We need a new hitler, but except targeting some arbitrary ethnic group he'd have to target the cancer of society...

>uhh we dun need to kill uhh all duuh bad people
generic slave morality nonsense.

>Hitler knew he couldn't enforce an atheist state.
He did gasse alot of catholics though.

So Joseph Stalin and his band of Bolsheviks?

More like a new Lenin and Stalin. The only cancer who make life hell for others are the bourgeoisie, who force the proletariat to work for them for low wages while living in opulence off of the value they create. They condemn others to lives of poverty and misery while they live in luxury at their expense. We need a proletarian revolution.

Attached: 1507664285604.jpg (960x570, 164K)

>those who abuse the opportunities they have and those who are generally parasites
Hitler already did kill NEETs though:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_triangle_(badge)

Sounds like the people he was already purging.

huhuhuh i read nietzsche im smarter than u

>communist
Fuck outta here mate

It's what I'm always saying but no one seems to be on board. Well let's just explode the whole thing then.

Attached: 687nlpi.jpg (480x481, 30K)

>unironically defending the bourgeoisie
Fuck off, classcuck

>thinking I'm defending the bushwazee because because I don't support communism
I hate big business as much as you dumbass, the entire point of a free market is that no business goes unchallenged and moving corporation can abuse their power. But you're probably gonna comeback with some arrogant bullshit about how uneducated and a bootlicker I am because commies are incapable of having an actual discussion with anyone that doesn't 100% agree with them. The hell is a "classfuck" anyway?

>commies are incapable of having an actual discussion with anyone that doesn't 100% agree with them
Usually it's because people like you see the word "communism" and write us off without question. People of every political ideology do exactly what you've described.
>The hell is a "classfuck" anyway?
A classcuck is someone who cucks their own class by defending the bourgeoisie.

Well then know that I'm not defending the booshwazi, I just think communism is a load of shit and the a free market and competition is a better way of leashing big corps.

>competition
But it's inevitable the in a free market system, there is no winner of said competition that makes sure that no one else makes as much as they do

see: ABC news still reporting Mickey Mouse's birthday, at least they went out of their way to mention Disney is their parent company

>some arbitrary ethnic group
Uhh you mean the fucking parasites who wanted to lead a Communist takeover of post-WWI Germany?
>Good goyim. Reinforce the binary!

Attached: 1505404356105.png (729x945, 273K)

>Those who try to make life hell for others, those who abuse the opportunities they have and those who are generally parasites.

Unequivocally 100% of the people who post here, so yes I am absolutely on board.

>Muh free market!
I'd use an ancap meme but those are kinda played out.

Attached: 097c125453fcdddd7e69ea1bf71c2f30--free-market.jpg (474x355, 28K)

this makes sense until it implies Hitler made any real positive changes to his country by killing anyone he didn't like, homeless, gays, catholics, etc, that is not the mindset of a leader but a warlord. it shows that he didn't have the intelligence or will to come up with a solution other than "fuck 'em who needs 'em anyway"

So have someone who will not only completely fail at that objective but make life worse with his merry band of degenerates and a fatass? Yeah no thanks.

I dont think we need to kill anyone but we should deport posters like to Venezuela

The problem with this user is that once the big corps get wealthy and powerful enough they can buy the laws they want with their endlessly deep pockets. In the US for instance it is impossible to become an elected official without kowtowing to the demands of corporate interests. The bourgeoisie will give the money and support to run a successful campaign only to those that do their bidding and use their power to crush anyone that speaks against them. They own the media and will thus never report on the wrongdoings of the corporations. The state under bourgeoisie democracy is nothing but a servant of the capitalist class. The only way to secure a better future is to overthrow the bourgeoisie government and install a dictatorship of the proletariat. Voting will accomplish nothing when the bourgeoisie controls what people see and hear.

>by killing anyone he didn't like
Lol he actually believes in all the Bolshevik Holocaust torture porn propaganda.

Attached: soviet-labor-camps-8-638.jpg (638x479, 92K)

it was posted already, you dip

I love the mental gymnastics performed by the alt-right that alternate between "hitler was cool as hell for killing all the jews and degenerate scum he should have killed more" and then "uh no actually the holocaust never happened and hitler just wanted to improve the economy he never killed anyone"

>no guys duh nazis wasnt capitalist duh joos did it all

Attached: 1509577184372.png (645x729, 58K)

>taxes
>part of the market
Makes literally no sense.

Attached: taxationistheft.jpg (600x600, 26K)

>i read nietzsche im smarter than u
both statements are true. every stupid, bitter ooga booga who have ever lived have had the same exact thoughts as you.

The point is that you cannot have capitalism without a state. You need the state to protect private property and stop monopolies, among other things. The only way this can be afforded is through taxation.

Attached: 2f105642aa4d4051281831e17c3e49709b4080c70535ac627e46300f36c1fac2.png (1066x600, 176K)

I'm actually arguing that none of that shit happened and that the Communists (who were 90% Jewish) essentially fabricated insane torture porn propaganda about the Reich's process of deporting all Communists and Communist sympathizers, basing their myths on the the very real squalor of Soviet gulags. Why would """death camps""" like Auschwitz have inmate rec centers and cinemas and swimming pools?

You want to genocide people. That is enough for me to make all sorts of assumptions about your character.

Why would Hitler round up all the jews and gypsies to treat them to free movies and water slides?

Attached: 979.jpg (532x320, 15K)

What mental gymnastics? I wish the Holocaust had happened, and wasn't just a result of the Allies bombing out German supply lines causing rampant disease and starvation in the internment camps.

Attached: 1443333916305.jpg (1096x1600, 1.45M)

>everyone on the """alt-right""" is one person
Retard. The general consensus is that the holocaust did not happen but that it should have.

>We need a new hitler
...I'm listening.
>but except targeting some arbitrary ethnic group
And like that you've lost me. You're making this too complicated. I say we need a new Hitler, full stop, let's just focus on that and when we get there, see what else we can manage.

I can't wait til it's open season on you fucks.

Attached: nrXoNNg.jpg (1360x1600, 335K)

America was literally built on Libertarianism and people defending their own property with guns. Name a single monopoly that isn't there from corporate handouts and regulations

Attached: government-welfare.jpg (414x336, 17K)

We need a new Hitler except he realizes French are the master race. So Arthur de Gobineau

If Hitler loved Jews so much then why did he have them in internment camps?

>why did this leader put his enemies in prisons/internment camps?? you can't explain that!!

Attached: index.png (255x198, 6K)

>We need a new hitler, but except targeting some arbitrary ethnic group he'd have to target the cancer of society. Those who try to make life hell for others, those who abuse the opportunities they have and those who are generally parasites. Society needs to be purged of the cancer to start over again fresh.
Soooo you mean the jews huh? I'm on board

>mental gymnastics
Right, because it takes such mental gymnastics to think that the people who lied about the human soap, human skin lamps, electric floors, and masturbation machines may not be entirely honest about the gas-spewing shower heads.

Probably because he wanted to deport all their kike asses before they attempted to genocidally ubvert Germany the way they had genocidally subverted Russja.

Attached: 9lO1S2l_d.jpg (640x979, 86K)

>the lil pizza ovens turned 6 million human bodies into ashes
>they unironically expect us to believe this
what the fuck

Attached: auschwitz-birkenau-state.jpg (550x412, 52K)

No not to the point where you were saying Auschwitz was literally an amusement park

>America was literally built on Libertarianism
I don't really see how slavery was "Libertarianism."
>and people defending their own property with guns.
So there was no police force or army throughout American history? The factory owners defended their property from private property with their guns? Here's an entire list of strikes in American history that were violently put down by the police.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_worker_deaths_in_United_States_labor_disputes
>Name a single monopoly that isn't there from corporate handouts and regulations
How did regulations cause monopolies when regulations are the only thing that break them up or prevent them from forming? Standard Oil was a monopoly before "regulations" and only ceased to be one when the federal government stepped in.

>the lil pizza ovens turned 6 million human bodies into ashes

Who are you quoting?

>Who are you quoting?
Mr Jew Kikenstein

>all Holocaust deaths occurred in Auschwitz and were cremated
How many times has this strawman been refuted?

Attached: 1512953998765.jpg (620x581, 19K)

>I don't really see how slavery was "Libertarianism."
The fuck are you talking about?

>been refuted?
Never.

The problem is is that literally nobody has ever said "6 million Jews died in Auschwitz." This is the total number of Jews who were gassed, starved or killed by disease in the ghettoes, concentration camps and extermination camps, murdered by the Einsatzgruppen on the Eastern front before the Wannsee Conference even happened, or died while working in slave labor. No historian has ever claimed that 6,000,000 Jews were killed at Auschwitz alone. This is a strawman and you are a fucking idiot for expecting anyone to take this seriously.

Attached: 1509757595210.jpg (236x255, 19K)

>oh yess keep abusing me master i love it
generic slave morality nonsense

I'm talking about the fact that the early American economy was largely built by slave labor. Not entirely, but slavery was essentially the economic bedrock of the south. The Northern industries that refined Southern raw materials into finished goods also benefited from slavery.

I mean, i don't disagree. A lot of people here are here because they are just scum. Unfortunately society has a tendency to outcast both those who are malicious and those who are undesirable. The side effect is that the latter gets grouped together with the former.

>but except targeting some arbitrary ethnic group
> he'd have to target the cancer of society. Those who try to make life hell for others, those who abuse the opportunities they have and those who are generally parasites
my nigger do you realize who you've described

See its not the jews

Slavery was a relatively small part of America, and it was one of many to have it. It's wasn't perfect but the fact remains is that it was built on Libertarianism.
>So there was no police force or army throughout American history? The factory owners defended their property from private property with their guns?
Yes. Precisely right.
>How did regulations cause monopolies when regulations are the only thing that break them up or prevent them from forming?
It's basically impossible to have a real monopoly without the use of force. Standard Oil had about 90% of the market, not exactly a monopoly considering that was from 100% voluntaryism. They weren't broken up by just the government, their own competitors who weren't worth shit lobbied to have them broken up. Textbook protectionism, just like the taxi monopoly, and the monopoly that makes it illegal to sell Hemp.

That's like saying that houses are built by hammers, nails and saws. Niggers were tools, and that's all they were. Most Europeans countries had little to no slaves but enjoyed near the same level of success. In the long run, slavery has been most harmful to white Americans out of all people, who would have been far better off right now if it had not happened.

although its not only the jews the jews fit this description perfectly

Because the (((jews))) are just a made up boogeyman that gives people something to hate. The description of them is fully correct, it's just not one specific group of people.

u wot
Africans had been enslaving each other for centuries before that, and never created any wealth. In fact, most races had been enslaving each other for thousands of years before that, and never created comparable wealth.

America was built by whites and no one else.

>Slavery was a relatively small part of America, and it was one of many to have it.
If it was so small, why was the bloodiest war in American history fought over it? Seems like the South was really desperate to hold onto it. You realize that the South, at it's economic height provided 60% of the world's cotton right? That doesn't sound like a "relatively" small part" to me.
>It's wasn't perfect but the fact remains is that it was built on Libertarianism.
Except it wasn't, early America was incredibly protectionist. Literally the first Act passed by Congress was the Tariff of 1789. America was protectionist pretty much up until the end of the Second World War and a bit beyond.
>Yes. Precisely right.
I literally gave you a list of incidents where police and the military intervened in labor incidents. What do you make of those?
>It's basically impossible to have a real monopoly without the use of force. Standard Oil had about 90% of the market, not exactly a monopoly considering that was from 100% voluntaryism.
Standard Oil was a monopoly. Rockefeller bought out his competition and it was impossible for anyone else to compete.
>They weren't broken up by just the government, their own competitors who weren't worth shit lobbied to have them broken up. Textbook protectionism, just like the taxi monopoly, and the monopoly that makes it illegal to sell Hemp.
Regardless of who lobbied to have them broken up, it was ultimately the government who stepped in to do it. It wasn't solely competitors anyway, the public was tired of trusts and monopolies. And, like I said, American industry was built on protectionism.

>If it was so small, why was the bloodiest war in American history fought over it?
Because Jews have a fetish for owning slaves.
>You realize that the South, at it's economic height provided 60% of the world's cotton right? That doesn't sound like a "relatively" small part" to me.
Would probably have been 99% if there were no slaves, as they would have invented more efficient ways of farming cotton.

The civil war had nothing to do with slavery. There were 11 nations at the time who got rid of slavery without a war, Lincoln just wanted to keep the union together so he could tax the shit out of them as he had been.
>at it's economic height provided 60%
Key word, at its height. So many other nations at the time had slavery its unfair for you to attack America for having it.
>Literally the first Act passed by Congress was the Tariff of 1789
That was about 10% on imported goods, that is nothing compared to the way most nations tax things now. Also 10 years after the revolution that they fought over just a small single digit percentage tax.
>I literally gave you a list of incidents where police and the military intervened in labor incidents. What do you make of those?
Typical state aggression?
>Rockefeller bought out his competition and it was impossible for anyone else to compete.
There is literally nothing wrong with buying your competition. That literally incentivizes new companies to pop up and compete, which is exactly what was happening long before the State violently took control of it. Again, it was literally just 90% of the market, not a monopoly by any stretch.

Actually they're the oldest religion

>Again, it was literally just 90% of the market, not a monopoly by any stretch.
hwut

Attached: 1441977013448.gif (288x227, 830K)

>Don't like Standard Oil, can choose to buy from 10% of the rest of the market
Not a monopoly. Not even 99% of a market is a monopoly, when you do things completely voluntary without aggression.

you would only be boycotting, the 10% wouldn't be able to offer competitive prices or even turn a profit

If that's the case then how did the 10% even exist in the first place? How can you have a market where nobody makes money?

Can't really say I disagree with you OP

eventually the 10% would get absorbed by the 90%, creating a monopoly, idk how you think letting one company dominate 99% of a market wouldn't fuck the economy up in some way

You didn't answer my question. And just because, why would they buy an unprofitable company?
>letting one company dominate 99% of a market wouldn't fuck the economy up in some way
That is literally how markets are born. That's how literally every drug is invented, because they can dominate the market. Difference between dominating the market and being a monopoly.

>And just because, why would they buy an unprofitable company?
But you just said they *would* be making sustainable profit, which obviously wouldn't be the case if some mom and pop company were getting muscled out by Walmart or Disney or whatever.

Im unsure what you are talking about. First you tell me that all the competitors wouldn't make any money, then you tell me that they would buy all these companies that don't make any money? What is your point?

>small business stays profitable regardless of competitive prices offered by the 90%, gets bought out
or
>small business fails because of of competitive prices offered by the 90%, resulting in a monopoly
which one seems more realistic to you? how do you not understand this?

You literally said that competitors would not make any money. Don't go back on your word now and try and pretend that Standard Oil had infinite money to buy out whoever competed.

>small business stays profitable regardless of competitive prices offered by the 90%, gets bought out
Why did they sell if they're profitable? What stops another company from starting up and selling too? What stops every citizen in the country from starting a company and selling?

>>small business fails because of of competitive prices offered by the 90%
So the 90% company is the best for everyone's interests. Where is the problem?

>First you tell me that all the competitors wouldn't make any money, then you tell me that they would buy all these companies that don't make any money? What is your point?
The first step is to try and push them out of the market. If that doesn't work, they'll get bought out. Either way there is no place for small competitors when giants exist. If they want a certain market share, they'll get it. There is no such thing as a free market without an authority overseeing it and making sure no one can try to snuff out a potential competitor, which means there can be no true free market as ancaps and pure capitalists want.

That's a great opinion with nothing backing it up. 90% is not a monopoly, for the last time.

thats a nice argument

Honestly the past was better BECAUSE genocides and wars kept population controlled and that directly meant more opportunities since less people to fill existing ones

>The first step is to try and push them out of the market. If that doesn't work, they'll get bought out.
You're talking about something that is ONLY possible illegally/with the """authority's""" intervention. So, precisely what you're suggesting. And the opposite to a free market.

>arbitrary
oooooooooooooooooooooooooriginolio

>That's a great opinion with nothing backing it up
But you're the one spouting a bunch of retarded bullshit.

Yes it is. You literally made no point, just a random platitude.
>the free market doesnt exist, how can mirrors be real if our eyes aren't real

>corporations control elections through spending
But Hillary outspent Trump 10:1 and lost.

Same reason America interned the Japanese. To prevent them from acting like a fifth column. Not without cause because Jews unironically started a Civil War in Germany right after WW1.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Revolution_of_1918

>no authority to prevent this
>giant corporation scoots over
>"Look man, i'm gonna be real with you. You either take this money and get the fuck out, or we make you get the fuck out"
but when there is an authority to prevent this
>giant corporation scoots over
>"Look man, i'm gonna be real with you. You either take this money and get the fuck out, or we make you get the fuck out"
>"This and this law says you can't do that, get fucked nigger"
No authority to prevent domination of smaller business by giants = small business get dominated by giants
ok mr strawman

but the people supported that revolution though. How is it jewish anyways? Because Rosa Luxembourg was the leader? One leader being a jew does not mean it was a plot from the jewish elite.

The German Revolution started because of a sailor's mutiny you fucking moron. Was the Imperial German Navy controlled by Jews?