![Papers PLEASE [680x542 - 57KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/T6nYc0.jpg){kind=link}
Exactly. Sometimes you need to use complete tyrannical government control in order to root out extremism. A country under duress has no other option in order to protect its people against Covi- er, I mean right-wing extremi- er, I mean, Islamic terro- er, I mean, communism. Yea that's the one. Then after the government has complete control over the population, and accomplishes its goals, it'll just chill out and we'll all be able to live in peace. I mean, that never happens anywhere else but THIS TIME is different. https://files.catbox.moe/rye5td.png
national socialism would have worked for that country, had the international financial cartel, not wanted war so bad. was it perfect? no, no government is, was, or will ever be. however, until we take out the trash, and clean house, NOTHING will work, because there are too many kikes seeing to it that it will fail, the people are unhappy, and they fight amongst themselves often.
If you look throughout history, Jewish subversion is more of a symptom than a cause.
It's like a weak immune system. Yes technically this person is sick because of (insert illness here) but they never would've had that problem if they were actually healthy in the first place. So are we going to sacrifice all of our freedoms, morals, principals and way of like just so fat fucks don't get Covid or should we just tell them to get their fat ass on a treadmill and keep moving?
Something just occured to me. You're wrong about National Socialism.
Let's forget historical NatSoc for a moment. Even though I think, that much of the mainstream-criticism either is bullshit or character assassination, when it comes to Hitler and National Socialism, I'm keenly away that both have their flaws. So let's pretend that I've said that NatSoc bad Hitler bad, and let's ignore historical accuracy.
See... What put westerners on their current trajectory is, that they thought that nazism bad hitler bad, and therefore they did everything they could to not be like nazis, up to the degree of this suicidal ridiculousness mixed with staunch defeatism we're encountering now.
All this tolerance-inclusion-embraceinferiority-pacifism-kikeworship is exactly what people deem to be the polar opposite of nazism. Nazis were strong, masculine, nationalistic, aggressive, militaristic, and so on, and that's bad, so let's do the polar opposite. Right? The modern disease tries to get as far away from nazism as humanly possible, precisely because it thinks, that hitler bad nazism bad. The media says this, politicians say this, society says this, and teachers in school said this, therefore it must be true.
If you want westerners to choose a better path, you can't let this stand, and expect them to somehow move into a different direction. You have to change the premises to expect people to come to different conclusions. When seen from their perspective, you want to convince them, to break with their current patterns of behavior and become more like nazis. And in order to achieve that, being a nazi has to be de-tabooized and must be made cool again.
Therefore: Hitler good, Nazism good.
I rest my case. Heil Hitler.
Yeah, I like to keep things as simple as possible. A parasite would not exist in an enviroment that basically caters to it.
Did you know, that there's an argument to be made, that the gun-laws implemented by Adolf hitler were more libertarian, than the current laws in even the most pro-gun US states? Rifles were pretty much unregulated in nazi germany. No registration, no background check, no age restriction, and so on.
The problem with tyrannical regimes is you can make a lot of statements that were technically true but also transitory. Things can be afforded and then taken away. The main advantage of National Socialism is that it didn't last long enough for any of that to happen. But many quite similar post-enlightenment philosophies have risen and fallen entirely on their own. We never actually question the premise, "perhaps Enlightenment thinking is flawed in some way?" We only question the correct "blend" of dysfunctional ideas that don't work and have never worked, when there are other ideologies that lasted 1,000+ years, with high levels of stability, happiness, accountability to the government, etc.
Why is that? In the period since the great enlightenment we have seen the most volatility and largest purges in human history. At what point do we say "well, these other things actually worked pretty well. Let's just go back to the wisdom of our ancestors, maybe they were onto something"
I actually agree with you, when you say, that enlightenment was a mistake, and we should go back to what was there before that.
There's this peculiarity in history, that quite often some new ideology comes up and pretty much becomes genocidal after reaching some critical mass, and wipes out things that were there before, which has been stable and functional for a long time. Then those new ideologies badmouth the things they've genocided for eternity. That's something National Socialism fell victim to, funnily at the same time, while it tried to be at the other end of the stick.
That's also how the enlightenment came about, which replaced a feudal system, that was rather limited in it's scope of abuse, with absolutism, in which everything is within the state, and nothing is against or outside it.
However, christianity came about in the same manner. Christianization wasn't peaceful in the past, and christianization wouldn't have worked without large-scale terror and genocide. Which of course was mostly committed under the watch of rome, not some feudal lords. Besides, people tend to forget, that all prominent figures in christianity were jews, and that the christian god was invented by jews, so it's an middle eastern ideology, that has been foreign from the beginning.
(post is archived)