Any great books on or about National-socialism

...

Im looking for something that actually talk about the fundamentals and doctrine of Nazism. Something close to a "national-socialist manifesto" if you will.

The German Dictatorship by Bracher then.

MY FUCKING DIARY (im redpilled)

>It's a "I pretend I'm not from reddit" smug Veeky Forums post
Veeky Forums is a /pol/ board. Never forget it

>board is a different board

What did he mean by this

Hello newfriend.

back to /r/thedonald, friendo

>Blitzed: Drugs in Nazi Germany - Norman Ohler.

Have yet to read it, but I think it is fascinating that most of the nazi high command, as well as their foot-soldiers, were drug addicted degenerates who where chronically high on methamphetamines and opiates. Master race indeed, right up until the point that you run out of dihydrocodeine, eukodal or methampetamine.

>The Young Hitler I Knew - August Kubizek

Very interesting take on how Hitler, in his youth, was basically r9k personified. Has delectable passages about Hitler's infatuation from afar with a girl he didn't have the balls to speak to, as well as several passages of autistic screeching directed at people who were more jovial and socially succesful than him. In essence, it illustrates how Hitler was a giant beta cuck faggot in his youth. In this way, it may prove inspirational to /pol/acks.

>playing divide and conquer on Veeky Forums

/r/the_donald has disavowed all forms of racism and declared their unwavering allegiance to the state of Israel, so I don't think this gb2 makes sense anymore.

i got you op
aryanism.net/archive/books/

Hello samefriend

No wonder it has such shit taste.

I enjoyed all the books about how Hitler had a micropenis and all the Nazi's were into trannies and stuff like that. Thoroughly researched not at all drivel books like this really make me think.

I see a process whereby the vanishing minority of the altright have convinced themselves to be a vast majority
>everyone who disagrees with me is one person

the emblem on the nazi flag being ever so off centre is my number 3 problem with the nazis

>pepe ever

> being this mad you got caught samefagging

>using multiple devices
How sad

damage control!

Go the fuck back

No discernible argument.

The notion of drug addiction in the nazi high command is well-founded. Morell had a daily list of the injections he pumped into Hitler's asshole, and Göring was caught by the allies with 20.000 pills of dihydrocodeine, having been addicted to opiates ever since he accidentally shot himself in the balls during one of his faggy little marches.

...

None, because nazism is inherently anti-intellectual.

to be fair so is communism but I'm sure Veeky Forums would know good books about it

Just like communism but somehow we still have autists in the irrelevant social sciences & Humanities (read: not economics) propagating it

Fuck off.

Communism is FOR the intellectual.

>aryanism.net/archive/books/
Thank you
You fail to realise the meaning of that.

That there is a certain class which is the intellectual is the anti-intellectualism there.

It's not particularly surprising. A ton of people who came back from WWI brought opioid addiction with them, since nobody knew morphine was addictive yet.

Oh I am sure.

Communism is inherently intellectually, Nazism is just something that feels right on a base ape level. Communism is a system that you actually have to use critical thought and research to see as the right direction.

> real communism has never been tried
> every communist regime in history wasn't really communist that's why it failed

Communism is pseudo-intellectual friend, if you can't see that you need to start thinking critically. That being said the best arguments against communism is reading the source material (manifesto/capital) so if you wanted to learn what communism was about I would point you there.

Me on the right

Oh do please tell what issues you found in your personal reading of Capital

psuedo-intellectual*

>Critical thought and research
>Research apparently doesn't include economics

>liberal economics
>containing critical thought and research

O I am laffin

> all profit results from an “exploitation of labour,” the rate of profit—the amount per unit of total capital outlay—depends largely on the number of workers employed.

much of Marx's LVT is provably nonsense to be fair

>"""Marxian""" """""""""""""economics'''''''''''''''''''''

Ah right straight to the cliche response you heard from somewhere after never opening a page.
If you actually read the first chapter of Capital you'd know the criticism of LTV is based on a semantic misreading that posits value as a synonym with price. Try again illiterate

Heroin was resynthesized by Bayer partially as an attempt to make an opioid that wasn't as addicting as morphine. Morphinomania has been known since the 1880's. They sure as shit knew, they just didn't care. Because they loved it. Because the nazis were drug addicts.

> asks me what I think
> Tell him what I think
>CLICHE RESPONSE NEVER READ, LVT ISN'T MARX TALKING OUT OF HIS ASS

why not post some citations and economic data Marx uses in creating the LVT, I'll wait

>why not post some citations and economic data which Marx uses to conceptualize an abstracted rational framework of fundamnetal activity

Christ you're dumb, I bet you think economics is a "science"

Not him. It is a science you fucking drongo.

> economics is literally people just making things up

is this what leftists actually believe?

Yeah it really is, all economic theory is ultimately based on rationally constructed models that are tested only by their long term correspondence to empirical data. Asking for empirical data as an origin of basic concepts of those models shows laughable unawareness of how social sciences in general actually function regardless of school.

> we make things up then test them, not analyze empirical data and draw logical conclusions
please just stop

Oh wow oh gee oh man

>multiple devices
>>>/reddit/

>Can't even link properly
Hello newfriend

Yeah we do, thats why social sciences aren't true sciences. Any frameworks devised to describe phenomenon that is sufficiently complex as to not be reducible to apprehensible data will always begin like this.
The concept of value is by definition an abstraction, it has no meaning in nature as such. Its a means of philosophically constituting rational relationships between measurable phenomenon. This is part of what seperates it from price, as I had already said.

>they're carrying out experiments based on already rationally established frameworks so now its a true science

Pure fetishization.

> this solipsism