PDA

View Full Version : Are the Majority of Skadi Members Hostile to National Socialism?



Petervalhalla
Sunday, February 28th, 2010, 04:02 PM
Admittedly I am relatively new to the Skadi forum but from what I have seen so far, I get the impression that the majority of the members are very hostile to National Socialism.

I appreciate that internet forums such as this are really for young people, usually under thirty, and certainly under forty. People of my age are very definitely the exception.

Bearing this in mind, could any members take pity on me and answer my question, or at least give me their own views of National Socialism.

Thank you.

Bärin
Sunday, February 28th, 2010, 04:33 PM
I'm not NS and don't support some of its aspects but I get along with comrades who are NS because we have some common views like the ones on race. There are some people here hostile to NS but there are also many NS. Sometimes you get the impression there are many more who are hostile because they have loud mouths and like to impose themselves at all costs. That's the liberal mindset.

Sigurd
Sunday, February 28th, 2010, 04:51 PM
I'm far from hostile to National Socialism, and I'm curious where you get the perception from that the majority of members were hostile towards it. :shrug

Like Bärin says there are some that are particularly loud about it, but the majority is certainly not hostile. I would in fact say that those who are openly NS outnumber those that that openly oppose NS. :)

Old Winter
Sunday, February 28th, 2010, 06:49 PM
I am not NS but if a NS party would clean up my country I would support them.

Hamar Fox
Sunday, February 28th, 2010, 06:59 PM
I'm not too big on state control, but if we're talking about an English state that genuinely acted in the interests of the English folk, then I'd be satisfied with it. The types of 'preservationist' who spend their time talking about how evil intolerance, racism and Nazism are, and the best way to preserve Europe's people is to flame horrible racists and exchange flapjack recipes all day -- well, they don't really dwell on Skadi. I don't know if I'm just comparing Skadi to other sites, but IMO Skadi's very accepting of NS.

Aequoreus
Sunday, February 28th, 2010, 07:50 PM
I realise I am also a new member of Skadi, but for what it's worth, I am hostile to National Socialism.

Zimobog
Sunday, February 28th, 2010, 08:19 PM
I have personal and political values that are counter to those held by many National Socialists. I would oppose National Socialism in my own country if it were to become a viable political force.

I think the sole "political conflict" on Skadi is between those who think the government of a country ought to control most aspects of a citizen's life (like smoking, drinking, hair dye, hunting, abortion and reproduction, education, transportation, being fat, whatever) or those who think the government ought not to. National Socialist who get into arguements on Skadi with Libertarians do so over personal freedom issues more often than any issue.

It is predictable to those of us who have been here a while who will support or suggest such things... and who will oppose them. None of us, I wager, loose any sleep over it nor do we abandon our common cause of Germanic biological and cultural preservation. We are free-born and therefore will have differing opinions about how this can be accomplished. I accept the opinions of those who differ as their own.

If someone is disappointed that Skadi is not a NS site, I say too bad. Accept us as we are or go away, it makes no difference to me.

Waldstein
Sunday, February 28th, 2010, 09:00 PM
In my view, the question "power by the government" or "power by the people" is a specifical American question rooted in the history of the United States respectively the personal history of its settlers. However, this is just an obiter dictum, not the subject I wanted to talk about in this context.

Personally, I judge the NS movement mainly based upon the two following aspects:

- Aesthtetics: Historical and comtemporanean national socialists presented/present themselves to the public in a very bizarre if not outright disgusting manner. Their sense for aesthetics was/is apparently very underdeveloped, and they could in this respect learn from many leftist groups, the “Corporate Identity” of the latter being much more appealing in most cases.

- By its historically most “eminent” representatives:
- Himmler, a racially inferior, disharmonious, sadistic little bureaucrat.
- Göring: A morphinist.
- Hitler: By far the most gifted individual of his colleagues, rhetorically
talented, quite intelligent, with an excellent memory and a
terrible sense for political tactics, however necrophilic and
sadomasochistic.

Behind the keywords of the Nazi movement, the traditional German virtues like “Anstand” (decency) and “Pflichttreue” (dutifulness), a pile of far less noble impulses and qualities like brutality, bloodthirstiness and mediocrity of the prototypical petit bourgeois is hidden. Summa summarum, I don’t like the NS movement, even less in its modern appearance. In my view, National Socialism is anachronistic and a symptom of decadence. It could only arise in times of extreme imjustice and might have had good approaches and aspects , but in its essence it was decadent from the very beginning. If we want to preserve European culture, we need a much different concept tailored to the realities of the postmodern world.

Nachtengel
Sunday, February 28th, 2010, 09:20 PM
If you joined Skadi like 2 years ago, the liberal faction would have still been here. Now it's somewhat better. The people who want to whine about how evil racism and nazism are mostly hang around other forums, because Skadi is 'too extremist' in their words. Nonetheless there are still some anti-NS left here, who think they know better and speak from the high horse. The NS group is not very big either, although it has been growing lately.

Siebenbürgerin
Sunday, February 28th, 2010, 09:25 PM
Hmm, I'm neither a National Socialist nor a Liberal/Libertarian. I'm somewhere between those. The former is too strict in my view, and the latter two lax. So, I'm not hostile. That's such a big word. My boyfriend is a National Socialist and we've similar views on many things. I've no problem with either National Socialists or Liberals being here because it's a free speech forum and everyone has the right his views. So if some peoples express hostility, I don't think it's a reason to worry in my view. For every person who disagrees, there is one who agrees too. :)

Petervalhalla
Sunday, February 28th, 2010, 11:07 PM
I would like to thank everybody who has responded so far.

Your comments are very useful.

Please keep them coming.

SpearBrave
Monday, March 1st, 2010, 03:34 AM
Are the Majority of Skadi Members Hostile to National Socialism?

I would say no, most members and all the staff here understand that this a place where free speech is encouraged and accepted. Of course we have rules and guidelines that must be followed, if not this forum would be a lowbrow free-for-all like other forums I have looked at. After all we are Germanics and we should have some class and order about our discussions.;)


IMO every Germanic has a right to their own view and political choices. While I claim to be a American Nationalist, I am not a Socialist. To me I believe that the founding fathers of this nation had a good concept of personal freedom. You should have the freedom to succeed or fail depending on your own ability and will power. I do believe that wanting our nation to return to our original ideas of 1776 is a Nationalist stance for Americans.

Grey
Monday, March 1st, 2010, 04:04 AM
Leave German ideologies to the Germans. I'm only hostile to those who would have the same here.

Other than that, I have a curious interest in the history of the movement.

Winter Wolf
Monday, March 1st, 2010, 05:11 AM
I am a National Socialist, but I recognize that Skadi is not a political forum per se, so I, out of general respect, would not be so discourteous as to try to turn it into what it is not.

Since the topic has been broached, I would venture to say that any adherent of NS understand that NS is not a rightwing or leftwing exclusive ideology. The NS worldview is cannot be accurately pigeonholed into either of those two viewpoints. There are positions where the NS will agree more with a rightwing viewpoint, and there are issues that will find greater harmony with the leftist view.

It was NS Germany that posited the link between lung cancer and smoking. While in the US the tobacco industry was busy throwing lobby money at politicians so they can remain profitable. It was NS Germany that provided for an affordable vacation for workers. Try that in the US and the rightwing will scream bloody murder. On the other hand it was NS Germany who made a big deal about distinguishing high art from "degenerate art" - a rightwing/family values type position.

IMO before one reads Mein Kampf one should first have digested Rosenberg's Myth of the 20th Century.

Anyway, regardless of one's politics I would not expect to constantly discuss my politics on an equine forum, nor would I expect to talk exclusively about horses on a political forum. Seems common sense to me.

Ocko
Monday, March 1st, 2010, 05:48 AM
What you know about NS is most likely through the propaganda of the victors of the WWII. To study NS on its own merits gives a very different picture.

In my opinion NS was the answer to communism and jewish supremacy. Today communism is not really realized so the totalitarian part of NS is not necessary.

Today I would say that racism has to be connected to freedom, and I mean freedom of germanic people.

I don't think that socialism is very popular today. It was then because Germany had been destroyed and the economic situation was bleak. Instead of social darwinism they practiced socialism which I believe was right at that point of history.

I do think that a modern political nationalist leader has to forge a different system and heavily salvage what Hitler did.

I am open for NS and could live well in a system like that. But I do believe there is a better way for todays circumstances.

The aim is the same, the method may vary.

Ward
Monday, March 1st, 2010, 06:05 AM
I assume we are speaking here more precisely about Nationalsozialismus, a.k.a. Hitlerism?

As far as the Third Reich is concerned, I doubt my fascination with it will ever be fully extinguished, and I doubt I'll ever be able to bring myself fully repudiate Hitler. One can't help but admire his implacable will and the way he committed every fiber of his being to his cause. But it's also difficult to ignore the fatal flaws in his character and in the movement he built. Nationalsozialismus wouldn't have been possible nor would it have been sustainable without Hitler. Furthermore, it wouldn't have been possible nor would it have been sustainable in any Germanic nation outside of Germany because they lack the requisite cultural tradition of unwavering obedience to authority.

In its original form, I think Nationalsozialismus is anachronistic and entirely unfeasible in modern circumstances--even in Germany. And as an American, I think my fellow countrymen who try to play Nazi look particularly pathetic, but I guess tolerating them is just one of the prices to pay for living in a "free" country, right? :P *sigh*

But hey, if someone wants to try to convince me otherwise about the merits of Nationalsozialismus, feel free. Skadi offers a good forum for its proponents to try to make their case. :)

frippardthree
Monday, March 1st, 2010, 06:24 AM
I am not a National Socialist, but I am not hostile towards National Socialism. There are many aspects of National Socialism which I am sympathetic with.

Sigurd
Monday, March 1st, 2010, 10:42 AM
I have personal and political values that are counter to those held by many National Socialists. I would oppose National Socialism in my own country if it were to become a viable political force.

I think this is a curious point: We might yet come to see that it's not one-size-shoe-fits all and that one ideology may be the best route for Germanic preservation in one country, but another ideology more fitting for another. :shrug

In America, a return to the original ideas of 1776 sounds a reasonably stride, for instance, but it's something which wouldn't do in Germany, for instance; a different historical dimension demands a different answer; this "fitting ideology" could very well be Nationalsocialism, it arose once from the specific historical problems of Germany to lead it from the ashes, it might very well arise again to lead us into a new, golden future.

Even in the UK, it would be slightly different though, with its strong historical working-class-movements and all types of trade unions it is almost bound to be a tad more syndicalist, this is perhaps why Sir Oswald Mosley didn't aspire a carbon-copy of Hitler's policies. ;)


I think the sole "political conflict" on Skadi is between those who think the government of a country ought to control most aspects of a citizen's life [...] or those who think the government ought not to. National Socialist who get into arguements on Skadi with Libertarians do so over personal freedom issues more often than any issue.

This is very true, this is a main issue. These days, I'm arguably more sympathetic to NS than to Libertarianism, but ground that "spectrum own-judgment" mainly on the point that I believe the Führer-principle should be applied "more Platonic, less Machiavellian" (how oft have I stated that? :D), the great restriction on personal freedom that undoubtedly took place in the Third Reich, IMHO, weren't there to stay but only a momentary policy.

As such, I believe the original intention to be one of "benevolent dictatorship" rather than malevolent and oppressive one. Within a few decades, people would have become "used to" National Socialist viewpoints and lifestyle, and it is my belief that restriction would have only been applied where it was sensible and to prevent direct detriment to the folk, leaving enough room for a natural measure of personal freedom as is known for Germanics. :)

Blod og Jord
Monday, March 1st, 2010, 11:51 AM
National Socialism is to me an ideology which doesn't fit my people. It's foreign, German centered, it's against freedom and persecutes politically. If someone wanted to introduce it in Denmark, I'd be hostile. I don't want a dictatorship in Denmark. But it's not my business what other citizens of other countries do.
I'm fine about National Socialist members on Skadi. Everyone should have the right to hold own political beliefs.

Bleyer
Monday, March 1st, 2010, 12:13 PM
I don't think the majority of Skadi members are hostile to this ideology. I think Skadi is one of the few places we can frequent without being equated with evil incarnated, but it's not a National Socialist forum itself so there are people who aren't sympathetic to this ideology. I am fine with that, but it's annoying if people become obsessed with it and use a trollish tone.

Hersir
Monday, March 1st, 2010, 01:25 PM
Europe would have been far better off with fascism or national socialism, it would have been much better for nature and animals etc. Even Pentti Linkola recognises that. This capitalist society is destroying nature and the enviroment. But I wouldnt have wanted Norway to be occupied by Germany, but it was England who threw us into the war. They didnt respect our sovereignity and even mined our waters before the war.

velvet
Monday, March 1st, 2010, 01:43 PM
The basic idea of NS is a pretty folkish one, and ethnocentric. There is a lot with which I can agree, viewed from the ideas.

The problem it had was the systematic approach and the negative aspects it brought forth during its application, which sometimes tended to eradicate or overwrite the idea in favor of the systematic, and forced application. This is a problem every systematic attempt to political structures has, while the basic ideas aren't necessarily negative, but become a destructive force through the systemisation and application to each and every single aspect of people's lives and social structures.

The concrete outlook of Third Reich was a reaction to communism, driven to its extremes, and so became almost automatically itself extreme, to counterforce the destruction communism has already caused, in as less time as possible (with partly stunning results).

This form of nationalsocialism with all its aspects certainly is one that belongs to the 30s and should stay in its history drawer, to learn from, but also to question certain aspects of it. A today's form would, and should, look different from that. I dont think that Hitler worship or a second try to apply exactly this form is in any way beneficial nor would lead us anywhere.

Though I think that some things, that were pressed into a systematic approach (and with this becoming an end in themselves) would grow by their own out of a organically functioning society, once it is cleansed of foreign and undesireable elements and thought structures and left enough room to have them grow. Some aspects of the idea are just systematic descriptions of organic society structures and traits we possess anyway. The problem is that ideas often die through the (enforced) changes. It is a desperate try to enforce certain results, which are from their idea good, but instead of creating the preconditions to have these aspects grow 'automatically', enforcing the desired results without the preconditions. This cannot work.

I dont have a problem with nationalsocialists, when they dont reduce their stance to simplicistic Hitlerism. My Blut und Boden is much more a spiritual belief than concrete politics. I view politics as an instrument that should serve solely the realisation of said preconditions than it should define results.

Politics today, or maybe ever since it became an end in itself (in the Roman Empire), though defines results without knowing the least about the required preconditions, nor does it care about it. It is a game for some people who push around figures on a chess board, forgetting, or maybe even unable to realise, that these figures are their folk whom they should serve. As long as this doesnt change, NO approach of politics will ever produce a result coming near the idea, it will always be a destructive force.

Probably, as Siggy said, certain aspects of NS, even in its concrete application, could have desolved themselves to a more organic form of them, but since its 30s form took the machiavellian form, this is open to speculation. While the Führer priciple serves a purpose within the idea, it became an end in itself, like so many other aspects. In my view an end in itself will always produce negative results.

So, my criticism to NS is more about the concrete form it took than it is about the idea itself.

Bittereinder
Monday, March 1st, 2010, 03:12 PM
I am a National Socialist, I don’t believe that Skadi is hostile toward National Socialism. The sentiments expressed by those whom oppose NS are perceptions that exist, what is however infuriating is the baseless manner in which people reject any notion, motion or fact linked with National Socialism, as a discussion board for Germanics, if members have legitimate arguments and views regarding NS I find no fault with them voicing their views in a manner becoming a Germanic.

I am not a Hitlerist, I believe NS is the most natural form of governance for Germanics, and as such NS must be able to change with the times, needs and threats faced by Germanics. NS is an applied ideology, depending on the setting the manifestation of National Socialism will certainly differ. The Führer concept is one that we have received from a Germany on the brink of World War. Extraordinary times calls for extraordinary measures... Accountability must be the basis of any NS government, or any government that one would wish to succeed in securing a future for the race.

Freedom is an abstract concept and does not mean the exact same thing for any two people. Afrikaners lived under a state which had a major influence and input into the lives of its citizens. The implications of that for the Afrikaner has been far-reaching and overwhelming positive IMO, it will stand the Afrikaner in good stead for a time to come. Today the people who was fostered under Apartheid are still very much the pillars of this country and the Afrikaner. Freedom does not imply having the right to become a burden, blight or danger to your race.

The fundamentals of National Socialism is IMO undeniable.

GroeneWolf
Monday, March 1st, 2010, 05:11 PM
I have nothing with the ideology, but I judge national-socialists on an individual basis.

Winter Wolf
Monday, March 1st, 2010, 05:15 PM
Uncle Adolf said that NS was not for export. I'm not sure exactly what he meant, but what I do know is that those misguided NS who think they will re-create a duplicate of the Third Reich in this modern time in a different place will be sorely disappointed.

Rather than focus on specifics or specific policies, the National Socialist would do well to focus on the philosophical worldview, and how to best translate that into a NS that is tailored for their own time and circumstances.

In one nation NS might express itself with a committee or parliament rather than a "fuhrer". In another there might be more emphasis on public participation. Another might be more democratic, but having various levels of citizenship corresponding to different levels of participation. The possibilities are near limitless. Whatever the outward expression would be shaped by the particular history, culture, and values of the individual nations.

A NS United States would be very different in expression than a NS England, or Sweden. In all cases the core of what makes National Socialism would remain, for it is a consistent worldview.

Joe McCarthy
Monday, March 1st, 2010, 05:58 PM
I'm very fond of Alfred Rosenberg and his book. I do think though that National Socialism is best relegated to history.

Ingwë
Monday, March 1st, 2010, 06:02 PM
I'm very fond of Alfred Rosenberg and his book. I do think though that National Socialism is best relegated to history.

The concepts, truths, and teachings of NS are timeless. Its name and implementations are not

Winter Wolf
Monday, March 1st, 2010, 06:02 PM
... But if other Germanics are inclined to seek similar methods to save their nations and facilitate power for their own sakes they should use these truths to help them invent an expression of their own to the degree that they need not call it "NS" but something their own.

I could not agree more with this statement. Those clowns running about in brownshirts calling themselves nazis are, for the most part nothing but an embarrassment to the name.

Joe McCarthy
Monday, March 1st, 2010, 06:07 PM
The concepts, truths, and teachings of NS are timeless. Its name and implementations are not

NS is a political dead duck. We need new ideas or our very race will join NS as part of history.

Chlodovech
Monday, March 1st, 2010, 07:23 PM
You're a fresh member, Peter - and you might have gotten the wrong impression, accidently. I've seen threads like this one before, except for the fact that they were written by members who thought of Skadi as too national socialist for their taste, so there you go. :)

Just stick around, your vision will adjust itself, and your take on this matter will become more balanced.

While this forum doesn't promote one ideology, its character (or rather, its membership) never was particulary anti-NS either.

Zimobog
Monday, March 1st, 2010, 09:50 PM
Please, folks... lets not let this thread become a debate about the validity or flaws of NS theories. We should try to limit it our own individual responses to the question "Are the majority of Skadi Members Hostile to National Socialism?". We are not trying to prove or disprove NS here, only if Skadi forum is hostile to it.

Waldstein
Monday, March 1st, 2010, 09:59 PM
Please note: For most people, whose function is to procreate and thus to assure the survival of the species or the folk, "socialism" (not to confound with leftist socialism, cultural marxism and irresponsible hedonism) is a good thing. However, there are some excellent individuals for which "individualism" should be no swearword. And these individuals will always be disgusted by a termite-like apperance historic National Socialism used to perform. Socialism is a good thing as long as it does not strangle the avantgarde of humanity.

Petervalhalla
Monday, March 1st, 2010, 11:10 PM
Please, folks... lets not let this thread become a debate about the validity or flaws of NS theories. We should try to limit it our own individual responses to the question "Are the majority of Skadi Members Hostile to National Socialism?". We are not trying to prove or disprove NS here, only if Skadi forum is hostile to it.

Yes, you are quite right, that is all I was asking. However, after reading through my last paragraph again, I think I might have given the impression that I was asking for more than that. My apologies for any confusion caused.

Waldstein
Monday, March 1st, 2010, 11:39 PM
The average Skadi customer is just sediment, useful, well-behaved average priding himself of that mediocrity and "Anstand". Hitler would have been ashamed of you. He was a true rebel. :D;)

Waldstein
Tuesday, March 2nd, 2010, 12:04 AM
I can only repeat myself. Take a look at the most prominent NS representatives:

- Goebbels: A hunchbacked compensationist.
- Göring: A fat morphinist.
- Himmler: A racially very inferior, disharmonic, sadistic, spineless, untalented and thus unproductive individual.
- Hitler: A talented, rhetorically almost brillant, however sadomasochistic and necrophilic, impotent little bastard.

Do you really want to be identified, to follow ideals of that kind? If you do, you are in my view rotten to the bone.

Petervalhalla
Tuesday, March 2nd, 2010, 05:44 AM
I can only repeat myself. Take a look at the most prominent NS representatives:

- Goebbels: A hunchbacked compensationist.
- Göring: A fat morphinist.
- Himmler: A racially very inferior, disharmonic, sadistic, spineless, untalented and thus unproductive individual.
- Hitler: A talented, rhetorically almost brillant, however sadomasochistic and necrophilic, impotent little bastard.

Do you really want to be identified, to follow ideals of that kind? If you do, you are in my view rotten to the bone.

Sincere thanks for pointing these things out. I am amazed that I did not notice them before

But, you know, I have been reading and hearing derogatory remarks about these people since probably before you were born, so I think it is a bit too late for me to change my views now.

Nevertheless, thank you for your help.

Rächer
Tuesday, March 2nd, 2010, 06:26 AM
The essence of being "Germanic" is National Socialism and the essence of National Socialism is being "Germanic". It is as easy as that. Wasn't it Nietzsche who said that everything big is simple?

Aequoreus
Tuesday, March 2nd, 2010, 07:54 AM
The essence of being "Germanic" is National Socialism and the essence of National Socialism is being "Germanic".

National Socialism is a political ideology formed in the early 1900s. The Germanic peoples' ethnogenesis predates it by oh.. a few millenia?

I would also object to your saying National Socialism's essence is in being Germanic. I believe this only counts for those with a fetish for 1939 nostalgia and a little man with a funny beard who had a hang up on the Jews.

National Socialism can easily be seperated from its Germanic roots.


It is as easy as that. Wasn't it Nietzsche who said that everything big is simple?

Nietzsche is suddenly considered an authority on.. anything :-O? However, I must agree with him. Though G. K. Chesterton puts it much better.

The modern world has things thing against generalisations and ideals. It's all about progress and more often than not progress for the simple sake of so-called progress. However, ever since this obsession for "progress" developed in the modern mind, we haven't moved along anywhere because everyone is too hung up on the mechanics of the progress its self. They had no idea where they were coming from or where they wanted to go, but they just knew they wanted to go. And they didn't go anywhere.

However, movement has always occured, whether for better or worse, by men who see the bigger picture, who generalise and idealise.

Oh well.

SpearBrave
Tuesday, March 2nd, 2010, 11:57 AM
@ Petervalhalla, I hope that after reading the responses to your question that you are satisfied and can draw your own conclusion. Some of our most active members and moderators have replied to your question.

I believe most people here state that they base there feelings on the individual rather than their ideology. That fact alone proves that we are a free speech forum and we take that freedom very serious.;)

theTasmanian
Tuesday, March 2nd, 2010, 12:56 PM
To answer the OP there are some things i love about NS but somethings that well......are undesirable ;)

Nether for or against :|

Petervalhalla
Tuesday, March 2nd, 2010, 01:28 PM
@ Petervalhalla, I hope that after reading the responses to your question that you are satisfied and can draw your own conclusion. Some of our most active members and moderators have replied to your question.

I believe most people here state that they base there feelings on the individual rather than their ideology. That fact alone proves that we are a free speech forum and we take that freedom very serious.;)

Once again I would like to thank everybody for taking the time to respond to my question.

Actually, I wasn't suggesting for a moment that Skadi was anti-free speech, because quite clearly it is not, and in this repect it is infinitely superior to another well known forum that I could mention. I was simply trying to ascertain the general attitude of the membership towards National Socialism.

Judging by the range of comments made, if this is representative of the membership as a whole, it seems to me that Skadi, whilst not being particularly pro-NS is not particularly anti-NS either, which is the important thing as far as I am concerned, and, it goes without saying, which I am very happy about.

Just one more thing, it seems to me both from what I see here on Skadi and from what I hear in the outside world, that the most commom objection to NS is that it is seen as being very restrictive of the freedom of the individual. Perhaps someone would like to start a thread on this theme?

Thanks again to everybody.

Mother Earth
Tuesday, March 2nd, 2010, 02:52 PM
I think national socialism had positive sides like racial preservation and the attitude in regards to animal protection and natural approach but the negative sides outweigh them. I agree it is restrictive to individual freedom, even invasive. Banning all political parties except the one in charge seems dangerous to me and placing people in reeducation camps is outrageous. It leaves room for a lot of corruption.

Patrioten
Tuesday, March 2nd, 2010, 08:10 PM
My stance towards National Socialism can probably be compared to that of certain pre-Third Reich era German Conservatives who held beliefs and ideas about the country's future that were not shared by the NS movement but found themselves sympathetic towards the movement as a whole because it seemed to offer some way out of the mess that Germany was in at the time. Had their own alternative been stronger politically they would probably have ignored the movement so it was in part percieved opportunity (for the nation) and a sense of NS being much more preferable to the other viable alternatives which lead them to feel this sympathy.

I thus view National Socialism with the eyes of a problem solver. We have a whole host of problems today and NS provides some straight forward answers to those problems, as it did back in the day. Thus I can see potential in NS as a means to an end, if other options are closed to us, in certain aspects, but not as an end in itself. I am not a believer and I cannot relate to the ideology in the way that a National Socialist would as it being both the path, the vehicle and the end goal. I remain detached from it as an ideology and focus on the problem solving parts where they correspond with my own values, and I can also be genuinly sympathetic where our values do correspond fully.

Up standing National Socialists are allies as far as I am concerned, even if we are fundamentally divided in many ways ideologically.

Isflicka
Thursday, March 4th, 2010, 08:29 AM
I hate national socialists. They are blind, small-minded people. I just like culture.

Petervalhalla
Thursday, March 4th, 2010, 11:59 AM
I hate national socialists. They are blind, small-minded people. I just like culture.

Unfortunately just liking culture and having love and respect (your profile) isn't going to save the Germanic people from extinction at the hands of our enemies.

Only a 21st century version of National Socialism will do that.

Thyriusz
Thursday, March 4th, 2010, 01:45 PM
I don't call myself a Nationalsozialist, but i'm far from opposed to it.
I would welcome everything that ensures the (re-)strengthening of my people.

Bittereinder
Thursday, March 4th, 2010, 08:54 PM
Making a point:

I am a National Socialist, I don’t believe that Skadi is hostile toward National Socialism. The sentiments expressed by those whom oppose NS are perceptions that exist, what is however infuriating is the baseless manner in which people reject any notion, motion or fact linked with National Socialism, as a discussion board for Germanics, if members have legitimate arguments and views regarding NS I find no fault with them voicing their views in a manner becoming a Germanic.


Proving a point:

I hate national socialists. They are blind, small-minded people. I just like culture.

Politics: Love and respect

Any other insights into the 'evil' that is NS you would care to relate to us, other than your loving and respectful Hate for National Socialism and its small minded adherents naturally?

Horseman
Thursday, March 4th, 2010, 09:10 PM
The lady has a right to her opinions, I fail to see the need to single her out for stating them. Love and respect is perhaps the best political position I've heard so far, alot of needless trouble could be avoided if those words were used ...and meant more often:)

As to my own reasons for opposing NS many have already stated the incompatibility of American political sensibilities with NS therefore I will not bother to repeat them here.

Petervalhalla
Thursday, March 4th, 2010, 10:17 PM
The lady has a right to her opinions, I fail to see the need to single her out for stating them. Love and respect is perhaps the best political position I've heard so far, alot of needless trouble could be avoided if those words were used ...and meant more often:)

As to my own reasons for opposing NS many have already stated the incompatibility of American political sensibilities with NS therefore I will not bother to repeat them here.

I think you are failing to see the point here.

Isflicka does indeed have the right to her opinions and I am not at all bothered by what she says. But if she wants to be taken seriously she should at least be consistent.

On her profile, as you have noted, she advises us that her politics are "Love and respect". In her post her opening words are "I hate National Socialists". Strange words for somebody who professes love. Then she says "They are blind, small minded people". Even stranger words for somebody who professes respect.

I hardly think that somebody who is so gratuitously offensive should be referred to as a "lady"!

Horseman
Thursday, March 4th, 2010, 11:22 PM
Sir, with all respect, Consistency in "love and respect" is relative to what one cares about. You have to admit that simply because someone strives to love and respect their fellow human beings that this same love and respect may not apply to those who they, rightly or wrongly, perceive as a threat. Woruldreade/ way of the world and all that:)

With regards to your last line, I disagree, in fact I respect her moral courage to make that post.A question was asked and she answered in unmistakable terms,I like that:D On the other hand. Quite frankly I respect many of the die hard NS for their passion and obvious devotion to their cause, despite the fact I disagree with them on so many points we're quite irreconcilable. In many cases they are also quite bellicose in their responses, and their posts are ornamented with "Thank You's". Whats good for the bee is good for the swarm:D

A thought occurs to me about "consistency. Freyja, interestingly enough is a love goddess that gets the first half of the battle slain... Heres to love and war, gentlemen, if one dont kill you the other one will:D

Cheers.

Isflicka
Friday, March 5th, 2010, 12:42 AM
I think you are failing to see the point here.

Isflicka does indeed have the right to her opinions and I am not at all bothered by what she says. But if she wants to be taken seriously she should at least be consistent.

On her profile, as you have noted, she advises us that her politics are "Love and respect". In her post her opening words are "I hate National Socialists". Strange words for somebody who professes love. Then she says "They are blind, small minded people". Even stranger words for somebody who professes respect.

I hardly think that somebody who is so gratuitously offensive should be referred to as a "lady"!


Hello Peter :)
Am I the offensive one? you just said I deserve no respect because I have an other view on things.
I'm for love and respect yes.
Respect and love for nature and for people. I think a person should be kind and helpful. And I don't see anything in black and white. However I don't approve with things and people who preach hate. Nazism is a black and white political view which preaches so unnecessary hate by judging people from their ethnicity and looks instead of their actions.

I like to embrace my heritage, origin and traditions and the nordic race is aspecially beautiful according to me.
Imagine choosing between two people, a gunman asks you to choose which, which one should die?
One is a rude stupid blonde, the other one kind, smart and black-haired.
-The reason why I'm not a nazi is that personality matters more than blonde hair in the end.
(I'm not implying blondes are stupid, then most of the Swedish population, would be stupid and we're not.)
Stop generalizing.

Sigurd
Friday, March 5th, 2010, 01:01 AM
All right, fair point, but let's turn it around: If personalities and actions are more important than appearances, why are you generalising people on the mere basis of their worldview? For all you know, there could be kind and smart National-Socialists, will you still hate them? ;)

Also, to some extent blood is thicker than water. Imagine you had a sibling who was a National Socialist. Would you hate him/her for it or just their worldview? Or should your specification perhaps rather be that you hate the ideology of National Socialism rather than its adherents per se. Because otherwise you're pretty much contradicting yourself as you go along, and you should be the one to "stop generalising". Just saying. :)

(I think this may have also been roughly the point some others in this thread were trying to make.)

Petervalhalla
Friday, March 5th, 2010, 01:15 AM
To Horseman.

Thank you for your comments.

But I can only repeat, "Love and respect" are Isflicka's own words. As she does not qualify them in any way, I think it is quite legitimate to assume that she means that she has love and respect for everybody regardless of whether she agrees with them or not.

However, she does indeed have the right not to love or respect anybody whom she considers is undeserving or unworthy of those feelings, and I am not arguing about that. But I think it would be sensible for her to reword her profile to more accurately define what she really means.

Thank you again.

Joe McCarthy
Friday, March 5th, 2010, 01:28 AM
One could very plausibly argue that 'love and respect' is to be bestowed on those who believe in it themselves. Those who are inherently intolerant, as National Socialists are, would therefore be excluded from this. For the politically tolerant person, intolerance of the intolerant becomes a necessary watchword, though strangely, many 'tolerant' liberals are quite tolerant of intolerant Muslims or other minorities.

My statement here is not to be interpreted as one that views 'love and respect', as it seems to be used on this thread, as necessarily valuable, but it is very possible, in theory, to value them without conferring them unreservedly.

Petervalhalla
Friday, March 5th, 2010, 01:58 AM
To Isflicka.

Thank you for your comments.

First of all, would you please read the reply I made to Horseman.

I think you are mistaken, because I am quite sure that I did not say that you were not entitled to respect because your views differed from mine.

You said that National Socialists are "blind, small minded people". I am sure that the vast majority of people, National Socialist or otherwise, would consider those words to be quite offensive. I am also sure that the vast majority of people would consider any female who uttered them to be not very ladylike.

You seem to judge people very superficially. Please check my thread "Classify me, please", look at my photo, and then tell me that you hate me because I am a blind, small minded National Socialist.

Thank you again.

Petervalhalla
Friday, March 5th, 2010, 02:34 AM
One could very plausibly argue that 'love and respect' is to be bestowed on those who believe in it themselves. Those who are inherently intolerant, as National Socialists are, would therefore be excluded from this. For the politically tolerant person, intolerance of the intolerant becomes a necessary watchword, though strangely, many 'tolerant' liberals are quite tolerant of intolerant Muslims or other minorities.

My statement here is not to be interpreted as one that views 'love and respect', as it seems to be used on this thread, as necessarily valuable, but it is very possible, in theory, to value them without conferring them unreservedly.

Thank you for your comments.

Yes, of course you are right, we National Socialists are a pretty intolerant breed, but then that's one of the things that make us National Socialists!

But quite honestly Joe, I can't see why you think we don't, or shouldn't have love and respect. Or have I misunderstood you?

Actually, in this thread I am just trying to ascertain the general attitude of the members towards NS, without discussing the merits, or otherwise, of NS itself. Perhaps we are getting off the point and this should be discussed on another thread.

Winter Wolf
Friday, March 5th, 2010, 03:28 AM
Actually, in this thread I am just trying to ascertain the general attitude of the members towards NS, without discussing the merits, or otherwise, of NS itself. Perhaps we are getting off the point and this should be discussed on another thread.

Probably the best course. This thread has been pretty well derailed. For my part in the derailment, apologies all around.

Horseman
Friday, March 5th, 2010, 03:36 AM
. Nazism is a black and white political view.

.

I will only disagree with you on one point, M'lady. Nazism is just white:D (Joking)


PeterValhalla, your welcome,sir. My sincere compliments to you for fostering a tone of respect in this thread. Although we may be diametrically opposed idealogically, I have the utmost respect and gratitude for your courtesy and honorable behaviour towards me and others. Thank you, sir.

Sól
Friday, March 5th, 2010, 03:39 AM
I am not hostile to National Socialism but I am not a direct supporter of it either. The Nazi race laws were too lax in my opinion (towards the acceptance of people with a Jewish grandparent or Germanization of Easterners/Slavs), although the elite organizations like the SS had some pretty impressive admission criteria.

Petervalhalla
Friday, March 5th, 2010, 04:32 AM
To Horseman.

Thank you for the compliment, and likewise to yourself. You are too kind!

But to be honest, although I always try to be courteous, and I sincerely appreciate your own courtesy, I regret to say that I am very definitely not a "sir". The truth is that I am an absolute nobody, in fact I am the ultimate non-person - but that is another story!

But back to this thread. I started it because I wanted to ascertain the general attitude of Skadi members towards NS. Judging by the responses I have received, and if they are representative of the members as a whole, my conclusion is that a minority are very pro-NS, another minority are very anti-NS, but the great bulk feel that NS has both positive and negative aspects. No doubt somebody is waiting to correct me on this, but at least that is how it appears to me.

Anyway, once again, thank you to everybody.

velvet
Friday, March 5th, 2010, 12:22 PM
However I don't approve with things and people who preach hate. Nazism is a black and white political view which preaches so unnecessary hate by judging people from their ethnicity and looks instead of their actions. {snip}

So, in your definition of "love and respect" you'd rather send a nordid person to death, because it is a rude guy, than a "honorable" muslim?

You see, the problem here is that you wont safe your "beautiful nordid race" with this attitude. Your country will be swept with "oh so nice" immigrants on and on until noone is left to complain about that.

Rejecting other ethnicities is a pretty natural reaction, one that is the reason why there still is a nordid race in the first place. It is a perfectly normal and biological based behavior to feel more fond with people who are similar (and indeed: look similar). This is not "hate" for others, but "love" for your own, and the recognition that foreign ethnicities will destroy the fabric of your people, so they are rejected.
The problem is, that this perfectly normal behavior is slandered today as "hate" and "racism". And you have bought this defintion without second thought, that this at some point turns indeed into hate - against your own race.



The reason why I'm not a nazi is that personality matters more than blonde hair in the end.

Isnt it funny how people who claim to "judge by actions and on an individual basis" pour out in one row prejudice after prejudice to justify their indifferenciated HATE towards a certain ideology and ALL its adherents without exception?

As others have said already, when you claim "love and respect", you cannot state HATE, when you say you judge on an individual basis, you cannot reject a person just because he prefers a certain ideology, without looking at the person first. You cant claim for you isnt everything black and white, when you obviously have labeled NS-people as "only black" and therefore "evil", "hatepreachers" and whatnotall you poured out in a totally undifferenciated manner.

Contradiction at its best.

thoughtcrime
Friday, March 5th, 2010, 12:51 PM
Yes, I am hostile towards national socialism because I despise the idea of collectivism and state control over private lifes and beliefs. However, I don't necessarily defy all ideas of NS, in fact I agree with some. In a scenario of NS rising again in germany I'd oppose, even fight it though.

I hold no grudge against national socialists on a personal level, I used to know quite a few and know most of them are good people which deserve my respect, but I abhor what they believe in.

Ocko
Friday, March 5th, 2010, 02:31 PM
One could very plausibly argue that 'love and respect' is to be bestowed on those who believe in it themselves. Those who are inherently intolerant, as National Socialists are, would therefore be excluded from this.

The NWO is distorting our terms (Begriffe) and therefore distorts our perception of reality.

Lets have a look at 'Tolerance'

NWO wants us to believe is that Tolerance is something we have to grant to everybody, no matter what. We have to be tolerant and should only be intolerant to the intolerant.

What NWO does here is, install a brainwash switch to accept their racially policy, which is destruction of the white race.

Tolerance, viewed from a germanic point of view, includes freedom. For a germanic, tolerance means that you tolerate something which you don't have to. It is your personal choice made in freedom, whether you tolerate something or you don't. If you don't have the personal freedom whether you want to tolerate something it is not tolerance.

With the automatism that you have to tolerate whatever there is, NWO took your personal freedom out of it and forced you into their programs.


In this discussion it is that people reject NS on the basis that they didn't tolerate other races which have been perceived as destroying the german race.

Joe McCarthy
Saturday, March 6th, 2010, 04:33 PM
Thank you for your comments.

Yes, of course you are right, we National Socialists are a pretty intolerant breed, but then that's one of the things that make us National Socialists!

But quite honestly Joe, I can't see why you think we don't, or shouldn't have love and respect. Or have I misunderstood you?

Actually, in this thread I am just trying to ascertain the general attitude of the members towards NS, without discussing the merits, or otherwise, of NS itself. Perhaps we are getting off the point and this should be discussed on another thread.

I'm not too keen on tolerance as a political concept, and I find that those who claim to be tolerant usually are not. But my point is that those who genuinely value political pluralism will logically dislike NS. I'm generally friendly to NS as a concept, though I think it is a historical relic which is ill suited to serve as an effective political vehicle in the here and now.

Gary in TX
Sunday, March 7th, 2010, 12:45 AM
Even though I'm not a NS myself, I'm not hostile to National Socialism at all.

If anything I'm in agreement with most of their policies and aims and I've always been really interested in that particular period in history. So much good could have come out of it, but it ended up being all for nothing. It's a real shame, it had so much potential if you really think about it.

As for my own politics there are just a few areas where I disagree with the NS platform enough where I wouldn't describe myself as a National Socialist. If a modified form of it were adopted here in the US I certainly wouldn't complain just so long as individual personal freedom for Americans of European ancestry didn't suffer as a result and just so long as all Europeans were included.

Lord Haw-Haw
Sunday, March 7th, 2010, 09:57 AM
Im not hostile at all.....im hostile to anything that is against my people (European folk)...i'll hit out like a coiled snake at anything that is anti-European.

NS was for us and about us....for all its flaws.

I myself will stay loyal to the Hakenkreuz till the day i die.

Lothringen
Monday, March 8th, 2010, 04:11 PM
I consider that 2nd World War was nothing else than a Ragnarok in which Hitler was the latest incarnation of Loki/Loge.
- god of fire: Hitler burned Reichstag and millions of people
- leader of Giants: the 3rd Reich panzers
- treachery & treason: Hitler lies to Hindenburg (old warrior) just as Loki to Wotan/Odin
- father of Fenrir: one of Hitler hideout was "the wolflair".
the cost to get Fenrir confidence was Tyr arm. Who managed to have enought confidence to approach Hitler with a bomb for "Walküre": Klauss von Stauffenberg who also "paid an arm" at the service of the Afrika Korps.
Moreover he was one-eyed just as Wotan/Odin
- Thor(Donner) & Jörmungand
It is the lighting bolts of Moljnir that killed the great sea serpent.
What did USA used to overcome Japan, the greatest maritim power of the 2nd WW, 2 A-Bombs explosion that created "big flashes"

Bittereinder
Monday, March 8th, 2010, 04:51 PM
As I consider that 2nd World War was nothing else than a Ragnarok in which Hitler was the latest incarnation of Loki/Loge.
- god of fire: Hitler burned Reichstag and millions of people
- treachery: Hitler lies to Hindenburg (old warrior) just as Loki to Wotan/Odin
- leader of Giants: the 3rd Reich panzers

I believe your post is more descriptive of a hostility towards Hitlerism rather than hostility towards the basic laws on which National-Socialism was founded, or what it can offer Germanics and the rest of the world when put in practice on an even playing field... Hitler was a figure within National-Socialism and as such if one attempts to debunk National-Socialism in such a manner it is a form of Reductio Ad Hitlerum...

Lothringen
Monday, March 8th, 2010, 09:34 PM
Less mythological
In the 1st WW Hitler refused to serve his Lord (Kaïser Franz-Joseph von Habsburg-Lothringen) and join the other germanic force (Kaïser) that he thought was less multi-ethnical. At 1st nothing to blame.
Except that
1) Kaïser Wilhelm send some of his troops to support the Ottoman Empire
2) later the recruitment of the Waffen-SS extended to several ethnies, cultures and religion. There was even a muslim SS divisions with Imams as "chaplain"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/13th_Waffen_Mountain_Division_of_the_SS_ Handschar_(1st_Croatian)
meanwhile the "real" Teutonics Knight were persecuted.

Why did NS add such hate against Jews and such compliance with Muslims ?
I have search my history books from Hermann/Arminius to the 2nd Siege of Vienna, going throught Frankish clash at Poitiers and Varangian last stand at Constantinople, I saw no evidence of any Jewish invasion, nor reconditioning of germanic children as Jannisary...
Evenmore, if we consider Yiddish as a germanic langage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yiddish_language
Anti-jewish behaviour of nazism was quite harmful to a part of the germanic culture.

We forget too many times that the first victims of nazism were germans themselves. I would have been very curious to compare the DNA of several "blue eyed but bad german died in theCamps" and the DNA of some "good Aryan from Gestapo or NSDAP" like Goebels with the one you could find in Gothland of in Vikings tombs....

Let continue with "Race preservation".
Of course there was the Lebensborn
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensborn
But how many "pure Aryan" came out of them ?
20.000 ? 30.000 ?
How many people of germanic ethnicity, because of their religion or political orientation died in the camp as "collateral effect".
Selecting pure german and training them as elite force like Waffen-SS could seem first a good way to rely with the traditional aspect of the German Warrior and the idea of the Race of the Lords. Except that in you do not make sure that they have at least 2 children before dying on the battlefield, you will auto-genocide yourself !

Just what the nazi did. Sacrifing the best elements before then reproduce to speak in crude biological terms.
The true warriors are the father (& sometimes) who fight to protect their children and grand-parents, not the contrary.
Thanks to Hitlerjugend & Volkstürm the Nazism introduced a very original renewing of the concept...

Nevertheless, my point of view is very subjective as I considered Archiduke Karl von Habsburg-Lothringen as my lord and his father Otto was one Hitler ennemy. He was also of member of the World Anti-Communist League and the first alliance between the 3rd Reich and Staline was really a shame.


Some may argue that nazism is not just Hitler


I believe your post is more descriptive of a hostility towards Hitlerism rather than hostility towards the basic laws on which National-Socialism was founded, or what it can offer Germanics and the rest of the world when put in practice on an even playing field... Hitler was a figure within National-Socialism and as such if one attempts to debunk National-Socialism in such a manner it is a form of Reductio Ad Hitlerum...

but who wrote "Mein Kampf" which is actually the definition of nazism ?
The only "good things" (*) that you may find in nazism are in fact the elements which are not unique to nazism.

(*)
- promotion of germanic culture:
well, isn't it what we are doing there and they are plenty of non-nazi (which are not anti-nazi either)
- preservation of norse genotype:
you know, in China the ONE-CHILD rule mainly apply to Han ethny. Several ethnic minorities have a derogation for several children. Endogamy could be promoted by religions like Asatru as well
- social security:
Kaïser Franz Joseph started to introduce it as well just after abolishing serfdom on my Galician ancestor, so Monarchy with a wise Kaïser can do the job

On the other hand, it is true that several "bad things" are not unique to nazism as well:
- deportation & pogrom:
Staline could have rivalize with Hitler but as CCCP was in the "winning side" he could mask the figures
The early French Republic took its time to abolish slavery and the trade of human being
- 2nd rate citizenship
like "indigen status" in the French Colonial Empire before 1962 ?
Apartheid in South-Africa but also in USA until Martin Luther King ?
Palestinian status before the recognition of a Palestinian authority & citizenship ?

Maybe nazism could have been something else without Hitler madness, just as French Monarchy could have been better without Louis XIII & XIV pride and lust.
If "Night of the Long Knives" operation had failed, just wiping out Hitler & Röhms, leaving only moderate & traditional/conservative part of NSDAP with christian, anti-communist but socio-paternalist bourgeoisie and supporter of constitutional monarchy, Germany could have become the real Fuhrer Reich against Staline and the basis of a united and powerfull Europe. (*)

I hope this is this National Socialism that the few "nazis" members of this forum want to promote.

I would be interested reading a "de-hitlerized" and non-racist, non dictaturized, religious tolerant nazism decription.

Not irony, as a christian I believe in redemption. If "néo-nazi" recognize & apologize for their crimes just as France & USA did for slavery or we expect the Turks for the Armenians, the Church for Crusade & Inquisition,... I see no objection for them to use the freedom of expression as long as the "bad side" is nor promoted again nor hidden by negationism, just as the other politic opinions I respect without sharing them.

My reflexion about Nazism apply to the one we had to suffer from here in "Gau Westmark". In my youth I used to cross few people who weared 3rd Reich uniform (from firemen, postman to soldier) including one that could be considered as an hero for his anti-soviet fight on the eastern front who show me his campaign throught Poland and Russia.
Even if they more a less "served" (with abnegation and fear) the 3rd Reich, none of these Volksdeutschen (including the Eastern Front veteran) I encountered or my family spoke about have any remorse of the 3rd Reich, while some of them regret the 2nd Reich (of Kaïser Wilhelm I, Fredrich III and Wilhelm II from 1870-1918).
As a French veteran & prisonner of war, one of my grandfather drove me back in Germany (in the 70's) where he was used as "Arbeit Kommando" to introduce me to the german farmers he worked with making sure, before I go to (French) school that I understand most german were good guys who did not support Hitler politics but loved their Vaterland and served it.

I don't know a lot of thing about the "South African National Socialism" but the few I know abouth this country is that it cannot be reduced to good Blacks, bad Whites as the Shaka Zoulou was not really an black Solomon and Afrikaner were more or less persecuted by Victorian English troops before in a South Africa
For example this picture in not the one of a Jew in an "Himmler German Camp"
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:LizzieVanZyl.jpg
but a Boer in a "Kitchener British Camp"
Therefore I cannot judge "South African National Socialism"


Somebody said
"Patriotism is the love of one's kind, Nationalism the hate of the others".
Maybe "Social Patriotism" or "Social Germanism" should be used in this case
(*) like in C&C Red Alert One
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_R6xCWcf_VU
were the good guys are in Feldgrau uniforms
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svNAHmE6_K4
and the bad guys with red star hat
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v18bhwtojnY




'If I retreat, kill me. If I die, avenge me. If I advance, follow me.'



That remember the order of a Royalist general in 1793
"Mes amis, si j'avance, suivez-moi! Si je recule, tuez-moi! Si je meurs, vengez-moi!"
("Friends, if I advance, follow me! If I retreat, kill me! If I die, avenge me!").
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_de_la_Rochejaquelein

Wanderer
Tuesday, March 9th, 2010, 03:35 AM
I think on this point, one has to be careful about the term 'National Socialist,' and I'll tell why. The most influential country on this planet, which happens to have a Celtic/Germanic racial majority, for now, is the United States. It dispatches its military at will, across the planet, and because it has beaten into the ground any nations that oppose it, it seems to have the final say on most things :( I say this sadly, because it has been beating everyone else into the ground for misguided reasons, namely the propping up of Israel and the enrichment of a select group of ultra-wealthy globalists (think Rothschilds and their kind). Hell, most American miltary men aren't even conscious about how misdirected their allegiances are. Rather than fighting for kin, the true reason for war, they are fighting for a bunch of slimeballs who view them as beasts themselves. What you have to remember about the most right-wing, race-conscious American (think of a farmer in the heartland of the USA) is, they would howl with objections to any movement that calls itself 'National Socialist,' because they have been brainwashed with the Hoaxacost myth. Even people of true Germanic stock!:~( Now, I've looked at this board, and there are both Europeans and Americans posting, but unless a mass-awakening occurs, one that recognizes just how much White people on both sides of the pond are being played by the Zionist lobby, then I don't see any movement, whether it calls itself NS or not, taking off. I would say that, in general, I'm disappointed in many of my White American countrymen, because they are more caught up in being proud Americans, than in being proud of their ethnicity. So, what you end up with is a bunch of whites who love people like Tiger Woods and go to church on Sunday, believing they are holding up 'traditional values.' So ,I guess, in a nutshell, my main point is that there is a 1 ton gorilla in the room that is blocking a mass-awakening, call it a NS mustering if you will, and that gorilla is the complacent white American middle-class that is chained to zionism, i.e. christianity.

Rassenhygieniker
Tuesday, March 9th, 2010, 02:38 PM
I do not agree with every single thing that National Socialism stands for, but I certainly abhor no hostility toward National Socialism as a whole.

Bittereinder
Tuesday, March 9th, 2010, 02:43 PM
Why did NS add such hate against Jews and such compliance with Muslims ?

In 1863 the Russians Empire invaded the Caucuses where Muslims had held sway throughout the Ottoman Empire’s rule, which ended as a result of the Russian Empires southward expansion. The Muslims did not like the Russians all that much as one can well understand. The reason for their involvement is rather self explanatory, Germany needed more troops and here was willing soldiers who could destabilize a large part of Russia without cost to the German people. Russia had a major jewish infestation and the Muslims were/are not fond of jews and as such could be trusted to fight. Then if Germany had won the war, as liberators, Germany would be privy to all the oil they could ever need, the NSDAP was not blind race haters, israel had not been established, the Ottoman Empire where no more and the Muslims could act as a serf class of cheap labour and still enjoy much better conditions under German sway.

The Muslim Christian question is not relevant to me simply because both religions are pages from the same book.

In WWI the jews had substantial numbers in the British army. (a google search should deliver some proof)


Evenmore, if we consider Yiddish as a germanic langage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yiddish_language

Yiddish is a bastard language brought forth by the ashkenazi jews, it is certainly not a Germanic language. Simply because it happened in Germany and Wikipedia has ‘chosen’ too term it a High German language does not mean it was spoken by Germans or even Germanics.

The ashkenazi’s are in almost all cases the most Rightwing Zionists, they also gave us communism, the Russian revolution/holocaust, the French revolution and pretty much every conflict that the west had been involved in the last 200 years.


Anti-jewish behaviour of nazism was quite harmful to a part of the germanic culture.

I do not agree.


We forget too many times that the first victims of nazism were germans themselves. I would have been very curious to compare the DNA of several "blue eyed but bad german died in theCamps" and the DNA of some "good Aryan from Gestapo or NSDAP" like Goebels with the one you could find in Gothland of in Vikings tombs....

This is too general too comment on.


Let continue with "Race preservation".
Of course there was the Lebensborn
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensborn
But how many "pure Aryan" came out of them ?
20.000 ? 30.000 ?

How long does it take to rear a Germanic child? And how long did Lebensborn operate? That was a project for the future and was not intended to supply an instant batch of cannon fodder for the war. The true Race preservation happened amongst the other Germans who was not fighting on the front.


How many people of germanic ethnicity, because of their religion or political orientation died in the camp as "collateral effect".
The only religion I know of is the jews (or is that race), and for their politics, communists. These are not elements that was needed in a country locked in world war, especially after the jews was the main instagator.


Selecting pure german and training them as elite force like Waffen-SS could seem first a good way to rely with the traditional aspect of the German Warrior and the idea of the Race of the Lords. Except that in you do not make sure that they have at least 2 children before dying on the battlefield, you will auto-genocide yourself !

Few Germans had been gainfully employed after WWI and the improved conditions meant that family could reproduce with the prospect of rearing healthy adjusted individuals. Initially the average age of Conscripts was in their early twenties and that left plenty of healthy Germans to reproduce. The odds changed and the ages became increasingly older, but older men also believed in a strong Germany and as such they gave their lives willingly not obligingly as you make it sound, I said in my initial post: when put in practice on an even playing field. This was certainly not the case the Jews where squeezing the US and Britain as hard as they could, their influence over those countries’ monetary systems resulted in the Germanic on Germanic genocide which is WWII.


Just what the nazi did. Sacrifing the best elements before then reproduce to speak in crude biological terms.
The true warriors are the father (& sometimes) who fight to protect their children and grand-parents, not the contrary.
Thanks to Hitlerjugend & Volkstürm the Nazism introduced a very original renewing of the concept...

Conscripts in all armies are young able bodied men who for the most part do not have familial responsibilities that early in their lives, war is known to breed better stock simply because the fit survive and the weak perish.


Nevertheless, my point of view is very subjective as I considered Archiduke Karl von Habsburg-Lothringen as my lord and his father Otto was one Hitler ennemy. He was also of member of the World Anti-Communist League and the first alliance between the 3rd Reich and Staline was really a shame.

A shame perhaps but a necessity of war, Germany and Russia both where merely biding time.


Some may argue that nazism is not just Hitler

but who wrote "Mein Kampf" which is actually the definition of nazism ?
The only "good things" (*) that you may find in nazism are in fact the elements which are not unique to nazism.

Hitler did write Mein Kampf, but Hitler did not write the laws of nature of which National-socialism is an interpretation, National-socialism merely returned to a world of cause and effect, where one headed the warnings of things happening around yourself, and so doing the best to handle a situation for the good of the Race and the Individual. As for a persone such as yourself who believe NS is as you have stated above that explanation might service but I don’t think that that is true. Hitler had a few mentors and their influence cannot be downplayed to the point where NS is inconceivable without Hitler perhaps under another name but the same base...



(*)
- promotion of germanic culture:
well, isn't it what we are doing there and they are plenty of non-nazi (which are not anti-nazi either)

- preservation of norse genotype:
you know, in China the ONE-CHILD rule mainly apply to Han ethny. Several ethnic minorities have a derogation for several children. Endogamy could be promoted by religions like Asatru as well

Endogamy should be promoted by the values of its society not by a few small sects, it must be socially unacceptable to mingle blood with another race. Closely related species such as African and Indian elephants can interbreed but do not do it naturally. Just because you can doesn’t mean you should.



- social security:
Kaïser Franz Joseph started to introduce it as well just after abolishing serfdom on my Galician ancestor, so Monarchy with a wise Kaïser can do the job

Perhaps but the NSDAP made it the gold standard which it is today, all the first world country’s claim that they provide social security to their citizens. The NSDAP deliverd.



On the other hand, it is true that several "bad things" are not unique to nazism as well:
- deportation & pogrom:
Staline could have rivalize with Hitler but as CCCP was in the "winning side" he could mask the figures
The early French Republic took its time to abolish slavery and the trade of human being
- 2nd rate citizenship
like "indigen status" in the French Colonial Empire before 1962 ?
Apartheid in South-Africa but also in USA until Martin Luther King ?
Palestinian status before the recognition of a Palestinian authority & citizenship ?

Why was Apartheid bad in your opinion? It was a good system until the jews wanted in on the action...



Maybe nazism could have been something else without Hitler madness, just as French Monarchy could have been better without Louis XIII & XIV pride and lust.
If "Night of the Long Knives" operation had failed, just wiping out Hitler & Röhms, leaving only moderate & traditional/conservative part of NSDAP with christian, anti-communist but socio-paternalist bourgeoisie and supporter of constitutional monarchy, Germany could have become the real Fuhrer Reich against Staline and the basis of a united and powerfull Europe. (*)’

If hitler did not rise I am sure some other Germanic leader would rise to the aid of his people with much the same consequences.


I hope this is this National Socialism that the few "nazis" members of this forum want to promote.

I would be interested reading a "de-hitlerized" and non-racist, non dictaturized, religious tolerant nazism decription.

I would not hold my breath, simply because I have not seen a dejewafied version from liberals such as yourself.


Not irony, as a christian I believe in redemption. If "néo-nazi" recognize & apologize for their crimes just as France & USA did for slavery or we expect the Turks for the Armenians, the Church for Crusade & Inquisition,... I see no objection for them to use the freedom of expression as long as the "bad side" is nor promoted again nor hidden by negationism, just as the other politic opinions I respect without sharing them.

Nazi’s has nothing to apologise for, the jews must repent of their continues undermining of the Germanic spirit. The Christian notion of redemption is based on fear, and Christian views on race is based on lies.



My reflexion about Nazism apply to the one we had to suffer from here in "Gau Westmark". In my youth I used to cross few people who weared 3rd Reich uniform (from firemen, postman to soldier) including one that could be considered as an hero for his anti-soviet fight on the eastern front who show me his campaign throught Poland and Russia.
Even if they more a less "served" (with abnegation and fear) the 3rd Reich, none of these Volksdeutschen (including the Eastern Front veteran) I encountered or my family spoke about have any remorse of the 3rd Reich, while some of them regret the 2nd Reich (of Kaïser Wilhelm I, Fredrich III and Wilhelm II from 1870-1918).

As a French veteran & prisonner of war, one of my grandfather drove me back in Germany (in the 70's) where he was used as "Arbeit Kommando" to introduce me to the german farmers he worked with making sure, before I go to (French) school that I understand most german were good guys who did not support Hitler politics but loved their Vaterland and served it.

This is installed guilt and your grandfather should be ashamed of himself for saddling this apparent guilt on you.



I don't know a lot of thing about the "South African National Socialism" but the few I know abouth this country is that it cannot be reduced to good Blacks, bad Whites as the Shaka Zoulou was not really an black Solomon and Afrikaner were more or less persecuted by Victorian English troops before in a South Africa
For example this picture in not the one of a Jew in an "Himmler German Camp"
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:LizzieVanZyl.jpg
but a Boer in a "Kitchener British Camp"
Therefore I cannot judge "South African National Socialism"

Christelik National Sosialisme (Christian National Socialism) led to humane segregation known as Apartheid and the eventual fall of the Afrikaner, we did not commit genocide like some Anglo nations I could mention and that resulted that we where over run by sheer numbers.

Sigurd
Tuesday, March 9th, 2010, 03:07 PM
In a scenario of NS rising again in germany I'd oppose, even fight it though.

Not to doubt your conviction or idealism, but as a philosophical question - would you really?

Assume that they didn't infringe with your personal freedoms and that a new NS government would, when weighed on the golden scale, bring more advantages than disadvantages --- would you really participate in a resistance movement, or would you step back and class it as a "lesser evil that can be overcome over time" to not risk the pendulum swinging completely to what is currently the status quo, as it did once before?

There's potentially dozens of preservationist-minded ideologies, including Libertarianism, National Communism, etc. which aren't exactly what I'm hoping for in the long run, but which I could potentially tolerate partially if the benefits to the folk fundamentally outweighed the detriments, to the point that I could not tell you whether I would actively fight let's say a National Communist government, just like Hitlerites and Strasserites didn't fight each other until a fairly late stage in the ideology-finding process within the historical NS movement. :shrug

Chances are actually that I would consider that as a sort of base, a springboard to found something else on, and would then change from total resistance to subtle attempts to steer matters into a direction within the wider Nationalist/Preservationist spectrum which I would favour more. Because ionce a sort of "base" is established, it is perhaps much easier to change from within than to change from without. ;)

Lothringen
Tuesday, March 9th, 2010, 05:16 PM
In WWI the jews had substantial numbers in the British army. (a google search should deliver some proof)


"British" (subjects of United Kingdom) are mainly Anglo-Saxon,
Queen Victoria was the grand-mother of the Kaïser Wilhelm II
Therefore British army can be considered as a germanic one.
WWI was fratricid
Here in Elsass Lothringen we fought litterally cousin against cousin.
I have myself ancestors in both camps !
After both french & prussian leaders refuse the austrian Kaïser Karl proposition to restore a reunited Frei Lothringen between them (like a 2nd Luxembourg) both leader were on the "bad side".

This picture resume what I think about WW1
http://forums.skadi.net/photoplog/images/35031/1_SaxonVSaxonUnite.jpg




Yiddish is a bastard language brought forth by the ashkenazi jews, it is certainly not a Germanic language. Simply because it happened in Germany and Wikipedia has ‘chosen’ too term it a High German language does not mean it was spoken by Germans or even Germanics.

This is a legitim vision, I respect totally the NS point of view of reuniting the german langage just as Martin Luther set it when he translate & print the Bible.
Althought I do note share it (just like I do not share the Luxembourgish/Mosellan Platt is not recognize as a regional langage by the actual French governement).



The ashkenazi’s are in almost all cases the most Rightwing Zionists, they also gave us communism, the Russian revolution/holocaust, the French revolution and pretty much every conflict that the west had been involved in the last 200 years.


If you speak about "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion", this is just a tsarist plagiat of "The Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu"
Pogroms existed before and after 1917. For the French Revolution, you are right, the jewish (as well as the non-jewish) Bourgeoisie really manipulate the population. Unluckly, in France "ethnical & religious statistics" are forbidden therefore I cannot estimate the weight of the Jews during the Revolution.

The only thing I'm sure is that Catholic Church totally opposed to it.





How long does it take to rear a Germanic child? And how long did Lebensborn operate? That was a project for the future and was not intended to supply an instant batch of cannon fodder for the war. The true Race preservation happened amongst the other Germans who was not fighting on the front.


I agree with you. The preservation would have been much more better if there would have no western front.
USA population in 1940's add a lot of german ascendancy and many americans were willing to enter the war on the german side.
Starting the jewish extermination leads to rise a jewish lobby in USA that lead them against the Axe.
Just as WWI Saxons against Saxons again.
Maybe because of the Jews but what would you expect from a religious minority you start to persecute.
I understand you support this ideology as a kind "self defence" just as "Mein Kampf" clearly explain the need, but from the strategic and politic point of view, NS had a bad idea.

Here as well, I admit that it's a catholic view identical as the one of the Crusader Kings:
"In Holy Land, it's better to get a new ally rather than getting rid of an old ennemy"

Anyway nobody could guess the future and from the strategic and politic point of view (not moraly but it's subjective) I perfectly understand why you think the NS seemed correct.




The only religion I know of is the jews (or is that race), and for their politics, communists. These are not elements that was needed in a country locked in world war, especially after the jews was the main instagator.

There were plenty of other people / reasons to find yourself in the Camps

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1993-051-07,_Tafel_mit_KZ-Kennzeichen_(Winkel).jpg

Maybe some jewish-soviet propaganda introduced the idea that everybody persecuted only pacific Jews and syndicalists, but even Catholic organisations as the Teutonic Knights get into the camps



This was certainly not the case the Jews where squeezing the US and Britain as hard as they could, their influence over those countries’ monetary systems resulted in the Germanic on Germanic genocide which is WWII.

Jewish responsability is your explanation, as I have no evidence about the true ethny/religion of the allied leader, I won't neither agree nor disagree except for the expression "Germanic on Germanic genocide which is WWII" that I fully agree. Events like Dresden raids are too often absent from school books.





Conscripts in all armies are young able bodied men who for the most part do not have familial responsibilities that early in their lives, war is known to breed better stock simply because the fit survive and the weak perish.

This may have been the case before conscription & black powder invention, but when the shell burst, the lucky survive in his fox-hole, the unlucky just disappear from a hole that gets deeper...
The survivors are the one who participate the little, in the case of WW2 people outside Europe and Pacific...

The athletic guy dies one battlefield while the one that did not fit for medical reason survive by moving far from the front.

Just look USA now !
The big crisp eater stay at home, looking at CNN sometimes watching the coffin of the football team captain coming back from Irak or Afghanistan.
At the end who make the ex-cheerleader pregnant ?





Hitler did write Mein Kampf, but Hitler did not write the laws of nature of which National-socialism is an interpretation, National-socialism merely returned to a world of cause and effect, where one headed the warnings of things happening around yourself, and so doing the best to handle a situation for the good of the Race and the Individual. As for a persone such as yourself who believe NS is as you have stated above that explanation might service but I don’t think that that is true. Hitler had a few mentors and their influence cannot be downplayed to the point where NS is inconceivable without Hitler perhaps under another name but the same base...

OK, as I just had contact with people who lived in the Hitlerian NS form, I commented only this one. Several analysis of laws of nature via NS are correctly seen and interpreted and only Hitler proposition to handle with them are incorrect.



Endogamy should be promoted by the values of its society not by a few small sects, it must be socially unacceptable to mingle blood with another race. Closely related species such as African and Indian elephants can interbreed but do not do it naturally. Just because you can doesn’t mean you should.


I agree with you for the beginning "Endogamy should be promoted by the values of its society not by a few small sects" but I would not go as far as saying "it must be socially unacceptable to mingle blood with another race".

A good balance must be set between the preservation of human diversity by avoiding having a "full metis" society that are often shown in science-fiction.
(Just read that book http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Forever_War or the comic adaptation) but not to the point of risking consanginity.

Moreover, having a population with people who are to genitically identical lead to have that population too vulnerable to biological hazard that can target specify DNA. Just look how the native american were decimated by european sickness or action of AIDS on black people.
Some may argue germanic race would be stronger, but do not know which virus could be discovered...or created. Just imagine a bio weapon that will make blind only people with blue eyes 95% of my familly will be touch, as my wife and I have both this recessive gene on both chronosomes we will both be touch as well as any children I have or will have...




Why was Apartheid bad in your opinion? It was a good system until the jews wanted in on the action...

Wouldn't it have been better that the Zoulous stayed on the North alone, the Whites on the South alone. Everybody living his way of life in his nation rather than having buses with white seats and black seats in the same nation.
Better 2 countries rather than 1 country in which everything has to be splitted.
But that's my opinion, that is mainly influence but the federative aspect of the Heiliges Römisches Reich before 30 years war (and later the Austrian-Hungrian Empire) . One Duchy for Catholic here, one Kingdom for Protestant here,... If you do not like the langage, religion, ethny,... of this land, just move 50 km away to check if its better in the other one.

South Africa is not the Heiliges Römisches Reich so I can not judge. You made your choice found your solution, I respect it.



If hitler did not rise I am sure some other Germanic leader would rise to the aid of his people with much the same consequences.

or better or worse, who knows...



I would not hold my breath, simply because I have not seen a dejewafied version from liberals such as yourself.


Was ist ein "dejewafied" ?



Nazi’s has nothing to apologise for, the jews must repent of their continues undermining of the Germanic spirit. The Christian notion of redemption is based on fear, and Christian views on race is based on lies.


You just found the point NS and Christianity are incompatible.
You dream of a new Fuhrer, I dream of a Kaïser or at least a Herzog/Duke.
That's your choice, that's mine. I disagree but I respect and understand. I hope you do the same.




This is installed guilt and your grandfather should be ashamed of himself for saddling this apparent guilt on you.

That not exactly my Opa message but it is too personal to explain.
He much more prepare me to the idea Germans must not feel guilty or accused of whatever because of NS.




Christelik National Sosialisme (Christian National Socialism) led to humane segregation known as Apartheid and the eventual fall of the Afrikaner, we did not commit genocide like some Anglo nations I could mention and that resulted that we where over run by sheer numbers.

That's true.
I may have express badly, the picture was there to explain you were VICTIM from Kitchener strategy, of course you did not genosuicide yourself !
Sorry for the confusion that I may have created.

Bittereinder
Tuesday, March 9th, 2010, 07:24 PM
"British" (subjects of United Kingdom) are mainly Anglo-Saxon,
Queen Victoria was the grand-mother of the Kaïser Wilhelm II
Therefore British army can be considered as a germanic one.
WWI was fratricid
Here in Elsass Lothringen we fought litterally cousin against cousin.
I have myself ancestors in both camps !
After both french & prussian leaders refuse the austrian Kaïser Karl proposition to restore a reunited Frei Lothringen between them (like a 2nd Luxembourg) both leader were on the "bad side".



The proportion of Celtic blood is far greater than that of Germanic blood when it comes to the British Isles and the English. Thus loyalty towards whatever Germanic blood the average Englishman posses and are conscientious about is in most cases easily divided.



If you speak about "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion", this is just a tsarist plagiat of "The Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu"
Pogroms existed before and after 1917. For the French Revolution, you are right, the jewish (as well as the non-jewish) Bourgeoisie really manipulate the population. Unluckly, in France "ethnical & religious statistics" are forbidden therefore I cannot estimate the weight of the Jews during the Revolution.


It is not the so called ‘Protocols’ I am referring too. The jews had embedded themselves in every German walk of life were wealth could be easily accumulated by unscrupulous bartering jews. Their involvement in these events I named is, upon very rudimentary investigation, undeniable.



Maybe because of the Jews but what would you expect from a religious minority you start to persecute.


This statement is completely back to front, how could they expect not to be persecuted (as had happened in every nation/state that they had infested) once the population caught on to the game of monetary control the jews are so well versed in.



I understand you support this ideology as a kind "self defence" just as "Mein Kampf" clearly explain the need, but from the strategic and politic point of view, NS had a bad idea.


NS is not self-defence it is self-determination founded on the concept of blood and soil. Self Defence is a system such as the jews are employing worldwide, the Germans merely claimed their birth right, it was the Christians that (via their skewed perception of equality and charity) allowed the jews entrance into Germany and other Germanic lands. The jews overstretched the Germans sense of charity and thus the decision was made not to pay for that mistake any longer.



Anyway nobody could guess the future and from the strategic and politic point of view (not moraly but it's subjective) I perfectly understand why you think the NS seemed correct.


NS does not ‘seem correct’ it is perceptions that make things seem one way or another, such as when a persone looks through his instilled Christian sense of morality or a jewish instilled sense of responsibility. We have the luxury of hind sight and as things now stand, that which NS set out to prevent has come to pass. Germans are ruled by Amerika and thus they are ruled by jews, exactly what NS sought to negate. NS wanted a Germany for Germans, if the jews could find a jewland for jews that was acceptable in the eyes of NS but the German people would not be exploited to this end if NS had it way. And again this has come to pass if it was not for all the money the jew racketeers where/are extracting out of Germany and other Germanic lands israel would not have possessed the resources to find their terror nation in Palestine.



There were plenty of other people / reasons to find yourself in the Camps.


Perhaps, and I would wager for the most part they were excellent reasons. There were still jews left in Germany right opto the point of Soviet occupation. As such I would draw the conclusion that the jewish race were not being persecuted but the lives most of them were living.



Jewish responsability is your explanation, as I have no evidence about the true ethny/religion of the allied leader, I won't neither agree nor disagree except for the expression "Germanic on Germanic genocide which is WWII" that I fully agree. Events like Dresden raids are too often absent from school books.


Yes jewish responsibility and culpability, the jews first lobbied the British into the war, and then the Americans. Simply because they had influence resulting from their I’ll gotten money which they stole from the Germanic peoples in those lands. The jews stood to lose very little in a world war, the debt that would be incurred (procured from the jews) by the allies on their behalf would ensure a highly lucrative money creation scheme and the defeated nation would have to pay the war debt of the victors. The fact that they would not be able to keep operating their scheme in Germany was too much for any finance jew to bear and thus they acted like a cohesive unit when it came to putting Germany in its place, If Germany had managed to rid themselves of the jew scourge and the people actually reaped the reward for their labours, other country’s would soon follow suit...




This may have been the case before conscription & black powder invention, but when the shell burst, the lucky survive in his fox-hole, the unlucky just disappear from a hole that gets deeper...
The survivors are the one who participate the little, in the case of WW2 people outside Europe and Pacific...


This is not a Germanic attitude, consider it like forging a blade of tempered steal. The experience increased the value Germans placed on life if they survived and thus they became more resolute in their defence of the life/lives they valued. Almost as the Vikings lived, grew and died on the battle field.




OK, as I just had contact with people who lived in the Hitlerian NS form, I commented only this one. Several analysis of laws of nature via NS are correctly seen and interpreted and only Hitler proposition to handle with them are incorrect.


Again this is not true, Hitler was not allowed to develop NS to the point where it would become unassailable. All the first actions of war was on the part of the allies, Poland, Norway, and Holland. NS never had a fair chance of proving its viabilty as form of governance.



A good balance must be set between the preservation of human diversity by avoiding having a "full metis" society that are often shown in science-fiction.
(Just read that book http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Forever_War or the comic adaptation) but not to the point of risking consanginity.

Moreover, having a population with people who are to genitically identical lead to have that population too vulnerable to biological hazard that can target specify DNA. Just look how the native american were decimated by european sickness or action of AIDS on black people.
Some may argue germanic race would be stronger, but do not know which virus could be discovered...or created. Just imagine a bio weapon that will make blind only people with blue eyes 95% of my familly will be touch, as my wife and I have both this recessive gene on both chronosomes we will both be touch as well as any children I have or will have...


This is NWO hogwash, the German and Germanic genepoel would be more than sufficient to allow for healthy Germans and Germanics before the time we could reach this theoretical limit, Evolution would have take Germanics on an even more incredible journey. The phenomenon you are referring to is when people who are very close, as in the same family, procreate. Evolution has not stopped its great work just yet, it is always working at perfecting the human form. As such any disease or obstacle will be overcome with time.




Wouldn't it have been better that the Zoulous stayed on the North alone, the Whites on the South alone. Everybody living his way of life in his nation rather than having buses with white seats and black seats in the same nation.
Better 2 countries rather than 1 country in which everything has to be splitted.


Indeed it would have been better if the tribes such as the Zulus and Xhosas remained in the more habitable northern and eastern sub tropic regions of SA it would have bought us some time but the ultimate result would have been much the same. The Boers bought the land which was not suitable for a hunter-gatherer life style the negroes where leading. Once the Germanic magic was starting to take effect on sub Saharan Africa carrying capacity increased, and because of valse christian values the Boers used the blacks as labour and paid the blacks in food and lodging. This enabled their miraculous jump from just over 3.000.000 to 40.000.000 plus in a hundred years. Even today much of the rural blacks are dependent on white farmers for their livelihood...



Was ist ein "dejewafied" ?

Something which is not laced with jewish propaganda innuendo and lies.(Perhaps I miss spelt no such word in my spelcheck)




You just found the point NS and Christianity are incompatible.


I did not just find it I merely pointed it out, again.



You dream of a new Fuhrer, I dream of a Kaïser or at least a Herzog/Duke.


I dream of a government and economy by Germanics for Germanics. Trade with other races is natural, living in close proximity with each other is not.



That's your choice, that's mine. I disagree but I respect and understand. I hope you do the same.


Well I’ll do my best, but I find it hard once a persone gives the impression that race mixing is natural and even desirable...




That not exactly my Opa message but it is too personal to explain.
He much more prepare me to the idea Germans must not feel guilty or accused of whatever because of NS.


Understandable, I apologise for my comment but I still think it has some merit.

Lothringen
Wednesday, March 10th, 2010, 11:40 AM
This is not a Germanic attitude, consider it like forging a blade of tempered steal. The experience increased the value Germans placed on life if they survived and thus they became more resolute in their defence of the life/lives they valued. Almost as the Vikings lived, grew and died on the battle field.


For individuals/families your arguments doesn't convince me for today form of war.


For one "classical war" the germanic attitude was the best to the military point:
All the teenagers goes to battlefield at dawn, handle one-to-one fight with the one of the next village, at dusk the survivors came back to the village, get married and have children. This is "natural" battle and "natural" selection of the antiquity and more or less what Caesar describe.

For XXth century one, the teenagers just wait the end of the "Stahlgewittern" (Storm of Steel) in their trenches or bunker while Zeppelins drops bombs on London or Flying Fortresses on Dresden...

Before when 2 men wanted the same girl, they where taken on the same island (on Rhin or Baltic sea), left alone with one boat and the winner marry the girl (willingly as she is proud that the guy risked his life for her) and have children.
Alternative: if the girl is a Valkyrie, she behead the one who doesn't merit her virginity and even the second one as well if he is not able to disarm her.

Today, medecine will reanimate the looser, winner will be prosecuted for attempt to murder and rape, while the girl perform abortion.
Alternative: the Valkyrie is shotdown by the police as serial-killer or spend 10 years in prison because self-defence against rape doesn't give you to right to finish your opponent...
That's a shame. The 20-30 years-old guy who attempt to rape a 15-20 years-old girl is by nature a scum. If his savagery give success, maybe with some kind of drugs his hate & fighting-spirit could be "recycled" in a berserker-like way and used for a suicide mission or as sparring partner, but if he don't even manage to win a free-fight with a teenage girl, shal we blame the girl who pretends she euthanized him by mercy ?


At the civilisation scale (to summarise North Western European one) the attitude you describe is indeed the most efficient the from military power & technology aspect (but certainly not for the judeo-christian moral one...)

The most efficient military power (which may not have act a way Arminius, Clodwig, Brunehilda of Austrasia, Karl der Gross, Henrich der Vogeler, Hermann von Salsa, Karl V von Habsburg,... would have approved) set the rules of war and pattern of military technology & training for the next generation with a great advance as he is the one who already used them or deal with them.

The French didn't have any reluctance to "recycle" Wehrmacht and even Waffen-SS in their "Légion Etrangère" after 1945 . Even myself, as I was performing my military service in the French army, I had to learn a military song which was nothing else than the french translation of "Heia Safari" the song of the Afrika Korps of Rommel !
Do you know the nickname of the 1st kevlar helmet in US Army ?
The "Fritz Helm" !
All special forces (like SAS who copied and improved Fallschirmjäger from Operation Mercury), have been created in the "Crucible of War", chemical then nuclear warfare tested. The German tech for Panzer & Missile (V2) is the basic of every new one.

War was bad, dirty,... but you're right it gave the "North" (despite of geographical local, countries like South Africa or Australia are the North ) awful advance on the "South". Just a feudal wars trained knights to blast their ennemies in the 1st Crusade.

BUT this was possible only because Total War not Total for everyone.
- Continental USA was left untouched.
- Russia could always retreat scientists & headquarters dozen of miles away and wait for next winter and Siberia was looking like an infinite "canon fodder" tank.
Just has feudal wars were at their scale quite limited (peace of god, the loosing side had always one girl married in the winning one or somebody protected as a monk that could end his vows, royal blood was little split, ransom...) even before, several pagan German tribes had the concept of wergild
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wergild
which limited the war/vendetta.
So NS concept of Total War was not common to every german tribes. Not all of them were Vikings raiders.



The experience from "battlefield Europe" gave NATO & Soviets such an advance that, on open battlefield no one could challenge them and every one wanted to copy them.
And who was the best at that exercice: Israel.
Kippour, 6-days war, raid over Saddam nuclear installations,...
Perfect application of Blitzkrieg.
Guess what most european elite force have chosen as close combat method ?
Krav-Maga, derived from Betar training !


Unlucky with shadow war and terrorism, open battlefield domination by number, skill or tech is not sufficient.
Appliance of Gestapo methods (torture, deportation,...) fails.
Just look at the Algerian War.

Lothringen
Wednesday, March 10th, 2010, 05:17 PM
Europe would have been far better off with fascism or national socialism, it would have been much better for nature and animals etc.

And even better without the cause that created fascism & national socialism.

Rising of Hitler & NS was nothing else than a way to continu the 1st WW.

Just as from 1870 to 1914 the French Republic never accepted the lost of Elsass-Lothringen (iron & coal mine, steel industry, control of the Vosgian high position, access to Rhein,...) and the payment of gold as indemnity, the Weimar Republic then the 3rd Reich never accepted it as well from 1914 to 1940.

The French invasion at the end of the 30 years war was not very legitim as well and despite of "oriented History" people like me still remember the sieges of Nancy and the epic resistance of the heroes of Lorraine at "La Mothe"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Mothe-en-Bassigny
http://pagesperso-orange.fr/michel.paris/sitelamothe/

Did the Jews set animosity between France and Germany ? or was it the English diplomates who didn't want any super-power on the continent ? maybe the Catholic Church who tried to destroy Lutherian faith ? Secret agents of Ottoman Empire who wanted the european army to self destruct before a new Jihad ? Tsarists or Soviets who lost the control of a plot started by the assassination of the Austrian Archiduke ?

Who knows ?
Hitler made a mix of the 1st and last explanation and give a (final) solution to resolve it. Obviously he did not fully succeed as his 3rd Reich did not last one millenium as promiced...
Politician promises...

NS was nothing else than an answer to things no German wanted and imposed to them.

Some may think it was the best or less worse way, some other better solutions existed.

Myself I think the solution proposed by my lord was better
Karl von Habsburg-Lothringen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_I_of_Austria

tomtom
Tuesday, March 16th, 2010, 01:07 AM
I do not abhor any hostility toward national socialism as a whole. However, I do not agree with every single component that national socialism represents.

EQ Fighter
Tuesday, March 16th, 2010, 06:01 AM
When we discuss the “Jews” and their financing the Napoleonic Wars, or in fact any other war tell me. Why it is we don’t just say the Rothchilds?

Because in fact that is exactly the “Jews” we are talking about who did this financing of these wars.

But my personal opinion is that National Socialism was in fact financed by the same globalist that have financed most of the other despots. The only real difference was Hitler committed the unforgivable sin.

He messed with the money supply.

This being the case, it seems the Germans should be feeling shame not over the execution of a few million Russian/ Polish/ Jewish Peasants, but that they attempted to arrest control away form the Banksters, some of them Jewish??

Another Thing I would like to bring up is??
Just how jewish are these Jews/Ashkenazi?

If you look at the Khazars you will find that there was a Tribe of Basically Turks and Mixed Semitics that were known as the Khazars.

Here is what wikipedia states as of 3/15/2010 no guarentee it will stay that way though :|

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazars


The Khazars (Turkic Dialect:Xazarlar) were a semi-nomadic Turkic people who dominated the Pontic steppe and the North Caucasus from the 7th to the 10th century. The name "Khazar"[1] seems to be tied to a Turkic verb form meaning "wandering".[2]

In the 7th century, the Khazars founded an independent Khaganate in the Northern Caucasus along the Caspian Sea. Although the Khazars were initially Tengri shamanists, many converted to the Abrahamic faiths through interaction with the Byzantine Empire and successive Islamic caliphates; during the 8th or 9th century, the Khaganate adopted Judaism as the state religion. At their height, the Khazars and their tributaries controlled much of what is today southern Russia, western Kazakhstan, eastern Ukraine, Azerbaijan, large portions of the Northern Caucasus (Circassia, Dagestan, Chechnya), parts of Georgia and the Crimea.


If you ask me that is the root of the problem.
So what this basically means is that there is no way to determine linage of modern Jews or to trace their inheritance back to ANYONE in the Bible.

One thing I will assure you though is that the Rothchilds are in no way the “People of God”. Nor are the many eastern Europeans the claim Antisemitism, at the slightest opposition of their agendas. What is even more insulting is the vast majority of these people do not even practice their own religion in any real context. So in fact they are not Jews.

Rächer
Tuesday, March 16th, 2010, 07:36 AM
I am of the opinion that most members here are indeed anti-NS. The reason/s for them being like that is ignorance and to a greater part their inborn revolt against NS, as they are from the let's call it "allied" part of the world (referring to as during the NS time) and in that some have a large percentage Celtic and or other blood. This in itself is not bad, but for the case of us Germanics it is of no help either.

Lothringen
Tuesday, March 16th, 2010, 11:11 AM
When we discuss the “Jews” and their financing the Napoleonic Wars, or in fact any other war tell me. Why it is we don’t just say the Rothchilds?

Because in fact that is exactly the “Jews” we are talking about who did this financing of these wars.

But my personal opinion is that National Socialism was in fact financed by the same globalist that have financed most of the other despots. The only real difference was Hitler committed the unforgivable sin.

He messed with the money supply.

This being the case, it seems the Germans should be feeling shame not over the execution of a few million Russian/ Polish/ Jewish Peasants, but that they attempted to arrest control away form the Banksters, some of them Jewish??


In his auto-biography Christian de la Mazière, soldier of 33rd Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS Charlemagne/Karl der Gross

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_de_la_Mazi%C3%A8re (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_de_la_Mazi%C3%A8re)
noticed that most of his brothers in arms where much more against Jewish as the symbol of the Bourgeoisie rather than ethnical or religious reason.

Therefore they would have rather loot a single "bankster" home than wasting time searching a marsh for a douzen of lost askhenazi families running away the frontline. He claims as well that he knew about the concentration camps saying "which army never used them" (*) but not about the extermination purpose. Moreover he doubt that in pre then post Staline Russia the antisemitism was more active than the idea he had from the "german one".
(*) like English during the Boers war, French during the Algerian one,...

He adds that Waffen-SS was quite hermetic with Totenkopft one, and despite he suspected "Lehmann" an Alsacian Waffen-SS of been jewish, he didn't make any denonciation.
According to him Lehmann was later judge but freed as he was really jewish and enrolled himself to protect his family...


Anyway, if the goal of NSDAP was to "punish" banksters (Jewish or not) and recover their money, the plot was not fully effective as the richest ones had no problem immigrating to the USA and, why not, invest their economy in US war industry and perhaps get even richest by manufacturing bombs falling on Hitler bunker...

I think the most important part of "jewish" harvest was more in Poland countryside and Germany "Blue-collar worker" Neighbourhood than in Paris or Amsterdam middle-class house (like the one of Anne Franck) as the main idea was using socio-cultural minorities (Jewish, Tziganer,...) as "expendable labor force" for war industry.

This means: you work you get food & care, you are wounded, sick, reluctant, weak,... they let you die with no care (except perhaps phenol injection).

Just as the kind of slavery Roman Empire (not the Holy one) used on slaves (like germans) which lead sometimes to extermination as well (6000 slaves crucified the same day after Spartacus defeat...). Accordy to the Judeo-Christian "Mythology", Ramses was about to do the same after a revolt lead by a "mage" call Moshe.

Slightly better work condition in the industry of England in Dickens time, France in Zola or Germany in Marx limited the revolt but that's another story...

After seing the post of "NS" members, I think Hitler's NS is History and you cannot be "hostile" to History even he you won't approve it today, who knows what you would have react if you were born in a 1918 Germany and unemployed in 1930s crisis ?

Wanderer
Tuesday, March 16th, 2010, 01:31 PM
I think this is related to this thread, but a question to Germans using this forum, and other north/central Europeans of nationalist persuasion. I looked at some stories posted on Deutsche Welle, most of them a few years old, that reported on the increasing strength of the NDP in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, and the earlier success at the polls in Sachsen. Hessen, DW reported, also has increasing nationalist leanings. My question is, how strong is the NDP across Germany at this time, considering what I read is a few years old? Current trends would say to me that nationalism across Germany should continue to be on the rise, for the simple fact that the squeeze on Germans to bailout the rest of Europe, not to mention third-world countries like Turkey, is neverending. Not to mention the Hoaxacost tax. I don't know if Nazism as we know it will ever rise again, anywhere, but I see nothing wrong with a right-of-center German government that puts ethnic Germans first. With unemployment sweeping the world, and all of the resulting economic difficulties, I fail to see why Germans should have to subsidize every other ethnicity on earth EXCEPT THEIR OWN. How did things ever come to this? The funny thing I read in the reports from DW was the crying by observers who take issue with Germans sticking up for themselves. They referred to this trend as a lack of knowledge, as ignorance on the part of Germans. No, I see it as a development that occurs when a species feels threatened, that everything that is being done to them is to wipe out their national consciousness. As a whole, I think that western, central, and northern Europe should organize collectively along racial lines, and vote these traitors ala Sarkozy, Brown, Merkel, Berlusconi, etc. out of office. They have shown whose side they are on, and it is not their own. All of the minority groups in Germany hold onto their ethnic identities, and they are a threat in the times to come.

velvet
Tuesday, March 16th, 2010, 02:04 PM
My question is, how strong is the NDP across Germany at this time, considering what I read is a few years old?

Hard to estimate, since we dont have free elections here.
On a communal / federal level the NPD does quite well, specially in the eastern federal states, in the western parts this is different, also splitting the votes between DVU, Pro-parties and Reps.
Another problem surely is that people who actually agree in general with their policies dont vote at all, because they dont believe in democracy and dont want to support this system.


Current trends would say to me that nationalism across Germany should continue to be on the rise

Should be the case indeed, and certain groups of people do actually become more extreme by the day. The other side unfortunately too, and the demonstrated "public opinion" right now is to rather re-open the GDR than having a strong nationalist movement (current tv-production "Die Grenze" using actual political and police strategies how to react in case of such a development, within the global crisis etc).


but I see nothing wrong with a right-of-center German government that puts ethnic Germans first. With unemployment sweeping the world, and all of the resulting economic difficulties, I fail to see why Germans should have to subsidize every other ethnicity on earth EXCEPT THEIR OWN. How did things ever come to this? The funny thing I read in the reports from DW was the crying by observers who take issue with Germans sticking up for themselves. They referred to this trend as a lack of knowledge, as ignorance on the part of Germans.

This is the common way to argue this point. When you dare to think of your own people first, you must be an ignorant to history, because you should really know where this sort of thinking leads to, and this is the Holocaust™ and you really cannot want this.



No, I see it as a development that occurs when a species feels threatened, that everything that is being done to them is to wipe out their national consciousness. As a whole, I think that western, central, and northern Europe should organize collectively along racial lines, and vote these traitors ala Sarkozy, Brown, Merkel, Berlusconi, etc. out of office. They have shown whose side they are on, and it is not their own. All of the minority groups in Germany hold onto their ethnic identities, and they are a threat in the times to come.

And get heavily funded to be able to maintain their bush or desert cult on top. Yes, I agee, they are indeed a threat, not only recently, but after all they are here to pose exactly this threat to the indigenous people, so they do what they are supposed to do.

Informations about crimes committed by them, about the problems they cause in all levels of life, what money they cost etc are not available to the common people though. This all is shunned here, so people really are in many cases not even aware of the situation they are in. And the brainwash from early childhood days makes sure that you cannot think outside this box outlined above.

Our form of democrazy makes sure that whatever people would vote for the system wouldnt change. This is the trick with democrazy as implemented after WWII. And too many people vote what their parents have voted for before them. Voting is not exercise of own will or according to knowledge and information, not even in knowledge of the actual programme of the party, but it is mainly a family tradition, or at best "what serves my interests" (which often still derives from the line of politics driven during the 60s or 70s of the specific party, just as if the last 40 years never happened yet).

The last elections have produced something around 2% splitted over 4 more or less right-winged parties, this doesnt even count up with the number of members of these parties, so there is good reason to think that the results are manipulated. In those offices often left-wing people apply for voluntary help, so most likely votes for right-wing parties vanish already right out of the ballot box (saves the official manipulators some work then). No way to get rid off Merkel and her ilk via that way I'm afraid :(

Wanderer
Tuesday, March 16th, 2010, 11:23 PM
Danke Velvet. Then it seems that one day, when the situation is beyond the point of no return, when Germanics are literally threatened with physical extinction, maybe the tide will turn and the people will make things as they want them to be.

It is similar here in America, the political system is rigged to allow domination by a prevailing mindset. The republican and democratic parties are utter failures. They are both good at lying and manipulating people to believe what they tell them. So, people are never able to look objectively at what is happening, they'd rather believe in the character that obama, for instance, portrayed. Bush was also a great actor, by appealing to the arrogant cowboy-type who really is unaware of global affairs. People foolishly claim, 'I'm republican,or i'm democrat,' because they like to think they know what their government is, but they really don't know. There is no viable third party, so the system is totally locked up. And so goes the world, chained to the apocalyptic policies of America.

So, that is one thing that the FRG and the US have in common: governments that are completely oblivious to the vast majority of their constituencies.

BundOstmark
Wednesday, March 17th, 2010, 04:26 AM
If anyone here has a problem with NS its their own problem.

Resist
Wednesday, March 17th, 2010, 10:29 AM
I am not hostile to the Germans or other related people being National Socialist. But, although I'd like an authoritarian regime versus a libertarian one in Canada, I am not fond of Hitlerism and general worship of Nazi Germany era icons. That would be my stand basically.

SpearBrave
Wednesday, March 17th, 2010, 11:32 AM
Our form of democrazy makes sure that whatever people would vote for the system wouldnt change. This is the trick with democrazy as implemented after WWII. And too many people vote what their parents have voted for before them. Voting is not exercise of own will or according to knowledge and information, not even in knowledge of the actual programme of the party, but it is mainly a family tradition, or at best "what serves my interests" (which often still derives from the line of politics driven during the 60s or 70s of the specific party, just as if the last 40 years never happened yet).


This is the very same thing that happens here I know people that vote for one party or the other blindly just because their parents voted that way or their union or organisation endorse that party.

I do believe there is difference the parties here, but they are slight and usually only on domestic issues. All are controlled by outside lobbyist.:(

Lothringen
Wednesday, March 17th, 2010, 02:33 PM
The republican and democratic parties are utter failures. They are both good at lying and manipulating people to believe what they tell them. So, people are never able to look objectively at what is happening, they'd rather believe in the character that obama, for instance, portrayed. Bush was also a great actor, by appealing to the arrogant cowboy-type who really is unaware of global affairs. People foolishly claim, 'I'm republican,or i'm democrat,' because they like to think they know what their government is, but they really don't know. There is no viable third party, so the system is totally locked up. And so goes the world, chained to the apocalyptic policies of America.


Could you come and develop your idea on Siebenbürgerin topic:
What is the Best Way to Vote When You Don't Identify With Any Party? (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=132329) ?




I am of the opinion that most members here are indeed anti-NS. The reason/s for them being like that is ignorance and to a greater part their inborn revolt against NS, as they are from the let's call it "allied" part of the world (referring to as during the NS time) and in that some have a large percentage Celtic and or other blood. This in itself is not bad, but for the case of us Germanics it is of no help either.


In my case, it is rather a political and religious problem than a blood one.
(with a bit of doubt on NSDAP war strategy)

If fact some NS groups (like Volkssozialistische Bewegung Deutschlands/Partei der Arbeit) actually used the celtic cross as a NS symbol. In fact when it has only 3 branches swastika is an angular trisquel..

Lothringen
Thursday, March 18th, 2010, 02:55 PM
Even if I do not approve NS (Hitlerian form, todays one have so many variations) itself, I fully approve the presence of NS self-defined members on the forum. Thanks to some of them, I learn and understand, even if I don't approve them, more things about NS, Holocaust, anti-semitism than during my scholarity.

In most forum, at the first "NS deviation", member get moderated and vanish he attempts to develop his explanation. These finally nearly etherealize NS that just exist from rumors like extraterrestrial infiltration, satanism cult, maconic conspiration,...
Shoah, if only evocated a polically correct way, without leaving NS explaining its reason become as legendary as the aztecs human sacrifice which seems 1st nonsense then, as the sense is forgotten not to have exist.

Just look the other Jewish genocide which are now considered as fairytales by some people:
- Massacre of the Innocents in the time of Christ
- drowning of male Hebrew new born in the Nile in the time of Moses

First argument is that there was no reason to do that as kings would never lower their population (expecially future labor force that are the male slaves/subjects) directly. They may exploit them, use them as sword/cannon fodder, sacrifice them for calming gods or volcanos,... but never kill by hate.

The explanation of jewish conspiracy by some NS(*) member, even if I don't share it, help a lot to understand (even not approving) and therefore more believing in Shoah amazing figures.

Just as Republican/Democrate ,following G. Washingtown, path don't approve interest in Monarchy (Habsburg or Hohenzollern, aboslute or constitutional); Agnostics & Asatru don't share what H.P. Lovecarft called "syrian superstition" but "accept" it on Skadi, I think that majority of Skadi member "accept" NS.

(*) NS, expecially todays one that Skadi NS members develop, is far more complex than just "anti-semitism" pushed to its paroxism.
In fact I discovered "jewish-neutral" attitude among few NS members that mainly seek alternative political system with charismatic and uncorrupted political leaders that would have (like "Tyrants" and "Dictators" of great civilisations of antiquity) free hand to raise the country and making log-term decision without been blocked by well-speaking-but-do-nothing agitator.

Forest_Dweller
Friday, March 19th, 2010, 04:03 AM
I personally believe a nation should have a strong and firm identity, but I am opposed to having to conform to the governments version of what they see as our culture. I am ok about having other cultures and religions in society, as long as they know their place and don't try to undermine our values. If I had to choose between Hitler and Stalin, I would say Hitler was the lesser of two evils.

I'm opposed to anti-semetism, as I don't think one race is or can be fundementally bad. I don't think the NWO plans are the soul responsibilty of the Jews, as there are Jews who are apposed to it.

Lothringen
Friday, March 19th, 2010, 01:44 PM
If I had to choose between Hitler and Stalin, I would say Hitler was the lesser of two evils.

That remember me this expression: "Den Teufel mit dem Beelzebub austreiben"

That would mean something like "remplacing the Devil by the Demon" similar to the latin / greek "Falling from Charybdis to Scylla (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scylla_and_Charybdis)"

Just like Odysseus who chose to sacrifice few sailors instead of reisking the whole ship, Hitler sacrificed targetted social/religious/politic/ethnic classes while Staline sent everyone to Goulag !

Or that one:
"Britain and France had to choose between war and dishonor. They chose dishonor. They will have war." Winston Churchill

Thusnelda
Friday, March 26th, 2010, 05:13 PM
I'm neither hostile nor devoted to National Socialism. There are some aspects who make sense to me and there are some aspects I refuse. Skadi is a place for all ideologies as long as they go conform with our general board orientation and our rules. There was a time when most Skadi members were more friendly towards NS and there was a time when most Skadi members were more sceptical about it. It´s natural fluctuation, depending on the current member base. :)

Forest_Dweller
Friday, March 26th, 2010, 07:43 PM
I think absolute seperatism would be pretty boring. I love my heritage, but I'm an adventurous type of guy and I find other cultures interesting aswell.

Wolgadeutscher
Sunday, March 28th, 2010, 04:00 PM
I am rather hostile to those who insult Germany through cheap and false Nazi stereotypes. I don't consider myself hostile to National Socialism itself, but I am hostile to several of the modern people following subcultures and calling themselves National Socialists, like National Socialist Black Metal fans, RAC, skinheads and more. I think they are a shame and tarnish our traditions.