National Socialism, like Hitler’s brand or even Mussolini’s Italian Fascism, can only be reimagined or rehabilitated after a movement has secured absolute power. Attempting this while operating as a populist movement is a strategic misstep — it’s terrible optics and ultimately self-defeating. You risk being outlawed, isolated, and bogged down by the kind of unhinged followers who spout genocidal rhetoric. That sort of thing attracts the wrong crowd — people who do real damage — and it sabotages a nationalist movement’s chances of success. This is where a group like Patriot Front in the U.S. gets it right, focusing on discipline and presentation, while figures like Mason or Rockwell floundered. Sure, nationalist movements that blend organicism and socialism might be generic fascism or a type of National Socialism, but they shouldn’t be tethered to Hitlerism. We’ve got our own cultures, traditions, myths, and conditions to draw from — unique symbols and contexts that don’t need to mimic the past. Real change, the kind that rewrites history for the better, only comes after victory. I’ll toss my own thoughts into the mix on Substack as well.

https://t.iss.one/keith_woods/6053

Mixed feelings but Keith makes a point

We can have like a generic Third Position based on our cultures like PF but it can be transformed into a more radical form later

"Tomorrow Europe might no longer be European, and even black, as there are millions who want to come in. We don't know what will happen, what will be the reaction of the white and Christian Europeans faced with this influx of starving and ignorant Africans. We don't know if Europe will remain an advanced and united continent or if it will be destroyed, as happened with the barbarian invasions."

Muammar Gaddafi

I don’t agree completely with Nativists take, so I nuked it. Nazism did have a very effective critique of capitalism and the economy was fine, it did not need war. Nationalism for all people sounds nice on paper. However, this does not fit the reality of real politics in terms of the geopolitical maneuvering for nation-states. There must be a master and there must be a slave in terms of the international maneuver. If anything — this is optics…. Because Mosley wanted to maintain the British Empire. Empires are not pro-nationalism/self-determination for all people’s. They function on racial supremacy and the only time you have a concession similar to the “self-determination” is the argument for a Federation, like the Russian Federation. Again, this is a questions of myth, culture, historical/economic conditions, and aesthetics. This should not be a question of moralism. If it is a moralistic view? Then the British Empire are worse than Hitler.

https://t.iss.one/nativistconcern/4693

The Chicago CTA at night is wild asf. Fight broke out and the guy who started it, said he’s a Latin King. 😂

Boost

https://x.com/ZoranZoltanous/status/1897567298816241860

"There is something very Anglo-Saxon about the American mythos; the Cowboy."

Shandon Simpson

The German Election Results Point Toward a Future National Divorce...

Ahnaf Ibn Qais argues that this year’s Federal Elections have cemented the East-West divide in German politics, & that from now onward, East Germany, with its emphasis on nationalism & populism, will gradually divorce West Germany, with its ties to globalism & neoliberalism.

Read the essay here:

https://www.arktosjournal.com/p/the-german-election-results-point-toward-a-future-national-divorce

JUST IN - Polish PM Donald Tusk: "Europe must enter into an arms race with Russia — and win it."

@disclosetv