Adolf Hitler enjoys a landslide election win to become… administrator of a small district in Namibia

I gave the source: Hitler's Table Talk.
His private dinner conversations (i.e. monologues) which Bormann minuted.
Both The Testament and Table Talk are for a variety of reasons heavily disputed sources


The official German manuscripts are gone and the stories have come through us by a pipeline of questionable secondary sources is suspicious. The fact that it's at odds with everything Hitler has said - both public and privately - is an even bigger red flag

The man could have easily pulled a Stalin on Christianity if he wanted too.
 

NickK

Woodpecker
Orthodox
The authenticity of Hitler's Table talk is absolutely unquestionable.

Everything he said in there was a repetition of what he said and wrote in the past.

The man DID pull a Stalin on Christianity. He killed 25 million Orthodox Christians. He starved millions of Orthodox Christians in Greece and Yugoslavia so that his soldiers could kill millions of Orthodox Christians in Russia. All in all, he is responsible for the deaths of 25 million Christians.

Not quite Stalin numbers but his master would have been very pleased.
 

nathan

Robin
As I have said before, I am open to being redpilled on this. But there is a sizeable deficit that needs to be overcome. It's not just the (((media))) and education that condemns the evils of Hitler- his evil is pretty much universally recognized, among institutions I don't trust as well as institutions I do trust, particularly the Church. I also find it pretty dubious that a man of Christ would let things spiral to the extent they did under Hitler, even if every sympathetic position is true (which I am far from being convinced is even the case).

Also, the evidence provided on this thread by the pro-Hitler side is laughably insufficient so far, with the possible exception of the Teutonic Knights video, which I have not finished watching yet. But that other video is simply a bunch of memes put to music, most of which don't even have anything to do with the issue. Additionally, the posts from Justin C seem like a random collection of quotes that don't directly address the point of disagreement either, have little context (ie why should I trust them? Remember I am coming at this as a skeptic of your side's viewpoint), and are contradicted by other quotes and evidence. As I pointed out before, the cited Haavara Agreement has, given the events that followed, all the markings of a disingenuous agreement (similar to those positions of the bolsheviks at the beginning of the USSR).

Furthermore, NickK's counterpoints need a response. The Catholic Church's positions need a response. My points need a response. With the exception of La Aguila Negra (who seems honest and is not insulting anyone), the people on this thread seem to be arguing primarily for the sake of winning some anonymous online Hitler dick swinging points. It's like a few of you took personal offense to me insulting Hitler, which is bizarre, especially given the vast consensus behind the viewpoint I espouse, which you all know exists and thus should not be surprising to anyone. It's also just tactically poor to subtly (or not so subtly) insult someone into joining your side, especially when your side is largely universally regarded as a joke both by ideological enemies as well as allies.
 

Goni

Woodpecker
I love how much of a troll this is to Hitler. To have his name used by a black African man winning a democratic election... ultimate slap in the face to what he stood for
Your ignorance about this subject is pretty big and if I would be in your shoes I would not speak so much as you did.

Hitler struggled for 11 years to win the hearts of Germans and fight against the huge Jewish international press, media and overall political machine.

He won the elections in 1933 and was absolute winner in a referendum 4 years later. Pretty much like in Austria where the referendum to join Germany was unique in history in it's winning percentages, exactly 98.7%.

It is true the Hitler thought that " democracy " was a tool for the parasites to infiltrate the host nation, capture, dominate and destroy it and frankly he was proven more than right.

The only effective democracy was that in Roman Republic where only the male elite could vote and evan that was proven ineffective and thus Empire was established since Cesar times.

As for blacks very rightfully Hitler thought they were less smart and did not want Germans to mix with them. The only blacks he saw was the sex hungry africans under the french and English command that left their seed in German women on the Rihneland.

The same thing would happen with 15,000 german women and African American soldiers as women have treason in their blood and betray their men as soon as they lose.

But Hitler never expressed any desire to dominate or enslave them like Jewish controlled Britain and America did.
 
Last edited:

The Resilient

Ostrich
Orthodox
Your ignorance about this subject is pretty big and if I would be in your shoes I would not speak so much as you did.

Hitler struggled for 11 years to win the hearts of Germans and fight against the huge Jewish international press, media and overall political machine.

He won the elections in 1933 and was absolute winner in a referendum 4 years later. Pretty much like in Austria where the referendum to join Germany was unique in history in it's winning percentages, exactly 98.7%.

It is true the Hitler thought that " democracy " was a tool for the parasites to infiltrate the host nation, capture, dominate and destroy it and frankly he was proven more than right.

The only effective democracy was that in Roman Republic where only the male elite could vote and evan that was proven ineffective and thus Empire was established since Cesar times.

As for blacks very rightfully Hitler thought they were less smart and did not want Germans to mix with them. The only blacks he saw was the sex hungry africans under the french and English command that left their sees in German women on the Rihneland.

The same thing would happen with 15,000 german women and African American soldiers as women have treason in their blood and betray their men as soon as they lose.

But Hitler never expressed any desire to dominate or enslave them like Jewish controlled Britain and America did.


I wanted to wax on like this, but... I thought it would have been wasted typing. Thankful that you did though. Maybe he'll read it. Chances are he won't though.
 

Goni

Woodpecker
If you are a Hitler sympathiser, you are anything but politically red pilled. You rejected one piece of propaganda, only to adopt another one.

Hitler was a demonic mass murderer, a socialist, a pagan hater of Christianity, who waged a brutal war of aggression that killed nearly 25.000.000 Orthodox Christians (and some Jews).
What a smart ass we have here.

You know which is the biggest problem with guys like you??? You want to demonize Hitler entirely and thus you want us to prove he was an angel.

This typical white and black rhetoric that marxist left has.

Hitler was not an angel as no politician is.

The typical Christian you are requiring would never be potically active and have the balls he had, because he had to make his hands dirty in order to save Germany.

The important thing is that he was a nominal Christian and never did anything politically against Christians.

He strengthened very much the family structure and moral values.

What you do here as " 911" would say , is zionist nationalism and being a pawn to jews. The same kind of people as you offend and attack muslims all the time and often praise Israel as the only " civilised " country in middle east.

Also your idiotic claim that Hitler killed 25 million orthodoxes strengthens my views about your ignorance.

Being part of an " orthodox " state or nation doesn't make you Orthodox. You are Christian only if you are a practicant.

Evan today, less than 15% of Russia is truly orthodox.

The Tsarist Russia also used the Orthodox belief as a political tool to advance panslavism and didn lots of war crimes also.

Let's not go down to this low brow rhetoric.

Keep in mind that the deaths in Soviet Union are exaggerated and most were military deaths. Many occurred because of Whermacht highly efficiency, weakness of Soviet army an soviet soldiers thrown as pigs and sheep on the battlefield.

There is absolutely no proof that Hitler Table Talks are true btw. Everything that comes about that man from the West has been deformed so much, that nothing can be trusted .
 
Last edited:

The Resilient

Ostrich
Orthodox
Everything that comes about that man from the West has been deformed so much, that nothing can be trusted .


By the great words of Asha Logos :
"I became a skeptic overnight, in the literal sense"


After I started studying things in regards to the Jewish question after my alt lite hedonistic self serving faggotry was the same way I exhibited the same traits that I recognize now) @nathan has demonstrably shown) Not long after the 2016 election ...

I realised that everything was awry in our society And that natural order was turned upon its head.

And by my nature of natural inquisitiveness the desire of knowing truth in regards to and of all I've absorbed over the past few decades surely everything I had learned had to be questioned and so I did.... These are the questions I have asked in the solutions I agree with now. I apologise for calling you a cuck, But I adamantly believed that's what you are acting like @nathan
 
Last edited:

nathan

Robin
By the great words of Asha Logos :
"I became a skeptic overnight, in the literal sense"


After I started studying things in regards to the Jewish question after my alt lite hedonistic self serving faggotry was the same way I exhibited the same traits that I recognize now) @nathan has demonstrably shown) Not long after the 2016 election ...

I realised that everything was awry in our society And that natural order was turned upon its head.

And by my nature of natural inquisitiveness the desire of knowing truth in regards to and of all I've absorbed over the past few decades surely everything I had learned had to be questioned and so I did.... These are the questions I have asked in the solutions I agree with now. These are the questions I have asked in the solutions I agree with now I apologise for calling you a cuck, But I adamantly believed that's what you are acting like @nathan

EDIT: Just re-read the last sentence of this.

Yes, I do not really trust much of what has been taught to us either, which is why I am open to alternative narratives. As I have said on this one though, the thing that gets me is that the narrative in opposition to Hitler is so overwhelming, that I am pretty far from accepting something other than that he was ultimately very evil.
 
Last edited:

The Resilient

Ostrich
Orthodox
Bro why are you so butthurt that I offended Hitler? You do nothing but insult people on this thread and when I bring reasonable concerns I have about your side's arguments, you just insult more. Clearly I hit a nerve.
I'm not butthurt, I'm annoyed . Learn the difference.

Also you're a sparrow that registered literally this year. Sit down and read some more threads young buck.
 

nathan

Robin
Your ignorance about this subject is pretty big and if I would be in your shoes I would not speak so much as you did.

I have said nothing radical and have had humility in my posts, openly acknowledging my own ignorance on this topic. Your side is crazed, acting as if any semblance of doubt is something to be mocked. Although maybe it's mostly just that one guy.

Hitler struggled for 11 years to win the hearts of Germans and fight against the huge Jewish international press, media and overall political machine.

He won the elections in 1933 and was absolute winner in a referendum 4 years later. Pretty much like in Austria where the referendum to join Germany was unique in history in it's winning percentages, exactly 98.7%.

I could buy that he was popular, although the fact that you bring up 98.7% raises some doubts, because when has an election ever been that one-sided? But I can buy this overall.

It is true the Hitler thought that " democracy " was a tool for the parasites to infiltrate the host nation, capture, dominate and destroy it and frankly he was proven more than right.

The only effective democracy was that in Roman Republic where only the male elite could vote and evan that was proven ineffective and thus Empire was established since Cesar times.

This I agree with. Democracy leads to poor outcomes.

As for blacks very rightfully Hitler thought they were less smart and did not want Germans to mix with them. The only blacks he saw was the sex hungry africans under the french and English command that left their seed in German women on the Rihneland.

The same thing would happen with 15,000 german women and African American soldiers as women have treason in their blood and betray their men as soon as they lose.

But Hitler never expressed any desire to dominate or enslave them like Jewish controlled Britain and America did.

Fair enough, but that would still mean he looked down upon Africans (which was the original subject of contention). There is a distinction between enslaving people and viewing them as beneath you because of their race. But neither is good from a Christian perspective.

What do you think of the other points that were raised regarding Hitler's actions?
 

Goni

Woodpecker
I have said nothing radical and have had humility in my posts, openly acknowledging my own ignorance on this topic. Your side is crazed, acting as if any semblance of doubt is something to be mocked. Although maybe it's mostly just that one guy.



I could buy that he was popular, although the fact that you bring up 98.7% raises some doubts, because when has an election ever been that one-sided? But I can buy this overall.



This I agree with. Democracy leads to poor outcomes.



Fair enough, but that would still mean he looked down upon Africans (which was the original subject of contention). There is a distinction between enslaving people and viewing them as beneath you because of their race. But neither is good from a Christian perspective.

What do you think of the other points that were raised regarding Hitler's actions?
Saying that certain people are less smart and not wanting to mix is not anti Christian but a fact.

Which other points are you talking about?
 

nathan

Robin
Do you guys remember the good old days, like yesterday, when this was a funny and light hearted thread about a guy in Africa?

His name is Adolf Hitler and he was elected! In Africa! It's funny!

Yeah I unintentionally hijacked this thread. Should probably move it to another thread if someone else wants to make it, if there isn't already one.
 

911

Peacock
Gold Member
Nick is mostly right on Hitler's views on Christianity, he was pretty much a disciple of Blavatsky, so he was, ironically, a kabalist luciferian. This major flaw led to the destruction of Germany, and much of Eastern Europe. A Christian German nationalist would have managed to rally the Slavic nations and liberate Russia instead of leaving a trail of destruction in and around his country.

This being said, Hitler wasn't half the warmonger Churchill or FDR were, he was pushed into WW2 and his pleas for an armistice were rebuffed by them.

His other big flaw in addition to the one above was that he was a horrible military strategist, the globalists who propped him in the early 30s (Preston Bush et al) used him to destroy Germany (a process still ongoing).
 
Top