Have any non /pol/ people read it? Impressions of Mein Kampf from a non-Natsoc perspective?

Have any non /pol/ people read it? Impressions of Mein Kampf from a non-Natsoc perspective?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_presidential_election,_1932
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March_1933
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chancellors_of_Germany#Weimar_Republic_.28Reichskanzler.29_.281919.E2.80.931933.29
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Hated the first pages of it even though I agree with him. It was so boring I wanted to stop reading it and never continue.

I've never had anything to do with pol and have read it. Yeah, it's slow at the beginning but still an important book for whites to understand because of the one-sided programming we've been subjected to regarding Hitler and WWII. Hitler diagnoses the jewish problem well and even though his rule was brief, he showed how dynamic and healthy a society could be without jews spreading their cultural sickness within it. Weimar Germany was a direct parallel of America today, full of jewish degeneracy, and Hitler came in, cleaned it up, and dealt with the problem. As a result, he was destroyed, made into the propaganda boogeyman of evil personified, and used to brainwash whites around the world into thinking that looking out for their own ethnic and national interests is immoral. Of course, Hitler cared about his people and only wanted what was natural; unfortunately we've strayed far from reality in a world where such feelings are considered evil and unnatural.

go back to your containment board faggot

Learn to read and use proper grammar. You are only proving that being unknowlegeable about the jewish problem stems from being a weak thinker and communicator all around. Being an intellectual does not involve chimping out worn phrases in childspeak when taboo subjects come up.

>non /pol/ people

I've only been to pol maybe 3-5 times. Were you under the impression that that was the only place where people discuss the jewish problem? Is this your first time with the safe settings off?

Tedious and repetitive. But a fascinating insight into Hitler's justifications for his ideology.

>Impressions of Mein Kampf from a non-Natsoc perspective?
well its a good book to turn you off hitler.

maybe I missed something but a lot of it seemed to boil down to "Its evil when the jews do it but its ok when I do it"

any decent german (fan-?)epub?

>I'm not pol
OK bud

Why are "not /pol/" types always so predictably more obnoxious than actual /pol/tards. There isn't even a discussion yet and already you have your epeen out and swinging.
It's pretty apparent that the most autistic /pol/ kids that couldn't bait other boards without being associated with /pol/ felt that they had to jump ship and colonize somewhere else just to be able to say they aren't /pol/ but all that did was crank up the autism, you guys are invariably more unapproachable

I enjoyed it, I believe the translation you read is very important to how well it flows.

I found myself agreeing with a lot of what is written but its still a bit too out there as an ideology.

recommended reading for anyone with interest in the third reich.

Why do you sound so triggered?

Not really. He just wanted them the fuck out of Germany.

Obviously it got crazier once he actually came to power, but Mein Kampf mostly just talks about getting Germany back on track and ditching the Jews.

Because you're reading that into it, same as how you read things into everything you "read" because you don't actually read you filter it through your ideology and it comes out the other side retarded.
I'm not triggered I'm actually just taking a shit, which probably resembles your thought processes

People like you, who appear to know little beyond your chan world of compartmentalized safe spaces, should not be surprised that you remain ignorant and cut off from vast swaths of information. Some are able to adapt and learn and think critically, others are not. You are in the latter category.

It reads like the self-published manifesto of a 1990s school shooter or abortion clinic bomber. Lots of conspiracies against the german people, etc.

People need to remember that Hitler's greatest skill as a politician was his oratory. I remember talking to an older professor in my department about this. He ran into a Peronist in Argentina who claimed he detested the Nazi program but then gushed about the spectacle and emotion of Nazi rallies

Anyone who likes liberal democratic principles or just not getting shot for having """"""anti-white"""""""" opinions needs to get it through their skulls that you can't fucking fight fascists by owning them by their own logic. Their opinions are themselves worthless. It's through the spectacle of aweing the working class with vague populism while frustrating the humanist/socialist/bourgeois enemy with bad faith arguing and appeals to emotion that fascists are able to pretend they have strength. They lose when you expose them as fundamentally weak, thin-skinned power-hungry thugs and sellouts and pair that with policies that aren't hollow neoliberal gestures. A united front between social democrats and leftists also helps

Can you adopt a trip so everyone can filter you? You lurk every day and just spam the same pathetic talking points for the (You)s

That's cute, but it's more like this.

oh shit is that the nyu film school graduate who walked dylan on stage?

Hey there /leftypol/, how's that dialectic going?

>you can't fucking fight fascists by owning them by their own logic.
I don't see a lot of logic here, I see delusions ... but you seem to be owning those quite well.

I couldn't finish even the audiobook. Hitler's writing wasn't meant to be entertaining whereas his speaking is the opposite, so the book will not be entertaining unless you have a fascination with Hitler, in which case there's another board for you on this website.

take the red pill cuck

Sounds like they should have gotten Hitler to do the audiobook.

For the record, this guy's specific tic is that he dodges questions by using word semantics (or conjured bullshit) to claim that his opponent is not intelligent and therefore not worth answering

The battlefield is scattered with the desiccated bodies of blairites. Ive never seen the left more willing to avoid the mistakes of the neoliberalism of the past three decades

I have read it in both English and German. English one is OK but the arguments are not well formed and I am doubtful it would convince who wasn't already half way to "Nazism". The German version though reads like an school assignment written by a 16 year old who hasn't sleep in 3 days or eaten anything besides Adderal and Ritalin, literally incomprehensible.

you sound Reddit as fuck my dude.
have fun on your new subreddit, I'm sure it's really fulfilling and totally healthy in every way.
but on a real note, man to man, step outside every once in a while. a little air will do you some good

Every white man needs to read it, really changed my perspective on my place in the world. You will be lambasted by those who are too naive to consider the bigger picture.

Second tic of his, is that he breaks, all of his sentences, into disjointed shit, with commas, like this.

You think my statements in this thread would last two minutes on reddit? Who are you kidding?

Morality is a lie.

Are you really so self-absorbed that you believe every passing thought of yours is worth solving a captcha? or is it aspergers?
Kind of an irrelevant point, no?

It's sad that you constantly lurk Veeky Forums to LARP as a nazi but can't even be bothered to be sophisticated in your shitposting. Sad!

>le triggered safe space
every time
back2reddit

I like the story from Otto Strasser's Hitler and I book about his time in prison with all the other Nazis. most of them killed the time in there by playing cards together but Hitler would always spoil the game by bursting into yet another monomaniacal rant about "The Jews", eventually a few of them encouraged him to write a book in order to keep him busy and out of the way.

Fascinating but remember to read the Veeky Forums-approved Stalag translation instead of trash like the Manheim one

My reply that you replied to:
>I hated the first pages of it even though I agree with him
So I have "taken the redpill" (nobody says that anymore though dude). I just don't think it was a fun first few pages. Learn to read you idiot.

There's no point discussing with them lad. All they can do is reply with edited versions of /pol/ memes.

They've been so programmed through media and schools that they refuse to even acknowledge the jewish money lenders, pornographers, movie/tv/news producers, and politicians. They have willingly cast aside the Faustian spirit which propelled Europe to greatness over the past 3 millennia and have chosen to live as slaves. Let them. They don't deserve anything better.

I read it as an edgy teenager because dude Hitler and stuff.
It's interesting as a historical artifact but it's not really worth reading. It's just a very mediocre book in every aspect that people only care about because the author is probably the most notorious man in history.
If you're interested in WWII history there are far better sources for you to use, and if you're a neo-nazi not only is it pointless for you to read another explanation of how da joos are ebil, the politics of 1930s Germany is not really that relevant to your modern political interests.

Hitler was not a good writer, but hell of a speaker.

I think most of them are likely jews trying to create a fake consensus on here. Many times I won't show all my cards when I'm testing an idea or argumentation method and it's ridiculous how often the person pushing back will admit they're a jew. They make the same arguments again and again, as I believe someone else happened to point out.

>worse_for_my_legionairres.jpg

>If you're interested in WWII history there are far better sources for you to use, and if you're a neo-nazi not only is it pointless for you to read another explanation of how da joos are ebil, the politics of 1930s Germany is not really that relevant to your modern political interests.

> modern political interests.

Yet it does matter.

The part on politics and oratory is really insightful and is pretty much the abc of every populist movement ever.

The racial part has so much pseudoscience and pant-on-head retardness that killed every tentation i could had about going full-nazi.

>If you're interested in WWII history there are far better sources for you to use
Hitler's character is essential since there was a strong personality cult (he was a dictator after all) around him.

>Have any non /pol/ people read it?

Yes, it's one of the most famous books ever and is an interesting character study if nothing else. People read it because they admire the man, despise the man, and sometimes because they want to learn what made him so goddamned charismatic.

>he was a dictator
Hitler wad democratically elected.

His critique of parliament and its deputies is particularly good, and full of acid humor. It's an original, well argued position against liberal representative democracy that I believe would be taken more seriously by political philosophers had it come from another source.

Just admit you haven't read it. Or at least I hope you haven't, because to be so ignorant of European history and blithely dismiss Hitler as an unhinged conspiracy theorist is shamefully ignorant.

The European powers, led by France, conspired for centuries to keep the German people divided and at each other's throats. Read some Bismarck for Christ's sake.

And? Do you have a point? Why do you think being elected democratically (what does this even mean?) and being a dictator exclude each other?

No, why do you think anyone who was elected democratically can be slapped with the label "dictator" just because you don't like his policies? Think for yourself instead of regurgitating other people's ideas and language.

>you can't be a dictator if you're elected
This is your mind on ideology.

Hitler had the power that of a dictator as Reichchancellor and Supreme Commander of the Army (after Bloom was gone). This happened in 1938. He was a dictator.

>You can't be dictator if you are elected
Say that to Erdogan.

It is an ambiguous term you are regurgitating itt because you can't think for yourself. It is used so that weak-minded people can dehumanize someone and portray them as evil. The same thing is being done to Trump right now ... because a word like 'dictator' doesn't really mean anything; it's a tool used to slander.

I have not once implied that dictatorship is bad or good, it is what you are stuffing in my mouth because you seem to be pure ideology.

Hitler held the executive and judiciary powers (and by extension: legislative), he was a dictator when he became commander of Wehrmacht while being Reichchancellor.

Erdogan, is a quasi-dictator too. And he was even elected like Hitler!

Or this is some sort of elaborate troll I'm replying to?

t. reddit

Same, I read a couple chapters and it didn't really interest me enough to continue

Do you think I care about your interpretation of the word 'dictator'? It has a negative connotation regardless of what you think about it -- that's the point. That's why it's not a real word, it is an ambiguous term that is used for propagandistic purposes, and pointing out that a leader took greater powers as the world aligned against him is not going to make the term any more legitimate. And I'm not even a Hitler person, I just see the bullshit rhetoric you're trying to use here.

>presents cogent and friendly rundown on their ideas
>"invariably more unapproachable"
And you are "invariably" more insufferable. A thread appears on Mein Kampf, a hard right-wing poster gives a fair opinion in a place where it is most appropriate to do so, and here you are foaming at the mouth because it happened. Honestly, fuck off you easily triggered cunt. You make the rest of us look like weak faggots by association.

>just not getting shot for having """"""anti-white"""""""" opinions
Dude, this is more incriminating than anything else that you've said right here. Pinochet was right, you deserve the helicopter.

>makes a stupid insult
>somebody points out how stupid that insult was
>"kind of irrelevant, no? go back to plebbit my dude haha"

It reads like deranged rants from some conspiracy theory wordpress blog.

Hitler wasn't elected you dumb cunt, and the only reason he took power was because he preyed upon the naivety of his divided opponents. He was utterly BTFO by Hindenburg in the 1932 presidential elections. His party never won a majority in the Reichstag. President Hindenburg's cabinet tried shuffling around every possible Prime Minister before finally deciding that they could use Hitler as chancellor for their own ends.

He can't campaign. He can't appeal. There's no discernible electability.

Wrong. You're jewish, aren't you?

>invades rest of Europe
>"hitler dindu nuffin!"
really makes you think

Why are you assuming that "dictator" is necessarily a slur? It's a word that's been misappropriated as a slur, but its also a word that describes an objective (and judgement-less) state of affairs

everybody is lying. he barely talk about the jews.
he talk about I world war. about her beginnings in the nationalsocialist party. about the fucking versalles treat. about her Friends and his emotions and his (in his mind) passionate and courageous and righteous heart. that´s it. barely talk about the White race, he talk waaaay more about the Bismarck deustschland and the cool country it was and it can be again.

its like people hear what they want to hear.

It was more like this:
>deals with jewish problem
>rest of world invades him

> yfw

It was a word that judged something relatively objective until it was misappropriated as a slur, which had a lot to do with propaganda related to the individual of discussion and is probably the main reason why it no longer has any real meaning now.

No, I'm not Jewish. I'm also an ethnic nationalist waiting for the day of the rope. But I'm not a stupid fucking idiot who whitewashes history to fit my narrative. Let's take a stroll through history, shall we?

>source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_presidential_election,_1932
>Paul von Hindenburg - 53.0%
>Adolf Hitler - 36.8%
Hitler BTFO!!!

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March_1933
>NSDAP wins 43.91% in its most successful election
>despite having plurality of Reichstag, popularity is unstable and party still shifts between ~30-40%
>still no automatic control over chancellery
NSDAP BTFO!!!

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chancellors_of_Germany#Weimar_Republic_.28Reichskanzler.29_.281919.E2.80.931933.29
>over three different chancellors chosen before Hindenburg is convinced by one former chancellor, von Papen, to appoint Hitler because he could be "easily controlled" in his opinion
Hitler and the NSDAP BTFO!!!

Please tell me more about how Hitler was "elected" to power by being appointed to a position that he was not automatically guaranteed by his electoral performance. Hitler seized power by political intrigue and false-flag attacks, not by the force of democracy. Fuck off with your historical revisionism.

This seems like someone 70 years from now claiming Trump wasn't democratically elected because he didn't win the popular vote. Not a perfect analogy, but that Hitler was deft at maneuvering his way through the system that was in place doesn't necessarily mean he wasn't democratically elected. There is an assumption that we're dealing with imperfect systems and although your analysis is interesting I'm not sure it confirms your point or insubstantiates mine.

Ok OP, here me out. Ignore all the shitheads arguing above me. Here are my thoughts on this book

>Quite boring
>Gives his reason for being an antisemite which is that Jews controlled the world press and polluted mainstream media with "filth" and "perversion" (pic related)
>Book is filled to the brim with nationalistic pride about Germany
>Gives his thoughts on socialism (which is quite confusing imo. Nazis were supposed stand for the National Socialist Party, but Hitler supposedly hated socialism).
>Talks about the ineffectiveness of government, and speaks about certain parties such as the Pan-German Movement and the Christian Social Movement

>This seems like someone 70 years from now claiming Trump wasn't democratically elected because he didn't win the popular vote.
No because Trump actually won the electoral vote and was ELECTED to office. The popular vote doesn't fucking mean anything. It's just a statistic for butthurt leftists to complain about because their attempts to import more spics to vote illegally will never win them the presidency. If Hillary had won, but the electoral college had was stuffed with Trump conservative insurgents in some unlikely scenario, then you would have a point.

Hitler seized power by abusing the power of an APPOINTED position. He lost EVERY election he participated in. If you want to call somebody who NEVER won an election and seized power after being APPOINTED chancellor somebody who was democratically elected, then be my guest. But there was no direct popular mandate, no direct political mechanism, etc., that would have justified Hitler's assent to power, that would have legally justified his rule, etc., on its own in the Weimar Republic's parliamentary system.

Like most Fascists, Hitler seized power by dismantling the democratic system, not by using it successfully. End of story.

>The popular vote doesn't fucking mean anything
I know, that was my point. Obtaining power in an imperfect democratic systems doesn't fully negate the statement that power was obtained democrarically.

>power was obtained democrarically.
>appointed without a vote in a situation where the electoral outcome did not legally dictate that the appointment should be made
Please, please try to rationalize this as a "democratic seizure of power". Protip: you can't.

This isn't a case where I'm arguing that the United Kingdom doesn't have democratic elections because the Queen, a figurehead, still technically must approve each incoming prime minister. Because that would be sophistry. I am literally telling you that Adolf Hitler's entry intro power as chancellor did not need to happen according AT ALL according to the electoral outcomes, and that Hitler's party had no chance of seizing control until Hitler manipulated President Hindenburg and the Reichstag into giving him emergency powers that later dismantled any semblance of free and democratic elections.

Why the fuck are people so stupid when it comes to the Weimar Republic? I will never understand it.

>I will never understand it.
Because you're a sperg who argues with fellow white nationalists over details that kind of make your point but fail to do so entirely, then try to make what you said seem undeniably correct when the situation is in fact more ambiguous. You need to mature, learn how to choose your battles, and devote less time to the mundane.

>"fails to do so" without specifying error
>still doesn't provide a rebuttal
>still believes that appointed = elected
I've never seen a more brainwashed idiot. You're cucking yourself simultaneously to revisionist Jews and failed Nazis. Why?

Pro-tip: you have yet to point out what "ambiguous" claim that you think I've made, and I highly doubt you will because you'll expose yourself as embarrassingly uneducated on this topic
Go back to /leftypol/ with the rest of the pseuds while the adults carry on with their historical discussions.

Non arguments

>invades rest of Europe
is this what nigger apologist liberals actually believe?

Because you're sperging out about minutia. Even leftists say Hitler was democratically elected because it's technically true. Get your head on straight and stop wasting your time with bullshit like this, there are much bigger issues people like us should be addressing.

>Go back to /leftypol/
Think you got the wrong guy.

only worth reading if you subscribe to """"race realism""""

It's not well written, but you can clearly see why it was so popular. It is a dangerous book. Banned without reason though, smarter way is controlling it's distribution and smudging it needlessly.

>Even leftists say
Since when are leftists known for their detailed historical knowledge? If anything, it is meant to bash the German people for being "easily swayed" by demagogues when, in reality, the political situation was far more complex. The obfuscation of the "backroom dealing" that led to the rise of the Nazi Party isn't an unintentional oversight. If people looked more into the procedural methods that are exploited every single day in their own democratic governments, then they would be able to identify the criminals responsible for selling out their nation to the highest bidder.

>Hitler was democratically elected because it's technically true.
How is "Hitler was democratically elected" a statement that is "technically" true? Serious question that you've dodged multiple times. It is anything but because Adolf Hitler failed in every democratic venture that he tried.

He didn't win an election by any voting metric. He didn't have majority support in the elected legislative body.
He wasn't elevated to the head of government by the formation of a majority coalition within said legislative body.

Every single indicator of "democratic election" that we know of in modern governments CANNOT be applied to Hitler. So where is the "democratic election"? What democratic means propelled Hitler to political power? Because I'm not seeing it in terms of "events dictated by the choices of the German people". It seems like Hitler's rise to power occurred on the backs of Schleicher, von Papen, and von Hindenburg making a calculated decision to appoint Hitler to the chancellery, whose powers Hitler later was able to expand to solidify total control over the German government, not because Hitler won an election that automatically guaranteed him a powerful office.

Honestly, I shouldn't even need to type this much detail. All I have to say is "what democratic election did Hitler win?" and I'd be able to stump cucks like you because you wouldn't be able to mention any. But I don't know, maybe you believe in a mystical definition of democracy that you have yet to explain.

I'm not even going to read your post this time because you're acting like a fool. Even if you think Hitler was not democratically elected, and even if you feel it's 100% certain he wasn't, you should never be counter-signaling that statement in public. There is enormous value in bluepilled people/kids simply hearing that statement after the intellectual assault you and I both know they've been put through by jews regarding WWII and Hitler. You are autistic, and that's fine, but there are priorities, understand? You're doing neither of us any good here, nor are you making the fight any easier. You have to try to think more strategically in the future. Please.

I'm not a National Socialist, a Nazi, a Fascist, a Neo-Nazi, a skinhead, KKK member, or anything of the sort... but... I would like to read Mein Kampf to see what he was ranting on about all those decades ago. To see HIS reasoning and justification into why he did the things that he did. For the time being I am ignorant of it, all I know is he hated Jews, and I don't yet know why. People give Jews shit, they say they control the world, even Henry Ford wrote a book on the issue called 'The International Jew'. Ultimately, I don't see what the big deal is, I don't understand the hubbub, so for now all I see is an anti-Semite who came to power and killed millions of innocent people for wearing yamakas or for sticking penises in the butts of other penis havers.

I don't like the refugee situation, and I see the dangers present. People are DYING. I understand the desire to block refugees from coming to the west, for deporting any that might even halfway smell like they might support terrorism, and I am of course against refugee-on-white rape just like I'm against all non-consensual rape (consensual rape fetish is another matter). Let's say Hitler had the same thing going on; innocent Germans were being killed by Jewish refugees and immigrants. Ok, get rid of them, I get it. Killing millions of them? I don't think I could ever hear something that would make me understand that action and make me ok with it. Something that would make me go "oh, so THAT'S why he orchestrated the holocaust, I get it now, ok, that's fine." Still, I want to see things from his perspective to perhaps better understand what he went through and where his mind was when he came to the conclusion that it was time to systematically murder civilians on an industrial scale.

>all I know is he hated Jews, and I don't yet know why
It's good that you have an open mind, that is very important. Myself of four years ago would have told myself of today that I simply hate jews, but I had an open mind so I was able to understand why it was actually the other way around -- that jews hated me. I wish you luck in your journey, if you look into the Weimar period and the role jews had in creating the conditions, much like the Hollywood/porn axis of today + a great depression, which had a lot to do with what made people angry and set Hitler off, you'll see that, as you expressed in your post, it really is much more complicated than most of us were led to believe it was, and that it wasn't simply about Hitler or anyone else "hating jews."

Thanks for the insight. Can't say that I approve of hating Jews, just like I don't think it's right to hate any race of people or any body of religious followers, but thanks. I mean, if Jews were doing the things that Muslims are doing now, I'd understand being wary when they're around, and of being wary about bringing them in or not kicking them out, but I see no good in hating an entire group. There are terrible, despicable Muslims who are doing terrible, despicable things in the name of a religion that I am currently studying and finding to be largely terrible and despicable. The fact I'd be killed in some parts of the world for just SAYING that is in and of itself, terrible and despicable. Still, I don't hate all Muslims just because they follow a religion I am against, even though MANY Muslims would inherently hate me or at least look down on me for being a "non-believer", which I think is the definition of infidel if I'm not mistaken.

Anyways, to each their own. I believe in being highly critical, but not hateful. Still, for all I know you might be justified in your hatred, but I know this much; Ben Shapiro is a fucking legend and I would most certainly HATE any individual who physically attacked that Jew. Speaking of which I also have to learn more about Judaism. I wonder how it differs from Christianity even though they evidently have the same origins. The book of Leviticus along with several other books in the Old Testament are as much a part of Judaism as it is of Christianity.

I'll be the first to tell you it's complicated, but also that it can be understood. I felt similar to you before I learned about the jewish question. I will say this though, jews and arabs are genetic cousins, semites, so they are a lot closer than you probably think. Although jews have high IQs and do not blow stuff up, they are prone to many of the destructive behaviors seen in the arab world, they just go about it differently, with more cunning.

>I see no good in hating an entire group

Another realization myself and many others who are aware of the jewish question have come to, is the understanding that individuality is very European. Most other peoples do not think like this, they are tribal, and no one is more tribal than "the tribe" -- jews. You may think they are acting individually, but this is untrue. And this is how they've been able to remain a cohesive unit inside other people's nations for thousands of years, because they think in terms of what's best for the group instead of the individual. And while ypu again won't believe me, as a group they hate you. It is baked into their culture, religion, and identity that non-jews are cattle, or goyim, whom its their duty to rule over. This kind of authoritarianism, while less overt than that found in their arab cousins through islam, basically comes from the same place, because again, they're cousins.

That, however, is the deeper level stuff and I'm well aware you won't be taking my word for it. But if you want to understand the jewish question -- how they think and why it's different from how Europeans think -- there's no better book to start with than the Culture of Critique by Dr. Kevin MacDonald. Best of luck.

I'll keep what you say in mind, thanks. Though also to say that Judaism is cousins with Islam, then Christianity is probably in there as well. Jesus Christ had been a Jew, many books in the Old Testament are also a part of Judaism (as mentioned), and the Quran actually mentions Jesus several times, though also called Jesus Christ and Mother Mary 'diluted'. As for Judaism, Islam is even more bent against that than Christianity, though isn't particularly pleasant to Christianity either except for one small part, buried under mountains of shit. I also hear Jerusalem is a holy city, not just for Christianity, but also Judaism and Islam, so there seems to be a lot of connections between these three major world religions.

>I'm not even going to read your post this time because you're acting like a fool
I figured you weren't going to argue in good faith. Because you know you're wrong. You don't have an argument and you never had one.

>Even if you think Hitler was not democratically elected, and even if you feel it's 100% certain he wasn't, you should never be counter-signaling that statement in public.
Which is why I talk about this shit on Veeky Forums and not with my mother or at a college debate.

>You're doing neither of us any good here, nor are you making the fight any easier.
Freeing yourself from a bluepilled narrative is a small gem, isn't it? Look at how hard you are trying to defend the narrative that even you called "blue-pilled".

>You have to try to think more strategically in the future.
I don't care about your concern trolling. Frankly, it's totally misplaced and irrelevant. I don't talk about Nazi politics with anybody who isn't knowledgeable in history and willing to have an open-minded discussion, which is a very small group of people.

Absolutely. I was referring more to genetics, but Christianity is and was from the beginning a jewish religion. There's even a good deal of evidence that islam was developed and promoted to arabs by jews as well. And this highlights the larger issue: the role jews have played in developing and promoting the systems of thought that have consumed our societies. That's power, and those ideas were spread by the sword by people like Charlemagne, whose court was unsurprisingly full of jews. You can't get away from the jewish question, it's eternal. The universalist ideologies of Christianity, communism, and to a large extent the west's current iteration of liberalism were either developed or strongly pushed by jews. The question I want white people to understand is *why*. These ideas have shaped the world, so why have jews had such a heavy hand in promoting them? Because they're a very powerful people and because those ideas were or are beneficial to them as a group. A group without a nation of their own stands to benefit from internationalist ideologies like communism, or universalist ideologies like historic Christianity, as well as universalist ideologies like multicultural egalitarian liberalism, and due to their disproportionate power, that's what we get ... and therein lies the jewish problem, because many of the things that are good for them are bad for us.

Good post. Thanks for the info. I'm not entirely ignorant, but I don't think I've ever seen this explained so clearly before.

Is Stalag just a meme? I honestly can't differentiate between seriousness and shitposts on this board anymore.

here me out * stopped reading after this, please take this back to pol, even though i agree with the jew problem somewhat.

I really want to read this for its historical significance, but I'm afraid of being labeled as a neo-Nazi. Am i going to be put on some kind of list if I buy this book or get it from the library?

Are you white? If so and you browse this site on windows, you're probably already on it.

>this 60's level paranoia
I dig it desu