I wouldn't assert nor have I, that academia is impervious to the ideological and economics influences to which it is subjected, as they say (jew) money makes the world go around and one needs to acquire funds in order to facilitate the completion of research which confirms a hypothesis. The essential nature of academia is constructed so that the process of obtaining funds is not going to be entirely predicated on the political substance or implications of what you are attempting to adduce, but rather the insights gleaned from the pursuit of the intellectual endeavor and the extent to which it contributes measurably to the scholarly field in questionI am extremely perceptive to the pernicious influence of both money and politics especially as it relates to determining and influencing the outcome of research. I initially applied to doctoral programs in history under the auspices of conducting a comprehensive methodological approach of genocide and establishing the fundamental cultural, socio-economic and political perquisites to its coming into fruition. I had to abandon and entirely discard that initial prospectus because it didn't advance the narrative of holocaust studies in a central way which is what almost every graduate history program was looking to do at the time. So for you to think that I am incapable of apprehending the potential for contamination that exists is erroneous. I would add that if I had received a funding grant for my second prospectus which was more compatible with judeo-capaitalist historiography, it wouldn't have changed my fundamental approach to interpreting the past or my belief that national socialism is an anecdote to jewish global corruption.
But that's not what happens is it? Academia should be entirely based around the pursuit of knowledge and objective reality. To strive for the most concrete truths set in stone and hopefully advance our reality because of it, but to say that's what is in it's current state, and that the people who run and are in control of just about every if not all influential Academic institution has Marxist or Jewish influence (which are basically one in the same) actually aren't in power or somehow don't have major influence about what goes on is ridiculous, and I know you're not saying they don't have any power, but you seem to be implying that truth finds a way in Academia.
Well I believe Truth finds a way, just not in Academia, not in the enemies house, at least not often rather.
Well my essential point concerns more the form and function of contemporary academia and the degree to which it owes its lineage to the western school which had its formative and incipient foundation at Cambridge, Oxford, the state universities of Germany and, to a lesser extent the Sorbonne. The emphasis on collaboration and peer review derives from this historical evolution which initially was structured very similarly to the process of becoming a practicing attorney in that you would complete an apprenticeship and internship under the direction of a practicing member of the local bar and when that individual felt that your command of the law was sufficiently comprehensive to warrant independent practice, they would merely endorse your candidacy. This system can work assuming it hasn't been completely compromised by those who have a covert and nefarious agenda to promulgate, though I have not seen much evidence of that in my own personal experiences.
I wish that's how it worked, but in my experience and from other evidence i've seen, its not.
Some academic areas are essentially a feedback loop which serves to continuously validate extant intellectual precepts, but that doesn't preclude the possibility of a gifted and audacious student challenging the status quo and effectively repudiating what had been regarded as dogma for decades or even generations. Again, I adduce the example of Einstein in physics who was able to thoroughly undermine the theoretical integrity of Newtonian physics by virtue of a single, yet elegant calculation and its corresponding predictions regarding the relationships between the planets along their elliptical orbits.
I more so align with what Nikola Tesla thought on the theory of relativity and I could pick it apart quite a bit, as for Einstein specifically I could also get into more than just this specifically but if you want something that quickly sums up him to a degree, without getting into the work itself which has plenty of flaws here:
It has been a long time since I picked up a copy of the Fuhrer, though I have reacquaint myself with its precis more recently. I will concede that national socialism in its incipient form and within the historical context of Wiemar Germany relied heavily upon finding confirmation for its many conspiratorial assumptions. Yet this was a mere several years after the German general staff had been betrayed by jewish financiers and German national honor completely debased by the degrading terms of Versailles. The evidence for a world wide jewish conspiracy was much more conspicuous and incontrovertible in the early 1920's and it was for that precise reason why the ideological precepts of NS gained such traction so early in its evolutionary trajectory as a political movement. I can accept that there was a jewish conspiracy to degrade, humiliate and emasculate Germany in 1918 without accepting that there is some corollary conspiracy to render academia subservient to the commands of the jewish cabal in NYC or Jerusalem or Bilderberg or wherever it happens to convene.
It's a bit bigger than that, you should read it, it gets into quite a bit about himself and Germany, including his Christianity, which we'll get into a bit later in this post.
The fatal flaw in this theory of yours is that it assumes that those who were responsible for adminstering the census in the geographical areas where it would be necessary to obtain such data were profecient and expert in the discharging of their duties. I think that even the most cursory understanding of the cultural condition of the jew in Poland, Ukraine, Russia, etc. in the pre-war years will invariably yield the conclusion that these "people" were even then regarded as nearly sub-human and not worthy of comprehending in official tabulations of the population. Again, look at the fact that the jews had been relegated in to Ghettos in Poland since at least the 15th century and were kept segregated and quarentined within their own "quarter" of that ancient city. The degree of demographic dissociation in the USSR was even more conspicuous, as the jews had literally been driven out in to the wilderness that constituted the so called "pale of civilization". Dostoievski talks extensively about this region in some of his novels and it is likewise the basis for the musical "Fiddler on the Roof". And before you preempt me no, I'm not using those works of fiction (important cultural contributions though they are) as primary sources to substantiate the existence of a territory that was jewish in culture, language and practice but just not in name.
Back to Occams Razor, what's more likely, The Census data at the peak of German Civilization was correct and relatively accurate about the Jewish populations, or somehow there was swathes of Jews that are unaccounted for in the census data and also rounded up to be executed. I don't know man.
OK, I own and have read innumerable books which validate my interpretation of the facts and evidence as they exist. I know this sounds like a concession or even a capitulation (perhaps it is the former in fact) but, I just don't have the time right now to dig through my materials and find every relevant page and/or citation that will have probative bearing on bringing some resolution to this ongoing debate. I may have time next week to imbricate myself in the relevant works and come back with something tangible. Right now my primary focus is maintaining some semblance of an argument that is predicated more on principle then one which hinges on the minutia of historical or anthropological data. Furthermore, yes, I do appeal to authority not out of any fidelity to some global jewish conspiracy or complicity with the kikes who I admit are nefarious and as invidious in their tactics as even the most ardent skinhead romper-stomper would have you believe, but because its ubiquity, intellectual pedigree and integrity strikes me as vitiating in favor of meriting its authenticity.
Right, okay, this doesn't do you any favors tho in an argument if you
can't bring the specific sources ot evidence atm, also appealing to Authority is still appealing to authority no matter how you try and touch it up.
If I were to dismiss some primary source material that happened to originate with the Jewish virtual library, which itself is in the business of propagating what you regard to be the biggest lie of civilization, you would applaud and honor me for my judicious degree of discernment. However, you want me to accept information which by dint of it's affiliation and political connotation has the same inherent veracity and independent validity simply because it conforms to your own theoretical interpretations. Stormfront, just like the aforementioned jew library may be capable of mustering and adducing clear and intellectually transparent proofs, but it would stretch the credulity of anyone possessing even an average degree of intelligence to argue that such proofs are objective in their content and uncontaminated by confirmation or selection biases.
What I am saying is, take evidence and sources and such based on their merit as evidence alone not as where it came from. For example, let's say hypothetically that Satan was real, and overall he was a bad guy built around deception and such, but he provided factual and irrefutable evidence of how to build a machine that could break a seemingly inherent law of the universe, for example maybe Newton's third law, it's not a machine that's built around any means of breaking quantum mechanics or anything supernatural or mystical, it can just seemingly do the impossible, forever, with no illusions, in some form or another. This would go against the mainstream laws, it would seemingly come from an uncredible source, it has no Academic merit, etc.
See above. I do judge the evidence on the merits, as I have been trained to do so in the course of a very thoroughgoing legal education which emphasized rules of evidence and the falsifiable quality of a proof or theoretical assertion that is being made or introduced. Perhaps your real inexorable problem with me isn't an ideological one but rather a methodological one? I come from a legal background and therefore tend to interpret evidence in a more nuanced manner then someone who has formal training in the sciences, such as yourself. I do think the point of divergence between us can be reduced down to methodology and doesn't itself hinge upon substantive engagement with the underlying facts.
I don't believe you do, I believe your entire ideology is substituting, Empiricism for Authority, and status quo.
The Fuhrer and the NSDAP believed in a rather eccentric concoction of Germanic blood myths, pagan ceremonial practices and race theory all colored by a slightly disingenuous association with the Christian church. Hitler ratified the concordat with the Vatican before he instrumentalized even his treaties with the states which would later become military allies of Germany. The affiliation with the Church was one born out of purely pragmatic considerations and had absolutely nothing to do with the personal theological convictions of either Hitler or anyone in the inner circle. The party leadership understood that in order to acquire the Chancellorship, it had to align itself and make nice with the Catholic Center Party. Additionally, Hitler needed the moral endorsement of the church so as to lend greater credibility to his strategic and ideological propositions and he did this by conceding the right to control education to the Catholic institutions in exchange for their explicit support for his agenda. If you think that this very nuanced relationship evinces a genuine affection for Christianity then you're just not reading between the lines and interacting with history in a dialectical manner.
And here we get to the myths that Hitler was some Atheist Pagan only merely pretending to be Christian because of convenience and political purposes. Oh boy. Well where to start, well before I get deep into this, i'd highly suggest you read Mein Kampf, Hitler was a Christian, plain and simple, The State of Germany and National Socialism was the closest we got to a real Christian Nation, but let's get into the details. Firstly i'll take a quote from the man himself, Hitler, "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator:
by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.."
There's tons of quotes from Hitler that go along similar lines, everything in Mein Kampf, and Hitlers quotes in relation to Religion seem to indicate he was a Christian fundamentalist and hated the fake mainstream Christians who threw around the Christian label without defending themselves against the Jews, and the enemy, is a major, considering the Jews of today, and of the time are the enemy, along with Satan, in the bible itself. While he was baptized a catholic, he seemed to be in line a lot more with protestants, not any specific church, but just a general form of Biblical literalism, and not much catholic influence.
Were there Pagan Influences in Germany? In the Party itself? Of course, Paganism is influential throughout European culture, was it a major part? No, evidence wouldn't seem to suggest so, before I go any further on this, which I absolute could, i'm extremely familar with Hitler specifically, if you could point out anything major, in serious contrarianism to the Christian views of Hitler or his plans for a Unified Protestant Reich Church, go for it, there were definitely some mystical theories and such about the origins of the white race, and such, which believe it or not aren't entirely contrary with Christianity, for example there was a theory I believe in the Reich that whites originated from the north pole, which according to a lot mythology, has some serious significance. In most ancient religions, the north pole would be the center of the world, Paganism, Buddhism, Christianity, lots of religions. In Nordic Religions it's where Yggdrasil would be, in Christianity theology, it's theorized its where the Garden of Eden might be located, in some eastern religions it also holds a lot of holy and mystical contexts aswell.
Other than this, and some other minor things and a few mock rituals of old traditions by a very small minority of SS soldiers, the overwhelming view of Germany and Hitler himself seems to be Christianity, but i'm open to evidence of the contrary of this aswell.
Again, and as before, if you want to refute 60 years of scholarship which accepts that the legal methods employed by the court at the IMT were essentially a facsimile of those which motivate the judicial process in civil, western society, then it is incumbent upon you to demonstrate why you have such incredulity and contempt for this long standing accepted interpretation.
We went over this so many times already, you're not countering my points here dude, there is no reason to trust the credibility of a court system and trial of a Government corrupted by Jews. Do you think Hitler thought the trials were fair? I'm sure he thought they were just another example of Jewish overreach, I hope when he died in Argentina he didn't lose hope or become lost in negativity if he had access to information of what the world had become and thought of him and the German people.
I make the point I did earlier and I am being absolutely honest about this despite how I anticipate you'll perceive it, I don't have the time this week to go back and immerse myself in the literature. I will be off this website and offline generally starting tomorrow and probably returning late Friday night. I am at present attempting to appeal a decision by my employer to terminate me on account of having sent an innocuous email to a female employee (which, incidentally is what brought me here to begin with). I take professional and personal pride in everything that I say here because I believe that this dialogue rises to a level of intellectual sophistication that demands authenticity and factual corroboration. If you give me a week or so, I can martial my resources on these several points.
Go for it, but if you take a week to sort through your resources try and find some direct evidence and not stuff full of broad overdrawn papers, anecdotes, etc. Try and post things that are relatively concise, empirical, things that are relatively straight to the point, you don't have to I suppose, i'm not your professor or anything, it's just it would make the argument go a lot faster for both sides, well relatively.
Yes but you must apprehend the paradox that lurks within the statement you just made. Your perceptions of certain sources of information have been colored by reputational considerations that may or may not directly impeach the veracity of the substantive evidence which these sources possess or promulgate. Yet, despite your eagerness to arbitrate credibility on the basis of the degree that you subjectively perceive a source to be valid or accurate, you dismiss mainstream academia as being corrupted and invalidated by jewish or Marxist influence. On what basis may I ask it is that you arbitrate the credibility of a source? Is it not the extent to which that source has at its disposal the resources necessary to confirm and authenticate factual content? Might this calculus at least contemplate the degree to which a source has some underlying ideological, cultural, political or economic agenda? I think all of these elements must be contemplated and, when they have been so contemplated, the conclusion is that mainstream academia is the least likely to fall victim to some holistic form of contamination.
When it comes to certain Institutions, Media, Government, Academic, or otherwise, there are ways you can track who's in control, what their motives are, thus you are able to in a sense measure "Credibility" which in a sense just means the likelihood that said Institution, Organization, Personality, etc has the propensity to be accurate and tell the truth, now just because something Academia, certain media outlets, and personalities have a low measure of credibility, does not mean they are incapable of producing work evidence that IS credible, it's just unlikely.
The way I personally arbitrate the credibility of a source is by examining their sources and claims myself, see if it adds up, i'm an Empiricist in it's extremist form, you're probably a rationalist. They're very different ways of thinking, Rationalism funnily enough isn't all that Rational.
An example of an Empiricist Extremist would be Nikola Tesla.
I’m not asserting that the men who occupied the docket at Nuremberg were superhuman and impervious to the techniques that may have been available to thei interrogators at the time, I am stating that there is no evidence which clearly establishes that extra-judicial methods were applied during the proceedings. I fully acknowledge the effectiveness and utility of torture – if the CIA was able to break the resolve of Khalid Sheik Mohammed with the application of a mere five minutes of water boarding, I dare say that any one could be rendered susceptible to such methods. The facts however are these; the presuppositions of that video which you initially posted on the subject correctly maintained that the average American criminal offender could be influenced by suggestion and mere innuendo, let alone the use of torture. The conclusions of the interviewee were thus predicated on the assumption that the subject was a person of vastly below average intelligence, poor resolve and little self control. Contrast these qualities with the disciplined, stoical, intellectually superior and unwavering men of the Reich’s highest leadership echelon and it brings my point into very sharp contrast.
There is no reason to believe they weren't subjected to nefarious manipulation is the point i'm making, I still have no idea why you keep defending the enemy, there is absolutely no reason to trust the word of the enemy and anything that comes out of their trials, in contrast to all pre war evidence.
Eisenhower was a man of principle and had a proven record as an accomplished strategist and war leader,
Lmao, self proclaimed "National Socialist" here folks. He was a despicable human being and resulted in the death and harm of millions of German POWs, and others.
https://rense.com//general46/germ.htm funny how there seems to evidence of Holocausts committed by America and Russia but I still haven't seen anything credible to suggest Germany did one. Really makes me think that's for sure.
Truman, while a bit of an ignoramus, was an extremely humble and gracious man who thoroughly repudiated the majesty and grandeur of the office of President,
"The Jews I find are very, very selfish. They care not how many Estonians, Latvians, Finns, Poles, Yugoslavs or Greeks get murdered or mistreated as Displaced Persons as long as the Jews get special treatment. Yet when they have power, physical, financial or political neither Hitler or Stalin has anything on them for cruelty or mistreatment to the under dog". Diary of US President Harry S.Truman - entry for July 21, 1947."
Some people take this quote of his and try paint him out to be this Jew hating woke redpilled president, yet the man was a freemason, which had been under the Rothchilds and other Jews control for quite a few decades at this point. So just because the man acted nice, and called out the Jews in private a few times doesn't mean much, he was involved in quite a few pro Jewish Conspiracies that didn't help much.
Reagan was a visionary and an adroit politician who was able to anticipate and counteract the machinations of the various General Secretaries who controlled the USSR in the twilight years of communism and George H W Bush was a statesman and war hero whose long record of government service and honorable personal comportment made him worthy of the dignity of president.
Reagan was a puppet, and by the time he was president we were fully infiltrated by the Jew. I could get into serious specifics about that aswell other than these videos, but that's a bit off topic, as we should be focusing around Hitler, and the time when National Socialist Germany was around.
It will take time for me to produce what I believe will constitute irrefutable proofs that will illuminate our discourse on this particular element of interpretation. I agree with your observations concerning the first link and would say that its credibility is therefore not beyond reproach. As for the second link, I somehow copied the wrong url, so the correct address is as follows:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...z-camp-found-in-germany-idUSTRE4A71SC20081109
I don't think I need to get into why a single newspaper in 2008 with blueprints on it is questionable do I?
Not really and it depends on what you mean by your understanding of the term conspiratorial. I use that word to imply that evidence of some type of conclusion is suspect because it lacks external validation or lends itself too heavily to confirmation bias. If you look at the (admittedly circumstantial) evidence for a jewish global conspiracy and its relationship to the betrayal of Germany in the closing months of WW1, you will see that there is a fairly clear link between international jewish capital, high level government ministers who were strategically positioned to unilaterally negotiate terms with the Allies and a strong underlying incentive to emasculate Germany militarily so as to remove the potential for future transgressions against the maintenance of the status quo which itself enriched and empowered the jews. So Hitler’s assertions regarding jewish influence were made on the basis of a rather elegant factual triangulation which I dare say surpasses the type of conjectures that you have such an affinity for.
These same Jewish influences in WW1 had their hands dipped into almost every major man made war and event since the the French Revolution tho, this is the whole thing about this 229 year old Jewish conspiracy. It starts with the Rothchilds and and international bankers during the french revolution, you should really read Mein Kampf, the German Central bank was privately controlled by the Rothchilds, and the Rothchilds past and roots run deep, French Revolution, Both Sides of the American Civil War, WW1, WW2, name a major war or conflict within the last 229 years you can bet the Rothchilds or other Jewish cohorts that have risen because of them have been involved.
OK then I would say that we must agree to disagree on this point as it really is an entirely subjective one. I would add however though that certain academic disciplines may lend themselves more heavily to a Marxist interpretation of data or the influence of the adherents of Marx whereas others would by virtue of their very nature, be impervious to this sort of thing (e.g. astronomy and pure mathematics).
You'd be surprised how badly Astronomy is infiltrated, and how mathematics can be used as a shield to hinder research in certain fields, as Nikola Tesla said, and my personal favorite quote of his, "Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality."
I align myself with the institutions which are most well placed to uncover the objective truths concerning the reality of the world in which we live. This isn’t about submitting to the omnipotent power of global Judaism, it is about pursuing the path which is most likely to result in the illumination of ignorance and the understanding of principles which were previously inaccessible to us. Again, it may not be ideal but it is the best we have, so be a realist here instead of a self-deluded idealist.
I've yet to see any evidence it is the best path we have, after I was done studying the more psychological elements in my field I began doing some research into a hypothesis I had that in the modern age, especially among whites, there is an abundance of people who have the cognitive and biological ability to do great things in certain scientific fields or positions of power who either just weren't interested in doing so, or were being restricted in some way and unable to make any progress in their life, and the opposite, people who are in certain fields who shouldn't be.
What I found was a relative abundance of young white males of primarily 70-99% european descent with above average intelligence who's potential was being wasted, in the past, even in Germany, they would go out and scout, and do tests for Eugenics, and compatibility, etc, it wasn't a perfect system of course but it was much more better than we have now.
In a somewhat Anecdotal bit of evidence, i'm in an "Alt Right" discord server and it's encouraged to pay for DNA tests to find out your genetic heritage, aswell as IQ tests, not necessarily for bragging rights or anything like that, but to find out what you are the most genetically compatible for partner wise, job wise, etc. I find it funny aswell, that most people who have taken an IQ test in the server have an IQ over 110, which is high end of the the average, there are exceptions of course, quite a bit of people in the 130s, a most are in the 110s - 120s, and only 2 or 3 people in the 140s and 1 in the 150s (me) and 1 in the 160s (He's a very odd guy, but has so much potential). One last thing, IQ isn't the most important factor, there are other biological elements at play that can really determine how you act beyond IQ, it's why high IQ women can still make horrible whorish decisions, generally because of their estrogen and other chemical factors. Biology is extremely interesting to me, but I suppose i'll stop before I get too off topic.
On a little somewhat off topic tangent, there are a few concepts and systems when it comes to old national socialism that have been updated based on evidence for modern national socialism, for example it's more white centric instead of Aryan/German centric, this is based on Genetic Data on Europeans and a myriad of other factors, which basically shows there's a specific set of genetic clusters that basically are so genetically similar and connected that it becomes relatively unimportant to delve into even deeper seperations that can't just be done via Eugenics and other genetic testing to find compatibility issues and such. A few other things aswell but yeah.
My point in a nutshell being I do believe there are better, old school methods that Germany, or a new National Socialist Government could use, or hell even old America have used to a degree to have much more qualified and objective ways of measuring and studying things in dedicated fields.
Yes Madagascar was at one point considered as an option though, for obvious logistical and practical reasons it was discarded as not being sufficiently viable.
The main reason it was discarded, was because of the war progressing and fights getting more serious, where much of the budget had to spent on war production, research, and development. There simply was no time to deport every single Jew they captured, so the plan was to keep them locked up until they won the war, then they could deport them, however, sadly, and tragically that didn't happen and many Germans and Jews died because of the Allies.
In late 1941, the various representatives from the Army, party, state and foreign office convened at Wansee to coordinate the necessary resources to facilitate a complete annihilation of the jews. This was precipitated by the entry of the JSA into the war and the Fuhrer’s correct calculation that with the industrial resources of a country which was able to put about 50,000 men into the field every month in 1917, it would only be a matter of time before the protectors of the jews interceded militarily and rescued them from their just fate.
Things that never happened for 1000
In my experience they are able to coexist with those who are more inclined to recapitulate dogmatic arguments for the sake of ingratiating themselves to the system, though again, this is all predicated on subjective considerations.
There are definitely some people who conform to survive, I wouldn't consider this a rational approach, as it's not predicated on truth.
I’m not dismissing in totality the possibility for some genuinely accurate and well accredited facts to have derived from these types of sources I’m merely asserting that it is in the highest degree implausible that those who have a conspicuous ideological agenda to advance would promulgate information which was in no way modulated by their political objectives.
Perhaps, but it is also possible that said ideological agenda has merit and weight behind it, or at the very least it does in the specific point they are arguing at the moment, which is why you have to take things by a Case by Case basis.
OK, then how would you go about differentiating between those fields which in your estimation are credible and those which have been ipso facto discredited by virtue of jewish contamination? If you have some rational calculus for performing this discernment I would like to know what it is and how you arrived at its formulation.
It's just simple Empiricism, you have to research it yourself with your own eyes, examine the data, is it hard data, is there at least enough data and evidence to provide cause of a reasonable doubt. Research can be a game of statistical probabilities, and what I find is, that if something has the highest statistical probability of being correct based on all the surrounding Empirical evidence, it's often true.
I believe I have addressed the issue of Hitler’s religiosity and where the Reich had situated itself as it related to matters of official endorsement of Christianity and the expediency of an alliance with the Vatican.
In a very Wikipedia Esque regurgitation, as an attempt to discredit Hitlers and Germany's view on Christianity probably because of your own Religious beliefs, or lack thereof I suppose.
Having said that, two brief observations. I too was raised Christian (Catholic)
That's unfortunate depending on circumstances, I was raised Lutheran, however I do not associate with that distortion of Martin Luthers work or the twisted modern version that modern church has become. I had a lot of bad experiences with people in the church myself. A lot of questionable explanations about several things, that eventually did lead me down the dark road of Atheism, and Nihilism, and certain fields and dangerous philosophies and ideologies, but one day I met someone who was a Christian, he didn't associate with any church, he was just that, a Christian, plain and simple, he was basically a father figure in a sense, he was very objective, very scientific, and got me into a lot of subjects and encouraged me to research things on my own and never take anyones word at face value, and it was because of this I spent years studying everything I could about science, evolution, religion, philosophy, biology, and eventually politics. To hear the word of every point of view, listen to the communists, listen to the libertarians, listen to satanists, listen to the muslims, listen to everyone, take every claim, every point of view and compare and contrast with facts and evidence.
This long path eventually did lead me to grow out of Atheism and Nihilism into a form of Christianity, but one much different than i'm sure you're familiar with. Modern Christian Institutions and their arguments and rules do more to harm Christianity than help it, so I completely understand why people try and seek solace away from it, I mean I did. I never argue like these Christians you see, "it's in the bible so its true" and other bullshit arguments that don't help to non Christians, these dogmatic, preachy cunts are so harmful to the religion, even tho they usually don't know much about its true core values. You see in my view, the best way to lead people to Christianity isn't to hand them a Bible, it's to teach them about the Empirical truths of the world around you, whether it be a political ideology like National Socialism, or something else entirely. The real truth, the truth of science, data, statistics, empirical evidence, in my opinion when you head on the path of Empiricism, you don't have to find Christianity, it'll find you itself. That's about as preachy as i'll get ever get about it.
The only time I argue Christianity itself, is in relation to contexts of the verses themselves, the bible is probably one of the most misquoted, misinterpreted, and twisted for political agendas more so than any book throughout history, and I suppose i'll have to be getting into a bit of that in the next quote.
but I discovered relatively late in my years as a believer that the dogmatic preachments of the church were all inspired by a document whose internal veracity was highly questionable and which contained and synthesized into its cannon the lunatic idiocy of the old testament and all the rape, torture, genocide and judeo-power ideology which came as part of that package deal.
Okay, well firstly, Catholics are a prime example of some of the biggest twisters, when it comes to the bible itself. They have so many made up rules, and bullshit that is entirely made up by men long after the bible was written. Did Catholics make some positive impacts on the world? Sure, but it's always been about twisting the bible for personal, political, and powerful gain. I view Catholicism as the Christian form of Judaism.
As for the the specifics, the so called "rape, torture, genocide" well most of that is either highly exaggerated, was considered a sin/morally wrong, or was actually justified. Now the main problem comes along when it comes to the laws of The Old Testament, well according to Christian law, every Old Testament law was abolished except of course for the 10 Commandments, and should now be considered, philosophy, and history not Christian law. Christian law is literally just the 10 Commandments, and the general philosophies of Jesus Christ.
Now I will address the point you made somewhat attacking "judeo-power" this is a false equivalency based jab i'm assuming based on the Jews of Today because the same as the Jews of the past, we went over this a little bit in my previous post but I can get into again, but i'll do that in the next quote since you somewhat address it more solidly.
Secondly, I agree with your conclusions regarding the irreducible elements of the three primary monotheisms, though I would add that each is a more vulgar and facile plagiarism of its predecessor and they are all therefore derivative from and fundamentally perverted by the original monotheism of Judaism.
You see this is where you go wrong. The Old Testament is not Judaism, is it part of the canon lore of Judaism? Yes, it's part of the canon lore of Islam aswell, but so is the bible, and the Talmud has canon elements in relation to Christianity aswell, the difference is the laws of the Talmud and the core beliefs and history, you see the Talmud was actually completed in its written form in the 4th century around the year 500, but just because this is it's written form they've had similar laws and rules just spoken verbally to eachother, since about the century if not a little later before Jesus was born. This is not old Testament law, it's actually very clever they spread their deceptive and nefarious laws vocally for hundreds of years, probably so that the Goyim would never read their laws and see what they say about them, but I assume that they were probably afraid that over time the laws might get twisted so writing them down and compiling them in the Talmud would be efficient, but that also allowed the Goyim to read the book and what they say about us and believe about us.
In the more recent years they've made "Goyim Friendly Translations" of the Talmud that hide or just straight up lie or change verses to more Goyim friendly versions, they'll even go as far as to lie and say these are the true translations of the Talmud, and like to pretend and lie and say that the direct quotes you find in the Talmud about how goyim are dogs and its okay to lie and rape goyim girls, etc etc aren't the true translation and we should read the Goyim Certified Version. Kinda similar to their interpretation of the Holocaust that you abide by now that I think about it.
Anyways onto the core breakdown of the subject matter tho, I will state it again clearly. Ashkenazi Jews are NOT The Jews of the old testament, in fact just about every single modern day Jew has nothing to do with the Jews of the Old Testament, other than the fact the Old Testament is canon in their religion. The Judeans of prominence were not of ANY of the Tribes of Judah, they were Edomites, they were a mix of Canaanites, Edomites, Babylonians, etc, they came from the south, this is opposed to Jesus who was a Galilean and Resident of Galilee, and he came from the north, and Galileans can even be tracked to the some European tribes believe it or not, but that's a bit more of a controversial subject that probably shouldn't get into here.
Basically in a nutshell, no Christianity, and The Old Testament have nothing to do with Judaism, Judaism came after, the modern Jews of Today just adopted and Stole the name of the Jews of old for their own mischievous purposes, it's probably more likely that Europeans themselves, even Germans, have more in common Genetically with the tribes of Judah, than the Ashkenazi Jews of Today.
If you want to attract quality men of absolute conviction and unwavering devotion to the cause, then its best that you be fully transparent and inform them that we as national socialists concern ourselves only with the achievement of our penultimate ambitions. The ends always justify the means and any true nihilist who is sufficiently versed in history and geo-political affairs will understand that the most insidious of enemies requires the most effective weapon of annihilation.
Nihilists...Convictions...JFL that's an Oxymoron if i've ever seen one. Everything you just said is contrary to True National Socialism. Nihilism is Jewry. National Socialism is based on the precept that things matter, a lot in fact.
I don’t believe it is a lie and cannot see how the modern permutation of the party wants to dissociate itself from a methodology which is perfectly sensible if you grant that the jews are the greatest threat to the continued existence of civilization.
You can believe whatever you want, it doesn't make it true, The Holocaust just didn't happen, it's not based around National Socialist Morality, it was never ordered, Jews were treated pretty well in the camps aswell before the war ramped up, lethal force was only going to be an option for those who 100% resisted and refused to leave, they were going be kicked out by force, and if they fought back, they would get shot. It's as simple as that really, same way deportation works in America, if you fight back you get killed, you're not supposed to be here so, yeah.
Only those of our enemies who are too weak to acknowledge the efficacy of genocide will use this as a means by which to disparage our movement. I say let them, we are more committed to our objectives and the destruction of our enemies then they are to suppressing and defeating us.
No those who want to twist the morality and views of National Socialism to be something it's not, which you have been doing many times, into this, amoral, twisted, Nihilistic, mess which has no basis is who use the Holocaust as a political weapon to shame National Socialists, and whites themselves.
Genocide is the most effective means of defeating ones enemies. You can try to breed them out, though that will only achieve partial success and will literally take generations to accomplish. You can employ the methods which were favored by the Serbs when dealing with the Bosniaks and Croatians, whereby you merely transplant and quarantine targeted populations but then those actions are subject to undoing by post-war forces which are beyond your control. You could relegate them to some god forsaken island or unwanted piece of land, but look just how effectively they’ve flourished and made the desert bloom in the land of the Palestinian Arabs. The Fuhrer knew just how resourceful, enterprising and resilient this people had become, made so through years of culturally enforced anti-Semitism and pogroms. So yes, in this particular context, genocide is not only advised, it is indispensable.
It really isn't, i'm not saying breed them out either, mass deportations are actually much easier than genocide, and cause a lot less backlash from not only the people you're targeting but outside forces aswell, and internal ones of course too. Is lethal force necessary? Are there cases where Genocide might be required? Absolutely, this isn't one of them, except for those who resist, as I said just as in any civilized country, if you resist deportation and fight you will suffer the consequences, which tend to be lethal.[/QUOTE]
