afb7dd No.5436805
I know that Uncle Adolf focused a bit less on this aspect, but I believe that this is one of the most alluring parts of National Socialism. Any information about how the German economy ran back then? Stuff like tax rates, dominant industries, nationalization, etc…
>inb4 lurk moar
5efcab No.5436836
0b6550 No.5436855
>I know that Uncle Adolf focused a bit less on this aspect
Not really. NS is a complete package, every element depends on the others.
45b77a No.5436897
>>5436836
This.
Everything is well explained plus you won't have to read lolberg crying about the big bad word socialism and their right to pay their employees 1 pesos per day because muh freedumz.
30d775 No.5436913
>>5436805
Gottfried Feder - Manifesto for the Abolition of Interest Slavery: https://media.8ch.net/pdfs/src/1415545893830-1.pdf
Ezra Pound - What Money is For: http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/10/what-is-money-for/
Sumerian Swindle: How the Jews Betrayed Mankind: https://media.8ch.net/pdfs/src/1435471567316-0.pdf
All essential reading for third position economics.
30d775 No.5436933
Also, more important than Mein Kamp, Hitlers second book: https://media.8ch.net/pdfs/src/1425113651740-0.pdf
a0cd48 No.5436940
>>5436933
The version I downloaded only had 124 pages…
30d775 No.5436947
>>5436940
Better get this one then, huh.
ceec8a No.5437016
Huge deficit spending (public debt at 38 billion marks by 1938) to fund public works programs to get rid of unemployment and to spend on rearmament, and use of MEFO bills, a type of government bond given to industry so they could get stuff now with a promise to pay back later.
This was done in full knowledge that Germany would be involved in a huge war in the short term: victory would mean they could pay back all this debt with the spoils, defeat would mean they're fucked anyway.
It was a bubble that gave the short-term illusion of economic rebirth but which was all done on credit and relied on war happening, otherwise the bubble would burst again.
Now, what the "ideal" NS economy was is a different question, but we can't look to the economy of the 30s and 40s for evidence because the debt-fuelled rearmament economy and wartime economy are such special circumstances.
30d775 No.5437066
>>5437016
>Huge deficit spending (public debt at 38 billion marks by 1938)
Debt owed to whom?
Debt doesn't mean what you think it means when your banks are nationalized.
Debt owed to oneself is in fact not actually debt. And calling it debt is disingenuous.
30d775 No.5437138
>>5437016
Also "muh war time economy" is bullshit.
They were using an enhanced barter system for trade, so creating external trade deficits is pretty much impossible.
And again, you can't owe money to yourself. You don't need to conduct war loot to pay anything off when your money is a representation of labor.
ceec8a No.5437146
>>5437066
>Debt owed to whom?
Bond-holders and MEFO bill holders (these weren't fully transferable and could only be circulated within industry).
>Debt owed to oneself is in fact not actually debt.
Correct. But the national debt is not "owed to oneself" unless you plan to print money, and that's something they were trying not to do because hyperinflation and wheelbarrows full of worthless money were exactly what they were trying to avoid.
Bonds were issued, but there was limited demand due to the Versailles-imposed interest cap. MEFO bills were introduced by Schact as a clandestine pseudo-bond system, only to be kept within industry so they could charge higher interest rates and hide the large public debt from external observers.
ceec8a No.5437152
>>5437138
>And again, you can't owe money to yourself.
Please learn what a bond is.
This is a prerequisite before you can even begin to understand how government spending works.
d47194 No.5437156
>>5437016
It seems someone didn't do the homework.
>>5436913
>>5436836
Read more. Also, read monetary history.
Web of Debt, by Ellen Brown is a good start.
14412e No.5437166
>>5436940
My irl copy is 227 pages
ceec8a No.5437180
>>5437156
"You are wrong, but I will not say why nor counter any specific points. Go away and spend hours reading these books of my choice."
Not very persuasive. More of a deflection technique.
d47194 No.5437205
>>5437180
No, it's actually saying:
Read and learn, you fucker
but politely.
You're wrong because the debt is return in taxes and cancels itself. Also, Schact tried to remain Nazi Germany as much as kisher as possible, but in the end Labour Treasure Certificates acted as a sovereign currency.
Well, I "enlightened" dozens about it before you, so I don't have the patience to keep writing the same thing over and over again.
If you want to know about the subject, READ. Better than relying in some anonymous, don't you agree? Or are you only seeking a reason to neglect knowledge?
Srsly, fuck off.
30d775 No.5437217
>>5437146
>MEFO
Which were issued by the German government and not third parties, again you fail to understand.
>they were trying not to do because hyperinflation and wheelbarrows full of worthless money were exactly what they were trying to avoid.
Blatantly false, they absolutely used a fiat currency, the reason they had hyperinflation was because they were tied into the globalist economy, and had their currency valued against others. This problem was fixed the exact moment they told the debtors to fuck off.
>>5437180
https://media.8ch.net/pdfs/src/1420107340842-0.pdf
Read chapter 24. Its only 6 pages long.
ceec8a No.5437230
>>5437205
>You're wrong because the debt is return in taxes and cancels itself.
No, it's not "cancelled" because the taxes didn't cover expenditures.
Do I need to link you to a dictionary so you can look up what "deficit" means?
30d775 No.5437252
b98bfb No.5437282
>>5437252
Just quote the relevant parts, he's not going to read it.
ceec8a No.5437290
>>5437217
>Which were issued by the German government and not third parties
A bond is a debt instrument. When a government issues such bills, they are by definition IN DEBT to the holder of that instrument. The government were in debt to industry by means of the MEFO bills. Again, you seem unaware of basic definitions.
>Blatantly false, they absolutely used a fiat currency
I didn't say they didn't have a fiat currency. What I said was they did not print currency to cover their expenditures in the way the Weimar governments, Robert Mugabe etc. did. Instead they used bonds and MEFO bills, and hence kept the lid on rocketing hyperinflation.
30d775 No.5437310
>>5437290
HURR DURR DEBT IS DEBT
WHY AREN'T YOU READING?
READ THE CHAPTER YOU STUPID MONGOLOID
3cee89 No.5437333
I only admire the Nazis for their nationalism and telling the jews to take a hike, not too big on the Socialism part. I had thought NatSoc was just a means to an end, which would be a return to traditional Western society. Or maybe I'm confusing that with fascism.
>Inb4 it's muh special snowflake socialism
I know faggot, fuck off
14412e No.5437413
>>5437217
>While Hitler clearly deserved the opprobrium heaped on him for his later military and racial
aggressions
https://media.8ch.net/pdfs/src/1420107340842-0.pdf
Imagine what a hero Hitler would be if people were redpilled on WW2 and the hololhox
14412e No.5437444
>>5437333
What a waste of trips
c3f3ef No.5437459
dcdbb8 No.5437715
>We don't say to the rich 'Give to the poor', we say 'German people, help each other'. Rich or poor, each one must help thinking, there's someone even poorer than I am, and I want to help them as a fellow countryman.
Ok I'm honestly confused about this. To me this sounds exactly like the same stuff that most communists/socialists spout. What makes this different than your usual socialism?
30d775 No.5437771
>>5437715
Its different because hes asking for cooperation and not equality.
Because in an homogeneous nation, citizens are your kin. Its not the same as trying to ensure that everyone is as equal as possible and have as equal opportunities as possible.
Its about building a healthy and strong nation, and you can't have one if you allow your population to end up like Brazil.
ceec8a No.5437773
>>5437310
>WHY AREN'T YOU READING?
Let me just check the author…
>Ellen Brown
>lawyer
>ten books on alternative medicine
>standing as Green Party candidate for California treasurer
>believes big pharma are suppressing natural cancer cures offered by Tijuana quacks
>writes for HuffPo
Cat lady detected, no relevant qualifications.
Book rejected as garbage tier.
Oh, and guess what:
>it's self-published
30d775 No.5437794
>>5437773
>I'm just going to ignore it all because of superficial reasons that I don't agree with
you are L O FUCKING L BUTTHURT
14412e No.5437795
ceec8a No.5437827
>>5437794
>self-published book by a cat lady quack with zero authority on the subject.
>superficial reasons
Now you're just embarrassing yourself.
30d775 No.5437850
>>5437827
Do I need to link you to a dictionary so you can look up what "superficial" means?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/superficial
Synonym Discussion of superficial
superficial, shallow, cursory mean lacking in depth or solidity. superficial implies a concern only with surface aspects or obvious features <a superficial analysis of the problem>. shallow is more generally derogatory in implying lack of depth in knowledge, reasoning, emotions, or character <a light, shallow, and frivolous review>. cursory suggests a lack of thoroughness or a neglect of details <gave the letter only a cursory reading>.
No anon, you are the embarrassment.
b98bfb No.5437874
>>5437827
>arguing against the man instead of the argument
That's not how it works.
1/2
41e972 No.5437938
>>5437874
imagine if it was a kike author. would you still say that?
b98bfb No.5437958
>>5437938
Yes. Take your strawman somewhere else.
When you set the precendent that qualifications are more important than correctness, you accept nonsense because it derives from a position of authority. Surprise, surprise, that's exactly what the kikes did to Western academia.
30d775 No.5437999
>>5437938
Kikes are generally reviled for their lies, why should we hate a Kike if what he says turns out to be true?
There have been very based Jews precisely because they were soothsayers and went against the Jewish grain.
45b77a No.5438069
>>5437333
>I had thought NatSoc was just a means to an end
It is.
Hitler made it pretty clear in Mein Kampf that his form of government wasn't made to always stay the same and that the future generations were meant to change it by bringing in new ideas.
717724 No.5438215
How do you economic calculation problem of a socialist commonwealth?
>ib4 Ludwig von Mises was a Jew
Not an argument, Hitler was also a Jew, how do you allocate resources efficiently when value is subjective and there is scarcely.
Bonus question: How do you reconcile the tragedy ofthe commons?
>ib4 Capitalism is Jewish bankers
No its not, capitalism is private ownership, central banks and the Rothschild Jewish banking system is the enemy of liberty.
“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies,” Jefferson wrote. ” If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around(these banks) will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.” -Thomas Jefferson
>libertarians are subversive
yeah lolbers are generally subversive leftist shit but Austrian economics is not libertarianism.
"Well, I would say that, as long-term institutions, I am totally against dictatorships. But a dictatorship may be a necessary system for a transitional period. At times it is necessary for a country to have, for a time, some form or other of dictatorial power. As you will understand, it is possible for a dictator to govern in a liberal way. And it is also possible for a democracy to govern with a total lack of liberalism. Personally I prefer a liberal dictator to democratic government lacking liberalism." - Friedrich Hayek
>bonus Jefferson quote
"This unfortunate difference of colour, and perhaps of faculty, is a powerful obstacle to the emancipation of these people. Many of their advocates, while they wish to vindicate the liberty of human nature are anxious also to preserve its dignity and beauty. Some of these, embarrassed by the question `What further is to be done with them?' join themselves in opposition with those who are actuated by sordid avarice only. Among the Romans emancipation required but one effort. The slave, when made free, might mix with, without staining the blood of his master. But with us a second is necessary, unknown to history. When freed, he is to be removed beyond the reach of mixture." - Jefferson
PS: Jefferson was not a freemason
I'm a race realist, anti-egalitarian, anti-Zionist etc, but I don't understand how some of you reconcile socialism. Socialism has always been about Internationalist elitist (Jews) controlling the world. So why socialism? TBH I always kinda saw NatSoc as controlled opposition.
30d775 No.5438312
>>5438215
>Not an argument, Hitler was also a Jew, how do you allocate resources efficiently when value is subjective and there is scarcely.
He was also a pansexual transvestite werewolf with one testicle. He also killed 6% of the 6,000,000 with his bare hands.
>I'm a race realist, anti-egalitarian, anti-Zionist etc, but I don't understand how some of you reconcile socialism. Socialism has always been about Internationalist elitist (Jews) controlling the world. So why socialism? TBH I always kinda saw NatSoc as controlled opposition.
Because National Socialism is not actually socialism. Its based on 'Prussian Socialism' which is much more related to Ottoman Imperial theory.
9d9204 No.5438387
14412e No.5438408
>>5438215
You'll get there, eventually.
dc8caa No.5438611
Hitler's economic miracle was caused by him nationalizing the banks, and printing debt-free fiat currency, thus abolishing the black hole of wealth at the center of any economy with a central bank and creating a system that was not tied up in the continuous and extreme transfer of money from poor to rich. This is the main cause of Germany's prosperity, certain industries were also nationalized and there were a lot of market interventions like price controls but those were not the main cause of German economic growth, if anything Germany's interest-free fiat currency allowed them to succeed despite those measures instead of because of them. I support free markets as long as the banking system is either nationalized or completely decentralized. Goldbugs are useful idiots.
4cb0ec No.5438947
717724 No.5438969
>>5438312
>Because National Socialism is not actually socialism
Care to explain? I looks like Cronyism too me and government control over the economy. That is rather socialist. Its also doesn't answer for the economic calculation problem.
>>5438408
care to help out be explaining how it would work? I mean you really aren't helping me understand why national socialism would work. After all one of the big reason Germans Lost the war was dude to running out of resources. One of the arguments of against the holocaust is that they had to ration which lead to starvation. That doesn't sound like a healthy economic policy to me. The South Lost the Civil war because they could not pay of Cotton Investors in France and resorted to printing currency and this lead to inflation.
>printing debt-free fiat currency
How does this not lead to hyperinflation? We already have nationalizing the banks in the U.S. (but its Zionist nationalist who run it). Considering how good Jews are at subverting organization (See Spanish Inquisition) who could say that German National banks wouldn't soon be controlled by Jews. After all Hitler was a Jew. That said, it really doesn't matter who owns the banks the value of the currency if not tied to a commodity like gold with real value depreciates as more is printed. What would prevent a State from abusing this to pay off military industrial complex going into debt and debasing the currency in the process. If unlimited resources was possible then the Germans might have won WWII but by the end they where starved out. Sort term "economic miracles" do not solve the long term problems of fiat currency. Some Keynesian still think the Banking Bailouts and Quantitative Easing was an "Economic Miracle" that saved the U.S. form depression. However, now we see the economy tanking as soon as the FED started to raise rates and the air came out of that bubble. National socialist just seem to me at times to be no different then /leftypol/ but red-pilled on race but blue pilled on economics. I'm willing to be mistaken I just don't get it. Central banking is the issue that lead to the U.S. being subverted. How do you give that much power to the state and prohibit the state from becoming co-opted by Zionist interest? I mean modern Germany is almost as Cucked as Sweden and that is in large part do to Hitler failing. If he was so great a leader then why did you lose? The answer, in my opinion was because you had shit economic policy that lead to fulling a unsustainable war machine. The reason it was unsustainable was because it was socialist.
a8c9c1 No.5438973
>>5437166
>My irl copy
Where'd you get it? Barnes Review?
14412e No.5439026
>>5438973
I have a swedish translation so it's probably not very relevant for you to know where i got it, but here is the link anyways:
http://midgaardshop.com/
a8c9c1 No.5439035
>>5438611
>I support free markets as long as the banking system is either nationalized or completely decentralized.
So, you support free markets no matter what? You could've just said that.
a8c9c1 No.5439058
>>5439026
Neat, thanks for letting me know.
14412e No.5439177
>>5438969
>running out of resources.
Food was never a problem, at least for the civilian german. Shortage of out supplies is basically cuz of germany's natural geographic position.
> which lead to starvation.
That was manly coz of the allied bombing the german infrastructure.
>care to help out be explaining how it would work?
Read Hitler, Feder and Rosenberg. You cant explain NatSoc in short terms on a image board. NatSoc is so much more then an ideologi it's a worldview and a way of life.
30d775 No.5439196
>>5438969
You must first explain your definition of Socialism if you want me to define a distinction.
Or you can read any of these:
https://media.8ch.net/pdfs/src/1415545893830-1.pdf
https://media.8ch.net/pdfs/src/1425113651740-0.pdf
e86681 No.5439210
Hitler did nothing wrong with reichmarks
14412e No.5439240
30d775 No.5439301
>>5439240
Nice find, saved.
14412e No.5439455
14412e No.5439504
14412e No.5439649
>>5439455
>>5439504
Kikewheel fix your goddamn site
717724 No.5439672
>>5439196
>>5439240
thanks for the links I'll read them when I have the free time. I define socialism as government control of the economy.The same way Frederic Bastiat define socialism in The Law. Modern socialist like to conflate socialism with Communism yet Marx advocated State Socialism as a means to and ends to reach pure communism which never manafested because it would never work. I would image the same is true in a sense to those who advocate State Socialism as a means to and ends to their ideal system. As for the allied bombing, well no shit war is a huge drain on the economy but if Hitler was such a great economist he wouldn't have draged his nation into endless war. The cost of War is often what leads to the fall of a nation and often its Enemy at the gate denying trade routes and cutting off supply lines that ultimatly leads to defeat. http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html
That said subversion is more dangerous then the known enemy and any tool that can be used for good can also be used against your self interest. How can you prevent this subversion? How do you ward of the enemy inside the gate? Just look what happened to the Tea Party or GamerGay.
“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.” - Marcus Tullius Cicero
Granting the economic calculation problem for the sake of argument and if hypothetically Hitler won the war, what would have prohibited the Jews from subverting the power of the National Socialist state given the state would have the power to regulate the economy. With the power to pick the winners and loser in a market makes that power a valuable commodity to want to control which means their would be no end to those would bid for that power and those with the power willing to sell out. That is partly why the U.S. is failing after creating a Central Bank. Once politicians had the power to sell they ended up inevitably selling it and now its owned by the Jews.
14412e No.5439791
>>5439672
>but if Hitler was such a great economist he wouldn't have draged his nation into endless war
I don't wanna sound rude, but are you new here?
But anyways read https://media.8ch.net/pdfs/src/1415545893830-1.pdf (it's like 50 pages) and you'll get the basic idéa.
30d775 No.5439819
>>5439672
>I define socialism as government control of the economy
As a centrist ideology, NS allowed for private business, they were to only intervene if its in the best interest of the nation. They do control the economy in other senses that they control the currency that the nation uses very closely.
If strongly support the above, so by your definition I am a socialist, but if you were to ask a leftist they would decry me as a staunch capitalist, take from that what you will.
>if Hitler was such a great economist he wouldn't have draged his nation into endless war.
Hitler was not an economist, he had experts to do that for him, also Hitler did not start the war and had asked for peace like 60 or so times, even Rudolf Hess had flown to England to make peace.
The war was one of mostly allied aggression, I don't have time to go in further, but I will be on later tonight or tomorrow to elucidate if you ask.
>That said subversion is more dangerous then the known enemy and any tool that can be used for good can also be used against your self interest. How can you prevent this subversion? How do you ward of the enemy inside the gate? Just look what happened to the Tea Party or GamerGay.
Both of those movements are loosely defined, GamerGoy even less so. This makes them very easy to subvert, which can only be prevented by making your ideology clear and understood, anyone trying to subvert at that point can easily be rooted out.
>Granting the economic calculation problem for the sake of argument and if hypothetically Hitler won the war, what would have prohibited the Jews from subverting the power of the National Socialist state given the state would have the power to regulate the economy. With the power to pick the winners and loser
That's not how it worked, and what you describe would be absolutely an abuse if it occured.
On the jewish side of that question, I can only say that the Jews are our misfortune to bear.
One can only be vigilant.
Also if you haven't seen http://tgsnt.tv/ I highly recommend it if you want a comprehensive history of the events surrounding and during the war.
14412e No.5439852
>>5439672 Google translate this
2. Folkgemenskapen.
Läran om folkgemenskapen, die Volksgemeinschaft, är den tyska nationalsocialismens själva grundlära. Som ovan framhållits är detta intet originellt. Detsamma är också fallet med så gott som alla antimarxistiska och antidemokratiska rörelser i tiden. Två gånger – år 1793 och år 1848 – trodde också demokratiens profeter att deras lära var vägen till den verkliga folkgemenskapen. Senare tiders demokrater ha däremot konsekvent förnekat folkgemenskapens realitet och endast sett den myllrande mängden likartade mänskliga molekyler. Det är tidens hårda skiften och den sista generationens lidanden som åter gett folkgemenskapstanken levande innehåll. Den är den enda utgångspunkt, från vilken marxismen, klasskampen, demokratismen, parlamentarismen, partisystemet och plutokratien numera kunna effektivt bekämpas. Den är den nödvändiga motpolen, marxismens konträra motsats.
För en konsekvent marxist måste folkgemenskapstanken vara en fiktion – och självfallet också en skadlig fiktion, ett de härskande klassernas bedrägliga medel att lamslå de utsugna klassernas klasskampsiver. Ty för den övertygade och konsekvente marxisten – och sådana finnas ännu många, även om den riktiga marxismen just ingenstans är på modet – finnes det ingen annan social realitet än klasserna. Det är därför också nästan rörande att se med vilken vånda marxismens anhängare anstränga sig att ge en ”marxistisk” tolkning av nazismens frammarsch i Tyskland. Man fann snart, att den rätta termen härvidlag var ”medelklassideologi”, och år efter år utvidgade man därefter medelklassens begrepp och numerär för att få den att sammanfalla med valstatistikens vittnesbörd om den snabba stegringen av nazismens röstsiffror i Tyskland. Man presterade i detta hänseende verkligt halsbrytande saker. Först när denna linje blev absolut omöjlig att upprätthålla, då man icke gärna kunde göra bortåt hälften av tyska folket till ”medelklass”, tillgrep man det senare brukliga mera förenklade begreppet ”återfall i barbari”.
Ingen som sett något av dagens Tyskland kan emellertid tvivla på att folkgemenskapstanken efter den nationella revolutionen blivit en levande andlig verklighet. Den blir det för övrigt alltid, då ett folk gripes av känslan att uppleva en avgörande vändning i sin historia. De former, vari denna nya tyska känsla av folkgemenskap yttrar sig, kunna visserligen stundom göra ett egendomligt och någon gång ett parodiskt intryck. Termen Volksgenosse, Heil Hitler-hälsningen, de nya sångerna, de många uniformerna, marscherandet, paraderna, det ständiga bärandet av Abzeichen av olika art äro emellertid just de former, i vilka man med utgångspunkt i tysk mentalitet kunde vänta att en dylik känsla skulle komma att yttra sig. Det äkta hyser sällan fruktan för det löjliga. Men om äktheten finns det intet tvivel.
14412e No.5439854
>>5439852
De teoretiska konsekvenserna av folkgemenskapstanken äro klara nog. De äro på det politiska området negativt sett antidemokratismen och positivt sett ledarprincipen. På det ekonomiskt-sociala området äro de negativt sett antimarxismen och positivt sett socialismen, det vill säga socialismen i den Spenglerska, ”preussiska” formen: Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz.
Frånsett de fanatiskt troende marxisterna finnas väl icke många, som vilja förneka den verkliga folkgemenskapstankens positiva värde, i varje fall i ett folks inre förhållanden. Det mera omstridda spörsmål som först framställer sig, är i stället följande: Är känslan av folkgemenskap i Tyskland efter nazismens seger levande och äkta, eller är den endast en officiell fras, avsedd att bemantla ett brutalt våldsherravälde?
Nästa fråga är denna: Kan denna folkgemenskapskänsla hållas levande eller måste den endast bli en övergående berusning?
Den tredje frågan slutligen är denna: Måste en dylik levande känsla av folkgemenskap leda till en aggressiv hållning utåt, till en stark känsla av fiendskap mot andra folk?
Man skall vara ganska fastlåst i förutfattade meningar, om man förnekar, att den nya känslan av folkgemenskap i Tyskland är äkta och levande. Just det osäkra i formerna, det naiva i entusiasmen, det åtminstone för icke tyskar stundom löjliga i den nya förtjusningen vittna starkt om äktheten. Men därtill kommer att allt detta dock sannolikt för tyskarnas del endast är första steget på vägen till en nationell stil, sådan som fransmän och engelsmän för länge sedan var för sig funnit den. I generationer ha tyskarna ständigt varit bekymrade av tanken, huru de taga sig ut inför utlandet, inför den så kallade världsopinionen, vilken som bekant länge huvudsakligen varit hemma i London och Paris. Tysklands och tyska folkets uppträdande i det internationella umgänget har också under långa tider alltför mycket påmint om en man, som i större sällskap är plågsamt medveten om svårigheten att placera sina händer rätt, och som understundom söker fly ur sin osäkerhetskänsla med förbluffande och arroganta uttalanden. Vad som skett i fråga om det tyska folkets psykiska utveckling under 1933 är just detta, att denna osäkerhetskänsla i stor utsträckning börjat övervinnas. Fransmännen, som visserligen aldrig lidit av någon osäkerhetskänsla, nådde motsvarande punkt i sin utveckling år 1793. den nya stilen skapas visserligen icke på en gång. Den nya nationella entusiasmen ter sig ännu ofta något löjlig i främlingars ögon. 1793 års fransmän, som tatuerade sig med ”Mort aux rois” och kallade varandra för citoyens och citoyennes, voro onekligen också löjliga, åtminstone i en skeptisk och blaserad publiks ögon. Men det året nådde i alla fall franska nationen fram till självmedvetande. Tyskarna ha icke på allvar gjort det förrän 1933. De kalla varandra för Volksgenosse och Volksgenossinnen i stället för Citoyens och Citoyennes, de hälsa varandra med Heil Hitler i stället för Vive la nation; de tro även de på ’La nation une et indivisible’, fastän de kalla den för ’Volksgemeinschaft auf Grund von Blut und Boden’, men stämningsläget är detsamma. Vad man ser är även i Tyskland ett folk, som når fram till ett nytt medvetande. Med tiden kommer visserligen entusiasmen att övergå till ett mera vardagligt känsloläge, och de för de skeptiska löjliga dragen komma att bli mindre framträdande, men Tysklands psyke blir efter den nationella revolutionen aldrig vad det var förut. Man må om man vill kalla den tyska nationella stämningen år 1933 en psykos, men det är sådana psykoser, som sätta märken i och varaktigt gestalta ett folks utveckling och själsliv.
Vad som framför allt är det medvetna i folkgemenskapens nya tyska stämningsläge är en stark känsla av befrielse. Ingenting torde låta mera häpnadsväckande för dem, som låtit påverka sig av den vulgära antinazism, som fått breda ut sig väl mycket i åtskilliga länders tidningspress. Men var och en som sett något av det nya Tyskland har ej kunnat undgå att lägga märke till denna känsla av befrielse, vilken verkligen är det första som faller i ögonen. Horst-Wessel-sångens ord ”der Tag für Freiheit und für Blut bricht an”, återge verkligen vad det tyska folket av idag tror på. I denna mening kan den nationella revolutionen verkligen betecknas som ”Ein Sieg des Glaubens”. Den är en psykisk revolution. Den har ganska litet att göra med frågan om brödet och friheten faktiskt kvantitativt eller kvalitativt tilltaga. Ty det utmärkande för tiden är minst av allt ett sinne för fakticitet. Det är snarare, som en modern fransk tidstolkare, Lucien Romier, uttryckt det, ”la renaissance des passions sentimentales” som är tidens devis.
14412e No.5439858
>>5439854
Men – och det var nästa fråga – kan allt detta bli varaktigt? Måste inte denna nya känsla av tillförsikt, av frigörelse – frigörelse från partisystem, regeringslöshet och hela det offentliga livets dränkande i fraser – denna resning av luften med ett ord, för sin fortvaro bli beroende av att den ständigt ånyo matas med Panis et circenses, med bröd och skådespel? Kräves det icke, att en verklig och påtaglig förbättring av levnadsförhållandena för folkets stora massa faktiskt gör sig gällande? Och kräves det icke även, att entusiasmen underhålles med en ständigt flödande ström av propaganda, som till slut måste nöta ut alla andliga värden?
Det vore dåraktigt att förneka att det ligger åtskilligt i dessa frågor. Det är också oemotsägligt att möjligheten för den nya nationella regimen att hålla entusiasmen och tilliten uppe verkligen i icke ringa mån måste bli beroende av att den lyckas åstadkomma faktiska förbättringar i tillvarons allmänna villkor. Men man må ej glömma bort, att nationell entusiasm, är den är äkta, tål en ganska hård belastning. Den ovannämnda franska parallellen från 1793 är i detta hänseende belysande nog. Framför allt måste man emellertid komma ihåg att förhandenvaron av en känsla av äkta folkgemenskap i hög grad underlättar en statslednings uppgift. Den befrias nämligen därigenom från en god del av det extra politiska slitage, som ligger i den artificiellt underhållna klasskampen och de olika politiska partifirmornas löpande bränslebehov: tvånget för dem att vidmakthålla och utvidga den kontroversiella karaktären av samhällslivet. I detta hänseende har en av folkgemenskapskänslan uppburen regering ett ofantligt praktiskt försprång gentemot varje partiregering.
Folkgemenskapens nya idé har faktiskt redan i Tyskland åstadkommit en ganska vittgående omgestaltning av det sociala livet. Den ekonomiska klassdifferentieringen var i Tyskland långt mindre än i Frankrike eller England, men klassmentaliteten däremot, åtminstone hos den äldre generationen, i långt högre grad iögonfallande än i dessa länder. I detta hänseende har den nya folkgemenskapsparollen redan åstadkommit en väsentlig förändring, en vittgående praktisk demokratisering (i social mening) av rätt djupgående art. Icke minst har S.A.-organisationen härvid spelat en betydelsefull roll. Man kunde i detta sammanhang frestas till ganska vittsvävande utläggningar om uniformens psykologiska betydelse i Tyskland. Men man kan nöja sig med det rent faktiska konstaterandet därav, att, medan uniformen för en engelsman eller en fransman i allmänhet kännes som en boja, har den på tysken en stimulerande inverkan, stegrar hans ansvarskänsla, pliktkänsla och självkontroll i så utpräglad grad, att man väl kan påstå, att en tysk i uniform ur samhällelig synpunkt är en värdefullare person än samme tysk utan uniform.
Slutsatsen måste bli den, att folkgemenskapen i det nationella Tyskland icke är en propagandafras utan en verklighet. Minst nio tiondelar av folket förefalla på allvar besjälade av denna nya känsla. Att förneka detta vore att förbise en av de viktigaste faktorerna i det samtida Europas utveckling. Klasskampsidén, som i Tyskland och de skandinaviska länderna drivits mer in absurdum än kanske någon annanstans i världen, har i Tyskland besegrats av den nya nationalsocialistiska idén om folkgemenskapen. Därigenom ha mäktiga krafter frigjorts.
Återstår den sista frågan: Betyder denna nya tyska folkgemenskap, denna segrande nationalism, en fara för andra folk? Måste den medföra en aggressiv tysk politik utåt? Måste den leda till fiendskap mot andra folk?
För mången är detta hela spörsmålets viktigaste och avgörande aspekt. Om nationellt sinnelag måste betyda aggressivitet och i sista hand krigsvilja gentemot andra folk, skulle Europas utveckling i de segrande nationella rörelsernas tecken te sig till ytterlighet tragisk. Jag vill betona, att denna syn på frågan synes mig grundfalsk. Det finnes ingen motsättning mellan nationalism och internationalism. Tvärtom. Europas samförståndsproblem kan i själva verket endast lösas i de nationella rörelsernas tecken. Endast medvetet nationellt sinnade folk kunna höja sig till full förståelse för varandras berättigade intressen och till full uppskattning av värdet ur det helas synpunkt av alla nationella särdrag och traditioner. Den internationalism, som tror sig kunna nå fram till samförstånd mellan folken på en annan väg än över det klara nationella medvetandet, är inne på en falsk linje, hamnar i en återvändsgränd. Europeiskt samförstånd och samverkan kunna endast åstadkommas genom att alla folks berättigade intressen erkännes och så långt som möjligt tillgodoses. Första villkoret härför är att de själva beslutsamt hävda dem.
14412e No.5439876
>>5439672
>>5439852
>Folkgemenskap
>Volksgemeinschaft
There is no good english word for this
77382f No.5440291
717724 No.5440503
>>5439819
Well I use the traditional definition of Socialism because its much older then Marx and Leftist are always changing their name to hide their intentions. About 5 years ago Leftist would have called themselves Communist and cried that the USSR wasn't true pure Communism. However recently they now cry that it wasn't pure Socialism because the label of Communist is no longer trendy. They are always playing linguistic games.
>Hitler was not an economist
Semantics, because his experts clearly would have advised him that War is expensive. If he acted in self defense that would have been just and Necessary but Invading France and Poland then spiting the front to pushing towards England and Russia was suicide. I know he wanted peace with England but Blitzkrieg and Air Raids and the cost of war ultimately was the German peoples undoing. More over even experts cannot predict prices in a market system. They are operating with Post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning so their modeling will always be inaccurate. Many criticisms of Kaysianim also apply to what your suggesting and without a natural price mechanism you are now faced with booms and bust derived from mal investment explained by Austrian business cycle theory.
>>5439876
>Folkgemenskap
essentially: Indivigual and workers, "of the people"
>Volksgemeinschaft
essentially: cooperation/collective/corporation/hierarchy industrialization "part of the hole" "cog in a machine"
Its ok I actually think know what those words mean. I might be mistaken tho.
I'm going to need to archive or bookmark this thread because I've been busy with work. However, I'm going to try and sort through this and be open minded. Thanks
dcf532 No.5440782
>>5438611
>certain industries were also nationalized
Can you name which ones? I know that banks were government owned, but I've read that energy, mining, etc were still private.
14412e No.5441173
>>5440503
Folkgemenskap or Volksgemeinschaft is kinda hard to explain. It can be anything from you borrowing your lawnmower to your neighbor or you paying your taxes. It's basically you wanting to sacrificing something for the greater good of the folk*, because you have things in common with you folk and feel solidarity to them.
"The common interest before self interest" was the spirit in the NSDAPs programme according to Hitler (Feder 1932 ,21)
*"folk" is indeed something special; it is an ethnic community extending across many generations; a modern equivalent might be the term "ethnoculture," as "folk" implies a community unified by common culture and ethnicity more than political boundaries.
14412e No.5441745
>>5440503
I'd also like to mention that NatSoc isn't the same for every country, rather the opposite. NatSoc should always come from the root of its folk. It has some basic principle like it always recognizes private property, condemns class struggle, nationalize central bank and praising Volksgemeinschaft etc. But if the best choice for the folk is to have a more right leaning economic policy it should indeed adopt it. If a democracy is the best (which i highly doubt it will ever be the case) for the folk it should also adopt that and etc. So just because the German did it one way doesnt mean every NatSoc country should do that same.
e372d0 No.5442089
>>5437016
Except this debt was actually used to help the people, and not to enrich jews at the expense of everyone else.
25ef34 No.5443822
>>5442089
The fact that "The Fed" makes payments to the treasury and then keeps some 'small percentage' still seems disturbing.
That's without reading any of these books.
d19d0b No.5444795
>>5437794
>BUTTHURT
Autist detected and filtered.
d19d0b No.5444861
The US loaned pre-Nazi Germany several billion marks. Plus US investors loaned German industries quite a bit of money. Hitler's economic expansion wasn't a miracle, they spent the loans on armaments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawes_Plan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Agreement_on_German_External_Debts
975bad No.5444885
>>5444861
I think you didn't even bothered to read what was posted here.
What you said is incomplete and leads to incorrect thought.
Read more.
d19d0b No.5444942
>>5444885
>I think you didn't even bothered to read what was posted here.
You're right, I didn't. If you want to counter my argument with facts and figures, please do so. Telling someone "Please read the 5,000 pages of books I've assigned you" or "Watch the 20 hour series of videos" is an unconvincing argument.
975bad No.5444959
>>5444942
They were already debunked above - that's precisely why I told you to read. Don't be intellectually lazy, that's a sign of arrogance and ignorance.
d19d0b No.5445032
>>5444959
>They were already debunked above - that's precisely why I told you to read. Don't be intellectually lazy, that's a sign of arrogance and ignorance.
The only mention of the US loans to Germany in this thread are in my posts. If you are referring to the several books mentioned on this thread, you're right I didn't read them.
If you're incapable of summarizing the books' passages as they pertain to my discussion of US loans it merely shows:
1. You didn't read the books as carefully as you think, and you're just deflecting.
2. You're not as smart as you think you are.
3. You have some sort of mental impairment when it comes to social interaction.
Being able to summarize complex materials and politely discussing them is the hallmark of an educated person. Or it was once upon a time.
Being insulting when the other person is being polite, curious, and engaged in the topic just makes you look immature or autistic.
6cd88c No.5445145
Same shit brains ruined America.
I would suggest the jewtube - Everything is a rich mans trick.
The CIA and big business's foundations (Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie) spent huge sums of money to fund the 'New Left' during the Cold War. They wanted to divert attention from economic issues to social ones and they succeeded.
Today we have little kids who believe that domestic social issues are much more important than geopolitics in general. This allows people like Obama and Hillary to bomb the fuck out of other countries while at the same time be praised by their supporters.
http://archive.is/nBF8N
If The Cultural Cold War had been published in the 1960s or 1970s, it most likely would have caused a sensation and been a best seller. It would have provoked anguished editorials in major Western newspapers and a barrage of "we-told-you-so" items in the communist-controlled media. Published at the turn of the century, however, the book is something of a curiosity.1 It contains a long cry of moral outrage over the fact that the CIA committed "vast resources to a secret program of cultural propaganda in western Europe."2 At the same time, the author, an independent filmmaker and novelist, has produced a well-written account of a basically unfamiliar story with a cast of many larger-than-life characters who played roles in the Cold War.
To over-simplify the historical background: In the late 1940s, Washington did not take it for granted that the people in Western Europe would support democratic governments and that their states would effectively oppose the Soviet Union and support the United States. To help promote democracy and to oppose the Soviet Union and West European communist parties, the CIA supported members of the non-communist left, including many intellectuals. Because the CIA's activities were clandestine, only a few of the beneficiaries were witting of the Agency's support, although a large number suspected Agency involvement.
After the CIA established and funded the Congress for Cultural Freedom and Encounter magazine, did it then call all the shots? Did the Agency determine what the Congress should support or what Encounter should publish? Evidently, no. In the 15 years that the Agency "ran" the magazine, Encounter probably published about 2,000 articles and reviews. Saunders can cite only two (rather dubious) cases in which the CIA may have intervened to prevent the journal from printing articles.
For Saunders, however, the CIA's "interference" was much more invidious. She writes that, "The real point was not that the possibility of dissent had been irrevocably damaged…or that intellectuals had been coerced or corrupted (though that may have happened too), but that the natural procedures of intellectual enquiry had been interfered with."6 And, "Whilst Encounter never shrank from exposing the useful lies by which communist regimes supported themselves, it was never truly free itself of the `bear trap of ideology,' of that pervasive Cold War psychology of `lying for the truth'." Encounter "suspended that most precious of western philosophical concepts—the freedom to think and act independently—and trimmed its sails to suit the prevailing winds."7 I must admit that as I read such passages, I kept thinking "those poor stupid individuals"
6cd88c No.5445160
Same shit brains ruined America.
I would suggest the jewtube - Everything is a rich mans trick.
The CIA and big business's foundations (Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie) spent huge sums of money to fund the 'New Left' during the Cold War. They wanted to divert attention from economic issues to social ones and they succeeded.
Today we have little kids who believe that domestic social issues are much more important than geopolitics in general. This allows people like Obama and Hillary to bomb the fuck out of other countries while at the same time be praised by their supporters.
http://archive.is/nBF8N
If The Cultural Cold War had been published in the 1960s or 1970s, it most likely would have caused a sensation and been a best seller. It would have provoked anguished editorials in major Western newspapers and a barrage of "we-told-you-so" items in the communist-controlled media. Published at the turn of the century, however, the book is something of a curiosity.1 It contains a long cry of moral outrage over the fact that the CIA committed "vast resources to a secret program of cultural propaganda in western Europe."2 At the same time, the author, an independent filmmaker and novelist, has produced a well-written account of a basically unfamiliar story with a cast of many larger-than-life characters who played roles in the Cold War.
To over-simplify the historical background: In the late 1940s, Washington did not take it for granted that the people in Western Europe would support democratic governments and that their states would effectively oppose the Soviet Union and support the United States. To help promote democracy and to oppose the Soviet Union and West European communist parties, the CIA supported members of the non-communist left, including many intellectuals. Because the CIA's activities were clandestine, only a few of the beneficiaries were witting of the Agency's support, although a large number suspected Agency involvement.
After the CIA established and funded the Congress for Cultural Freedom and Encounter magazine, did it then call all the shots? Did the Agency determine what the Congress should support or what Encounter should publish? Evidently, no. In the 15 years that the Agency "ran" the magazine, Encounter probably published about 2,000 articles and reviews. Saunders can cite only two (rather dubious) cases in which the CIA may have intervened to prevent the journal from printing articles.
For Saunders, however, the CIA's "interference" was much more invidious. She writes that, "The real point was not that the possibility of dissent had been irrevocably damaged…or that intellectuals had been coerced or corrupted (though that may have happened too), but that the natural procedures of intellectual enquiry had been interfered with."6 And, "Whilst Encounter never shrank from exposing the useful lies by which communist regimes supported themselves, it was never truly free itself of the `bear trap of ideology,' of that pervasive Cold War psychology of `lying for the truth'."MI Encounter "suspended that most precious of western philosophical concepts—the freedom to think and act independently—and trimmed its sails to suit the prevailing winds."7 I must admit that as I read such passages, I kept thinking "those poor stupid individuals".
5e4038 No.5445428
>>5444861
>The US loaned pre-Nazi Germany several billion marks.
Because Germany couldn't pay the unreasonable war reparations demanded by the Treaty of Versailles.
Loaning more money to pay for the reparations was a way for the US to squeeze more wealth out of, and put more influence on, Germany.
Remember, the German banks were under the control of the government, and the government was in turn under the Allied control.
They took many unfavorable loans in order to facilitate Allied economic recovery.
>Plus US investors loaned German industries quite a bit of money
Vague. Give me numbers.
It was much more often the other way around; for instance, Automobile industries like Ford were heavily subsidized by the Reich.
>Hitler's economic expansion wasn't a miracle, they spent the loans on armaments.
No. The re-armament started covertly in 1936, and was put in full swing in 1938. Nothing to do with external loans.
It was funded at first by using Mefo bills launched by Hjalmar Schacht.
Economic expansion was generated by the meticulous government planning. Everything was controlled and kept at reasonable prices. Wages, dividends, profits etc.
This kept the economy flowing and companies were forced to use their extra profits on investments.
The actual "deficits", which for some reason scare the shit out of libertarians, were in governmental bonds and Mefo bills. German government owing money to its own banks and people isn't actual debt at all.
As long as people had faith in the government and themselves, it's a non-issue. And the people's faith in the future was at unprecedented levels, shown by the rise of the birth rate to replacement levels.
The process of economic stabilization was stopped by the war. But make no mistake, there was a constant effort to balance the budget after the Four year plan, launched in 1936 by Göring.
d19d0b No.5447346
>>5445428
Here's an article from Atlantic Monthly that reinforces your argument: http://archive.is/iYoxZ:
The world owed the United States billions of dollars, but the world was going to have to find another way of earning that money than selling goods to the United States.
That way was found: more debt, especially more German debt. The 1923 hyper-inflation that wiped out Germany’s savers also tidied up the country’s balance sheet. Post-inflation Germany looked like a very creditworthy borrower. Between 1924 and 1930, world financial flows could be simplified into a daisy chain of debt. Germans borrowed from Americans, and used the proceeds to pay reparations to the Belgians and French. The French and Belgians, in turn, repaid war debts to the British and Americans. The British then used their French and Italian debt payments to repay the United States, who set the whole crazy contraption in motion again. Everybody could see the system was crazy. Only the United States could fix it. It never did.
cd8f06 No.5447368
>>5436933
To any newcomers, this book is CONFIRMED to be shill and edit free by the allies, unlike mein kampf
269406 No.5448151
>>5447368
>To any newcomers, this book is CONFIRMED to be shill and edit free by the allies, unlike mein kampf
I saw this claim posted in another thread. Could someone actually elaborate on what was done to the English translations of Mein Kampf?
89cf0d No.5448172
>>5448151
Some mistranslations of german sayings and such that could lead to them being percieved as rayciss and ebil
89cf0d No.5448195
>>5448151
Forgot to mention, read Mein Kampf: A Translation Controversy by Michael Ford, it's on >>>/pdf/ somewhere
269406 No.5448217
>>5448172
All I can find on the subject is
http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/09/which-is-the-best-translation-of-mein-kampf/
While "fighting community" and "combat group" have entirely different connotations, that's seems to be the worst of it. I have the Manheim translation myself, and all disputed translations seem to be footnoted with the original German.
269406 No.5448286
>>5448195
>Mein Kampf: A Translation Controversy
I've skimmed it a little, but it doesn't seem to criticise the Manheim translation at all. In fact, I can only find it quoted once, on page 37.
http://www.hitler-library.org/Mein-Kampf-Translation-Controversy.pdf
269406 No.5451232
>>5447368
I eventually managed to find this.
http://www.inconvenienthistory.com/archive/2016/volume_8/number_1/rethinking_mein_kampf.php
As well as being veritable red-pill material in-and-of-itself, it criticises Manheim's literalism in a fairly vague fashion, but, given the contents of the article, I'm inclined to agree with them on the issue of Hitler's "intent".
Does CODOH/IHJ have a publishing house? This upcoming translation does seem like something to watch.
335c49 No.5451399
>>5437771
That can be taken too far. Also it is a response to an embattled position. Basically they had to cooperate because they faced an external foe(kikes, commies who were also kikes, liberals who were mostly kikes, ect).
In a system of whites triumphant when we cut off all food aid to Africa and SE Asia to kill billions of them and shoot any non-whites who dare to step foot on our soil and use mechantilism to enrich ourself and kill them off that sort of cooperation isn't needed. Instead at that point the cooperation should be done at the community level like it was and to a large extent still is in the rural USA. You have to be a respected white to get help, if you are unliked fuck you go die in a ditch. That would also help prevent liberals from arising again if all lefty behaviors are punished via shunning and no public safety net exits outside of community responsibility.
14412e No.5451420
>>5447368
Dont listen to this guys he clearly has no idea what he is talking about.
335c49 No.5451494
>>5445428
>German government owing money to its own banks and people isn't actual debt at all.
Yes it is it is debt the citizens hold, if the government cannot pay back that debt and cancel's it magically like you seem to think is possible confidence in the government falters. It doesn't matter what ideas you hold when your monetary system is fucked up by a fundumental lack of confidence.
You want to know how we make some serious cash while being nationalists? Simple after we form nationalist empire we invade and EXTERMINATE(for reals not just get blamed for it by kikes) the local inhabitants and take their land and assets. Allow looting because the point its to impoverish and wipe out the native population. Say if we cut all aid to Africa and either by bombing or terrorism(not openly known to be under our auspices of course) destoryed the infrastructure which the nogs could not replace then after a few years when the population collapses we invade and murder every nigger we see and take the fucking land which the government then sells off to pay for debt.
That is how you make money fast for an empire, it is the way empires have always made money fast other than by extorting tribute. Of course shit skins don't have money so you can't do that.
Think less about Nazi Germany and more about the imperial era or middle ages. Except this time the only burden on the white man is carrying enough bullets to put one in every skull he sees.
dc13f4 No.5476331
25ef34 No.5481353
This is as good a place to ask this question as any.
So everyone knows that cucks like to go from 'nazi' to the letters, then expand them, and then circle 'socialist' and then say see look, same as marxism.
So why do they always skip 'national'? The normal perception is that Hitler wanted to rule the entire earth as a dictator. So why is 'national' in the title?
8640c4 No.5483435
>>5436933
(c)2104… THE FUTURE
92d0b3 No.5496011
>>5481353
Because it is nationalistic, you clown. As I recall it, the Nazis desired a synergy between government and people. This necessitates a socialistic government, as opposed to one that prefers free markets. Similarly market economies these days, while making way for worthy economic forces, maintain socialistic policies that benefit the nation in the long term, as the government can act as the divining rod of the people's funds, or so to speak. In order to differentiate this brand of people's socialism from the more publicly hated communism and Bolshevism, and rightly so given that they were little more than vague masks of political shifts and coups, the prefix was required.
574429 No.5497330
Hitler kicked out the Rothschilds to create a real economy
See historical film:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIQp31Oyn70#t=26m25s
d6ddd6 No.5497394
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>5437016
This guy gets it. Germany's economy wasn't as free as most people think. Far from it.
a10eba No.5497747
>>5436805
it is a biased take BUT only cowards and traitors burn books or ban speech.
read it and be mindful of the bias and you can still get a viewpoint from it
https://torrentz.eu/713031601e4af9364d7a70de59af388784e65382
ignore the lack of seeds for now, ill take care of that
6097ae No.5498093
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>5436805
>I know that Uncle Adolf focused a bit less on this aspect
NSDAP released the best and most detailed economical plan of all the political parties in Germany at that time.
The reason why Libertarians (most of them only know basics of economy really) and others say that National Socialists are economic illiterates is because of anti NS propaganda and
mostly because the economy we are taught today is only compatible with today's international finance system that was imposed on us by kikes.
What NSDAP did was completely flushing away the Weimar economy and created a new one on its place. A currency that was based on labour and goods produced, as it should have been.
As long as people will look at NS Germany through the rules of current economical system, they won't understand it. That's what I learned from arguing with these people about the National Socialist economic system and how it was implemented [2].
With government controlling the cash flow (basically becoming a bank) and cutting off the middle-man (private bankers) rules change. It's as simple as that and its how economy should be run. What we have now is artificial and corrupt economy.
That video, though very long, explains the NSDAP economic plan [1], compares it to what we have now and how it would fix many if not all of the issues our people face because of the current economical system.
Also, the logic used by NSDAP regarding the economy is not original, it's just how economy was before the international finance took power over our countries.
1. http://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/sofortprogramm.htm
2. http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=1389 (some mistakes are made here by the author, but overall a very good article)
LET ME POST CRIPPLE KIKE REEEEEEEEEEEE
4d8e73 No.5498132
>>5498093
>mostly because the economy we are taught today is only compatible with today's international finance system that was imposed on us by kikes
THIS
Of course when you are seeing Fascism using the capitalism/socialism mentality, of course it doesnt make sense.
You cant say you are economically redpilled/enlightened, if you are still basing your thoughts in artificial semitics ideas
d6ddd6 No.5498143
>>5498093
>A currency that was based on labour and goods produced
This is something I don't quite follow and maybe you could explain it to me.
6097ae No.5498219
>>5498143
I would love to but am in a hurry at the moment, the sources I posted and >>5436913 will give you an idea.
Pic related is a short summary of it I made in a "Is National Socialism Communism" thread.
d6ddd6 No.5498254
>>5498143
>>5498219
Like the massive infrastructure programs. That would've cost a lot of their currency. Even if they don't have to pay rent over it, they're still massively inflating the amount of currency going around. This would cause inflation.
The inflation let to the introduction of price and wage controls in 1936. That's when you get elitism. A government trying to run a planned economy. So not much of a free market.
77d135 No.5498306
>>5436933
Does Ostara Publications ever provide pictures of the original books they get these texts from? Not saying it's bullshit, just wondering.
18ce21 No.5498327
>>5447368
>doesn't elaborate
>hit and run post
fuck off
6097ae No.5498436
>>5498254
You're probably the same guy I argued with previously several times considering I've seen this mentioned several times already.
If you don't even know on what their currency was based on, which also confirms that you didn't read any of the sources I posted much less the sources of others posted ITT, I wouldn't be bothering with you
even if I had the time for it.
d6ddd6 No.5498506
>>5498436
I haven't argued about this before. I've read about it, but for some reason I just don't get it.
I understand that we based our currency on precious metals, because that should provide a stable currency. X amount of metal for X amount of said currency.
Did the German currency work the same way, but with work instead of metals? Like X amount of work is worth X amount of currency? How does that provide a stable currency, and who decides how much an hour of work is worth? It just doesn't click with me for some reason. Like a math problem that you just can't figure out. Don't know any other way to put it in words.
d6ddd6 No.5499015
>>5498436
>>5498506
Anyone who could explain it to me?