Where will you get money for the incredible amount of spending that a national socialist state requires? Men don't move on their own you know. Even the most loyal to your cause must be paid and extravagand government spending that is necessary for a workable national socialist state is not something that comes cheap.

>>10118 Money is a symbol of value and wealth. It is the resources of the land, the inventions and work of the people, the products they produce that matter. But do not speak to me of "it is hopeless!" Hopelessness is what will cause YOU to give up. I will not ever give up. Never. No matter the time or place, no matter the people or race, there is a spark in life that speaks deeper than mere "money" or "might." There is the true will to live. The flame within us that burns with power, pushing us onward towards the stars. Furthermore, when it comes to raw capital, I don't suppose I have any support, do I now? No, the future is indeed grim, but that does not mean there is no hope. Instead, I think there is far more potential than you realize. All you have to do is look to your people, and if they dare look up from their indoctrination, and look BACK at you, that's when the connection is made. The connection between people can be stronger than contracts and states. Maybe not today, but there is still hope.

>>10126 Money is not a symbol of just value and wealth, it is much more than that. Money is the means through which a will of the individual influences the world. Value comes from the work of the people, but no one does it without a reason. Any individual has a gain in what they're doing. Whether it be imagined or real, emotional or material one, they always do something for a purpose. A work done by a person forced to do something is ineffective and exploitative, a work done by an individual who wants to do something is effective and leads to improvement. It is because every individual wants to enforce their will onto reality to a different extent. Be it by controlling other people, creating art, amassing wealth, there is a selfish want behind every motive of human being. There is nothing truly selfless in this world, and that's not a bad thing. Most of the good things we value come from reasonable egoism. Love for example is by nature selfish. The thing is, you cannot simply sidestep my question by saying that people have an innate will to live. It is because they have a will to live... or perhaps rather a will to power, that you cannot sidestep the question of money. Money is a means through which individuals enforce their will onto the world, it makes others agree voluntarily to help them change reality in a way they see fit, be it creating something new or doing something for them, or even just helping them do something. There are other reasons for why people work, of course, but they aren't strong enough to force people to build works that are needed for a state. There are only two ways to force someone to adhere to your will: Carrot or a stick. You exchange or you enslave. And if you want people to work for the sake of the state, then where are you going to get the carrot from anon?

>>10132 What do you propose then? What exactly are you questioning? You want to know if I, personally, have enough money to fund a nation? A state, specifically, in the sense of statism? Are these questions for the sake of division? Do you have an agenda? What's your aim with these questions? More than just myself are reading this thread, and we can all see your posts and judge them for the ideas they present.

>>10134 I'm denying the idea that a National Socialist state can stay afloat economicaly without war. Book related. I'm saying that what you're proposing would have to go to war eventually and collapse. Besides the pdf I have posted there is also book by Götz Aly called Hitler's Beneficiaries which talks about the exact reasons of Nazi Germany going to war which shares that view if you are interested.

>>10116 Wrong. Without violence, the enemy can't be eliminated. No peace. Only mass killings. Until ALL of our enemies are dead.

>>10142 Yes, but I did not mention "enemies." In the sense of societal and economic ideology, National-Socialism does not require violence. There is nothing stopping a nation from producing useful goods and services and making a small profit, as long as it lives within its means and the population does not go higher than the land and its borders can support. This does not necessarily imply grand wealth and extravagant empires. It will simply be a nation of its own people that helps its own people. However, it goes without saying that all governments engage in war and military activities, and that is what makes it a government. The monopoly on violence as a means to an end is indeed the power and reason for the state. So I am not saying that we should not have war. I am saying that it is not technically necessary. There are ways to be National Socialist without war or killing. Nation = Your people Social = Community. At its absolute core, the most important aspect is that your people live in a community made up of that people. The boundary lines are arbitrary, but if agreed upon by neighboring nations, and no treaties violated, then there is a chance for eternal peace. The will of the people, the will of the nation, will decide the rules within its boundaries, and those that agree will live by those rules, and those who do not will leave. Violence is not necessary. But that does not mean it cannot be used. If the people who are no longer welcome within the borders do not leave, I don't think any existing government of today would mind "deporting" them by whatever means necessary. That is just how it is. A place for every race. Borders can be drawn on a map peacefully, or carved out with blood. I have no argument to the morality of war. It is irreverent. If it must be done, then it must be done. But I would prefer peace personally, and as a technical fact, National Socialism does not require violence.

>>10135 I think that a National Socialist state does not have to stay National Socialist forever. I think there is a more general desire to simply have a boundary line that encapsulates a singular "people," with a government that supports that people. As it is, I think many people assume that there is some sort of ZOG shadow-government pulling strings in ways that lead to our personal lives becoming simply terrible to live. It is a sort of dark depression where the social issues are becoming worse and worse, and all we can say is that "Hitler alone defied the status quo." Yet, that is... honestly it is not that great. I really wish that there was a better way to see things, but I don't know what's there. There are many ideologies out there, but none so hated, even FORBIDDEN, as National Socialism. On a personal level, I'm not as much a National Socialist as I'd like. However, for the sake of solidarity with my people, I will adopt National Socialism. Due to this being an idea, I will modify it with my mind, at will. Nothing will stop me from changing this idea until it functions properly, and will not lead to disaster or defeat. If I was to own a National Socialist state, I would print money and have its official statement of backing be "This money is backed by the people of this nation. If you trust their work, their goods, their services, and their raw intellect and ability to exist into the future, then you can trust this dollar." Probably some sort of cryptocurrency, right? I live in a hell where nothing makes sense and we all want a way out. Some people in this thread just want insane violence. Maybe that's the way. Maybe it's not. Is inventing a currency so wrong? Not if people believe in it. But I still do not think that war is strictly necessary. I think that goods and resources and community that you'd enjoy working in is what you actually need, and that's what actually represents a currency. It's the work. In modern cryptocurrency terms, it's "proof of work," when referring to that mining stuff. Basing a currency on its people is not exactly common, is it? I don't mind letting better ideas overturn this, of course, but I'm not an economist. I am just an ordinary person looking for a nation to run, as the absolute Church-State God-Emperor of all Time and Space. I will need to hire a professional economist to deal with economic matters. Every God-Emperor needs a General, an Economist, a Scientist, a Philosopher, an Artist, and a Common-Man. The most important thing is to focus on the long-term. Short-term gains mean nothing if the long-term is squandered. Such is the nature of debt. I do not like debt, but I also do not like theft. War is theft. Taxation is theft. Inflation is theft. Debt is theft, even if just from the future. I don't mind doing what I must to survive, as that is the absolute law of nature and evolution, but there is an element of honor and nobility at hand, and that is why my people are worthy to have their own nation. Without this honor, intellect, and nobility, there is nothing worth preserving. Thus I trust my people.

>>10116 Fucking fucked up, right? You put one "Great Nation" above the others, eventually this nation will begin to absorb other, smaller nations. I will take my country, Russia and Belarus as an example, how do you think, which of them will absorb whom, in order to improve their state? Nazism is barbarism. Only capitalism is worse than it. by communist kun

>>10116 Peace is not compatible with jews.

>>10245 to build Communism we must destroy Fascistic Putin's Russian first, is not it, Comrade?

>>10116 >National Socialism does not require violence in any form Literally the first page of the mein kampf, lol: >When the territory of the Reich embraces all Germans and proves incapable of assuring them a livelihood, only then can the moral right arise, from the need of the people, to acquire foreign territory. The plough is then the sword, and the tears of war will produce the daily bread for the generations to come.

>>10874 That's hitlerism, baka.

>>10116 >National Socialism does not require violence in any form. It is completely compatible with peace. So why does the dude in your pic have a sword and shield?