Q cannot exist without censorship.
Poland has never had any formal colonial territories, but over its history the acquisition of such territories has at times been contemplated, though never attempted. The closest Poland came to acquiring such territories was indirectly through the actions of the Duchy of Courland and Semigallia, a fief of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_attempts_by_Poland
Do no dirty imperialist deeds and the kikes cannot get you.
Do not subvert, and you cannot be subverted.
If you perform imperialist bullshit on Germany, the only way to rid yourself of sin is to be destroyed by Germany. Which Poland did in fact suffer.
This is why it's even possible for Poland to be based. They left no dirty parts of their history uncleansed by National Socialist fire. Hence, kikes cannot settle in their filth, because Hitler burnt away their filth.
But what about Ireland? They never colonized anything
The situation in Ireland is the same as the situation in Hong CucK. They think they are British, hence they share in the British's guilt.
Just as Ireland has their nigger problem, so too do the Hong CucK rioters have the soy faces.
What Ireland need is to commit British genocide, then they can resist kikes easily. It's kind of like how HK has a National Security law so they can resist British subversive bullshit better now.
Every time I see a communist, I think about the flaws of communism. About how it has the tendencies to overshoot their regulatory measures and so on.
Then I looked outside the communist nations. Just south, there are a bunch of Democratic-Progressive idiots in power. These dipshits are both kiked and fagpilled. Afterwards, I'm thankful that, no matter how bad Communism gets, it can never get as bad as the Democratic-Progressives in that island, like English Cabbage and her puppets Fauci, Bernout Sanders, Sleepy Joe, Kamala Harris, AoC, and so on.
I'm truly lucky to live in a country not ruled by filthy Democratic-Progressives. At least we don't have to deal with "Dr" Tsai, or "Dr" Fauci, or their puppet Sleepy Joe Biden.
Europe is in danger. Over-extended, under-supplied, and completely kiked. While Europe is getting shitslammed by the Shitslami rapefugees, the Alt-Right is constantly overextending. To maintain their inherent contradictions, to do mental gymnastics to maintain settlements.
In order to maintain their hold upon ill-gotten lands stolen, by white supremacists, from the Native Americans, the white supremacists are leaving Europe wide open for a shitskin invasion - and that will not do.
We must end this greed. This greed, which could lead to the utter obliteration of the white race, must be put to the grave. We must not lose Europe to shitskins so we can continuously squat on rightful Native American land.
Additionally, we also need legitimacy. We need actual, moral legitimacy, which the kikes have used to wreck havoc across the world. The kikes would raise a banner, a banner which is without color, a banner of subversive qualities, to completely fuck with a nation. We need a banner of our own. A banner, to rally the libtards under us. A banner, to rally the drumpftards under us.
The kike puppets call themselves "Capitalists". They call themselves "Communists". They call themselves "Anti-racists". We need a banner of our own, to rally the libtards under our cause. We need our own "kike puppets", to oppose the kikes' puppets. Just as any nation without nuclear bombs would lose to any nation with nuclear bombs, any cause which cannot rally kike puppets will lose to any cause which can rally the kike puppets.
Our banner shall be National Socialism.
National Socialism shall have three great tenets, of which we shall rally everyone under.
1). We fight for the rights of indigenous peoples everywhere, and our right to maintain their culture, and we fight for our right to not be subverted by foreign forces.
As Adolf Hitler once said, "Pride in one's own race, and that does not imply contempt for other races, is also a normal and healthy sentiment. I have never regarded the Chinese or the Japanese as being inferior to ourselves. They belong to ancient civilizations, and I admit freely that their past history is superior to our own. They have the right to be proud of their past, just as we have the right to be proud of the civilization to which we belong. Indeed, I believe the more steadfast the Chinese and the Japanese remain in their pride of race, the easier I shall find it to get on with them"
A National Socialist's cause is for the pride of humanity, not as a unified bloc, but a collection of disparate cultures, all standing proud, with a deep connection to their ancient histories and civilizations, and standing tall against the winds of subversion who seek to threaten the culture of the nation.
This world, is currently in a very kiked state. In Native America, you have Europeans settling everywhere. In Europe, you have Middle-Eastern shitskins infesting everywhere with their shitslam. In the Middle-East, you have disgusting kikes and their puppets spreading Freedumb and Dumbocracy in order to extract oil. In Israel, you have filthy Azhkenazi and Sephardi kikes oppressing the native Mizrahi and Arab goyim population.
We National Socialists oppose all forms of subversion. We fight for the right to remain unkiked. We fight to protect our cultures and our land from invaders. We will oppose invaders everywhere.
We oppose kikes, because kikes are bad, and not because we are pathetic losers who failed in life. We oppose kikes on an ideological level. The Jew represents the money-worshiping, huckstering individual of the chimerical nationality of the merchant, who seek to degrade the whole race and culture of all volks. This is what we oppose.
2). We refuse to have our nations shackled by economic policies
Adolf Hitler was a National Socialist. He understands the importance of a relatively free market, yet he also understands the importance of controlling the market. Failure to establish a free market will lead to bread lines and no food. Failure to establish controls will lead to kikes controlling your entire economy.
The two extremes, Capitalism and Communism, are exemplified in the US and the Soviet Union respectively.
In the US, the government is so hobbled that it is unable to enact any strong domestic policy. Hence, the kikes are able to seize control of all institutions. The kikes' corruption was insidious in every single way possible.
First, they use American Negros as guinea-pigs. They infested their record labels. They fill black music with degeneracy. When they have succeeded in turning American Negros into subhuman animals, they turned their instruments on the whites. They created a population of white libtards, who are every bit as subhuman as the nigger.
Now that the US is chock-full of subhumans, the kikes can easily turn on their extraction machines, and extract wealth from the population as if the population are merely cattle.
That is not a good outcome.
In the Soviet Union, the government worships a book. They pour over texts by Marx, by Lenin, by Trotsky, by Stalin, by Mao, by Castro, or whatever book by some random commie, trying to find some gospel truth to their problems.
The books they read necessarily tell them to cry about "worker's rights" incessantly, and to create some form of despotic state without private property, where 5-year plans reign forever.
The Soviet Union, being a Marxist-Leninist state, reads a lot of Lenin, who told them that race does not exist and that everything is class. Lenin, of course, was being an idiot, and also a filthy kike, which you will know if you read Marx's "on the Jewish Question", which outright calls Lenin a "money-worshiping huckster of the chimerical nationality of the Merchant"
As a result, the Soviet Union, Cuba, and other disgusting "ML" states who are not the PRC ended up with shitty bread lines and everybody starving.
That is not a good outcome.
We National Socialists oppose book worship. We need books, but we must overcome book worship, which is divorced from the actual situation.
We National Socialists will never be bound by a book. We are bound by blood and soil. The National Socialists of the PRC are bound by their shared dream of National Rejuvenation. the National Socialists of the Third Reich are bound by their shared dream of a strong, German, Germany.
We National Socialists are bound, by blood, and by soil, to our people, and our ancestral ethnostates. We National Socialists want to see our people become strong. We National Socialists want a nation which stands tall and strong, amidst other nations standing tall and strong, with our tall, and strong cultures, amidst a world of tall, and strong cultures.
Our roots are what defines us. We are rooted to our ancestral homelands. Our roots run deep into the soil. This, is what differentiates us, from kikes. Kikes are rootless parasites. They drain a volk, and then they run away to drain another volk. Kikes are kicked out of 109 nations. We, are the nations. We have deep roots. We will not be uprooted.
3). We oppose all forms, and all excuses, for imperialism.
I will begin, by making Lenin roll in his grave, because it is fun to make kikes roll in their grave.
Imperialism is the highest stage of Capitalism - that is, the characteristics of the Jew, which, is to say, money-worship, huckstering, and their belonging to the chimerical nationality of the Merchant.
Imperialism degrades all goods of man. Imperialism separates indigenous minorities from the indigenous majority.
If France has a small German diaspora, should the French oppress the Germans? Of course not! They are brothers!
We National Socialists oppose any form of division between indigenous ethnic groups.
This is not to say that we oppose racism. We do not oppose racism. A National Socialist has every right to rightfully call the American Negro as of 2021 a subhuman animal, because that is what he is.
What we do oppose, is racism between indigenous groups, who have laid their roots down and are genetically racial cousins.
We oppose the division between Mizrahim and Arabs. We oppose the division between the Greeks and Persians. We oppose the division between Persians and Arabs.
We do not oppose the division between kikes and goyim. We do not oppose the division between white and black. We are National Socialists, not anti-racists. Anti-Racism is a mutated, mutilated ideology spawned from the depths of the kike. What we oppose, are brother wars.
We will never be divided by the Jew. We will never let the Jew draw borders between us, to divide us. We will never let the Britkikes turn the ethnic minority against the ethnic majority, in order to more easily conquer us.
The lines of Capitalism and Communism. the lines of Liberal Democracy and Local People's Congresses, the constant crying and whining of the Jew, shall never divide us.
We are National Socialists. You can argue how far left and right you want to go economically, but a National Socialist will never side with the foreigner to defeat the local.
The Capitalists and the Communists are like Confucius. We are like Han Feizi adherents. We establish the bedrock, and protect the bedrock from those who want to destroy it. There can be no successful Confucian state, without Legalism.
To side with the foreigner to defeat the local is to be a filthy kike puppet.
Lastly, I would like to end, with a simple statement:
We are not, as the Communists claim, losers who are jealous of the Jew. We are not, as the Capitalists claim, losers who are jealous of the Jew. We are National Socialists. We oppose Imperialism, the highest stage of Jewish Tricks, as well as every stage below that. We oppose all forms of Jewry. We are National Socialists. We will defend our ancestral ethnostates, and our cultures, against the imperialist kikes who seek to devour us, to corrupt all goods of man, to sacrifice them to their worldly god, money.
Sieg Heil
Why did Hitler succeed in creating a National Socialist state?
The answer is simple. Hitler is ethnically German, he became chancellor of Germany, and he wanted Germany, for Germans. Sounds good and workable, right?
Now, there are these so-called "National Socialists". Let's just call one of them "u/htree". Now, this little piece of shit lives in the US. What does he want?
htree is ethnically an Anglo. He would, hypothetically, run for President of the United States of America. He wanted America, for Whites.
Notice how I can't just repeat a word describing a people (German) and their ancestral ethnostate (Germany).
This is because htree is actually a kike sympathizer. In fact, every White American National Socialist is a kike sympathizer. The very concept of "White American National Socialist" is as ridiculous as "Jewish Anti-Semite". To be a National Socialist is to keep the flames of tradition alive. Tradition is a connection of the people to their land. What are whites doing in the US?
Imperialism.
Like the Jew, the White American goes into other countries. Like the Jew, the Natives of the nation tried to kick White Americans out, but failed to do so. Like the Jew, the White American easily fell into an endless pit of degeneracy.
If you want National Socialism, you need tradition. If you want tradition, you need your ancestral ethnostate. If you ignore the importance of ancestral ethnostates to the National Socialist movement, you are a fucking kike puppet who should go gas himself.
To end this, I will quote Adolf Hitler to further prove my point:
Pride in one's own race, and that does not imply contempt for other races, is also a normal and healthy sentiment. I have never regarded the Chinese or the Japanese as being inferior to ourselves. They belong to ancient civilizations, and I admit freely that their past history is superior to our own. They have the right to be proud of their past, just as we have the right to be proud of the civilization to which we belong. Indeed, I believe the more steadfast the Chinese and the Japanese remain in their pride of race, the easier I shall find it to get on with them.
The German Jews desire emancipation. What kind of emancipation do they desire? Civic, political emancipation.
Bruno Bauer replies to them: No one in Germany is politically emancipated. We ourselves are not free. How are we to free you? You Jews are egoists if you demand a special emancipation for yourselves as Jews. As Germans, you ought to work for the political emancipation of Germany, and as human beings, for the emancipation of mankind, and you should feel the particular kind of your oppression and your shame not as an exception to the rule, but on the contrary as a confirmation of the rule.
Or do the Jews demand the same status as Christian subjects of the state? In that case, they recognize that the Christian state is justified and they recognize, too, the regime of general oppression. Why should they disapprove of their special yoke if they approve of the general yoke? Why should the German be interested in the liberation of the Jew, if the Jew is not interested in the liberation of the German?
The Christian state knows only privileges. In this state, the Jew has the privilege of being a Jew. As a Jew, he has rights which the Christians do not have. Why should he want rights which he does not have, but which the Christians enjoy?
In wanting to be emancipated from the Christian state, the Jew is demanding that the Christian state should give up its religious prejudice. Does he, the Jew, give up his religious prejudice? Has he, then, the right to demand that someone else should renounce his religion?
By its very nature, the Christian state is incapable of emancipating the Jew; but, adds Bauer, by his very nature the Jew cannot be emancipated. So long as the state is Christian and the Jew is Jewish, the one is as incapable of granting emancipation as the other is of receiving it.
The Christian state can behave towards the Jew only in the way characteristic of the Christian state – that is, by granting privileges, by permitting the separation of the Jew from the other subjects, but making him feel the pressure of all the other separate spheres of society, and feel it all the more intensely because he is in religious opposition to the dominant religion. But the Jew, too, can behave towards the state only in a Jewish way – that is, by treating it as something alien to him, by counterposing his imaginary nationality to the real nationality, by counterposing his illusory law to the real law, by deeming himself justified in separating himself from mankind, by abstaining on principle from taking part in the historical movement, by putting his trust in a future which has nothing in common with the future of mankind in general, and by seeing himself as a member of the Jewish people, and the Jewish people as the chosen people.
On what grounds, then, do you Jews want emancipation? On account of your religion? It is the mortal enemy of the state religion. As citizens? In Germany, there are no citizens. As human beings? But you are no more human beings than those to whom you appeal.
Bauer has posed the question of Jewish emancipation in a new form, after giving a critical analysis of the previous formulations and solutions of the question. What, he asks, is the nature of the Jew who is to be emancipated and of the Christian state that is to emancipate him? He replies by a critique of the Jewish religion, he analyzes the religious opposition between Judaism and Christianity, he elucidates the essence of the Christian state – and he does all this audaciously, trenchantly, wittily, and with profundity, in a style of writing that is as precise as it is pithy and vigorous.
How, then, does Bauer solve the Jewish question? What is the result? The formulation of a question is its solution. The critique of the Jewish question is the answer to the Jewish question. The summary, therefore, is as follows:
We must emancipate ourselves before we can emancipate others.
The most rigid form of the opposition between the Jew and the Christian is the religious opposition. How is an opposition resolved? By making it impossible. How is religious opposition made impossible? By abolishing religion. As soon as Jew and Christian recognize that their respective religions are no more than different stages in the development of the human mind, different snake skins cast off by history, and that man is the snake who sloughed them, the relation of Jew and Christian is no longer religious but is only a critical, scientific, and human relation. Science, then, constitutes their unity. But, contradictions in science are resolved by science itself.
The German Jew, in particular, is confronted by the general absence of political emancipation and the strongly marked Christian character of the state. In Bauer’s conception, however, the Jewish question has a universal significance, independent of specifically German conditions. It is the question of the relation of religion to the state, of the contradiction between religious constraint and political emancipation. Emancipation from religion is laid down as a condition, both to the Jew who wants to be emancipated politically, and to the state which is to effect emancipation and is itself to be emancipated.
“Very well,” it is said, and the Jew himself says it, “the Jew is to become emancipated not as a Jew, not because he is a Jew, not because he possesses such an excellent, universally human principle of morality; on the contrary, the Jew will retreat behind the citizen and be a citizen, although he is a Jew and is to remain a Jew. That is to say, he is and remains a Jew, although he is a citizen and lives in universally human conditions: his Jewish and restricted nature triumphs always in the end over his human and political obligations. The prejudice remains in spite of being outstripped by general principles. But if it remains, then, on the contrary, it outstrips everything else.”
“Only sophistically, only apparently, would the Jew be able to remain a Jew in the life of the state. Hence, if he wanted to remain a Jew, the mere appearance would become the essential and would triumph; that is to say, his life in the state would be only a semblance or only a temporary exception to the essential and the rule.” (“The Capacity of Present-Day Jews and Christians to Become Free,” Einundzwanzig Bogen, pp. 57)
Let us hear, on the other hand, how Bauer presents the task of the state.
“France,” he says, “has recently shown us” (Proceedings of the Chamber of Deputies, December 26, 1840) “in the connection with the Jewish question – just as it has continually done in all other political questions – the spectacle of a life which is free, but which revokes its freedom by law, hence declaring it to be an appearance, and on the other hand contradicting its free laws by its action.” (The Jewish Question, p. 64)
“In France, universal freedom is not yet the law, the Jewish question too has not yet been solved, because legal freedom – the fact that all citizens are equal – is restricted in actual life, which is still dominated and divided by religious privileges, and this lack of freedom in actual life reacts on law and compels the latter to sanction the division of the citizens, who as such are free, into oppressed and oppressors.” (p. 65)
When, therefore, would the Jewish question be solved for France?
“The Jew, for example, would have ceased to be a Jew if he did not allow himself to be prevented by his laws from fulfilling his duty to the state and his fellow citizens, that is, for example, if on the Sabbath he attended the Chamber of Deputies and took part in the official proceedings. Every religious privilege, and therefore also the monopoly of a privileged church, would have been abolished altogether, and if some or many persons, or even the overwhelming majority, still believed themselves bound to fulfil religious duties, this fulfilment ought to be left to them as a purely private matter.” (p. 65)
“There is no longer any religion when there is no longer any privileged religion. Take from religion its exclusive power and it will no longer exist.” (p. 66)
“Just as M. Martin du Nord saw the proposal to omit mention of Sunday in the law as a motion to declare that Christianity has ceased to exist, with equal reason (and this reason is very well founded) the declaration that the law of the Sabbath is no longer binding on the Jew would be a proclamation abolishing Judaism.” (p. 71)
Bauer, therefore, demands, on the one hand, that the Jew should renounce Judaism, and that mankind in general should renounce religion, in order to achieve civic emancipation. On the other hand, he quite consistently regards the political abolition of religion as the abolition of religion as such. The state which presupposes religion is not yet a true, real state.
“Of course, the religious notion affords security to the state. But to what state? To what kind of state?” (p. 97)
At this point, the one-sided formulation of the Jewish question becomes evident.
It was by no means sufficient to investigate: Who is to emancipate? Who is to be emancipated? Criticism had to investigate a third point. It had to inquire: What kind of emancipation is in question? What conditions follow from the very nature of the emancipation that is demanded? Only the criticism of political emancipation itself would have been the conclusive criticism of the Jewish question and its real merging in the “general question of time.”
Because Bauer does not raise the question to this level, he becomes entangled in contradictions. He puts forward conditions which are not based on the nature of political emancipation itself. He raises questions which are not part of his problem, and he solves problems which leave this question unanswered. When Bauer says of the opponents of Jewish emancipation: “Their error was only that they assumed the Christian state to be the only true one and did not subject it to the same criticism that they applied to Judaism” (op. cit., p. 3), we find that his error lies in the fact that he subjects to criticism only the “Christian state,” not the “state as such,” that he does not investigate the relation of political emancipation to human emancipation and, therefore, puts forward conditions which can be explained only by uncritical confusion of political emancipation with general human emancipation. If Bauer asks the Jews: Have you, from your standpoint, the right to want political emancipation? We ask the converse question: Does the standpoint of political emancipation give the right to demand from the Jew the abolition of Judaism and from man the abolition of religion?
The Jewish question acquires a different form depending on the state in which the Jew lives. In Germany, where there is no political state, no state as such, the Jewish question is a purely theological one. The Jew finds himself in religious opposition to the state, which recognizes Christianity as its basis. This state is a theologian ex professo. Criticism here is criticism of theology, a double-edged criticism – criticism of Christian theology and of Jewish theology. Hence, we continue to operate in the sphere of theology, however much we may operate critically within it.
In France, a constitutional state, the Jewish question is a question of constitutionalism, the question of the incompleteness of political emancipation. Since the semblance of a state religion is retained here, although in a meaningless and self-contradictory formula, that of a religion of the majority, the relation of the Jew to the state retains the semblance of a religious, theological opposition.
Only in the North American states – at least, in some of them – does the Jewish question lose its theological significance and become a really secular question. Only where the political state exists in its completely developed form can the relation of the Jew, and of the religious man in general, to the political state, and therefore the relation of religion to the state, show itself in its specific character, in its purity. The criticism of this relation ceases to be theological criticism as soon as the state ceases to adopt a theological attitude toward religion, as soon as it behaves towards religion as a state – i.e., politically. Criticism, then, becomes criticism of the political state. At this point, where the question ceases to be theological, Bauer’s criticism ceases to be critical.
“In the United States there is neither a state religion nor a religion declared to be that of the majority, nor the predominance of one cult over another. The state stands aloof from all cults.” (Marie ou l’esclavage aux Etats-Unis, etc., by G. de Beaumont, Paris, 1835, p. 214)
Indeed, there are some North American states where “the constitution does not impose any religious belief or religious practice as a condition of political rights.” (op. cit., p. 225)
Nevertheless, “in the United States people do not believe that a man without religion could be an honest man.” (op. cit., p. 224)
Nevertheless, North America is pre-eminently the country of religiosity, as Beaumont, Tocqueville, and the Englishman Hamilton unanimously assure us. The North American states, however, serve us only as an example. The question is: What is the relation of complete political emancipation to religion? If we find that even in the country of complete political emancipation, religion not only exists, but displays a fresh and vigorous vitality, that is proof that the existence of religion is not in contradiction to the perfection of the state. Since, however, the existence of religion is the existence of defect, the source of this defect can only be sought in the nature of the state itself. We no longer regard religion as the cause, but only as the manifestation of secular narrowness. Therefore, we explain the religious limitations of the free citizen by their secular limitations. We do not assert that they must overcome their religious narrowness in order to get rid of their secular restrictions, we assert that they will overcome their religious narrowness once they get rid of their secular restrictions. We do not turn secular questions into theological ones. History has long enough been merged in superstition, we now merge superstition in history. The question of the relation of political emancipation to religion becomes for us the question of the relation of political emancipation to human emancipation. We criticize the religious weakness of the political state by criticizing the political state in its secular form, apart from its weaknesses as regards religion. The contradiction between the state and a particular religion, for instance Judaism, is given by us a human form as the contradiction between the state and particular secular elements; the contradiction between the state and religion in general as the contradiction between the state and its presuppositions in general.
The political emancipation of the Jew, the Christian
