You know it's not really the Nazi's...right?

Now it is true that Hitler had a suppressive agenda against Cosmopolitan Bankers, Free Masons, Communists, advocates of sexual degeneracy and weird American cults such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, banning their activities and sending them off to the Political re-education camps such as Dachau, and so it's reasonable to state similar methodology is being used by Governments of today, however it's totally disingenous to proclaim they are therefore Nazi's when in fact they are more likely to constitute those who were formerly suppressed that won the war.

It would obviously make a lot more sense then to state that it's the Communists who employed the exact same suppresive methods and generally involving far greater death counts against cultural conservatives and ethnic-Nationalists, to state it is the Nazi's is to to claim that such groups are orchestrating their own genocide, that the victims are in fact the perpetrators, which is of course entirely a suggestion of the Globalist shill.

The more fantastical disinformation would suggest that the Nazi's actually won the second world war but of course that's the opposite of the reality and if they had what is currently occuring wouldn't be, for the midwit to believe they may have and that Globalism is the Nazi's redirects then directly away from the actual perpetrators and leaves one chasing shadows such as is common with the Q-research mindset.

It can be argued that Hitler's method of suppression against the subversive forces within Germany at the time made it easier for his enemies to propogandize against his methods and thus generate popular suppost for the war within Countires which promoted Liberal values closely linked with Free Masonry, but those preachers of tolerance have become increasing intolerant against those who mistrust their agenda, were liberalism doctrine of do what thou will became the whole of the Law, it is more the case that they are doing what they do today because they simply want to towards self-empowerement at the expense of others and are getting away with it.

a reply to: Madrusa

In order to gain control of a nation or build a new one certain levels of canceling out voices and people are generally on the more 'extreme' end of such goals. The 20th century was about accelerating political and socio - economic societies. liberal republican style Democracy was only alive in a handful of nations, and it was a much better system than the fringe movements that was happening all over the world. USSR and Germany being the prime examples, just get rid of those you don't want to oppose you as quickly as possible, and then work from there. And as we have clearly seen, both failed hard and ended up in disaster.

If I understand you correctly. You've made the interesting observation tho, that the ones who were generally cast out of those fringe movements are now seemingly the ones in today's world to be doing the 'purging'. A almost complete 180. I don't think you're alone in that observation, I have seen it as well.

But who or what is driving this madness, just like back in the early 20th century, Germany didn't just 'decide' to start hating on anything bohemian, progressive, and such, it was caused by a movement, lead by people. Same as the USSR, it was sparked by a collapse of feudalistic state egged on by communists.

a reply to: Madrusa

"It can be argued that Hitler's method of suppression against the subversive forces within Germany at the time made it easier for his enemies to propogandize against his methods and thus generate popular suppost for the war within Countires which promoted Liberal values closely linked with Free Masonry"

The war that germany started. So basically Hitler was giving liberal valued countries propaganda material that would help in a foreseeable war.

And we won the war and became progreseively liberal, to the point of "do what thou wilt"? Only focusing on self-empowerment.

Then, you are saying we should be calling opressive people in today's world communists instead of nazis?
Because commies are more about the anti individual?

"and if they had what is currently occuring wouldn't be"
Even if Nazi Germany won and America surrendered. That wouldnt ensure that liberal values wouldnt happen.

Just trying to understand your post.

Regardless of labels and the verbiage used to describe those who control via fear, propaganda, and outright force, they exist and have an agenda they are working towards that befits them, and not us.

a reply to: Madrusa

a reply to: strongfp

There are also those who suggest that the collapse of the state being egged on was a long-term strategy employed by those doing the egging on. They infiltrated key institutions and undermined the state using its own principles against it essentially rotting it from within and setting it up for the fall while they stand by to pick up the pieces having already indoctrinated the youth to think their own previously failed ideology is one that will save them.

a reply to: CptGreenTea

I more consider the current ideology extreme-liberalism, they're just doing what they want at the expense of others, the Communism always seems to have been for the others anyway financed by Western Liberals, a form of slavery

I don't think Hitler suppressing elements in Germany defined his ideology, it was a means to an end the general German public certainly not feeling oppresed and being supportive, the only counter to extreme liberalism is the greater collective good, any Nuremberg 2.0 as some hope for would involve extreme suppression towards a supposed better future.

a reply to: strongfp

The 20th century was about accelerating political and socio - economic societies. liberal republican style Democracy was only alive in a handful of nations, and it was a much better system than the fringe movements that was happening all over the world.

There had always been natural liberty within the confines of the Law and cultural values, as an ideology Liberalism finds it's final form in the Antinomian, the rejection of all Laws and constraints upon individuals and group. Every classic Liberal philosopher had a stash of Antinomian cabbalistic tracts on his bookshelf, because ultimately the position is a religious one against natural/Divine law, so liberal republicanism was tolerable when moderately applied and under societal constraint.

a reply to: Madrusa

There is no left/right or commies/facists. In our current global endeavor, I see it as libertarian vs. authoritarian rule. In other words, people who want to give away their individual liberties for the greater group vs. the people who want to remain individuals.

I believe it will be a form of techno-feudalism. Just like the WEF said," You'll own nothing and be happy". Sounds to me like they want to bring back a caste system. One where the political elites have their own rules that the serfs do not. (Masks, defying lockdown rules) the money and power will soon be the next large grab. They've been slowly buying up all the land. There's no where to run.

The only good tyrant is a _______ tyrant.

a reply to: CptGreenTea

I think he is directing his post at all the people here that calls the actions of some governments (specially COVID policies) Nazi’s this or that.

For the OP, Nazi’s were the very ultra conservatives and pro white nationalism that fought the communist and liberal forces of the world.

IMO is a lot of twisting into a pretzel to say Nazi’s were the good guys.

a reply to: SoundisVibration

It actually has to be both, extreme liberty for me and authority for you if you even think about complaining against the liberties i'm taking, but yes sort of techno-feudalism with a new set of robber Barons giving each other silly gongs, the only authority they adhere to is their in-group rules as a criminal organization, and the higher up in that hierarchy the greater the liberties and authority.

a reply to: Skepticape

The only genuine label is self serving collective evil, in religious terms Sethianism.

a reply to: Madrusa

In other words, the axis is totalitarianism v. complete anarchy. The best place is to have just enough structure to a society that the rule of law is a light one applying just enough pressure to reign in the worst excesses and bad actors.

The best expressions of such a society are with people moral enough/ethical enough to keep themselves reigned in and be trusted to behave rightly by one another in most basic circumstances so that institutional, legal means are not needed.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Madrusa

The best expressions of such a society are with people moral enough/ethical enough to keep themselves reigned in and be trusted to behave rightly by one another in most basic circumstances so that institutional, legal means are not needed.

This right here. I'm going to steal this

a reply to: ketsuko

What is interesting to me is how often Saturn in various guises gets the blame for all societies woes and never Jupiter, there are positive and negative aspects to both archetypes in that Jupiter can either be order of the benevolent and supportive or tyrannical and utterly destructive, something people need to wake up to as they continue to support authority and Law enforcement even when it's murdering them.

Saturn likewise can subvert and cause to collapse order which is natural and good and thus be considered evil but it can also cause to collapse evil order and thus be considered good, change over time and the balance between the two. Liberals/Leftists/Anarchists have supported the collapse of reasonable authority because it has allowed them to do as they please, but the inevitable consequence is the rise of evil order, which they are generally fine with until too late.

a reply to: Bunch

IMO is a lot of twisting into a pretzel to say Nazi’s were the good guys.

They were never going to be the good guys for everyone but try changing the world for the better without upsetting a Liberal.

a reply to: Madrusa

It's very simple. Those who cannot rule themselves will be ruled.

Therefore, those who seek power will seek to create those who will be ruled one way or another.

a reply to: ketsuko

Indeed, a long term plan can probably be the most effective tool to undermine a society, and the youth are the key to the rebuilding process.
In reality the youth are the key for building or maintaining any ideology or political stance. We see it all over the world.
The US is a good example, when "patriotism" was implanted into the youth at a young age, pledge of allegiance, focus on gender roles, teaching history through a biased lens.
And look what's happening now, all of that is being undone it seems. And it's more than just within the classroom, it's everywhere, the youth are bombarded, social engineering is the new acceleration.

a reply to: ketsuko

But that seems to put the emphasis on the individual from a libertarian perspective which will fail against a tyrannical collective, numbers and popular support are always critical, thus the requirement of the MSM to propagandize the changes and justify them because Nazis...

originally posted by: Madrusa
a reply to: ketsuko
They were never going to be the good guys for everyone but try changing the world for the better without upsetting a Liberal.

But that’s not the point with ultra conservatives, Uber-traditionalist and white nationalist. The point of these groups is that NOTHING should change. Everything should be ran as it was back to the point were it was more advantageous to them.

So your premise is reverse, trying to get some progress in this world without upsetting the perennial ruling caste. Every inch of progress in this world causes seismic apolcalyptic waves within that class.

'a rose by any other name would smell as sweet' etc.

a reply to: Bunch

It would depend on how far back you went and towards what principles, i'd suggest further than the Medieval and Imperial Roman towards the Iron Age for Europeans, thus before certain intrusive religious and political ideologies, but then again that would require going forwards from the present serfdom so that would be positive change.

You could consider the last isolated tribes of the Amazon for example, i'm sure they don't have these societal concerns as long as their group leader is doing a half decent job, freedom does manifest at the local level and ethnic-tribalism the no-no of the Globalist.

A lot of Germany's problems began when they unified as a Nation, Medieval City State Germany was much better but there was the pressure from rising Nations and Empires elsewhere such as the French, Hitler believed the greater Pan-Germanic Nation was neccesary to compete and surive.

originally posted by: Madrusa
a reply to: Bunch

Hitler believed the greater Pan-Germanic Nation was neccesary to compete and surive.

And he was wrong in ideology and strategy… too bad he had to take 85M souls with him.

a reply to: Madrusa

As soon as I read Jehovah's Witnesses, I stopped reading. Hilter and the JW's had a non-interference pact, I remember very well reading the GIF image of the letter in the 80's from the alt boards on USENet. I have not gone over all the material on the site in the link, but the images look like the ones I remember from the 80's.

JW Information Link

Cheers - Dave