Forwarded from μ₯μμ π½
Gunther portrays Mediterraneans and other Southern Europeans, particularly in countries like Portugal, Spain, and France, as racially inferior due to what he describes as a significant "Negro strain" in their populations. He suggests that these regions have been heavily influenced by African blood through historical events such as the Moorish domination, the importation of African slaves, and intermarriage with Africans. Gunther contrasts Southern Europeans unfavorably with more "homogeneous" Mediterranean Spaniards and implies that Southern Europeans, especially the Portuguese, are racially diluted by this African influence. He also expresses disdain for French policies that grant civil rights and military rank to Africans, which he sees as exacerbating a "Black Peril" and posing a racial threat to Europe, particularly Germany. His analysis reflects a condescending view of Southern Europeans as racially mixed and thus inferior to the more "pure" Nordic or Alpine populations of Europe.
Reference: ππ·π΄ ππ°π²πΈπ°π» π΄π»π΄πΌπ΄π½ππ πΎπ΅ π΄πππΎπΏπ΄π°π½ π·πΈπππΎππ ππ’ π·π°π½π πΆππ½ππ·π΄π
(3)
Reference: ππ·π΄ ππ°π²πΈπ°π» π΄π»π΄πΌπ΄π½ππ πΎπ΅ π΄πππΎπΏπ΄π°π½ π·πΈπππΎππ ππ’ π·π°π½π πΆππ½ππ·π΄π
(3)
π7π1
Forwarded from Martinez Politics
Fredrich Engels was anti-Slavic, yet also a Third Worldist.
"Engels rejected the view commonly expressed by explorers and missionaries in his day that native peoples were heathen savages who were obviously inferior to white races. Indeed he argued that primitive peoples were superior to modern Europeans because they did not recognise private property or capitalism or the state. Marx and Engels and the English Workers opposed to the exploitation of native peoples by white colonists. He denounced the expansion of the empires of European states in India, Java, Algiers and elsewhere."
Despite rejecting colonialism against non-Europeans by Europeans, he supported subjugating Slavs by other Europeans and even the Turks, saying Slavs couldn't rule themselves:
"In view of Engels' attitude towards the Jews, the Iroquois, and the natives in colonial territories, his attitude towards some of the Slavs is difficult to understand. When a Pan-Slav movement developed with Russian support in central and eastern Europe during the revolution of 1848 Engels rejected the demands of the Czechs, Serbs, Croats, and Ruthenians for independence from Habsburg or Turkish rule. Early in 1849 in two articles in the Neue Rheinische Zeitung35 he argued that these peoples had no natural capacity for self-government and were for ever doomed to be ruled by more advanced nations. They were "peoples without any history". Engels asserted that these peoples would always be subject races and would "never achieve national independence". "They are peoples who were either already under foreign rule when they entered into the first primitive phase of civilisation or who were actually forced into the earliest phase of civilisation by their foreign master."
What a bizarre cocktail of anti-Slavism and Third Worldism.
"he argued that these peoples had no natural capacity for self-government and were for ever doomed to be ruled by more advanced nations"
That's exactly what Hitler said in Mein Kampf. Germanic anti-Slavism was ever-present during those times.
"Engels rejected the view commonly expressed by explorers and missionaries in his day that native peoples were heathen savages who were obviously inferior to white races. Indeed he argued that primitive peoples were superior to modern Europeans because they did not recognise private property or capitalism or the state. Marx and Engels and the English Workers opposed to the exploitation of native peoples by white colonists. He denounced the expansion of the empires of European states in India, Java, Algiers and elsewhere."
Despite rejecting colonialism against non-Europeans by Europeans, he supported subjugating Slavs by other Europeans and even the Turks, saying Slavs couldn't rule themselves:
"In view of Engels' attitude towards the Jews, the Iroquois, and the natives in colonial territories, his attitude towards some of the Slavs is difficult to understand. When a Pan-Slav movement developed with Russian support in central and eastern Europe during the revolution of 1848 Engels rejected the demands of the Czechs, Serbs, Croats, and Ruthenians for independence from Habsburg or Turkish rule. Early in 1849 in two articles in the Neue Rheinische Zeitung35 he argued that these peoples had no natural capacity for self-government and were for ever doomed to be ruled by more advanced nations. They were "peoples without any history". Engels asserted that these peoples would always be subject races and would "never achieve national independence". "They are peoples who were either already under foreign rule when they entered into the first primitive phase of civilisation or who were actually forced into the earliest phase of civilisation by their foreign master."
What a bizarre cocktail of anti-Slavism and Third Worldism.
"he argued that these peoples had no natural capacity for self-government and were for ever doomed to be ruled by more advanced nations"
That's exactly what Hitler said in Mein Kampf. Germanic anti-Slavism was ever-present during those times.
π13π4
"Karl Marx described the causes of capitalist development reasonably correctly. But we [Marxists and National Socialists] are both always and forever right about capitalism. The will to freedom rises up from the collapsing system. It finds its form in fundamentally new ideas: in Bolshevism and National Socialism. Both emerge with the ultimate belief that they will bring freedom to an entire world by overthrowing it. Bolshevism and National Socialism are embodied in two people who lead a purposeful minority in the will to the future: Lenin and Hitler." - Goebbels
"The difference between Communism and the Hitler faith is slight" - Goebbels
"The difference between Communism and the Hitler faith is slight" - Goebbels
π―21π«‘1
Forwarded from Martinez Politics
Karl Marx was raised Protestant and professed belief in Christ as a youth.
Marx wrote "On the Jewish Question" and said this:
"Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew β not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew.Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew. What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money.Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Judaism, would be the self-emancipation of our time. An organization of society which would abolish the preconditions for huckstering, and therefore the possibility of huckstering, would make the Jew impossible. His religious consciousness would be dissipated like a thin haze in the real, vital air of society. On the other hand, if the Jew recognizes that this practical nature of his is futile and works to abolish it, he extricates himself from his previous development and works for human emancipation as such and turns against the supreme practical expression of human self-estrangement. We recognize in Judaism, therefore, a general anti-social element of the present time, an element which through historical development β to which in this harmful respect the Jews have zealously contributed β has been brought to its present high level, at which it must necessarily begin to disintegrate. In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Judaism."
And this:
"Once society has succeeded in abolishing the empirical essence of Judaism β huckstering and its preconditions β the Jew will have become impossible, because his consciousness no longer has an object, because the subjective basis of Judaism, practical need, has been humanized, and because the conflict between manβs individual-sensuous existence and his species-existence has been abolished. The social emancipation of the Jew is the emancipation of society from Judaism."
So Marx called for the abolition of Judaism and Jews as a unique group, so it's very hard for me to believe he was pursuing some tribalist agenda when he despised them. Don't attach the name Marx to these statements and your average Neo-Nazi would be shouting in agreement.
Fredrich Engels, Marx's closest collaborator and co-author of many communist texts, was a non-Jew. Ironically, Engels was notably less anti-Jewish in comparison with Marx and denounced the phenomenon publicly, although he made some private anti-Jewish remarks. How do the J-communism theorists explain that? The non-Jew Engels opposed anti-Semitism publicly, while the Jew Marx supported and contributed to it.
More from Marx:
"In 1845 in The Holy Family Marx claimed that in his articles in the Deutsch-FranzΓΆsische JahrbΓΌcher he had "proved that the task of abolishing the essence of Jewry is in truth the task of abolishing Jewry in civil society, abolishing the inhumanity of today's practice of life, the summit of which is the money system". In 1849 an article in the Neue Rheinische Zeitung, of which Marx was the editor, criticised the notion that Jews living in Prussia's Polish provinces should be regarded as Germans. The article declared that these Jews were "the filthiest of all races". "Neither by speech nor by descent- but only by their greed for profit - can they be looked upon as relatives of the Germans in Frankfurt." Robert Payne has remarked that "this solution of the Jewish question was not very different from Adolf Hitler's, for it involved the liquidation of Judaism"."
Marx wrote "On the Jewish Question" and said this:
"Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew β not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew.Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew. What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money.Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Judaism, would be the self-emancipation of our time. An organization of society which would abolish the preconditions for huckstering, and therefore the possibility of huckstering, would make the Jew impossible. His religious consciousness would be dissipated like a thin haze in the real, vital air of society. On the other hand, if the Jew recognizes that this practical nature of his is futile and works to abolish it, he extricates himself from his previous development and works for human emancipation as such and turns against the supreme practical expression of human self-estrangement. We recognize in Judaism, therefore, a general anti-social element of the present time, an element which through historical development β to which in this harmful respect the Jews have zealously contributed β has been brought to its present high level, at which it must necessarily begin to disintegrate. In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Judaism."
And this:
"Once society has succeeded in abolishing the empirical essence of Judaism β huckstering and its preconditions β the Jew will have become impossible, because his consciousness no longer has an object, because the subjective basis of Judaism, practical need, has been humanized, and because the conflict between manβs individual-sensuous existence and his species-existence has been abolished. The social emancipation of the Jew is the emancipation of society from Judaism."
So Marx called for the abolition of Judaism and Jews as a unique group, so it's very hard for me to believe he was pursuing some tribalist agenda when he despised them. Don't attach the name Marx to these statements and your average Neo-Nazi would be shouting in agreement.
Fredrich Engels, Marx's closest collaborator and co-author of many communist texts, was a non-Jew. Ironically, Engels was notably less anti-Jewish in comparison with Marx and denounced the phenomenon publicly, although he made some private anti-Jewish remarks. How do the J-communism theorists explain that? The non-Jew Engels opposed anti-Semitism publicly, while the Jew Marx supported and contributed to it.
More from Marx:
"In 1845 in The Holy Family Marx claimed that in his articles in the Deutsch-FranzΓΆsische JahrbΓΌcher he had "proved that the task of abolishing the essence of Jewry is in truth the task of abolishing Jewry in civil society, abolishing the inhumanity of today's practice of life, the summit of which is the money system". In 1849 an article in the Neue Rheinische Zeitung, of which Marx was the editor, criticised the notion that Jews living in Prussia's Polish provinces should be regarded as Germans. The article declared that these Jews were "the filthiest of all races". "Neither by speech nor by descent- but only by their greed for profit - can they be looked upon as relatives of the Germans in Frankfurt." Robert Payne has remarked that "this solution of the Jewish question was not very different from Adolf Hitler's, for it involved the liquidation of Judaism"."
π7
Forwarded from Martinez Politics
Marx was poor and often had to take out loans (sometimes from Jews), which motivated much of his sentiment against them:
"He had many dealings with Jewish financial agents in the City of London. The Bambergers (father and son), Stiefel and Spielmann were German Jews whose names frequently crop up in the Marx-Engels correspondence. Marx made use of the Jews to raise small loans and to discount bills of exchange received from Dana (editor of the New York Daily Tribune) in advance payment for articles which Marx had agreed to write. Marx complained bitterly that the Jews would not discount his bills until confirmation from Dana had been received' and he was furious when they pressed him to honour debts due for repayment. Marx showed his contempt by always referring to them as "Jew (or little Jew) Bamberger" and "Jew Spielmann" or by imitating the nasal twang characteristic of the way in which some Jews from eastern Europe spoke German. Yet Marx had cause to regret the day when the Bambergers were not in business in London any more and were no longer available to discount his bills of exchange. In 1859 he wrote to Engels: 'it is the devil of a nuisance that I have no Bamberger in London any more.'"
He goes on to disparage his fellow J socialist Lasalle as a "Jewish n-word" among other insults. In fact, both privately and publicly he would go on and on about Jewish money-lenders (see above snippets) and that was his principle gripe with Jews as a group. All of this sounds strikingly similar to the Nazis' own rhetoric about Jews and money-lending.
In my view this fully refutes the J-communism conspiracy. If the only thing Marx is writing about Jews both in public and privately is negative and he is advocating for their disappearance as a group/religion, then how could he be the centerpiece of an agenda to advance that group's interests? Some people are emotionally attached to that theory though, so they will react with hostility to any facts that undermine it.
"He had many dealings with Jewish financial agents in the City of London. The Bambergers (father and son), Stiefel and Spielmann were German Jews whose names frequently crop up in the Marx-Engels correspondence. Marx made use of the Jews to raise small loans and to discount bills of exchange received from Dana (editor of the New York Daily Tribune) in advance payment for articles which Marx had agreed to write. Marx complained bitterly that the Jews would not discount his bills until confirmation from Dana had been received' and he was furious when they pressed him to honour debts due for repayment. Marx showed his contempt by always referring to them as "Jew (or little Jew) Bamberger" and "Jew Spielmann" or by imitating the nasal twang characteristic of the way in which some Jews from eastern Europe spoke German. Yet Marx had cause to regret the day when the Bambergers were not in business in London any more and were no longer available to discount his bills of exchange. In 1859 he wrote to Engels: 'it is the devil of a nuisance that I have no Bamberger in London any more.'"
He goes on to disparage his fellow J socialist Lasalle as a "Jewish n-word" among other insults. In fact, both privately and publicly he would go on and on about Jewish money-lenders (see above snippets) and that was his principle gripe with Jews as a group. All of this sounds strikingly similar to the Nazis' own rhetoric about Jews and money-lending.
In my view this fully refutes the J-communism conspiracy. If the only thing Marx is writing about Jews both in public and privately is negative and he is advocating for their disappearance as a group/religion, then how could he be the centerpiece of an agenda to advance that group's interests? Some people are emotionally attached to that theory though, so they will react with hostility to any facts that undermine it.
π9
Forwarded from Martinez Politics
The only and main critique that the Nazis leveled at Marx and Marxism was its "denial of the personality principle" or the "race principle" and simply that Marx was "a Jew", deceptively ignoring the similarity of his own views on Jews with theirs. Rarely, if ever, did they critique Marxism on economic grounds and, in the case of Goebbels, asserted that Marx was right in his critique of capitalism:
"Karl Marx described the causes of capitalist development reasonably correctly. But we [Marxists and National Socialists] are both always and forever right about capitalism. The will to freedom rises up from the collapsing system. It finds its form in fundamentally new ideas: in Bolshevism and National Socialism. Both emerge with the ultimate belief that they will bring freedom to an entire world by overthrowing it. Bolshevism and National Socialism are embodied in two people who lead a purposeful minority in the will to the future: Lenin and Hitler." - Goebbels
"Lenin was the greatest man, second to Hitler. The difference between Communism and the Hitler faith is slight" - Goebbels
"Karl Marx described the causes of capitalist development reasonably correctly. But we [Marxists and National Socialists] are both always and forever right about capitalism. The will to freedom rises up from the collapsing system. It finds its form in fundamentally new ideas: in Bolshevism and National Socialism. Both emerge with the ultimate belief that they will bring freedom to an entire world by overthrowing it. Bolshevism and National Socialism are embodied in two people who lead a purposeful minority in the will to the future: Lenin and Hitler." - Goebbels
"Lenin was the greatest man, second to Hitler. The difference between Communism and the Hitler faith is slight" - Goebbels
π7π1
Forwarded from μ₯μμ π½
Karl Radl, a notorious NS grifter online, has consistently pigeonholed National Socialism with Traditional Christianity to dupe his retarded followers. He now claims that the NSDAP and especially Himmler out of all people (lol) were never interested in the occult, and itβs a jewish lie to make NS look βlessβ Christian.
Literally, the NS anthropology and racial theory cannot be substantially explained without any sorts of academic endeavors to further immerse into occultism to some degree, which makes Karl Radlβs argument diabolical. Did all the expeditions to Tibet and to find mythical objects like the Holy Grail and explorations of ancient civilizations thought to possess "Aryan" roots happen while not being influenced by a single ounce of occultist beliefs?
The dishonesty that these NS Christian essentialists promulgate is baffling.
Literally, the NS anthropology and racial theory cannot be substantially explained without any sorts of academic endeavors to further immerse into occultism to some degree, which makes Karl Radlβs argument diabolical. Did all the expeditions to Tibet and to find mythical objects like the Holy Grail and explorations of ancient civilizations thought to possess "Aryan" roots happen while not being influenced by a single ounce of occultist beliefs?
The dishonesty that these NS Christian essentialists promulgate is baffling.
π11π1
Hitler in Mein Kampf downplayed the plight of the German speakers in South Tyrol (Italy) where they were being Italianized and blamed the Jews for "stirring up" the issue while allegedly ignoring the violence against Hitler's comrades in Germany. So the Jews were preaching sympathy for diaspora Germans in South Tyrol while Hitler thought it was a distraction? Make that make sense.
In that second pic Hitler specifically sides with Italy in the matter:
"in puffing up the South Tyrol question to an importance that will become fatal to the German people. Without considering whose cause they were serving, many so-called national men and parties and associations have joined, purely out of cowardice, the public opinion, stirred up by the Jews, and helped stupidly in supporting the fight against a system [Italian fascism] that we Germans... should consider the sole bright ray in this decaying world."
When Hitler came to power, he mostly dismissed the plight of the South Tyrolean Germans and cut a deal with Mussolini to bring them back to Germany, a deal he did not offer to the Poles because he wanted to invade them.
@redideologies
In that second pic Hitler specifically sides with Italy in the matter:
"in puffing up the South Tyrol question to an importance that will become fatal to the German people. Without considering whose cause they were serving, many so-called national men and parties and associations have joined, purely out of cowardice, the public opinion, stirred up by the Jews, and helped stupidly in supporting the fight against a system [Italian fascism] that we Germans... should consider the sole bright ray in this decaying world."
When Hitler came to power, he mostly dismissed the plight of the South Tyrolean Germans and cut a deal with Mussolini to bring them back to Germany, a deal he did not offer to the Poles because he wanted to invade them.
@redideologies
π8π―5π₯1
Forwarded from Martinez Politics
Marx specifically attacks the "Jewish finance houses" including the Rothschilds and labeled them "the loan-mongering Jews of Europe".
I'm not sure why Nazis don't love this guy, he was a socialist who despised Jews as a group.
I'm not sure why Nazis don't love this guy, he was a socialist who despised Jews as a group.
π8π―4
Forwarded from Debunking Zoomer Historian
ZH continues to assert that Poland prepared an invasion of Germany in 1933, which is untrue and has already been debunked.
https://t.me/DebunkingZoomerHistorian/18
The following excerpt from the work of historian Richard J. Evans makes it abundantly evident that the economy of Nazi Germany was structured so that the "debts would be paid by territorial expansion in the near enough future."
"Hjalmar Schacht may not have been a rabble-rousing apostle of violence, but he had certainly become enough of a radical nationalist to approve wholeheartedly of the regimeβs primary aim of rearming Germany at maximum speed. By the end of May 1933 he had come up with an ingenious scheme for DEFICIT FINANCING. A Metallurgical Research Institute (Metallurgisches Forschungsinstitut), set up by four big companies with a capital of a million Reichsmarks, was authorized to issue so-called βMefo billsβ, which were guaranteed by the state and discounted by the Reichsbank. The bank in turn simply met the bills presented to it by printing banknotes. Fifty percent of arms purchases by the military were made in these bills between 1934 and 1936. Since the Reichsbank covered the bills by printing money, the notes in circulation increased by 6,000 million by the end of March 1938, by which time about 12,000 million Mefo bills had been spent. Schacht was already worried about the inflationary effects of these measures, and he stopped the issue of Mefo bills in 1937, after which point tax vouchers and non-interest-bearing treasury notes were used instead. In the meantime, gross Reich debt had spiralled almost out of control. But neither Hitler nor his economic managers considered this very important. For deficit financing was only a short-term measure in their view; the debts would be paid by territorial expansion in the near enough future. And besides rapid rearmament, Hitler was busily taking other steps to ensure that this would not only be possible but would also, as he saw it, bring the maximum economic benefit."
~ The Third Reich in Power, Richard J. Evans
https://t.me/DebunkingZoomerHistorian/18
The following excerpt from the work of historian Richard J. Evans makes it abundantly evident that the economy of Nazi Germany was structured so that the "debts would be paid by territorial expansion in the near enough future."
"Hjalmar Schacht may not have been a rabble-rousing apostle of violence, but he had certainly become enough of a radical nationalist to approve wholeheartedly of the regimeβs primary aim of rearming Germany at maximum speed. By the end of May 1933 he had come up with an ingenious scheme for DEFICIT FINANCING. A Metallurgical Research Institute (Metallurgisches Forschungsinstitut), set up by four big companies with a capital of a million Reichsmarks, was authorized to issue so-called βMefo billsβ, which were guaranteed by the state and discounted by the Reichsbank. The bank in turn simply met the bills presented to it by printing banknotes. Fifty percent of arms purchases by the military were made in these bills between 1934 and 1936. Since the Reichsbank covered the bills by printing money, the notes in circulation increased by 6,000 million by the end of March 1938, by which time about 12,000 million Mefo bills had been spent. Schacht was already worried about the inflationary effects of these measures, and he stopped the issue of Mefo bills in 1937, after which point tax vouchers and non-interest-bearing treasury notes were used instead. In the meantime, gross Reich debt had spiralled almost out of control. But neither Hitler nor his economic managers considered this very important. For deficit financing was only a short-term measure in their view; the debts would be paid by territorial expansion in the near enough future. And besides rapid rearmament, Hitler was busily taking other steps to ensure that this would not only be possible but would also, as he saw it, bring the maximum economic benefit."
~ The Third Reich in Power, Richard J. Evans
Telegram
Debunking Zoomer Historian
Debunking Zoomer Historian's video 'The Complete History of The Outbreak of WW2':
https://youtu.be/j9umwEhi7sI
In the section "Pre-Emptive Invasion", ZH says Poland planned to pre-emptively invade Germany in 1933, and as usual he is wrong.
Refer: Did Pilsudskiβ¦
https://youtu.be/j9umwEhi7sI
In the section "Pre-Emptive Invasion", ZH says Poland planned to pre-emptively invade Germany in 1933, and as usual he is wrong.
Refer: Did Pilsudskiβ¦
π11