I was thinking about niggers and how they can't entertain hypotheticals ("how would you feel if you didn't eat breakfast?"), and as I walked my dog I thought the question is too mundane to even answer. The stupid answer would be "I'd be hungry", but actually it depends. What if you didn't eat because you weren't hungry? You'd feel nothing unusual. Would I rank the same as a nigger solely because I didn't give the good boy answer?
So I wanted to ask you a hypothetical, that is a bit more sophisticated. Let's say WWII did break out, but the US didn't intervene because they didn't get an excuse to do so via Pearl Harbor. That didn't happen, Germany and Japan would be just friends and not officially allies. France was defeated, Britain agreed to peace, and the Soviet Union was successfully averted using Sarin gas as a threat to not attack Germany. Germany didn't march eastward, so the territory they had was Germany and its former territories prior to WWI (half of Poland) and Austria. The situation stabilized, the strains of WWII were significant. Let's say nukes got invented by the US and Germany, and the Soviets (through jewish spies) managed to build them later on too.
So the hypothetical: **How would the world develop over the next century?** What would we see today? What about feminism, leftism, big corporations ran by jews, media ran by jews, LLMs, corporate culture, the economy? What would be the best-case scenario, the worst-case scenario and/or the average-case scenario?
I would like to hear what you think about this.
The reason Germany rose to power isn't because they got rid of the Jew. That's a modern Nazi (White Nationalist) propaganda take. The real reason is because the USA lent tend of billions to Germany to invest in industrialization so Germany's income cause rise high enough to afford to pay their reparations to try and avoid a second world war that France seemed poised to start over the reparations issue. Then, Hitler decided to stop repaying the reparation and the debt to the Americans. This led to reactions on the world stage leading to economic/trade sanctions which spurred Hitler to become completely resource independent of the rest of the world which is what led to him going to war (out of a necessity given the trade and resource situation. Germany could have potentially starved, literally, or lost its ability to industrialize).
No country would have looked at Germany and just decided by ridding of the jew, they'd be just like Germany. No one would have simplified their growth to that and especially at that time. That's a modern take and overly simplified.
However, I neglected to mention the lack of the holocaust. The holocaust story would have never been allowed to surface and so jews would have lost their easy victim status. This would have led to them being a lot more "in the shadows", imo, as you suggested also. But overall public views on jews wouldn't be as positive as they are today. I think this would play well for Europe but I still think jews would realize their vulnerability and work to better integrate into American society.
Well, you are aware that Germany suffered from massive hyper-inflation, basically making money you earned on one day on the next day worthless. And had degeneracy on the level of child prostitution.
Just pumping money for Industrialization doesn't cut it. Sure, it might have helped on top of other, more important things. Hitler introduced a new currency that worked differently than what jews did with infinite money-printing, where 1 hour of physical labor was worth 1 of that currency.
> which spurred Hitler to become completely resource independent of the rest of the world which is what led to him going to war
That is not the reason. It was decided 1933 by the West (the jews) that war must be brought over Germany, no matter what. Germany knew that. Poland tried to provoke Germany in 1938 by attacking Czechoslovakia and failed, but when they massacred Germans in occupied Danzig (former German city), it forced Hitler's hand. He could have done nothing too, but 1. it was clear they'd find a way sooner or later, 2. it would be treason to Germans, 3. they were ready for war (along with the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact).
To think that Germany was purely driven by materialistic dynamics is exactly the opposite of what they believed in. That's a very cynical-jewish way to see things.
The same applies today - the reason the US meddles in the Middle East isn't because of some economic interests - it's because the jews bribe politicians to do their bidding, and they own the media. Whatever selfish reasons the US has is irrelevant - in fact what they do is detrimental to them. Given that the US isn't driven by purely selfish materialistic reasons implies that that is not a universal pattern.
> Germany could have potentially starved, literally, or lost its ability to industrialize).
That is highly questionable. If A didn't lead to X, then the answer isn't that *nothing else* would lead to X, it means B leads to X instead, eventually later.
> No one would have simplified their growth to that and especially at that time.
It was the prime time for people to adopt these views. It was before feminism and the faggotry agenda took hold, before 3rd world immigration, before the forced "Civil Rights" at gunpoint, before the holocaust hoax (with emerged around 1960+). Germans were very similar to the Brits and Americans ideologically - the only difference is that Germans noticed the jew, while the rest got brainwashed by jews to think Germans suffer from collective insanity.
That is why it was to urgent for jews to bring war upon Germany as soon as possible. Germany would have massively benefited from NOT having war.
> The holocaust story ould have never been allowed to surface
To be *created* you mean. It took them a while to fabricate it. They met for 1947 for a photo shooting, and they forged various photos as evidence, partly even from the the aftermath of the bombing of Dresden. Then there was Schindler's List, which literally is self-described fiction. The holocaust got "popularized" around 1960, and it wasn't even taught in israel in 1961. Before that there was no conception of "holocaust" as is today.
There is a ubiquitous downplaying of Hilter's cultural influence. He wasn't *just* industrialising, he was revitilizing the entire civilization; his economic policies were all based on his Germany First cultural policies (loans for families, a car for every German, his massive public architectural works, defending ethnic Germans in foreign territory etc). It's debatable if he even knew that these policies would lead to such an economic boom because that was largely a side effect of simply doing things in support of the German people.
So "getting rid of the Jews saved Germany" is accurate, but only because the exact opposite of Jewish policies (focus on economic gains, controlled by the wealthy foreigners, and attack the wellbeing of the people) is what's best for a country.
Yes, but that was kind of Hitler's point. The very fact that removing the jews lead to such a massive uplifting of Germany proved him right. I am sure Hitler spoke and wrote about this a lot.
You could say: "Hitler was right about jews." Remember the meme "Islam is right about women"? Well, I don't think it would drive leftists into frenzy like that, but it's succinct.
I am not sure if it was the removal of the jews or Hitler's actions that lead to the rapid recovery of Germany, but for sure the former was a prerequisite, and that the combination was great.
As of Hungary, they did the soft approach of NatSoc, supporting families, having more children, anti-feminism, anti-faggotry, pro-Christianity. It worked fine, but didn't do as much as removing jews and all their influence on a substantial level would have done. We are trapped in a socialist state basically, thanks to the communists. As of right now, the jews have regained power, and have already done constitutional alterations to prevent Orban from being elected again. But nothing that was unforgivable/irreversible though... yet.