Just like the big industries

he locked up one of the rothchilds

Even in the US

I dont even need source, just the method and reasoning

How was hitler sponsered by the banks?

Hitler was sponsored by the banks, businesses and investors because he was their best tool against social uprising

Thats your opinon

Best way to end an atgument

How did he even need money ?

That's like your opinion man

It is your opinon

By sponsor

I mean they backed him

And he rewarded them

90% privatization

you dont give any base not one inclination that it is true nothing founded in fact

privatization is not indication that he was supported

It stil would only be national banks , as this is how far the privatization goes

Give one counter argument and ppl be like

The whole notion of him being supported by "the banks" is silly as the nazi sozi party was grassroots up til the night of the long night

even after . the ppl themselves were fighting the scemery , they them self smashed jewish shops

A bank is just a type of buisness

You could just as well say a person was supported by sausage vendor

https://thefederalist.com/2019/05/30/sorry-alarmists-climate-chaos-not/

Key takeaways: currently we can remove carbon from the air at a cost effectiveness of 100$ a tonne

But of course they want to make climate an issue for the election so they are running stories on it

it's good we have eco movements

`` Hitler was sponsored by the banks, businesses and investors because he was their best tool against social uprising``

12 years later, the Soviets fucked them deep in the ass.

@Apple O'Day that article is terrible

If it wasnt the German communists who pushed the businesses and banks over, it was Stalin's merciless hordes.

>global warming is destroying the planet
"we have good technology to adapt to the changing environmet anyway😏 "

“Communism cannot work because the natural fixed human nature is usually more competitive rather than cooperative.”

Agree or disagree?

Neither, it’s a bit of a skewed question

ancap wont work because you have ppl that are naturally followers and submissive

Or, not neither, but both
I’ve always held a belief tied to Dunbar’s number (essentially, the number of relationships an individual can actively maintain before “friends” becomes “acquaintances”, typically around 100-200), that communism can work in groups smaller than that number, but as populations rise to meet or exceed that number, the system begins to fall apart as competition takes precedent over cooperation in a crowd

That’s why a hippie commune of 60-80 people may operate like a dream, but a massive state with tens of millions cannot maintain the system without destroying the freedoms of those caught within it

but I’m not an economist, so I might be wrong

So, TL;DR, the natural human nature is not fixed either way, it adapts to the environment, and the environment determines why communism will or will not work at different scales, but usually the more people that you force to cooperate, the more likely it is that some will find reasons not to cooperate, and the order falls apart