PDA

View Full Version : If You Could Go Back in Time and Eliminate a Historical Figure, Who Would It Be?



Northern Paladin
Thursday, May 19th, 2011, 03:38 AM
Let's say you were able to go back in time and either prevent the birth of, or otherwise eliminate a historical figure that changed the course of history. Who would you chose to eliminate?

Autosomal Viking
Thursday, May 19th, 2011, 03:51 AM
I would eliminate the Serbian that assassinated Franz Ferdinand which led to the catastrophes of WW1, WW2, and the present political state of the world. This would also mean that I would never exist, but I would probably still do it.

Northern Paladin
Thursday, May 19th, 2011, 04:22 AM
I would say Karl Marx. Without him and his theories, the current state of affairs would not be possible.

FranzFed
Thursday, May 19th, 2011, 05:41 AM
Probably Abraham:)

Fredericus Rex
Friday, May 20th, 2011, 12:43 AM
I would eliminate the Serbian that assassinated Franz Ferdinand which led to the catastrophes of WW1, WW2, and the present political state of the world. This would also mean that I would never exist, but I would probably still do it.

I agree with this. As a result of those two bullets by that man, a hundred million human beings have died.

Wychaert
Friday, May 20th, 2011, 07:33 AM
Bob Dylan!

And Bonefatius(oh no, some people in history will do it for me:D
Thank you Frisians)


And A lot more!

hyidi
Friday, May 20th, 2011, 07:38 AM
I would eliminate - my first choice-
Those men that created the new multicutural devesity Europe (if I can't mange to kill them)-

My second opition for elimination would be-
Winston Churchill! He stop Germany from winning the most important war for Europe.

thoughtcrime
Friday, May 20th, 2011, 07:57 AM
Winston Churchill! He stop Germany from winning the most important war for Europe.

Actually not. Many people from Britain or the western allied contries in general still tend to pride themselves with "them" defeating Germany. The truth is, losses on the western front were minimal when compared to the eastern front all up to '44 and even after that it wasn't even close to being even. Germany was defeated in the east, not in the west, simply by being outnumbered and outgeared to an almost absurd admount. When the allies arrived in continental Europe in '44, all they did was destroying an already crippled and broken foe.

On topic, I can sympathize with what Autosomal Viking said, but I don't think it would stop WW1 from occuring. There were people behind the murderer, and they would have found another tool to provoke a conflict. Things may have been different with different leaders in position all over Europe. So, I would instead choose to eleminate Tsar Nicholas II. and maybe Franz Joseph I, too (in case I choose 2 persons at once).

Bearkinder
Friday, May 20th, 2011, 05:40 PM
Mohammed

Huginn ok Muninn
Saturday, May 21st, 2011, 11:23 AM
Mayer Amschel Rothschild. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayer_Amschel_Rothschild) No one has had more influence in the demise of Western Civilization.

Winston Churchill is another crucial person whose absence in the early part of the 20th century could have affected British-German relations for the better, and may have prevented Britain's entry into WW1. If not, it would certainly have affected the outcome of the Battle of Britain in WW2. He could have died at one point in childhood, when he fell out of a tree, or by a stray bullet in the Boer War.


Actually not. Many people from Britain or the western allied contries in general still tend to pride themselves with "them" defeating Germany. The truth is, losses on the western front were minimal when compared to the eastern front...

When asked what battle was the turning point of WW2, Field Marschall Gert von Rundstedt said "The Battle of Britain." The interviewer was sure he would say Stalingrad. I'll tell you why Rundstedt was right...

The Soviet Union, while vast and formidable, was, by itself, a defeatable foe. They lost so much war materiel at the outset of the war that they would have been in a tight spot if they had had to replace that equipment themselves. The Lend Lease Act, signed into law on March 11, 1941, provided them with huge numbers of armored vehicles, planes and trucks from the United States.

http://ww2total.com/WW2/History/Production/Russia/Lend-Lease.htm

If, however, the war had been over at this point (meaning Germany had defeated Britain in 1940,) there would have been no excuse for the existence of this act. The USSR could have been taken on alone, and without the alliance with Japan, Germany could have renounced the Pearl Harbor attack and kept the United States busy on the other side of the world while they took on Russia alone. Without Churchill, this might have been possible, had Germany taken the proper steps to defeat Britain.

Another possibility would have been FDR having his stroke in 1937 instead of 1945, leaving the non-interventionist Texan John Nance Gardner as president.

Northern Paladin
Saturday, May 21st, 2011, 03:05 PM
Mohammed

Ah yes, Mohammed, without him there would be no Islamic rule preventing European trade with the Indies. There would be no need for Portuguese and Spanish exploration which led to European colonization of exotic lands with exotic inhabitants, bringing about miscegenation. Europeans would have been a lot more isolated than we are today.

Silent_Saxon
Wednesday, May 25th, 2011, 01:08 AM
I would eliminate Muhammad as well. We would be living in a very different world, and certainly a very different Europe today if that man had never been born.

ampersand
Wednesday, June 29th, 2011, 04:35 AM
Abraham, if he existed. No Abraham means no Jews, no Christianity and no Islam...

Lone Rebel
Wednesday, June 29th, 2011, 05:39 AM
The first modern jew so he couldn't create any more jews and the world would be much much much better off than it is now.

norseking
Wednesday, June 29th, 2011, 06:50 AM
Although I am sure we would never know what would happen if someone important was removed from history. I would probably have removed Stalin, because of his atrocities and his major influence in communism and socialism worldwide and in Europe. For enslaving a killing innocent people. Also (although I feel many would strongly disagree on this forum so sorry) would be Hitler. Although I admire his strength and his belief in a united and ethnically uniform society and did many good things for germany, he also in the process, invaded Norway and killed many of my people during the invasion. As you can tell, there are not that many Norwegians in population, and this is bitter.

Berlichingen
Wednesday, June 29th, 2011, 07:02 AM
Abraham, if he existed. No Abraham means no Jews, no Christianity and no Islam...

Good answer. It's silly for Europeans to worship a desert god or name their children after long-dead middle eastern nomads.

norseking
Wednesday, June 29th, 2011, 07:21 AM
Good answer. It's silly for Europeans to worship a desert god or name their children after long-dead middle eastern nomads.

I myself am agnostic, however I feel like this is a bit silly. Christianity is a major influence on european cultures and ways of life. Entire cities were built after Christianity, beautiful cities. If you pull this card, then is it not silly for Europeans to worship a god of thunder or god of the seas?? Removing Abraham is removing almost 2,000 yrs of history and revising it completely. It would be so drastic that no one could truly tell you what would have happened.

Hamar Fox
Wednesday, June 29th, 2011, 07:45 AM
It'd have to be somebody in recent history; otherwise we'd be eliminating ourselves. Everything that exists now exists because everything that went before happened precisely the way it did. Everything we do has causal ripples. Just sitting on a bench affects things: If you weren't occupying it, somebody else would be. But because you're there, that other person has to alter his plans, however slightly. This means that he meets different people than he otherwise would (even if it's only by sitting on a different bench they would otherwise have sat on) and similarly affects their daily routines. These people then go on to slightly influence the routines of other people, and the number increases exponentially.

The thing is, this ripple effect doesn't stop: it technically goes on forever. Some ripples combine with others to create major events, such as a death (or saving of a life) that wouldn't otherwise have happened. Different people will meet and have different children than they otherwise would. In the end, the prolific inventors/statesmen/philosophers etc. that define our culture would end up not being born, while others that never existed in our timeline would exist.

The further back you go, the greater the effect on our present (since causal ripples spread, overlap with each other, even rebound with themselves). If you kill Abraham, you alter the entire history of the Jews, which will alter their causal relation with every race they've encountered. Our ancestors met and mated with each other, in part, because of causal ripples that originated from the Jews (and every other nation we've had contact with), so we'd basically be eliminating our own ancestry.

The best thing to do would be to eliminate a more recent figure (it takes a while for causal ripples to spread -- especially throughout the world -- and pick up momentum, so for a few decades, maybe even centuries, minor actions probably wouldn't affect too much).

Huginn ok Muninn
Wednesday, June 29th, 2011, 08:33 AM
I would be fine with most 20th century figures not existing, to be frank, and if that includes you and me, so be it.

The key, really, is to put our people on a path that leads to success instead of destruction. That means avoiding the world wars and the depredations of the Jews. That's why, if I had my way, the patriarch of the Rothschild clan would meet his doom before puberty, before he had a chance to breed the evil that became their dynasty. Having to pick one person is difficult.. because their entire race has poisoned our people, but to cut the main artery of their financing power would be significant, and might prove to be the difference for us.

Goomer
Wednesday, June 29th, 2011, 08:36 AM
Hitler. Sorry....I hate that POS. Loving your people is one thing....doing what he did is something else entirely. Half the problems in Israel now that extend to the rest of the Middle East....and by default to the rest of the Western World stem from the fact that the Jews got relocated to Israel after the war.

I know a lot of people on Skadi admire him. I will not try to change anyone's mind about that as long as no one gives me grief for my feelings about him.

Are there other historical figures? Yes, I am sure there are many.....but Hitler is the most recent example I can think of.

Sigurd
Wednesday, June 29th, 2011, 08:43 AM
Hitler. Sorry....I hate that POS. Loving your people is one thing....doing what he did is something else entirely.

And what exactly did he do then? ;)


Adolf Hitler was a bad white person. He was so bad that people are constantly trying to find ways to disqualify him from being human. You always hear people label him as, "That Monster," but sorry he's just a bad white person.

He helped the unemployed and gave them jobs and hope. That's very bad. He should have left them to themselves.

He loved children and protected their mothers. He wanted that they have time to raise their children. That's very bad. He should have aborted the children and sent the mothers into the factories.

He liberated his people from exploitation. That's very bad. He should have made them accept their burden.

He wanted Germans to become masters again in their own house. That's very, very bad. They should submit to the Jews. They are a holy people.

He loved the idea of a racially pure nation. That's very bad. Society is much nicer with blacks, Turks, and people of color.

He cared about the health of the youth. That's very bad. They are much better off sitting in front of the TV and playing video games all day long.

He wished that everybody contributes to society and that people help each other. Very bad. People should only care about themselves.

Hitler was a bad white person. Hate him and hate his sign. I know I am ranting... and you probley don't care. That's why you are a good white person. Don't think, don't care or you will become like Hitler. A bad white person.

Courtesy of Haldis, from this (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=80549) thread. And I couldn't have put it any better myself. :)

Goomer
Wednesday, June 29th, 2011, 08:49 AM
And what exactly did he do then? ;)



Courtesy of Haldis, from this (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=80549) thread. And I couldn't have put it any better myself. :)

Sigurd, not a human being on this planet will ever get me to change my mind about a man that participated in an attempted genocide that involved children. I don't care how much he loved his own people or even if some of his ideals were somewhat noble. The man was sick and cruel.

I can hate a man. I can hate a woman. I can wish a man dead. I can wish a woman dead. I can not wish a small child dead.....ever.....regardless of race, color, culture, or whatever.

If the rest of you guys on here disagree with me, I do not take issue with it. But, don't bother trying to change my mind....it would do no good.

I respect everyone for their own opinions and wish for the same back.

Goomer
Wednesday, June 29th, 2011, 08:52 AM
I would say Karl Marx. Without him and his theories, the current state of affairs would not be possible.

I presented this question to my husband tonight.....he gave the same answer as you did here:)


Probably Abraham:)

I will admit....Abraham is tempting. SO MUCH pain has been inflicted upon humankind in the name of the Abrahamic religions.

Edgard
Wednesday, June 29th, 2011, 09:16 AM
Odd choice for an English man who admires him but Churchill. No Churchill and Britain would have come to terms after Dunkirk. An honourable peace with some concessions on non Prussian Poland from Germany. It would have save a lot of lives and the Empire.

Sigurd
Wednesday, June 29th, 2011, 09:17 AM
Sigurd, not a human being on this planet will ever get me to change my mind about a man that participated in an attempted genocide that involved children.

Then you should long before that mention other folks. Like the British in South Africa who starved women and children in the concentration camps during the Second Boer War under sub-standard sanitary condition. Or the "hunger-holocaust" in Ukraine, the Holodomor in 1932/33. Or Pol Pot killing a third of his own population. Not to mention Stalin. Why Hitler first?

Also, I'm not sure there was much of an "attempted genocide", or at least it has been exaggerated beyond approach, leaving out inconvenient details such as the fact that KL-inmates were allowed prostitutes, had the opportunity to play football (in one case, a group of gypsies won against the wardens 2:1 and did not suffer any repression in return), etc. ... Some other reports are faked; or at least there has for instance been no proof of a "youth-KL in Lodz where 12,000 youths perished" - no German institute of contemporary history could offer any evidence here.

Some methods of the supposed "genocide" don't even work either. Especially striking is the claim that people were gassed with Diesel exhaust fumes, killing more than 700 people per chamber in 32 minutes ... Really? Viennese Dipl.-Ing. Walter LÜFTL tried the experiment. Results?

1) After half an hour, the oxygen levels would be at 16%, which is higher than spent air at 15%. Since spent air can be used to reanimate the unconscious, this is not dangerous.
2) The level of CO was under 0,1%, at 0.1% people could die within 5-6 hours, but not thirty minutes which would be enough for mild headaches or at best dizziness.
3) The level of CO2 was at 4% and thus would lead to neither long-term nor short-term resutls.
4) The levels of NO were under 0,1% - see the effects for CO.
5) The levels of NO2 can lead to a pulmonary edema after some 24 hours.
6) The levels of carbon black could be carcinogenic, but only in the long run.

On the basis that this story is constructed on such inaccuracies (and there are too many to mention), including the idea of a cremation of several thousand bodies without wind protection when a roast chicken of the same weight wouldn't be edible, let alone be scorched in the amount of time stipulated ... I am wondering, just how much more is fiction? ;)


I respect everyone for their own opinions and wish for the same back.

I respect everyone for their own opinions, but not for willingly clinging to a historical lie. If you didn't know about all these things, that are too much to elaborate for one thread, then Bertolt Brecht (as a Marxist-leaning Socialist) would have you barely down as an idiot for not knowing the truth; if you did know that some of the things stipulated aren't even physically/chemically possible but are denying it, then he'd term you a criminal. :shrug

Wittmann
Wednesday, June 29th, 2011, 09:20 AM
Whoever lead the British Trained Norwegian Commandos who blew up our heavy water plant in WW2, Germany could have had nuclear V2 Missiles!

Oh and maybe whack Stalin Stalin, and Marx, and Lenin.

Actually could I just nuke Russia? :D

OneEye
Wednesday, June 29th, 2011, 09:36 AM
Mayer Amschel Rothschild. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayer_Amschel_Rothschild) No one has had more influence in the demise of Western Civilization.

Winston Churchill is another crucial person whose absence in the early part of the 20th century could have affected British-German relations for the better, and may have prevented Britain's entry into WW1. If not, it would certainly have affected the outcome of the Battle of Britain in WW2. He could have died at one point in childhood, when he fell out of a tree, or by a stray bullet in the Boer War.



When asked what battle was the turning point of WW2, Field Marschall Gert von Rundstedt said "The Battle of Britain." The interviewer was sure he would say Stalingrad. I'll tell you why Rundstedt was right...

The Soviet Union, while vast and formidable, was, by itself, a defeatable foe. They lost so much war materiel at the outset of the war that they would have been in a tight spot if they had had to replace that equipment themselves. The Lend Lease Act, signed into law on March 11, 1941, provided them with huge numbers of armored vehicles, planes and trucks from the United States.

http://ww2total.com/WW2/History/Production/Russia/Lend-Lease.htm

If, however, the war had been over at this point (meaning Germany had defeated Britain in 1940,) there would have been no excuse for the existence of this act. The USSR could have been taken on alone, and without the alliance with Japan, Germany could have renounced the Pearl Harbor attack and kept the United States busy on the other side of the world while they took on Russia alone. Without Churchill, this might have been possible, had Germany taken the proper steps to defeat Britain.

Another possibility would have been FDR having his stroke in 1937 instead of 1945, leaving the non-interventionist Texan John Nance Gardner as president.

I am with you on all of that. Pretty much eliminating anyone who helped bring the downfall of the Third Reich would have been ideal. If the Third Reich had won, we would be sitting pretty happy right about now.

OneEye
Wednesday, June 29th, 2011, 09:59 AM
Sigurd, not a human being on this planet will ever get me to change my mind about a man that participated in an attempted genocide that involved children. I don't care how much he loved his own people or even if some of his ideals were somewhat noble. The man was sick and cruel.

I can hate a man. I can hate a woman. I can wish a man dead. I can wish a woman dead. I can not wish a small child dead.....ever.....regardless of race, color, culture, or whatever.

If the rest of you guys on here disagree with me, I do not take issue with it. But, don't bother trying to change my mind....it would do no good.

I respect everyone for their own opinions and wish for the same back.


^ 'West Coast Love' on behalf of the lovely Goomer

:lmfao:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.stopboergenocide.com/mediac/400_0/media/mishandelde_dogtertjie_gesig.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_dwS7qfzBHmQ/TRKGQ50tYGI/AAAAAAAAJlI/xXaDQGz_Hl4/S230/SA-GENOCIDE-12-14-10.jpg

^ What blacks do to law abiding whites in south africa (genocide)

I respect everyone for their own opinions and wish for the same back. ....R-E-A-L-L-Y-!-?

Sigurd, not a human being on this planet will ever get me to change my mind about a man that participated in an attempted genocide that involved children. ....R-E-A-L-L-Y-!-?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_ZL3Kngb81qo/SRk8fcCgIZI/AAAAAAAAEQU/O_h1ixBbNiQ/A%20tsunami%20of%20anti-white%20hatred%20is%20sweeping%20SA%20fr om%20black%20townships%5B7%5D.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_MPvswO6lxOY/SA-8cJDh43I/AAAAAAAADQU/adWIecm6XW0/s400/hardlivingkids2.jpg

^ Small south african black children and teenagers

I can not wish a small child dead.....ever.....regardless of race, color, culture, or whatever. ....R-E-A-L-L-Y-!-?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://sacreator.com/images/news-southafrica.jpg

^ South African town

I respect everyone for their own opinions and wish for the same back. ....R-E-A-L-L-Y-!-?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_MPvswO6lxOY/SBC4eZDh49I/AAAAAAAADRE/sbZp33DY0js/s400/Blood.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_dxHOh__RHXY/SKXfHUKECFI/AAAAAAAAAJI/fqPIE7C5ERg/s320/Cartoon_Around_Blacks_Never_Relax.jpg

Goomer
Wednesday, June 29th, 2011, 12:19 PM
Then you should long before that mention other folks. Like the British in South Africa who starved women and children in the concentration camps during the Second Boer War under sub-standard sanitary condition. Or the "hunger-holocaust" in Ukraine, the Holodomor in 1932/33. Or Pol Pot killing a third of his own population. Not to mention Stalin. Why Hitler first?

Also, I'm not sure there was much of an "attempted genocide", or at least it has been exaggerated beyond approach, leaving out inconvenient details such as the fact that KL-inmates were allowed prostitutes, had the opportunity to play football (in one case, a group of gypsies won against the wardens 2:1 and did not suffer any repression in return), etc. ... Some other reports are faked; or at least there has for instance been no proof of a "youth-KL in Lodz where 12,000 youths perished" - no German institute of contemporary history could offer any evidence here.

Some methods of the supposed "genocide" don't even work either. Especially striking is the claim that people were gassed with Diesel exhaust fumes, killing more than 700 people per chamber in 32 minutes ... Really? Viennese Dipl.-Ing. Walter LÜFTL tried the experiment. Results?

1) After half an hour, the oxygen levels would be at 16%, which is higher than spent air at 15%. Since spent air can be used to reanimate the unconscious, this is not dangerous.
2) The level of CO was under 0,1%, at 0.1% people could die within 5-6 hours, but not thirty minutes which would be enough for mild headaches or at best dizziness.
3) The level of CO2 was at 4% and thus would lead to neither long-term nor short-term resutls.
4) The levels of NO were under 0,1% - see the effects for CO.
5) The levels of NO2 can lead to a pulmonary edema after some 24 hours.
6) The levels of carbon black could be carcinogenic, but only in the long run.

On the basis that this story is constructed on such inaccuracies (and there are too many to mention), including the idea of a cremation of several thousand bodies without wind protection when a roast chicken of the same weight wouldn't be edible, let alone be scorched in the amount of time stipulated ... I am wondering, just how much more is fiction? ;)



I respect everyone for their own opinions, but not for willingly clinging to a historical lie. If you didn't know about all these things, that are too much to elaborate for one thread, then Bertolt Brecht (as a Marxist-leaning Socialist) would have you barely down as an idiot for not knowing the truth; if you did know that some of the things stipulated aren't even physically/chemically possible but are denying it, then he'd term you a criminal. :shrug

Sigurd, I kind of did mention others. Not by name....and by no means do I think Hitler is the only person I wish had never existed. He is a recent example, one that lived in the century I was born in.

Let me ask you this one question....for this is what it all boils down to: Did Hitler order the killing of children or not? Did children die in the concentration camps set up by the SS or not? Were children shot on the spot and buried in mass graves along with the adults or not?

I've seen the photos. You can't make that shit up. I've met survivors who have lived to tell the stories of what went on in these camps

No amount of rationale is going to excuse what happened in WWII. But, lest you think I see Hitler as the ONLY person to have committed or ordered such heinous acts, I will tell you right here and now that I know he is not the only one. He is one of the more well-known historical figures in recent years, and this is why I chose him.

Hope that helps.

SaxonPagan
Wednesday, June 29th, 2011, 12:38 PM
Hitler. Sorry....I hate that POS. Loving your people is one thing....doing what he did is something else entirely. Half the problems in Israel now that extend to the rest of the Middle East....and by default to the rest of the Western World stem from the fact that the Jews got relocated to Israel after the war.

:oanieyes

Zionism predates Adolf Hitler and you really need to read up on such things as the Balfour Declaration. Here's a quick sampler ...

His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object.

... and that was in 1917!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration_of_1917

SaxonPagan
Wednesday, June 29th, 2011, 12:43 PM
As for who I would eliminate, it would be William The Bastard, Duke Of Normandy :thumbdown

The Aesthete
Wednesday, June 29th, 2011, 12:48 PM
Goomer is happy off with the fairies


As they say ignorance is bliss

Sigurd
Wednesday, June 29th, 2011, 12:59 PM
Let me ask you this one question....for this is what it all boils down to: Did Hitler order the killing of children or not? Did children die in the concentration camps set up by the SS or not? Were children shot on the spot and buried in mass graves along with the adults or not?

Not that I particularly know of, certainly he didn't personally order anything down that line. As regarded camp policy, will come back with my sources as soon as I can, as I've lent out a few books in regards to the concentration camps. :)


I've seen the photos. You can't make that shit up. I've met survivors who have lived to tell the stories of what went on in these camps

Interestingly enough, a lot of that stuff can be made up, retouched and re-interpreted. For instance, watch the following painting:

http://www.vho.org/D/ffh/Exekution1.jpg

Simon Wiesenthal used that as "corroborating evidence" of how Jewish prisoners were killed. Just too bad that in truth it's a painting made my him and inspired by a photograph of German soldiers killed by the Americans, the picture depicted in time magazine:

http://www.vho.org/D/ffh/Exekution2.jpg

Or then we have another picture of "starving Jews". Which is a retouched painting. This is the picture we're presented with:

http://www.vho.org/D/ffh/Muselmann1.jpg

And this is the older painting we see frequently in Vienna exhibitions:

http://www.vho.org/D/ffh/Muselmann2.jpg

And whilst we're at it --- if you use Google Translate (or are able to understand German), the following account on what happened in the concentration camps by a German soldier held in Auschwitz, could be of interest. You can find it here (http://www.vho.org/D/ffh/Zeuge20.html)


He is one of the more well-known historical figures in recent years, and this is why I chose him.

...and some of the more well-known historical figures that directly or indirectly triggered genocides even received Nobel Peace Prizes. If you look at the pictures of what the end of Apartheid in South Africa has led to (as posted by OneEye), it kind of does make you reconsider the picture one has of Nelson Mandela, no? :shrug

Edgard
Wednesday, June 29th, 2011, 01:07 PM
Goomer

Yes but Stalin still killed way more people and because he was a communist left wing people totally gloss over the facts.

He had 20,000 Poles shot just because they had an education.http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b8/Katy%C5%84%2C_ekshumacja_ofiar.jpg/220px-Katy%C5%84%2C_ekshumacja_ofiar.jpg The man was way worse than Hitler but people only talk about the Germans. I am not a national socialists like some on this site and I am not interested in talking about the holocaust and getting the Nazi party of the hook for what did or did not happen. I am also not going to put it all on Germans when there are more recent mass killings on a bigger scale and almost always from the left and most often without even the excuse of being at war.

Following WWII, Stalin instigated a policy of terror on the German people. This led to about 2,000,000 German civilians being murdered

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_people_did_Stalin_kill#ixzz1QfI 0EZUd

also about 1 million German POW's

It was hard finding an exact number for people he deliberately had killed by shooting or starvation but it is between 20-60 million not including the deaths of combatants during WW2. Most of this was during peace time. Clearly the man was worse than Hitler even if you believe all the official numbers. If I was going to kill a dictator it would have been Stalin. Or maybe Mao with his 40 million death toll.
However if you have a thing for the 6 million number how about the Democratic Republic of the Congo? They have killed 6 million since 1997. But then they are black so no one blames or stops them (people don't want to be seen as racists but they are and so don't care about the deaths of black people sufficiently to risk being called racist and speaking out against the killing).
http://www.religioustolerance.org/genocide4.htm

Again its clear the remembrance of killing is directed by political thinking not by time frame or severity.

Still people say if you have right wing views you are one step away from killing 6 million people. This is not true. Why not say if you have left wing views you are one step of killing 20 million +.

Wulfram
Wednesday, June 29th, 2011, 01:38 PM
Sigurd, I kind of did mention others. Not by name....and by no means do I think Hitler is the only person I wish had never existed. He is a recent example, one that lived in the century I was born in.

This is the same excuse used to demonize Whites. Children are taught that White people are the worst slavers in history, in spite of the fact that only 3% of them ever did. How does the education system get away with it? Because White people are the most recent perpetrators? All they need is one example, because slavery is evil no matter who does it, right? But all the while they show pictures and stories that almost exclusively portray Whites as the prime example. For most people this is good enough, since most are either too lazy to study the extensive of history of slavery or simply do not wish to believe that anybody else other than White people can be so evil. I remember telling you this more than once and you never responded. There is tons of proof to be found, including from prominent blacks, that the greatest slavers of blacks throughout history have been blacks themselves. Untold tens of millions of them enslaved by their own kind for thousands of years. But liberals like yourself wont dare to tread on such a truth because the "truth" you have been dumbfounded with only allows you to see your own skin as the most demonic of them all. This is why you say things like "Hitler!!!" when you are asked to think of the most evil things. We have NEVER been as bad as negroes as well as numerous other races when it comes down to who have been the worst slavers.


Let me ask you this one question....for this is what it all boils down to: Did Hitler order the killing of children or not? Did children die in the concentration camps set up by the SS or not? Were children shot on the spot and buried in mass graves along with the adults or not?

Did you personally hear Hitler say that children were to be shot? Did you witness him sign a piece of paper ordering it? Did you follow that piece of paper to its destination point (EX - A. Eichmann) where it was handed off, then read, then acted upon? Did you see this happen numerous times? Did you know that all the information you have gotten about Hitler's alleged evil has come from the US military? I often wonder why liberals hate the army about everything else and yet they accept the official holocaust story from them word for word. Not one authentic piece of paper has been found from that time proving the Germans ordered such a thing. Not one.


I've seen the photos. You can't make that shit up. I've met survivors who have lived to tell the stories of what went on in these camps

jews are being outed all the time these days for faking their own personal holocaust horrors.

What photos are you speaking of here? The ones of the emaciated prisoners wearing striped uniforms? How do you know they are "holocaust' victims, and not prisoners suffering from typhus? How do you know they are even jews? A majority of those photos have since been established as that of russian soldiers.

Also, you met survivors of concentration camps, NOT "death camps". Even then how do you know they are telling the truth? Because they were old and we young-uns are less apt to question the elderly?

If you were raised from day one to believe the Germans are evil then your subconscious had ALREADY decided that these "survivors" were telling the truth, regardless of whether they had evidence other than an arm tattoo, which they could have easily given themselves.


He is one of the more well-known historical figures in recent years, and this is why I chose him.

If you were alive 100 years ago then you would not be choosing a White man.

Ingvaeonic
Wednesday, June 29th, 2011, 01:49 PM
I think I would eliminate Lenin if I could go back in time. I never liked that prick. Ilja/Ilya Ehrenburg runs a close second. He was an obnoxious prick, too.

Wulfram
Wednesday, June 29th, 2011, 01:53 PM
I think I would eliminate Lenin if I could back in time. I never liked that prick.

The reason being? ;)

Ingvaeonic
Wednesday, June 29th, 2011, 01:56 PM
Tartarish eyes, narrow, violent face, rabble-rousing demagogue: I mean, what's there to like? Oh yeah, one more thing, Lenin had appalling taste in suits and headgear.

SaxonPagan
Wednesday, June 29th, 2011, 02:24 PM
Yes, Lenin would be an excellent candidate for a bullet in the head :thumbup

However, I've always felt that once Marxism was out there as a politico-economic theory, it was only a matter of time before somebody put it into practice. In the event it was Lenin who imposed it on Russia but, had he not done so in that place and at that time, it would almost certainly have been implemented elsewhere and I don't think that killing Lenin would in itself have saved the world from the scourge of Marxism/Communism.

Juthunge
Wednesday, June 29th, 2011, 02:44 PM
My pick would be Simon Bar Kokhba, leader of the Jewish rebellion in 132 AD.
His failed revolt was responsible for the scattering of the Jewish population all over Europe.

Hamar Fox
Wednesday, June 29th, 2011, 02:45 PM
If I had to choose someone to kill, it'd be Jesus Christ.

Huginn ok Muninn
Wednesday, June 29th, 2011, 03:59 PM
I've seen the photos. You can't make that shit up.

Yes you can. You can also misrepresent what those photos illustrate. It's called telling a story, and when that story is meant to defame a person or a people, it's called propaganda. They do it every day in Hollywood. Did you know Billy Wilder, the famous Jewish director, was brought in to make the propaganda films? I'll bet his budget was unlimited, too.

One Third of the Holocaust (http://www.onethirdoftheholocaust.com/)


I've met survivors who have lived to tell the stories of what went on in these camps

And every tale told by a Jew is surely the God's honest truth. :P Here are some fun stories told by some of the millions of "camp survivors:"

Tales of the Holocaust (http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t390908/)

But why do I disbelieve the holocaust? Here's why. This is from a JEWISH source... the biography of Emanuel Celler, a Jew you have never heard of, but who is the person most responsible for the flood of non-white immigrants in the U.S. today. Notice the extreme hyperbole.. the overblown, exaggerated emotion in the story.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Celler.html


Celler's determination to fight U. S. immigration quotas was particularly reinforced one Sunday during World War II, when a bearded rabbi came to his home. Celler always left the door unlocked on Sundays so his constituents could enter without ringing or knocking. The rabbi in black hat and long coat, clutching a cane, spoke forcefully to Celler. "Don't you see, can't you see?" the rabbi asked, "Won't you see that there are millions — millions — being killed. Can't we save some of them? Can't you, Mr. Congressman, do something?" Celler equivocated, averring that President Roosevelt had told him that he sympathized with the Jewish plight but could not divert ships being used to transport war material and soldiers to bring in refugees. The rabbi's reply moved Celler to tears: "If six million cattle had been slaughtered," he observed, "there would have been greater interest."

Can you believe what you are reading? A Jewish source is admitting that the "six million" number was a pre-decided figure. How could this rabbi know what was going on in secret during the war? How could he know about the "death camps?" How could he know DURING the war that SIX MILLION would be the final tally of dead Jews? Because it was MADE UP. FABRICATED. A LIE. PLANNED FROM THE START.

http://www.rense.com/general62/cnn.htm


"Did you know that WWII wasn't the first time that Jews claimed 6,000,000 of their number were eradicated in a genocidal frenzy?" I asked. "No - no, I didn't," came the tentative response. "WWI," I said. "They made the exact, same claim, but they would like us to forget about that now. And that wasn't the first time either. You might ask what is so magic about the 6 million figure - well, it derives from their Talmud, which teaches that their Messiah will not come until 6 million Jews are slaughtered."


He is one of the more well-known historical figures in recent years, and this is why I chose him.

So, you've chosen to murder the champion of your people because your blood enemy told you to? :oanieyes

Why do you suppose he is so well known as this "inhuman monster?" Because the Jewish-dominated media, government, and education system have told you every day that he was the devil incarnate... yet of course you never heard of Lazar Kaganovich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazar_Kaganovich), who was really personally responsible for purposely starving millions of children to death. Do you know why you've never heard of him? Because he was a JEW, that's why. Why would the Jews advertise the genocides they themselves have perpetrated against white Europeans? Would you be surprised to find out that many of those heart-wrenching photos were actually pictures of the forced famine in the Ukraine, the Holodomor, and not the "holocaust?"

http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/dec2008/famine-victims.jpg

http://blog.kievukraine.info/uploaded_images/2892-788150.jpg

http://brianakira.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/lazar-kaganovich-holodomor1.jpg

You hear what the Jew wants you to hear, think what the Jew wants you to think, sympathize with whom the Jew wants you to sympathize, why do you think they keep such a stranglehold on the media?

Ingvaeonic
Wednesday, June 29th, 2011, 04:06 PM
My pick would be Simon Bar Kokhba, leader of the Jewish rebellion in 132 AD.
His failed revolt was responsible for the scattering of the Jewish population all over Europe.

Good choice.

Huginn ok Muninn
Wednesday, June 29th, 2011, 10:50 PM
Half the problems in Israel now that extend to the rest of the Middle East....and by default to the rest of the Western World stem from the fact that the Jews got relocated to Israel after the war.

You know, I've noticed you have 467 posts here already and you've been here just over a month. You average more than 13 posts per day. If you would listen and read as much as you post, you would be a lot more enlightened about the things you opine about. Do you really think it was Hitler's fault the Jews went to Palestine? You need to learn a lot about Zionism. Please read the following:

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


Zionism aims at establishing for the Jewish people a publicly and legally assured home in Palestine. For the attainment of this purpose, the Congress considers the following means serviceable:

1. The promotion of the settlement of Jewish agriculturists, artisans, and tradesmen in Palestine.

2. The federation of all Jews into local or general groups, according to the laws of the various countries.

3. The strengthening of the Jewish feeling and consciousness.

4. Preparatory steps for the attainment of those governmental grants which are necessary to the achievement of the Zionist purpose.

This was 1897, when Hitler was eight years old.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration_of_1917



His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

The declaration was made in a letter from Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to Baron Rothschild (Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron Rothschild), a leader of the British Jewish community, for transmission to the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland. The letter reflected the position of the British Cabinet, as agreed upon in a meeting on 31 October 1917. It further stated that the declaration is a sign of "sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations."

So, you see, it was the Brits who did this, in exchange for Jewish influence in bringing the United States into WW1 against Germany. But you thought they were the "good guys," right? :oanieyes

InvaderNat
Wednesday, June 29th, 2011, 11:19 PM
Hitler. Sorry....I hate that POS. Loving your people is one thing....doing what he did is something else entirely. Half the problems in Israel now that extend to the rest of the Middle East....and by default to the rest of the Western World stem from the fact that the Jews got relocated to Israel after the war.

I know a lot of people on Skadi admire him. I will not try to change anyone's mind about that as long as no one gives me grief for my feelings about him.

Are there other historical figures? Yes, I am sure there are many.....but Hitler is the most recent example I can think of.

I agree, particularly because without him it would have been the Soviet Union who started WWII (as they always intended to invade Europe), meaning the Allies would have sided with Germany and eventually invaded and occupied Russia - thus destroying the Soviet Union and Communism/Marxism right there and then.
If this had of happened then stupid left-wing ideas like Multiculturalism might never have happened.

Alternatively one could always go back and give advanced technical and strategic information to the side they wanted to win. ;)

SaxonPagan
Wednesday, June 29th, 2011, 11:27 PM
I agree, particularly because without him it would have been the Soviet Union who started WWII (as they always intended to invade Europe), meaning the Allies would have sided with Germany and eventually invaded and occupied Russia - thus destroying the Soviet Union and Communism/Marxism right there and then.
If this had of happened then stupid left-wing ideas like Multiculturalism would never had happened.

I think this is a very simplistic scenario that takes no account of the underlying agenda behind WW2 ;)

InvaderNat
Wednesday, June 29th, 2011, 11:37 PM
I think this is a very simplistic scenario that takes no account of the underlying agenda behind WW2 ;)

Sometimes the simplest answer is the best one, its impossible to predict detailed alternate futures just by killing one person.

...Instead, giving one WWII army modern military schematics makes it a lot easier to predict.

SaxonPagan
Wednesday, June 29th, 2011, 11:53 PM
Sometimes the simplest answer is the best one, its impossible to predict detailed alternate futures just by killing one person.

...Instead, giving one WWII army modern military schematics makes it a lot easier to predict.

Yes, but the question pertains to eliminating ONE historical figure and you haven't stayed within this brief with your proposal to equip one army against another.

Goomer
Thursday, June 30th, 2011, 03:18 AM
You know, I've noticed you have 467 posts here already and you've been here just over a month. You average more than 13 posts per day. If you would listen and read as much as you post, you would be a lot more enlightened about the things you opine about. Do you really think it was Hitler's fault the Jews went to Palestine? You need to learn a lot about Zionism. Please read the following:

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



This was 1897, when Hitler was eight years old.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration_of_1917



So, you see, it was the Brits who did this, in exchange for Jewish influence in bringing the United States into WW1 against Germany. But you thought they were the "good guys," right? :oanieyes

I prefer interaction with human beings, thanks:) I've done enough *research* in my education to last me enough for three lifetimes, lol. I do have access to information, however, and being that my spouse is a 20th century Poly Sci/History major, he is also a very good person to talk about these issues with.

This is why I prefer to post and discuss with you all. I knew most of you would disagree....that is fine. I also have my own *life experiences* which have shaped these views.....as have all of you. Not a one of us can tell another how to interpret the things we've seen with our own eyes, no?

:)

I recognize the impact of the Zionist lobby here in the US....and its direct influence on the aid the US gives to Israel. I also disagree with it. But, not all Jews are Zionists, and not all Zionists are Jews.

Forgot to add: My earlier post was made in reference to the fact Israel did not become a sovereign nation until 1948; after WWII and Hitler's Nazi Germany. This is when the trouble REALLY started because as the Jews were being settled into the new nation of Israel, the native Palestinian peoples were given the BOOT and essentially, treated as the Jews had been during the war.

Hope that helped again.

Goomer
Thursday, June 30th, 2011, 05:54 AM
Goomer is happy off with the fairies


As they say ignorance is bliss

I'll take my ignorance over the love of a man like Hitler. Pretty much think the rest of the world is going to agree with me on that. ;) Seeing as most of the world knows the atrocities of Hitler and his regime are not made up.

And since you are being typically rude, I'll take the word of a survivor ANY DAY over the likes of YOU who knows NOTHING because you were not THERE.

Lastly, if my interest in my own culture and preservation of such has to be somehow connected to the destruction of other cultures? I guess in your eyes then, I am not a preservationist.

Perhaps you and I define preservationist differently. But, at least, I am not rude to others for their opinions

I am sure the Christians on Skadi (there are a few) are none-too-thrilled at the post that mentioned killing Christ, but I don't see them getting up in anybody's business about it.

Hitler was no God nor Saint. He took nationalism to destructive levels and caused a whole ton of humanity nothing but pain and heartbreak. And I am supposed to admire him??

No. Thank. You. Sir.

Magni
Thursday, June 30th, 2011, 06:03 AM
I'd probably go with Oliver Cromwell.

Every time I say his name I have the urge to spit. Most people here probably don't give two-shits about him? Being part Irish I have fairly strong feelings.

Ælfrun
Thursday, June 30th, 2011, 06:57 AM
Louis Real for mixing the French and Indians and creating the Canadian wide "metis" status. Ugh

Feverfew
Thursday, June 30th, 2011, 12:42 PM
I don't know how to pick only one person.

My top choice would be Muhammad, as previously mentioned.

My second would be St Paul, as he is the one that really spread Christianity. Without him it would not have been a successful religion, just another cult. Plus he also changed the nature of the religion to make it more palatable to non Jews, and (along with Augustine), made sex seem like a negative thing to be ashamed of.

I would also include William the Conqueror, and Oliver Cromwell.

More contemporarily, I would like to nominate Osama Bin Ladin, Tony Blair and George Bush Jr for an early or earlier retirement from life.

Linden
Thursday, June 30th, 2011, 02:16 PM
If I could, I would have assassinated Robert Mugabe before he took power in 1980. His mistreatment of the white population is horrific. He stole their land and wealth, destroyed their homes, ordered his militias to beat white men to death and rape their wives, banned many white children from receiving an education.

I even feel sorry for the black population, as the man has even betrayed his very own people. While they starve and live on a few pennies a week, he wears designer suits, has a collection of luxury cars and holds expensive parties every week.

I do not know how that man can sleep at night. He's ruined his own country for his own gain. Before he took power, Rhodesia (Zimbabwe's old name) was administered by mainly white, Germanic people and was the wealthiest nation in Africa, even wealthier than quite a few European nations. Now, it's amongst the poorest nations in the world...every penny that had been earnt to make Rhodesia the most powerful African nation was squandered by Mugabe. Infact...in the mid 1990s when Zimbabwe ran out of money, he asked the Britain to give Zimbabwe $15 million, and we did. Two weeks later, Mugabe bought a personal jet for...$15 million. I hate him.

Sybren
Thursday, June 30th, 2011, 02:30 PM
Hitler was no God nor Saint. He took nationalism to destructive levels and caused a whole ton of humanity nothing but pain and heartbreak. And I am supposed to admire him??
You're not supposed to admire anything if you don't want to.

Undoubtedly Hitler contributed to pain and heartbreak. But why always only focus on that? Have you not noticed the immense ascent that the German economy received when Hitler was in command, the hundreds of thousands of German faces full of hope again. And the power and awe that radiates from a nation that is a true unity. A collective of people that feels connected to their land and forefathers, unlike the disorganized sorry excuses for populations that inhabite our lands at the moment, which really only care about their own well-being. Just look at Hitler and tell me that is not a man who really cares about his people. It's so ironic to me that nowadays leftists who are busy destroying our culture and heritage, regard to Hitler as the ultimate evil.

I'm still not sure myself what to exactly think about National Socialism in all its parts, but i at least don't see Hitler as a sort of anti-Christ. I acknowledge 30's/40's Nazism very well had it's positive points. That's not being an evil bastard, that is looking at it without letting the brainwashed part taking completely over. I've been brainwashed as well, just like everybody here. Just at least consider the possibility that the stories being told to you are just maybe half of the true story, or even less. I believe there have been far, far worse men than Hitler. When you think about Hitler, you don't think about the actual man, you think about the image of an in-evil monster that has been planted in your head.

And if the rest of the world agrees with you? Well sorry, but i never really put much value in what the masses thinks about things. Most of them are just sheep that are too lazy to form an opinion of themselves and otherwise too scared to say what they really think. It's easy to go with the flow.

The Aesthete
Thursday, June 30th, 2011, 03:19 PM
Ignorance Goomer you just keep ignoring anything which goes against the way you want to see the world

I don’t want to destroy anyone else’s culture, but I do want to preserve my own

No one here said you had to admire anyone; it has more to do with correction of your erroneous assertions

velvet
Thursday, June 30th, 2011, 05:05 PM
I'll take my ignorance over the love of a man like Hitler. Pretty much think the rest of the world is going to agree with me on that. ;) Seeing as most of the world knows the atrocities of Hitler and his regime are not made up.

Look at Untersberger's signature, it reads:
The World knows everything what Germany has done, but the World knows NOTHING of what was done to the Germans.
www.rheinwiesenlager.de

It tells about Allied atrocities POST-war against Germans. Read it for once.

And that the "world" agrees with you might be true, it is not a proof for the holocaust™ though. When you propagandize a story 24/7 for 65 around the globe, it might be accepted and believed, this doesnt make it true though.



... I'll take the word of a survivor ANY DAY over the likes of YOU who knows NOTHING because you were not THERE.

Aha, and YOU have been there?

And maybe ask your oh-so educated husband whether he knows about the Allied atrocities against Germany. Or maybe his "knowledge" stems from the generic brainwash books that people are fed with at schools and universities?

And let's have a look at a "surviver story", shall we?



Moshe Peer was sent to the gas chamber at least six times. Each time he survived, watching with horrors as many of the women and children gassed with him collapsed and died. To this day, Peer doesn’t know how he was able to survive. “Maybe children resist better, I don’t know,” he said in an interview last week

This fantastic (and fantasized) story was printed in the Montreal Gazette in the early 90s.


The only "gas chamber" poor Moshe could have possibly survived six times would be delousing chambers designed to kill lice and other parasites in order to prevent disease. Delousing chambers were the only type of "gas chambers" at any of the German camps.

Also note that Peer claims there was a "homicidal gas chamber" at Bergen-Belsen (located on German soil), but now even proponents of the 'official' holocaust story admit that there were no "homicidal gas chambers" at any of the camps on German soil.

Source (http://exposing-the-holocaust-hoax-archive.blogspot.com/2010/04/moshe-peers-astounding-holy-shoah-tale.html)

And read Germar Rudolf's book "Lectures on the Holocaust (http://www.vho.org/dl/ENG/loth.pdf)", you might learn a thing or two.



Hitler was no God nor Saint. He took nationalism to destructive levels and caused a whole ton of humanity nothing but pain and heartbreak. And I am supposed to admire him??

Maybe Hitler wasnt a God or Saint, but he also wasnt Satan Himself. What you "know" about him comes directly out of Hollywood and "survivors" like Moshe Peer, or the "survivors" that are trained for tale-telling in Israeli Kibbutz. I had myself the pleasure in school to experience a "survivor" who wasnt even born when WWII ended. So, how much is their word really worth? Not a cent, it's not worth listening.

Start your journey to the truth today (http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/jdecwar.html)

Ingvaeonic
Thursday, June 30th, 2011, 05:40 PM
If I could, I would have assassinated Robert Mugabe before he took power in 1980. His mistreatment of the white population is horrific. He stole their land and wealth, destroyed their homes, ordered his militias to beat white men to death and rape their wives, banned many white children from receiving an education.

I even feel sorry for the black population, as the man has even betrayed his very own people. While they starve and live on a few pennies a week, he wears designer suits, has a collection of luxury cars and holds expensive parties every week.

I do not know how that man can sleep at night. He's ruined his own country for his own gain. Before he took power, Rhodesia (Zimbabwe's old name) was administered by mainly white, Germanic people and was the wealthiest nation in Africa, even wealthier than quite a few European nations. Now, it's amongst the poorest nations in the world...every penny that had been earnt to make Rhodesia the most powerful African nation was squandered by Mugabe. Infact...in the mid 1990s when Zimbabwe ran out of money, he asked the Britain to give Zimbabwe $15 million, and we did. Two weeks later, Mugabe bought a personal jet for...$15 million. I hate him.

Yes, Robert Mugabe is another good choice for elimination. Indeed, he is an excellent choice. To this day I don't know why the Rhodesians didn't knock off the arsehole.

Ingvaeonic
Thursday, June 30th, 2011, 05:53 PM
If I had to choose someone to kill, it'd be Jesus Christ.

And why is JC your choice for elimination, HF? (I have a suspicion, but I can't say I really know.)

Wittmann
Thursday, June 30th, 2011, 06:04 PM
And why is JC your choice for elimination, HF? (I have a suspicion, but I can't say I really know.)

They did that, but he came back to life.

:D I'm Christian but I couldn't resist the joke

Ingvaeonic
Thursday, June 30th, 2011, 06:13 PM
They did that, but he came back to life.

:D I'm Christian but I couldn't resist the joke

Yeah, I was going to say something similar, such as: how are you keep him dead if he keeps rising every three days?

Turin son of Hurin
Thursday, June 30th, 2011, 06:49 PM
charlemagne

Wulfram
Thursday, June 30th, 2011, 07:05 PM
Martin Bormann

Has anybody here read the following books:

Hitler's Traitor Martin Bormann and the Defeat of the Reich - By Louis Kilzer

Inside Hitler's High Command - By Geoffrey P. Megargee


As one might expect, Adolf Hitler is the central character in both of these excellent studies. Louis Kilzer painstakingly establishes a convincing case that Martin Bormann, the Fuehrer's top advisor and confidant, was actually a spy working in the service of Russian intelligence. Geoffrey Megargee advances the not implausible theory that the German general staff was of the collection of military intellectuals most of us have commonly accepted. In fact, after reading these two works, one is almost moved to remark, sarcastically, that it was a miracle (and a tribute to the German fighting man) that the Reich lasted as long as it did, especially after Stalingrad.

Hitler's casual regard for intelligence security made him and his staff almost blind to the machinations of a mole, "Werther" was his code name, and ultimately brought the Reich to grief on the battlefield. Kilzer's tale of network spies operating from Switzerland, Germany, and the USSR, and feeding Russian intelligence critically important details of German high command plans and intentions (often disregarded by Stalin) is proof that fact is often stranger than fiction. To help us understand all the players in this drama, Kilzer provides a compendium of 28 spies, networks, and abbreviations at the opening of his book. This is a needed feature as it is difficult to follow the narrative without a listing of the players who were part of this intelligence effort. At first, one cannot tell these players without a program.

The Red Army sometimes knew movement orders to German units in the field within hours of their release to German commanders. Stalin's paranoia at times prevented him from trusting these reports, and Kilzer offers the often repeated example of Stalin's mistrust of his subordinates that justified his purges: The fact that there was no evidence of a conspiracy against him was absolute proof that there was a plot to depose him. Indeed, Stalin doesn't come off much better than Hitler in terms of his inability to differentiate valid information from misinformation or propaganda. The Wehrmacht's initial successes on the Russian front, as both authors point out, was due in no small part to Stalin's liquidation (read: mass execution) of many top officers in the Soviet army during the late 1930s. Without experienced leaders and competent staff officers in the field to lead and guide Russian soldiers, the Red Army was a fruit ripe to be plucked by German forces.

While scholars have speculated on a highly placed traitor within Hitler's inner circle, Kilzer is the first to come out and identify him. His case is as compelling as it is complete. Megargee, on the other hand, also breaks new ground in a way that may dismay fans of the vaunted German General Staff For his contention is that Hitler's generals, far from being detached intellectual soldiers who only followed the Fuehrer out of loyalty--or in some cases fear--were themselves frequently complicit in the schemes launched by the Wehrmacht that frequently ended in failure (Stalingrad comes to mind). The generals might have been hesitant in various campaigns, but had an undying faith in their soldiers, not entirely misplaced; this faith clouded their judgments, especially in regard to the fighting ability and sheer tenacity of the Russian soldier. A contempt of one's enemies can often be the precursor to defeat.

Elessar
Thursday, June 30th, 2011, 07:48 PM
charlemagne
To do so would eliminate everything that is German afterwards.

Karl der Große was perhaps the greatest German to have existed. A man who would rise to power to create one of the largest and longest sustaining Germanic Empire in history, fighting the Muslims in Spain, drive the Avars from Hungary, damn nearly saved Europe from reverting into the stone age, and whos grandson, Charles Martel, saved Europe entirely from Islamic expansion in the Battle of Tours. And you say you would have killed him!?

Now, now, I know what the main argument is against him, that he killed some 8,000 Saxons, cut down Irminsul, and led campaigns against the pagans. The only thing this shows is that Christ is the better god of War than is Odin :D
The HRE is the continuation of the heathen Germanic spirit perfected, to conquer lesser factions and make them whole. Without it, we would still be squabbling in huts and making war with rival tribes (like we don't do that already still). The only ones who espouse this sentimentality are Neopagans with a hard on for bad-mouthing Christianity.
Charlemagne elevated Germania to the status of nobility, to take where Rome had left off and make it Germanic, in essence made Germany the beautiful, Traditional, and strong country it is today. Without Charlemagne, say bye-bye to the Germany you know and love.

catywampusness
Thursday, June 30th, 2011, 11:20 PM
I'm going to have to join the Hitler bandwagon. Regardless of how you feel about your own peoples, such atrocities are not justifiable. IMO.

Goomer
Friday, July 1st, 2011, 01:05 AM
Look at Untersberger's signature, it reads:
The World knows everything what Germany has done, but the World knows NOTHING of what was done to the Germans.
www.rheinwiesenlager.de

It tells about Allied atrocities POST-war against Germans. Read it for once.

And that the "world" agrees with you might be true, it is not a proof for the holocaust™ though. When you propagandize a story 24/7 for 65 around the globe, it might be accepted and believed, this doesnt make it true though.




Aha, and YOU have been there?

And maybe ask your oh-so educated husband whether he knows about the Allied atrocities against Germany. Or maybe his "knowledge" stems from the generic brainwash books that people are fed with at schools and universities?

And let's have a look at a "surviver story", shall we?




This fantastic (and fantasized) story was printed in the Montreal Gazette in the early 90s.



Source (http://exposing-the-holocaust-hoax-archive.blogspot.com/2010/04/moshe-peers-astounding-holy-shoah-tale.html)

And read Germar Rudolf's book "Lectures on the Holocaust (http://www.vho.org/dl/ENG/loth.pdf)", you might learn a thing or two.


Maybe Hitler wasnt a God or Saint, but he also wasnt Satan Himself. What you "know" about him comes directly out of Hollywood and "survivors" like Moshe Peer, or the "survivors" that are trained for tale-telling in Israeli Kibbutz. I had myself the pleasure in school to experience a "survivor" who wasnt even born when WWII ended. So, how much is their word really worth? Not a cent, it's not worth listening.

Start your journey to the truth today (http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/jdecwar.html)

Have YOU spoken with survivors that were THERE IN the camps? I think if you had.....you'd quit with the rationalizations pretty fast.

I have spoken with survivors. Their stories mean more to me than ANYthing you can ever tell me.

I have explained why I chose Hitler several times already. If you read my earlier posts....you would have known that I understand Hitler to NOT be the ONLY one to have done these types of things.

Wulfram
Friday, July 1st, 2011, 01:20 AM
Have YOU spoken with survivors that were THERE IN the camps? I think if you had.....you'd quit with the rationalizations pretty fast.

I have spoken with survivors. Their stories mean more to me than ANYthing you can ever tell me.

I have explained why I chose Hitler several times already. If you read my earlier posts....you would have known that I understand Hitler to NOT be the ONLY one to have done these types of things.

If they were in concentration camps then they probably deserved to be there.
If they claim they "survived" a "death camp" then I simply do not believe them unless they can provide evidence.
If you believed the latter then may I ask what led you to think they were telling the truth?

Albie
Friday, July 1st, 2011, 01:26 AM
If Hitler was eliminated the whole world would be better and many lives would be saved. Hitler caused too many wars. He even killed Germans and Germans are taking the blame for what Hitler did.

Goomer
Friday, July 1st, 2011, 01:27 AM
You're not supposed to admire anything if you don't want to.

Undoubtedly Hitler contributed to pain and heartbreak. But why always only focus on that? Have you not noticed the immense ascent that the German economy received when Hitler was in command, the hundreds of thousands of German faces full of hope again. And the power and awe that radiates from a nation that is a true unity. A collective of people that feels connected to their land and forefathers, unlike the disorganized sorry excuses for populations that inhabite our lands at the moment, which really only care about their own well-being. Just look at Hitler and tell me that is not a man who really cares about his people. It's so ironic to me that nowadays leftists who are busy destroying our culture and heritage, regard to Hitler as the ultimate evil.

I'm still not sure myself what to exactly think about National Socialism in all its parts, but i at least don't see Hitler as a sort of anti-Christ. I acknowledge 30's/40's Nazism very well had it's positive points. That's not being an evil bastard, that is looking at it without letting the brainwashed part taking completely over. I've been brainwashed as well, just like everybody here. Just at least consider the possibility that the stories being told to you are just maybe half of the true story, or even less. I believe there have been far, far worse men than Hitler. When you think about Hitler, you don't think about the actual man, you think about the image of an in-evil monster that has been planted in your head.

And if the rest of the world agrees with you? Well sorry, but i never really put much value in what the masses thinks about things. Most of them are just sheep that are too lazy to form an opinion of themselves and otherwise too scared to say what they really think. It's easy to go with the flow.

Sybren, lest you think otherwise....I am not a sheeple:) I answered this thread honestly. I grew up understanding Hitler to be one of the most destructive men in recent history....I was born in the 1960s so WWII was not quite the distant memory it is now.

It just surprised me somewhat that of all answers on this thread....I am being forced to defend my choice of historical figures....because most people I do know, including my husband the history major, would not defend Hitler's actions at all. This is because whatever good was done by Hitler was far outweighed by the BAD....as in the deaths of....millions upon millions of men, women, and most importantly.....children....all at the hands of Nazi Germany.

One last thing.....I don't see this as just a Jewish tragedy....many more people than just Jews were murdered during those years. I see this as a human tragedy.

I believe in the ideology of helping our own peoples in positive ways that, while helping our own, do not contribute to the destruction of other peoples or cultures. I have no wish to see any other culture destroyed. Every culture has its faults and strengths.

Hitler did not do that. He tried to help his people....but in doing so....also sought to destroy other outside cultures. I disagree with that. If this makes me in the minority here on Skadi.....so be it.

I do appreciate your dialogue and that you can talk with me without insults. Have a great day!

Goomer
Friday, July 1st, 2011, 01:28 AM
If Hitler was eliminated the whole world would be better and many lives would be saved. Hitler caused too many wars. He even killed Germans and Germans are taking the blame for what Hitler did.

YES! THANK YOU, Albie.

Goomer
Friday, July 1st, 2011, 01:30 AM
If they were in concentration camps then they probably deserved to be there.
If they claim they "survived" a "death camp" then I simply do believe them unless they can provide evidence.
If you believed the latter then may I ask what led you to think they were telling the truth?

I have to go now and do some *boot camp* training. Wanted to let you know that I did see this post and will answer it later tonight Ronan:)

Turin son of Hurin
Friday, July 1st, 2011, 01:46 AM
YES! THANK YOU, Albie.

The difference between Albies post and all of yours, is that Albie answered the op question as pertaining to germanic preservation. You, on the other hand seem to want Hitler erased to save the lives of non-germanic children.

Turin son of Hurin
Friday, July 1st, 2011, 02:00 AM
Now, now, I know what the main argument is against him, that he killed some 8,000 Saxons, cut down Irminsul, and led campaigns against the pagansThe way he destroyed pagans was that he killed those that didnt submit to christianity. So he actually destroyed all the defiant genes in germania leaving only the more doclie and submissive to breed. Starting to sound like the christianity we all know and love yet?
The only thing this shows is that Christ is the better god of War than is Odin :D It depends what you think better is. Odin worshipers had a healthy attitude towards war where the strongest warriors returned home within a few months, weeks or that very night to impregnate the women. Christian wars have always separated the warriors form the women leaving the spineless behind to breed with the women. Christian warriorhood is ahouse built on sand .

The HRE is the continuation of the heathen Germanic spirit perfected, to conquer lesser factions and make them whole. Without it, we would still be squabbling in huts and making war with rival tribes It's seems to preserving the african race quite well. They dont have jews breeding with their womenfolk
The only ones who espouse this sentimentality are Neopagans with a hard on for bad-mouthing Christianity. i do enjoy downing the religion that has decimated our people yes

Charlemagne elevated Germania to the status of nobility, translation: into a people of bullies(descendents of the christian police) and dociles (descendents of the people they allowed to survive)
to take where Rome had left off and make it Germanic, in essence made Germany the beautiful, Traditional, and strong country it is today. yeah its going great.In 50 years it'll be brown.
Without Charlemagne, say bye-bye to the Germany you know and love. Say goodbye to it with him.

Goomer
Friday, July 1st, 2011, 05:28 AM
The difference between Albies post and all of yours, is that Albie answered the op question as pertaining to germanic preservation. You, on the other hand seem to want Hitler erased to save the lives of non-germanic children.

I am sorry for you if you feel that germanic children are the only children whose lives are worth saving. I truly am happy to NOT feel the same way as you do.

All children matter to me. All peoples matter to me also. This does not mean I value my heritage less than you value yours, mind you. If you feel it does....you are dead wrong and cannot speak on my behalf.

I got the gist of Albie's post just fine. She included everyone that died as a result of Hitler's regime.....as did I....whether they were germanic or not.

That is the central issue between you and I, perhaps. I do not consider any human being superior to another. BUT....I DO consider that the uniqueness of which makes up the Germanic peoples from which my ancestors came to be worthy of retaining....and because I am Germanic and not say....Slavic, or Mediterranean, MY focus is on doing my own little part to ensure the continuation of my peoples. For me, it is a personal choice. But, where you and I also differ is that in my estimation, I have no right to tell someone else what they should and should not do in their own lives, whether or not I agree or disagree. That is the American side of me emerging.

I understand Europe to be in quite a bit of upheaval right now....with all the immigration issues. There is nothing I, as an American, can do to help. The immigrants entering Europe are apparently not assimilating well....and that has created obvious problems. I don't blame the Europeans for feeling resentment that their ways of life of being disrupted by the influx of people who do not embrace their ideals. Those nations SHOULD remain largely homogenous, because their societies formed on that basis.

Wouldn't it be the same if a bunch of Americans decided all of a sudden to immigrate to a place like Turkey, however? I bet the Turks would not be happy with all those Americans wrecking their way of life, either. Not that I agree with Turkish values, mind you....just for illustrative purposes.

If the things mentioned here sound like a broken record.....this is because these beliefs are as powerful for me as your ideas of Preservation are for you.

In the end, sir, any little bit each of us can do to ensure our children a healthy, happy, and safe future, are steps in the right direction.

Probably every decent parent around feels the same way.

Hope this helped. Sorry for the length. Have a great day:)

Elessar
Friday, July 1st, 2011, 05:56 AM
snip
In no way did you actually drag up some evidence for your claims, relying only on some kind of pseudo-historical pagan sympathizing.
Defiant Genes? lolwut?


Odin worshipers had a healthy attitude towards war where the strongest warriors returned home within a few months, weeks or that very night to impregnate the women. Christian wars have always separated the warriors form the women leaving the spineless behind to breed with the women. Christian warriorhood is ahouse built on sand
>implying Crusaders, unlike Vikings, never came back home to their families.
What utter nonsense. Care for some evidence? Where do you get these notions? Amon Amarth?


translation: into a people of bullies(descendents of the christian police) and dociles (descendents of the people they allowed to survive)
Bullies!? hahah, that's it, all the ancient Germanic Christians needed was some counselor to tell them bullying is wrong. As for Dociles, I guess that goes for me and you, right? I mean, I'm a spineless bastard because Charlemagne allowed my distant ancestors the privilege of living under his tyrannical regime :rollsmile
>implying that Pagan Germanic warriors never unjustifiably (or bullied as you call it) waged war on societies


It's seems to preserving the african race quite well. They dont have jews breeding with their womenfolk
What? You're putting us on level with negroes?
As for Jews, they aren't a cause, but a symptom. The illness is modernity. That puts this out of the equation, you just would like to drag the discussion down to the level of interracialism and black people because your mind is occupied with it so, thus is the only facet you can be confident of.


yeah its going great.In 50 years it'll be brown.


Say goodbye to it with him.
Obviously you know damn well the BRD is not the continuation of the HRE, or NS Germany for that matter, thus cannot conceivably be brought into the discussion of Traditional German issues. Immigration was not a problem as I've already pointed out, he fought & drove back both Moors and Avars, something modern Odin worshipers only dream of doing. But I guess it's no consolation to you.

You do your Christian ancestors a great shame by vilifying them. This kind of selective glorification of Germanic history is the utmost blasphemy in the field of Preservationism.

Might I suggest reading Europe and the Faith (http://librivox.org/europe-and-the-faith-by-hilaire-belloc/) by Hilaire Belloc.

Turin son of Hurin
Friday, July 1st, 2011, 06:06 AM
In no way did you actually drag up some evidence for your claims, relying only on some kind of pseudo-historical pagan sympathizing.
Defiant Genes? lolwut?


>implying Crusaders, unlike Vikings, never came back home to their families.
What utter nonsense. Care for some evidence? Where do you get these notions? Amon Amarth?


Bullies!? hahah, that's it, all the ancient Germanic Christians needed was some counselor to tell them bullying is wrong. As for Dociles, I guess that goes for me and you, right? I mean, I'm a spineless bastard because Charlemagne allowed my distant ancestors the privilege of living under his tyrannical regime :rollsmile
>implying that Pagan Germanic warriors never unjustifiably (or bullied as you call it) waged war on societies


What? You're putting us on level with negroes?
As for Jews, they aren't a cause, but a symptom. The illness is modernity. That puts this out of the equation, you just would like to drag the discussion down to the level of interracialism and black people because your mind is occupied with it so, thus is the only facet you can be confident of.



Obviously you know damn well the BRD is not the continuation of the HRE, or NS Germany for that matter, thus cannot conceivably be brought into the discussion of Traditional German issues. Immigration was not a problem as I've already pointed out, he fought & drove back both Moors and Avars, something modern Odin worshipers only dream of doing. But I guess it's no consolation to you.

You do your Christian ancestors a great shame by vilifying them. This kind of selective glorification of Germanic history is the utmost blasphemy in the field of Preservationism.

Might I suggest reading Europe and the Faith (http://librivox.org/europe-and-the-faith-by-hilaire-belloc/) by Hilaire Belloc.

I rest my case

Elessar
Friday, July 1st, 2011, 06:08 AM
I rest my case

I accept your defeat.
http://www.germantribes.org/img/300Charlemagne_Rolandfealty.jpg

Turin son of Hurin
Friday, July 1st, 2011, 06:13 AM
I

If the things mentioned here sound like a broken record.....this is because these beliefs are as powerful for me as your ideas of Preservation are for you. My point is proven. You have an agenda that is not germanic preservation.

The whole western world is on the same broken record as you. I don't want to destroy all other races. But theirs aren't being destroyed . Mine is! This site is the only place in the world where we hear a point of view other than yours. We'd like to keep it that way. Make way for the younger generation. You havent destroyed them yet and you won't Keep your old fashioned ideas to yourself or exspouse them in the everyday world where every siongle person agrees with you. And stop stalking your poor daughter!

Turin son of Hurin
Friday, July 1st, 2011, 06:24 AM
In no way did you actually drag up some evidence for your claims, relying only on some kind of pseudo-historical pagan sympathizing.
Defiant Genes? lolwut? did you?



>implying Crusaders, unlike Vikings, never came back home to their families.
What utter nonsense. Care for some evidence? Where do you get these notions? Amon Amarth? I speak simple truths which are obvious. A civilized man is a more submissive creature than a wild man.
Crusaders went away for years on a type of indetured servitude. A norse warrior(im not specically saying viking raider0 goes home when he dam wel felt like it, and he wouldnt have had half a globe to travel either. And our wars since have selectively wiped out the best men. Where as african warriors have taken a few spear wounds yet survived.



Bullies!? hahah, that's it, all the ancient Germanic Christians needed was some counselor to tell them bullying is wrong. As for Dociles, I guess that goes for me and you, right?I mean, I'm a spineless bastard because Charlemagne allowed my distant ancestors the privilege of living under his tyrannical regime :rollsmile I don't see many other germanics standing up for themselves these days

>implying that Pagan Germanic warriors never unjustifiably (or bullied as you call it) waged war on societies


What? You're putting us on level with negroes? no i'm putting them above us in this attribute

As for Jews, they aren't a cause, but a symptom. The illness is modernity. That puts this out of the equation, you just would like to drag the discussion down to the level of interracialism and black people because your mind is occupied with it so, thus is the only facet you can be confident of. an example was all, in place of jews put'weedling' less direct, merchant type men.




Obviously you know damn well the BRD is not the continuation of the HRE, or NS Germany for that matter, thus cannot conceivably be brought into the discussion of Traditional German issues. Immigration was not a problem as I've already pointed out, he fought & drove back both Moors and Avars,moors and avars were kept out by the germans before christianity
something modern Odin worshipers only dream of doing. along with the modern christians.


You do your Christian ancestors a great shame by vilifying them. This kind of selective glorification of Germanic history is the utmost blasphemy in the field of Preservationism. sounds like your religion is more imporatant to you than racial purity.


Might I suggest reading Europe and the Faith (http://librivox.org/europe-and-the-faith-by-hilaire-belloc/) by Hilaire Belloc.

I wouldn't read anything suggested to me by someone who won't face the realities of our existance.

Turin son of Hurin
Friday, July 1st, 2011, 06:31 AM
How old are you?
"No! You're deafeted!11!"

Profound response earlier by the way. You rested your case without an once of defense.
Got to say, this whole charade gave me a chuckle.

A defense was not nessesasary because none of what you responded with negated any of my argument. But neverless i have indulged you.

Well im glad you are enjoying yourself. I daresay odinists will be roaring with laughter.

Goomer
Friday, July 1st, 2011, 06:48 AM
My point is proven. You have an agenda that is not germanic preservation.

The whole western world is on the same broken record as you. I don't want to destroy all other races. But theirs aren't being destroyed . Mine is! This site is the only place in the world where we hear a point of view other than yours. We'd like to keep it that way. Make way for the younger generation. You havent destroyed them yet and you won't Keep your old fashioned ideas to yourself or exspouse them in the everyday world where every siongle person agrees with you. And stop stalking your poor daughter!

Not at all. Why is it that because my definition is not the same as yours that you can tell me my beliefs? Is this what you call intelligent discourse? I am in no way an advocate for the destruction of any culture....you are reading into my words.

I can't do jack squat for the problems in Europe. I CAN focus on my family, though. You do realize, my daughter came to this forum largely due to my influence because I embrace my heritage?

If that is not good enough for you....that is a problem inside you. Not me.

Have I told you what you should believe? Have I told anyone on Skadi what to believe?

No. You are angry with me for not believing as you do. That is your right. Believe it or not....I kind of like some of the people I've met on here. You all provide fascinating insight into the minds of many Germanics outside the US.

Have a great day...or is it nighttime now in Australia? You know what I mean.

kuehnelt
Friday, July 1st, 2011, 08:05 AM
All children matter to me. All peoples matter to me also.

I care about children. I also care about dogs. If some children and some dogs were both starving, I would slaughter one group to feed the other.

Do I need to say which would be which?

It's fine to care about things, but it's the order of all your 'cares' that really matters. A stand-up and moral human being grimly carrying out an unpleasant but necessary task (of slaughtering dogs, for children) and an unspeakable monster carrying out a horrifying and unforgivable act (of slaughtering children, for dogs), can both in unison tell you that they care about children and also about dogs. They're both so caring! They can both shake their heads and look down on any man so cruel and strange as to say that he doesn't care about dogs! Day-to-day, in prosperous times, you can watch approvingly as both tend to dogs and children.

But one of them is a monster. So, it's very important to have properly ordered sympathies, and it's especially important to think clearly about this when your whole ruling class is standing over with you a megaphone and telling you to have specifically disordered sympathies (lest you be deemed a racist, an isolationist, and other bad words.)

It's the apparent disorderedness of your sympathies that's drawing the negative replies to you in this thread. Because it's the order of your sympathies that is the... irritant, you don't effectively reply to the irritated when you list off subjects that you care about. I hope this helps.

OneEye
Friday, July 1st, 2011, 08:20 AM
I CAN focus on my family, though.

Goomer, according to your profile stats..

"Politics: Left-leaning social liberal"

Being a Left-leaning social liberal is against your best interest for your family, and especially your children! With the programs for coloreds that liberals vomit out, that means your white children have less of a chance to succeed in life. If you were truly a Germanic Preservationist, you would be hard-lined right wing supporter. The right wing always cuts these colored programs when they are in power, they do not create them. And by my guess, based off of what you have provided in regards to info about yourself, you voted for the illegal fraudulent ni&&er. You need to reassess your ideals.



You do realize, my daughter came to this forum largely due to my influence because I embrace my heritage?

Thank god your daughter is here, at least her head will not be pumped full of liberal mindless droning garbage only.

Huginn ok Muninn
Friday, July 1st, 2011, 09:48 AM
Sally Struthers.

Because of this misguided bleeding heart, and many other irrational nurturers like her, the population of Africa has exploded in the past 25 years. When she made this commercial...

ePENcrE_xcQ

...the population of Ethiopia had recently been counted (http://www.jstor.org/pss/635379) at just over 42 million. Today it has more than doubled to over 90 million (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/et.html). This has resulted directly from the amount of food aid given to "feed a child like Jamal nourishing meals."

Here's the graph to show how the irrational bleeding hearts wanting to nurture African children have only caused an explosion in population which at current levels can NEVER be self-sustaining:


http://www.leeds.ac.uk/demographic.disentrapment/Ethiopia,%20population%20and%20food%20im ports.PNG
Population and food aid in Ethiopia. In 1900 Ethiopia's population is estimated to have been 5 million, it is presently about 70 million (2000) and is projected to be about 170 million by 2050.

http://www.leeds.ac.uk/demographic.disentrapment/Ethiopia.htm

What happens when you feed these "poor starving precious children" is simply, MORE "poor starving precious children," until there is simply no more room for them, and then what happens?

http://dailynewsen.com/newsimages/Bodies-Found-In-Libya-Boat-Accident-But-Hundreds-Missing.jpg

They invade our homelands.

Here is what those precious children saved by bleeding heart Sally do when they grow up and come to Europe:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=078_1275256429

And they are coming to America, too:

http://mydaughtersassault.blogspot.com/


My 12 year old daughter brutally attacked by refugee boys at school

My 12 year old daughter's name is Morgan. She attends the sixth grade at McLaughlin Middle school in Manchester, NH. She has always been a well liked girl with lots of friends, and a passion for humanity. She's known for standing up for those who can't stand up for themselves giving them a voice and the courage to stand up for themselves.

It came as complete shock when our family received a call from the school nurse stating that Morgan had been involved in a fight and "her mouth is a little screwed up". Upon arriving at her school it was very disturbing to see her condition. Immediately we knew by the blood gushing and her inability to remember her mothers name or phone numbers, she should have been transported to the ER by ambulance. Instead, she sitting in the nurses office being asked to stop crying. Stop crying about the teeth that had been punched out of her head?

Apparently two weeks prior to my daughter getting attacked at school, she was punched in the face by one of the boys on the bus. Being too scared to tell anyone, my daughter never spoke to myself or our family about this incident only telling her sister what had happened. The bus driver however was well aware of what happened, and reported it a WEEK LATER. Meanwhile she is receiving threats from these boys that they are going to "f**k up her face so she isn't pretty anyone".

The arguments between my daughter and these boys started with a couple of the boys asking Morgan to be their girlfriend. When Morgan turned them down, they retaliated by calling her names like "fat ho, lesbian b**ch, c**t, etc..." this goes on for about a month before the first assault on the bus occurs.

Once the principal received notification about the bus incident, he took another week to address it. Not once was I ever notified that my daughter was assaulted on the bus. The principal questioned my daughter and the boys that had been threatening her. The boys were never suspended or removed from school. Shortly after the conversation the students had with the principal, Morgan was brutally attacked. First elbowed in the face, followed by 6 to 7 punches knocking her front teeth out and leaving her with a concussion. It took four teachers to get one of the boys off her.

Adding further negligence to her care, the nurse put her teeth in water which significantly reduces the chance of being able to save the teeth. Even I know having no medical background, you're suppose to put a tooth in milk. As if she wasn't in enough pain, due to the teeth not being put in milk she had to have the teeth put back into her mouth with out any pain killers because of emergency of time. The dentist said this was the worst trauma she's seen to a child's mouth. If the teeth end up taking, which there is a 80% chance they won't, she will have to have at least four root canals among other reconstructive procedures. In the meantime she has to eat from a straw for the next month and possibly two.

When I asked the principal why he didn't tell me of the incident on the bus two weeks prior his response was "I have things to do and other people to talk to" followed by a condescending chuckle! This was his response to parent in tears at ER with her daughter.
I firmly believe if I had been notified of the first incident, the attack that followed could have been prevented. There would have been many steps I could have taken to prevent this, such as removing her from the bus and working closely with the school. My sister, along with my mother were the first to arrive at the school and were greeted by the Vice Principal saying "there are two sides to every story" in response to asking what action is being taken against the boys.

The boys are refugees brought over from Kenya and Ethiopia. It makes me question if we are providing these children with proper coping skills for a healthy transition. Also, is it safe for these students to be held back to due to language barriers leaving such a great age difference between students. I can't imagine the rage these boys must be harvesting inside to attack a girl so brutally.

This incident happened on Tuesday February 15th, I have called the police department numerous times with no luck. I asked the police to come take a statement from my daughter. He responded with I already spoke with her and have all the information I need. The officer NEVER spoke to my daughter. These officers are also the ones that are employed by the school to be on the premises at all times. When I tried to contact the Manchester Police department directly to get someone to take a report, I was repeatedly told "I'll hear from someone".

Today is Saturday February 19th, I still have not heard from anyone. The school has not called to see how Morgan is doing. It breaks my heart that a little girl can be so brutally attacked by boys at school, and this is how the situation was handled.

So, which of these precious children takes precedence? I pick the slapped woman and the innocent 12yo girl, both of whom just wanted these African thugs to leave them alone. But social liberals deem otherwise. Social liberals refuse to understand racial reality, because it is taboo to them to acknowledge it. The African savage in the first video is described as a "French man" in the news. The African who mutilated the 12yo girl's face because she refused his sexual advances is a "boy." The reality is that these are conquering populations, alien populations. And social liberals are conditioned to utterly ignore this reality, because they have become harbingers of a feminized society which propounds the nurturing ethos of the female, while allowing the protective ethos of the male to atrophy and die.

Due to the efforts of other bleeding hearts who want to save the precious children by granting them refugee status, these African negroes will be coming to our nations in such overwhelming numbers that there will simply be no room left for Europeans to be Europeans. Our women will be raped and our men killed. Why? Because left-leaning social liberals don't have the wisdom or foresight to realize that their irrational altruism will DESTROY THEIR PEOPLE. Those who indoctrinated them knew, though.. oh yes, they knew. (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55833)

Any one of us who feeds and nurtures the children of an alien nation is, in their profound, irrational ignorance, a traitor to their own people. They might as well be stabbing their own and all Germanic children in the back, literally, and that is NOT Germanic preservation. A Germanic preservationist puts his children and those of his people first, last, and foremost, because that is the natural view of an uncorrupted, unfeminized society which knows it must compete with the other societies on this planet for its place in this world. And if Germanics are to survive, we must have our own homogeneous nations, our own unadulterated cultures, and we must value the virtues of the protector as much as those of the nurturer in order to make this so.

Turin son of Hurin
Friday, July 1st, 2011, 09:58 AM
goomer. You can't have your cake and eat it.

Sybren
Friday, July 1st, 2011, 10:52 AM
Goomer,

You sure are firm in you beliefs... I'll have to give you that. By the way, i don't think you're among the sheeple.

I very much agree with kuehnelt on this. It's all a thing of priority. You think you don't have to pick a priority, in reality (in other words: nature) you always have to deal with priorities. That is why this whole thing of equality is time and time proved as nót working and simply: not true. How can a mother take care of the other children in the village with the exact amount of attention and love that she gives to her own child? She can NOT, of course she can not... If you see the logic in that, you must see the logic of the same concept on a larger scale. It's not a shame to take care of your own first, it's a natural system that works, eventually for éverybody.

You think you can't have any influence on what happens here in Europe. Of course you can! Just by talking to people you have an influence. And why is it only about Europe? You live in a country that could need some rationality yourself... We could use someone with determination like you :thumbup If you would just once in a while show that your priority lies with your own, people here would have the feeling that you aren't someone who will do more damage than good. You probably won't take my word for it, because you're such a hard-ass, but believe me you will do damage to your own if you don't put them on first place...

velvet
Friday, July 1st, 2011, 01:25 PM
I grew up understanding Hitler to be one of the most destructive men in recent history....I was born in the 1960s so WWII was not quite the distant memory it is now.

And you've been lied at, just like every American. Anti-German propaganda, to the point that German-Americans have been persecuted and discriminated, dominated the American public since before WWI, and afterwards in the 20s it spiralled out of proportion.



It just surprised me somewhat that of all answers on this thread....I am being forced to defend my choice of historical figures....because most people I do know, including my husband the history major, would not defend Hitler's actions at all. This is because whatever good was done by Hitler was far outweighed by the BAD....as in the deaths of....millions upon millions of men, women, and most importantly.....children....all at the hands of Nazi Germany.

You have to "defend" your position (actually I'd prefer if you'd chose to learn something from the replies instead of blindly defending what you've been forcefed all your life, but well), because you mix up cause and effect.

The most people - and by far the most - died because of the "Allies" decided to wipe off Germany - every man, woman and child - and for that end incited the entire world to war. Most of the camp-deaths died because Germany was cut off from supply through Allied action. They were in camps because they were ordered to leave Germany and refused, and so were deported against their will. They had 6 years time in which they could have left voluntary. The order reads "expatriation", not "extermination".

But all this doesnt matter in the public brainwashed mind. It's only and alone Hitler's and Germany's fault. :|


One last thing.....I don't see this as just a Jewish tragedy....many more people than just Jews were murdered during those years. I see this as a human tragedy.

Maybe you could at least switch to blame those who really incited that world war. It wasnt Germany, y'know.


"Germany is the enemy of Judaism and must be pursued with deadly hatred. The goal of Judaism of today is: a merciless campaign against all German peoples and the complete destruction of the nation. We demand a complete blockade of trade, the importation of raw materials stopped, and retaliation towards every German, woman and child." - Jewish professor A. Kulischer (October, 1937).


"Our Jewish interests demand the final destruction of Germany." - W. Jabotinski, founder of "Irgun Zwai Leumi" (January 1934)



I believe in the ideology of helping our own peoples in positive ways that, while helping our own, do not contribute to the destruction of other peoples or cultures. I have no wish to see any other culture destroyed. Every culture has its faults and strengths.

But why then do you want Germany destroyed and deny us to right to defense?

About every other European nation, and also America since WWI, stepped over Germany. Napoleon marched onto Russia and the most destruction and deaths were caused in Germany. The 30 years war, most destruction in Germany, although it wasnt our war at the beginning. Etc etc. To preserve Germany against this, Germany needed to become strong, and we did.

Britain and France didnt like that and marched to war against us and bombed us into the ground, and because they would still have failed at the end, hurled the US into that war. They imposed the Versaille Treaty onto us and stole with that worthless piece of paper almost the half of German territory. They even scorned Germany more with calling that sick thing the "Peaceidea Europe", and imposed a pseudo-democratic, communist regime full of Jews onto Germany which drove Germany economically within just 3 or 4 years into ruin.

This historic background, and there's much more of this kind, is what build up Hitler, he was a re-action to all the injustice and brutality against Germany throughout the centuries before. Whatever "evil" he has done was nothing compared to the damage that has been done to Germany before.


Hitler did not do that. He tried to help his people....but in doing so....also sought to destroy other outside cultures. I disagree with that. If this makes me in the minority here on Skadi.....so be it.

Why dont you disapprove of the French and British and American will to destroy Germany once and for all? Why do you blame Germany alone?

And for outside cultures. We wanted to get rid off the Jews who had taken over Germany. »In order that we can live«. They dont belong here, the Gypsies dont belong here either. It is a valid wish to remove them from the German folk body. And it is also our right to do so. This is our lands, other people have their lands.

For the expansion into the east, there was never the goal to exterminate them all and to take the land for ourselves only. The land we wanted to take once was ours, not only Poland, but essentially everything west of the Ural once was Germanic. The Poles and other Slavs have taken much of that throughout the centuries, and most time they did so with the support of "western" countries (against Germany), and often with illegal treaties. They hadnt even rightfully earned that land with winning wars. We just wanted back what was rightfully ours anyway. And for the ethnic Russians and Ukrainians and Lithuanians and what have you, they were to be re-Germanised and included into the new population.

There wasnt a plan to destroy them.


The defeat of NS Germany also effectively defeated the white man's future. Europe today is multikult because of that, our people are replaced with scum from around the world, we are genocided right now. Islam is taking over our lands and to voice protest against this is smeared with "racist" and "anti-semite" and "evilnaziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews". And indeed, this is a human tragedy, but no one is coming to our aid. No, we even have "left-leaning social liberals" who continue to tell us that 'we' are the evil ones. :|

Heinrich Harrer
Friday, July 1st, 2011, 01:52 PM
Sally Struthers.

Because of this misguided bleeding heart, and many other irrational nurturers like her, the population of Africa has exploded in the past 25 years. When she made this commercial...

...the population of Ethiopia had recently been counted (http://www.jstor.org/pss/635379) at just over 42 million. Today it has more than doubled to over 90 million (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/et.html). This has resulted directly from the amount of food aid given to "feed a child like Jamal nourishing meals."

Here's the graph to show how the irrational bleeding hearts wanting to nurture African children have only caused an explosion in population which at current levels can NEVER be self-sustaining:


Good point, I just read another thread with a news article containing demographic predictions for 2050:


Nigeria currently boasts 166 million people, but by 2050 its population is expected jump to 402 million. Ethiopia's population will likely triple from 91 million to 278 million, bringing the east African nation into the one of the top 10 most populous countries in the world for the first time.

And these are just two african countries (while our population will have significantly declined by then). I don't think they will manage to stabilize their own countries, so a large chunk of them will continue to stream into our lands.

But there are just too many misguided liberals, I don't think removing one person would actually change much in that regard.

Personally I would probably choose an influential politician/leader like Churchill or Stalin, as that should have the most profound impact on history. But the replacement who then steps up might turn out to be just as bad - so who knows.

Ingvaeonic
Friday, July 1st, 2011, 01:57 PM
Goomer, I urge you to read something of Germany's history and if you are still of the same opinion, then fair enough. But if you read and read objectively Germany's modern history, particularly her history since the Protestant Reformation, you will, if you are open- and fair-minded, see many of the accusations or charges that have historically been made against Germany and her people, including such charges as her inclination to aggressiveness and militarism, and repeated ad nauseam, are quite erroneous.

I was born towards the end of the 1950s, when the war had only been over for 13 years and was still very fresh in people's consciousness, and an enormous amount of what was then conveyed as fact to the people of the West about Germany and her people during the National-Socialist period 1933-45 and her part and conduct in the Second World War and which continued to be propagated in the 25 or 30 years following the Second World War, was wrong, and markedly wrong at that. Much of what was reported as fact either did not happen at all or was so distorted by Allied wartime and post-war propaganda that the truth was lost to public scrutiny. Regrettably, much of these propagandised untruths have been lodged in the popular imagination of the West, particularly the English-speaking West, as "facts", but on closer examination, do not bear up as such.

What velvet has written is quite right, Germany had been a battleground for generations and centuries since the time of the Roman Empire, and the Germans as a people were hardened to a very large extent by that collective experience over hundreds and hundreds of years. And if you take that as a point of reference in your reading of German history, then much of what you have been told, and much of what you have assumed to be correct, will become greatly clarified.

That is all I will say and from here leave the rest up to you. I will only repeat that I urge you to read more and read widely of Germany's modern history and see if your opinions change.

Vindefense
Friday, July 1st, 2011, 02:59 PM
I am sorry for you if you feel that germanic children are the only children whose lives are worth saving. I truly am happy to NOT feel the same way as you do.

All children matter to me. All peoples matter to me also. This does not mean I value my heritage less than you value yours, mind you. If you feel it does....you are dead wrong and cannot speak on my behalf.


Response by kuehnelt:


I care about children. I also care about dogs. If some children and some dogs were both starving, I would slaughter one group to feed the other.

Do I need to say which would be which?

Your response does not logically follow. Comparatively, you are reasoning that non-Germanic children compared to Germanic children have the same priority as dogs have to children. Herein lies the danger and the fatal flaw in the policies of the NSDAP. The very policies that promoted a fraudulent hierarchy based on the basest human instincts also presented the justification for a vast slave labor force that could be dispensed with just like any other commodity. As you have said: When it comes to it, you will starve the dog and feed your own children. The result of which is known today as the Holocaust. Even though there was no intentional plan, this reasoning is what dominated the policies of insecure men and allowed the true inhumanity of the day to flower.
Goomer:


That is the central issue between you and I, perhaps. I do not consider any human being superior to another. BUT....I DO consider that the uniqueness of which makes up the Germanic peoples from which my ancestors came to be worthy of retaining....and because I am Germanic and not say....Slavic, or Mediterranean, MY focus is on doing my own little part to ensure the continuation of my peoples. For me, it is a personal choice.

Very good, that is your subjective nature and it is why we men and our political ambitions will not ever do what is so simple to you women. Every attempt, will leave us broken in pieces.




If the things mentioned here sound like a broken record.....this is because these beliefs are as powerful for me as your ideas of Preservation are for you.

In the end, sir, any little bit each of us can do to ensure our children a healthy, happy, and safe future, are steps in the right direction.


Probably every decent parent around feels the same way.

As a parent, I agree. It is hard for me to not care for others and see the good in all of the world, from the venomous snake to the cute little mouse, each has it's place. Therefore, tyrants and saints also each had a role to play, and in the course of history I would not change a thing by eliminating any one.

Wodens Day
Friday, July 1st, 2011, 03:13 PM
Oliver Cromwell


if I can pick a few more:
Hugh Heffner
Mohammed Ali

The Aesthete
Friday, July 1st, 2011, 03:32 PM
Great post Kuehnelt


you'd quit with the rationalizations pretty fast

It is obvious you have


America was not set up as a melting pot this was proven before but of course you chose to ignore it

What is your daughter’s username?

Have a great day

http://www.picturesof.net/_images_300/Business_Concept_Sheeple_Working_In_Offi ces_Royalty_Free_Clipart_Picture_091110-202442-025042.jpg

SaxonPagan
Friday, July 1st, 2011, 03:39 PM
Oliver Cromwell

if I can pick a few more:
Hugh Heffner
Mohammed Ali

Yes, all despicable creatures but Heffner and Ali are really just small players in the overall scheme of things. Eliminate either one and there'd be another dozen or so obnoxious Jews or blacks to replace them in their chosen fields :shrug

If you could go back in time though, I suppose you could get porn baron Heffner to publish photos of Ali's (numerous) wives in his sleazy magazines and then get Ali to punch his face in :D

Magni
Friday, July 1st, 2011, 04:51 PM
I like how all the people that said Hitler have just joined in the past couple of months. Curious...

Ingvaeonic
Friday, July 1st, 2011, 06:04 PM
I'd have liked to go back in time and zapped Germaine Greer and John Pilger. These two I absolutely hate with a white-hot hate.

kuehnelt
Friday, July 1st, 2011, 07:25 PM
Your response does not logically follow.

There are some who reason in this way: this English sentence is structurally similar to that English sentence, therefore to propose the first is to propose the second. I can sort of see where these people are coming from, but, between you and me, they are invariably wrong, almost so wrong that it's a challenge to answer them appropriately.


you are reasoning that non-Germanic children compared to Germanic children have the same priority as dogs have to children.

Goomer seemed unaware of the need to have properly ordered sympathies, so I picked a case that strongly emphasizes the need for properly ordered sympathies. The implication for Germanic v. non-Germanic children is that you should rank the former before the latter. (I didn't propose that Goomer have 'any kind of order' about her sympathies; this is already and necessarily the case. The wedge is between 'properly ordered' and 'disordered'.)

Of "same priority": Ordinal numbers aren't cardinal numbers. To say "I prefer chocolate to vanilla ice cream" and then "I prefer Germanic to Negro women", is not to say that you like black women about as much as you like vanilla ice cream, is not to say that you'll sigh and pick a black woman in the way that you'll select vanilla when the chocolate has sold out, is not to say a lot of things. What the structural similarity gets you is: if these assertions were casually spoken by the same man in the same breath, you could raise an eyebrow. Or you could instigate a brawl, by tactically proposing one after the other is said by someone else.

Of the suggested "(slaughtering those children, for mine)", as an evil implied position of anyone daring to prefer any group of children to any other group of them: as you simply do prefer groups of children to other groups of children, you should come to terms with whatever evil you imagine follows from it. Here is one good way to respond to the evil: huh. I guess I'd better do my best to never have Mao Zedong take over my already poor country and impoverish it to such an extent that I have to get together with other families and run a grim lottery. I could perhaps avoid this awful and undesirable end by working in peaceful times to have a rich country, to have a country that's educated in basic economics, to have a strong and armed ruling class that is at least not as bad as Mao Zedong, and so on.

Here is one bad way to respond to the evil: put your head in the sand, exclaim that preferring anything to anything else is wicked, wear a hair shirt and whip yourself whenever you fall victim to instinct and take money that could keep an Ethiopian alive for a month and instead buy your children a toy with it, say silly things about "the Holocaust", and so on.

Hamar Fox
Friday, July 1st, 2011, 08:28 PM
Response by kuehnelt:
Your response does not logically follow. Comparatively, you are reasoning that non-Germanic children compared to Germanic children have the same priority as dogs have to children. Herein lies the danger and the fatal flaw in the policies of the NSDAP. The very policies that promoted a fraudulent hierarchy based on the basest human instincts also presented the justification for a vast slave labor force that could be dispensed with just like any other commodity. As you have said: When it comes to it, you will starve the dog and feed your own children. The result of which is known today as the Holocaust. Even though there was no intentional plan, this reasoning is what dominated the policies of insecure men and allowed the true inhumanity of the day to flower.

I remember these themes from before. If I recall correctly, my philosophy is the complete antithesis of yours. I'm an utter moral relativist. I understand that there's no inherent moral value to anything. The concept of 'inhumanity' is a pretty sad artifice of Christianity. It didn't really exist before Christ, and didn't truly manage to worm its way into the European soul before the early 17th century. Before then, we'd happily butcher and violate one another's dignity without compunction -- as nature would have us do. It was truly beautiful. Now, unfortunately, our folk are what I like to call 'moralfags' or pussies', if you will.


Very good, that is your subjective nature and it is why we men and our political ambitions will not ever do what is so simple to you women. Every attempt, will leave us broken in pieces.

With Nietzsche I agree that Christianity is the utter emasculation of the human spirit. Women tend to be more natural Christians, so obviously from a Christian perspective -- which I really have to stress is nowhere close to any absolute truth -- women appear to be more moral. Nurturing and kindness in women (and men) is certainly a good thing overall, but it tends to be quite bland and pathetic outside of the realm of home and hearth.

I suppose we're two different breeds of human being. I can't comprehend why you think killing people you don't like is bad. I don't understand why you think using people as commodities is bad. I understand the social contract and everything. I agree it should be illegal to kill/maim the people I hate on the condition it should be illegal for them to do the same to me. Easy. But I have no idea why you think what in reality is pure practicality and good sense is actually something rooted in the depths of some moral core of the universe. I also don't understand why you think we should apply the same laws in our conduct with other societies. The social contract doesn't apply in inter-societal contact (unless we fear some form of reprisal), so it shouldn't be unnaturally and illogically applied in such cases.

Ingvaeonic
Saturday, July 2nd, 2011, 05:15 AM
I remember these themes from before. If I recall correctly, my philosophy is the complete antithesis of yours. I'm an utter moral relativist. I understand that there's no inherent moral value to anything. The concept of 'inhumanity' is a pretty sad artifice of Christianity. It didn't really exist before Christ, and didn't truly manage to worm its way into the European soul before the early 17th century. Before then, we'd happily butcher and violate one another's dignity without compunction -- as nature would have us do. It was truly beautiful. Now, unfortunately, our folk are what I like to call 'moralfags' or pussies', if you will.



With Nietzsche I agree that Christianity is the utter emasculation of the human spirit. Women tend to be more natural Christians, so obviously from a Christian perspective -- which I really have to stress is nowhere close to any absolute truth -- women appear to be more moral. Nurturing and kindness in women (and men) is certainly a good thing overall, but it tends to be quite bland and pathetic outside of the realm of home and hearth.

I suppose we're two different breeds of human being. I can't comprehend why you think killing people you don't like is bad. I don't understand why you think using people as commodities is bad. I understand the social contract and everything. I agree it should be illegal to kill/maim the people I hate on the condition it should be illegal for them to do the same to me. Easy. But I have no idea why you think what in reality is pure practicality and good sense is actually something rooted in the depths of some moral core of the universe. I also don't understand why you think we should apply the same laws in our conduct with other societies. The social contract doesn't apply in inter-societal contact (unless we fear some form of reprisal), so it shouldn't be unnaturally and illogically applied in such cases.

Correlli Barnett, the British economic, social, and miitary historian was of a similar view. His Pride and Fall series of books on British industrial, economic, and imperial decline maintains as a basic thesis that it was non-conformist Christian values that ultimately led to Britain's decline. The quoted excerpts below are from the Wikipedia article on Correlli Barnett.


Barnett's The Pride and Fall sequence comprises: The Collapse of British Power; The Audit of War: The Illusion and Reality of Britain as a Great Nation; The Lost Victory: British Dreams, British Realities, 1945-50; and The Verdict of Peace: Britain Between Her Yesterday and the Future.

In sum, the sequence describes the decline of British power during the twentieth century, a decline attributed by the author to a change in the values of Britain's governing élite from the late eighteenth century, and one which was encouraged by evangelical and non-conformist Christianity. Barnett claims that the statesmen of the eighteenth century were men "hard of mind and hard of will" who regarded "national power as the essential foundation of national independence; commercial wealth as a means to power; and war as among the means to all three". Furthermore, they regarded it as "natural and inevitable that nations should be engaged in a ceaseless struggle for survival, prosperity and predominance".[3] The British national character, Barnett argues, underwent a profound moral revolution in the nineteenth century which came to have a deep effect on British foreign policy; foreign policy was now to be conducted in a reverence of highly ethical standards rather than an "expedient and opportunist pursuit of England's interests".[4] Barnett came to this conclusion by beginning "with a colour-coded flow-chart which logically traced back step by step to their origins the chains of causation of all the ‘total-strategic’ factors in Britain's plight in 1940-1941: political, military, economic, technological. These various chains eventually converged on a common primary cause: a mutation in the values – indeed the very character – of the British governing classes which began in the early nineteenth century. This mutation supplied the starting-point of my narrative, and thereafter, in Enoch Powell's words in his review, was my ‘guiding and interpretative thread through the events of the twenty inter-war years’."[5]

He also maintained that Bismarckian Germany was a preferred model of national government and of a motivating national system of belief, values, and ideology.


But he is no Marxist himself, and his ideal model of the relationship between state and society is Bismarckian. The development of modern Germany, through the creation of a state dedicated to the pursuit of national efficiency in a ruthlessly Darwinian world, is held up by Barnett as the example which Britain could, and should, have followed. Britain's tradition of collectivism he interprets as a decadent, “romanticizing humanism, anti-industrial, riddled with illusions, and perpetuated by the public-school system”."[10]

I'm something of a fan of Correlli Barnett, and in my opinion, his ideas and interpretations are thoroughly correct.

Hamar Fox
Saturday, July 2nd, 2011, 07:20 PM
Correlli Barnett, the British economic, social, and miitary historian was of a similar view. His Pride and Fall series of books on British industrial, economic, and imperial decline maintains as a basic thesis that it was non-conformist Christian values that ultimately led to Britain's decline. The quoted excerpts below are from the Wikipedia article on Correlli Barnett.


The English consciousness underwent a sharp (and negative) change around the 17th century. Universalism was never a core feature of early European Christianity. For the longest time, Europeans didn't really understand Jesus. He was spiritually alien to them. What early Christianity in Europe was, was simply a strange hybrid of European instinct and foreign dogma. The most interesting part of this relationship, though, was that instinct always predominated. It wasn't in the spirit of Christianity that the English burned Gypsies and Jews at the stake, or that the Inquisition broke Jews and Moors on the rack -- it was pure racial instinct merely under the pretext of Christianity, pure nature at work. Europeans pre-1600 hundred were nominally Christian at best.

Even the most devout had no true spiritual connection to Jesus, which is why time and again they acted in ways that from our perspective are so mind-bogglingly contradictory to anything found in the New Testament. But, like I say, universalism did eventually sink into the English consciousness. We see its ugliness in basically all literature between 1650-1850 (I generally count Defoe as the first true English moral universalist, although of course I haven't read all literature from this era to be certain). Brotherhood of all men was always propagated by the most devout of the Christians of this period, and evangelists were Europe's prototypical 'nigger lovers'. Wilberforce and the Amis des noirs fit the bill nicely. These were the first Europeans to truly 'get' Jesus, and naturally they represented a grotesque turn in the European, and particularly the English, French and Dutch philosophy on race.

The main point, however, is that this pathetic lapse of will and natural connection to ourselves was something that became, something that hinged on the unravelling of a series of unfortunate historical events, and not something that taps into the core of all existence. Universalist morality isn't a conclusion every logical mind would arrive at upon meditation. It's not any kind of 'truth'. It's just an interpretation -- and a vile one at that. That's why, like I said before, the one and only historical figure I'd particularly like to murder is Jesus Christ.

Goomer
Sunday, July 3rd, 2011, 11:55 AM
Goomer,

You sure are firm in you beliefs... I'll have to give you that. By the way, i don't think you're among the sheeple.

I very much agree with kuehnelt on this. It's all a thing of priority. You think you don't have to pick a priority, in reality (in other words: nature) you always have to deal with priorities. That is why this whole thing of equality is time and time proved as nót working and simply: not true. How can a mother take care of the other children in the village with the exact amount of attention and love that she gives to her own child? She can NOT, of course she can not... If you see the logic in that, you must see the logic of the same concept on a larger scale. It's not a shame to take care of your own first, it's a natural system that works, eventually for éverybody.

You think you can't have any influence on what happens here in Europe. Of course you can! Just by talking to people you have an influence. And why is it only about Europe? You live in a country that could need some rationality yourself... We could use someone with determination like you :thumbup If you would just once in a while show that your priority lies with your own, people here would have the feeling that you aren't someone who will do more damage than good. You probably won't take my word for it, because you're such a hard-ass, but believe me you will do damage to your own if you don't put them on first place...

Sybren, you are one of the posters here on Skadi that I really like:)

I am going to bow out of this debate gracefully. It really is not my intent to make anyone angry....that is not why I came to Skadi.

Yes, I do see your logic, and agree with it. If forced to make a choice between another person's child....and my own child.....I HAVE to pick my own child....for to fail to do so makes me the WORST of all mothers.

Anyway...I'm going to stop causing trouble on this thread and tell everyone who responded to me...thanks for their input.

Ingvaeonic
Sunday, July 3rd, 2011, 12:15 PM
Correlli Barnett, the British economic, social, and miitary historian was of a similar view. His Pride and Fall series of books on British industrial, economic, and imperial decline maintains as a basic thesis that it was non-conformist Christian values that ultimately led to Britain's decline. The quoted excerpts below are from the Wikipedia article on Correlli Barnett.



He also maintained that Bismarckian Germany was a preferred model of national government and of a motivating national system of belief, values, and ideology.



I'm something of a fan of Correlli Barnett, and in my opinion, his ideas and interpretations are thoroughly correct.

I will add as a rider that I do not share Correlli Barnett's view that the EU is the best means for Britain to secure her economic future. (To me, the EU in form and substance is fundamentally anti-European and not in any European country's interests, certainly not Britain's or Germany's.)

Huginn ok Muninn
Sunday, July 3rd, 2011, 04:32 PM
Sybren, you are one of the posters here on Skadi that I really like:)

I am going to bow out of this debate gracefully. It really is not my intent to make anyone angry....that is not why I came to Skadi.

Yes, I do see your logic, and agree with it. If forced to make a choice between another person's child....and my own child.....I HAVE to pick my own child....for to fail to do so makes me the WORST of all mothers.

Anyway...I'm going to stop causing trouble on this thread and tell everyone who responded to me...thanks for their input.

That's a very gracious response. I only hope we gave you a new perspective and were able to help you realize that there is another dimension in caring for your children... and your people... that you might not have considered.

Ingvaeonic
Monday, July 4th, 2011, 03:08 AM
The main point, however, is that this pathetic lapse of will and natural connection to ourselves was something that became, something that hinged on the unravelling of a series of unfortunate historical events, and not something that taps into the core of all existence. Universalist morality isn't a conclusion every logical mind would arrive at upon meditation. It's not any kind of 'truth'. It's just an interpretation -- and a vile one at that. That's why, like I said before, the one and only historical figure I'd particularly like to murder is Jesus Christ.

I quite agree. The Christian concepts of a cross-racial and cross-cultural "brotherhood of man" and an "equality of man" are essentially foreign to practically all human beings and are very artificial and contrived. These concepts are clearly illogical and irrational; they are certainly not supported by empirical evidence. Obvious differences exist in the intellectual and physical characteristics of the races. Anyone who would deny this is either blind or a self-deluded fool.

Wittmann
Monday, July 4th, 2011, 09:47 AM
I quite agree. The Christian concepts of a cross-racial and cross-cultural "brotherhood of man" and an "equality of man" are essentially foreign to practically all human beings and are very artificial and contrived. These concepts are clearly illogical and irrational; they are certainly not supported by empirical evidence. Obviously differences exist in the intellectual and physical characteristics of the races. Anyone who would deny this is either blind or a self-deluded fool.

Would everyone stop assuming that of all Christians? Just because there have been some neo-Christian nuts who have tried to take words either far too literally, or have almost "rewrote" the Bible in their minds? What about the rest of us who say, "I'm Christian, be whatever you want, I don't care, and I think that there are genetic differences in people, and that the strong will dominate the weak". The Bible did not say "Shell out for the poor", it said "help the less fortunate", which means people who are down on their luck not by their own hand, a neighbor who was in a car wreck because of some drunk and can't work, not the lazy bum who doesn't want to work! :thumbdown

Hamar Fox
Monday, July 4th, 2011, 11:18 AM
Would everyone stop assuming that of all Christians? Just because there have been some neo-Christian nuts who have tried to take words either far too literally, or have almost "rewrote" the Bible in their minds?

They haven't rewritten anything. The New Testament, especially, is replete with universalist sentiment. Unison under God, charity to all, spirit over matter ("race is skin deep" "What colour is a man's soul?" etc), common religion as the sole binding factor between men...it's all there.

Like I said before, European Christians originally took a "WTF is this shit?" approach to Christianity's universalism, basically just carrying on doing what they were doing before, only now under the name of a different God. The effeminacy of Jesus himself didn't appear in Europeans until around the mid-1600s. Here you find a lot of boring literature about the equality of men's souls, the imperative of humane treatment of other races, the need to convert foreign nations to Christianity to bring them to a level of equality with us. Foreign races, between the onset of moralfagitude (circa 1650) and the onset of scientific racism (circa 1850), were seen either as 'fellow Christians' or 'savages to be converted'. They weren't seen as irrevocably different, just culturally so. Of course, mixing with 'civilised' (read: Christian) races wasn't looked down on at all.

I don't doubt there are many Chistians who still don't get Jesus at all and are nothing even remotely close to Jesus despite how devout they think they are. In the US, liberal atheists are much closer in spirit to Jesus Christ than the religious neo-cons they hate so much. It's always funny to me to see the irony of the whole ordeal. It's amazing to see atheist liberals decry Christianity for being 'intolerant', when those same liberals' entire moral fabric is torn from the cloth of properly-understood Christianity. I suppose people are just dense. But were Jesus around today, he'd be chiming in with the Janeane Garofalo's of the world.

Wittmann
Monday, July 4th, 2011, 11:37 AM
They haven't rewritten anything. The New Testament, especially, is replete with universalist sentiment. Unison under God, charity to all, spirit over matter ("race is skin deep" "What colour is a man's soul?" etc), common religion as the sole binding factor between men...it's all there.

Like I said before, European Christians originally took a "WTF is this shit?" approach to Christianity's universalism, basically just carrying on doing what they were doing before, only now under the name of a different God. The effeminacy of Jesus himself didn't appear in Europeans until around the mid-1600s. Here you find a lot of boring literature about the equality of men's souls, the imperative of humane treatment of other races, the need to convert foreign nations to Christianity to bring them to a level of equality with us. Foreign races, between the onset of moralfagitude (circa 1650) and the onset of scientific racism (circa 1850), were seen either as 'fellow Christians' or 'savages to be converted'. They weren't seen as irrevocably different, just culturally so. Of course, mixing with 'civilised' (read: Christian) races wasn't looked down on at all.

I don't doubt there are many Chistians who still don't get Jesus at all and are nothing even remotely close to Jesus despite how devout they think they are. In the US, liberal atheists are much closer in spirit to Jesus Christ than the religious neo-cons they hate so much. It's always funny to me to see the irony of the whole ordeal. It's amazing to see atheist liberals decry Christianity for being 'intolerant', when those same liberals' entire moral fabric is torn from the cloth of properly-understood Christianity. I suppose people are just dense. But were Jesus around today, he'd be chiming in with the Janeane Garoffolo's of the world.

I have never interpreted it that way, although I agree it is easy to see it in a light that would seem to suggest that it supports universal suffrage and absolute charity. It really depends on your view of humanity, that being if humans are naturally good, or naturally evil. In my honest opinion, I believe that humans are neither good or evil, but simply selfish. The degree of Selfishness is different between people, and although selfishness is considered a negative quality, I believe a certain level is a virtue. If you lack any selfishness, you are far too easy to be manipulated, and lack basic survival instinct.

I myself am quite selfish, not in the blatant greedy way, but in a manipulative and somewhat sociopathic way, I've always been like that, and I view it as an extremely important quality of mine, as I therefore have the ability to gain a higher position in life and lead people without moral qualms of right and wrong getting in my way. As I continue through life I have learned that while some people might appear good, most hide behind the facade of that, keeping their face, and trying to fool themselves into believing that they are "good", and therefore self rationalizing their existence as important.

As I have the virtue of selfishness, I also believe that someone who lacks the drive to succeed in life, will be crushed, and the meek will be dominated under my might.

Bernhard
Monday, July 4th, 2011, 11:54 AM
They haven't rewritten anything. The New Testament, especially, is replete with universalist sentiment. Unison under God, charity to all, spirit over matter ("race is skin deep" "What colour is a man's soul?" etc), common religion as the sole binding factor between men...it's all there.


That you consider the rule of spirit over matter to be a negation of the importance of race means you (probably unintendedly) stick to the outdated pre-racist essentialist conception of man on the metaphysical plane, despite the fact that you deny the existence of this human essence on the material plane. If the material world shows differences between men, why wouldn't this be the case for the world of spirit?
Furthermore I would say that the problem of the equality of men predates Christianity. The pagan Stoa wanted to live in a "city of men and gods" for example and even an aristocratic thinker like Plato departed from the idea that there is such a unitary thing as "man". A good remedy for this would be the tribal values of the ancient Germanics.

Hamar Fox
Monday, July 4th, 2011, 12:23 PM
That you consider the rule of spirit over matter to be a negation of the importance of race means you (probably unintendedly) stick to the outdated pre-racist essentialist conception of man on the metaphysical plane, despite the fact that you deny the existence of this human essence on the material plane. If the material world shows differences between men, why wouldn't this be the case for the world of spirit?


I don't believe in any kind of soul or spirit, but Christians do, and they believe all souls are fundamentally equal. To them, this imaginary core transcends any kind of physical or material difference. Every human is the Christian's brother, because every human has a 'soul' and there are no races of the soul, no divisions whatsoever. This is basically the source of Christian universalism: it's the common ground between all men, and it's what makes all men essentially equal.

Spirituality doesn't have to be like that. It's all make believe, so you could pretend all souls are equal or that all souls aren't equal. But Christians, at the conception of their religion, chose to pretend that the soul is such that no fundamental chasms can exist between man and man, so for that reason I think eliminating Jesus would up the chances of the history of morality taking a less effeminate course.

The Aesthete
Monday, July 4th, 2011, 12:33 PM
There are passages that warn against race mixing in the bible and which promote nationalism

It is a matter of interpretation

Contemporary interpretation are being used to promote multiculturalism :(

Bernhard
Monday, July 4th, 2011, 12:50 PM
I don't believe in any kind of soul or spirit, but Christians do, and they believe all souls are fundamentally equal.

Yes, but this is not implied by the axioma that spirit rules over matter. This axioma isn't the cause of the problem, but their conception of what the human spirit is: that it's unitary.

Vindefense
Monday, July 4th, 2011, 02:44 PM
I don't believe in any kind of soul or spirit, but Christians do, and they believe all souls are fundamentally equal. To them, this imaginary core transcends any kind of physical or material difference. Every human is the Christian's brother, because every human has a 'soul' and there are no races of the soul, no divisions whatsoever. This is basically the source of Christian universalism: it's the common ground between all men, and it's what makes all men essentially equal.

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal.." Declaration of Independence

Those words "all men are created equal" as penned by Thomas Jefferson have been confused and confounded by the subversive to imply that men, being created equal must also be equal in ability. This has been the great error in egalitarian thinking. What all men are equal in is the fact that we all enter the world dumb, and blind and must develop our senses by experience and instruction. A baby born of the highest ancestry and one of the lowest, both left alone in the woods to survive, without human contact could not even devolope to the intellect of a savage. It would even be a stretch to call them human. Without a cultural framework to ground itself in, the myth of race supremacy in the biological sense is a fraud.
The differences in races arise from culture and culture itself has always been the greatest where there is a unified folk, which itself is a union of races. The effeminacy of man is no new thing either, being a product of men that began to think subjectively. In the past our men did not see race as the stable reality that women see it as. For this reason women control the selection process as they are Natures natural preservers, not man.

All men are also equal under what the same founders understood to be the the "infinite laws of Nature". In which we may easily observe that a law exists that does not discriminate whether you are a despot or a saint, king or criminal, Scottsman or Pygmy, man or woman, fat or thin. Whether you revere the law or deny its existence it matters not. It moves upon those which are ignorant as well as those which are wise and makes no distinction between an honest man or a liar.

Hamar Fox
Monday, July 4th, 2011, 05:14 PM
"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal.." Declaration of Independence

Those words "all men are created equal" as penned by Thomas Jefferson have been confused and confounded by the subversive to imply that men, being created equal must also be equal in ability. This has been the great error in egalitarian thinking.

I didn't refer to this. I know Christians don't think all people are equal in ability. They do, however, think all people are morally equal under God. To visit any kind of indignity on a man, regardless of his ability, is wrong to the eye of a good Christian.


What all men are equal in is the fact that we all enter the world dumb, and blind and must develop our senses by experience and instruction. A baby born of the highest ancestry and one of the lowest, both left alone in the woods to survive, without human contact could not even devolope to the intellect of a savage. It would even be a stretch to call them human. Without a cultural framework to ground itself in, the myth of race supremacy in the biological sense is a fraud.

This isn't what is meant at all. As I said a couple of posts back, when Christians talk about equality, they mean equal under God, equal as 'human beings', God's children, equal in our capacity for 'good' and 'evil', equal in our partaking of original sin etc. This focus on the soul, on what's 'under the skin' in combination with separation of sin from sinner essentially reduces any inherent difference between man and man to nil in the mind of the Christian. On top of this, Christians prefer the meek, the diseased (physically and spiritually), the depraved, because through them the Christian can prove to God his piousness. 'Equal in spirit but unequal in body' sets the Christian an imperative to favour the disadvantaged of God's children. A Christian parent prefers the child with Down Syndrome, the Christian politician prefers the refugee etc.

Ingvaeonic
Tuesday, July 5th, 2011, 08:41 AM
Would everyone stop assuming that of all Christians? Just because there have been some neo-Christian nuts who have tried to take words either far too literally, or have almost "rewrote" the Bible in their minds? What about the rest of us who say, "I'm Christian, be whatever you want, I don't care, and I think that there are genetic differences in people, and that the strong will dominate the weak". The Bible did not say "Shell out for the poor", it said "help the less fortunate", which means people who are down on their luck not by their own hand, a neighbor who was in a car wreck because of some drunk and can't work, not the lazy bum who doesn't want to work! :thumbdown

My remarks addressed Christian concepts, not Christians.

norseking
Wednesday, July 6th, 2011, 06:29 AM
Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin.

TXRog
Wednesday, July 6th, 2011, 06:35 AM
I would have to say (and with considerable glee in my voice when doing so)...

Mohammed.

Think of how much better the world would have been and would be without this miserable wretch every having existed to spread his hate around the world.

Arditi
Tuesday, August 2nd, 2011, 10:11 PM
Abraham. I means, if there was no Abraham, there would be no jews. No jews means no Marx, no Communism, no Multiculturalism and no problems.

Balders gate
Tuesday, August 2nd, 2011, 10:20 PM
My answer would be Karl Marx, sorry Karl but your ideals killed more people all over the world with your fantasy of fairness and no classes of people. Millions upon millions probably in the hundreds of millions of people killed for no other reason than to equate all people's. Only problem, there is no fairness in this world. no matter how much central planning is done, are you listening you fat slob michael moore, the people as individuals have more of a knowing of what to do to better there own lives than pinheads in a state capital. When was the last time anybody thought, Oh today was a great day everybody was treated fairly and equal, I have never heard that.:D

Duckelf
Tuesday, August 2nd, 2011, 10:33 PM
I would agree with everyone saying Karl Marx. If it wasn't for the Russian revolution of 1917, the world would be a much better place.

Fiona
Thursday, August 4th, 2011, 11:14 AM
I truly think karl marx actually meant well. I don't think he wanted to wipe out germanic people but yes it would be him to be killed. Either him or winston churchill. Theat guy was a pompous butcher.

Feyn
Monday, September 5th, 2011, 02:49 AM
I have thought about this for quite a while, and read the thread doing so. Interesting read ^^ But i think most choices you made are way too obvious for such an interesting thought experiment.

Strangely most people that come to my mind are saints : St. Patrick, St Paul, St Benedict..........

Gayus Julius Cesar is also an interesting choice, without him the roman empire might have never included france and england. On the other hand the varus-battle might have never happened, and that was certainly an important influence in uniting the german tribes for the first time.
Can i shoot him (to find out what happens) and then later decide upon the result if it was really a good idea and if not stop myself ?

Constantine is also interesting, without him christianity would have probably stayed a small sect. Same rule then with cesar though ^^

How about the father of Tut Ankh Amun, Amenhotep IV later known as Akhenaten? He made Amun the most important religion in old egypt. That religion had a major influence on all 3 monotheistic world religions. Without him we would have no islam, no christianity AND no jews, thats 3 for the price of one, can anybody beat that?

How about pope Gregor the second for the inquisition ?



I will think about this some more, i am sure i will find a few more interesting choices ^^

Elessar
Monday, September 5th, 2011, 03:56 AM
Am I the only one who finds it absurd to want to kill historical figures because you don't like them?...
The implications of eliminating such figures are immeasurable, as if killing Caesar (one of the greatest military commanders in history whether you like it or not) would stop the advance of Rome? I'm sorry but these people have a place in history that they have earned through their action. In the grand scheme of history, things were chosen to live, somethings were chosen to die. As Gandalf says "All we can decide is what to do with the time that is given to us"

As a wannabe historian, I respect each and every figure of history, whether I appreciate their contribution or not. Because guess who got into the history books and who didn't? ;)
Neither would I opt to remove any of them if given the choice. Germanics ruling everything at all times doesn't sound too appealing.



How about the father of Tut Ankh Amun, Amenhotep IV later known as Akhenaten? He made Amun the most important religion in old egypt.
To which Tutankhamen thoroughly erased after his fathers death, back to the old ways when his Amun cult fell out of favor .
If you would want to destroy Near East Monotheist religion, you'd be better off killing Zarathustra. He had a more measurable impact upon religious institutions than did Akhnaten.

Auricomous
Monday, September 5th, 2011, 04:04 AM
Woodrow Wilson is probably either the dumbest or most vile of all U.S. Presidents... he is the one who signed over our national economic sovereignty to private bankers, single-handedly opening our country to the vile usurpers that are now raping the constitution and harvesting the wealth of our nation! I would kill him... Although, I am not sure that it would do much more than delay the inevitable...

Feyn
Monday, September 5th, 2011, 10:43 AM
The implications of eliminating such figures are immeasurable, as if killing Caesar (one of the greatest military commanders in history whether you like it or not) would stop the advance of Rome? I'm sorry but these people have a place in history that they have earned through their action. In the grand scheme of history, things were chosen to live, somethings were chosen to die. As Gandalf says "All we can decide is what to do with the time that is given to us"

Thats why i asked for the option to try out what happens and stop myself if the results are really bad. I think it might have stopped the advance to england at least and perhaps even france. The romans have tried before and didnt succeed afaik, it needed a military genius like gayus julius. So in this case it would have changed a lot i believe.



To which Tutankhamen thoroughly erased after his fathers death, back to the old ways when his Amun cult fell out of favor .
If you would want to destroy Near East Monotheist religion, you'd be better off killing Zarathustra. He had a more measurable impact upon religious institutions than did Akhnaten. "

Well his idea of monotheism did survife though. It was nthe first monotheistic religion in the world, and influenced all monotheistic religions that came after it.

Zeitgeber
Sunday, September 25th, 2011, 12:53 PM
Hmmm.... now I might be beaten over the head for saying this given the propensity towards National Socialism on this forum but my bet would be Hitler.

Without him the Germany war of expansion (WW2) might not have carried such extreme racial overtones, and as a result may have meant in a German victory.

I look at this from the perspective of the expense wasted on the concentration camps, the brutalizing of Ukrainians who would have fought along aside the Germans against Stalin, throwing out the scientists who went and gave the Americans the bomb, etc, etc. I could go on.

If Hitler was killed and a different regime came to power resulting in a German victory this would mean no crippling multiculturalism, no PC self loathing for peoples of European decent and a completely different global morality.

Jäger
Sunday, September 25th, 2011, 06:30 PM
If Hitler was killed and a different regime came to power resulting in a German victory this would mean no crippling multiculturalism, no PC self loathing for peoples of European decent and a completely different global morality.
Hm, the communists?

jhalmeck
Sunday, September 25th, 2011, 08:55 PM
I would have to also agree that the Serb whose shots started the World Wars in motion is a prime candidate BUT I'm sure that unfortunately, if he wasn't around to instigate war, someone else would have in his stead.

The thing about mankind is we're savage beings. While many are peaceful, it's in our base nature to dominate. That's what brought us into being homo sapiens. Sadly, it's what will, at least til we learn from more horrible lessons, keep us savage and at war.

Zeitgeber
Sunday, September 25th, 2011, 09:57 PM
Hm, the communists?

Perhaps, but unlikely. Germany would most likely have still gone to war, only it would have done a lot better imo with Hitler no around.

velvet
Sunday, September 25th, 2011, 11:03 PM
Perhaps, but unlikely. Germany would most likely have still gone to war, only it would have done a lot better imo with Hitler no around.

It's even very likely. No Hitler around had meant that despite the rather wide-spread anti-Semitism in Europe, no one had attempted to remove them from influential positions. By 1930, Jews made up the vast majority among journalists, artists, science, medicine, education and many other sections of public life. No Hitler had meant that the Frankfurt School had not been kicked out of Europe and had have room to implement Cultural Marxism without any resistance against it. No Hitler around had meant no racial policies at all, and the last few remnants of its basic ideas that came about in the second half of the 19th century had been gradually eradicated from science in favor of multiculturalism and the acceptance of the Jewish plan for Europe to see its future as mixed-race populations through brainwashing by controlling the public opinions (media). No Hitler around had meant that the Soviet Union could simply march through and take everything up to the border of France, with the Versailles Treaty in place and effect and a Germany unable to defend itself.

The ruthless will to evict the Jews from all of Europe puts us into the position to discuss our preservation today in the first place, otherwise Europe had gone the same way like the US did from at least the 50s and generated a situation of multiculturalism, that due to its sheer numbers and the prevailing policies would only be reversable with massive violence, while it bought Europe several decades as largely mono-ethnic bloc, that only changed with the end of the cold war. We might have lost to the Frankfurt School / Cultural Marxism front, but our resistance still bought us time.

The end of the cold war also brought forth the increased effort to build the global Communist Utopia, with World Bank, the IMF, the construction of EU and the North America Alliance (as interims steps to the One World Government, the global currency etc) and the increased efforts to implement "democracy" aka Liberal Free Market Capitalism globalwide with bombs and anti-nationalist terror.

You see, the plan to destroy Europe racially (aka multikult) and to create the One-World Utopia is much older than Hitler. All this would have happened regardless, but then without resistance and by today already long established.


To the common stuff Satan Himself had allegedely done: There's no business like Shoah business. :shrug

Renwein
Sunday, September 25th, 2011, 11:09 PM
Perhaps, but unlikely. Germany would most likely have still gone to war, only it would have done a lot better imo with Hitler no around.

then you should assassinate Stalin, because without Stalin's strongarmed industrialisation policy, the Soviet Union would have had a poor industrial base and been no match for Germany.

fun fact: it took a Communist Despot's central planning, to defeat a Fascist Despot's army, so that modern western neoliberal crapitalists can say that their system is the best all along and the others lost because of their flaws :P

Lew Skannon
Sunday, September 25th, 2011, 11:21 PM
Not sure if it would change the course of history much, but I wouldn't mind going back in time to shishkebab Amsel Rotshild with a flame thrower..

feisty goddess
Monday, September 26th, 2011, 01:15 AM
Attila the Hun

Primus
Monday, September 26th, 2011, 03:37 AM
Abraham, if he existed. No Abraham means no Jews, no Christianity and no Islam...

I doubt it; such a remote figure from an obviously legendary antiquity is about as real as Deucalion or Scyld Scefing. Ditto with Moses and very likely Jesus as well.

I'd eliminate Paul/Saul, Muhammad, and Karl Marx.

Loyalist
Monday, September 26th, 2011, 04:43 AM
There seems to be rampant misconception about the consequences of certain chrono-assassinations:

-Killing Gavrilo Princip would not have prevented World War I; that conflict was the result of geopolitical conditions and inter-state tensions which had been building for years. The murder of Franz Ferdinand was simply the spark that lit the fuse, and if not for him, some other event would have incited the European powers to war.

-Killing Churchill would have made no difference to Britain's aggressive anti-German agenda in the build-up to World War II. Certain elements in the British establishment, most of them Jews, had resolved to pick a fight with Germany. Chamberlain had no appetite for war with Germany, knew international Jewry forced a declaration of war over the invasion of Poland, and was consequently swept aside. All the while, the Jews and other powers-that-be in the United Kingdom had been shopping around for someone who would more easily bend to their will for personal gain. They were fortunate to find a relentless self-aggrandizer like Churchill to realise their agenda. Had it not been him, another candidate would surely have popped up. The only upside I can think of is that perhaps a substitute would have lacked Churchill's charisma and ability to inspire national resistance, possibly encouraging the British to sue for peace.

My candidates for retroactive elimination are as follows:

-King Louis XVI, in his stead sitting a Monarch better suited to handle the crisis in France at the end of the 18th century, thus averting the French Revolution, the ideas of which, exported across Europe and the Americas, sent Western civilisation on the course to ruin it continues on today. Maybe decapitating the revolutionaries, rubbing out Robespierre, or even the guiding light of the Revolution and Enlightenment, Rousseau, would provide added security in that respect.

-Karl Marx is another obvious choice, both in terms of the physical destruction wrought on nations around the world under the banner of Marxist/Communist revolution, and the cancerous effect Marxist doctrine continues to have on Western thought.

-George Washington is an interesting possibility; not to offend Skadi's American posters, but I would much prefer a North America where British hegemony was not destroyed and replaced by a Judeo-Masonic republic based around destructive rhetoric about human equality. It is also quite possible that such an America would not be the racial nightmare it is now, shot through with Africans, "Great Wave" European ethnics, and Mexicans pursuing Reconquista.

-Muhammad. :thumbup

Gardisten
Monday, September 26th, 2011, 04:52 AM
Jack, Harry, Sam, and Albert Warner.

svartleby
Saturday, December 10th, 2011, 09:10 PM
I'm sure its already been said, but Olaf Trygvasson or Saint Adam of Bremen. Maybe the old religion would have hung on at least a little longer.