This is not pointed at anyone on the forums, this is just me, releasing my rage which came upon me due to the unwashed masses, posting images like this. This image was posted in the context about national socialism and I, as one, will simply write a bit of text on this image. Once again, I am not a fascist, but this was directed to national socialists. Fascism is a corporal ideology, while national socialism is a völkisch movement. So where shall I start?

 

 

 

First of all, whoever has posted this has no idea about the differences between fascism and national socialism, to begin with. My views on that person set at this very point, as I see that they do not have a clue what they're talking about. Either way, let's just say that there is national socialism instead of fascism, I would think most of you think the same anyway.

 

Let's start with "Blind loyalty to the leader". While it is most certainly true that in national socialism we do have a leader, a supreme leader, it has to be said that the ideology itself prevents corrupted dictators from getting to power. I always have to facepalm myself when people compare Obama, Bush and some other 'leaders' to Hitler, really, it makes me laugh. These people are not worthy of debating, nor even trying to help them. Anyway, the whole blind loyalty clearly directs to 'brainwashing' and to 'believing the lies', which is once again, quite contradictory. Show me one lie Hitler has said. Well, at least he kept his word that: "If I can't fix Germany in 4, I will be leaving", unlike the vast majority of the politicians, leaders, presidents in the history. Not only that, he not only saved the Germany, he also raised it above the capitalist and communism world, high above that, in just four years. I'm sorry, but will you follow a leader that has saved your life, your nation, your culture from the post-war situation that was in the Germany at that time? Berlin was the sin capital of the world, the suicides were off the roof and the poverty was far above the average world-wide. Not only that, he gave Germany back to Germans, which is the main goal of national socialism. He achieved that with completely removing the Jews from the bankings, removing the gold-based currency and implementing the national work-based currency, which allowed the Germany to survive the Jewish boycott, from 1933, which would destroy Germany. Literally. Blind loyalty? Maybe loyalty for your saviour. It is whoever made this image who has the blind loyalty for his own lack of knowledge, glorifying it and claiming as a truth.

 

Use of violence and terror. That is an interesting one. I am not denying that we do not support totalitarianism, what I will discuss in the "Ruled by dictator" paragraph. Of course violence was used. Who has not used violence? It has to be said that national socialism was the ideology with least murders, killings, out of these who were involved in the second world war. Soviet union alone under Stalin's regime had 25 million innocent deaths, 9-12 million in Ukraine, Holodomor, which is an act of genocide. Ironically, it was done by NKVD, under the leadership of Yagoda, a Jew. The only thing I have to know now is who is claiming that there is use of violence in national socialism. If you're a communist, it's quite ironical, you know. If you're a capitalist, you should completely stop with politics and whatnot, people of your ideology are killing people every single day -- since the year of 1945. National socialism, the cruellest ideology of world war two? You got to be kidding me. Look up the reaction when the Wehrmacht arrived to Ukraine. They were their saviours, only for a quick while, though. But -- as quoted "these were the best year(s) of their lives.". Terror, of course. Force has to be used to get rid of the opponents, it is for the sake of the nation. If one claims that they have just killed all the communists, or ex-communists, let me quote Dr. Otto Dietrich, Hitler’s press secretary and his work, the Führer and the German people:

 

[...] Somewhere a group of young workers at a large factory have gathered. The Führer steps before them and looks each deep into his eyes. He turns to one of the young workers and asks:

“Are you a member of the party?”
“No.”

“Are you an S. A. Man?”
“No, I belong to the labour front.”

“What were you before?” the Führer asks after a pause.
The blond young man lowers his gaze, then says nervously: “I was a young communist, my Führer!” The words are hard for him to say. The Führer takes his hand and says with a smile, “But today you are all with me, my young people.” Blushing, the young man answers: “By God, you can count on us, my Führer!”

There are many such scenes, each of which shows the connection between the German people and Adolf Hitler. [...]

 

Strong military. I am not sure if that's a compliment or a critique. I'd rather take it as a compliment, but I doubt it's meant this way in this very image. Strong military, along with the closed market (not really closed, in national socialism we have the restricted market so the materials do not overflow the market & it makes the country far more independent if you produce the materials that are necessary for the nation to survive, such as food and that is one of the reason why home made food production was heavily advertised), own, national currency and so forth only makes the country far more independent. I do not see a single problem with this, especially due to the fact that if every country on this world had a national socialist regime there would be no such thing as "imperialism", "expansionism" and most of all, globalization and its exploitation. The military is not used for such anti-national socialist believes. One may at this point claim that the Reich invaded most of the countries and let me tell you something: The story with Poland began with Poles killing ethnic Germans. Hitler did try to get the regions back on the democratic way, but, as we all know it, did not happen. He was forced to invade Poland. And yes, Hitler did invade Russia. I hope you're well aware of the fact that Russia also invaded several European countries and was preparing to invade Germany. It has to be said that the Reich's best and one tactic was Blitzkrieg, the fast war, which is completely offensive strategy and if Germany was to be invaded there is no chance of defending it. 

 

Censorship and government control of the news. Nothing much to say here, if the censorship speaks against the national socialist ideals, what can be translated to speaking against the nation there is censure, definitely. About the control of news -- of course. Look at what happens if there is no such thing. 75% of all mass media is owned by who? The Zionists. (First time of using Zionists in this essay, Zionism is a political ideology. I'm not going to say the Jews, because that's simply a stereotype about national socialism. For example, 'only' 150,000 Jews fought for Hitler, 'only' 2 of them were of the highest ranks, 'only' his body guard, Maurice, was a Jew and 'only' some of the nobelists nominated Hitler for the nobel award for peace.). It is a fact, it's not anti semitism. Simply open up whichever source you want, search for the media you want to check, look who's the CEO/Chairman and you got your proof. Even in our small country they own the biggest media houses, the only big one that is not owned by them (literally owned) is the national TV. Once again, all of this is done for the sake of the nation. 

 

Extreme nationalism. I.. I don't think the person who has written all of this has any idea of what he's talking about, once again. I do not disagree that there is extreme nationalism, but apparently the author does not know what nationalism is. Nationalism is not hate for the others, it is the love for your own. Whoever hates the others he is not a nationalist. He is not. Let me share something with you:

 

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=1414484788801351

Are you starting to see the idea of national socialism yet? Huge difference between the "nazism" as it is portrayed in the modern culture, the racist, evil and whatnot scum of the earth. I'm sorry, we are just fighting for better world, for the sake of not only our own nation, culture, European religions, but for the rest, for the whole World. From the perspective of the National Socialists, “nationalism” meant an appreciation for and a duty to, preserve the nation or Volksgemeinschaft, in all respects, visa vis the “folkish” interests of other nations, as well as, from international interests.  It was not blind,  arrogant or conceited chauvinism, nor a concept of natural or inherent “superiority” over others, and not intended to destroy or exploit others.  It was about the German people being “masters in their own house” with: the right of self-determination; the means and ability to effectively control their nations destiny without interference; while raising up a new social state of the highest culture, with integrity!  National Socialism, therefore, fought AGAINST “internationalism” which destroys nations through rootless and ever changing cosmopolitanism. Internationalism was embodied by liberalism, plutocracy, Bolshevism and International Jewry.

 

State control of economy. That is a bullseye. Open borders not only cause several problems such as inflation, price manipulation, flow of capital, but also makes the state far less independent. One may argue that open borders will cause technological collapse and the slow technological development. Which is, of course, completely wrong. National socialism had the top notch technology, while the rest of the world was in poverty, dying of starvation due to the crisis. The car industry would not be the same if Hitler didn't get the power. The Reich created what we today know as car industry. Volkswagen was named by Hitler himself. Aeroplane industry would be nothing without the Reich. Rocket science? What is this, we would be asking ourselves if national socialism didn't triumph. And far more of the high technology advances, these are just some of the many, the ones we rely on each and single day of our life. National socialism as an ideology will prevent that ('One may argue that open borders will cause technological collapse and the slow technological development.') from happening.

 

Strict discipline. Only with strict discipline you will triumph. First the nations have to get rid of the lie/falsehood that everyone is everyone, that everyone is different. That is liberal individualism, created to fight off nationalism. Nationalism and of course national socialism also have individualism, most certainly, but you are still a part of a nation and that nation is a part of you. “I understand by Socialism: the highest service to my people, giving up personal gain for the sake of the whole. The benefits of the whole is essential. The concept of nationalism is in the end nothing but love and devotion to my people.” - Adolf the Great, Hitler. The basic ideas of National Socialism were pride in the common cultural history and heritage, a healthy shaping of individual personalities while engendering and nurturing a spirit of  national altruism,  as opposed to atomised liberal and libertarian ideas of “individualism” (which have their genesis  in Freemasonry, and which the National Socialist  government always opposed, and later banned). National Socialism stood in stark contrast to Marxist-Socialism or Bolshevism which is based upon ‘class warfare’ and the destruction of individualism and social classes, making all equally poor, and subject to a supreme state authority, resulting in the lowest common denominator, without natural inherent rights, and only privileges at best, with the promise of benefits that are usually not forthcoming, or which are unsustainable, and not conducive to creating incentive.  Instead, the motivating factor is fear of the ‘state power’ and the ‘authority of the party’ and it’s leadership, combined with harsh punishment for those who do not “go along to get along”,  often arbitrary, with little or no protection from the whims and mechanisms of the totalitarian police state. The net product is “acquiescence” and not enthusiasm.  Marxist-Socialism also provides no natural incentive for the protection of resources and the environment, lending itself instead to expansionism, and this, is no respecter of neighbouring states, nor other cultures. Furthermore, it is atheistic, without respect for the Creator, the individual, nor beliefs and values of any religious community.

 

National Socialism was about work and personal  initiative, and taking responsibility, not only for oneself, merely for one’s own benefit, but also for the national community, as well as the environment (ie. the natural habitat and the society), and thereby, ensuring the survival, that is, the health and prosperity of the nation and the society as a whole entity, and not merely the ‘survival of the fittest’ and continuous prosperity of the already prosperous, solely to their own advantage.  It required that people of all classes work together for their common and mutual benefit and interests. The role of the government was merely to facilitate this self-sustaining environment for all members of the nation in which all could live well and prosper, with demand and supply aimed primarily focused on the domestic market, on national, regional and local needs, while producing and consuming what was necessary at home.  This meant that the nation had lesser dependence upon the outside world for trade and commerce, far was more independent within the world, less subject to global markets, corporate and global interests, and without need or incentive to expand, nor to coerce and threaten other nations. The Freemasonic liberal ideals, by contrast,  engender a “nation of individuals” with each going his own way, with little or no concern for the needs of that national community as a whole; the organic unit from which the individual was first derived and was nurtured, with only a theoretical notion of a trickle down effect to others. And underlying this, the assumption that those who do well, do so rightfully, and will occasionally give a little something back, thereby, legitimizing the power structure of the plutocrats or oligarchs, and the degree of power and influence which they, the few,  maintain over the many.  That is generally thought of as “Free Enterprise” but it is really unbridled Judeo-free-market-capitalism, and thrives in a system of stock market speculation, back-room deals and manipulation, and especially so where the monetary system (creation and control of currency) is in private hands, combined with debt and interest or “usury”, creating a monopoly, such as with the U.S. Federal Reserve. The National Socialists in Germany opposed this by putting strict controls on the central bank and the stock markets, by creating and controlling their own debt and interest free currency based upon the labour the worth of the labour and resulting output of the people, not on Gold, Silver or other commodities, the value of which is subject to speculation.  They also put limits on wages and prices, as well as, reduced imports and exports, and prevented large-scale “big box” retail outlets which could flood the market with cheap imported goods.

 

And the cherry on the top, ruled by dictator. First let me clarify that one who claims this have probably no idea on what dictatorship is. Democracy is a dictatorship, dictatorship of the majority. Can you deny this? No. People of a state are not capable of carrying democracy, they are not responsible enough to have such a burden on their shoulders. Literally, they themselves are the dictators. How can a nation functions? I have no idea, it can not, look at what's going on today. Dictatorship is FAR from bad and don't let the tyrants such as Stalin, Mao and such fool you. Ask any of the Hitler's Youth members, which are still alive today and ask them which life they prefer, the 'democratic' one, or the dictatorship one. I have no doubts they'll go with the dictatorship. Not only that, the democracy is far more expensive for the state and takes far more time to get to the conclusions. For example, if you want to have a road built somewhere you have to make a referendum, etc., etc., while if you have dictatorship it is said and done, simple as that. Democracy, my friends, is made to destroy us. Not the Athens one, the modern, liberal and liberal socialist democracy. 
 

 

 

“The Jewish manipulated Marxist concept of class struggle stands in the way of national unity” — Adolf Hitler.

 

“The phrases nationalism and socialism identify contemporary political currents of the age and did not require that new values be created. The lack of sense of community gave way to mutual burning hatred. Today the contrast between bourgeois and proletariat needs to be overcome, because the rise of any nation can only take place under common ideas. We need to close the gap and collect the forces again on a new platform.” — Adolf Hitler.

 

“Yes, we call ourselves the Worker’s Party! That’s the first step away from the middle-class State! We call ourselves the Worker’s Party because we want to make work free, because for us, productive work is the driving force of history, because work means more to us than possessions, education, niveau, and a middle-class background do! Marxism, with its destructive theories of peoples and races, is the exact opposite of Socialism. Marxism is the graveyard not only for national peoples but also particularly for the one class that fights whole-heartedly for its realization: the working class.” — Dr. Joseph Goebbels

 

 

Edited April 25, 201411 yr by snaes

too long

Only with strict discipline you will triumph.

 

 

You should stop watching Riefenstahl propaganda.

"Triumph" is a subjective concept.

 

Edit: just noticed your avatar, no thanks man

Edited April 25, 201411 yr by Botrepreneur

would read it but wayyy too long

no

You should stop watching Riefenstahl propaganda.

"Triumph" is a subjective concept.

 

Edit: just noticed your avatar, no thanks man

 

Triumph as in "a great victory or achievement."

 

And it's quite ironic how you said that I'm the one under the effect of propaganda, while you have no idea what national socialism is about. Better go back and watch some of the Schindler's list -- here comes the irony again -- which won an award for fiction (LA times).

 

Heh.

And yes, I did have noticed your signature. Very.. Degradative.. if that's a word.

Just because something may offend you, it doesn't mean it's false. Also, if something is against your current logic and ideology, it does not mean it's false. I understand that most of you live to 1) Fuck, 2) Do drugs, 3) Drink, but the life is far more than that. It is an opportunity, which you threw away. Either way, at least I have read the most important works of communism, unlike you, cultural Marxists. I'm sorry to say that, but do not talk about things you do not know of, it's simple as that. When you do, the world gets to where it is at this point. Just look at the post below yours.

 

no

 

 

I can not understand why would you prove your idiocy by posting such stuff, especially after our "argument". You have only proven the point I was making in that argument and cultural mixing. Do you feel Swedish yet?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But you know, everyone writes his own destiny, according to the glorious liberal bullshit. Why would you read our views and the arguments and facts you can not deny, you know the truth already, don't you. 

 

I forgot to mention in the OP that skinheads and other forms of 'neo nazis' are not national socialists. They're punks, on the same level as the, you know, rap, modern culture is. Worth absolutely nothing.

Edited April 25, 201411 yr by snaes

Triumph as in "a great victory or achievement."

 

And it's quite ironic how you said that I'm the one under the effect of propaganda, while you have no idea what national socialism is about. Better go back and watch some of the Schindler's list -- here comes the irony again -- which won an award for fiction (LA times).

 

Heh.

 

Victory, success, achievement, etc... are all subjective my friend.

 

How did you manage to deduce my knowledge about national socialism or even politics in general? 

I didn't even talk about the movement, I just critiqued your statement concerning "triumph".

Me not agreeing with you doesn't make me ignorant about the subject.

 

I don't really get why you brought up the Schindler's list movie either.

 

 

 

Edit:

 

Just because something may offend you, it doesn't mean it's false.

 

I am offended by your avatar yes. What isn't false ?

 

Also, if something is against your current logic and ideology, it does not mean it's false.

 

Again, what isn't false?

 

Either way, at least I have read the most important works of communism, unlike you, cultural Marxists. I'm sorry to say that, but do not talk about things you do not know of, it's simple as that. When you do, the world gets to where it is at this point. Just look at the post below yours.

 

When you have to explain/brag to people that you read books,  you probably don't

Edited April 25, 201411 yr by Botrepreneur

Victory, success, achievement, etc... are all subjective my friend.

 

How did you manage to deduce my knowledge about national socialism or even politics in general? 

I didn't even talk about the movement, I just critiqued your statement concerning "triumph".

Me not agreeing with you doesn't make me ignorant about the subject.

 

I don't really get why you brought up the Schindler's list movie either.

 

Ah. Nevermind then, also nevermind the rest of the post. My apologizes. 

 

 

Can you tell me what interpretations besides the victory as I (and I do believe you know what I mean by it) portray it and how do you portray victory, since it's subjective. I doubt victory is the new world order, is it?

Edited April 25, 201411 yr by snaes

Ah. Nevermind then, also nevermind the rest of the post. My apologizes. 

 

 

Can you tell me what interpretations besides the victory as I (and I do believe you know what I mean by it) portray it and how do you portray victory, since it's subjective. I doubt victory is the new world order, is it?

 

Winning/success/victory in sports, possible interpretations:

 

• First place.
• Participating.
• Not getting injured.
• Having fun.
• Beating a personal record.
• Pleasure from the physical pain.
• Boycotting a game.
• Cheating.

 

I am offended by your avatar yes. What isn't false ?

 

 

Again, what isn't false?

 

 

When you have to explain/brag to people that you read books,  you probably don't

 

How are you offended by my avatar? You do not know jack shit about this guy, sorry, but it is true. You haven't shown any interest in learning about him either, seeing your reaction to the thread.

 

You should be able to answer on the question what isn't false, but apparently you can not. You seem to have a view on this whole situation, a direct opposite of mine. So if any of my statements ever offended you, will you claim that it is a falsehood? You said in the first post that I read a bit too much propaganda, so yes, you did have say that. 

 

And as for the last part, I'm not sure how to react on this. Claim whatever you want. I just pointed out that people who think they know about national socialism do not know anything. I am of the belief that you have to get to know an ideology before actually criticizing it, or even hating on it and you -- apparently, haven't done that.

 

Winning/success/victory in sports, possible interpretations:

 

• First place.
• Participating.
• Not getting injured.
• Having fun.
• Beating a personal record.
• Pleasure from the physical pain.
• Boycotting a game.
• Cheating.

 

 

 

"in sports"

 

I would think that you would know in which context I mean triumph, but all right. I'm getting used to it.

 

 

Either way, the first post, along with the rest of the posts so far were not on topic, a derail even. Might as well counter the arguments if you can, posting random crap does not make you win anything. Oh wait, nevermind. You just need to be politically correct.

 

 

Just a quick question: What's the reason for being offended due to my avatar? 

Edited April 25, 201411 yr by snaes

First of all let me get something straight about my opinion onHitler:

 

Some people portray him as the devil and think he was sole cause of the holocaust.

That's a naive opinion and I don't agree. You can't deny he had racist opinions (meinkampf), the relation between his racism, political power and the crimes against humanity that occurred during WW2 can't be unseen. 

 

Concerning my knowledge about the guy:

 

You weren't there so your sources and theories aren't anymore valid than mine .

 

Concerning me not being sure about  exactly what you are claiming to be false.

 

Hitler is a bad guy.

The holocaust happened.

Which one of those two (or both)? Or possibly another one?

 

Concerning "triump" :

 

I used sports to demonstrate it's subjectivity.

If you want, I can easily prove that it's subjective in politics too.

 

Concerning me being offended by your avatar :

 

He's a symbol of hate and discrimination.

 

First of all let me get something straight about my opinion onHitler:

 

Some people portray him as the devil and think he was sole cause of the holocaust.

That's a naive opinion and I don't agree. You can't deny he had racist opinions (meinkampf), the relation between his racism, political power and the crimes against humanity that occurred during WW2 can't be unseen. 

 

Concerning my knowledge about the guy:

 

You weren't there so your sources and theories aren't anymore valid than mine .

 

Concerning me not being sure about  exactly what you are claiming to be false.

 

Hitler is a bad guy.

The holocaust happened.

Which one of those two (or both)? Or possibly another one?

 

Concerning "triump" :

 

I used sports to demonstrate it's subjectivity.

If you want, I can easily prove that it's subjective in politics too.

 

Concerning me being offended by your avatar :

 

He's a symbol of hate and discrimination.

 

First you said that it's naive to think that he's evil and then you proceed and say that he's a symbol of hate and discrimination. 

I am not positively sure whether it's worth of even arguing from here on, but if you read the OP, you would see our views on nationalism and other nations. 

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=1414484788801351 just a slideshow on the other races in national socialist movement, you would see it if you read the OP.

 

And have you read Mein Kampf? Have you EVER seen any Reichtag's documents that encourage/ demand any form of stratifical destruction or elimination of other race/ ethnicity? Oh wait, there were none. And yet you claim he's a symbol of discrimination. Let me tell you something, my friend, the only people who discriminate you are the ones who made you believe this. And trust me on this one. Who is more racist that the ones who push the racial mixing, instead of actually helping these 3rd world countries, instead of the capitalist exploitation. If Asia got the Rothschild banks off their back, they wouldn't be 3rd world any more, I heavily doubt, myself. 

 

No, he did not have "racist" opinions, you have no idea what the Aryan should strive for, you have no clue who were the real world war two criminals and most of all, you have no idea what this ideology is about. Read the first post and then reply. Otherwise, do not.

First you said that it's naive to think that he's evil and then you proceed and say that he's a symbol of hate and discrimination. 

I am not positively sure whether it's worth of even arguing from here on, but if you read the OP, you would see our views on nationalism and other nations. 

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=1414484788801351 just a slideshow on the other races in national socialist movement, you would see it if you read the OP.

 

And have you read Mein Kampf? Have you EVER seen any Reichtag's documents that encourage/ demand any form of stratifical destruction or elimination of other race/ ethnicity? Oh wait, there were none. And yet you claim he's a symbol of discrimination. Let me tell you something, my friend, the only people who discriminate you are the ones who made you believe this. And trust me on this one. Who is more racist that the ones who push the racial mixing, instead of actually helping these 3rd world countries, instead of the capitalist exploitation. If Asia got the Rothschild banks off their back, they wouldn't be 3rd world any more, I heavily doubt, myself. 

 

No, he did not have "racist" opinions, you have no idea what the Aryan should strive for, you have no clue who were the real world war two criminals and most of all, you have no idea what this ideology is about. Read the first post and then reply. Otherwise, do not.

 

There is a huge difference between being something and being the symbol of something.

I said "devil" not "evil". Even though I don't think he's evil as the devil, I still think he was quite evil. He is a symbol of hate and discrimination, you can't deny that. Even though you might not agree about the reason WHY he became a symbol.

 

I've read meinkampf, I have never seen any official Reichtag documents. But I live 30 minutes away from an old  WW2 concentration camp though. Have seen some of the trains, been to Dachau.

The hate crimes aren't fantasy. And it's hard to unsee the link between them and Hitler's racial convictions and power. He was at least aware of them and did nothing to stop them, despite his power.

 

About the Reichtag's documents that encourage/ demand any form of stratifical destruction or elimination of other race/ ethnicity: There aren't any, their non existence proves nothing however.

Who do YOU think was responsible for the holocaust?

 

 

have You no idea what the Aryan should strive for, you have no clue who were the real world war two criminals and most of all, you have no idea what this ideology is about. 

I heavily doubt, myself. No, he did not have "racist" opinions, 

 

The very definition of aryan is racial supremacy.

Racial supremacy = racism.

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is a huge difference between being something and being the symbol of something.

I said "devil" not "evil". Even though I don't think he's evil as the devil, I still think he was quite evil. He is a symbol of hate and discrimination, you can't deny that. Even though you might not agree about the reason WHY he became a symbol.

 

I've read meinkampf, I have never seen any official Reichtag documents. But I live 30 minutes away from an old  WW2 concentration camp though. Have seen some of the trains, been to Dachau.

The hate crimes aren't fantasy. And it's hard to unsee the link between them and Hitler's racial convictions and power. He was at least aware of them and did nothing to stop them, despite his power.

 

About the Reichtag's documents that encourage/ demand any form of stratifical destruction or elimination of other race/ ethnicity: There aren't any, their non existence proves nothing however.

Who do YOU think was responsible for the holocaust?

 

 

 

The very definition of aryan is racial supremacy.

Racial supremacy = racism.

 

I don't think you really get it. First off, quit marking him as a symbol of hate. You're trying to look like an open minded thinker here, but that is not the case. I can deny that and - for the 3rd time, if you read the thread, at the part of Extreme nationalism, you would maybe, just maybe understand it a bit more. 

 

You have read Mein Kampf? It doesn't seem so, honestly. While it may indeed differ on the translations, I doubt they made such huge differences. I'd love to believe you, but I do not. And so what if you live 30 minutes away from a 'concentration camp'. I'm not going to go in the concentration camps in this very topic, but you can lose anytime you want, been in such debates for over 3 years now and I found out that it is not worth of even trying to debate about it, at the very end you get called all these names and that's about it. So what if you have seen the trains and if you were to Dachau, so have I. I've also been to Auschwitz. Not only that, GESTAPO had posts all over the place where I live, we were taken to each like every single year, you know, to refresh our memory on how terrible it was. How about I tell you something. Let me divide this into three parts.

 

1) The "mass murdering" began in the 1942-3s. Everyone agrees with this. Now, just an interesting fact, you do realize that there was a war? You do realize that the soldiers had to be fed and there was a shortage of food all over the Germany? I would prioritize as Hitler did. There is the first reason for the "mass murdering". The second part is typhus. Go look it up. Typhus is a deadly disease that was spread around the camps and has murdered quite A LOT of people. Indeed, typhus, not guns. Either way, you do also realize that Zyklon-B is a disinfection chemical and was used for DISINFECTING CLOTHES, to prevent typhus and not for gassings? And as I said, yes, I've been to Auschwitz and let me tell you from my own perspective, I have seen none of the blue markings, which Zyklon-B leaves after used for a long time. None. I have seen them outside, in the DISINFECTION CHAMBER, in which clothes were disinfected and the staff themselves claimed that. 

 

2) In the prions (also known to us as concentration camps) were put the outlaws, the ex-plutocracy, the ex-oligarchy, the sympathizers with the communist and capitalist regime, the Freemasons and overall the political enemies. No, they did not go around, picking people, saying they need to go in a camp because they're not white enough or whatever you believe. Even here, in Slovenia, they claim that. It has to be said that the gypsies were also put in there, because they were to be relocated from Europe, they come from Asia. Not to be killed.

 

3) All of this were confessed in the Nuremberg trials. You do realize the most impact was made by the Auschwitz leader, about all the atrocities? He himself said that, but was all that truth? Why would he say that if he knew that he'll be killed for it? Hmm. That's the origin of the mass murders, before that point it was not in existence. 

 

Who do I think is responsible for holocaust? The war. You claimed that  "their non existence proves nothing however." and yet the holocaust was never really.. you know.. proven. You're digging your own grave (argument wise, just to be sure you don't misunderstand this, lol).

 

And as for the last part.. Read Nietzsche's Thus spoke Zarathustra and about the Übermensch. That is the strive. You do not know anything about national socialism, for the 3rd time now.

 

And yes, racial supremacy is racism, indeed. And yet there was no such thing in national socialism. 

 

You're lying to yourself & I stated clearly that you should read the OP before replying, but I guess some people are just too, kind of arrogant, you know.

 

While I am not the biggest fan of denying holocaust, I do believe it was far over exaggerated. Even though we do not even know what 'holocaust' is supposed to be in the first place. 

 

Red cross' OFFICIAL report:

 

 

 

 

For your record: Communism has killed 20 times more innocent people as (the official, politically correct numbers) national socialism. Capitalism is not even worth of mentioning, it has killed far more than both of them multiplied.

 

If national socialism won, there would be no such thing as all of these mass murders by communism and capitalism, nor the cold war and the deaths there, nor the 3rd world exploitation as we know it today and millions dead there, nor the Vietnam war, nor the cultural Marxism and the destruction of races and more. 

US Army investigators, working at Buchenwald and other camps, quickly ascertained what was common knowledge among veteran inmates: that the worst offenders, the cruelest denizens of the camps were not the guards but the prisoners themselves. Common criminals of the same stripe as those who populate US prisons today committed many villainies, particularly when they held positions of authority, and fanatical Communists, highly organized to combat their many political enemies among the inmates, eliminated their foes with Stalinist ruthlessness.

 

Two US Army investigators at Buchenwald, Egon W. Fleck and Edward A. Tenenbaum, carefully investigated circumstances in the camp before its liberation. Fleck and Tenenbaum described the power exercised by criminals and Communists as follows:

 

The trusties, who in time became almost exclusively Communist Germans, had the power of life and death over all other inmates. They could sentence a man or a group to almost certain death ... The Communist trusties were directly responsible for a large part of the brutalities at Buchenwald.

 

Colonel Donald B. Robinson, chief historian of the American military government in Germany, summarized the Fleck-Tenenbaum report in an article published in an American magazine shortly after the war. Colonel Robinson wrote succinctly of the American investigators’ findings: “It appeared that the prisoners who agreed with the Communists ate; those who didn’t starved to death.”

 

Additional corroboration of inmate brutality has been provided by Ellis E. Spackman, who, as Chief of Counter-Intelligence Arrests and Detentions for the US Seventh Army, was involved in the liberation of Dachau. Spackman, later a professor of history at San Bernardino Valley College in California, wrote in 1966 that at Dachau “the prisoners were the actual instruments that inflicted the barbarities on their fellow prisoners.” 

Have you seen this yet?

Edited April 25, 201411 yr by snaes

If you truly know what you're talking about, you should be able to summarize it into a small paragraph a 1st grader could understand and read.