whatever book this is, I'm not interested. Whenever Hitler or goebbles made some demand on business, they followed it. Nobody in Germany was so rich that they could just ignore or defy hitler, lol. It's rather silly to think otherwise.

So naturally, you just don't know the basics of what a free market means. In a free market, individuals and business can make what they want, charge what they want, employ who they want, pay the wages they want, offer the benefits they want, etc. None of that was the case under nsdap Germany. While they may not have micromanaged every detail of the economy, they did have input in any aspect they felt was important for the thriving of the German people. Which was fairly often, actually. Even the plot of movies produced in Germany would potentially be altered by goebbles, if he wasn't fond of the messaging, for example. Mass production on massive farms with small wages might be the most efficient profit motive, but they felt that environment failed to be conducive to the nobility of character that they wanted for the German people...so they instead directed the market and strongly incentivized small homesteads of sustenance farming. Anyway, you clearly have not read anything about thr subject and don't even have the prerequisite elementary education needed to be able to articulate what socialism is...so not much use discussing this with you

What's funny about it?

You care about consistency? Lol

Well it isn't like they aren't in your face about it constantly...https://youtu.be/Wb55teb1gJ0?si=y1lHdWTdLF1U_X4Z Anyway, enjoy your football

You have no idea what you are talking about. Markets were not terribly important to the national socialists. When they wanted Volkswagen to make tanks, they made tanks. It wasn't important what the market demand was

Corporatism is socialism. It is a brand of syndicalism. And really, that was more an aspect of Italian fascism. In Germany, all corporations and banking were under the full control of the furher.

It might not, but it might. In the case of national socialism, it is properly named. Both in theory and in practice.

I don't recall you reading anything at all

"when a government hijacks the media, the courts, the police, elections, and inflicts their own forms of discrimination on the public in general," Oh...the irony

I'm just telling you what nationalism is, lol. I'm not really offering much of my own outlook on the subject.

Yes. People change, countries change, etc. Nationalism that isn't insane generally refers to a people who currently exist. I simply reject your idea that genetics have zero influence on behavior. I guess we would need to throw away biological science if that were true. But it also isn't relevant to the current discussion of nationalism

Irrelevant. Irish nationalism means Irish. I'm confused why you are bringing up people being conquered or genetic. If people believe they are distinct in their legacy and destiny from other people because of genetic difference, then they are distinct nations. It is irrelevant whether they are correct.

Ok so...white people and black people in the usa do not feel like they had a common legacy nor that they have a common destiny. Therefore they are distinct nations. They might both be ruled by the same state, but they are distinct nations. Usually nationalism is in opposition to the state. In the enlightenment Europe, nationalism opposed monarchy or theocracy. Irish nationalism opposed the British empire. White nationalism opposes the integrationist us state.

The usa certainly is not a nation state. Arguably it was a pan-european nation state prior to 1865. Not after.

Nation wasnever considered synonymous with country until people literally became retarded during the 1960s. That is an incoherent use of the term. A nation always has represented a particular people.. specifically people with a sense of common legacy and common destiny.

Not a nation state. In a nation state there might be physical presence of multiple ethnic groups, but only a single one of them actually matters and has any say in politics. Germany, for example, was not a nation state until after Adolf Hitler took over.

Dude...a nation state is a state representing a single nation. So your two 'kinds' of nationalism are actually identical. And I just dismiss your assumption that it is impossible to speak of nationalism. It is quite possible to become educated on the subject.

The guy was saying nationalism can become violent. And he suggested that national socialists were willing to resort to violence. Both of those claims are true. That is the only logically relevant part of this discussion. As far as 'true nationalism' goes...National socialism is a weltanshuung that is complete, coherent, and internally consistent. I would suggest that all other forms of nationalism are either obsolete (incompatible with modern technology or circumstances) or they suffer from fatal internal contradictions.