For all those that are unironically NatSoc...

For all those that are unironically NatSoc. Why did the Nazis need to silence all media of opposing view points and satire?

If their ideology was so glorious wouldn't they need no censoring at all?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_book_burnings
archive.org/stream/SchmidtLifeInHitlersGermany/Schmidt-LifeInHitlersGermany_djvu.txt
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

100 idiots does not equal a wise man.

You talking about the Nazis or the unironic NatSocs?

>Why did the Nazis need to silence all media of opposing view points and satire?
Because the media was run by Jews just like it is today. Fake News comes from the German Lugenpresse, which is what Hitler called the "fake press."
>If their ideology was so glorious wouldn't they need no censoring at all?
They didn't censor their ideology, only the fake news. In fact, they wrote a number of books explaining their ideology in detail, beginning with Mein Kampf, but there is also:

Nazi Sozi
The Party Programme of the NSDAP
Hitler's Second Book
and even Communism with the Mask Off is a good introduction to what Hitler was fighting.

But why burn books? If Nat Soc was the greatest who cared if someone read Marx. Also satirists never claim to be real news, just opinions.

The same reason we ban books. They're deemed dangerous to the larger society. Marxism spreads easily with less informed people because it sounds excellent on paper. But in 200 years it has never succeeded and yet still today the same stereotype falls for the Jewish trick. We should ban any publication that creates chaos in society, whether political, religious, or some other.

For all those that unironically believe the holocaust happened. Why do the Jews need to silence all questions about and discussion of it?

If six gorillion Jews were gassed, wouldn't the evidence stand up to scrutiny of any kind at all?

Ok fair enough, but why did they ban moderate view points such as Social Democrats?

I never said the holocaust shouldn't be questioned. My grandfather was a catholic Pole in Buchenwald. He said he understood why the Jews were purged, but the Nazis would put a bullet in the back of the head of anyone that couldn't work.

Because National Socialism at its core is the perfect system for maintaining a Nation. Hitler was at war with the ideologies that weakened Germany, like Marxism and Liberalism. The time wasn't proper to sit and discuss ideologies -- they had a Nation to rebuild, a society to cure of its degeneracy, and constant looming war to worry about. Hitler contained or destroyed everything but National Socialism because that's what the People needed then and it's what we need now. Your questions are very good btw.

So would they allow such parties if they one the war? Also a question about the war, Why keep Northern France, Netherlands, and Belgium occupied if it was a defensive war?

Most of the books burned where from the Berlin Sex Institute. It was mostly pornography, fetish material, and tranny 'research'.

Also thank you, I keep an open mind.

That is correct, but they were more than a few others.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_book_burnings

>So would they allow such parties if they one the war?
Probably not. With NatSoc Hitler turned Germany, which was in a state of decay like America and Europe today, into a wealthy and united Nation.
>Why keep Northern France, Netherlands, and Belgium occupied if it was a defensive war?
Hitler further planned to spread his system throughout Europe to free all places from Jewish strangulation. The "New German Order" was his plan for the world. This is the plan Jews have co-opted and bent to not free the People but enslave them. So, when you have a sociopolitical system that is perfect what use are other theories and movements?

friendly reminder that to be natsoc, you dont have to justify or agree with every single laws, words and behavior of every single nazis who has existed

people who are often wrong have to work very hard to convince others that they are right. people who are often right, usually dont have to say much, because the results speak for themselves. thus, people who are often wrong get good at convincing others that they are right, while people who are often right do not even initially enter the arena of arguments and narratives and such. as a result, communists cannot be defeated on their home turf (the press), because all they have to do is spout their nonsense endlessly changing topics with no accountability. they can only be defeated in the arena of real life and real results. communism is an unnatural state that can only exist via constant lies from the press. the nazis figured out how to beat communism. make them shut the fuck up and put their money where their mouth is.

And Goebbles called it the Judenpresse

Sounds like a lot what Stalin was planning to do in Europe, free it from "capitalism". Why did Hitler need to be leader for life, if it was an ideology that would cause everyone to be successful and wealthy? Would't a democratic society with the same core values achieve the same thing?

>we should have the ability to blatantly lie to and manipulate people with our falsehoods for the sake of our own political agenda

gee, I wonder why the NS banned your propaganda

KIKES RAN THE GERMAN MEDIA

The same kikes who DECLARED WAR ON GERMANY

Just like the do today!!

DERP

Ok after Hitler's economic miracle and proof that NatSoc worked well, why did they still need censorship?

Because opposing opinions are "subversive" and they believe their volk just aren't able to process information without turning into degenerate sluts and slobs.....lol

It was a dictatorship

You don't run a dictatorship with opposing viewpoints. You run a dictatorship where you're the boss and everyone listens to you - that's how they work.

It's also what the german public voted for.

I am not a communist or a democrat. Just a curious socially conservative, regulated capitalist fan.

love that goy

>Why did Hitler need to be leader for life
To fully integrate his system in Germany and the world, and to personally train his successor.
>Would't a democratic society with the same core values achieve the same thing?
Yes. But democracy can only work for a non-corrupt State and a properly educated society. NatSoc brings us to this goal.

I know, but I wanted to the see their though process on the matter.

So you will believe that if given time that Nazi Germany would become a democracy?

Because if you ban commies but not SocDems, then all commies will just become SocDems in disguise. In a dictatorship, that isn't an acceptable possibility.

Why did the world need it to be implemented by Hitler. Couldn't the rest of us make our decisions for our own "volk". Hitler wouldn't have wanted Mussolini telling his volk what is best for them. If it worked so well other people will adopt it and use it.

>Why did the Nazis need to silence all media of opposing view points and satire?
Anti-White beliefs don't belong in White countries.

>If their ideology was so glorious wouldn't they need no censoring at all?
Bad things should be censored.

To turn this back on you...if the Nazi's were so bad, why do the Jews and other assorted anti-Whites have to lie about the Nazi's?

Then everyone will become undercover NatSocs?

Bump, because genuinely good thread.

I never said they were bad. I am curious about why the needed to implement a Big Brother structure if it was the greatest ideology.

>silence all opposition

Hitlers purge was only around 80 people

Compare that to the purge in soviet Russia

Also, every political revolution has required a purge. It's just the way things are

In a way, yes. The People put Hitler in charge. Hitler chose his successor and trained him. This is our example: if a person leads a Nation successfully they should remain in power until they cannot serve, and they should choose their replacement with the People's approval. A leader fails and he's replaced.

>Why did the world need it to be implemented by Hitler.
Because National Socialism is Hitler's system. Who better to teach the world how to implement it?
>Couldn't the rest of us make our decisions for our own "volk".
Yes and you should. All races and Countries can embrace the fundamental principles of NatSoc and save their heritage because Jews destroy it.

>Would't a democratic society with the same core values achieve the same thing?

I honestly don't think so. I originally held democracy in pretty high regard, but as time has progressed what I've seen only indicates that democracy is a farce

A government system where the people are led by the nose by mainstream media who blatantly lie to them. This misinformed public then makes terrible and disastrous decisions on elections and votes according to the whims of those in control of the free flow of information - A successful democracy requires not just an armed public, but an informed public, and the mainstream media and tight corporate/government control of communication prevents the public from being effectively informed.

MAYBE it can work now that we have the internet. It seems to actually be going that way, but just as much we see a sudden push in the US to try and silence/censor free speech online.

Honestly all a democracy does is allow string pullers to manipulate the country to their desires while hiding themselves from the backlash of bad decisions. It's not CNN or the Corporate Execs running CNN that get publicly castrated for a military disaster - it's the elected officials, even though those elected officials basically have to jump to the tune of CNN's board of directors (who themselves are taking bribes and cutting deals for public manipulation from other oligarchs) or else face the kind of bullshit media manipulation Trump's faced.

It is vile, subversive, and inherently jewish.

At least with a dictatorship, the hierarchy is as clear as the responsibilities and blame are. If the government fucks up, it's on the dictator. This is why I don't inherently disagree with people in favor of monarchic or dictatorial systems. Humans naturally gravitate to it to begin with, it feels right. The trouble stems mostly from the bad dictators, not the benevolent ones.

I am simply asking about a question about an issue that was the core of the only example of NatSoc.

>I never said they were bad.
So are you saying you think anti-White beliefs have a place in pro-White society?

>I am curious about why the needed to implement a Big Brother structure if it was the greatest ideology.
Because it's needed to protect the people (Whites) from those (Jews) who are using those "freedoms" to destroy the people.

If you had cancer and your doctor told you that you need to tolerate and accept it (in fact, it has just as much right to exist in your body as everything else) would you heed the doctor's instructions?

I never ever said anything about killing anyone, but rather the restrictions of press, other ideas and political parties.

In a covenant concluded among proprietor and community tenants for the purpose of protecting their private property, no such thing as a right to free (unlimited) speech exists, not even to unlimited speech on one's own tenant-property. One may say innumerable things and promote almost any idea under the sun, but naturally no one is permitted to advocate ideas contrary to the very purpose of the covenant of preserving and protecting private property, such as democracy and communism. There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society. Likewise, in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They – the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism – will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order.

You kill the traitors first.

For the same reason that people are pissed at the media right now. And it wasn't really censorship, they just disallowed the ownership of newspapers by lying kikes. We should do the same.

>For the same reason that people are pissed at the media right now. And it wasn't really censorship, they just disallowed the ownership of newspapers by lying kikes. We should do the same.
Its like if the media wasn't allowed to lie about, omit, vilify or distort the news about Trump.

They'd scream "censorship" all the while they'd be essentially forced to tell the truth for once.

There wouldn't be any actual infringement of rights. The media would be just held to the standard that they should be held to.

They suppressed the Jewish press which had no right being apart of German affairs

>Anti-white
No, I don't like them and American society in the 50's didn't like them and American society had free press.

>Big Brother
Fair that a time in crisis you do what is needed, but do you believe such a system is needed after the jews were removed?

Ok, but if a German owned paper had fair criticism of a Nazi policy. Would it have been allowed?

I agree with that sentiment, I still think free press is a good thing. What we have now is leftist propaganda.

It's not simply anti-white beliefs but utter degeneracy

I have no problem banning transexualism, homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, and so on. The utter garbage the modern media puts out is incredible.

And I don't base this on whether or not it disgusts me (it certainly does - and frankly that's an indication there's an embedded evolutionary/instinct against it) but because we see clear evidence that these things are meant to weaken our society. For instance, transexualism and homosexuality turn our men into eunuchs, they cause social strife in society, reduce population birth rates and fertility, increase rates of disease, create massive opportunity for blackmail, and even encourage pedophilia.

What fucking societal good do these things give us? Nothing! It is degenerate hedonistic behavior that satisfies the twisted urges of an individual at the expense of the wellbeing of the overall society, and it's not simply a case of these things existing, but the media taking them and blaring them out the public loudspeakers and into public venues and spaces trying to fucking advertise and promote it. I don't really care (to limits - pedophiles hang) as long as it's not harming our society and right now that is exactly what's happening.

I don't want to gas the gays, but I also don't want gay pride parades or advertisements that push the fucking bounds of human decency (like those ads where they get two little boys to kiss each other - what the FUCK)

I honestly don't know, do you?

I do know that the national socialist party had nearly 100 percent approval ratings in 1938

>No, I don't like them and American society in the 50's didn't like them
American society in the 50's was already well on its way to collapse thanks to Jewish influence. Remember, the 60's came out of the 50's.

>and American society had free press.
Again, the cracks were already starting to show.

>Fair that a time in crisis you do what is needed, but do you believe such a system is needed after the jews were removed?
The price of White survival is eternal vigilance.

People would forget that the Jews are the enemy and the Jews would eventually be allowed back in under the guise of "freedom" "rights" "acceptance" and "tolerance" and everything bad would start all over again. So they must be reminded and taught about those enemies that are outside the gates and that want to destroy them.


>Ok, but if a German owned paper had fair criticism of a Nazi policy. Would it have been allowed?
Depends on the purpose of the criticism.

Is the criticism meant to improve the people and National Socialism or meant to fracture the people and bring the ideology down?

Not a natsoc, but there will always be tempting ideas that if accepted can taint or destroy an otherwise upstanding member of society and have devastating repercussions for the society as a whole. Smoking, for instance. Leave people who are imperfect to decide or have a strong man with collective interest decide?

No I don't, that's why I made the thread.

>It's not simply anti-white beliefs but utter degeneracy
>I have no problem banning transexualism, homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, and so on. The utter garbage the modern media puts out is incredible.
>And I don't base this on whether or not it disgusts me (it certainly does - and frankly that's an indication there's an embedded evolutionary/instinct against it) but because we see clear evidence that these things are meant to weaken our society. For instance, transexualism and homosexuality turn our men into eunuchs, they cause social strife in society, reduce population birth rates and fertility, increase rates of disease, create massive opportunity for blackmail, and even encourage pedophilia.
>What fucking societal good do these things give us? Nothing! It is degenerate hedonistic behavior that satisfies the twisted urges of an individual at the expense of the wellbeing of the overall society, and it's not simply a case of these things existing, but the media taking them and blaring them out the public loudspeakers and into public venues and spaces trying to fucking advertise and promote it. I don't really care (to limits - pedophiles hang) as long as it's not harming our society and right now that is exactly what's happening.
Excellent post.

>I don't want to gas the gays, but I also don't want gay pride parades or advertisements that push the fucking bounds of human decency (like those ads where they get two little boys to kiss each other - what the FUCK)
Homosexuality has no place in White society. (I'm not saying you believe this but...) No, they shouldn't be allowed to do whatever they want behind closed doors, either. (Yes, there are some in the pro-White movement that advocate that)

Homosexuality should be treated for what it is. A degenerate and destructive mental illness.

One doesn't normalize, promote and enable schizophrenia. One treats it and protects society from it.
The same goes with homosexuality.

Yes, exactly. And remember, the Jew cries out in pain as he strikes you.

So you are saying there can never be a true white utopia?, shame

Liberalism, rejection of culture and rejection of self preservation are what you're talking about

>I still think free press is a good thing.
Not at the expense of the people though.

>What we have now is Jewish propaganda.
FTFY.

It's not the Liberals. It's not the Leftists. It's the Jews. Never shy away from that fact. There is one uniting factor of those who own and control the media. It is that they are virtually all Jews.

Wasn't homosexuality common through out history in white societies?

The jews controlled everything. They still do

>So you are saying there can never be a true white utopia?, shame
There can be. The problem is what you'd have to do to make it.

Ever read the Turner Diaries. That's one way.

The other way is waaay too sci-fi and that's to Whites colonize a planet.

War.

The US put Japanese in internment camps.

The Nazis were in much more dire straits. They couldn't afford niceties like freedom.

Doesn't mean NatSoc couldn't work and be compatible with freedom in a more sane situation.

Much like free speech laws in America today, it depends on intent. If their intent is only to discredit National Socialism or damage the regime, it's comparable to libel. If their intent is to raise legitimate concerns, it's okay. Hit pieces would not be tolerated, but there are plenty of people asking questions and raising issues at the time- don't take my word for it, use one of the many newspaper archives available online from this period.

Btw I noticed since I am a native Sup Forumsack that is criticizing NatSoc, all shills assume I am a shill and the thread has been free of them, lol.

NatSoc doesn't require a dictatorship.

>Wasn't homosexuality common through out history in white societies?
Yes, there has been homosexuality throughout time. Just like other mental illnesses.

The difference being it wasn't until very recently (say the last 50-70 years) that the Jews started normalizing, advocating and promoting it through their stranglehold on the global media.

Faggots are 2% of the population at best. One wonders how much support they'd really have if the Jews weren't promoting them so much in the media.

Then why did they have to make their own lying press with films like the "eternal Jew"

Which to the modern eye are obvious pieces of lying propaganda from outright lies, to obvious cut scenes, to different locations.

I mean for crying out loud they cover a wall with cockroaches film it, then insert the close up into a "Jewish home" of people who were kind enough to invite them in.

Nazis are lying scum.

We could research it but this thread will be long gone by the time we finish an honest investigation

>Welcome to 'The Weimar Republic', Berlin ~1930 and the new Bolsheviks getting a college education on the tab of Whitey, set to take over policy that will drive the entire nation. HOORAY!
>Sup Forums ... you are going to absolutely love Communism

>Beleving kike lies about National Socialist Germany

Read this archive.org/stream/SchmidtLifeInHitlersGermany/Schmidt-LifeInHitlersGermany_djvu.txt

The only things closed were a couple communist propaganda outlets, but the press for the most part was free, and was allowed to criticize the "regime" as much as it wished.

That's a Jewish-propagated myth. Of course degeneracy has existed at the high levels of society, among the idle rich; but it is an aberration which does not occur naturally or as a result of genetics. It's the result of an absent father figure and a hedonistic, indulgent, disconnected lifestyle.

You're able to have a reasoned discussion. That's why you're not a shill.

This is more than likely a shill:

I wouldnt say that. The liberalism thing maybe, but take Hitler's war on degenerated art, Entartete Kunst. It was not an action done to stifle his people's development, but to instead a strong armed attempt to prevent their negative development in grotesque forms of expressionism. The big H was Germany's daddy making executive decisions on what they could or could not consume simply for their own posterity.

Why so many shill threads today?

So if they won the war there would be less restrictions on the press?

What do you think of the von Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan for Europe. Basically what we see today is a result of it. They banked on the jews to weaken the west to implement it. I think there are more forces than jews at play.

Becuse it is jew ran

We burned books in America too, they just burned communist and degenerate propaganda just like we did. You've fallen for an exaggeration

I am not shill, I was seriously curious about the topic. Had it to make it little baity otherwise it will not attract interest.

>What do you think of the von Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan for Europe.
Typical Jewish plan to destroy the goyim. Fits in with the Talmud and Cultural Marxism.

>They banked on the jews to weaken the west to implement it.
Who is "they"?

>I think there are more forces than jews at play.
Jews are at the core of everything bad happening to White civilization.


You know the phrase "Sup Forums is always right?" It doesn't come from Sup Forums predicting things but it comes from Sup Forums researching who is behind bad things happening to the White race, White countries and White civilization and finding the Jews behind it.

Outstanding

The book burnings weren't a mandatory thing.

The people just knew what was in their interest

We don't know. I won't claim Hitler would have been Germany's George Washington, but I don't know for a fact that he would not have been.

Imagine if you were a passenger on a ship.

The ship is sinking. You and three friends are trying to patch a hundred holes, fifty have temporary fixes and will hold for a while and the rest are actively filling the ship and will end in the death of your families if you don't act fast.
In walks the captain who may or may not be a filthy Semitic yid with his yid crew, all clad in life jackets and making way to the life boats.

>"Oy vey! Why're you filling my holes Goy? Don't you know I need the insurance claim?"

They then proceed to remove your patchwork, inform all passengers the situation is fine, and the water is acceptable before promptly leaving aboard the lifeboats.
You subsequently drown with your family, and the crew informs the general public that you made all the holes and thus, sunk the ship.

Give a Jew a inch, and he'll find a way to turn that inch into a mile.

>who cared if someone read Marx

How about the millions killed and destroyed nations that was happening at the very moment of the book burnings because of marx?

>Why did the Nazis need to silence all media of opposing view points and satire?
Jewish propaganda was tearing the nation apart. It starting Communist revolts against non communists. Hell the Reich stag was burned down.

They are the pan-European council. von Coudenhove-Kalergi was Autrian aristocrat and japanese and hated jews.

There would be less restrictions on everything if the Jews were excised. They are a tumor, eating away at vital organs, spreading throughout the body. While the cancer spreads, the host is weakened; they cannot participate in the activities they once enjoyed. Chemotherapy and surgeries also weaken the host, and they may feel it's doing more harm than good. But when the cancer is removed, and the host makes a recovery, then they can do all those activities with renewed vigor.

pretty sure the point of fascism is not having to deal with your faggotry. kike owns media, remove fucking kike. so why isn't your fascism, not fascism? that is basically your question. when barron trump is our fuhrer i hope he gasses the shit out of cnn, nyt, and burns every commie faggot book there is.

>They are the pan-European council.
Sounds like Globalism to me. And of course we all know that Globalism is Jewish.

>von Coudenhove-Kalergi was Autrian aristocrat and japanese and hated jews.
Yet his plan mirrors Jewish beliefs.

Bit of a strawman argument, but I get your point.

Yes similar ideas, but I believe separate actors.

>Libertarianism: All but a couple of it's theoriticians are jewish
>Marxism: Jewish
>Capitalism: All upper echelons Jewish

When you go out of your way to remove semitic influence everywhere, it becomes apparent very quickly that everything wrong with our society can be traced back to some Jew.

It's not about silencing everything, it's just that everything of note with negative aspects happens to be Jewish.

Not after he wrote his treatise about antisemitis.

He hated Jews and learned to LOVE them later on.

If Hitler is still alive then he's a reptilian. Meet me halfway on this one

>Yes similar ideas, but I believe separate actors.
Well we'll never really know if the Jews didn't exist if his idea would still reflect them.

Regardless, there wouldn't be people like him allowed in White countries if the Jews weren't allow in White countries.

Jews enable people and beliefs such as his.

Democracy is a lie. Freedom is evil. Capitalism is degeneracy. Marxism is Jewish. What, then, remains? What is the inherently white form of government? It is absolutism. Absolute Monarchy, National Socialism, and Dirigisme, the Holy Trinity of white ideologies, reviled and cursed by the Jew because there is no place for parasites in this society. Only National Socialism and active warring against degeneracy can stop this.

Haha, this.

NatSoc has a lot of good ideas, but identifying with a uniquely German movement with an unneccisary amount of negative baggage is retarded.

Wouldn't mind Barron as the first fasisct leader of US. Not NatSoc.

Ok Sup Forums you convinced me that in those circumstances that censoring was a valid option.

Now I had an interesting thought, is National Socialism a form of white tribalism and thus whites would be able to compete with Jewish tribalism. Thats why Jews are always so dominate they watch out only for Jews and no one else.

Look up Rockwell, National Socialism is as American as Apple Pie "as in both came from Europe, but we adapted them :D"

Rockwell could very well could have become president if he hadn't been assassinated.

Also no one ever was able to counter this point.