>>459
I agree with all this. I really do. But we have to set ourselves apart as our own thing.
"Communism" has been the label of internationalists since before living memory. I've posted before on /pol/ and /leftypol/, explaining my thoughts (which are those of this board). On the former I was told to just say that I follow Marxist economics, on the latter that I'm a "communitarian racist". Trying to take on the label holds us back.
Also, communists may not run our banks and governments, but a number of the anti-racist and SJW academics identify with this label and present it alongside their filth.
Finally, those ideologies are not close enough, and we are better off stating our policies rather than try to draw links with those tendencies. The socialism-in-one-state types were explicitly civic nationalist, and only implicitly ethnonationalist, if that. Stalin eliminated many Jews from the Party, but only because as Jews they formed their own agenda, and he just wanted total conformity to his reign. The suppression of the religious Jews…well he suppressed all religion, didn't he, and only harkened to Russian Orthodoxy out of wartime desperation.
Which, unfortunately, brings us to the point that he did after all do the most out of all the Allies to wipe of the face of the planet the most explicit white revival perhaps in all of history. How much of a hero can we make him into?
As for Mao and Castro and those sort…they were the big anti-imperialists. They assisted (as did the later Soviet premiers) decolonization, which crumbled whites geopolitically and even undermined our domestic politics from being explicitly white. They helped end Rhodesia and apartheid-era South Africa, and look at the jeopardy those whites face today.
I say none of this in hostility, and am here as your friend. I just don't see this as an effective marketing strategy, and this association also undermines our ability to express that socialism and nationalism are the natural compliments of each other.