You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

nullifyNWO ago

Good you mention Q 1940. Here my answers / take:

Was 'Nazism' ever truly destroyed? --- No.

Was it merely a sub-division within a larger organization? --- Yes.

One finger attached to a hand? --- Yes. Just one of (5) socialist fingers used by the NWO

Did ANTIFA organically form? --- No. Soros et al.

Flag design coincidence? --- No. Capitalizes on being 'enemy of Nazi', Nazi having been built up as the accepted boogie man.

Socialist push in US/WW coincidence? --- No. Reactivation of socialist propaganda, new forms, (5) fingers again. Multiculturalism, LGBT, no borders, 'we are all humans' BS, Mass propaganda, free minimum income, UN, Climate change, ban religions (='all the same'), ...

Global power struggle. --- NWO (using new socialisms) against patriots, in all countries the same struggle.

There is a price we will not pay. --- price = freedom, independence, country ...

There is a point beyond which they must not advance. --- (watch Reagan speech for hints)

FatPanda ago

The key is the the National Socialists in Germany (NSDAP) Never called themselves NAZIs, that was a term given to them by communist Jews.

“The term “Nazi” (along with “Nazism”) is a political epithet invented by Konrad Heiden (7 August 1901 – 18 June 1966) during the 1920s as a means of denigrating the NSDAP and National Socialism. Heiden was a journalist and member of the Social Democratic Party. The term is a variant of the nickname that was used in reference to members of the SDP at the time “Sozi” (short for Sozialisten). “Nazi” was a political pun, based upon the Austro-Bavarian slang word for “simpleton” or “country bumpkin”, and derived from the fairly common name Ignatz. It would be like saying “nutsy”. So, if for no other reason, one should easily understand why the term was regarded as derogatory by the National Socialists and why they would never use it to describe themselves. One should also see why it would be used and popularized by Marxist-Bolshevik agitators and understand how it was seized upon by various other political opponents and subversive types, both within Germany and abroad, including the international media and political leaders of the western powers.” (Metapedia)

It should immediately become apparent that, if there is no such thing as a “Nazi”, except in the propaganda which was invented and spewed by this man, then it follows logically, that there is also NO such thing as a “Neo-Nazi” either. Those who would describe themselves as such are as ignorant as those who say they hate “Nazis” and they are equally decieved. Indeed, I highly suspect that some of those who promote “Neo-Nazism” are really agents whose job it is to keep the spectre of evil “Nazis” alive, and to effect the demonization of all those who would dare question the whole history about Hitler, the NS and WWII that we have all been sold.

What we must also know about Mr. Heiden, however, is that he was not just any other political opponent in the days of the Weimar Republic. He, himself was a “Jew”, and his father was a trade unionist, and that the trade unions were teaming with subversive, violent, Marxist-Bolsheviks. And NO, that is not “racist” statement, nor is intended to promote hatred. Merely to sate the facts. If you want to make such childish accusations then please start with attacking Wikipedia.

nullifyNWO ago

Thank you for this reply. Our 'disaggreement' is probabl none but merely deduces itself from the defitnition of the term 'Nazi'. Like with all 'socialisms', my key is described by the word 'utopia'. All socialisms dereive their magic attraction from an utopia: (Old) socialisms like Marxism (philosopher's socialism), Communism (Punk's socialism), Socialism (bureaucrat's socialism), Multicurluralism (international socialism 2.0), globalism, ... and 'National socialism'.

'National socialism' stands out, but why? It combined two things opposite to each other: Nationalism (patriotism) and socialism. That is as odd as to merge Chistianity and Islam. The 'Nazis' had a very good element which was patriotism. The 'Nazis' at the same time were bad socialists. Who were 'the Nazis'? - Goebbels and the like were the real bad ones. They infiltrated and muddied the good part with same old socialism (which is same old feudalism, a s o).

Hitler, after 20+ years of the country being destroyed and abused by globalist handlers (Treaty of Versailles, ..) spoke the truth and was seen as a great chance. It was (socialist) infiltrators and global NWO actors who turned the thing into a brutal socialism. The pushed the sane euphoria of patriotism to becoming an insane ideology of utopism.

Thus, the term 'Nazism' cannot really be defined. It is a discriminatory term from the beginning, it has been built up by international NWO propaganda as the all time discriminatory term. This all to bury the righteous fight of a nation for int's land, it's pride, it's culture, it's race.

When Q uses 'Nazism' in post 1940, i take this in the definition of the - undeniable - bad SOCIALIST (=NWO) part of the thing. I personally like that choice. I appreciate the patriotic part of the Hitler attempt to free Germany. I do not excuse the failure. The failure allowed the NWO to take over the mics and demonize every sane country as 'Nazis'.