Nazi propaganda on youtube is getting more and more polished

The quality of this autistic shit keeps getting better and better, I would argue that it will be impossible to maintain multi ethnic civilization with shit like this being produced and spread over the internet....tribalism will always find a way.

youtube.com/watch?v=lmGqG3grTrg

Other urls found in this thread:

nuffield.ox.ac.uk/politics/papers/2005/NLetki_social capital and diversity_final.pdf
youtube.com/watch?v=8ymEKiY1UR8
youtube.com/watch?v=kzIRG525l6s
youtube.com/watch?v=isCiNI1pZp4
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Fuck off leaf

I disagree. I remember seeing Nazi stuff on Youtube 5, 6 years ago now that was absolutely amazing in terms of depth and production quality. Maybe the best stuff I've ever seen on Youtube. Those guys put a lot of effort into their stuff.

What the nigger fuck are you rambling about...

History is written by the victor.


Hitler literally did nothing wrong and everything right. Everyone wants to focus on the supposed negatives and not what he actually did as far as uniting his people and restoring his country.

Mathmatically impossible to have killed that many people in that time period.

All camps were claimed death camps until the US army inspected them. Then all the ones inspected were claimed concentration camps and the ones they didn't get to inspect remained death camps. Hmm.

Der Juden is literally the enemy of every single race on earth. Why? Because we are goyim and we live to serve them. Fuck us for thinking any different.

You might think its extreme or unhumanitarim but until the Jews are eradicated we will forever be in turmoil over their distractions and deceit.

The whole Nazi movement or national socialist or whatever always came off as a sort of a higher quality welfare system. I mean why not just go with the market and let it decide what humans look like in the future? Why preserve the white race or whatever? Even if its been historically superior as most of you obviously believe, what's the reasoning behind still not letting the free market run its course? I mean I understand preserving a nation but I don't understand the race issue.

Also please don't spam post a bunch of pictures of graphs and shit you pseudo scientists like to spam. Either give a reasonable argument or don't.

tfw I will never get to be able to be Hitler's bodyguard in the Schutzstaffel...

Our current economic system requires ceaseless exponential growth. Whites aren't being out competed, they're just incapable of sustaining that growth. The majority of economic migrants perform unskilled labor or suckle at the government's tit, or both. They hardly compete for anything worth having. Even so, our economic system is unsustainable. Exponential growth cant continue forever without limitless resources. We should fix our system. Allow our markets to adjust themselves. Suffer the catastrophic consequences. We're only delaying the inevitable and sacrificing our national identity to buy time.

The short answer is tribalism....the more multi racial a country gets, the more tribal it gets....you end up getting bogged down in racial politics

What is your reasoning behind this belief?

I could lie to you, but the truth is "my gut" lol

wtf i like hitler now

Its almost like not all victims were killed in concentration camps and the 6 mil. Figure takes the camps + extraordinary executions into account.

Anyone else want to try?

Read Primo Levi and then contend with your stupid state of denial

Explain to me who's lawn you would now if all the whites in america disappeared tomorrow. Or explain who's taxes would buy your child's diapers.

The job of the minority class in america is to do menial labor and buy shit. You are being exploited for our economy. So are whites. International corporations want slaves and consumers. Don't pretend like you beat us in a war to get here or some shit.

Whether you like it or not, we are all born into a race, and while you may pretend it does not exist it does not change reality. No matter where you go people will always have a subconscious preference for facial/physical features similar to them, it's a basic survival instinct. Racially similar people get along better.

Western people created the best societies in the world. The rest of the earth replicated what they did. They bought compassion, medicine and civil rights to all, and yet are demonized for succeeded.

Why not let politics run it's course and allow people to choose how they want their home countries to be?

Read "The Fate of Empires and Search for Survival" by John Bagot Glubb. It's about twenty pages and is life-changingly insightful. Do it now.

At least we don't fuck dogs.

He is a leaf, what are you expecting?

Read my post again. You are both flatulent criminals which must not be allowed to be courted in this realm again.

I am just a peasant, m'lords. So cease at once or I will summon the noble kinsmen to dispel you both!!!

Why doesn't anyone provide a good reason of why we shouldn't just let the market run its course? I mean fight for a free market of course. Why won't a free market be like a natural filter? The fittest survive regardless of race.

You're confusing market economies with natural selection. One is a system of commerce and the other is the mechanism by which organisms evolve. People create markets. Markets aren't supposed to create people.

Fine. Scrap all affirmative action and any race based scholarship funds. No more welfare checks for popping out kids.

Free market means free. We do not have a free market today.

>blocked

It's the kikes.

Hitler's biggest mistake was being born a German
;)

nuffield.ox.ac.uk/politics/papers/2005/NLetki_social capital and diversity_final.pdf


>We are paying a terrible price for the creed of Left-wing politicians. They pose as champions of progress yet their fixation with multiculturalism is dragging us into a new dark age. In many of our cities, social solidarity is being replaced by divisive tribalism, democracy by identity politics. Real integration is impossible when ethnic groups are encouraged to cling to customs, practices, even languages from their homeland.[58]

>Trevor Phillips, the head of the Commission for Racial Equality, who has called for an official end to multicultural policy, has criticised "politically correct liberals for their "misguided" pandering to the ethnic lobby".[59]

>Journalist Ed West argued in his 2013 book, The Diversity Illusion, that the British political establishment had uncritically embraced multiculturalism without proper consideration of the downsides of ethnic diversity. He wrote:

>Everyone in a position of power held the same opinion. Diversity was a good in itself, so making Britain truly diverse would enrich it and bring 'significant cultural contributions', reflecting a widespread belief among the ruling classes that multiculturalism and cultural, racial and religious diversity were morally positive things whatever the consequences. This is the unthinking assumption held by almost the entire political, media and education establishment. It is the diversity illusion.[60]

>Hitler born German
>American education

>West has also argued:

>Advocates of multiculturalism argue that immigrants prefer to stick together because of racism and the fear of racial violence, as well as the bonds of community. This is perfectly reasonable, but if this is the case, why not the same for natives too? If multiculturalism is right because minorities feel better among themselves, why have mass immigration at all, since it must obviously make everyone miserable? (And if diversity 'enriches' and strengthens, why integrate, since that will only reduce diversity?) All the arguments for multiculturalism—that people feel safer, more comfortable among people of the same group, and that they need their own cultural identity—are arguments against immigration, since English people must also feel the same. If people categorised as "white Britons" are not afforded that indulgence because they are a majority, do they attain it when they become a minority?[60]

Okay but why won't it work? Also if it will, why march with national socialism?

The Red Army carted in trainloads of their dead for photo ops. Plenty of dead communist soldiers who starved to death under Stalin's "wave of human bodies" strategy. No one would notice if 5-6 million bodies were appropriated from the 20+million Russians who died marching to Europe.

>nazi propaganda
it's not propaganda when it's the truth :^)

Great idea.....how do we stop people from acting tribal??

>A prominent criticism in the US, later echoed in Europe, Canada and Australia, was that multiculturalism undermined national unity, hindered social integration and cultural assimilation, and led to the fragmentation of society into several ethnic factions (Balkanization).[80]

>In 1991, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., a former advisor to the Kennedy and other US administrations and Pulitzer Prize winner, published a book critical of multiculturalism with the title The Disuniting of America: Reflections on a Multicultural Society.

yep

Revoke affirmative action first. Then we can talk about the free market.

Until then get fucked kid.

shut up and back to auschwitz, jew

I'm not saying to deliberately stop it. But I'm sure most reasonable people will be willing to trade with a person from a different tribe if its economically beneficial. Like hang out with whoever you want and trade with who you want. But why not let people choose themselves who to do business with?

>The late Samuel P. Huntington, political scientist and author, known for his Clash of Civilizations theory, described multiculturalism as "basically an anti-Western ideology." According to Huntington, multiculturalism had "attacked the identification of the United States with Western civilization, denied the existence of a common American culture, and promoted racial, ethnic, and other subnational cultural identities and groupings."[82] Huntington outlined the risks he associated with multiculturalism in his 2004 book Who Are We? The Challenges to America's National Identity.
>Criticism of multiculturalism in the US was not always synonymous with opposition to immigration. Some politicians did address both themes, notably Patrick Buchanan, who in 1993 described multiculturalism as "an across-the-board assault on our Anglo-American heritage."[citation needed] Buchanan and other paleoconservatives argue that multiculturalism is the ideology of the modern managerial state, an ongoing regime that remains in power, regardless of what political party holds a majority. It acts in the name of abstract goals, such as equality or positive rights, and uses its claim of moral superiority, power of taxation and wealth redistribution to keep itself in power.
>We are attempting to convert a republic, European and Christian in its origins and character, into an egalitarian democracy of all the races, religions, cultures and tribes of planet Earth. We are turning America into a gargantuan replica of the U.N. General Assembly, a continental conclave of the most disparate and diverse peoples in all of history, who will have no common faith, no common moral code, no common language and no common culture. What, then, will hold us together?

I like the propaganda, I just wanted to sound neutral so that people would watch it....

>Multiculturalism has also been attacked through satire, such as the following proposition by John Derbyshire.

> The Diversity Theorem: Groups of people from anywhere in the world, mixed together in any numbers and proportions whatsoever, will eventually settle down as a harmonious society, appreciating—nay, celebrating!—their differences... which will of course soon disappear entirely.
>The formal meaning of "diversity," "cultural equity," "gorgeous mosaic" and so on is a society in which many different cultures will live together in perfect equality and peace (i.e., a society that has never existed and never will exist); the real meaning of these slogans is that the power of the existing mainstream society to determine its own destiny shall be drastically reduced while the power of other groups, formerly marginal or external to that society, will be increased. In other words the U.S. must, in the name of diversity, abandon its particularity while the very groups making that demand shall hold on to theirs.

Discrimination laws in the USA do not allow you to choose who you do business with based on race gender or religion

>In demanding that non-European cultures, as cultures, be given the same importance as the European-American national culture, the multiculturalists are declaring that the non-European groups are unable or unwilling to assimilate as European immigrants have in the past, and that for the sake of these non-assimilating groups American society must be radically transformed. This ethnically and racially based rejection of the common American culture should lead thoughtful Americans to re-evaluate some contemporary assumptions about ethnicity and assimilation.

soon

I'm not talking about America or any other current system. Just a free market.

>Another critic of multiculturalism is the political theorist Brian Barry. In his 2002 book Culture and Equality: An Egalitarian Critique of Multiculturalism,[86] he argues that some forms of multiculturalism can divide people, although they need to unite in order to fight for social justice.

>Byron M. Roth, Professor Emeritus of Psychology at Dowling College, has argued that multiculturalism is "profoundly undemocratic" and that multicultural countries can only be held together through state coercion. In his book The Perils of Diversity: Immigration and Human Nature, Roth writes:

> From the perspective of inclusive fitness, unfamiliar others are potential free-riders and, out of a concern that they will be exploited by others, people reduce considerably their altruistic attitudes and behavior in a general way in more diverse communities. This loss of trust is a symptom of a breakdown in social cohesion and is surely a forerunner of the sort of ethnic conflict that is always likely to break out if allowed to do so. This is undoubtedly the reason why multicultural nation-states are forever promoting tolerance and ever more punitive sanctions for the expression of ethnic hostility, even going so far to as to discourage the expression of opinion about the reality of ethnic and racial differences. Currently these measures are directed at the host population when they express reservations about the wisdom of mass immigration, but this will surely change as it becomes ever more obvious that it is the presence of competing ethnic groups that is creating the tension and not the expressed reservations of the majority population. The real danger for modern democracies is that in their zeal to promote multicultural societies, they will be forced to resort to the means that have characterized all empires attempting to maintain their hegemony over disparate peoples.

Daily reminder that there are an infinite amount of alternate universes in which Hitler won

I'm not reading your shit.

IM A NAZI BOO AND PROUD OF IT.

Kevin B. MacDonald, a professor of psychology at California State University, Long Beach, has argued in his trilogy of books on Judaism that Jews have been prominent as main ideologues and promoters of multiculturalism in an attempt to end anti-semitism. MacDonald considers multiculturalism to be dangerous to the West, concluding in his Jack London Literary Prize acceptance speech:

[Given] that some ethnic groups—especially ones with high levels of ethnocentrism and mobilization—will undoubtedly continue to function as groups far into the foreseeable future, unilateral renunciation of ethnic loyalties by some groups means only their surrender and defeat—the Darwinian dead end of extinction. The future, then, like the past, will inevitably be a Darwinian competition in which ethnicity plays a very large role.

The alternative faced by Europeans throughout the Western world is to place themselves in a position of enormous vulnerability in which their destinies will be determined by other peoples, many of whom hold deep historically conditioned hatreds toward them. Europeans' promotion of their own displacement is the ultimate foolishness—an historical mistake of catastrophic proportions.

A lot of the people who are in the growing white national scene in the USA right now are coming from libertarian movements, they have come to the conclusion that there ideas are only really possible in a homogeneous white country....tribalism will always trump ideology eventually

And now the video stopped and im back to this cuckold faggot real world. There will never be another Hitler

Ok. So what is the reasoning that lands them on that conclusion?

>tribalism will always find a way
it already has

It's not for you shill, I know you don't read "arguments". It's for real people to read and understand the intellectual argument behind homogenity.

well they went to libertarian rallies and only ever saw white people there :)

Not an argument, huh?

Finally, multiculturalism and cultural relativism have been fiercely attacked by American social thinker Lloyd deMause, founder of psychohistory. DeMause's central argument is that, in the past, the astronomical infanticidal ratios among the tribes gives the lie to the claim that the diverse cultures are basically equal. DeMause wrote: "The best estimate I could make from the statistics was that in antiquity about half of all children born were killed by their caretakers, declining to about a third by later medieval times and to a very small percentage by the seventeenth century in Western Europe and America."

the poster above is right. when the EU and US/ZOG come to an end, people will go about separating themselves as they have in the Balkans for thousands of years-- ethnic cleansing, rape, etc..
you can trade with people, even Venice had Turk merchants at the height of their wars with the Ottomans (who would have to hide for a week sometimes to avoid being strung up).

but even 2 different groups of chimps will have mini-wars ad fight to the death when they are forced too close. The Jew can't jew nature in the end.

he wasnt, lol

Harvard professor of political science Robert D. Putnam conducted a nearly decade long study on how diversity affects social trust. He surveyed 26,200 people in 40 American communities, finding that when the data were adjusted for class, income and other factors, the more racially diverse a community is, the greater the loss of trust. People in diverse communities "don't trust the local mayor, they don't trust the local paper, they don't trust other people and they don't trust institutions," writes Putnam. In the presence of such ethnic diversity, Putnam maintains that

We hunker down. We act like turtles. The effect of diversity is worse than had been imagined. And it's not just that we don't trust people who are not like us. In diverse communities, we don't trust people who do look like us.

Ethologist Frank Salter writes:

Relatively homogeneous societies invest more in public goods, indicating a higher level of public altruism. For example, the degree of ethnic homogeneity correlates with the government's share of gross domestic product as well as the average wealth of citizens. Case studies of the United States ... find that multi-ethnic societies are less charitable and less able to cooperate to develop public infrastructure. ... A recent multi-city study of municipal spending on public goods in the United States found that ethnically or racially diverse cities spend a smaller portion of their budgets and less per capita on public services than do the more homogeneous cities.

Damn I was actually looking to be convinced. Oh well.

The argument is that when libertarians realized that only white people seemed to be libertarians, they came to the conclusion that for a country to be libertarian it probably needed to be white :)

I do not believe this i think the modern man is too cucked to do anything maybe the future generations but ill be dead by then and all i have seen in my life is complete weak cuckoldry. Fuck my life I will never fight in a race war

That superior IQ argument, huh? I'm convinced.

People would have said this during the height of the Wiemar republics decadence...

kek....i didnt mention IQ, I just said Libertarian noticed that they were all white

Yes and im sure they said the same thing you are saying a hundred years BEFORE the gaymar republic collapsed

haha touché

Admit it. There's no reasonable argument to support the belief.

All empirical evidence suggests that non-white minorities vote overwhelmingly in favor of socialism over free markets. You cannot have a free market society when you let people who do not want free markets into your society.

meant for

...

When the majority of non-whites begin to favor free market principles, then, and only then, will I believe that a multi-racial libertarian society is plausible.

The free market only works in relatively homogenous societies. It starts to break down when the status of the majority ethnic group is threatened. If a race sets aside their in-group preferences (as whites have done) they are eventually out-competed by those minority groups who still hold in-group preferences because they gang up together. This is because human nature is still very tribal. Think of ethnicities as tribes on a much bigger scale.

Tribal loyalty is a much stronger instinct than loyalty to wider society

That video is fucking great, posted it a couple times here. But to get hyped this one is better:

youtube.com/watch?v=8ymEKiY1UR8

And this one is best for redpilling:
youtube.com/watch?v=kzIRG525l6s

So you agree the ideal free market is more logical. You just don't believe its possible to attain a free market with the influence of minorities. You say because non white minorities overwhelmingly vote for socialism/communism or basically for welfare.

Do you have any idea why in America at least, minorities tend to vote in such a way?

just came across this shit on youtube pretty good editing dank shit. the channel owner is a feminist altrightist? but hates the redpill and alt right culture? Idk though feel free to harass her she's a weirdo

youtube.com/watch?v=isCiNI1pZp4

I don't understand what you are having problems with..

1. libertarians want free markets and limited government.

2. libertarians only ever see white people at there meetings and rallies.

3. Libertarians constantly get called racist by brown people for not supporting GIBS ME DAT..

4. Libertarians realize you cant have libertarian country with a declining white population...

Kek because they vote that way in the countries they come from...

People vote overwhelmingly in favor of self-interest. Some combination of financial interests, ideological interests, and social interests. Poor people tend to prioritize their financial interests, for obvious reasons.

Blacks and Mexican/Central American immigrants are more poor on average and thus prioritize their financial interests when voting. Welfare is seen as absolutely positive to them. In reality, large groups of them have become entirely dependent on welfare. It IS in their short-term interests to vote for it, regardless of how it affects their group in the long-term.

Sadly, most members of these groups that have escaped this dependency also vote for welfare. The reasons for this are twofold.

1) Democrats have increasingly been becoming the party of minorities since the 60s. Welfare has always been the hook for many minority groups and democrats have strategically removed any level-headed debate about the actual effectiveness of welfare from public discourse. Thus, most people in these groups, regardless of their need for welfare, believe it is absolutely necessary for the ones that do need it.

2) Minority groups tend to vote in united blocs. Basic game theory dictates that lower numbered groups need to be much more united and/or align with other lower numbered groups. Tribalism is human nature and race is the biggest tribal separator within our country.

The free market is only logical if it can be maintained. It can't be maintained when you have a tiny overclass that hoards all the wealth and a large underclass of predominantly non-whites that wants more wealth redistribution. In a democratic society this eventually leads to socialism, which creates disincentives for business due to higher taxation, so the economy collapses. In other words: having too many cheap labourers and immigrants entering he country who can be exploited for profit is good for short term economic growth but terrible for long term economic growth because it eventually leads to the collapse of the whole financial and social welfare system.

Immigration, multiculturalism, and diversity is a lose-lose for everybody