Can we have NatSoc without the racism? Strong borders, united

>>140178027
What you're looking for is Bernie, believe it or not.

>>140178027
No way, jews are racists, we must be too.

>>140178027
I believe thats called Nationalism

Still gonna be called a racist.

>>140178027
>water down our message to please leftists
Doesn't work, has never worked, will never work. Look at 2012, Romney said we shouldn't deport illegals. He lost. In 2016, the first thing trump said was that spics were criminals and rapists and that he was going to deport them all. Not only did he win, but he also got a higher percentage of Latino votes than Romney did. Fuck compromise

>>140178027
>NatSoc
>No racism
pick one

Yes you can.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4th_of_August_Regime

>>140178394
Nationalism has an ethnic component typically correct?
Civic nationalism is a meme that almost always ties into liberalism.
We need the NatSoc policies but not the genocide.
>>140178340
>>140178364
We want to win, we can take care of that later.

>>140178473
its hardly watered down when it's to the right of most republicans

>>140178027
National socialism requires civic virtue to work. That's unlikely to be present in a non homogenous society, which breeds distrust, disunity and conflict.

File: IMG_0133.jpg (51KB, 550x440px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 550x440px

>>140178190
>>140178340
>>140178364
>>140178394
>>140178446
>>140178473
GOD FUCKING DAMMIT IT IS POSSIBLE, THERE WASNT JUST ONE NATSOC PARTY

>>140178646
How is taking the race element out of our message not watering it down? We can't make America great again with niggers and spics, because they weren't what made it great in the first place

>>140178832
>>140178707
The one issue I have is how do we deal with the shitlibs and white guilt types who would sympathize with the left and minority identity groups more so than whites? Why would it be better to have these people live in our society over an asian person with our values solely because they're white?

>>140178773
Didn't Mosley believe in
>muh 6 gorillian

>>140179012
We won't have to deal with them at all, because they don't have any real power anymore. Look at white libs today, all they can do is #resist, but trump is still president, spics are still going home, etc.

>>140179297
They're still a danger, and should not be allowed to live in our society should this happen.

If it doesn't involve the nation then it's not National Socialism, dumbass. Le BBM and Europeans are not part of the same nation.

File: 08.jpg (144KB, 500x750px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 500x750px

>>140178027
>>140178832
You're missing the point. NatSoc isn't inherently about racism, that's just faggot neo-nazis. Hitler would encourage the minorities to create a better culture and improve their own intelligence, social standing, etc, the same as it encourages for us. The primary concern with Hitler was not with "white people," but with the exaltation and improvement of his own national race of Germans. He would encourage the same thing for the Swedes, the British, the Italians, etc. He even supported the Japanese, hardly the epitome of white nationalism. Not to mention that his military allowed other races to join. Hitler wasn't about the denigration of other races for the exaltation of his own, he was for each ethnicity to claim its potential and rise up as well, with Germany as the leading role model.

>>140178027
How is that a compromise between the 14/88 crowd and Kekistanis? It just gives the latter everything they want?

Why not strive for a racially conscious society with an unquestioned ethnic majority, but not get into racial absolutism (Which, ironically, not even the NSDAP did).

>>140182428
Is that "white presenting nationalism?" I've heard Mike Enoch mention it before, but no definition.

>>140178027
>NatSoc without the racism

How about we do it the other way around?

>>140182844
I've not heard the term "White Presenting Nationalism" before, so I can't say; however, there are plenty in, say, the AmRen crowd, for example, that just want an "unquestioned racial majority." Which seems far more fair (and workable) a compromise than civic nationalism.

>>140183018
What majority though? USA is still technically majority white.

>>140183263
The important point is "unquestioned." While the U.S. is technically majority white, there's not an unquestioned ethnic majority.

Look at politics, for example, it's entirely possible for a minority coalition, bolstered by only a small portion of the white majority, to vote against white interests. 2012 was a pretty good example of this.

Personally, I'd place the number somewhere at 80-90%. Anything lower than that, and the obvious problems with multiracialism and multiracial democracies especially tend to come to the fore.

>>140183551
That seems a lot more reasonable than Spencer type ethnostate. Realistically any WN in America is going to have to involve secession, the demographics are against us and a majority is never going to get behind mass deportations of legal citizens.

File: ogISCk1.jpg (40KB, 700x697px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 700x697px

>>140183263

>>140178773
Mosley was for Britannia only, make the UK great again. What OP wants is natsoc for everyone.

Civic Natsoc + Eugenics.

>>140178027
merit immigration goy works best ! Lolz...that pulls the heartstrings of stupid white goyim...

>>140178473
>Fuck compromise
Some of the truest words in the world.
Compromising is just a gentler word for losing.

File: USA.png (48KB, 1924x980px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 1924x980px

>>140187041
My proposal would be to split the United States up into 3 different blocks still ruled by the federal government, but given given independent control of their domestic policy. One block would be for whites, one block would be for any race, and one block would be for blacks. Transition period would be over 10 years or so, and small moving funds would be given to people to help relocate.

>>140188825
>>140187041
forgot to erase the numbers, sorry goy.