Daniel Zakal's Art Gallery
Пераслаў з:
National Socialist American Party
25.03.202503:36
The Fed controls the rates. Not Trump. Not policy. Wake up.
So Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent looked Trump in the eye and said:
“We’re under your direction… re-privatizing the economy… cutting government spending… re-leveraging the banking system… bringing back manufacturing… fixing the affordability crisis… and that’ll naturally bring interest rates down.”
Let’s break this delusion apart piece by piece — because this kind of statement is either wildly uninformed, or straight-up gaslighting.
“Re-privatizing the economy?”
You mean the economy that’s already owned by corporate oligarchs and controlled by the Federal Reserve — a private central bank that answers to no one? The U.S. economy has never been un-privatized. What you’re doing is shifting power from one class of elites to another and slapping a populist label on it. It’s not reform. It’s repackaging.
“Re-leveraging the banking system?”
The banking system is already a ticking time bomb of leverage. It runs on fractional-reserve lending, where banks loan out money they don’t even have. You want to add more leverage? That’s not a strategy — that’s asking for 2008 all over again, except this time the fallout will be worse, because the Fed’s already burned through its tools.
And here’s the biggest lie of them all — “interest rates will naturally come down.”
No, they won’t. Interest rates don’t move because government jobs are cut or oil drops 15%. This isn’t some cause-and-effect fairytale. Rates move when the Federal Reserve says they move — period. They control the cost of money in this country. Everything else is noise.
So while Bessent’s out here selling this feel-good fantasy about lower rates, more jobs, and solving affordability — the truth is, none of that happens unless the Fed allows it. And they don’t answer to Trump, or Congress, or the people. They are a private institution operating outside of democratic control.
The affordability crisis?
It wasn’t caused by lack of manufacturing jobs. It was caused by the same central banks inflating assets, destroying the value of your dollar, and creating a debt-based economy that punishes anyone who isn’t already rich. Deregulation won’t fix that. Printing more debt sure as hell won’t fix it. And this magical “natural” drop in interest rates? That’s just insulting to anyone who understands how monetary policy actually works.
Bottom line:
This wasn’t a serious policy update. This was propaganda. A staged performance for the cameras, designed to sound intelligent to the economically illiterate. But for those of us who know the system — this was nothing but smoke and mirrors.
They want you to believe that “things are getting better” — when in reality, they’re doubling down on the exact same system that’s been bleeding this country dry for decades.
———
How would a National Socialist, Life-Affirming state fix this?
Simple. You cut the cord from the private central banking system entirely. The state regains control of its currency — interest rates, inflation, and credit flow are governed by the nation, for the nation, not by unelected bankers.
You ban predatory lending. You outlaw planned obsolescence. You build an economy on real productivity, not financial alchemy. No more fake wealth created through speculation and leverage — wealth must come from labor, innovation, and service to the people.
Housing, food, and energy are made affordable by design, not as some accidental byproduct of deregulation. The affordability crisis ends because the system is built from the ground up to support life, not extract it.
In a Life-Affirming state, the economy serves the people.
In this system? The people serve the economy.
That’s the difference.
———
End the Federal Reserve Act of 1913
Repeal the 16th Amendment
————————————————————
National Socialist American Party
@NSAParty
So Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent looked Trump in the eye and said:
“We’re under your direction… re-privatizing the economy… cutting government spending… re-leveraging the banking system… bringing back manufacturing… fixing the affordability crisis… and that’ll naturally bring interest rates down.”
Let’s break this delusion apart piece by piece — because this kind of statement is either wildly uninformed, or straight-up gaslighting.
“Re-privatizing the economy?”
You mean the economy that’s already owned by corporate oligarchs and controlled by the Federal Reserve — a private central bank that answers to no one? The U.S. economy has never been un-privatized. What you’re doing is shifting power from one class of elites to another and slapping a populist label on it. It’s not reform. It’s repackaging.
“Re-leveraging the banking system?”
The banking system is already a ticking time bomb of leverage. It runs on fractional-reserve lending, where banks loan out money they don’t even have. You want to add more leverage? That’s not a strategy — that’s asking for 2008 all over again, except this time the fallout will be worse, because the Fed’s already burned through its tools.
And here’s the biggest lie of them all — “interest rates will naturally come down.”
No, they won’t. Interest rates don’t move because government jobs are cut or oil drops 15%. This isn’t some cause-and-effect fairytale. Rates move when the Federal Reserve says they move — period. They control the cost of money in this country. Everything else is noise.
So while Bessent’s out here selling this feel-good fantasy about lower rates, more jobs, and solving affordability — the truth is, none of that happens unless the Fed allows it. And they don’t answer to Trump, or Congress, or the people. They are a private institution operating outside of democratic control.
The affordability crisis?
It wasn’t caused by lack of manufacturing jobs. It was caused by the same central banks inflating assets, destroying the value of your dollar, and creating a debt-based economy that punishes anyone who isn’t already rich. Deregulation won’t fix that. Printing more debt sure as hell won’t fix it. And this magical “natural” drop in interest rates? That’s just insulting to anyone who understands how monetary policy actually works.
Bottom line:
This wasn’t a serious policy update. This was propaganda. A staged performance for the cameras, designed to sound intelligent to the economically illiterate. But for those of us who know the system — this was nothing but smoke and mirrors.
They want you to believe that “things are getting better” — when in reality, they’re doubling down on the exact same system that’s been bleeding this country dry for decades.
———
How would a National Socialist, Life-Affirming state fix this?
Simple. You cut the cord from the private central banking system entirely. The state regains control of its currency — interest rates, inflation, and credit flow are governed by the nation, for the nation, not by unelected bankers.
You ban predatory lending. You outlaw planned obsolescence. You build an economy on real productivity, not financial alchemy. No more fake wealth created through speculation and leverage — wealth must come from labor, innovation, and service to the people.
Housing, food, and energy are made affordable by design, not as some accidental byproduct of deregulation. The affordability crisis ends because the system is built from the ground up to support life, not extract it.
In a Life-Affirming state, the economy serves the people.
In this system? The people serve the economy.
That’s the difference.
———
End the Federal Reserve Act of 1913
Repeal the 16th Amendment
————————————————————
National Socialist American Party
@NSAParty
Пераслаў з:
Nathan Damigo
24.03.202516:09
If this case succeeds, it would basically put any Belgian at risk of going to prison just for being in a chat group. It establishes that being in a chat group where others are saying "illicit" things is grounds for prosecution.
For anyone who has ever been in a chat group, the absurdity of this could not be more clear. Chat groups often have tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of posts and dozens of channels, most of whom any one member will almost certainly not have seen or read, let alone contributed to.
As an American, this particular case is very relatable to me, as I was successfully sued based on the contents of several chat groups I didn't even have access to, nor knowledge of the contents communicated to me! The Charlottesville "conspiracy" lawsuit basically places anyone trying to attend a political rally at risk of being sued and having all their financial assets at risk.
Clearly, if this is "Democracy." we don't need it.
For anyone who has ever been in a chat group, the absurdity of this could not be more clear. Chat groups often have tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of posts and dozens of channels, most of whom any one member will almost certainly not have seen or read, let alone contributed to.
As an American, this particular case is very relatable to me, as I was successfully sued based on the contents of several chat groups I didn't even have access to, nor knowledge of the contents communicated to me! The Charlottesville "conspiracy" lawsuit basically places anyone trying to attend a political rally at risk of being sued and having all their financial assets at risk.
Clearly, if this is "Democracy." we don't need it.
24.03.202500:59
The War of Voices: Why the Loudest Are Leading Us Nowhere
We are in the midst of an ideological war — not just between our people and the external forces that seek our destruction, but within the dissident movement itself. And the tragic reality is this: those who speak the loudest rarely understand what they’re even talking about, while those who truly grasp the full scope of our worldview are silenced, sidelined, or ignored.
This is not a coincidence. It’s a feature of the current system.
The mainstream, the controlled opposition, and even many within the so-called “dissident right” are playing into the same trap — a loop of performative posturing and half-formed ideas. They debate surface-level issues with no guiding compass. One side embraces moral relativism and might-makes-right nonsense. The other retreats into pacifism and liberal moralism, terrified of saying anything “offensive.” Neither offers a real path forward. Neither understands National Socialism. Neither understands the Life Affirming Principle.
And what’s worse — these people have the platforms. They have the followers. They have the reach.
Meanwhile, those of us who do understand — who have developed a comprehensive, moral, biological, and spiritual worldview — are barely able to get a peep in. We're choked out by algorithms, slandered by gatekeepers, or shouted down by people with louder voices but shallower ideas.
This plays directly into the hands of the enemy.
Every time a dissident figure pushes moral relativism, every time someone says “might makes right” without asking what ought to be right, every time someone frames National Socialism as mindless chauvinism, dismisses it entirely and treats only as a historical artifact — the enemy wins. Because the truth, the real truth, never gets heard. The people stay confused, aimless, gas-lit and spiritually empty.
That’s the plan. The Jew doesn’t need to destroy our worldview — he just needs to flood the airwaves with weaker ones. Misinformation, disinformation, distraction. That’s how you strangle a revolution before it starts.
But here's the truth:
National Socialism is not built on supremacy. It is built on duty.
It is not driven by hatred. It is driven by love for one’s own.
It does not thrive through arrogance. It thrives through alignment with biological reality, natural order, and moral clarity.
The Life Affirming Principle is the beating heart of this worldview. It tells us that life must be preserved, protected, and elevated — not just biologically, but culturally, spiritually, and ethically. It gives us a moral foundation that cannot be shaken by political trends or philosophical fads. It answers the "why" behind every decision a true state must make.
We are not interested in shallow debates or empty posturing. We are interested in truth. In future. In survival.
So while others scream over each other about whether the Poles were inferior or whether Russia is white enough to matter, we must step back and realize: these debates only matter if they are grounded in principle. If they are not guided by a moral structure — by a clear vision of life and order — then they are just noise.
And noise is the enemy’s weapon.
It’s time to break the blockade. It’s time to stop letting clowns, moral relativists, and liberal-nationalist rebrands set the tone. We need to speak louder, sharper, and with total ideological confidence. No hesitation. No compromise. No apologies.
We are not here to debate the enemies of life.
We are here to replace them.
The future belongs to those who live by principle, not to those who chase power without purpose.
We are in the midst of an ideological war — not just between our people and the external forces that seek our destruction, but within the dissident movement itself. And the tragic reality is this: those who speak the loudest rarely understand what they’re even talking about, while those who truly grasp the full scope of our worldview are silenced, sidelined, or ignored.
This is not a coincidence. It’s a feature of the current system.
The mainstream, the controlled opposition, and even many within the so-called “dissident right” are playing into the same trap — a loop of performative posturing and half-formed ideas. They debate surface-level issues with no guiding compass. One side embraces moral relativism and might-makes-right nonsense. The other retreats into pacifism and liberal moralism, terrified of saying anything “offensive.” Neither offers a real path forward. Neither understands National Socialism. Neither understands the Life Affirming Principle.
And what’s worse — these people have the platforms. They have the followers. They have the reach.
Meanwhile, those of us who do understand — who have developed a comprehensive, moral, biological, and spiritual worldview — are barely able to get a peep in. We're choked out by algorithms, slandered by gatekeepers, or shouted down by people with louder voices but shallower ideas.
This plays directly into the hands of the enemy.
Every time a dissident figure pushes moral relativism, every time someone says “might makes right” without asking what ought to be right, every time someone frames National Socialism as mindless chauvinism, dismisses it entirely and treats only as a historical artifact — the enemy wins. Because the truth, the real truth, never gets heard. The people stay confused, aimless, gas-lit and spiritually empty.
That’s the plan. The Jew doesn’t need to destroy our worldview — he just needs to flood the airwaves with weaker ones. Misinformation, disinformation, distraction. That’s how you strangle a revolution before it starts.
But here's the truth:
National Socialism is not built on supremacy. It is built on duty.
It is not driven by hatred. It is driven by love for one’s own.
It does not thrive through arrogance. It thrives through alignment with biological reality, natural order, and moral clarity.
The Life Affirming Principle is the beating heart of this worldview. It tells us that life must be preserved, protected, and elevated — not just biologically, but culturally, spiritually, and ethically. It gives us a moral foundation that cannot be shaken by political trends or philosophical fads. It answers the "why" behind every decision a true state must make.
We are not interested in shallow debates or empty posturing. We are interested in truth. In future. In survival.
So while others scream over each other about whether the Poles were inferior or whether Russia is white enough to matter, we must step back and realize: these debates only matter if they are grounded in principle. If they are not guided by a moral structure — by a clear vision of life and order — then they are just noise.
And noise is the enemy’s weapon.
It’s time to break the blockade. It’s time to stop letting clowns, moral relativists, and liberal-nationalist rebrands set the tone. We need to speak louder, sharper, and with total ideological confidence. No hesitation. No compromise. No apologies.
We are not here to debate the enemies of life.
We are here to replace them.
The future belongs to those who live by principle, not to those who chase power without purpose.
Пераслаў з:
Rise Europa - Activism 🇦🇶
07.03.202502:58
Keith Woods’ recent article, "Nationalism Doesn't Need National Socialism - Response to Joel Davis," perfectly encapsulates the kind of intellectual dishonesty and historical illiteracy one expects from closet National Bolsheviks posing as nationalists. Encouraging his audience to reject National Socialism isn't just misguided—it's ideological sabotage.
Daniel Zakal, author of National Socialism: Our Struggle and Vitalis, and founder of Invisible Empire Publishing LLC, decisively dismantles every weak and superficial claim made by Woods, exposing his arguments as little more than lazy rhetoric wrapped in recycled Allied propaganda.
Read the full, unapologetic takedown here, and witness Keith Woods, the crypto-communist masquerading as a nationalist, being intellectually annihilated point by point:
https://www.invisibleempirepublishing.com/keith-wood-the-bolshevik-revolutionary/
Daniel Zakal, author of National Socialism: Our Struggle and Vitalis, and founder of Invisible Empire Publishing LLC, decisively dismantles every weak and superficial claim made by Woods, exposing his arguments as little more than lazy rhetoric wrapped in recycled Allied propaganda.
Read the full, unapologetic takedown here, and witness Keith Woods, the crypto-communist masquerading as a nationalist, being intellectually annihilated point by point:
https://www.invisibleempirepublishing.com/keith-wood-the-bolshevik-revolutionary/
06.03.202519:50
https://keithwoods.pub/p/nationalism-not-ns
Part 5
National Socialism: Beyond Hitler and the Third Reich
Woods, like many who misunderstand National Socialism, assumes that it is purely a historical phenomenon—a movement tied exclusively to Hitler and the Third Reich. This is fundamentally incorrect.
National Socialism is not just a political system—it is a worldview, a world truth, and a human truth expressed politically. It is a flexible and evolving philosophy that was discovered and articulated by Hitler and his contemporaries, but it has always existed in the natural order of life. It is not merely a product of Germany in the 20th century; rather, it is the natural alignment of a people’s survival instincts, biological reality, and moral framework with the governance of a state.
▫️National Socialism recognizes that all life is struggle, and that a people must be strong, self-sufficient, and free from parasitic influences to thrive.
▫️National Socialism is not static—it is refined and adapted over time. Just as National Socialists of the past analyzed and documented its principles, we continue to refine them today.
▫️National Socialism is life-affirming, not reactionary. Unlike conservatism, which simply tries to preserve dying institutions, and unlike liberalism, which promotes degeneracy and decay, National Socialism actively builds and strengthens the people and the state in harmony with nature.
The great mistake of many nationalists today is that they view nationalism as an end in itself, rather than understanding that it must be guided by a higher principle. Nationalism alone is too flexible, too easily co-opted by reactionaries, populists, or foreign influences. National Socialism is the only nationalist framework that provides a moral, economic, and philosophical foundation to ensure that a people not only survive—but rise, thrive, and dominate.
This is why Woods’ rejection of National Socialism in favor of generic “ethnonationalism” is weak and self-defeating and literally a National Bolshevik stance. He proposes an ideology without structure, without a guiding principle, and without a clear path forward. His vision is one of endless fragmentation, where each nation builds its own isolated identity while lacking the necessary framework to resist globalist subversion, economic exploitation, or internal decay.
The truth is simple: National Socialism is not just history—it is the eternal truth of life, refined into a political doctrine. It is the only system capable of ensuring a people’s survival, prosperity, and ultimate destiny.
Part 5
National Socialism: Beyond Hitler and the Third Reich
Woods, like many who misunderstand National Socialism, assumes that it is purely a historical phenomenon—a movement tied exclusively to Hitler and the Third Reich. This is fundamentally incorrect.
National Socialism is not just a political system—it is a worldview, a world truth, and a human truth expressed politically. It is a flexible and evolving philosophy that was discovered and articulated by Hitler and his contemporaries, but it has always existed in the natural order of life. It is not merely a product of Germany in the 20th century; rather, it is the natural alignment of a people’s survival instincts, biological reality, and moral framework with the governance of a state.
▫️National Socialism recognizes that all life is struggle, and that a people must be strong, self-sufficient, and free from parasitic influences to thrive.
▫️National Socialism is not static—it is refined and adapted over time. Just as National Socialists of the past analyzed and documented its principles, we continue to refine them today.
▫️National Socialism is life-affirming, not reactionary. Unlike conservatism, which simply tries to preserve dying institutions, and unlike liberalism, which promotes degeneracy and decay, National Socialism actively builds and strengthens the people and the state in harmony with nature.
The great mistake of many nationalists today is that they view nationalism as an end in itself, rather than understanding that it must be guided by a higher principle. Nationalism alone is too flexible, too easily co-opted by reactionaries, populists, or foreign influences. National Socialism is the only nationalist framework that provides a moral, economic, and philosophical foundation to ensure that a people not only survive—but rise, thrive, and dominate.
This is why Woods’ rejection of National Socialism in favor of generic “ethnonationalism” is weak and self-defeating and literally a National Bolshevik stance. He proposes an ideology without structure, without a guiding principle, and without a clear path forward. His vision is one of endless fragmentation, where each nation builds its own isolated identity while lacking the necessary framework to resist globalist subversion, economic exploitation, or internal decay.
The truth is simple: National Socialism is not just history—it is the eternal truth of life, refined into a political doctrine. It is the only system capable of ensuring a people’s survival, prosperity, and ultimate destiny.
06.03.202519:47
https://keithwoods.pub/p/nationalism-not-ns
Part 3
National Socialism as the Only Truly Life-Affirming Nationalism
Woods ignores that National Socialism uniquely aligns with the Life Affirming Principle—the idea that every decision and policy must support, maintain, and protect life. Unlike reactionary nationalism, which merely seeks to resist external threats, National Socialism actively builds a life-affirming order that safeguards the future of a people through a structured state, moral clarity, and economic independence.
▫️Ethnonationalism alone does not solve internal degeneration—National Socialism purges degeneracy, ensuring the moral and cultural health of the people.
▫️Ethnonationalism alone does not guarantee economic renewal—National Socialism creates an economy that serves the people, not foreign bankers or corporate interests.
▫️Ethnonationalism alone does not ensure long-term survival—National Socialism implements policies that encourage strong families, biological health, and demographic growth.
Woods wants nationalism without the moral framework, economic principles, and life-affirming philosophy that make it viable long-term. He wants nationalism that is safe, neutered, and acceptable to polite society—the kind of nationalism that has failed to prevent Europe’s decline for the past century.
Part 3
National Socialism as the Only Truly Life-Affirming Nationalism
Woods ignores that National Socialism uniquely aligns with the Life Affirming Principle—the idea that every decision and policy must support, maintain, and protect life. Unlike reactionary nationalism, which merely seeks to resist external threats, National Socialism actively builds a life-affirming order that safeguards the future of a people through a structured state, moral clarity, and economic independence.
▫️Ethnonationalism alone does not solve internal degeneration—National Socialism purges degeneracy, ensuring the moral and cultural health of the people.
▫️Ethnonationalism alone does not guarantee economic renewal—National Socialism creates an economy that serves the people, not foreign bankers or corporate interests.
▫️Ethnonationalism alone does not ensure long-term survival—National Socialism implements policies that encourage strong families, biological health, and demographic growth.
Woods wants nationalism without the moral framework, economic principles, and life-affirming philosophy that make it viable long-term. He wants nationalism that is safe, neutered, and acceptable to polite society—the kind of nationalism that has failed to prevent Europe’s decline for the past century.
24.03.202515:31
Superiority Isn’t the Foundation — Life Is
There’s been a lot recently about whether the idea of superiority is necessary to justify nationalism or National Socialism. Some argue that if you don’t believe your people are superior to others, then what’s the point of even preserving them? Others claim that racial or cultural superiority is the moral justification for defending one’s nation.
Let’s be clear: this framing is flawed, and it leads us down a dangerous path.
National Socialism is not, and never has been, about empty pride or arbitrary claims of superiority. National Socialism is a worldview grounded in nature, order, and destiny — and at its heart is the Life Affirming Principle. That principle is not just a moral guideline — it is the engine that makes the National Socialist political vehicle move. Without it, the structure loses its soul.
So what is the Life Affirming Principle?
It’s the idea that every decision, every policy, and every act must serve life — real life. Specifically the life of your people, your culture, your land, your blood, and your future. It’s not just about living — it’s about living in alignment with truth, biology, and responsibility.
The Life Affirming Principle tells us that we preserve what is ours not because we’ve measured it against others and decided it’s better — but because it is ours. Because it is alive, it is sacred, and it is worth protecting. That’s not inferiority. That’s not arrogance. That’s duty.
The Problem with “Superiority as Justification”
When superiority becomes your moral foundation, you open the door to relativism. What happens when another group gains more power? More technology? More dominance in the moment? Are they now morally “superior”? Do they now have the right to rule you?
Of course not.
The truth is, life does not need permission to defend itself. It needs no external justification. Just as a tree grows toward the sun because it must, so must a people defend their blood, their culture, and their place in the world — because they must. That’s Life Affirming.
Yes — we can acknowledge that some cultures are higher than others. Some peoples build, create, and elevate. Others destroy and corrupt. These are real differences, and they matter. But those truths should be carried with responsibility, not with arrogance. Superiority might exist, but it is not the fuel of National Socialism — life is.
National Socialism is Not Chauvinism
Chauvinism — the blind belief that your group is the best just because it’s yours — is not National Socialism. In fact, it weakens nationalism by turning it into a shallow ego contest. Chauvinism cuts you off from the broader civilizational heritage of your race. It prevents you from drawing strength from the cultural greatness of your kin in Europe. That’s not life-affirming. That’s small-minded and ultimately self-defeating.
National Socialism is about order, harmony, hierarchy, and preservation. It sees our people not in isolation, but as part of a greater racial family. It demands that we take what is best — from Rome, from Athens, from the Germanic spirit, from the artistic genius of the Renaissance, from the warrior virtues of the Norse — and shape a civilization that stands as a fortress of life against the chaos of decay.
We Don’t Need to Prove Our Worth
Our right to exist, to thrive, and to rule ourselves is not something we earn by being “better” than others. It is something we assert because we are a living people with a duty to our ancestors and our descendants. That’s the Life Affirming Principle. That’s the moral compass National Socialists must return to.
The future will not belong to those who shout the loudest about being superior. It will belong to those who build, who protect, and who live in alignment with nature and truth. National Socialism guided by the Life Affirming Principle is the only worldview with the strength, structure, and soul to carry our people forward.
There’s been a lot recently about whether the idea of superiority is necessary to justify nationalism or National Socialism. Some argue that if you don’t believe your people are superior to others, then what’s the point of even preserving them? Others claim that racial or cultural superiority is the moral justification for defending one’s nation.
Let’s be clear: this framing is flawed, and it leads us down a dangerous path.
National Socialism is not, and never has been, about empty pride or arbitrary claims of superiority. National Socialism is a worldview grounded in nature, order, and destiny — and at its heart is the Life Affirming Principle. That principle is not just a moral guideline — it is the engine that makes the National Socialist political vehicle move. Without it, the structure loses its soul.
So what is the Life Affirming Principle?
It’s the idea that every decision, every policy, and every act must serve life — real life. Specifically the life of your people, your culture, your land, your blood, and your future. It’s not just about living — it’s about living in alignment with truth, biology, and responsibility.
The Life Affirming Principle tells us that we preserve what is ours not because we’ve measured it against others and decided it’s better — but because it is ours. Because it is alive, it is sacred, and it is worth protecting. That’s not inferiority. That’s not arrogance. That’s duty.
The Problem with “Superiority as Justification”
When superiority becomes your moral foundation, you open the door to relativism. What happens when another group gains more power? More technology? More dominance in the moment? Are they now morally “superior”? Do they now have the right to rule you?
Of course not.
The truth is, life does not need permission to defend itself. It needs no external justification. Just as a tree grows toward the sun because it must, so must a people defend their blood, their culture, and their place in the world — because they must. That’s Life Affirming.
Yes — we can acknowledge that some cultures are higher than others. Some peoples build, create, and elevate. Others destroy and corrupt. These are real differences, and they matter. But those truths should be carried with responsibility, not with arrogance. Superiority might exist, but it is not the fuel of National Socialism — life is.
National Socialism is Not Chauvinism
Chauvinism — the blind belief that your group is the best just because it’s yours — is not National Socialism. In fact, it weakens nationalism by turning it into a shallow ego contest. Chauvinism cuts you off from the broader civilizational heritage of your race. It prevents you from drawing strength from the cultural greatness of your kin in Europe. That’s not life-affirming. That’s small-minded and ultimately self-defeating.
National Socialism is about order, harmony, hierarchy, and preservation. It sees our people not in isolation, but as part of a greater racial family. It demands that we take what is best — from Rome, from Athens, from the Germanic spirit, from the artistic genius of the Renaissance, from the warrior virtues of the Norse — and shape a civilization that stands as a fortress of life against the chaos of decay.
We Don’t Need to Prove Our Worth
Our right to exist, to thrive, and to rule ourselves is not something we earn by being “better” than others. It is something we assert because we are a living people with a duty to our ancestors and our descendants. That’s the Life Affirming Principle. That’s the moral compass National Socialists must return to.
The future will not belong to those who shout the loudest about being superior. It will belong to those who build, who protect, and who live in alignment with nature and truth. National Socialism guided by the Life Affirming Principle is the only worldview with the strength, structure, and soul to carry our people forward.
23.03.202515:54
Chauvinism Is Not National Socialism — Nor Is It Life Affirming
There is a critical misunderstanding — often repeated by both detractors and misguided advocates — that chauvinism is an inherent part of National Socialism. This is false. National Socialism, when properly understood through the lens of the Life Affirming Principle, is rooted in preservation, order, discipline, and reverence for one’s people — not in arrogant superiority or the degradation of others.
Chauvinism is a life-destroying force. It is driven by insecurity, by a need to feel “better than” others to justify one’s identity. But a healthy identity — a strong people — does not require comparison. You preserve what is yours not because it is superior to others, but because it is yours. It is the vessel of your ancestors, the memory of your bloodline, and the soul of your culture. That alone is worth defending.
Now, as Nathan Damigo rightly pointed out, critiques like those from Keith Woods fall apart under scrutiny. Woods condemns ethno-nationalist chauvinism, but then offers no viable framework to stop it from occurring in any nationalist state. If, as Woods implies, nationalism naturally devolves into chauvinism, then his argument isn’t really against German National Socialism — it’s against nationalism itself. But that position is intellectually dishonest and logically incoherent.
“If the German National Socialists were so bad, what would stop ethnic chauvinism from developing again in any nationalist country?” — Damigo
The answer is simple: principle. Specifically, the Life Affirming Principle.
This principle serves as the moral firewall that Woods cannot provide. It states that all decisions — whether in state policy, culture, education, or governance — must serve the preservation and elevation of life, not its destruction. That includes the lives of your own people, your culture, your future — but it also includes avoiding needless conflict, hostility, and hatred toward others.
National Socialism guided by this principle becomes strong, disciplined nationalism without arrogance. It becomes a worldview based on self-improvement, growth, duty, and biological and spiritual alignment with life itself — not domination for its own sake.
“If you do not feel the ways of your ethnic group are superior to others, then what is the point of preserving it?”
This question reveals a tragic misunderstanding. It implies the only justification for preservation is superiority. But you do not protect your family, your people, or your land because it is “better” than someone else’s — you protect it because it is yours, and it is right to do so. That is honor. That is dignity. That is life-affirming.
Nationalism without chauvinism is not only possible — it is morally superior. It requires a deeper connection to heritage, land, and destiny. It says: “I will build my people up, I will defend them, I will love them — not because others are worthless, but because my own are priceless.”
Chauvinism is rooted in ego; National Socialism is rooted in duty.
So no, we do not need chauvinism to justify nationalism. That is the logic of the insecure. We need only the Life Affirming Principle, and a deep connection to our people, to justify standing for their survival and flourishing. And if a nationalist movement strays into chauvinism, it is not because nationalism is flawed — it is because that movement lacked principle from the start.
There is a critical misunderstanding — often repeated by both detractors and misguided advocates — that chauvinism is an inherent part of National Socialism. This is false. National Socialism, when properly understood through the lens of the Life Affirming Principle, is rooted in preservation, order, discipline, and reverence for one’s people — not in arrogant superiority or the degradation of others.
Chauvinism is a life-destroying force. It is driven by insecurity, by a need to feel “better than” others to justify one’s identity. But a healthy identity — a strong people — does not require comparison. You preserve what is yours not because it is superior to others, but because it is yours. It is the vessel of your ancestors, the memory of your bloodline, and the soul of your culture. That alone is worth defending.
Now, as Nathan Damigo rightly pointed out, critiques like those from Keith Woods fall apart under scrutiny. Woods condemns ethno-nationalist chauvinism, but then offers no viable framework to stop it from occurring in any nationalist state. If, as Woods implies, nationalism naturally devolves into chauvinism, then his argument isn’t really against German National Socialism — it’s against nationalism itself. But that position is intellectually dishonest and logically incoherent.
“If the German National Socialists were so bad, what would stop ethnic chauvinism from developing again in any nationalist country?” — Damigo
The answer is simple: principle. Specifically, the Life Affirming Principle.
This principle serves as the moral firewall that Woods cannot provide. It states that all decisions — whether in state policy, culture, education, or governance — must serve the preservation and elevation of life, not its destruction. That includes the lives of your own people, your culture, your future — but it also includes avoiding needless conflict, hostility, and hatred toward others.
National Socialism guided by this principle becomes strong, disciplined nationalism without arrogance. It becomes a worldview based on self-improvement, growth, duty, and biological and spiritual alignment with life itself — not domination for its own sake.
“If you do not feel the ways of your ethnic group are superior to others, then what is the point of preserving it?”
This question reveals a tragic misunderstanding. It implies the only justification for preservation is superiority. But you do not protect your family, your people, or your land because it is “better” than someone else’s — you protect it because it is yours, and it is right to do so. That is honor. That is dignity. That is life-affirming.
Nationalism without chauvinism is not only possible — it is morally superior. It requires a deeper connection to heritage, land, and destiny. It says: “I will build my people up, I will defend them, I will love them — not because others are worthless, but because my own are priceless.”
Chauvinism is rooted in ego; National Socialism is rooted in duty.
So no, we do not need chauvinism to justify nationalism. That is the logic of the insecure. We need only the Life Affirming Principle, and a deep connection to our people, to justify standing for their survival and flourishing. And if a nationalist movement strays into chauvinism, it is not because nationalism is flawed — it is because that movement lacked principle from the start.
06.03.202520:02
This is the TLDR.
06.03.202519:49
National Socialism is more than just Adolf Hitler or the Third Reich—it is a timeless worldview discovered, articulated, and refined by Hitler and his compatriots. It has always existed as a fundamental human truth: a worldview centered on survival, strength, and the flourishing of life. Woods, however, prefers superficial, reactionary nationalism—a nationalism without foundation or conviction. He rejects the totality of National Socialism in favor of easy half-measures because he is unwilling or incapable of engaging deeply with historical truth and the essential principles that ensure national revival and survival. His arguments amount to nothing more than rhetorical cowardice and intellectual surrender, clearly exposing him as a National Bolshevik, not a serious nationalist thinker.
06.03.202519:46
https://keithwoods.pub/p/nationalism-not-ns
Part 2
The Core of Woods’ Mistake: Nationalism vs. National Socialism
Woods is correct that many nationalist movements have existed before and after National Socialism, but he fails to understand why those movements were flawed or incomplete. Irish nationalism, Polish nationalism, and other European nationalist traditions may have served their peoples in historical contexts, but none of them created a holistic system for economic renewal, cultural revival, and the removal of foreign subversion in the way National Socialism did.
Woods claims:
“Every White nation has their own national story and heroes that can be harnessed to these ends.”
But what exactly is he proposing? A fragmented, regionally focused nationalism that lacks any overarching unifying vision? This approach has already been tried and has failed repeatedly. Nationalism without a greater guiding principle inevitably collapses into petty infighting, inefficiency, or becomes co-opted by external forces.
Part 2
The Core of Woods’ Mistake: Nationalism vs. National Socialism
Woods is correct that many nationalist movements have existed before and after National Socialism, but he fails to understand why those movements were flawed or incomplete. Irish nationalism, Polish nationalism, and other European nationalist traditions may have served their peoples in historical contexts, but none of them created a holistic system for economic renewal, cultural revival, and the removal of foreign subversion in the way National Socialism did.
Woods claims:
“Every White nation has their own national story and heroes that can be harnessed to these ends.”
But what exactly is he proposing? A fragmented, regionally focused nationalism that lacks any overarching unifying vision? This approach has already been tried and has failed repeatedly. Nationalism without a greater guiding principle inevitably collapses into petty infighting, inefficiency, or becomes co-opted by external forces.
24.03.202516:13
Not only does this ruling endanger group chats, it also places the very platforms that enable them under heightened scrutiny. The app itself could be implicated for simply allowing such discussions to occur, exposing any user with a dissenting perspective to legal action or prosecution merely for having it installed. This approach is both overreaching and detrimental, turning the tools of communication into potential instruments of liability.
24.03.202514:38
Yes
Пераслаў з:Nathan Damigo
23.03.202515:52
If ethno-nationalist chauvinism is the problem, as Woods claims, then why is he not advocating racialism? If you do not feel the ways of your ethnic group are superior to that of another European ethnic group, then what is the point of preserving it? How can you even have nationalism without chauvinism? It makes no sense to anyone but Woods himself.
06.03.202519:52
Woods Advocates Weakness, Compromise, and Intellectual Dishonesty
Keith Woods' arguments ultimately boil down to a defense of half-measures and ideological timidity, dressed up as pragmatic strategy. His primary concern—that National Socialism carries negative stigma—is nothing more than a fearful retreat into weakness and respectability politics. Rather than standing firmly behind a rigorous, comprehensive, and proven life-affirming ideology, Woods prefers a sanitized nationalism designed to placate enemies who despise our existence regardless.
Nationalism without National Socialism is precisely the half-measure that has repeatedly failed European peoples. It offers neither structural solutions nor ideological coherence. Woods' belief that the essence of National Socialism—its fundamental commitment to racial health, cultural vitality, economic independence, and disciplined self-overcoming—can be stripped away, leaving behind a vague ethnonationalist shell, is intellectually bankrupt. Such hollow nationalism can never provide the depth of purpose, moral clarity, or strategic vision essential for genuine rebirth and sustained revival.
Woods deliberately misconstrains the complexity of historical events, lazily parroting mainstream tropes without rigorous engagement with primary sources. He misrepresents the nature of Lebensraum, dismisses Slavic collaboration, and leans heavily on mistranslated excerpts from Hitler’s Table Talks. The reality is clear: the Table Talks—recorded firsthand in German by Picker and Heim—are authentic records, distorted only through English translations. To entirely dismiss them, as Woods does, is intellectually negligent and betrays a lack of scholarly integrity.
Woods' rejection of National Socialism reveals more than historical ignorance—it exposes his philosophical cowardice. His ideological stance resembles National Bolshevism, a confused hybrid that tries and fails to reconcile nationalism with leftist economic populism, inevitably resulting in ideological paralysis. Woods advocates a path of least resistance, endorsing a nationalism devoid of moral clarity or revolutionary intent. He proposes nothing concrete beyond vague appeals to national tradition, conveniently sidestepping the urgent structural crises—demographic collapse, cultural degeneration, economic subjugation—that demand radical solutions.
In short, Woods represents precisely what must be eradicated from nationalism: timidity, compromise, and a preoccupation with optics. He prioritizes popular acceptance over ideological integrity, fundamentally misunderstanding the reality that true nationalism requires sacrifice, struggle, and unwavering adherence to principles that sustain and elevate life.
The Life Affirming Principle dictates clear solutions: nationalism must be bold, disciplined, and uncompromising. It cannot thrive through half-hearted populism or sanitized historical revisionism. National Socialism is more than Adolf Hitler or the Third Reich; it is a timeless truth, discovered rather than invented, a guiding philosophy for cultural, biological, and economic health. To reject it is to reject the only fully coherent system capable of achieving lasting strength and survival for our people.
Ultimately, Woods embodies a defeatist mindset. He would rather pursue polite nationalism, begging permission to exist, instead of forging an uncompromising path toward genuine national renewal. His approach offers neither hope nor solutions, only endless retreat. To embrace Woods’ path is to embrace perpetual defeat.
Keith Woods' arguments ultimately boil down to a defense of half-measures and ideological timidity, dressed up as pragmatic strategy. His primary concern—that National Socialism carries negative stigma—is nothing more than a fearful retreat into weakness and respectability politics. Rather than standing firmly behind a rigorous, comprehensive, and proven life-affirming ideology, Woods prefers a sanitized nationalism designed to placate enemies who despise our existence regardless.
Nationalism without National Socialism is precisely the half-measure that has repeatedly failed European peoples. It offers neither structural solutions nor ideological coherence. Woods' belief that the essence of National Socialism—its fundamental commitment to racial health, cultural vitality, economic independence, and disciplined self-overcoming—can be stripped away, leaving behind a vague ethnonationalist shell, is intellectually bankrupt. Such hollow nationalism can never provide the depth of purpose, moral clarity, or strategic vision essential for genuine rebirth and sustained revival.
Woods deliberately misconstrains the complexity of historical events, lazily parroting mainstream tropes without rigorous engagement with primary sources. He misrepresents the nature of Lebensraum, dismisses Slavic collaboration, and leans heavily on mistranslated excerpts from Hitler’s Table Talks. The reality is clear: the Table Talks—recorded firsthand in German by Picker and Heim—are authentic records, distorted only through English translations. To entirely dismiss them, as Woods does, is intellectually negligent and betrays a lack of scholarly integrity.
Woods' rejection of National Socialism reveals more than historical ignorance—it exposes his philosophical cowardice. His ideological stance resembles National Bolshevism, a confused hybrid that tries and fails to reconcile nationalism with leftist economic populism, inevitably resulting in ideological paralysis. Woods advocates a path of least resistance, endorsing a nationalism devoid of moral clarity or revolutionary intent. He proposes nothing concrete beyond vague appeals to national tradition, conveniently sidestepping the urgent structural crises—demographic collapse, cultural degeneration, economic subjugation—that demand radical solutions.
In short, Woods represents precisely what must be eradicated from nationalism: timidity, compromise, and a preoccupation with optics. He prioritizes popular acceptance over ideological integrity, fundamentally misunderstanding the reality that true nationalism requires sacrifice, struggle, and unwavering adherence to principles that sustain and elevate life.
The Life Affirming Principle dictates clear solutions: nationalism must be bold, disciplined, and uncompromising. It cannot thrive through half-hearted populism or sanitized historical revisionism. National Socialism is more than Adolf Hitler or the Third Reich; it is a timeless truth, discovered rather than invented, a guiding philosophy for cultural, biological, and economic health. To reject it is to reject the only fully coherent system capable of achieving lasting strength and survival for our people.
Ultimately, Woods embodies a defeatist mindset. He would rather pursue polite nationalism, begging permission to exist, instead of forging an uncompromising path toward genuine national renewal. His approach offers neither hope nor solutions, only endless retreat. To embrace Woods’ path is to embrace perpetual defeat.
06.03.202519:49
https://keithwoods.pub/p/nationalism-not-ns
Part 4.5 Continued
Addressing Woods’ Misrepresentations of the Table Talks and German Policies
Keith Woods relies heavily on Hitler’s Table Talks, selectively quoting passages to reinforce his portrayal of National Socialism as fundamentally anti-Slavic and inherently oppressive. While Woods is correct that the German originals of the Table Talks are authentic—having been accurately recorded by Hitler’s personal associates, Heinrich Heim and Henry Picker—he fails to mention the critical issues regarding their later English translations. These translations are widely known to contain significant distortions, often ideological in nature, which fundamentally alter Hitler’s original meaning.
To be clear, the Table Talks themselves are not "false documents"; they are authentic German transcripts recorded firsthand. To outright dismiss their authenticity would indeed be intellectually lazy. The nuanced and scholarly approach is to recognize their authenticity while simultaneously acknowledging the problematic translations. Serious historical analysis, therefore, demands direct reference to the original German manuscripts, rather than relying blindly on mistranslated excerpts to attack National Socialism. Woods’ convenient reliance on these distorted English translations highlights either intellectual dishonesty or a lack of serious historical rigor.
Additionally, Woods cites historian David Irving to bolster his claims. Irving, however respected, conducted much of his research in an era when comprehensive access to archival materials was significantly limited compared to today. The massive expansion of digital archives and the broad dissemination of previously inaccessible historical documents provides contemporary historians with far more thorough resources. Irving’s limited archival access at the time inevitably affected the depth and accuracy of his conclusions regarding nuanced matters like the Table Talks. Citing Irving’s older conclusions as absolute truth, without considering the richer, more detailed historical context now available, further underscores Woods’ intellectual laziness.
Woods’ argument regarding Lebensraum and supposed anti-Slavic policies similarly lacks historical nuance and intellectual rigor. He conveniently ignores the reality of widespread Eastern European collaboration with Germany and the existence of numerous Slavic units in the Waffen-SS, whose purpose was resistance to Bolshevik terror. Instead, he embraces Allied wartime propaganda that portrays National Socialism solely as genocidal or inherently imperialistic. This approach demonstrates that Woods has effectively internalized the Allies' propaganda narratives—the very same narratives responsible for demonizing Germany, National Socialism, and Hitler to justify their wartime actions.
The excerpt from David Irving's Hitler's War, specifically on the German treatment of Ukrainians under Erich Koch, further illustrates Woods' misunderstanding. Woods incorrectly implies that German wartime policies in occupied territories represented Germany’s broader ideological stance toward other European peoples in peacetime. This flawed reasoning neglects to differentiate between wartime expediency—often harsh and brutal across all nations—and National Socialism’s peace-time philosophy. In times of peace, Germany actively promoted humanitarian principles, cooperation, and self-determination. Woods' failure to grasp this critical historical distinction again highlights a superficial grasp of history.
In essence, Keith Woods deliberately cherry-picks wartime events and distorted translations, misrepresents historical nuance, and employs allied propaganda tactics. He hopes no one notices this intellectual sleight of hand. Unfortunately for him, historical truth is not as malleable as he wishes. His approach reveals him not as a genuine nationalist thinker, but as someone closely aligned with National Bolshevik thinking—willing to borrow enemy rhetoric whenever convenient to discredit genuine National Socialism.
Part 4.5 Continued
Addressing Woods’ Misrepresentations of the Table Talks and German Policies
Keith Woods relies heavily on Hitler’s Table Talks, selectively quoting passages to reinforce his portrayal of National Socialism as fundamentally anti-Slavic and inherently oppressive. While Woods is correct that the German originals of the Table Talks are authentic—having been accurately recorded by Hitler’s personal associates, Heinrich Heim and Henry Picker—he fails to mention the critical issues regarding their later English translations. These translations are widely known to contain significant distortions, often ideological in nature, which fundamentally alter Hitler’s original meaning.
To be clear, the Table Talks themselves are not "false documents"; they are authentic German transcripts recorded firsthand. To outright dismiss their authenticity would indeed be intellectually lazy. The nuanced and scholarly approach is to recognize their authenticity while simultaneously acknowledging the problematic translations. Serious historical analysis, therefore, demands direct reference to the original German manuscripts, rather than relying blindly on mistranslated excerpts to attack National Socialism. Woods’ convenient reliance on these distorted English translations highlights either intellectual dishonesty or a lack of serious historical rigor.
Additionally, Woods cites historian David Irving to bolster his claims. Irving, however respected, conducted much of his research in an era when comprehensive access to archival materials was significantly limited compared to today. The massive expansion of digital archives and the broad dissemination of previously inaccessible historical documents provides contemporary historians with far more thorough resources. Irving’s limited archival access at the time inevitably affected the depth and accuracy of his conclusions regarding nuanced matters like the Table Talks. Citing Irving’s older conclusions as absolute truth, without considering the richer, more detailed historical context now available, further underscores Woods’ intellectual laziness.
Woods’ argument regarding Lebensraum and supposed anti-Slavic policies similarly lacks historical nuance and intellectual rigor. He conveniently ignores the reality of widespread Eastern European collaboration with Germany and the existence of numerous Slavic units in the Waffen-SS, whose purpose was resistance to Bolshevik terror. Instead, he embraces Allied wartime propaganda that portrays National Socialism solely as genocidal or inherently imperialistic. This approach demonstrates that Woods has effectively internalized the Allies' propaganda narratives—the very same narratives responsible for demonizing Germany, National Socialism, and Hitler to justify their wartime actions.
The excerpt from David Irving's Hitler's War, specifically on the German treatment of Ukrainians under Erich Koch, further illustrates Woods' misunderstanding. Woods incorrectly implies that German wartime policies in occupied territories represented Germany’s broader ideological stance toward other European peoples in peacetime. This flawed reasoning neglects to differentiate between wartime expediency—often harsh and brutal across all nations—and National Socialism’s peace-time philosophy. In times of peace, Germany actively promoted humanitarian principles, cooperation, and self-determination. Woods' failure to grasp this critical historical distinction again highlights a superficial grasp of history.
In essence, Keith Woods deliberately cherry-picks wartime events and distorted translations, misrepresents historical nuance, and employs allied propaganda tactics. He hopes no one notices this intellectual sleight of hand. Unfortunately for him, historical truth is not as malleable as he wishes. His approach reveals him not as a genuine nationalist thinker, but as someone closely aligned with National Bolshevik thinking—willing to borrow enemy rhetoric whenever convenient to discredit genuine National Socialism.
06.03.202519:45
https://keithwoods.pub/p/nationalism-not-ns
Part 1
Nationalism Without National Socialism is a Hollow Shell
Keith Woods argues that National Socialism is unnecessary for European nationalism today, claiming that nationalist movements can succeed without it. He suggests that Eastern European nationalist movements, Irish nationalism, and various other historical nationalist traditions prove that a positive view of National Socialism is not required. Yet his entire argument rests on an incomplete understanding of what National Socialism actually is—not just as a historical movement, but as the highest refinement of nationalist thought, rooted in a profound understanding of biological, cultural, and economic reality.
Woods believes he can strip nationalism down to a generic ethnonationalism, disconnected from the hard-earned lessons of the past century. But this is where his argument collapses. Nationalism without a unifying philosophical, moral, and economic framework is nothing more than a reactionary movement doomed to failure. National Socialism isn’t just nationalism—it’s the perfected form of it, aligning the state, people, and economy toward the highest goal: the preservation, strengthening, and flourishing of life.
Part 1
Nationalism Without National Socialism is a Hollow Shell
Keith Woods argues that National Socialism is unnecessary for European nationalism today, claiming that nationalist movements can succeed without it. He suggests that Eastern European nationalist movements, Irish nationalism, and various other historical nationalist traditions prove that a positive view of National Socialism is not required. Yet his entire argument rests on an incomplete understanding of what National Socialism actually is—not just as a historical movement, but as the highest refinement of nationalist thought, rooted in a profound understanding of biological, cultural, and economic reality.
Woods believes he can strip nationalism down to a generic ethnonationalism, disconnected from the hard-earned lessons of the past century. But this is where his argument collapses. Nationalism without a unifying philosophical, moral, and economic framework is nothing more than a reactionary movement doomed to failure. National Socialism isn’t just nationalism—it’s the perfected form of it, aligning the state, people, and economy toward the highest goal: the preservation, strengthening, and flourishing of life.
Пераслаў з:
Dries Van Langenhove
24.03.202516:09
Friday will be the next and possible final hearing for the Court of Appeals. Four more days to prepare for a battle that will be of historic significance for freedom of speech in Europe.
The regime is trying to put me and my friends in jail for our nationalist activism, but because we never did anything illegal, they’re using memes from a private chatgroup from 2017 to lock us up for ‘hatespeech’. If we go down, everyone could be next.
That’s why, for years, I have spent all my time, money and energy on fighting to win this case of historic importance. I would be able to bear the unjust punishment, but I cannot bear the responsibility of being used as a precedent to lock up thousands of others over the years to come.
That’s why we must win.
The regime is trying to put me and my friends in jail for our nationalist activism, but because we never did anything illegal, they’re using memes from a private chatgroup from 2017 to lock us up for ‘hatespeech’. If we go down, everyone could be next.
That’s why, for years, I have spent all my time, money and energy on fighting to win this case of historic importance. I would be able to bear the unjust punishment, but I cannot bear the responsibility of being used as a precedent to lock up thousands of others over the years to come.
That’s why we must win.
Пераслаў з:
Joel Davis
24.03.202514:37
Idiots equating National Socialist critiques of capitalism with Marxism need to educate themselves.
National Socialists are specifically concerned about the exploitation caused by usurous lending and speculation, Marxists view all profits as forms of exploitation. Running a productive business and profiting from it is not exploitation, a financialised economy built around asset inflation for the benefit of creditors and speculators however is parasitically exploitative.
Markets should reward people who actually build shit, not people who manipulate financial instruments. The private property of our people needs to be defended not simply against seizure by the state but also by the financial sector through asset inflation and debt slavery.
Moreover, we believe in the national economy not the international economy. The economy exists to serve the nation, the nation doesn't exist to serve the (global) economy. Marxists don't care about making nations strong, they care only about the nebulous "international working class". We by contrast strongly oppose separating classes from our national community and allying them with their equivalent classes in foreign lands, whether that be the foreign proletariat of Marxism or the foreign bourgeoisie of liberalism.
The utter idiots who fail to comprehend these distinctions are not worthy of any respect. If the aspects of capitalism and liberalism which are incompatible with the national interest are permitted, the nation suffers. All who support this under the disingenuous guise of anticommunism justified by false dichotomies are traitors, whether by stupidity or malice.
National Socialists are specifically concerned about the exploitation caused by usurous lending and speculation, Marxists view all profits as forms of exploitation. Running a productive business and profiting from it is not exploitation, a financialised economy built around asset inflation for the benefit of creditors and speculators however is parasitically exploitative.
Markets should reward people who actually build shit, not people who manipulate financial instruments. The private property of our people needs to be defended not simply against seizure by the state but also by the financial sector through asset inflation and debt slavery.
Moreover, we believe in the national economy not the international economy. The economy exists to serve the nation, the nation doesn't exist to serve the (global) economy. Marxists don't care about making nations strong, they care only about the nebulous "international working class". We by contrast strongly oppose separating classes from our national community and allying them with their equivalent classes in foreign lands, whether that be the foreign proletariat of Marxism or the foreign bourgeoisie of liberalism.
The utter idiots who fail to comprehend these distinctions are not worthy of any respect. If the aspects of capitalism and liberalism which are incompatible with the national interest are permitted, the nation suffers. All who support this under the disingenuous guise of anticommunism justified by false dichotomies are traitors, whether by stupidity or malice.
06.03.202519:51
https://keithwoods.pub/p/nationalism-not-ns
Part 6
Why National Socialism is Essential for European Survival
Woods states:
“I don’t see any principle unique to National Socialism that Europeans need to survive and thrive today.”
This is the most ignorant statement in his entire article. Here’s what he is missing:
1. National Socialism is the only ideology that fully integrates nationalism, economics, and moral philosophy into a single, functional system.
▫️Unlike capitalism, it does not allow profit-seeking to override the well-being of the people.
▫️Unlike communism, it does not sacrifice national identity and biological reality for class struggle.
▫️Unlike reactionary conservatism, it does not cling to outdated institutions but embraces progress when it serves the people’s survival.
2. National Socialism is the only system that recognizes that survival alone is not enough—it seeks to elevate a people to their highest potential. Life is not just about existing—it is about thriving, expanding, and overcoming obstacles.
3. National Socialism solves the degeneracy crisis at its root. Nationalism without a cultural and moral revival is doomed to be co-opted by globalist forces, just as we see happening with conservative parties across the West.
The Failure of “Ethnonationalism” Without National Socialism
Woods wants nationalism to exist without a guiding principle, without a moral foundation, and without the necessary policies to ensure its longevity. This approach has been tried:
▫️Western European nationalist parties have failed to stop mass immigration.
▫️Eastern European nationalist movements rely on the EU and American economic support while resisting globalism in a limited way.
▫️Conservative nationalists in the Anglosphere are constantly cucked, shifting leftward, and apologizing for their existence.
National Socialism was the only movement that successfully implemented an economic model that serves the people, a cultural model that promotes strength and discipline, and a political model that removes parasitic influences.
Part 6
Why National Socialism is Essential for European Survival
Woods states:
“I don’t see any principle unique to National Socialism that Europeans need to survive and thrive today.”
This is the most ignorant statement in his entire article. Here’s what he is missing:
1. National Socialism is the only ideology that fully integrates nationalism, economics, and moral philosophy into a single, functional system.
▫️Unlike capitalism, it does not allow profit-seeking to override the well-being of the people.
▫️Unlike communism, it does not sacrifice national identity and biological reality for class struggle.
▫️Unlike reactionary conservatism, it does not cling to outdated institutions but embraces progress when it serves the people’s survival.
2. National Socialism is the only system that recognizes that survival alone is not enough—it seeks to elevate a people to their highest potential. Life is not just about existing—it is about thriving, expanding, and overcoming obstacles.
3. National Socialism solves the degeneracy crisis at its root. Nationalism without a cultural and moral revival is doomed to be co-opted by globalist forces, just as we see happening with conservative parties across the West.
The Failure of “Ethnonationalism” Without National Socialism
Woods wants nationalism to exist without a guiding principle, without a moral foundation, and without the necessary policies to ensure its longevity. This approach has been tried:
▫️Western European nationalist parties have failed to stop mass immigration.
▫️Eastern European nationalist movements rely on the EU and American economic support while resisting globalism in a limited way.
▫️Conservative nationalists in the Anglosphere are constantly cucked, shifting leftward, and apologizing for their existence.
National Socialism was the only movement that successfully implemented an economic model that serves the people, a cultural model that promotes strength and discipline, and a political model that removes parasitic influences.
06.03.202519:48
https://keithwoods.pub/p/nationalism-not-ns
Part 4
Addressing Woods’ Historical Critiques
Woods attempts to discredit National Socialism by citing supposed anti-Slavic policies, Lebensraum, and Hitler’s Table Talks. These are well-worn talking points that lack proper historical context and ignore crucial nuances:
▫️The NS movement was not a generic "pro-German" ideology—it was a structured system of national and racial renewal that aligned the economy, culture, and state with the well-being of the people. Slavic collaboration with National Socialist Germany was widespread, with thousands of volunteers from Eastern Europe joining the Waffen-SS to resist Bolshevism. The claim that National Socialism was universally hostile to Slavs is a distortion of historical nuance and ignores the practical alliances formed during the war.
▫️The Polish situation was far more complex than Woods admits. German grievances regarding Danzig and ethnic cleansing were real, and Poland’s alignment with British and French anti-German policies escalated the situation. Woods ignores the geopolitical factors and portrays the invasion of Poland as simple aggression, rather than recognizing it as a militarily strategic response to worsening conditions for Germans in the region.
▫️Lebensraum was not an exterminationist policy but an economic and agricultural necessity. Germany, a nation deliberately weakened by post-WWI treaties, sought to ensure self-sufficiency and long-term food security for its people. Expansion of living space and access to resources were not unique to Germany—every major European power engaged in territorial expansion to secure its survival.
Part 4
Addressing Woods’ Historical Critiques
Woods attempts to discredit National Socialism by citing supposed anti-Slavic policies, Lebensraum, and Hitler’s Table Talks. These are well-worn talking points that lack proper historical context and ignore crucial nuances:
▫️The NS movement was not a generic "pro-German" ideology—it was a structured system of national and racial renewal that aligned the economy, culture, and state with the well-being of the people. Slavic collaboration with National Socialist Germany was widespread, with thousands of volunteers from Eastern Europe joining the Waffen-SS to resist Bolshevism. The claim that National Socialism was universally hostile to Slavs is a distortion of historical nuance and ignores the practical alliances formed during the war.
▫️The Polish situation was far more complex than Woods admits. German grievances regarding Danzig and ethnic cleansing were real, and Poland’s alignment with British and French anti-German policies escalated the situation. Woods ignores the geopolitical factors and portrays the invasion of Poland as simple aggression, rather than recognizing it as a militarily strategic response to worsening conditions for Germans in the region.
▫️Lebensraum was not an exterminationist policy but an economic and agricultural necessity. Germany, a nation deliberately weakened by post-WWI treaties, sought to ensure self-sufficiency and long-term food security for its people. Expansion of living space and access to resources were not unique to Germany—every major European power engaged in territorial expansion to secure its survival.
06.03.202517:50
Keith Woods is a Communist.
Паказана 1 - 24 з 61
Увайдзіце, каб разблакаваць больш функцый.