>>10425 And? The point is to never tolerate the weak and to never let them have a voice. Even if it destroys me, or more likely, even if everyone will be destroyed after a period of prosperity, only to be replaced by the next batch of strong Men, that is how everything must be, all the time. There is no point in self-preservation when it also preserves and protects the weak. The weak must always be eliminated. Including ourselves, when we turn weak due to old age. Only the strong must be allowed to prosper. And even then, only WHILE they are strong.

Changed devices so IDs might too but I'm the same polack as in the rest of the thread. >>10420 >Remove the jews from it, and a nation can prosper. Capitalism does not need to concern itself with that and it doesn't. Capitalism is an economic system which is based around making yourself useful to society and other individuals. You produce or help to produce something valuable, whether that be art, food, technology etc, you are able to survive, you don't then you don't. If Jews really are only parasites then they will naturally die off simply by not being able to produce anything of worth. If they are worth something they will make themselves useful by either by producing or helping to produce. They did so in Poland since medieval ages simply by being allowed to do anything else than banking and I don't see why it would be any different anywhere else. If I'm wrong then the market will take care of it on its own. >>10425 >Jewish scheme to rule the world >From a self-hating Jewish anti-semite Pic related is from Marx's private letters. Marxism is just another more extreme brand of socialism. It is ideologically different from other brands of socialism but its still generally falling to the same fallacies of thought. Collective ownership always falls to state ownership, and the state always prioritises irresponsible spending simply because it does not have profit incentive. In the end it always ends the same, the state runs out of money and starts taking it from other people to keep itself afloat. The only difference is really in which group the state deems an acceptable target, whether the explanation be racist, nationalist or economical/classicist doesn't matter. As far as you talk about "survival of the fittest", free market has elements of that but it is not as unforgiving as you think. When countries switch to a more capitalist economy from more socialist ones it generally comes with an improvement in lives of everyone due to better management of supplies and cheaper products as well as higher wages. You could argue about monopolies forming but so far it seems to me that monopolies and giant corporations form due to government interference rather than in spite of it, as all companies that are decries as monopolies today had large government help before they even became giant corporations. Amazon is an example, as it was getting around 1 billion dollars in funding from government handouts.

>>10444 >the market will take care No, it won't, you subversive kike. All jews must (and will) be killed. No jew is capable of producing anything of value.

>>10455 Then if they don't, then they will die or be reduced to poverty in a free market system. Or are you saying that aryans are unable to defeat a bunch of parasites in a competition which is literally based around creating things of value? If you believe that jews cannot create anything of value, and yet you deny that they would be not survive in a free market economy, then you are either admitting that jews can produce something of value or that aryans are even worse than them/incapable of winning against them. Stop contradicting yourself you fucking cretin.

>>10460 Whites have altruism and empathy. Jews just have nepotism and a willing to do underhanded things if they can get away with it. The altruism and empathy results in a stronger society, but also allows that society to be ruined harder by parasites. If the parasites weren't there, the altruism and empathy would result in a better society than one that has to turn down its altruism and empathy in order to fight the parasites.

>>10464 Even if that was true, that should still result in whites defeating the Jews easily on the free market. After all, enterprise is based around the ideas of consensual cooperation. By your logic whites should always be fairer and better bosses than jews are and keep a better reputation, therefore they should be still able to defeat them on the free market. None of this matters though, because if you believe that jews aren't able to produce anything of value to begin with, then that means that no matter what they do, whites will be superior to them on the free market simply because free market requires you to produce something of value to others. If you can't, then you won't make any money. Therefore if jews are by nature unable to do that, they logically can't survive in the free market no matter what tricks they use simply because they produce nothing useful. If they cannot create any value, that means that they can't organise in a way that allows them to create value either, otherwise you are simply making shit up, as by definition, being able to organise people to create value is a part of creating value. Therefore if jews are really racially incompetent they would not survive on the free market.

>>10467 No, because whites are altruistic and empathetic, so they will help jews, but jews won't help others. The help goes in only one direction. Everyone helping each other is good for everyone. One group helping another, while the other group doesn't help back, leads to obvious results.

>>10469 Charity would not be effective for such a race. Simply because you cannot accomplish anything in a free market economy by just leeching off of others. They would not be able to gain any power simply because if they are incapable of producing anything of value, then they are also incapable of creating succesful businesses in a free market economy. Without the help of the state, they have nothing to lean back on. If jews actually cannot produce value, they might survive in a free market economy from helps from others, but not accomplish anything, therefore can't gain any power. Helping someone is not enough to make them succesful if they can't put in work themselves as well. If Jews are incapable of producing value, therefore they are by nature unable to do that.

>>10472 >Simply because you cannot accomplish anything in a free market economy by just leeching off of others. Of course you can. You get their stuff. You can then do whatever you want with this stuff. >They would not be able to gain any power simply because if they are incapable of producing anything of value You're exaggerating your opponents' arguments to the degree that they are no longer the same arguments. It's not that they can't do "anything," it's that they don't do as much, because they don't need to, because they just abuse the empathy and altruism of their host nation. They don't operate on good faith.

>>10475 >Of course you can. You get their stuff. You can then do whatever you want with this stuff. Which is not enough to cause any damage that would matter. >It's not that they can't do "anything," it's that they don't do as much, because they don't need to, because they just abuse the empathy and altruism of their host nation. <No jew is capable of producing anything of value. You should have read the post of the anon that I was arguing before to see what you were arguing against to begin with. Not only that, but even if that is true, then this isn't a trait specific to jews but to a whole plethora of people who all act the same given a chance. Free market punishes such behaviors simply by the fact that there isn't much one can leech off of, and even if you manage to do that, you can't produce much without your own work. If you believe that this is a racial trait of jews then they would die out simply through parasitical behavior and unwilingness to work, if you believe this is not a racial trait, then they would be forced to change for the better.

>>10476 >Which is not enough to cause any damage that would matter. Yes it is. It's a massive advantage and destroys the relatively level playing field needed to make the market work properly. >You should have read the post of the anon that I was arguing before to see what you were arguing against to begin with. It's clearly hyperbole, and if you want to have a real conversation, you need to be willing to not be so autistic. Yes, I know where we are, but come on. >Not only that, but even if that is true, then this isn't a trait specific to jews but to a whole plethora of people who all act the same given a chance. Indeed. And those are worse cultures with worse societies. It's a bad trait to have, and a society that doesn't have it must keep those that to have it away. But of course the problem is that that very trait lessens their defenses. It's a double edged sword. >Free market punishes such behaviors simply by the fact that there isn't much one can leech off of, There's a whole society. >you can't produce much without your own work. Stop being so autistic. The point isn't that there is literally no work, it's underhandedness gives an advantage. You keep taking hyperbole literally so as to avoid the actual point being made. >If you believe that this is a racial trait of jews Could be cultural. >then they would die out simply through parasitical behavior and unwilingness to work, No, the parasitic behavior would be an advantage to them. They're the parasites, not the hosts. >if you believe this is not a racial trait, then they would be forced to change for the better. Only if their hosts made them, which they don't, they keep feeding them.

>>10487 >Yes it is. It's a massive advantage and destroys the relatively level playing field needed to make the market work properly. I think this is the place where we actually disagree. What I'm saying that without state interference, even if you have parasitical individuals, they can't really accomplish much just from charity of individuals. Free market obviously assumes not helping any businesses or individuals monetarily, unless someone does that completely willingly. I don't believe that individual charity is able to help malicious individuals to become powerful without the interference of the state. I'm not an anarchist mind you, just a minarchist It is the interference of the state that causes those problems to begin with, as it tries to exert more control over the economy and the populace. My point is, that if you have a very small state, and malicious individuals which want to infiltrate and take over the community, then you are pratically taking away the tools they need to cause destruction. >It's clearly hyperbole, and if you want to have a real conversation, you need to be willing to not be so autistic. Yes, I know where we are, but come on. You never know here whether it's said seriously or not. Remember that Hitler had some esoteric views, it is not uncommon to see people who are esoterists so I argued in this line. >Indeed. And those are worse cultures with worse societies. It's a bad trait to have, and a society that doesn't have it must keep those that to have it away. But of course the problem is that that very trait lessens their defenses. It's a double edged sword. Parasitical behavior is something that happens in all cultures, I agree that in some cultures it is worse than in others, but it's not a trait that you can just throw completely onto Jews. Many post-communist countries including Poland have a parasitical culture mostly because the civilians were forced to survive by parasitical means. And you could argue that the same was the case with Jews, seeing as they were for the most time, forcibly relegated to only be able to work in a parasitical manner. Still, I believe that free market is exactly the cure to that. Simply because it does punish such behaviors, as you cannot force anyone to give you their money, you have to get it from them voluntarily. Even for most basic services, there are other competing businesses that vow for your attention, so you have to either provide a better or cheaper service, therefore offering something in a non-parasitical manner. Parasitism in a free market society should theoretically I do not claim that I'm 100% right about this, but I believe it as of right now and think that my logic is completely sound exist, but be pretty unprofitable, therefore discouraging it. >There's a whole society. But there are less tools to siphon money from that society. Free market necessarily means the crippling of the state. Free market is always an antagonist to the state, because to control the populace, the state needs to exert control over the economy. Economy after all, is the means through which all services, including services surrounding violence are conducted. A police force will not do your bidding if you don't have weapons to arm them with and don't have money to pay them for their service. Men will not be transported if you have no fuel and so on and so forth. A crippled economy leaves a crippled nation, and a controlling state, a crippled state and a booming economy leaves a booming nation is what I believe. If therefore, the state is mostly out of the picture, any malicious individuals, be it jewish or any other race, really don't have that many tools to siphon wealth from society simply because the main means of doing so are crippled. <Threat of violence from the state is kept low with an armed society, therefore the society is able to prosper and turn against the state if need be <Monopolies should not be a problem, as so far monopolies seem to be the effect of the state favoring certain businesses over others <Taxes should be low enough to keep a minimal state running but siphoning from them should not give a malicious individual much leeway to control the populace more. Obviously, it would eventually become more centralised and more controlling as societies do by nature, but any society is bound to crumble eventually or turn into a tyrannical dystopia. A decentralised society like that has the biggest chance to keep malicious individuals out of power, at least for a long time where another decentralisation effort can happen. >Could be cultural. I feel distasteful towards Jewish culture myself, so I don't have a disagreement here. Honestly if you were to point to something I would say that it's religious rather than purely cultural. I am anti-religious in general though. >No, the parasitic behavior would be an advantage to them. They're the parasites, not the hosts. And free market in my opinion is the best defense against parasitic behavior. >Only if their hosts made them, which they don't, they keep feeding them. And introducing free market policies would mean cutting the feed in my opinion. Even if we would agree that Jews are naturally, racially parasitical and they will never change, free market economy is still the best defense against a parastical group like that. And even if, there are also other parasitcial individuals who want power and control over others by any means necessary, free market policies, once again, are the best defense to my knowledge about them. Regardless of what race they are.

>>10487 Forgot to respond to this one >Stop being so autistic. The point isn't that there is literally no work, it's underhandedness gives an advantage. You keep taking hyperbole literally so as to avoid the actual point being made. There is work in creating a business, political career should not give the individual too much power in a heavily decentralised society to be able to fuck things up, at the very least not too quickly. My argument still stands even if we say that it was a hyperbole. As I said, I did not take a hyperbole literally because I was trying to argue in bad faith, but because there are certain schools of racialy-based thought that do think that way, pure Nazism as it was historically being one of them. Blood being the main reason for why societies rise and fall rather than individuals or economic or political reasons. A pure race can create a good society, while an impure one cannot. Some anons don't hold that view, some do. I argued assuming that the torfag held this view, I do not accusse you of holding this view, but there are people who geniuently do and I can't know beforehand. Therefore if you don't hold this view, that's fair, but I still stand that free market is the best way to avoid parasitical behavior. I do not claim that Hitler had completely negative racial views of all races, but he had negative racial views of several races other than Aryan, and believed this to be completely natural rather than cultural. I disagree with this view personally, but this is not what I'm arguing about. I'm arguing from the assumption that the racial view is correct either fully or partialy, and I am trying to show that even in this situation, free market is still the preferable option. I think I have put my position as clear as I can.

>>10489 Let me provide some quotes directly from Mein Kampf to also show that Hitler did view Jews in a way where they have no creative skills at all, and therefore they are unable to produce things of value, and why I was arguing in line with this idea, to show once more that I'm not arguing in bad faith. <That is why the Jewish people, despite the intellectual powers with which they are apparently endowed, have not a culture--certainly not a culture of their own. The culture which the Jew enjoys to-day is the product of the work of others and this product is debased in the hands of the Jew. <In order to form a correct judgment of the place which the Jew holds in relation to the whole problem of human civilization, we must bear in mind the essential fact that there never has been any Jewish art and consequently that nothing of this kind exists to-day. We must realize that especially in those two royal domains of art, namely architecture and music, the Jew has done no original creative work. When the Jew comes to producing something in the field of art he merely bowdler-izes something already in existence or simply steals the intellectual word, of others. The Jew essentially lacks those qualities which are characteristic of those creative races that are the founders of civilization. <To what extent the Jew appropriates the civilization built up by others--or rather corrupts it, to speak more accurately--is indicated by the fact that he cultivates chiefly the art which calls for the smallest amount of original invention, namely the dramatic art. And even here he is nothing better than a kind of juggler or, perhaps more correctly speaking, a kind of monkey imitator; for in this domain also he lacks the creative elan which is necessary for the production of all really great work. Even here, therefore, he is not a creative genius but rather a superficial imitator who, in spite of all his retouching and tricks, cannot disguise the fact that there is no inner vitality in the shape he gives his products. At this juncture the Jewish Press comes in and renders friendly assistance by shouting hosannas over the head of even the most ordinary bungler of a Jew, until the rest of the world is stampeded into thinking that the object of so much praise must really be an artist, whereas in reality he may be nothing more than a low-class mimic. <No; the Jews have not the creative abilities which are necessary to the founding of a civilization; for in them there is not, and never has been, that spirit of idealism which is an absolutely necessary element in the higher development of mankind. Therefore the Jewish intellect will never be constructive but always destructive. At best it may serve as a stimulus in rare cases but only within the meaning of the poet's lines: 'THE POWER WHICH ALWAYS WILLS THE BAD, AND ALWAYS WORKS THE GOOD' (KRAFT, DIE STETS DAS BÖSE WILL UND STETS DAS GUTE SCHAFFT). (Note 15) It is not through his help but in spite of his help that mankind makes any progress. Hitler does not believe that Jews have any creative abilities, he believes that they can only corrupt and cannot even create art, merely imitating it. In his view, Jews are so racially stunted that the words "No jew is capable of producing anything of value." are not a hyperbole. That is why I assumed that the Torfag was not hyperbolising but speaking his mind completely seriously.

>>10490 Ah old uncle A had them pegged for sure. Look around and see how they can only corrupt the work of others. jews are parasites and should be cut out like a cancer.

Nepotism. He felt he owed people he should have fired or reassigned. He could have had jet engines in time to repel the Allied landings if he hadn't given Goering so much freedom. He resigned himself to fighting Britain far too late, it should have been obvious they were going to fight from the moment they declared war. Instead of going all in and fucking them over on multiple occasions, he made peace overtures and eventually sent Hess to try and get a peace deal. He even had to deny any part of that because he knew how stupid it was and how damaging it would be to his reputation and the country's morale. He tolerated 'former' Communists and never devoted enough energy to rooting out Soviet agents, letting the Red Orchestra feed his every intent to the enemy while traitors threw a wrench in their machine at every opportunity. Just one example being the guy he sent to negotiate with Franco for troops to march through Spain and cut off the British from their fleet. The faggot traitor actually convinced Franco to demand shit it was obvious Hitler couldn't give up. He didn't fully mobilize the country until it was too late, either. He cared too much for women and ironically the fact he didn't mobilize them immediately led to a whole shitload of them getting raped repeatedly by kikes and kike cattle. He prepared badly for Barbarossa. Sure it was the goal to take Russia easily and everyone thought it was going to crumble like it did in the first war, but the same guy who says he made too much ammunition because lives can't be replaced shouldn't have made the mistake of not preparing for the possibility of the war stretching into the winter. He should have just sunk the American boats fucking over his navy without ever declaring war on them. FDR would then be in the same position he put Hitler in and would have to either take the losses sitting down or declare war himself. The biggest thing is probably letting Goering run the air force for so long. Imagine the advantage they'd have had if he put someone more competent in charge of it. All of his tactical mistakes can be chalked up to him being too caring. He did nothing morally wrong at all though, and that's why I love the guy. I'm convinced the world will know him in time too. His outstanding moral character is what will make it possible for men around the world to embrace his ideals and admit their ancestors were wrong to fight him.

Hitler was vegetarian and wanted to force a vegan diet onto Germany, I remember a plan for school means to implement soy pills for kids and progressively remove meat.

>>10545 >school means I meant school meals

I said that a socialist can't do anything wrong, but he actually did two things right now when I think about it. Hitler seemed pretty convinced that the "racial superiority" of his people will win him the war. He them promptly lost due to logistical mismanagement and shitty economic, as well as military policy, proving himself immediately wrong in the process. So he immediately made his ideology into a cruel laughingstock and showed that socialists are mentaly retarded so well, that socialists cucks had to call him a capitalist to not get butthurt, that's the first thing that he did right. The second is that he killed himself.

>>10549 Hey look the polish jew is back.

>>10550 I'm not a Jew. That said follow your idol and kill yourself.

>>10558 >That said flee to Argentina and kill yourself.

>>10560 I admit that was a clever response. Made me chuckle.

>>10427 >>10444 Marx saw capitalism as the necessary preparation for "communism" i.e. what jews mis-label marxism as. He said societies had to develop full capitalism, and from the resulting exploitation of the lower classes, the jews would present marxism as the solution. Hitler rightly saw socialism as the way out of this trap. Marxism is neither left- nor right-wing, it doesn't fit into the same realm of economic ideas as capitalism, socialism or communism which we now call communitarianism. That's actually the talmudic trap of making you think marxism is actually a left-wing economic system, like socialism. It's nothing of the sort, it's a trap that leads to judeo-feudalism, it's not an economic system like capitalism or socialism, we need to stop perpetuating this talmudic sophistry.

>>10616 It's also discussed partially here by Stefan Timm: https://altcensored(Please use archive.today)/watch?v=-o0Ucaqzw2I

>>10622 altcensored [dot] com/watch?v=-o0Ucaqzw2I

>>904 >More tanks to fuel but they're not as good Reactionary thought is so low IQ. If Russians had better training they would have steamrolled the Germans before 1943. Russian tanks were better in many ways but had crew problems and coordination issues, not to mention tactical issues from inexperience officers. If the KV-1 and T-34 had been in more capable hands Hitler wouldn't have reached Kiev let alone gotten to Stalingrad to be wiped there. He never had a chance. I can't think of a scenario where he did. His best option would have been to sit on his glorious German Reich after 1938 and just show the world what a great success a national socialist country is. Ofc he needed expansion east to pay for the expansion of the army and economy, so he had backed himself into a corner really...

>>10427 Does this go until one man runs a fully automated global economy, with him as the one owner and one consumer of all things? If a person isn't useful, should they starve? So what happens when people get automated out? Left to die? But then that leads to the collapse of society and the storming of palaces and building of baracades. I mean, this is basically the, "Bill Gates is going to make everyone sterile with the vaccine and he's doing nothing wrong" take. Strength is transient, but people have a will to live, and enough drowning people will come together to sink the boat if they think it's their only chance. Your delusion will get you killed.

Of course, he lost.

>>912 >why even invade Russia at all? How bad was the Jewish presence at the time? Oil shortages.

>>12258 But the Russians delivered oil to Germany. They actually delivered it until the day of the Barbarossa attack and Russian oil trucks met with advancing German panzers.

>>1012 Most places in mexico have a >50% probability of a random guy has the R1b Y haplogroup (north west european majoritary Y haplogroup) . Germany has an erage of 50% of this too. Muh pure race.

Hitler was kinda quirky and emo tbh maybe he just wanted people to feel his pain too

>>12397 They couldn't run their trains properly, do you think they could have made use of that oil? They weren't efficient enough with it, and they also wanted to be self-sufficient. Besides, invading Russia was always a goal to begin with. >>14048 Well apparently he was bullied in the army, so possibly.