Guest Post: Gun Control In Nazi Germany

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Audrey Kline via the Ludwig von Mises Institute,

There is no shortage of theories or writings related to the rise of the Third Reich and the subsequent Holocaust. Stephen Halbrook’s 2013 book, Gun Control in the Third Reich offers a compelling and important account of the role of gun prohibition in aiding Hitler’s goals of exterminating the Jews and other “enemies of the state.” While much of the early gun prohibition was created with supposedly good intent, Halbrook carefully and meticulously details how a change in political regime facilitated manipulating some well-intentioned gun registration laws and other gun prohibition to be used in inconceivable ways.

Students of history as well as Second Amendment enthusiasts will find this a fascinating book and will find parallels between gun prohibition in pre-Nazi and Nazi Germany, and attempts to prohibit types of gun ownership and implement other forms of gun prohibition in the United States today. The current climate in the United States surrounding gun prohibition combined with a president who uses his office to impose executive order in ways not historically common gives many citizens pause, especially when looking at the era of the Third Reich. While certain states have imposed gun registration laws recently, enforcement of the laws remains unclear.

While Halbrook is careful to point out that a combination of factors led to the events of the Holocaust, there is no denying that many of the pre-war activities contributed to Hitler’s ability to disarm targeted groups, particularly the Jews. The rapid pace with which Hitler disarmed the populace in Germany is startling. Halbrook’s account is gripping, thorough, and full of legal documentation, leading the reader through the sometimes-daily changes in gun prohibitions that furthered Hitler’s agenda. Ultimately, the prohibitions enacted by the Nazi regime led to monopoly control of firearms by the Nazis and eliminated the ability of many groups in society to defend themselves. A similar progression in contemporary society related to government control of firearms and the firearms industry is a concern of many gun owners in the United States today.

In Part I of the book, a chaotic post-WWI Germany is the backdrop, a time when there were no established policies or laws pertaining to firearm ownership. Concern about firearms not being turned in after the war and conflict between extremist groups and the government led to the implementation of gun control laws. However, well-meaning clauses in the laws were subsequently used to provide the government with complete control over gun ownership, creating registries of gun and ammunition ownership, which ultimately fell into the hands of the Nazis. These lists were methodically used to disarm citizens. Through the first three chapters of the book, Halbrook does a masterful job of detailing the ever-changing gun control policies, ranging from the most extreme (execution on the spot) to the postured ‘relaxation’ of gun control laws that allowed possession of very expensive long arms that would not be affordable for the majority of the population.

Part II of the book opens with the naming of Hitler as chancellor of Germany at the end of January 1933, and the immediate utilization of the Weimar gun control policies to begin the Nazi campaign to seize arms and eradicate the so-called “enemies of the state” (all of whom were tagged as Communists). As a result, less than a month later, Hitler and Göring convinced President Hindenburg that an emergency decree was needed, which ultimately gave the Nazis the ability to eliminate constitutional assurances of liberty and free speech, a free press, the ability to assemble, and the right to privacy in personal communications. Furthermore, search and seizure of homes was authorized. This carte blanche for search and seizure essentially became the modus operandi of the Third Reich.

By the end of March, Hitler had succeeded in passing the “Enabling Law” which gave him the ability to create laws as he wished, with no requirement for consultation. Following this, the confiscation of weapons escalated. Municipal governments were informed that military weapons and ammunition had to be surrendered by the end of March. The Jews were targeted next, with a large raid in East Berlin on April 4, 1933. Jews were not forbidden to own firearms until 1938, but the raid led to confiscations and arrests. The 1928 Firearms Law was utilized to identify the so-called enemies of the state, locate them, interview them, and subsequently confiscate their weapons, thereby increasing Nazi control and eliminating private ownership of firearms from the majority of society.

Part III of the book details episodes of enforcement and expansion of gun prohibition by Hitler’s regime. To mark the one-year anniversary of Hitler’s power, the Law for the Reconstruction of the Reich was passed in January 1934, which centralized control over police and led to the replacement of the SA (Sturm Abteilung or Brownshirts) with the SS. Upon President Hindenburg’s death, Hitler assumed the presidency as well, allowing him the ability to rule by decree. Hitler could now declare laws at will and there was no right of appeal for those arrested. The military pledged allegiance to Hitler and the citizenry was instructed to follow Hitler’s decrees.

Confiscated firearms were redistributed to the police and concentration camp guards. The number of searches and arrests continued to escalate, and with the adoption of the Nürnberg Laws in September 1935, Germans or those with ‘kindred blood’ were decreed as citizens, leaving the Jews without citizenship and consequently, without civil rights. A new weapons law was drafted in November that would also forbid Jews from operating in the firearms industry. Though not yet enacted, the draft opened the door for the stealing of the gun manufacturing company, Simson & Co., by Hitler, who claimed that the Jewish owners were guilty of fraud. Additional accounts are given of exploitation of various incidents to further the Nazi campaign against the Jews.

Nazi Party control of the use and ownership of firearms was quickly implemented and far-reaching, with refinements to the Weapons Law continuing over the next few years. Eventually, in April 1938, Jews were required to register their personal assets if valued at over 5,000 marks. Just a few months later, Jews were required to register at local police stations to receive identification cards. Jews began to flee Berlin and other parts of Germany, as they were able.

In the concluding section of the book, Reichskristallnacht (Night of the Broken Glass) is detailed. Jews had been systematically disarmed, and their identity and locations were now on file with local police. It was simply a matter of time before the full shift into deportation and extermination of the Jews would begin. Records support that a campaign to arrest legally registered Jewish owners of firearms was now underway, along with the push by the Nazis to pressure Jews to flee Germany.

The complete confiscation of weapons held by Jews at this point was sparked by the November 7, 1938 assassination attempt of a German diplomat, supposedly by a Polish-Jewish teenager at the embassy in Paris. The Night of the Broken Glass came in the following few days. All Jewish weapons (including such things as letter openers) were confiscated, and all Jewish organizations were deemed illegal. With the Jews disarmed, Hitler’s plans could proceed with a defenseless populace. The majority of the non-Jewish German population was stunned by what had transpired but too afraid to protest. Isolated cases of resistance remained, such as the now well-known case of Oskar Schindler. When deportations commenced in October 1941, the possessions of the Jews were searched by the Gestapo for anything of value, and completed the disarming of the Jews. The dangers of silent witness are now well known.

As has been well documented, Jews were methodically attacked, their homes, businesses, and synagogues ransacked and burned. Upward of 30,000 Jews were arrested. Any Jews resisting arrest were ordered shot on the spot. Attacks on the Jews were to be carried out by the SA, with no interference by police. Jews arrested were to be sent to concentration camps for up to 20 years. The pogrom was so thorough that nearly all age appropriate, Jewish adult males in Stuttgart had been arrested. With the population afraid and disarmed, Hitler could proceed with little worry about resistance. The Court reinforced that there was no judicial review needed for activities of the Gestapo.

Halbrook concludes by noting that less government regulation and a tradition of rejecting tyranny could have led to a different outcome in Germany. Instead, systematic creation and manipulation of firearms registration and regulations, coupled with the decimation of individual citizen’s rights, enabled Hitler’s dictatorship and the slaughter of millions of innocent Jews and citizens of Nazi-occupied countries, as well as tens of thousands of Germans. It remains for all of us to wonder what might have been had people refused to register their firearms. Indeed, we should all take note and never forget.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
stinkhammer's picture

this is my rifle. there are many like it, but this one is mine

TeamDepends's picture

And there is only one reason why someone would want to take it.

DoChenRollingBearing's picture

Scheiss!  I lost mine, unless it's still under the bed.

TungstenBars's picture

Still a pretty shallow article tho. Germans of that era loved the nazis. The nazis did wonders for them apart from losing the war. It's not like gun control made a difference they would never fight against a system that let them regain self respect as a country. 

BobPaulson's picture

The fault of logic is that the US has the most lax gun laws of developed world. I think their nazi tendencies are more due to grasping to stop the decline in global hegemony. (btw, I am a gun owner so don't flame me).

RafterManFMJ's picture


Mistress Raindrop's picture

My father used to own a Bazooka.  He got drunk and used it to kill a rabbit.  The police sent him to jail. Bitches.

sodbuster's picture

My father in law lived in Holland when the Nazis came. They made everyone register their guns, but also their radios. When everyone had done so, they came around and picked them all up. (They didn't want anyone listening to the BBC) He was staying by an Uncle when the invasion came. He wasn't allowed home until after the war. His uncle wrapped up his rifle and buried it in the garden. Guns and radios- now it's guns and control the Internet and media. Scarey how it's the same tactics.

Seize Mars's picture


Of course it's the same. It's always the same.

Paper Money--> Bubble--> Recession--> Stimulus--> Inflation--> Price Controls--> Shortages--> Riots--> Troops on Your Streets

Mass murder is harder to do when everyone is able to defend themselves, man by man, house by house.

And it's always about mass murder.

fonestar's picture

They are not going to get control of the internet.  They are failing.

fonestar's picture

Can't stand the perfectly obvious, hey pussies?

DutchR's picture

I hope to never have to page Richard C. Carrington.


May the bitcoin fall where they may

Sean7k's picture

Because it is always the same people in charge. Politicians are convenient facades erected by the true rulers. They know what works and what to control and when. The problem is not guns nor will guns solve it. It is particpation and acceptance. You cannot rule people whom refuse to acknowlege your right to rule. 

The right to rule is every individual's and his alone. If you give someone your proxy, don't be surprised when it is used against you.

Cathartes Aura's picture

clever book report relating a certain narrative while simultaneously invoking the "gun control" fears.

very very clever, Ms. Kline.

Monty Burns's picture

Well spotted! Very clever, Mr. Aura.

Cathartes Aura's picture

not a missed-er, but thanks for acknowledging my species inherent acute sense of smelly. . .

El Vaquero's picture

How lax the gun control laws are is largely dependent on what state you are in.  I can walk into my state's capital building with a rifle locked and loaded slung over my shoulder.  Try that in NY.  Then again, there is the 1934 NFA and the little clause in the 1986 firearm owner's protection act.

DocinPA's picture

It's reasonably accurate.  This is probably a more authoritative treatise, though:

BustainMovealota's picture

Not realy,  In fact Hitler lost the first election because the Germans thought he was way too radical (which he was of course).  Then came the Reichtag fire which Hitler blamed on terrorist, most likely a false flag event but never proven.  Hitler promised to protect the German people from these "terriost".   Germans were scared and they bought what Hitler was selling.  Any of this sound familar to whats happening today in the US??   Study a little history,,  you will see other interesting parallels.

El Vaquero's picture

Don't forget that Hitler predicted that relying on borrowing from the US would end in a bad way before 1929, and it did, in fact, end in a bad way.  Germany wasn't an angel by any means, but the treaty of Versailles, coupled with some serious economic bullshit on multiple occasions made it quite a bit easier for Hitler. 


Know yourself, know what you stand for and be ready to defend it, whether that defense be verbal or through violence, for we are approaching times when we will be susceptible to a similar dictatorship.

Antifaschistische's picture

I agree...sort of a shallow article because it only goes 1/3 way.  I don't know how many guns the Jews in Germany had at that point.   The real point, is that every single adult (over 13) male Jew in Germany SHOULD have had, and should have known how to use a rifle.   The same can be said of every male in Nanking during the Nanking massacres of 1937.

That gets you 1/3 way there.  The other 2/3 is the willingness to use that firearm knowning that it will ultimately result in your own death.  But you do it anyway because you know...there's more of you, than there are of them...and if every man in Nanking had been willing to shoot the man wanting to rape his wife...many lives would have been spared. 

outofideas's picture

By the numbers, Americans love their government too. Maybe not you and I but the free shit army and all the government employees and all their dependents and so on, I'd say the average American loves his or her government.

cossack55's picture

But are they willing to die for that gubmint?  They may be willing to risk it all for the check they receive from the gubmint, but I doubt they really give a shit who is signing the check.

Sean7k's picture

Brimming with optimism today. I hope you are right.

Againstthelie's picture

Shallow is the understatement of the year.

This article is BS². White is Black, lie is truth.

The truth: Hitler ARMED the German people. The possession of weapons was ENCOURAGED.

But only the Jews were disarmed. And also here this article does not mention why.

Were the Japanese in the USA allowed to carry weapons? No, they were put in concentration camps.

And what did the Jews in 1933? They declared war on Germany. Why doesn't the article mention this fact? Not of interest for the sheeple?


No word about the Jewish hostilities against the new Germany, and German businesses all over the world. Especially in the USA very interesting things happened, how Germans were put under pressure by the Jewish lobbies. In 1961 a Jewish insider, Benjamin Freedman, gave an interesting speech what REALLY happened. Everyone with internet can google it. No need to stay uninformed and eat the turbo capitalist bankster propaganda BS from the "Austrians".


"The rapid pace with which Hitler disarmed the populace in Germany is startling"

Maybe the reason of this article full of lies is much simpler:

Austrian economics is in support of total liberation of the markets. Just one example: Pornography is good, because it generates money.GMO food is great. Eating more garbage and poison is good! Because sick people create revenue! A state which educates people? Evil! The market and the banks take care for you! Was the Wild West the paradise for the people in America? It seems someone is interested to make you believe that the unlöeashed market is your best friend.

National agencies controlling the banks, the money trust, as it was called before WW1, observing the markets and enforcing insider restrictions, are bad and should be disbanded! The market regulates itself! That's Austrian economics!

Well, Austrian economics even rejects insider regulations!

Has any "Austrian" ever told you, that insider trading was much worse around 1900, than it is today? You are angry about the banksters not being put in jail? Then the last thing you want, is to get the early 20th century back.

Know what one of the most popular reasons for the creation of the FED was? How it was sold to the public? Control of the money trust! Wall Street NEVER had a good reputation. Now ask yourself, why do "Austrians" suggest the opposite when they were that extreme, that the people demanded the destruction of New York's "Money Trust"?!

The Austrians will never tell you about this "glorious" past of "free" markets!

What about international trade? It must be liberated!

Laws that protect the workers from dumping prices? Very bad in Austrian economics theory!

The US worker shall compete with the Chinese or Indian slave worker! That's Austrian economics!


This truly EVIL economic school has so much supporters nowadays, because it is in support of Gold as money.

But the clue is: Gold as money does no good to the one who owns no gold.

And it also does not solve the REAL problem of enforced exponential growth due to compound interest: If I lend you 10 ounces and you must pay back 11 ounces of gold, compared to lend you 10.000 fiat and you need to pay back 11.000 fiat, slave! You must pay back more than what is in existance! And that makes you work harder, slave. That's the TRUE hidden secret of modern slavery. Gold does not solve this problem. It only reduces the amount of leverage, but does not touch the problem for the working people and the accumulation of all wealth for the money lenders!


That's the tragedy, that people in support of the hard working people and against the parasitic financial industry are falling victim to the turbo capitalists of the "Austrian" school.

Social security in National-Socialist Germany was the best in the world. The standard of living before the war increased that much, the the German holiday cruisers from the KDF-fleet, were forbidden to harbour in Great Britain. The Brits should not see, that German workers could afford to go on a cruise with their family.

German couples were given interest free credit to build a house. But contrary to the plutocracies, not the credit for the banks was sponsored, but it was for the families: with every born child the loan was reduced 25%, so with the fourth child the house was completely paid off.

Or the National-Socialist laws that respected and protected the market economy but on the other hand forced the companies to share their profit with the emplyoees? Pure evil in the eyes of the Austrian economists! But I doubt that the average ZH reader is part of the 1% that profits from unleashed casino capitalism.

All that is incompatible with the Austrian school of economics. And probably that's the reason for this article full of lies. So the sheeple are kept in their misbelieve that there were only two alternatives: the current evil system of the international oligarchy and Communism.

The third way, the Social Market Economy, must be kept out of their focus. It supports binary thinking: you reject the Communist developments, here you have an "alternative": Austrian economics!

For Austrian economics the liberalization of the 1980s, that brought us into this mess, is even too less!

According to Austrian economics government agencies would be made even weaker! Or in the best case disbanded completely! Mac jobs are so great! Why not have three jobs to feed a family? Peter Schiff, Doug Casey and Sprott can explain to the ordinary worker how great this world is he just needs to work harder, while company profits are at ATHs!

It's stunning that ZH readers do support these people, only because they are holding a golden carrot in front of your nose.

But they are also pumping their mining shares to you at high prices, while they get them cheaply with private placements...

Yes, Austrian economics is great. One just needs to understand for whom...


Sean7k's picture

Pretty good rant, but it is diminished when you bend the facts. The Austrian school does not think pornography is "good". If you have read Walter Block's work on this subject, it concerns the effects of intervention and the costs to society. Same with GMO or any other item. There are no value judgements here, just a recognition of the costs.

There are problems with Austrian economics, however the effects of partial liberty wihin a State apparatus are not a true market. It could be said the Austrain school presents itself as opponent to Keynes and Marx for the purposes of the dialectic. The jewish background of it's most famous proponents should raise suspicions alone. Though Rothbard did eventually move farther afield of Austrian economics to consider anarcho-capitalsm.

The education provided by the State is self serving. Designed by corporations, it turns out compliant workers and citizens, not educated people. 

While there were aspects of the State of Germany which were beneficial to most of the population, there were clearly actions taken which were the very definition of tyranny. The generous actions of any State are no defense for totalitarian rule. Hitler himself rued the actions of his leutenants, knowing they were committing actions he neither wanted nor approved of. However, he could overlook these in order to continue the "greater good" of his leadership and policies.

The evil here is not Austrian economics, the savior is not an enlightened State, the means to tyranny is LAW. It is the justification for every depredation against the people. The means to liberty is the strength of The People wise enough to refuse to accept rulership from a small elite and energetic and responsible enough to recognize we all have a duty to maintain our liberty. There are benefits from people acting in concert for a united purpose, these benefits are always spoiled by giving them over to others.

I agree this article fails as a lesson in history, but it succeeds in demonstrating the dangers of capitulation.

Againstthelie's picture



I upvoted your comment because it is honestly argued (contrary to this BS article), although I do not agree with your analysis and clonclusions.

For example: the rule of law is only possible with a strong state. In the Wild West the rule of law was NOT existant. The "Austrians" also lie about the US history to make the people who are in support of personal freedom, reject any laws, that restrict the 1%.


What is also very important to understand, that those societies that promote individual freedom not necessarily have it, while governments that do not promote it, could have much more freedom!

For example in Hitler's Germany politics in school was taboo. Today even kindergarten children are indoctrinated.

In Hitler's Germany nobody was forced to join the Hitler-youth, or the BDM, the girl's youth, or the party. Highest ranking officials were not party members. Hitler's personal was not pressured to join the party.


Or let's take another example:

In the FRG (federal republic of Germany), which promotes individual freedom, it is claimed that 700.000 public officers were missing.

The 2nd German Reich, which was much bigger, had 500.000 public officers - including the postal and train jobs!

The FRG has 5.500.000 and needs 700.000 more!


So there is a huge difference between the propaganda for individual freedom and real existing freedom.

Today the regime controls every word you say, but it claims to respect freedom of speech!


And what also must be understood, there is always a target conflict: either individual freedom or freedom of the community.

Either you can have a family, or you are the centre of the universe. One excludes the other.


While in a huge country like the USA and on a farm with 100 hectars, the ideology of maximum individual freedom had some foundation, in densly populated regions, like central Europe living together is turned into HELL with individualism and without a strong state and monocultural rules that enforces a social individual behaviour.


If you argue that the "Austrians" are not in support of pornography, then this is wrong: if I support  economic measures that put the market over the protection of traditional values (which only can be protected by the state), because of individual freedom at the cost of the freedom of the community, then ofcourse I accept businesses that will exploit the weakness of the people!

Who are you, that you want to dictate grown up persons, that they can make porno movies?

And this goes on and on...

Who are you, that you want to dictate persons, which sexual orientation is good?


Community is the opposite of individualism.

Traditional values can only survive in a community. Because a functioning community needs rules. And if one does not follow the rules, he either must be forced to leave the community or he will destroy it.


That's what the Jews know so well and the sheeple have no clue about.

Therefore they wherever they live as minority, they promote individualism. Knowing that it is incompatible with the cohesion of the majority's community. I find it very interesting, that in Israel they suddenly know very well what is damaging the community and there they reject these community destroying ideologies.

Or why is George Soros promiting the legalization of drugs in the USA and not in Israel? Why is he not fighting for easier divorces of marriages in Israel? Why is he not fighting the racially selected settlement program? They only promote this deadly individualism for the gentiles.

Sean7k's picture

The rule of law is only possible with a strong state, which equates to: the rule of law will power tyranny. Please post an example if you wish to refute this idea. I am not willing to trade liberty for tyranny nor do I believe tyranny is the only means to protect "traditional values". It may protect YOUR values, but your values may be in direct opposition to mine, for example, the Puritans. Further, your dilemma is a canard. Individual freedoms and goals can co-exist with community freedoms and goals. The community will not be able to FORCE your behavior to comply, but they can ask for your participation. Who doesn't prefer being asked to being told?

If people like pornography, law will not stop this. It merely creates a black market. Sound familiar? Block's arguments merely point out the inefficiencies, it has nothing to do with morality. The bigger question doesn't involve economics: why are people so interested in pornography? Or prostitution? Or criminal behavior?  Perhaps the promise of something that seems better than what you have, even if you know not what it is. Which brings us to the topic of temptation in all things.

Which in turn brings us to the value of community as a source of wisdom and strength. Does this wisdom flow from the law? No, if flows from the good intentions of leaders whom wish to safeguard their loved ones. Do all loved ones accept this wisdom? Does a bear shit in the woods? 

We cannot force people to be "good", especially when the definition is subjective. There are truly evil people in the world- most of whom work in government, law and religion. To give them the power to influence and bend community to their own devices is folly. It is liberty we retain the freedom to protect ourselves from the wolf in sheep's clothing.

Your values are not my values, but our values may not be so different we cannot agree to be tolerant towards each other. If not, should we make up the same community? Is there not a community somewhere we could move to? The State IMPLIES violence as a solution to all problems, then defines the problems through the machinations of a small minority- regardless of the trappings of acceptance and how they are manipulated (votes). 

God's "law" was unable to restrain Sodom and Gomorrah. Do you think we are wiser or more capable? Man is a complex creature, influenced by actions outside the control of any State. Tyranny is not a tool of compassion not understanding nor wisdom. It is a hammer in a world of nails. We cannot legislate righteousness, but we can be a light to our community and engender acts of compassion and understanding and wisdom through liberty. 


Againstthelie's picture

"The rule of law is only possible with a strong state, which equates to: the rule of law will power tyranny. Please post an example if you wish to refute this idea."

No it doesn't imply this. You equate a strong state with tyranny. But you do this, for a very understandable experience: you see, that htis hostile regime enforces an ideology on you, that you reject. So your reaction is to reject the state.

But instead you should analyze what is the force behind this regime? It's a tyranny of a minority.


So instead to recognize that it are the hidden money powers that took over and control everything, you reject the ONLY entity that could restore the freedom of the average people: the state.

Why? Because the Money Powers exist. They are real. They never before were more powerful. Does living on a farm reduce their power? No, their power grows every day! And they continue to liberalize everything that brings them more profits, while on the other hand, they continue to destroy the societies with their TYRANNY OF MINORITIES, by brainswashing the majority to accept every perversion as being "tolerant".


Their power is not because of a STRONG state! Their power is because the state is WEAK. The state is hollow. The politicians that are elected do not decide and rule!


So by rejecting a strong STATE, you reject the medicine!


"Individual freedoms and goals can co-exist with community freedoms and goals. The community will not be able to FORCE your behavior to comply, but they can ask for your participation. Who doesn't prefer being asked to being told?"


You are argueing that being asked was important, although the voice has no influence, because there are lobbies and hidden forces ruling.

That's insane.


And ofcourse individual freedoms can coexist with community! But only if the proportions are correct!

The National-Socialists summed this up in one sentence:

Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz.

The good for the community beats the good for the individual.

This sentence has everything in it, that you demand:

Striving for personal good is good! IT is encouraged! The Nazis freed the economy from many useless burocratic rules.

But the individual freedom has it's limits, where the good for the community is being affected negatively.


For example: making business and profit is good. But the workers must get their fair share from it and not the shareholders.

But promoting promiscuity? Destroy's the nation's culture, values and families. And therefore is forbidden.

Another example, that is often turned from white into black: marriage of partners with genetic defects. It is a huge burden, an egoisitic crime against the children and burdens the community for many generations severely, if such persons have children. Therefore a health check is demanded.

Or eugenics: imagine: implemented for only two generations, and the nation becomes almost free of genetic deseases for hundreds of years! With humane methods without anyone suffering. If humanity means being empathical and using sanity to reduce suffer, then this is humanity in it's highest form. contrary to following individual tribal instincts and creating misery for the children and suffer for generations to come. Today it is even more perverse: sick children are kept alive with all technological measures, while healthy children are aborted just for fun of the woman! Now tell me: what is perversion and what is highest form of humanity?!


Oh, misery for generations to come: Ofcourse Sprott or Casey with their nuclear mining shares would have a hard time. This technology endangers the genetic health, just like GMO, for many generations to come. Thousands of years. Therefore the possibility of the individual to make money from it, would better be declared illegal. That would be the Nazi politics. The "Austrian" politics is: it make smoney and therefore is good!

It's really not hard. But ofcourse it depends on the personal position. If you are a pervert, then you will reject it. If you are a Jew, then you will reject it. If you want to make business and profit on the cost of others, then you will reject it.

But if you are an average healthy and normal person, which respects the tradition of the majority and want the best for the community over GENERATIONS to come, then you can only support this principle that respects individual freedom as long as your community is not being negatively affected by it.


But if you are that much afraid of any rules that may restrict you and therefore you reject it, then you should not complain about all the degeneration that is happening today. Because today we have the rulership of TOTAL INDIVIDUALISM, while the money masters grow bigger every day.

Never before in the history INDIVIDUALISM was that much established. To a degree, where even the biological reproduction capability is being destroyed. The total destruction of the European culture never before was closer. Crying for more indicidual freedom means crying for more of the same poison.

WE DO NOT LACK INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM WE LACK COMMUNITY AND UNITY. But as I had explained, commnity can only exist if individualism is reduced.

And since the sheeple are so indictrinated with lies pro individualism and against community, I have no hope for the USA or Europe.

Every entity that WORKS, is authoritarian and a community and rejects individualism:






I find it strange that they are so successful to make White people believe by rejecting order and community, they will find heaven, while all their world is slowly sinking into the shithole of individualism.

Sean7k's picture

Actually, your entire statement proves my premise. YOU would dictate what is best for all. You are a tyrant, hiding behind the promises of YOUR idea of great works. You would lift up the successes and hide the dirty laundry.

The communty being more important than the individual is communism in all its' glory. Is there a more tyrannical state? the State of the bolshevik jew? The ends do not justify the means if they commit atrocities in their pursuit.The dialectic of bolshevik communism and national socialism has left you confused with a false choice.

I believe individuals need rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to ensure the greatest number of possible solutions to the greatest number of problems. We do not increase the chance of success by diminishing the odds. 

The family can be a horror, especially if ruled top down by an incestuous or violent leader. The police spend as much time abusing the law as upholding it, that is them, speeding by with their lights on for a donut stop or planting a gun or lyng under oath. The military is a means to corporate ends for the confiscation of resources and monopoly of markets. Teamsports are entertainment and introductions to group think and pressure. Ultimately, it is the undividual, as product of their family and community, whom is our best defense against tyranny.

You have exposed your hate and true goals of totalitarian rule for a "pure" population. You are the bolshevik jew and you don't even realize it. 


Againstthelie's picture

No need to become agressive.

Your rant against any sense of community cannot hide, that your individualism is ruling today. That your individualism is what makes the bankster tyranny possible.

And everyone living outside the community is always somehow liberal.

The Jew is you.

Sean7k's picture

What's the matter? Cat got your tongue? All my comments combined the individual within the community in liberty. So, you either are not reading for comprehension or attempting to create a lie. 

Bankster tyranny has nothing to do with the individual, but the control of the power of the State to determine money, legal tender and regulation.This is done with money, just ask the Rothschilds. 

Calling me names will not improve your argument. It crashes like a wave against the shore, attempting to erode the strong foundation of liberty beneath our feet. We merely must regain our contact and firm footing, then build a seawall against the tyranny in your heart.


Againstthelie's picture

The Rothschilds built their wealth by lending Gold. Somehow Gold was not really a protection from their rise.

And didn't the USA even have Gold and Silver as money? And which country today is the most important base of the international Money Masters and Capitalism?

Somehow you thesis about Gold being the rescue doesn't work.

But Hitler's debt free barter economy worked! And the Red internationalists in Moscow and the Orange internationalists in New York could only overcome it by combining their forces and resources.

And since then they do everything that you sheeple will never look at the facts, how an economy begins to flourish, if it adopts a NATURAL economic order and removes interest slavery AND respects private market economic principles!

You sheeple may only believe there was Capitalism or Communism and not discover, that there is a third way.

So good luck with your stupid quest for even more individualism, while around you every social order and culture is disintegrating.

Sean7k's picture

Actually, the Rothschilds built there empire with loans at interest(especially to governments), private postal service and the manipulation of the English stock bourse after Waterloo. However, I am curious, where did I mention gold? Red herring much?

Any debt free, barter economy will work, though that would be a mass oversimplification of the crony corporatism that inhabits all fascist regimes- Hitler's included. It will also fail in regards to international trade. If you do not understand the economics of the third reich, you might want to read past the glossy pictures.

There are no natural economic orders, just man made systems to create efficiencies and enhance productivity and trade. Which is why the beneficiaries are usually slanted toward their creators.

I never challenged the success of Hitler's programs, merely the excesses of tyranny. You might prefer tyranny, it appeals to people that need to control the world and ameleorate their insecurities. It requires courage and honor to live in liberty, perhaps this is why you fear it so?

Againstthelie's picture

Well, Hitler prooved that international barter trade works better than the international debt slavery:


It is the ultimate system to avoid the grip of the international parasites on a nation's trade. And btw, it even allows to remove a country's currency from the speculative market without hindering it's international trade!

That's how Hitler removed the parasites from Germany's trade and currency. While the debt slavery Plutocracies were drowning in record unemployment and with Roosevelt's Keynesian New Deal a collosal failure, the world jumped on Germany's honest new barter system and was crazy for the robust German machinery for fair prices.


Contrary to Hitler's system, the Plutocracies put pressure on foreign currencies to indebt the nations and grab the goods cheaply.

A short explanation how barter systems with market economy's can remove the international banksters, speculators and money changers from the nation's trade completely (other systems are possible, the principle is the same):


Both countries establish a state owned barter trade agency, company or whatever you will call it.

Then the two countries, interested in barter trade with each other, agree on a exchange rate for their currencies. Or, if the exchange rates are not fair, because for example the international speculators are already attacking them or have put them under pressure with sanctions or boycott, or if they fluctuate wildly, they agree on a basket of goods and services.

For example Russia calculates what this basket costs in Ruble, China in Renminbi. Without hyperinflation the costs of the basket changes only very slowly. Now the two nations know, how much their currencies are worth relative to the other WITHOUT the speculators but what the parity buying power is.


The rest, is also not complicated:

Say Russian companies want to export oil, and Russian companies want to import machinery or goods.

According to the parity buying power the agency pays the amount of Rubles to the Russian oil company, while it "receives" the oil. The oil is shipped and the machinery and goods are received. The Russian companies who ordered them receive them and pay them in Rubles to the agency.

No international banks.

No speculators.

No money changers.


Only barter systems exclude the parasites of the financial sector.

Sean7k's picture

Since you went to the trouble, but I will keep it short. One, you still include the concept of a central bank (Currency) leaving a small group to benefit from currency growth, which will be required to insure liquidity by commerce. While barter is an excellent means of exchange, it is limited by what each party wants, third parties, etc. This is why money was created- to make exchange easier and encourage production.If the State controls the trade, the same problems with human behavior exist as exist in corporations. Graft is an issue in all bureaucratic structures as is the disimilation of power and influence.

Would it be preferable to the present system, yes. Is it optimal, no.

Cathartes Aura's picture


while I love a good argument, and you've both made strong points in the to 'n' fro, you did manage to step in some shit that's stinking up yer shoes,

sick children are kept alive with all technological measures, while healthy children are aborted just for fun of the woman! Now tell me: what is perversion and what is highest form of humanity?!

I'll just point to the obvious truth:

a foetus is not a "child" - as long as it is in utero, and completely dependent on the mother, its "health" cannot be fully ascertained, nor can its life expectancy, etc.

that you truly believe in eugenics post-birth, yet also believe "women abort for fun" tips your hand as to your idea of what a "community" might consist of/ look like.

no thanks.


Againstthelie's picture

Following your argument you are in support of "progressive" politics to remove the ban of marriages between relatives.

Why does this ban exist if all humans were equal? If the sick child is as precious as the healthy one? So it's only consistent for degenerated egalitarist minds to remove this very useful and sane laws!

Do you want sick children or healthy children?

If there is a god, he has created life. And the biological laws that determine what is necessary for healthy beings! God does not want the sick to reproduce themselfes. He wants them to vanish. By looking at nature we see his will.


So it's not a question of what I want. It are the laws of life.

Humans can accept them and act occordingly by respecting them.

Or they can ignore them. Then nature will punish this behaviour.

In my opinion it is extreme inhumanity to know, if two persons will have sick children, to allow them to multiply their defects and suffering! It's a crime against the poor sick children.

We can decide to live in harmony with nature, which means to respect the eternal laws of nature, or we can decide to believe in religions from the desert to stand above nature and can ignore the eternal laws of life.

Ofcourse we can support the reproduction of sick humans, we can support race mixing and destroying creativity and biodiversity of the human species, we can decide to spread Frankenstein genome GMO's into nature without any longterm tests for profit, we can use antibiotics all the time and create super-resitant bacteria. We can do all that. But for a price.

It's against the laws of nature. And therefore a very high price will have to be paid. Not by the generation that committed the crime. But generations later will pay and suffer for our insanity and what people like you called "humanity", but in fact was the purest form of INHUMANITY:

In my understanding HUMANITY means to use the human brain to REDUCE suffering, also for future generations, and not to multiply it by only looking at the moment and the easiest way!

It's very simple: if the human species is not ripe for biopolitics and not capable to use it's mind in that manner, but only uses it for shortsighted personal advantages and profit maximization, the pursuit of happiness, then this species with all the technology it has invented will be an evolutionary dead end!

Do you want that? Then keep on supporting the current ignorance against the eternal laws of life. But then you are part of the problem, not of the solution. 

Or you begin to think about the long term consequences of our acting and begin to support sanity and humanity over deadly egoism.

Cathartes Aura's picture

okay, you're off on a tangent that bears no resemblence to the point I was making in my previous comment.

Do you want sick children or healthy children?

I don't want or have any children, and so I've fulfilled my own wishes, and am able to chose to spend time with the children of friends whenever desired.

If there is a god, he has created life. And the biological laws that determine what is necessary for healthy beings! God does not want the sick to reproduce themselfes. He wants them to vanish. By looking at nature we see his will.

dodgy territory - you're stating personal beliefs, which is fine - but they are personal, and therefore should not be applied to other people as "laws" - and certainly not under the phony label of "nature" - if you seek a punitive life, admit it and accept that others will judge you for your beliefs, which are not universal.

while I can agree with you that the systemic experimenting with humans/animals/foodstuffs/environment for corporate profits, which is causing tremendous suffering and will continue to impact throughout all our lives, and subsequent generations - this is not a "religious" problem, it is the consequence of the out of control ruling classes of sociopaths,  creating "governments" and "religions" and various "cultures" - all of which have exploited humans since, well, forever.

we don't need any more controlling belief systems to further torture all life.  we have plenty to deal with as it is.

so chaos it is.  get it while you can.

moneybots's picture

"Therefore they wherever they live as minority, they promote individualism. Knowing that it is incompatible with the cohesion of the majority's community."

I belirve most jews are democrats.  The democratic party is not about individualism.

Againstthelie's picture

You still believe in their two party game? That it matters which actor becomes president?

In case you haven't recognized it: They control both sides.

ps: the democratic party is not in support of genderism, gender mainstreaming, gay-marriage? Where is the Democratic party in support of COMMUNITY over individualism?!


moneybots's picture

ps: the democratic party is not in support of genderism, gender mainstreaming, gay-marriage? Where is the Democratic party in support of COMMUNITY over individualism?!


Social Security, medicare for all, redistribution of wealth, gun control, common core, it takes a villiage etc., etc.  Socialism is not individualism.

Againstthelie's picture

That's not socialism, that's Marxism.

The difference?

Look at a family. That's socialism. No rights without duties! And authoritarian: the children must follow the orders of the parents and therefore the parents have the responsibility for the children.

A family as true socialst entity has another criteria: the commuinity is stricly separated from foreigners. The opposite of Marxism, where all people are equal and there is made no differentiation between MINE and YOURS.

Marxism is a Jewish lie. It turns the noble socialist idea into the internationalistic agenda of the Jew. Therefore it doesn't work. It never has and it never will. It's not even intended to work. It's intention is the dissolution of the natural communities, the destruction of the traditional order to create the NEW HUMAN.

Therefore Marxism also fights families. The TRUE socialist entity, the most important cell of any society and culture! Is fought by the "Socialists"! It's so obvious, but the sheeple do not recongize it.


Contrary to the Jewish scam of international socialism, any real working socialism is always respecting the principles how it works in reality, with a family:

No right without duties.

Different not equal!

Own and foreign.

Mine and yours.

Community instead of society.


The one who wants help from the community must follow the rules of the community.


Now you can check which side the Democratic party belongs to and you should be able to recognize it's pure Marxist and has nothing to do with the noble socialist cause every family is built on!

moneybots's picture

"Marxism is a Jewish lie. It turns the noble socialist idea into the internationalistic agenda of the Jew."



Againstthelie's picture

If the truth is anti-semitic, then it must be something good!

J S Bach's picture

Good reply...


Hitler was and is vilified by the victors of WWII because he showed the possibilities for prosperity without the yoke of usury tied around a nation's neck.


Economist Henry C K Liu writes of Germany’s remarkable transformation:

"The Nazis came to power in Germany in 1933, at a time when its economy was in total collapse, with ruinous war-reparation obligations and zero prospects for foreign investment or credit. Yet through an independent monetary policy of sovereign credit and a full-employment public-works program, the Third Reich was able to turn a bankrupt Germany, stripped of overseas colonies it could exploit, into the strongest economy in Europe within four years, even before armament spending began."

In Billions for the Bankers, Debts for the People (1984), Sheldon Emry commented:

"Germany issued debt-free and interest-free money from 1935 and on, accounting for its startling rise from the depression to a world power in 5 years. Germany financed its entire government and war operation from 1935 to 1945 without gold and without debt, and it took the whole Capitalist and Communist world to destroy the German power over Europe and bring Europe back under the heel of the Bankers. Such history of money does not even appear in the textbooks of public (government) schools today."

moneybots's picture

"Hitler was and is vilified by the victors of WWII because he showed the possibilities for prosperity without the yoke of usury tied around a nation's neck."


Not even close.  The Holocaust, 20 million Russians killed, upward of 40 million on both sides.  That is why Hitler is villified.

Againstthelie's picture

Well, that Hitler could gas 6 million jews and make them disappear and not a single corpse as evidence was found, turns Hitler already into a god. On the other hand I'm wondering why there are so many Holocaust survivors with that German efficiency?

But that you demand that he should have been able to avoid the Soviet losses due to the Red Army's incompetence, is a bit too much.

moneybots's picture

"Well, that Hitler could gas 6 million jews and make them disappear and not a single corpse as evidence was found, turns Hitler already into a god. On the other hand I'm wondering why there are so many Holocaust survivors with that German efficiency?

But that you demand that he should have been able to avoid the Soviet losses due to the Red Army's incompetence, is a bit too much."


The Holocaust is well documented.  Those who were gassed were cremated, so i wouldn't expect any corpses.  People who have loved ones cremated, get an urn full of ashes.  No corpse inside the urn.

I don't know why you would wonder why there were survivors, as the Holocaust was well documented.  Why are you biased against the truth? 

Where do you get the silly idea that i am demanding anything as far as Russian casualies were concerned? 20 million Russians were killed.  Hitler attacked Russia, not the other way around.  As far as incompetence is concerned, Hitler lost the war.

Hitler is not being villified for some phony accounting of the reichs economy that is being pushed here.  I have watched various clips of Hitler's speeches.  He was an evil man, obvious from just watching his demenor as he spoke, even without understanding the words.