One side wants to dissociate "nahztees" with socialism

...

he presented himself as such but uh… where are all the dead capitalists to show it?

I remember this right-wing liberal pirate party member who didn't differentiate between antifa and neo-nazi violence and summed up the supposed similarity in a question "what is the difference between socialism and socialism?"

Knowing anything about how Hitler really felt about something is quite difficult. For instance, there's one known recording of his natural speaking voice, notice how he doesn't sound like a German autist imitating a metal singer (youtube.com/watch?v=ClR9tcpKZec). It reminds me of the way an actor playing a bombastic character would sound after a big performance; Donald Trump is also probably quite meek behind the scenes after a hard day at work trying to fool the proles.

Truth is he would work with Jewish bankers to get his way as well as with the Jewish Zionist movement who were allowed to conduct armed marches in Germany well after the rest of Hitler's political opposition had been disarmed and disbanded (look up the transfer agreement or read this book vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres6/BAZO.pdf)

I've even heard it claimed that Hitler didn't even believe in the Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy; I believe that was from his table talks or something idk.

Yes, but did he or didn't he? I need evidence, not just "he might have". Many people might have been many things, that does not mean they were.

What conspiracy, wasn't Marx from a long line of rabbis/ethnically Jewish? Wasn't the founder of the Red Army, Lev Bronstein, a Jew? Wasn't Lenin himself one-quarter Jewish? For their population, they sure were over-represented in Bolshevik affairs. Jacob Schiff funded Lenin's efforts. There were Jews involved, that much is true.

In what way malleable?
In that it held some influence from both capitalism and socialism?

Well, no. You see, maybe it could have been malleable, but it was also a functionally and deliberately authoritarian system based around extreme nationalist dogma. It was more fundamental to mold the needs of the people than to mold to pre-existing needs.

I didn't think that was a good argument, but looking deeper into Nazi economics, fuck it. I don't really have a refutation unless I arbitrarily decided to define China or Russia's modern economy as "corporatist"… although, then again, I really don't think that would be far off the mark.

No, because it is what is required of it. Malleable, as in capability to match external stimuli.
It was always authoritarian, that much would never change. There's nothing wrong with that, anyways.

The one you just outlined and appear to believe in. To start yourself off discussing conspiracies, look up the definition of "conspiracy." It's not a dirty word in-and-of itself.

That said, the point of perpetuating tales of a Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy wasn't to implicate actual Jewish Bolsheviks, but Jews and Bolsheviks in general. Unless you believe all the Jews were Bolsheviks and/or vice versa, then citing the well-known fact that ~lots~ of Bolsheviks were Jews establishes nothing and provides no new information to back up the propaganda that "the Jews" (by which they did not mean "some Jews") were working to undermine Germany with Bolshevism.

Conspiracy is defined as: a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.
Revolutions are conspiracies because they are against the law of the land and intend harm (if they are, which most of them are, to use violence to revolt).
Nice strawman. I'm not saying very last Jew was a Bolshevik. I made it pretty clear when I said that, proportional to their population, Jews were greatly over-represented in the original Bolshevik movement. That's precisely my point, that lots of them WERE Jews. If you admit it yourself, then it isn't propaganda but truth.

They are post-reforms China before its time.

"What is required of it"?
By what exactly, other than the combination of separate economic influences? How is malleability required of Nazism any more than it would be of literally any economic system? How is it any more malleable than any other authoritarian society led by a dictator?

If it's both socially and economically authoritarian, then ~a lot~ would never change. We can argue about what is or isn't "wrong" all day, but it would amount to whether or not someone thinks Nazism is desirable. Personally, I don't. They killed a lot of people, banned a ton of things, relied on a combination of pseudoscience and religion, invaded a bunch of countries, utilized all of the previous aspects to maintain their short-lived economy, and then lost and died. Not my bag, personally.

He did. The Germans couldn't go off the rails and create their own banking system, to clear/attain loans and do all the other financial wizardry associated with modern capitalism you had to have a working relationship with London and Wall Streets, at least in the short-term. As for the completely irrelevant issue about how Hitler felt about I don't know, I can't just get out my ouija board and peer into Hitler's soul.

Which means fuck all really, you're talking about the country with probably the largest Jewish population in Europe which had anti-semitic laws arguably worse then what blacks faced in the American South. Of course some of them would be involved in it, that's like starting a communist movement in early 20th century Alabama and expecting it not to draw in black workers disproportionately. Revolutions tend to draw in the outcasts of society.

The Jewish representation in the Soviet Union was not that great, and honestly muslims made up a larger portion of the communist party of the USSR both in the republics and Russia proper then the Jews.

Should we assume that because the Jews of Italy were disproportionally involved in the fascist movement in comparison to their population prior to 1943 when Italy became a German puppet state? Should we assume that because the Zionists looked up to the Italian fascists, even went so far as to praise Hitler in their press, that fascism was a Jewish conspiracy?

What about the fact that Jewish bankers or bankers at Jewish-owned establishments established credits to the fascist governments prior to WWII? From what I can tell all Schiff did was ok the extension of credit to the Soviets since the new regime was anti-racist and he was descendent from Russian Jews. Schiff spent a great deal more of his life doing business with imperial Japan then he did with Russia, he even earned the highest honors a foreigner could receive, is imperial Japan a Jewish conspiracy? Cause it was pretty damn conservative and arguably fascistic by the 30s.

So to review the Jewish conspiracy stuff is bunk, you can prove that communism, liberal capitalism, fascism are all international Jewish conspiracies using the same way of arguing.

The Germans fascists were uniquely autistic when it came to Jews, Petain, Mussolini, Franco, and Hitler's Japanese allies all resisted the German exterminatory racial policy towards the Jews to various degrees.

*should we assume that fascism was a Jewish conspiracy because the Jews

Then why are you asking "what conspiracy?"

If you understood that the concept you were defending was a suggestion of conspiracy, how did you not know they were referring to the exact same thing?

I didn't say you were saying it, so no - not a strawman. The Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy the other user mentioned (in the context of Hitler possibly not even believing it) WAS, effectively, that all the Jews were somehow involved in Bolshevism. Lots of Bolsheviks being Jews doesn't support that at all, and to assume it does presents an inverse fallacy and defies very basic logic.

And if you don't believe that all the European Jews were involved somehow in Bolshevism, then you don't actually believe in the Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy as it was presented and cannot adequately defend the actions taken by Germans against Jews. They were tracing Communism to Moses - they believed Jews were inherently involved in a Bolshevik conspiracy by their very nature.

What did he mean by this?

Using your logic, one can never arrive at conclusions based off of analyzing the general behaviours/patterns of a group of people because outliers exist. That isn't an argument.

Source?
From what I've seen, they did not want to do business with him: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Nazi_boycott_of_1933
His thoughts on the matter are pretty relevant, actually. That is what I am asking.

Certainly not proportionally speaking: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_population_by_country
What? So this makes it okay for a revolution? Seems a bit melodramatic.
Can you go one sentence without appealing to guilt being genetic, please?
Yet you say "largest Jewish population"
My entire point is over-representation.
That isn't a question. What are you asking?
How many Jews were involved in the Fascist movement? I don't think that the Nazis were equivalent to Italian Fascists.
Of course they did business, they were the bankers, like you said. You couldn't go around them.
I'm not here to say what was okay, but to point out that he did it and that he was a Jew. He also funded the NAACP: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_for_the_Advancement_of_Colored_People#Formation
Well, if you want to strawman, then you should have just said so. That just shows that wealthy Jewish bankers have huge influence in the world market. It's another thing to say that Schiff funded Jewish revolutionaries fuelled by a Jewish political philosopher to overthrow the Japanese.
False equivalence. Marx spearheaded Communism more so than any other figure. Just examine: were Jews at the forefront (disproportionately over-represented) of capitalism? What revolutions did they launch in its name?

Jews are the master race, are you still mad about this cumskin?

globalresearch.ca/history-of-world-war-ii-nazi-germany-was-financed-by-the-federal-reserve-and-the-bank-of-england/5530318
globalresearch.ca/american-banks-funded-the-nazis/31983
globalresearch.ca/the-history-of-wall-streets-unspoken-relationship-to-nazi-germany-dragon-teeth-to-be-planted-all-over-europe-again/5398757

Also I see you didn't read your own source, as the wikipedia page low energy clearly says that the Havara agreement ended the boycott. Want to know what that is? That's the pact between Nazi-Germany and the Zionist movement in unrecognized Palestine. Even super-Zionist scholar Edwin Black admits that what the Zionists did was boycott busting in the favor of Nazi Germany but justified it on the grounds that it was necessary to create Israel. The average Jewish worker disagreed with Nazi policies of discrimination, big surprise, kinda like how most Palestinians disagree with Israel's policies. The Nazis used the Zionists and other Jewish capitalists to bust a peaceful grassroots boycott by ordinary rank and file Jews.

They were more populous then as the population was bigger, the Holocaust hadn't happened and many Jews either fled to the West, Israel/America after the fall of the Soviet Union, or ended up being counted in a separate country.

Poland probably had the largest Jewish population prior to WWII and yet it didn't become communist until after WWII. Almost makes you think there's not really a correlation between these two things.

The Russian Revolution did not happen because Jews were oppressed by Tsarism, there were liberal reformers who could've taken care of that problem well enough. It was because the average Russian was extremely poor, the nation was an absolute monarchy, most people lived underneath barely disguised serfdom, a large part of the population were colonial subjects without any kind of rights, WWI killed millions of Russian peasants and workers for nothing other then the Tsarist governments desire to advance their prospects in the great geopolitical game, most of the people in the cities were starving by 1917 etc.

The average Russian had more of a reason to start a revolution then the average American did in 1776 tbh. No, the Jews themselves could not cause the revolution to happen, you need to have a mass base for revolution, you need the masses behind you. The idea that just a small number of conspirators are sufficient to start a revolution is bullshit that's not taken seriously by academic historians for justified reasons. Most bourgeois historians admit the Tsar had fucked up big time and the vast majority of people were discontented.

Did you even read the screen I posted. The author argues that Soviet Jews were under-represented in comparison to their socioeconomic status as a literature urban population. Read actual Zionist literature sometime instead of what you hear second-hand from Nazi shitposters–its anti-communist as fuck and they do all kinds of bitching and moaning about "Soviet anti-semitism". You'll hear a lot of claims you hear elsewhere on the Right in Zionist lit because, surprise, surprise, its a right-wing ideology. The Nazis just try to distract people with idpol so they don't see that. Read the book I posted earlier to see just how wild the Zionists really were about European fascist movements and how inspired it made them. They were inspired by Mussolini's model and the Zionists themselves were the greatest source of Jewish collaborators in the German concentration camp. Their own press even denied the Holocaust at the time! They justified that by saying "hey what's a few million here or there when it comes to building a nation" the truth is most Jews didnt want to go to Palestine–Hitler was the best thing that ever happened to them!

It was very much disproportional and I thought that was the only thing that really matters to you in proving a conspiracy?

You already answered your own question here:
Don't be coy, you're not fooling anyone by pretending like you don't unironically believe all this Holla Forums-tier history. I refuse to believe you believe in the Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy but you've never heard about how the French Revolution was the work of Judeo-Masonic agitators etc,etc.

The German Jews disagreed with the boycott, not the Jews outside of the nation.
I am aware of the agreement, but this does not change the boycott. Also, how can what you say be true, but then (the next sentence, actually) claim: The boycott (which lasted until the entrance of the United States into World War II) did nothing to stop the harassment of Jews in Germany.
If the agreement ended it, why did it last past the agreement?

When you are whining that guilt/actions of the past are genetic, then yes. Of course it happened, and? Modern blacks/Jews share no guilt, as it isn't genetic.

Not proportionally speaking. Many more others than of their own.

And Germany had a lower percentage population, yet the Luxembourgs arose to revolt there. Your point being?
I guess Marx wasn't a Jew, and Communism wasn't spearheaded by the Jews because Marx was actually a gentile!
youtube.com/watch?v=5va4dq_gG3M

This is not a discussion justifying revolution, but pointing out the revolutionaries. Stay on topic or don't.
Marx was a Jew, he inspired Lenin, who was a quarter Jew, who was funded by Schiff, who was a Jew. Yakov was a Jew. Bronstein was a Jew. Kaganovich was a Jew.
youtube.com/watch?v=O50r54cdyPE

Not from the first Politburo numbers. Bronstein's mere existence already pushes it above the proportional representation.
You know, if you want to make genetic fallacies, you can just as easily reverse your logic and have the same conclusion. Try being logical and not resorting to fallacious lines of reasoning.

If you want to discuss "german superovens cremate bodies in fifteen minutes but modern ovens take over an hour", we can do that later.

Citation? If Jews wrote the literature, fought the revolutions, funded it, and were disproportionately represented in the movement, then yes I will agree. But you're claiming it, not me.

I don't think you can go a single post without appealing to genetic fallacies, can you? Everything you disagree with is from the political orientation you despise, isn't it? If you quit these identity politics and weigh things outside of ideology, maybe you can make logical statements outside of "you marixst/commie/nazi/etc.".

en.metapedia.org/wiki/Politburo_of_the_Central_Committee_of_the_CPSU

While Hitler might have accepted money from Jewish bankers and capitalists to help the NSDAP into power, he subsequently did not follow the attached Jewish instructions. His breaking of Jewish financial thrall over the German economy by returning control of money and foreign trade to the state made WWII inevitable in order that the Not Socialist economic system would not exist long enough to be imitated by other countries and end international Jewish domination worldwide.

The bottom line, however, is that Hitler died long ago. Anyone looking at history can posit his true motives as they wish. But which benefits our enemies more: that our mental picture of Hitler inspires us, or that it demoralizes us?

Considering he was responsible for the deaths of countless white men, I wouldn't be posting with that flag, friendo.

He's not responsible for those deaths, the only person responsible for that is Judaism and the zionist allies that always had in goal to destroy Not Socialism.

I don't really care if they were white or not. My grandfathers fought the German invaders and I'm proud of that, it is still unfortunate however that we had to succumb to useless war, considering how beneficial it would be for us both if we let war and tensions aside and focused on the elimination of the true enemy.

Telling me that "white men" died brings up no point whatsoever, war is a tragedy and it's still an unfortunate event for me. Or did you think that it magically debunks my beliefs?

"Not Socialism", lol.

uh huh

Did Jews come up with the concept of living space for Hitler? Did jews make him promote a population increase so he could later bitch that germany needed resources on a geopolitical level?
Did jews make Hitler invade poland?

England government triked Germany and USSR to start fight over Poland before Hitler and TSalins starting regulate region.

Sorry for my english

Treaty of Versailles did that. No need to take back land if they didn't annihilate them.

About Lebensraum:
“The call for one’s own space, for one’s own bread, becomes the prerequisite for the achievement of spiritual values.” – Alfred Rosenberg

“The larger the territory which a people has at its disposal the stronger are the national defences of that people. Military decisions are more quickly, more easily, more completely and more effectively gained against a people occupying a national territory which is restricted in area, than against States which have extensive territories. Moreover, the magnitude of a national territory is in itself a certain assurance that an outside Power will not hastily risk the adventure of an invasion; for in that case the struggle would have to be long and exhausting before victory could be hoped for. The risk being so great, there would have to be extraordinary reasons for such an aggressive adventure. Hence it is that the territorial magnitude of a State furnishes a basis whereon national liberty and independence can be maintained with relative ease; while, on the contrary, a State whose territory is small offers a natural temptation to the invader.” – Adolf Hitler

The main reason Poland was invaded, was irredentism. The NSDAP's 25 point programme clearly states that the Treaty of Versailles destroyed the German people's right to self-determination and isolated them from their true homeland. I could also mention numerous claims that ethnic Germans faced cleansing and pogroms from the Polish or even railroads, but I do not think anyone here is actually willing to accept that as a truth due to the fact that those rationalizations are overused by Holla Forums , or whatever.

People from the baltic states were more overrepresented in the nomenklatura than jews. Marx was an atheist and an anti-semite.

Spiritual belief/religion does not dictate ancestry.

Mussolini and Hitler are spinning in their graves at the sight of you modern "fascists".

I am not a fascist, and simply from that sentence alone you can see that I am not one, but of course, you're too blinded to look past the idea of an alt-righter using an arno beker sculpture as his profile picture and claiming he's a nordic fighter, so you automatically dismiss everyone you don't agree with not only as a fascist but your retarded idea of one.
Fascists, like you just said, are nothing to me but glory-seekers. "War is to man what motherhood is to woman" is purely fascist principle, to Not Socialists, war is a tragedy.

like it's supposed to be to everyone. Unless if you agree that we should wage wars to "make men"?

Dude. Jesus fuck.

Hitler seized the means of production, it might have been a secondary or simply practical effort to remilitarize and strengthen the country but no matter how you spin it the NDSAP was socialist- populist in its messaging and actions. They literally shipped workers around according to economic need in the 30s and erected workers camps. For the ideological purist, big brain wojack.png, communists here, that's not socialism its state capitalism or corporatism. Okay yeah fine and so was the USSR. I'm not pro- Nazi and I'm not a police. Im literally just discussing historic facts.

Additionally, as to the BOLSHEVIKS WERE A KIKE CONSPIRACY
Ashkenazi Jews are overrepresented wherever academia, politics, banking or other elite activities are concerned because Ashkenazi Jews developed a culture which heavily emphasized education and bookkeeping as a means to survive. Jews really are not an ideological block and those involved in high level conspiracies are literally just merchants by circumstance of being in the City Of London surrounded by other porkies.

By your logic if all cats are mammals, then all mammals are cats.

That isn't even coherent logic, and your argument in defense of the German narrative of the Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy doesn't actually take their narrative into account. By my logic, lots of Bolsheviks being Jews =/= all German Jews being part of a Bolshevik conspiracy. If I believed in the Nazi-era Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy, then I would believe that all or most Jews were in on it. That is what they believed, and if you believe in that narrative then you should be able to tell me you believe the same thing.

But you don't. You believe that prominent Bolsheviks were Jews (which is not contested, and is about as mundane as pointing out that Jesus was a Jew), and mistakenly believe that acknowledging this is the same as believing in the same Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy that the Nazis went on about.

And as just a helpful alternative illustration, here's another example of what's wrong with your logic: Let's say, instead of cats we have the Mafia and instead of mammals we have Italians. Now, we know that not only were Italians "disproportionately" represented in the Mafia - the Mafia on all levels was largely composed of and overseen by Italians. Comparatively, the involvement of some Jews in Bolshevism (which again, is uncontested) seems very small. But by your logic (if you actually believed the Nazi line about Bolshevism, which you in actuality don't even seem to understand the scope of), the knowledge that the Mafia was composed of Italians would be enough to say that Italians are composed of the Mafia. And it would follow that you would want to arrest Italians because you believed to be Italian was to be a criminal. You may not be saying all Jews were Communists, but that is what the theory you claim to be defending actually proposed and used as a tool against all Jews.

If I had told you that war is necessary, then you would respond with disatisfaction, either mocking or attempting to refute. Now that I said war is tragedy you tell me that Mussolini would spin in his grave, when I view Mussolini like I do with any fascist.

Militarism is what Not Socialism preaches, not war. The dedication to something, the concept of a mission.

Exceptions to the rule do not negate the rule. I am not claiming all mammals are cats.

By poisoning the well with "conspiracy" before the argument starts, you aren't really making the case for logic right now.

Nobody is claiming that they are all 'x', but because outliers exist does not mean the rule is negated. Even today, Jews are hard-left: pewforum.org/2013/10/01/chapter-6-social-and-political-views/
Of course there are conservative groups, but the general behaviours to not support the minority.
Your argument also rests on the assertion that Hitler hated every single last Jew, which is not true. Those that subverted the German identity and those that defended them. The latter just-so-happens to be almost all Jews: youtube.com/watch?v=eJtz9kYLpT4
Perhaps to you and me, but there is a great taboo around this: theguardian.com/world/2003/jan/25/russia.books
Nobody believes that every single last Muslim has a bomb strapped to their chest, and folks like Tommy Robinson don't believe in that either. They are saying that, by nature of being a Muslim, there are certain beliefs that come with that. The belief towards non-Muslims (gentiles, in this case), the punishment towards non-Muslims (such as Genrikh Yagoda's treatment of non-Jews), etc. You are seeing this with Trump: the USA exercising their right to choose with whom to associate, as a nation. I respect this right, even for Israel. They have a choice to with which nations they associate, not the other way around. This also extends to a people, as well.
Of course, there are Italians who are not in the Mafia, but what has been the cost of associating with Italians, who are disproportionately involved in criminal activities like the mob? Why persist if you know non-Italians are more reasonable/not prone to lives of crime? Why continue to associate with them?
Again, exceptions to the rule do nothing. You can cite anecdotes all day, that does not change the general statistics behind the matter. One can still say that blacks are disproportionately represented in criminal activity (ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/table-43), or that Islam has a huge problem with terrorism. This does not equate to "all Muslims are 'x'"; rather, it points out a disparity amongst these people to be this certain way. The Nazis saw this about the Jews and said that they did not wish to be around these kinds of people any more. Their nation, their rules. Not the other way around.

And whether it's about the Muslims and terrorism, the Jews and the bolcheviks, or Italians and Mafia, in all cases the members of the groups engaging in the sedicious activity are a minority so you are the one making rules out of the exceptions.

Like I said:
>Those that subverted the German identity and those that defended them. The latter just-so-happens to be almost all Jews: youtube.com/watch?v=eJtz9kYLpT4
Find me a Jew who is critical of this Jewish history and the guilt industry of the Holocaust.

David Cole deny the holocaust and is Jewish

Norman Finkelstein, Arno J. Mayer.
But what is the point of asking this000000000000

What the fuck, i did not type that.