Give it 50 more years and everyone will worship this guy as "based conqueror of EVROPA" as much as they do Nappy these days
Give it 50 more years and everyone will worship this guy as "based conqueror of EVROPA" as much as they do Nappy these days
Give it 50 more years and everyone will worship this guy as "based conqueror of EVROPA" as much as they do Nappy these days
Depends on the strength of the legacy of the Holocaust at that time. If it fades into obscurity, Hitler will be seen as a great man of history. If it continues to be the main underpinning of the West's moral philosophy, Hitler will still be seen in a manner similar to Satan.
What is definitely true, though, is that there is an increased understanding now that Hitler was, for all of his faults (and there were many), probably the second most important man in human history, behind only Jesus Christ.
he definitely is not the second most important figure, behind only Jesus Christ. That would be somebody akin to Jesus, like Muhammad. Or somebody like Julius Caesar, who the entire western monarchy based their monikers on, Marx, Lenin, Napoleon, Genghis, fricking Stanislov Petrov might actually be more important than Jesus Christ himself.
>Marx, Lenin
Based Commierino!!!
The world is about to get weird and it's gonna completely frick up historical perception of the 20th century and what it was about and who was important and who wasn't and why. You know I had to do it:
?t=552
>, an
China is going to collapse due to (select one)
>ageing population and low birth rate
>environmental destruction through urbanisation and industrialisation
>western companies relocating to allied poorer SEA countries
>economic failure from moronic zero covid policy
>blocked off from food and oil by blockade if they are dumb enough to try and conquer Taiwan
>PPP
Nappy was this based? I read a couple of his biographies but I don't remember this quote. Do you happen to have a source by any chance?
>Julius Caesar
homie no one gives a shit about Caesar these days. Zoomers don't even know who that is.
95 out of 100 people worldwide don't know who Hammurabi was, doesn't mean he's unimportant
Having an impact on history and zoomers knowing your name are too different things
moron
Hitler is the only person I've read to make the very obvious point that learning history should be about learning the causes of the present day.
He converted me.
>If it fades into obscurity, Hitler will be seen as a great man of history.
If it fades into obscurity, so will Hitler. Pretty much the only reason Hitler is famous is because of the holocaust. Otherwise he is an utterly forgettable dictator.
Like Nappy.
That's such recency bias. While Hitler was the most important man of at least the last 200 years, how could you currently compare him to Alexander or Caesar?
imo Hitler in 50 years will be reduced by the mainstream into an evil kook with a small penis. He will simply be regarded as "crazy" and racist who hated the israelites. What enemy of the west has become more fleshed-out or more liked in the public eye long after their death? Look at how the Confederacy is talked about now (racist losers) as compared to 50 years ago. You have to be coping to the extreme to believe that, OP. People in 50 years will go ok so Hitler was crazy and tried to take over the world, then there were terrorists who tried to kill everybody, and then Russia started WW3. What event or figure of the past doesn't get reduced to a caricature over time by their enemies? Puh-lease
moronic take, Hitler name will always be associated with the Holocaust, this is the new West religion since his fall.
you're the most pathetic poster on this entire board. you haven't converted a single person to neo-nazism with your sad
>please love hitler guys
threads
they converted me tbh
Heil Hitler!
Same bro,same
HH uwu
Same
I'm not even white btw
mein Fuehrer is so kawaii tbh
Right here with you boss. HEIL HITLER!
I didn't like him until this gay post but now I do just to spite you
post yourself heiling to btfo me utterly.
No, he didn't conquer anything. He didn't genuinely command armies, as warfare doesn't exist anymore. Playing Paradox games authentically gives you as much military experience as Hitler. Moreover, Hitler left no serious legacy like Napoleon did. His wars simply cut deep wounds into the West that they may never recover from.
You know he served with distinguish and was even injured in WW1? right?
He did have military experience, nothing he did could have saved their cause after defeat at stalingrad. He wasn't the best military strategist, but you misrepresent.
He left a major legacy, it just wasn't really his making, but rather the result of his actions. The Marshall plan, nato etc
No one worships Napoleon. He is viewed neutrally. Hitler will always be hated and you will always be a wienersucking homosexual.
>No one worships Napoleon. He is viewed neutrally.
LOL
Other than some insignificant Frenchoids, who worships Napoleon?
So many people worshiped Napoleon that it made Leo Tolstoy seethe and write like 1000+ pages about it.
me
The entire legal system of europe (besides shitgland) is based on napoleonic law, the use of the metric system, the modern borders we have and funnily enough, modern representative democracy (besides the US) comes from the french revolution
>Hitler will always be hated
Give it time, no one hates Tamerlane or Genghis anymore. Hell, after some centuries not even the israelites might hate him (find me an hebrew that actually hates Nebuchadnezzar anymore for example)
Napoleon did nothing wrong.
99% of people either don't care about Nappy or they hate him for shit like Haiti
Deliberately starving people in camps is never, ever going to be a good look
Who? Plenty of people dislike Napoleon.
I have never met a single person in real life that claimed to even slightly dislike Napoleon
Most people don't give a frick about Napoleon.
>Starts one war
>loses
Nice "conqueror"
Napolean lost and people still admire him moron
Nope. Napoleon actually innovated, and even though he lost, he left important legacies in both military theory and civil law. Hitler just had a gigantic spergout and was put down like the mad dog he was. He's not going to be rehabilitated because there's nothing admirable to rehabilitate.
>Napoleon actually innovated, and even though he lost, he left important legacies in both military theory and civil law.
All of that is true for Hitler.
1. If you look at the Wehrmacht in the spring and summer of 1940, it outclassed he French and British armies in terms of strategies and tactics. Hitler's army did in a matter of weeks what the Kaiser's army couldn't do in four years: capture Paris and force the French to the negotiating table.
2. Hitler's laws were very influential in the postwar years, and remain relevant to this day. In particular, Hitler's labor laws, which were meant to protect workers from arbitrary firings, were emulated and built upon for decades after the war (and one of their pillars, the existence of impartially-policed legal safeguards against arbitrary firing, remains in place in most formerly occupied countries today).
>source: these guys
Love how it's only the same handful of pictures posted for a decade whereas there's fresh dysgenic leftist cringe literally daily.
neo-nazism is a very fringe ideology. neo-nazi demonstrations aren't very frequent cause there are very few neo-nazis.
>it's a boogeyman not reflective of the average person with sympathy for the 3rd Reich
Got em
>I'm a fat loser in my basement lethally afraid to reveal my neo-nazism in public
we know.
I'm married, a father, and have literally had conversations with my boss about Miguel Serrano.
you heil a lot irl?
Seethe
Buddy, ever heard of Azov? There's some funny photos going around where they look like minced meat after getting their shit kicked in.
>Hitler's laws were very influential in the postwar years, and remain relevant to this day. In particular, Hitler's labor laws
So... Only his socialistic ideas are relevant? Those were implemented by the soviet union before nazi germany and you are arguing in favor of socialism, not nazism
They weren't implemented in the Soviet Union at all, actually. The Soviet Union, for all its propaganda, had a very rudimentary system of labor protections and a very low standard of living compared to Nazi Germany.
Not only that, but many of the *specific law codes* that Hitler introduced in the 1930s in Germany and in the 1940s in occupied territories remain in use there today.
>Outclassed in terms of strategy and tactics
Explain
The Germans, in the 1930s, had modernized both their strategy (in favor of a more mobile, concentrated, unpredictable form of warfare) and their tactics (specifically the widespread implementation of the Auftragstaktik model, which gave officers on the ground far more tactical flexibility in achieving their objectives). By comparison, the French and the British were still using stuffy, outdated strategies (in particular, dependence on static front-wide trenches and fortifications), and their officers in the field were given very detailed, inflexible orders, meaning that wherever there was uncertainty, German field officers could press the advantage since their enemies' field officers were hesitant to react before orders to that effect were phoned down by general-level officers.
In a slight deviation from the theme of France and Britain, Germany's military modernization was very visible in the battle of the Grebbenberg in the Netherlands in May 1940. During that battle, the Dutch army - much like the French army - had dug itself into a fortified hill and set up two lines similar to those in the First World War, with two series of trenches and fortifications, one in the front to fend off frontal attacks, and one in the rear as a fallback and support position. The Dutch communication and command hierarchy was also outdated; before field officers were allowed to do anything, they needed permission from their respective colonels and generals. This led to massive chaos in the Dutch ranks once the Germans attacked and began to breach the fortifications. The result was that the fortified position on the hill, which was the israeliteel in the crown of the Dutch land defenses, fell within two days, with the Dutch army suffering major losses in terms of men and morale.
One more salacious detail to illustrate the inflexibility of the Dutch army during this battle: slightly west of the Grebbenberg, there was another Dutch position - if I recall correctly, it was by an overpass - where the officer had orders to shoot anyone who approached from the east. Since there was a disorganized rout happening to the east of this position, after a rumor had spread that the Dutch army had been ordered to retreat further west (and there weren't enough colonels and generals to confirm that this was *not* the case), there were suddenly hundreds of Dutch soldiers heading towards this position. Since the officer there was under orders to shoot anything that moved west, and he couldn't get a hold of his superior officers in all the chaos, he decided that his old orders stood and opened fire on the other Dutch soldiers.
The only thing you can rehabilitate of him is if you somehow turn off your brain to think he was a noble anti-communist who totally wasn't just using that as an excuse for personal power, or if the entire world stated hating israelites again but even then extermination of them would be probably too unsavory for most normies to rehabilitate
>excuse for personal power,
You're being a moron if you seriously believe that Hitler wasn't being sincere about his hatred of Internationalism, Liberalism and his skepticism about the Marxist economic model.
That anon didn't mention any of that, are you on bath salts?
>That anon didn't mention any of that
See
>excuse for personal power,
Don't really care
>but even then extermination of them would be probably too unsavory for most normies to rehabilitate
Huh, many folks seem to have rehabilitated the extermination of native american subhumans, or should I say "savages".
you should seek out more non-whites to join you. you should definitely lead with some variety of
>hitler gud bcuz muh indians
>no argument
classic commie
the only argument needed against your pathetic attempt to get a sad neo-nazi circle jerk going on IQfy is your own subhumanity. have a nice day.
>neo-nazi
there's nothing "neo" about the ideals of wanting a happy and prosperous society at all. Repeat literally any of Hitler's lines and replace "german" with your country and everyone would support him.
you're a sad loser larping online, you have literally nothing in common with 1940s germans who took over most of europe. this is the hard reality and spamming hitler pics won't change it. you should have a nice day.
Its OK when anglos do it. whataboutism whataboutism whataboutism whataboutism whataboutism.
>Its OK when anglos do it.
this is literally the selfish anglo mentality, and there is simply no argument against it.
Yeah thats the point. Theres no point trying to point anything out to anglos, because at the end of the day they won and germany lost.
Everybody believes might makes right, except the strong dont say it outright.
Dont expect anything except smug platitudes basically if you try to call them out.
>Hitler just had a gigantic spergout
you too would spergout if someone were oppressing your people whilst simultaneously threatening war if you did anything.
it was the anglos that decided to turn a local issue into a world war.
>oppressing your people
Mussolini was far more oppressive to German minorities than Poland ever was yet Hitler did nothing about that, also its ironic you try muh oppression angle when Germany was far more oppressive to Poles
>but its muh anglos fault
not their fault Germany went back on its word again over the Czech issue, which also makes it even funnier when you gays try to say Germany dindu nuthin, while also ignoring all the other neutral countries it still invaded, or the fact Germany also just invaded its former allies when they wanted out of the war since they knew it was lost so might as well end the suffering, but nah got to throw as many bodies into the meat grinder before offing yourself
>Mussolini was far more oppressive to German minorities than Poland ever was yet Hitler did nothing about that,
Because actually he wasn't as bothered about reversing Versailles as he was about forming a european alliance against the communists, its why he tried so hard to get an alliance with poland, unfortunately the brits got involved after feeling their power weakened by the breakup of czecho-slovakia
hitler had no intention of invading poland before britain gave poland a military guarantee
>but its muh anglos fault
it really is though weather it was malice or incompetence.
>had no intention of invading poland before
>but invades it when there is an even greater risk
so in other words he was even more moronic
>he just wanted an alliance against commies
>allies with commies to divide up Poland
seems like Hitler didn't really care about muh commies and just wanted an excuse to invade for him clay autism
>allies with commies to divide up Poland
yes he didn't want this, it was the anglos that was forcing him to "ally" with the russians to prevent the anglos allying with them first.
read about "the peace front". Noticeably removed from capitalist history.
>dude uh he didn't want it
he clearly did intend to invade if he was willing to go that far to make an alliance with his supposed sworn enemy, also remind me again what type of train of logic makes it necessary to invade Poland when that option became worse with British support, sounds to me like Hitler was going to threaten them then got made when Britain told him to frick after he betrayed their trust last time
If you knew anything about what you were talking about you'd know it was the british that sent diplomats to moscow first in order to get the commies to ally with the brits against germany, germany sought to prevent this by appeasing stalin.
you'd also know that the Wehrmacht had no plan on a war with poland before hitler ordered them to at least start planning for one on april 3rd when the british escalated the situation.
pic related is the anglos begging the poles to just let the commies come into their country to fight germany lol
>letter talks about French and Brits trying to convince Poland to make additional allies to help against German aggression
sounds like them trying to be practical, especially since Hitler decide to invade over a port city
>based conqueror of EVROPA
>lost the war he started
LMAO
He won a lot of those wars though. Motherfricker couldn't just take the W
Hitler betrayed the anti-degenerate conservatives and promoted the out-of-wedlock impregnation of underage German girls
If you hate the degeneracy of the modern world Papen is your 1930s German guy to suck off
hitler is all OP has.
NatSoc had its issues as well, but christian conservatism is a dead-end. So really it doesn't matter much that he wanted to increase the German birth rate by getting 16-years olds or whatever have children out of wedlock. At least he wasn't promoting miscegenation, LGBT, etc.
"yeah the hitlerjugend made 16 year old girls get pregnant an sent off their 14 year old baby daddies to die off gangrene in some trench in Belarus but at least they weren't homosexuals!"
doesn't seem very innovative or moral to me tbh
18 is just a number, no reason to make such a fuss over it. 16 year old isn't so young by historical standards.
>14 year old baby daddies
wut? why wouldn't he use adult men instead?
So 16 years old is fine, but 14 isn't?
>wut? why wouldn't he use adult men instead?
Are you genuinely trying to argue that pedophilia is good when your side does it?
Girls used to be married at 14 or even earlier. There's nothing special about 18 years old. It's just a number some lawyer wrote on a piece of paper. A 16 years old girl having a kid with a 18 year old man isn't pedophilia. Of course sleeping around at that age would be bad but that's not what we are talking about.
We are arguing about the morality of Hitler. The current model of morality in the western world says that generally, enforcing teenagers to have sex is a very creepy and unnecessary thing to do.
Hell even from a historical standpoint, why couldn’t the League of German Girls just have promoted the skills of raising a household, like something like the US Girl Scouts has done historically? That was a part of their curriculum - yes, but so was teenaged pregnancy. And it’s very suspicious to defend this aspect of the BDM from a modern perspective
On the morality side, I’m curious what your issues are with “sexual degeneracy” like homosexuality and racism outside of “muh based mustache man said so!”
Pic rel aren't disgusting subhuman losers who should be euthanized for being inferior, they and OP, are actual crusaders for the social order.
Righteous warriors.
Neo-Nazis are just a fed psyop to justify the ATF’s budget increases
Seriously though, it’s shocking how many white supremacisfs/fascists/natsocs turn out to be homosexuals/pedos/race mixers.
At least wait until you get tired of larping as a based Germanic warrior to put on the gay socks and let Tyrone rail your butthole 3 hours a day
>The current model of morality in the western world says
The current model of morality in the western world says that putting kids on hormone blockers and chopping their dicks off is good so I couldn't care less about it. Besides retroactively judging a past period by current standards makes no sense.
> enforcing teenagers to have sex is a very creepy and unnecessary thing to do
I doubt anyone was literally forced to breed, they were probably just encouraged which is fine. Better that conscription which was used by all the great powers at that time.
The issue with mass miscegenation is that it will naturally lead to the extinction of the white race. Being white myself, why should I want that? israeli oligarchs are trying to breed themselves a rootless slave race. It's happening in all western countries.
What I dislike about LGBT is their predatory attitude towards children. Besides that I don't really care as long as it stays marginal.
If you care so much about the white race you should improve it by killing yourself since you're obviously in the bottom 1% of it.
Silence, israelite.
You know I'm right which is why you and other subhuman garbage have to hitler larp. Why does the average neo nazi gathering look like they'd be lucky to escape aktion t4?
>The current model of morality in the western world says that putting kids on hormone blockers and chopping their dicks off is good so I couldn't care less about it.
That’s not a universally held opinion, and you’re not some based forward thinker for suggesting that it’s bad.
>I doubt anyone was literally forced to breed, they were probably just encouraged which is fine.
It’s still egregious and backwards by modern standards. It’s easy enough to call you a coping pedophile homosexual and be done with it but I want you to stew in the hypocrisy for a second.
>What I dislike about LGBT is their predatory attitude towards children.
Damn..they should put on some fancy suits and scream about investment bankers, wonder if that would change your mind
> The issue with mass miscegenation is that it will naturally lead to the extinction of the white race.
Mixed children account for 14% of US children. That is not anywhere near “leading to the extinction of the white race”.
>That’s not a universally held opinion
So what I still don't care about 'modern standards'.
>and you’re not some based forward thinker for suggesting that it’s bad.
I never said I was.
>It’s still egregious and backwards by modern standards
Again, I don't care about what the 'modern standards' are. If you pedantically base your ethics on what people say at a given time
then your standard of morality is superficial and worthless.
>Mixed children account for 14% of US children. That is not anywhere near “leading to the extinction of the white race”.
It's not just that. There's also mass non-white immigration in the western countries, low white birth rates (in part due to gay propaganda aimed at children, but also economic pressures by parasitic oligarchs, etc.). All of that put together means that, yes the white race is threatened.
you did awfully in school and possess no higher education don't you?
>Again, I don't care about what the 'modern standards' are. If you pedantically base your ethics on what people say at a given time
then your standard of morality is superficial and worthless.
He says, while basing his entire opinion on social issues off a long dead syphilitic madman
>It's not just that. There's also mass non-white immigration in the western countries, low white birth rates (in part due to gay propaganda aimed at children, but also economic pressures by parasitic oligarchs, etc.). All of that put together means that, yes the white race is threatened
This matter of birthrates pre-dates widespread LGBT acceptance by a couple of decades, it's mostly a matter of the price of living and the side-effects of feminism. People are objectively having way more sex than they ever have in the past, but producing less children.
Also, please inform me how miscegenation is such a big issue if birth rates are declining among African Americans and mixed raced couples as well.
Seems to be less of a race issue and more of a society issue.
>He says, while basing his entire opinion on social issues off a long dead syphilitic madman
Not being a mental slave to the 'current thing' doesn't mean I am 'basing my entire opinion on social issues' on Hitler, (or Nietzsche or anyone in particular). You are making arbitrary assumptions. In fact I think the NatSocs made a lot of mistakes and generally had issues. Their philosophical background was weak and too reliant on Nietzsche, they were too narrowly nationalistic, too contemptuous of Slavs, too imperialistic, too violent, etc. They need to be understood in the context of Wiemar Germany which was a degenerate mess with hyperinflation, 7 year old prostitutes, transgender children, communist agitation and violence, etc. Calling Hitler degenerate because wanted 16 years olds girls to reproduce is laughable in that context.
>This matter of birthrates pre-dates widespread LGBT acceptance by a couple of decades, it's mostly a matter of the price of living and the side-effects of feminism
Parasitic oligarchs are responsible for both pushing feminism and increasing the price of living. Productivity has increased many fold in the last century but now both parents have to work to make meets end and so can barely afford children. Why is that? As for LGBT, it has been much more widespread in the last decades to the extend that, yes, it is affecting the birth rates adversely in a significant way and corrupting children on a massive scale. Also, their culture is toxic and promotes an hedonistic lack of social responsibility in the population at large which compound on the issue.
>too reliant on Nietzsche
they weren't reliant on Nietzsche, they bastardized some of his ideas and that's it, Nietzsche was anti-nationalism, hated anti-semitism, hated the state and hated authoritarianism
just read the fricking guy instead of posting what other people thought of him in internet forums, it's not that hard
>yes, it is affecting the birth rates adversely in a significant way and corrupting children on a massive scale
pretty fricken stupid, you see the birth decline even in some religious countries with strict anti-gay laws
>they weren't reliant on Nietzsche, they bastardized some of his ideas and that's it, Nietzsche was anti-nationalism, hated anti-semitism, hated the state and hated authoritarianism
Nietzsche was a worthless pseudo-philosopher. And I couldn't care less about your trendy leftist interpretation of him.
>you see the birth decline even in some religious countries with strict anti-gay laws
So what? I already said there are multiple factors causing low birth rates, gay culture being one of them in the West.
And good job only responding to only 20% of my points.
>worthless pseudo-philosopher
>doesn't bother to read him
guess that makes you even more worthless, "trendy leftist interpretation" is pretty funy
State? What is that? Well then, lend me your ears now, for I shall say
my words about the death of peoples.
State is the name of the coldest of all cold monsters. It even lies coldly,
and this lie crawls out of its mouth: “I, the state, am the people.”
This is a lie! The ones who created the peoples were the creators, they
hung a faith and a love over them, and thus they served life.
The ones who set traps for the many and call them “state” are annihilators, they hang a sword and a hundred cravings over them.
Where there are still peoples the state is not understood, and it is hated
as the evil eye and the sin against customs and rights.
-Thus Spoke Zarathustra - on the new idol
it's one of the first chapters i could find more but i wont, go read if you are interested
i won't respond to the rest of your bullshit i'm not that bored or pathetic
Nice wall of text, edgelord.
I'm not interested if your superficial 'muh evil State' view of the left-right spectrum. It has always been subversive bullshit. And I did read some of Nietzsche. The only good thing about it was the prose which he took from Schopenhauer. The actual ideas were boring and unimportant.
And you are still not addressing my core arguments, just nitpicking on details.
>core arguments
you don't have, they are either emotional wabbling or plain dumb
but you are too dumb to get that
>I've got no arguments so I'll just insult you.
>Nietzsche is a pseudo philosopher
>Schopenhauer prose is good
Lmao you’re just arguing on the internet cause your pathetic, there’s no way you’re saying this shit unironically and know what it means lol
it's clear in this passage that what nietzsche is objecting to regarding the state is its lack of spontaneity, its lack of feeling and its procedure. clearly the nazi state does not fall under this nietzschean criticism because the nazi state was a dictatorship were the will of one man was law. really this passage supports the fuehrerprinzip and one man, one reich, one volk thinking.
nope, he's hating on the entire idea of nacionalism and how the states use that to enslave different peoples
read the entire chapter
nietzsche was pro slavery, just like the nazis though.
>Nietzsche was anti-nationalism, hated anti-semitism, hated the state and hated authoritarianism
nietzsche was pro-savagery and feels over reals type of guy. just as the germs were. he was definitely their guy even if there were small doctrinal differences over israelites and germans. actually in ww2, not only was nazism defeated but germ feels over reals based philosophy was defeated as well by british empiricism.
>Also, please inform me how miscegenation is such a big issue if birth rates are declining among African Americans and mixed raced couples as well.
But birthrates are high among non-white immigrants and miscegenation will alter the character of the race which has achieved the most in the history of the world (in science, technology, math, philosophy, literature, etc.). All that so that israeli scoundrels can breed themselves a rootless, more malleable cattle.
Access to whites isn't a human right. Every race (even israelites) can live peacefully in his own country. I have no problem with that. But the nations of European descend shouldn't be destroyed.
why are you posting this basic b***h /misc/tard shit on IQfy?
Because it's true.
were you bullied out of /misc/ or something and are trying to set up a subhuman circle-jerk here instead?
I don't give a frick about other european nations, they can rot for.all i care. I only care about my nation, and by rejecting Black folk, i'm spitting on the.history of my nation. For 500 years Black folk are part of my nation. My ancestors chose to make this nation to be multiethnic, Black folk here have the same names as non Black folk, they speak.the language.
The invadors are germans, british people etc. some.of whom live here for 20+ years and don't speak.the language and refuse to integrate. Just buy a pice of od land and close themselves there, just like gypsies.
lol nice. I’m guessing you’re Bulgarian?
Or at least somewhere in the Balkans.
So you are a selfish mutt whose 'patriotism' is basically just 'muh american flag'.
Ok. Thanks for clarifying.
Nah man..totally agree. As long as I get to breed Nigerian queens.
The white race never existed in the first place, you angloid mutt.
I'm not Anglo and this is bullshit.
>why couldn’t the League of German Girls just have promoted the skills of raising a household,
Because they wanted to increase their birthrates? They have made it very clear on their political papers.
>And it’s very suspicious
How so? They had already achieved puberty, Nature way of saying they were read.
>from a modern perspective
Define "Modern", Do you mean Liberal/Individualist? That would only be an issue if you believe that 14/16 years don't understand what intercourse is or are just incapable of deciding it by themselves.
If you mean Christian, The NSDAP has had made very clear they didn't care about it.
They were an eugenistic party that wanted to increase their population in a healthy manner and a "revolutionary" movement that only wanted to preserve their cultural heritage and abolish all its other values,
>“sexual degeneracy”
From a biological and non-Christian perspective, It's pretty easy to see why, Sex only exist as a way of sexual reproduction, Everything that sets a male and female apart has a reproductive function, Homosexuality, even if it may be a genetic factor, is itself a genetic threat to life itself, and I say that as a bi person.
Miscegenation will only be an degenerate factor if there's evidence that races don't have the same predisposition for intelectual matters, with most racists seems to believe and based their contempt for it.
Both of those factors, if true, would make Homosexuality and Miscegenation a degenerate behaviour to our species, in genetic values.
Of course you don't, If you did, You would've to acknowledge that you're wrong.
>Because they wanted to increase their birthrates? They have made it very clear on their political papers.
Course they did. Which is why the German Mother's Cross was instituted. Which was given out to 4.7 million women by the end of 1941 - the lowest tier of the cross was given to women who had four or five children.
So that means there were around 20 million children that were born from just the lowest tier of German Mother's Cross recipients.
This also covers your pedophilic stance on puberty. Just admit you want to frick kids and be done with it.
>This also covers your pedophilic stance on puberty
The same stance that the German government had before Hitler has been born and after his death.
And pedophilia would only apply if the NSDAP had incited 14/16 years to engage sexuallly with men older than 18, which they haven't done, neither did I.
>never has existed in that way, you are just insecure
Are you really gonna deny the fact that the whole purpose of sex is for the propagation of our species?
>admission
On genetic terms? Yes.
degeneration means decline or deterioration, If Homosexuality is a genetic thing, the spread of that gene would create disastrous consequences in a specie that can only reproduce sexually.
I don't really care about the Christian concept of degeneration.
>is said predisposition a genetic trait?
Yes.
>wouldn't it be better then to share the good genes with the bad races?
Only if they are proven to be dominant genes, not recessive ones.
>, that's just autistic behavious,
It isn't.
>your races are made up
They aren't. Race is a term to describe genetic dissonance, create by radiation, nutrition, gravity and etc... that set a group of people apart from another.
Whatever cope that you wish to engage yourself to feel better.
>whole purpose of sex is for the propagation of our species?
homosexuality exists in practically all mammals
>They aren't.
they are
>exists in practically all mammals
So? How that go against the statement that sex is for reproduction? Everything that sets a male and female apart, with the exception of male nipples, has a reproductive function.
Feel free to name one organ that a men and women don't share that doesn't fulfill that function.
A thing may be genetic and still be defective to our human nature . be it deformities i.e scoliosis, Polydactyly ,etc.. or viruses that have infiltrated on the human genome and passed from parent to child i.e Aids and other STDs.
Homosexuality may not affect the intellectual or creative capacity of individual, but its atraction towards a member of the same sex is destructive towards the propagation of our species by natural means.
>they are
So you wish to claim that there's no genetic differences between members of each race? How to you explain certain races being predisposed towards specific illnesses? How certain hair products and skincare (oiled, dry and composite skin) may not be as effective to a race as they aren't to another?
Race is real thing, no matter how much your progressive mind may delude itself about its existence, It may not affect mental capacity, which I doubt, but its physiological differences are significant enough to justify the need for a classification.
>If you did, You would've to acknowledge that you're wrong.
reading the shit you spew would be giving you more credit than you deserve, i'd rather just say you are moronic and the worst that your race has to offer
>only exist as a way of sexual reproduction
never has existed in that way, you are just insecure
>a genetic threat to life itself, and I say that as a bi person.
so you are a degenerate by admission?
>Miscegenation will only be an degenerate factor if there's evidence that races don't have the same predisposition for intelectual matters
is said predisposition a genetic trait? wouldn't it be better then to share the good genes with the bad races?
>in genetic values
how so, do you have a single way to prove "miscegination" is bad for our species, that's just autistic behavious, your races are made up
Wait really? Teenage pregnancy was part of the BDM curriculum?
They also used to burn people just because someone got called a witch, so "this was common in the past" is a supremely bad argument. And for your information, 18 is the age where puberty generally ends, so it's not just a random number, nazi pedo.
Would you rather be encouraged, as a 16-years old girl, to have sex or be a guy who is sent to die on the front? Those weren't nice times. Get some perceptive, homosexual. And trendy modern 'values' aren't necessarily right either so you have to think for yourself.
16 yos fricking is not as big of a deal as you think
>made 16 year old girl
German age of consent was 14 even before Hitler was born.
>The ages of 14 and 16 had been relevant since the Criminal Code for the German Empire came into force in 1872: Under § 176, sexual acts with children under 14 were illegal and have been always since. Under § 182, seduction of an "unblemished girl under the age of 16" was prosecuted upon complaint of parents or legal guardian only.
Give it a rest, Nigel.
Nah. The reason we don't pass moral judgement on Napolean is because he existed in a world outside of our modern sense of morality. Sure he was a tyrant who waged wanton war and destruction, but so was every tyrant king he fought against.. Hitler on the other hand existed in the age of where morality had advanced to the point where he was doing something genuinely barborous compared to his contemporaries.
Churchill was a savage who starved India, he was as bad as hitler,as was Stalin, as were the french barbarians who pillaged africa and Indochina, or the japanese, or even the Americans with their jim crow and internment (although america was the most "morally correct") Hitler's contemporaries were as bad or worse than he himself. You are a fricking holo-cuck for the holocaust, you are brainwashed into caring about da joos, because they were white. Same way today you likely only care about Ukraine because they are white. Its never about morality with you people. Morals don't exist, the great game is played at a level beyond morals. its simply logistics, hitler just managed to perfect the logistics of solving his perceived societal plight (jews) whereas every other nation approached their objectives with corruption, savagery and incompetence.its nothing to do with morality. They are all evil, doesnt make these men less "great".
Non-whites aren't morally pure either. Having brown skin doesn't give you the moral high ground.
>although america was the most "morally correct"
kek
What is Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, etc?
Considering 'racism' a worst crime than slaughtering innocents is really stupid.
not my problem. you see i am an american of indian descent. therefore, Churchill sucks fat one, hitler is overrated, and america #1. Actually, i am high caste, so my skin color LITERALLY gives me moral high ground.
>meth-addicted sperglord who surrounded himself with morons obsessed with a “WE WUZ ARYANS” narrative
Never gonna happen
German women deserve to be mothers.
German men deserve to be men.
>German women deserve to be gangraped by mongols
>German men deserve to lie mangled in the cold dirt of russia
Mentioning Germany taking steps to make itself healthy sends the shemcel into a frothing rage. It's hatred is unending.
>making Germany healthy
>dude uh getting out country into an unwinnable war is actually beneficial because uhhhhhhhh, it just is
>oh by the way the moment they start losing its their fault not mine
>the democratic state that is then created after Hitler dies is not only a far better place to live but actually manages to be relevant in Europe by simply trading
what's the average neo nazi iq?
I don't need 50 years, I already worship him and he is much greater than Napoleon.
neo-nazi emotional support behaviour.
Not really, no. He represents everything wrong with having old fashioned thinking with modern technology. Racial supremacists will never be accepted again as long as people know it ends with mass industrial killings of every other race.
He was too cruel and stupid
you wish, Nappy was able to spread his ideals around to the point even after he was defeated the victors still had to maintain some of his codes, compare that to Hitler were the moment he was defeated not only was his ideology forever shunned, by his opponents ideologies just got stronger
Hitler was a great man. You don't go from literal hobo to pharaoh of Germany by being mediocre.
One day, far away, the moralization of WW2 will tone down, and Hitler will go down in history as a giant like Alexander, Caesar, Gengis Kahn and Napoleon. All of them were monsters to some, and it doesn't matter anymore. One day, it won't matter that Hitler was a monster to some.
I mean just think if he actually won, Adolf the Great would literally be greater than any of the greats.
going from homeless man to begrudging conqueror of eurafrasia and defeating the evil british, french and russian empires and reforming europe into a great european union
>what if
what if you weren't a sad loser subhuman needing to fantasize on online boards
>British, French, and Russian empires were EVIL!!
>What? No, the German Empire was not evil! They was Aryans!
all those guys had enduring legacies, hitler didn't, he completely failed.
Napoleon failed too. Caesar failed at taking over Rome.
>Caesar failed at taking over Rome
what type of fricking cope is, guy took over Rome so hard that even after death his assassins had to flee since just about everybody was loyal to him, even when they gather some forces they got subdued quickly, the wars after that point where just those loyal to caesar fighting each other stating they were his true hier
He took over Rome so hard that he got stabbed thirty times in the Senate's floor.
Yeah and his legions were so loyal to him they followed a 19 year old zoomer because he said so, and that 19 year old zoomer won in his name.
Today he is recognized as one of the greatest Romans and one of the most impactful people in history, his chud assasins on the other hand are all but forgotten.
They are not forgotten at all.
The legions followed Augustus because of money.
What Augustus did it's his legacy, not Caesar's.
Yeah obviously historians remember them, however you will be hard pressed to find anybody, even among historians who dont study Roman history, to name two, yet alone three assassins and explain their motivations beyond "muh republic".
They remember Brutus and that's enough.
They remember him because of Shakespeare who put the words into Caesars mouth.
Nobody knows who Brutus was or why Caesar was shocked that he betrayed him.
Literally everybody knows. Even normies.
>What Augustus did it's his legacy, not Caesar's.
Sure. But that doesn't change the fact that most of his propaganda consisted of claiming himself to be Caesar.
>Officially, he seems to have used simply "Gaius Caesar",[9] and began styling himself divi filius or divi Iuli(i) filius ("son of the divine Julius") after the deification of Caesar in 42 BC.[10]
>Imperator Caesar. From 38 BC at the latest, Octavian officially dropped all of his names except "Caesar", and began using the victory title imperator ("commander") in place of the traditional Roman forename.[11]
>Imperator Caesar Augustus: Following his 31 BC defeat of Mark Antony and Cleopatra, partly on his own insistence, on 16 January 27 BC the Roman Senate granted him the additional name "Augustus" (Latin: [au̯ˈɡʊstʊs]). Historians use this name to refer to him from 27 BC until his death in AD 14.[12]
>They are not forgotten at all.
go ahead and name all the conspirators you know off the top of your head without searching online
perhaps you know 2 or 3 if you've seen the shakespeare play but practically only Brutus is remembered and only as a Judas figure
>Napoleon failed too
he didn't fail at building a legacy and having good shit to be remembered by
>Caesar failed at taking over Rome
why are you in this board if you are so uneducated, regardless, he also conquered the Gauls for Rome and wrote very influential books in the process
I won't bother with your worthless ass.
Napoleon was a moronic Black person shitalian in denial, he plunged Europe into decades of pointless wars, he destroyed the French cultural impact on the world, many cities were destroyed and many people died. Almost everyone in Europe hates him including the French. Napoleon won those battles only thanks to luck and his corps system. It's the same case with this Black person germ (s)hitler, just replace France with Germany above, but (s)hitler had much bigger impact on killing Europe. I hate Americans
France was very relevant culturally on a global scale from 1815-1939
> two more weeks
> 50 more years
these guys are on the right side of history. just wait. hoil hortler.
Why are you bumping this thread with your 30 year old Nazi Larper pictures?
This OP and most of the replies ITT reek of angloid israelitery
>probably the second most important man in human history, behind only Jesus Christ.
Julius Cesar is the most important human in human history. We dont really appreciate what cesar achieved The roman republic was all set to collapse after the standard 250 years large empires last. It was experiancing decadence and decline and the Senate of rome were ready to keep paying themselves until the republic collapsed. Cesar busted in declared war on the whole senate and entire civilized world and the mad lad fricking WON.
Not only that in his will and with Augusted he set Europe up for 1000 years of prosperity. even after his death people were trying to emulate his rule and model europe around his ideal. A model that probably stuck with Europe until the treaty of westphalia
he was basically like a neo-bonapartist who rightfully emphasized more nationalism and less liberalism
Yeah because the average person these days knows about Napoleon and his conquests.
Get fricking real.
yeah media has made sure all kids know about nappy from cartoons is lmao he short and gets mad
No he will just fade into relative infamy like other butcherers in history
Yes i wouldn't be surprised by that indeed. History channel already spent the 90's and 00's making a mythical figure out of him, which spawned millions of neo-nazis even from outside of Germany
that's a funny mental picture, thank you.
Hitler will continued to be remembered as one of the antagonists of history. But one to be more ridiculed than hated and feared
Napoleon is viewed as a bad guy by most people who are not French or Polish. Not the personification of evil, but a villain nonetheless.
idk about the rest of the Anglophere but here in America, Napoleon is more or less depicted in popular culture as the anger French manlet who nearly conquered the world.
>Hitler
>conqueror
Nah, Nappy actually won several wars the Eternal Anglo started against him. Hitler lost the war he started himself. Besides, Nappy wasn't a genocidal maniac, killing millions for no reason at all.
Even the memed nationalists should hate him, because he singlehandadly discredited nationalistic and nativistic movements for many decades to come, causing the rise of multicultur. After Napoleon nationalism was the ruling ideology of Europe.
That's impossible. Napoleon wasn't that bad compared to other leaders of the time, meanwhile Hitler would have been deemed a terrible ruler even in the 1800's.
Posting in a Blessed thread
Funfact: This is official art.
>has to post a Black person and not a fellow neo-nazi
>has to post a Black person and not a fellow- ACK
don't think we're gonna see kyle heiling and screaming in the streets anytime soon.
allah will win
>literally first thing on his website
imagine trying to use this guy as some kind of based neo-nazi hitler lover lmao. post some real neo-nazis.
>UR UGLY
>NO U R UGLY
Another quality debate on IQfy
uh sweaty, we're actually on IQfynal.org please educate yourself
Nope! We're actually on IQfy.org! Try google.
>50 more years!
I can't imagine being delusional enough to believe what OP does
Doubt it
Can anyone who is unbiased about Hitler give me the impression they felt reading a biography of Hitler?
Was he a pathetic man?
A great man?