First people aren't going to agree with me on my assessment of Jews. That's fine. You hate them, I don't. That has nothing to do with the assessment of Nazis. If Nazis targeted only people who were "too asian" they as an ideology would not change from my perspective.
There's this idea that the nazis were good because they were targeting Jews and Jews = degeneracy and therefore the cause of the nazis were good and anti-degeneracy.
Things pointed to are that a lot of the books being burned were degenerate and many of those books were written by Jews. Yes that's a historical fact.
This doesn't make a prove racial characteristic, only it proves that Jews typically are where power is, but tons of the Jews in the concentration camps were not powerful. And a lot of the degeneracy pushers such as in Weimar were not Jewish either, but were German. The point is where power, and decadence is, degeneracy follows. Few would disagree with that.
Here's a big problem with the trying to wonder if the nazis were actually good that the young right in the post-truth age wrestle with.
First of all, nazis, socialists, russians, communists, these are all European political systems. We, in America had a completely different overton window and thank goodness for that. While Europe was trying to figure out what flavor of socialism to implement, America was enjoying a level of freedom, including in speech, and especially in religion that essentially no European country could fathom. So to try to tie nazism to Americanism and borrow it is foolish. We already were operating on a superior level than all those brands of socialism.
If you want to know what nazi Germany would look like in the modern day or any day, just look at Germany from the fall of Nazi germany to today.
Germans have not changed one bit in authoritarianism. Did they drop nazism in favor of freedom after the fall of the Nazi regime? Nope, they hopped immediately into the GDR the German Democratic Republic that lasted until the 90s. The GDR hardly differed at all from Nazi Germany in terms of a government being who you feared rather than a government fearing its people. In fact, it was so close in behavior that I was confused when I was shown a film portraying the GDR in school growing up, having to be explained that this was not WW2. Everyone telling the Stasi about neighbors and teachers and everything else, I could see no difference from the Gestapo as the Gestapo were alwas portrayed.
Then you'd think, after that falls, Germany would FINALLY be ready for freedom, right?
Well rank the free-est nations in Europe and tell me where you put Germany. Germany, if you post memes or criticize Islam, the police get sent to your door just like in the UK.
If you want to know what Germany would be like if they continued on with Nazism, well I've got good news for you; you already know what it looks like. The only thing that got dropped from Germany's government was concentration camps. In all other ways Germany looks the same as Nazi Germany ever since.
But here's the other real issue I have with "maybe the Nazi's were the good guys"; and it has to do with the post truth thing.
If it were to come about, that we made being a woke leftist utterly unpalpable. That, rightfully so, they look at the transgender movement and abortion promotion as the abomination it is, and those people get expelled from the society, in 100 years, you'd have other post truth people trying to re-evaluate the woke people, sitting from a place not like the place where we sit, where we know EXACTLY how awful they are and playing armchair historian and philosopher and they too will go "well maybe the woke people weren't that bad" and if we could time travel into the future we'd slap them across the face and go, moron, yes, yes they were, you're just going to have to take our word for it.
Just because communists are as bad as the nazis doesn't make the nazis good. It just makes European politics an example of why Europe is a total craphole. It's why in America, the 1980s was seen as a time of optimizim and patriotism, yet ask any Eastern bloc nation what the 1980s was like for them and they'll explain that it was a time of alcoholism and despair.
America is not Europe and nazism is just another example of the numerous examples of the hopelessness that Europe has always been further down the drain than America, and that's because America was a fresh start from Europe. A blank slate. A chance to not have to share in Europe's rot.
To want Nazism over what America had in the 1930s-1950s is to say "I wish America was set back 100 years and was a shared partaker in Europe's desperately bleak systems"
To look at modern day America and conclude it's a piece of crap is absolutely rational. It's also absolutely rational to want it to be different. No sane man wants America to be like it is today. The answer isn't wishing the Nazis won. It's wishing that the Marxism that was still being promoted from places like Soviet countries weren't allowed to take root and fester in America.
1940s/1950s America was and will always be 100 times better than modern America and 100 times better than Nazi Germany as well as every totalitarian version of Germany we've seen to this day. Why would we look to a tricycle as the model (Socialism via Nazi Germany) when we have a Porsche as the model (1940s/1950s America and earlier).
I'm glad you started off with this so I didn't have to read the rest... but I did anyway just to be fair to you for typing this.
Nazis weren't good. I agree with you. For one, they lost and we shouldn't venerate losers. Second of all, they were socialists. FULL STOP. Many of their social policies would have made modern leftists blush with excitement. Socialism, even the National Socialist kind is terrible.
National Socialism is not what modern society needs. It's a peasant political system designed by peasants for peasants that some elites coopted for their own gains, similar to International Communism, its sister ideology.
The NatSocs got a lot of things right though and they were clearly more concerned with the well-being of the Germans than any International Communist ideology (which typically served jewish interests). This is where a lot of the positive sentiment comes from. At least NatSocs promoted a centralized authoritarian socialist society with the interests of White peasants at heart, more-or-less, which cannot be said for any of the Jewish-Leftism (communism) we've seen since.
We need something for modernity that isn't nostalgic for a bunch of losers. Personally, I call myself a National Capitalist who believes in a strong nationalistic ethnostate run by the Imperium (a dictatorship) with a decentralized governing style (not high centralized authority to dictate everything people ought to be doing but giving power back to the people and ensuring an extremely strong policing/military force run by the Imperium to ensure justice despite decentralized powers) and limited (night-watch, aka 5% taxes maximum) government. The more power the people have, the better. If one is concerned about their own people having power, perhaps they should reevaluate who "their" people are exactly.
The modern veneration of the Nazis isn't good when taken literally as venerating the Nazis but when it's done to show the truth about jews, that is useful. Jews are without a doubt, the biggest parasitic race around and the root of many problems in modernity.
See I'm of the opinion that we should hate both jews and nazis. Jews because they're a hateful false religion of ethinc supremacists and nazis because they're a bunch of socialist faggots and socialism comes from jews
Prove to me that Jews are uniquely evil without needing a pre-supposition that Jews are evil.
For instance, the statement by leftists that white men are evil is justified by believing that white men are evil.
And then because there's enough white men in powerful positions, they can use that to justify their beliefs ignoring why white men are in those positions, and also ignoring that a white CEO is rarely representative of white people in general. White CEOs are orders of magnitude more woke and compliant with globalism than the average white person who lives in a suburb.
Now I don't think people could prove that Jews are evil by pointing to average Jews. They must point to powerful Jews in order to make their case.
And yet when I want to make the case that the black community is a serious problem in America; I don't need to ever cite a single powerful mouthpiece for black people not even once. I never need to cite MSNBC, Don Lemon, Al Sharpton, NAACP, BLM leaders or anyone who has even an iota of power.
All of those are completely irrelevent when I have tens of thousands of examples of observable behaviors of the average. I could just say "type in black people twitter" right now and you'll be spoiled for choice. You have to actively suppress looking at black behavior in order to ignore it.
You have to actively look for Jewish people and academics and things like ADL in order to justify conclusions about Jews.
If you can't draw a conclusion by looking at the average person, than you can't draw a conclusion.
The reason I can say that white people aren't stereotypable, is because show me the average white person. You can't. That's why black comedians can easily lampoon themselves but have to reach for narratives to mock white people because the averages show us that white people are not easily classifiable into stereotypes. Typically to mock white people, you have to choose a hyper specific type of white person, like rednecks, as white people are more of a jack of all trades type of people.
Why do I bring this up?
Because I've never seen the assessment of Jews be made except by the position of power examples. They never use the neurotic guy in Brooklyn who works in a tailor store. They use the spokesman for the ADL, or the academic in Harvard who's true religion is leftism, not Judaism.
Again, if you can't make the case by looking at the general average, you don't have a case. It's why we can make conclusions about India.
Because all you need to do with India is go on Google street view and look for a clean place in India. So the averages tell us the truth.
What is the average Jew? Well the average Jew isn't powerful, that's for one thing. Other than that, I'd like to know what the average Jew is like because I'm never told. I'm shown cherry picked things and told this means all Jews are like this. If this were done for powerful white people you'd conclude that white people are leftists, but it would be a poor way to approach a people group, an unreliable sample pool.
It took me nearly 5+ years of significant research to come to my conclusions, along with a lot of real-world experience and my own analytical competency. I have bookshelves full of books I've read, tons of studies I've read online (that I didn't document), etc...
I can't just post a few paragraphs and convince you nor do I have any intention of trying. We're long past the point of discourse. If I wanted to make a difference, I'd just start killing rich jews, I wouldn't try to convince you of anything. If you can't understand the answer to your question, then you should start looking harder. Once you see it though, you'll never be able to unsee it. You aren't trying hard enough.
Edit - I will point you in the right direction. Genetics. It's all about genetics. Talmud? Downstream of genetics. Study genetics... What is good and evil? Good is realizing your purpose. A vacuum cleaner does good when it vacuums and if you oppressed a vacuum from vacuuming, you'd be evil from its perspective. Two people can be good from two perspectives and yet evil from another perspective. The genetics of jews cause predispositions toward behaviors that are the antithesis to the purpose of White men and therefore, jews are evil based on the outcome of their behaviors relative to White men. Are jews evil relative to themselves? Not at all; but I'm a White man and from my perspective that makes jews evil because their programming is such that they oppress me from realizing my purpose without any active thought from a jew to do so because it's their programming. A baby allegator knows how to do a death roll without being taught. A beaver knows how to build a dam without being taught. The idea that your environment creates your behaviors is FALSE. It's 70% genetics and 30% adaptation to environment given your genetics. This is why jews are only a problem when they have wealth/power because without it, their genetics and thus actions without explicit thought as governed by their biology has no impact on White people but when they're in positions of wealth/power they do their death rolls and build dams (metaphorically speaking) as they are programmed to do which oppresses White people from achieving White people's purpose in life and thus from White people's perspective, the jews are evil.
Understand genetics and what people's biological drive truly is and you'll understand good and evil. Study outcomes of people's actions in groups, which you may need a mastery of statistics to accomplish, and you will start to see how jews are evil from the perspective of White men.
That's the best I can leave you with.
Can you name a few of those books? Because you've sounded pretty kooky to me from the beginning, with all those comments about how you want your country to be conquered and occupied.
This wasn't a good faith question.
What's your opinion of Jewish supremacists?
The same opinion I have of black supermacists. I don't like them. What's your point?
So your argument is that since jews aren't as bombastic as niggers or jeets, they're not a problem? No shit we focus on the jews who are in positions of power and influence, because that's where they do all their damage from.
Have you ever read what's in the talmud?
Ah yes, that completely average Jew that is the scattered rabbis over a few hundred years, and then of the contemporary rabbis, there's splits over whether they even preach it, and if those choose to, there's debate over what parts they preach or don't.
There's Jewish rabbis who choose to only preach what was in the Torah aka the original 5 books of the Bible.
Others use the Old Testament. Others use the Talmud as well and of those some preach in a way to promote Jewish supremacy and it's more vile things to justify beliefs.
Again, if the Quaran were what we measured Muslims by, very little people would have critiques about Muslims despite the fact the Quaran is awful.
It is the behavior of Muslims that people have an issue with. The terrorism and everything else, and unlike Jews, the averages, the numbers play out in a way that is not in the muslims favors.
You can see a lot of average aka non powerful muslims who are highly impacted by the Quaran by their actions.
The average Jew, aka not the globalists or the Jeffery Epsteins of the world, it's hard to see much to any demonstration to an allegience to the Talmud.
The Talmud is like the the writings of the church fathers. Catholics pick and choose especially depending on the individual catholic. A "progressive" catholic like the pope will pick church father writings that seem "nice" while ignoring any that seem harsh.
Same goes with Jews relationship with the Talmud, and even then, whereas Catholics have it as dogma that church fathers are on equal footing with scripture, Judaism doesn't have that dogma in regards to the Talmud. The Talmud's legitimacy in regards to the old testament according to their religion is debated and fractured all over the place.
Umm, no we don't.
Fair enough, I'm not a Catholicism expert. The point is there's an analogue there in the sense that if a church father said something really bad, one time in a long history of many people and many statements, anti-Catholics would use that as cherry picked ammunition, despite the fact it's not unanimous or representative of all Catholics.
Similarly the scattered writings of the Talmud are not necessarily representative of Jews to the degree the anti-Jews want to make it out to be.
It's cool, I appreciate that.
Shalom!
I agree the sarcasm was not necessary, but it was only the first sentence.
Everything else wasn't emotional, it was a purely clinical breakdown.
I don't know where you see "overly emotional" in my response.
Second, nothing was non-sequiturs that failed to address your point or had no logic or reasoning.
Your entire point was just "The talmud". So to address that point, I have to 1 define what the talmud is, which I did in my first sentence, which to be fair I led with sarcasm which wasn't necessary and set the wrong tone.
then I had to give a historical analogue. The Talmud existing and using it to paint Jews is like knowing that SCUM (the society for cutting up men aka the let's kill men play that was created by feminists) exists and hating feminists for it. I am anti-feminist because of the behavior and actions of feminists, not because of the writings of their most radical adherents.
I don't see in everyday life the manifestations of Talmudic beliefs except for extreme fringe cases like Jeffery Epstein types. Again not the average Jew. The average feminist is awful. I don't need to point to edge cases to dislike feminists.
If I could see the average Jew, I would indict them if their behavior warranted it. But I can't see the average Jew because the average Jew runs the gamut of different shades of American. Some Jews are like that pizza reviewer guy who's really famous, Dave something, others work in tech and who's biggest concern in life is becoming the top speedrunner for a niche game when he's not working.
That's my point.
Islam shows itself to be a scurge by the actions of the mass everywhere they go. With Jews, there really isn't a mass to point to "racial indictment" them with. You have visible elites and you have averages who blend together with "America" as a general and are no more visibly damaging to the country than the Asian working in the same company that the Jew is.
I'll put it this way. Your neighborhood can't be white anymore as a hypothetical, and it can't be Asian, so it has to be Muslim, ghetto black, Indian or Jewish. What do you choose? I choose the Jews. We all know the outcomes of the other 3 categories and in all scenarios your neighborhood becomes more leftist so that's unnavoidable, so then the choice becomes who is the least disruptive to my life.
Jews are going to be the least disruptive in terms of turning the neighborhood.
Anthony Cumia, radio host, "inflammatory" conservative, when he lived in New York, he was the only non Jew in his New York rich neighborhood he lived in. He talks about how he was the only house that had Christmas decorations at Christmas which he found funny.
If it were a Muslim neighborhood, his house probably would have been attacked. If it were a ghetto black neighborhood, he'd be afraid to leave his home. If it were an Indian neighborhood the cultural differences would be so vast he'd never want to talk to his neighbors as there'd be very little common ground to talk about anything. Indians don't make for the best conversationalists when you're an American in my experience.
So while you're saying it's a non-sequitur, it's not, because it's all to say, whatever influence the Talmud has it's not enough to shape the average Jew. Does it shape it's strongest adherents? Absolutely. Just like Satanists, they come in two forms. Edgy satanists who are just like "do drugs and listen to metal", and read some of the Satanic Bible but couldn't quote it, and eventually get out of that phase and cringe looking back at it, and true believers in the Anton Lavey philosophy and internalize "do what thou wilt" to the logical extreme and become hedonists who kill themselves at the age of 40 because their dopamine is fried and they've led an empty life.
Because their culture is downstream of the Talmud. You may as well say that we don't live in Christian societies because most people don't go to church, even though our every institution, our morality, and the actions taken as reasonable by ordinary people are all fundamentally Christian.
I must challenge one of your assertions here.
Muslims are evil because of their beliefs. Not the other way around.
Individuals who profess evil beliefs, but have yet to act upon them, are by definition unsuitable for a civilized society.
This applies equally to all of the non Christian religions, as Christianity IS civilization.
I will leave it to God to sort them out. I don't need any pre-supposition since I have eyes, ears, and a brain. They have destroyed my country intentionally, so I will not give any special consideration to a single one of them. They all go.
Nope, wrong. The Nazis, and by extension the entire narrative of the 20th century, absolutely needs to be reevaluated. It's become very clear that it was mostly lies and and we've been conquered by people who hate us. No stone will be left untouched until it's been rectified. If that makes you uncomfortable, well, sucks to be you.
Framing the nazis as history's greatest evil is to condition western nations to associate everything the nazis did as being inherently evil. First and foremost was having a national identity and a state that prioritizes it's own above all others. So the western world has taken upon itself to do the opposite of this no matter the cost. Being a nationalist is the third worst thing you can be accused of politically, just behind nazi and fascist.
I still blame Woodrow Wilson for all this shit, if we were on a timeline he didn't win, we'd have no Nazis, no communists and so no WW2 to exasperate the loss of more brave Western men after WW1.
The issue is that a lot of what we see in the worst cases, basically California, seems similar to what they read of Weimar Germany and whenever research who is financing the erosion of culture and tradition, you find a lot of Jewish names there.
The issue is though Nazism is NEVER the solution, it just causes new problems. To solve the problem, you basically need EVERYONE to learn to say 'No'. A lot of shit stops when the majority doesn't bother to accommodate the self important.
Since we're on the topic of Nazis, grammar Nazism incoming:
Exacerbate. Make a bad thing worse.
Exasperation is an emotion (out of patience, frustration) that people feel, and to exasperate someone is to cause them to feel it.
Achtung! Definitional Nazi incoming. Using the incorrect word is not grammar.
Zis is your last warning. You vill learn by vords or by pain and suffering.
Ambiguous. It's a semantic error rather than a syntax error. If "grammar" is broad enough to include semantics varies by source.
For all the faults of national socilism, be it economically, politically, strategically, etc one thing is undeniable: they accurately predicted what the ultimate consequences of liberal democracy would be, and who was spearheading the degradation of western civilization.
Post nose (((nigger)))
Dude, while Europe was trying to figure out what flavor of socialism to implement, we were confiscating privately owned gold, implementing income tax and social security as "temporary" measures, inventing Keynesian economics, and all manner of socialist bullshit.
The aftereffects of which we are currently dying of.
We are near the 100th anniversary of the NAZI party and I don't think you could get 5 people to agree on what NAZIism was. People still argue over it being right vs. left wing. Outside the erudite arguments of the political tenets is the messy racial identitarian stuff. We were all taught NAZI, every bad word no arguments needed. But if you look at even some of their racial components they are more nuanced than we are lead to believe.
Even the the extent of Hitler's megalomania is debated. The truth is much like the Confederacy in the states there's too much personal lore attached to them to have objective conversations about them. Which is why thoughts on NAZIs are usually pendulus utter, unquestionable evil or benevolent ubermensch stopped by envious actors.
Excellent point regarding the Nazi's and Confederacy. You can't have an objective conversation about the two (I have things I agree and disagree with for both factions) as it immediately devolves into emotional warfare.
My opinons go mostly to my general adage of the truth is never found in exactly the story of one side or the other. The Nazi's hated the communists, great, but they also weren't a free society of their own. Do I buy the narrative that Hitler would have totally came and conquered the US if we did nothing? Not really. I'm not even sure he would have retained control of some of the puppet states he already had once he'd met his objectives, or that he would have bothered crossing the English channel if not made into a big deal, and that his ambitions were much more eastward. Do I believe everything they say about the holocaust? Not really. Do I think there were camps of Jews, absolutely. I also think that card has been played to death since then and nothing is owed the Jews for it, especially by the people who liberated it.
I'd probably have preferred America stick to it's own side of the world, which probably would have meant Germany takes most of Europe but also takes out the communists. Let America play in the pacific, because honestly Japan needed a bit of a beat down anyway. The rout of China, Vietnam, etc. along with the "winning" of the Soviets is why we had the whole Vietnam mess, and why China is communist today. Perhaps we'd have the ROC in control of mainland China, and not the commies. All speculation of course, as is this entire thread in a way.
I'm pretty moderate on Jews in that I'm white Christian first and Jews are just nicer but more manipulative Muslims. They deserve no special treatment from Christians at all, and if they don't want to be in wars they should quit starting them. There's no answer in Jewish extermination though, that's not a Christian attitude anyway, and some other evil would just rise in the void. Strength through building ourselves stronger than others such that their underhanded tactics can't work.
Even if he wanted to, unless he had Nuclear ICBMs, I don't think he could have.
Germany had a hard enough time fighting the Russians and the British before we got involved, and those were close by. Across an entire ocean, a country 20x the size, with 100x the natural resources, capable of building a huge navy, and as we saw in WWII, being the economic and material backbone of the entire allied war effort in Europe while fighting the Japanese almost solo in the Pacific? Even if he succeeded, the devastation to the German economy would have been immense, not to mention the loss of life.
Plus, Germany only got involved due to their alliance with Japan. If they had not been allies, things might not have been that bad.
Then again, Roosevelt and the other jews probably would have fabricated a pretext to go to war with them anyway.
Yeah, that's a big part of it too. I was just thinking about that shower thoughts the last few days. Germany really had so little ability to project power with what they had. There almost would have been required to stop and have a time of peace. Either for like you said, develop Nuclear ICBMs, or at least build up a navy that could transport force, not just go destroy other navies with it's U-boats.
Yeah, I mean the US had it's own problems as the people didn't want war and the government definitely did.
A Germany controlling Europe and the land, population and resources of the USSR would have been a world hegemon. The US was hostile to Germany in WW2 for the same reason it opposed Germany's run at regional hegemony in WW1 and the Soviet Union's in the Cold War. And why it opposes China now.
What the actual fuck?
Muslims see you as an outsider but someone they can live with (if you pay the tax).
Jews see you as literal cattle to be enslaved or sacrificed to their god.
I'm not saying Muslims are good, but they are not remotely the same.
And keep in mind that hating communists does not make one automatically the opposite of communists. Groups with extremely similar ideology end up falling into vicious blood feuds between themselves all the time over slight differences in interpretation, personal feuds, power struggles, etc. Even in the USSR we saw communists fighting with each other constantly over whose version of communism was the 'right' one. Trotskyists are not the opposite of Stalinists because they hated each other. At the core, National Socialism and International Socialism have a lot more in common than not.
Anytime someone tries to sell the idea that Nazism is good because they hated and fought the communists is playing reaaaal fucking loose with history, and probably on purpose. The IRA/PIRA/INLA. The Suuni and Shias. History is filled with groups who are almost identical but still end up hating each other. While is is true that sometimes two groups who hate each other and fight each other are opposite, it is not a forgone conclusion and natural fact that they do, and anyone trying to convince you that 'because A hated B, A is therefore the opposite of B' is peddling a bag of horseshit.
The red pill isn’t thinking Nazis we’re “good” lots realizing that they weren’t intrinsically “bad” and that the conventional narrative about WWII is a flat out lie.
Another point: You site the GDR as if East Germans had a fucking choice. They had no say in the governmental structures that immediately followed the end of the war. The Germans were ritually humiliated by the allies. The GDR reflects that.
Wrong. People want it over the degenerate niggerworshipping Weimar homo white genociding society we live in today.
Nice rage bait though.
Leaving aside the specific topic here, the issue is that there are no pure good rulers in history at all. So romanticizing anyone is a bad idea, and the Nazis and Soviets more than most.
And this applies to anyone you can mention. Julius Caesar? Great man, did great things, but also slaughtered hundreds of thousands of people for his own ambition. Peisistratus? A good tyrannos, but had such an insatiable will to power that he beat himself up to get a bodyguard with which to coup the constitutional order.
Now, while I don't agree with whitewashing or praising the Nazis, I do understand one thing: when people say that the victory in WW2 was wasted, because for sure, there wouldn't be rape gangs of foreigners roaming about and raping hundreds of thousands if Britain had lost WW2. That's a call to clean up the mess we have today, not to institute Nazism.
I don't know that it follows that if Nazi Germany had won, that there wouldn't be similar outcomes. 1940s England is unrecogonizable from 2026 England. Why do people assume that 1930s Germany would be consistent with 2026 Nazism. It's very likely that in an alternative history where Nazis won, 2026 Nazis would be lamenting how far things had fallen.
Even Hitler was praising Islam as a religion for being "strong" back then, even saying he'd prefer Germany had Islam over Christianity for what he perceieved as Christian weakness. If Rome with it's might fell into degeneracy and Barbarians raping the Roman people, why are people so confident Nazi Germany wouldn't have fallen into decay?
Most constitutions don't last more than a few decades, and the reason is because they are not founded on Christian principles. Our constitution is the oldest still active constitution precisely because it was founded on Christian principles which is why it's so attacked from the God-hating left.
Nazi Germany would have not been founded on Christianity, so in only a matter of time it would have succombed to the same fate as Rome. Whether it would have been 2026 or 2046, it really doesn't make that much of a difference in the grand scheme of things.
It might very well be. I'm pretty sure the Nazis would have mellowed out by the end, just like the Soviets did. But it would take a lot to be as bad on non-western immigration as modern governments which style themselves as 'anti-racist' and a repudiation of the Nazis who were 'racist'.
And they of course tried to stamp out Christianity. But note that the Nazis had very little success, which dismayed them a lot. Now in the meantime, Christianity in the West has been decimated. You could say that the Nazis had less time, but their campaigns aroused resistance (see the crucifix affair in places like Oldenburg).
Eh... you sure about that? His kingdom is not that of this world. They're more based on English liberties than anything else.
But America is barely Christian now. Just a whole lot of people who wear the Chrsitian skinsuit, while using it for leftism or zionism.
Don't misunderstand, I'm not at all saying that a Nazi victory would have resulted in a paradise. It probably just would have prevented the special kind of hell that mass immigration has created.
I agree, we're experiencing a great falling away in America with Christianity. It's in bad shape, 100 percent agreed. The only point is if we were the UK, it would have happened sooner as they experienced post-Christian society much sooner than we did.
In the 1960s, they were casually praising Jesus in films and TV. It wasn't even thought of as a big deal to have a character explicitly reference Jesus in a positive way. It was just so normalized in culture that even the atheistic writers in Hollywood would know it would come off as odd if nothing Christian is ever mentioned in a positive way.
In the 1960s in the UK, media was much more flippant towards religion and Christianity. Mocking Christianity was a common thing with UK media, and was anathema in the United States. It would be death to your program if you tried it.
Ken Ham, who's from Australia, talks about how Australia was post-Christian way more than America was far before America was. How what we're seeing now in America, was pretty much what it was like when he was a relatively young man in the 70s in Australia.
Yeah I'm not praising the state of Christianity in America now, except for one point, that is there's still a bit of a fight here. In France, there's no fight. They're even more literal in being post-Christian. Like practically no one knows someone that is a Christian in France, at least if I'm to go by testimonies of people who were atheists in France and became Christian. They say you practically never even encounter someone who's a Christian in France. It's practically foreign to them.
The fact is that Weimar Germany saw the exact problems we're seeing today and the National Socialists eliminated all of them in less than a decade. The only reason they failed is because they underestimated Jewish control of other countries and couldn't hold out against basically every other modern military on earth all at once.
I pity unrepentant Jews, I don't hate them. The Old Testament is a long story of Jews being one with God and prospering, then getting full of themselves, trusting their own wisdom and ability, turning to sin, and then being separated from God and suffering because of it. God would send them the Judges, the Prophets, and even Kings each time they got to the end of their rope to guide them back, but each time before long they would do it all over again. Christ's coming to earth as the final endpoint of all of this, greater than any Prophet, of the line of David, and some of their subsequent rejection of Him has essentially locked them into a self-imposed separation period for 2000 years.
Not all Jews of course. All of the Apostles were Jews. Paul was a Jew. All of the earliest converts were Jews. Christ Himself came to earth as a Jew. The hundreds of prophecies pointing forward to Christ's coming were all Jewish prophecies. But a lot of Jews also did not choose to follow the one who was sent to them, and ever since then, they've been living in that period of spiritual time on pause essentially. All their attempts to assert control over the levers of the world to protect themselves, the hatred they've endured, both justly and unjustly, Satan's attempts to destroy them because God loves them, and their sinful acts that actually play into this and side with Satan over God to protect themselves; all of it stems from the choice they made as a people during Christ's time. The pattern: unity with God->prosperity->sin->rebellion->ruination->begging for forgiveness->unity with God, has been stuck on the rebellion-ruination phases on repeat ever since, because they have not yet as a whole chosen to just advance to the next stage: begging for forgiveness from Christ.
And the door has been open ever since. They just have to accept the Messiah was sent and He is still waiting for them, and all their troubles are over. Revelation tells us something like this will actually happen, with throngs of Jews finding faith in Christ during the end times. But before then, as they stew in their rebellion and try to save themselves on their own, and find ruination at the end of that road each time, we're going to keep seeing what we're seeing with them right now.
You're confusing biblical Hebrews with canaanite talmudists.
You completely fail to understand the basis of what you wrote an essay in response to.
Nazis aren't good because they hate Jews, they're good because they love their country and people and so had no choice but to do something about the Jews. They're good because they didn't back down in exchange for personal gain. They took a situation worse than ours right now and turned it into something comparable to America at it's peak in a matter of years.
I just want less indians, muslims, and africans being imported, and I am reaching volcanic levels of hatred for ANY race or religion who wants them imported.
I don't hate jews either. It's just Jews seem to almost universally back these policies that bring illiterate savages to my door.
I have no negative thoughts about the average jewish dude struggling like us all, but I am tired of the elite ones being vastly over-represented in just about every facet of modern politics and finance.
Much of the recent hate is the dual citizenship. They appear to be using the west as a piggy bank with no loyalty.
Just wish you could discuss this stuff on any normal forum without being banned.
The "average jewish dude" is making excuses for his tribesmen while making sure White Goyim don't show the same in-group preference by any means available.
I don't disagree. I knew a jew in a previous job, hard labor. Didn't care about being a jew; didn't care about politics. Wasn't offended when called a kike, etc. Friendly guy. Hard to hate a guy like that, even though I know I dealt with a rarity. Obviously, I know a personal anecdote is worthless.
Their tribalism is repugnant. So I have no qualms with jews being expelled as a group. I mean... they got a track record of that, right.
I want the west to belong to my people: the White Christians that built these lands through hard work, sweat, and tears.
I want the same thing you want.
But the thing about Jews is, as it's pointed out, they have an in-group bias. Anyone on this forum would agree it's a bizarre twisted thing that white people don't have an in-group bias.
It's not wrong that Jews have an in-group bias, it's wrong that white people don't have one.
Then you have that Jews are very intelligent, especially in the type of thinking that allows them to excel in academia and arts, and you have a very logical reason why they're "overrepresented".
Complaining that they're over-represented and that this must because an injustice is being done is the same thing the black community does about "the man", "whitey keeping me down".
They assume it's a nefarious plot that white people are more successful than black people. No, we're more successful because of -insert literally 100 reasons-.
Feminists do the same thing, they don't understand why men are more successful. You try to explain it to them and they go "that sounds like patriarchy excusing to me".
For Jews it is logical that they are successful in America in many institutions.
As Thomas Sowell has pointed out, he has never, in anywhere he's travelled in the world found "proportional demographics". He'll find asian countries where the minority asians rule over the majority asians.
He's never found proportional representation anywhere. And that's because people are not blank slates. They have different values, different goals, different intelligence levels.
Just take this aspect with Jews. White people, particularly Christians are encouraged away from the arts. It is considered a godless industry and most Christian parents will discourage Christian children away from it, and for good reason. Better to have your child not corrupted than just assume the child will not succumb to the temptations of the industry.
Jews don't have an aversion to the art, nor do atheist god-hating liberals, so is it any wonder that the arts are not filled with Christians, but with godless people and Jewish people?
If black people cared about acting as much as they cared about sports, you would see an "overrepresentation" of black people in acting (before the forced diversity days) but you don't see that because black people generally don't want to become an actor.
So you're left with gay drama kids who's parents don't care, and Jews who encourage the arts.
So the over representation is natural and logical, not a sinister plot.
And when the zeitgeist of the day was just to make a giant hit that makes everyone money, Hollywood wasn't particularly woke.
Now that the zeitgeist is to preach wokeness, that's what happens, and whoever would be in power when the zeitgeist shifted would have shifted in turn regardless of ethnicity.
What are you even talking about "zeitgeist"? That would refer to a specific embodiment of the general feelings of the population. Wokeness is the exact opposite; a synthetic ideology inserted into our institutions by nefarious outsiders and forced on an unwilling population.
Then you're just arguing semantics. The instant that Whites develop an in-group bias is the instant Whites acknowledge that all jews need to go. You cannot defend the group without identifying the enemy you are defending it from.
Thank you for starting off with that first paragraph. You may as well say "I don't like the demonization of rape. I don't hate thrusting penises in my ass the way you guys do." Clearly if you feel fine about the penis you could feel that calling it rape is a demonization of the experience. If you are begging to be fucked its not even rape; your definition for it is married to your perspective.
We don't like penis thrusting in our asses and dont want to be raped. Idk how there was enough mystery in this for you to justify writing the other 2000 words.
Nazi apologists keep forgetting that the Nazis were socialist. It's literally in the name.
And it worked.
The complete and utter devastation of germany begs to differ
That was done by the group they were trying to stop.
It happened because Germany could not stop conquesting and got high on the cheap victories that the new paratroopers gave them, thus spreading themselves too thin to maintain any of the fronts they themselves created and getting stomped on all sides by the allies who were justifiably angry at them starting another great war.
Unlike WWI, WWII and its consequences were entirely Germany's fault, carried out by Nazi-controlled Germany
Really? You don't think that has anything to do with global Jewery convincing every other country in the world to attack them, do you? Including a false flag to get America to jump in, even though they had zero interest in doing so?
Hitler did that on his own when he set out to conquer europe.
Europe would have been better off if he had. Sometimes your betters are right when they force you to eat your vegetables.
Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
Stoping Maxism won't stop Capitalism. You have to choose a third position.
Ungassed Kíke detected opinion rejected
"Look for the noble soul, and there you will find noble blood."