PDA

View Full Version : Why are WPs anti-communism?



Evolved
Sunday, August 15th, 2004, 01:51 PM
What have White Power people against COMMUNISM? I am speaking not historically but ideologically.

Forget for a minute WP types' love of Nazis (side note: is odd for WP Slavs or even people of partial Slav descent to have anything to do with Nazism, whether actively involved in National Socialist activism or sitting idly by while their people are ridiculed). I will never, ever be NS, NS-sympathizer and never care about Nazis beyond respect for their unique aesthetic (the swastika is not even German, the goosestep is not even German, the uniforms and such are just alterations of earlier designs, the HEIL posture is not specifically German and actually borrowed from the Italians..) and their abilities on the battlefield (at times), and my love for my boyfriend (who is a Nazi) that is a cold hard fact. I have totally different ideas from Nazis, I have discovered while looking deeper into different political ideologies over the years. Furthermore, the Nazis considered a big part of my ancestors to be inferior, worthy of nothing but slavery, deportation from their homelands and death. Another part they considered "non-European race on European soil" (i.e. the Lapponoid race, to which I peripherally have a phenotypical affiliation). So, I will never be a Nazi, I have no interest in it, as it is a short-sighted idea applicable only to a certain place (Germany) and time (1930s). It is in the dustbin, a total dead, useless ideology which is only meaningful in a historical context and never a modern one.

So, besides the Nazi fetish of many WP types, what causes their hatred of COMMUNISM (which is not short-sighted, is well-thought out, and applicable to all people at all points in time)? Of course the connection to JEWS or people of some Jewish ancestry such as Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin (to my knowledge Friedrich Engels was not Jewish) is not a good selling point. However these people seem to overlook the Jewish connection to European culture in the form of Christianity which is much more Jewish in origin than Communism.

Another problem many have with COMMUNISM is the unfortunate association with degenerates, bored teenaged yuppies, angry minorities (like the cocoa colored anti-white capitalists of Rage Against the Machine, for example) and assorted dirty hippies - people who have hijacked COMMUNISM to give themselves some sort of purpose in life, and in doing so drive away many normal working class people - of all races.

Another problem facing both Nazis and Communists in their search for converted comrades: Who wants to be associated with losers?

Many, including myself, take issue with the aforementioned hijacked so-called COMMUNIST organizations is their racist, transparent and insulting pandering to and coddling of minorities - especially their mind-boggling support for racist policies of Affirmative Action (which assume that blacks need extra help getting admitted to higher education institutions because their academic merits are not enough to do so, and the racist assumtion also that white people are in control of school admissions and that said white people are all automatically deemed to be racist).

If there were a communist movement of the White working class, cooperating with that of other races, respectful of differences and seeking to maintain harmonious societies, how is this terrible? Why must WP be right wing?

Oskorei
Sunday, August 15th, 2004, 02:03 PM
Maybe because Communism emphasises class-unity before ethnic unity (well, to be honest I think you are right about many WP:s being Nazi-fetischists, and this being the primary reason though, but a "deeper" reason would be class- before ethnic- unity). Also, Communism is an egalitarian ideology, in which all have equal worth, and often this is not the case in WP ideologies.

But then again I dont think its impossible to be left wing (economically) and racialist (culturally). Personally I'm rather close to Anarchism, since I think this is, in its pure form, the most worthy ideology for Aryans.

Oskorei
Sunday, August 15th, 2004, 02:06 PM
As far as I can remember, there were attempts to create different ethnic Communists organizations in Russia in the beginning, but this attempt was later stopped because of the "unity of the working-class". The Jewish Bundists comes to mind, trying to be both Communists and building and keeping their Jewish culture and identity.

IMO this was a more honest strategy than posing as Russians, and leading Russian proletarians (when in reality it was a case of a Jewish clique taking over Russia). However, the Bundist strategy wouldnt have been as succesful from a power-realist point-of-view, so its obvious why it was stopped and the leading Bundists got in trouble.

Evolved
Sunday, August 15th, 2004, 03:28 PM
George W. Bush is a White man, I feel closer to normal, working-class non-niggerish blacks than I do to him. This is one of the many reasons I do not become active in pro-White organizations.

Oskorei
Sunday, August 15th, 2004, 03:38 PM
I feel closer to niggerish blacks than I do to Bush. At least they are alive, while he is a spiritual Jew and a brain-washed robot.

Then again Bush is hardly pro-White.

Telperion
Sunday, August 15th, 2004, 03:53 PM
Many, including myself, take issue with the aforementioned hijacked so-called COMMUNIST organizations is their racist, transparent and insulting pandering to and coddling of minorities - especially their mind-boggling support for racist policies of Affirmative Action (which assume that blacks need extra help getting admitted to higher education institutions because their academic merits are not enough to do so, and the racist assumtion also that white people are in control of school admissions and that said white people are all automatically deemed to be racist).
It is curious that such supposedly Communist groups promote the affirmative-action programs espoused by liberal multiculturalists, when they are supposedly anti-liberal themselves. In effect, their policies promote divisions and antagonism between working class groups, when you'd think that from their standpoint they would want to promote working class unity against the authorities.

Many members of these Communist groups probably think that supporting affirmative action is a Communist ideal, since it involves promoting equality between groups, irrespective of unfairness to individuals. Still, if the leaders of these Communist organizations actually promote affirmative action for this reason, then they have a very weak grasp of political strategy and tactics.

I think it's rather likely that so-called Communist groups were long ago infiltrated by the authorities, and are manipulated into implementing a divide and conquer strategy that pits those who might oppose the status quo against each other, alienates the average person, and thereby serves the interests of established power. The same is probably true of many WP groups.


If there were a communist movement of the White working class, cooperating with that of other races, respectful of differences and seeking to maintain harmonious societies, how is this terrible? Why must WP be right wing?
Strictly on the level of ideology, Communism adheres strictly to the idea that all races are inherently equal in their potential and capabilities, and that inequalities between them are due to environmental and cultural influences which will be eliminated in the future communist society. These ideas are incompatible with white supremacy, which (generally speaking) is one of the core principles of WP groups. WP groups might still otherwise adhere to economic programs that are more collectivist or socialist than market-oriented. If WP groups did not adhere to the notion of white supremacy, they would probably find a program of the sort you have outlined more attractive.

Oskorei
Sunday, August 15th, 2004, 04:00 PM
A note about Affirmative Action: a real Communist would base this sort of program on class and not on race. As it is now, it mostly helps an already advantaged colored bourgeoisie, and totally misses the White proletaryans.

This would also be a good opportunity for real Communists to bring up the question of capitalism and exploitation, which is still controversial, instead of the accepted BS about "racism".

Telperion
Sunday, August 15th, 2004, 04:04 PM
A note about Affirmative Action: a real Communist would base this sort of program on class and not on race. As it is now, it mostly helps an already advantaged colored bourgeoisie, and totally misses the White proletaryans.
That's a good point, which relates back to the point that affirmative action is a liberal project that supports the status quo.

Oskorei
Sunday, August 15th, 2004, 04:08 PM
That's a good point, which relates back to the point that affirmative action is a liberal project that supports the status quo.
True. The reason probably is to create ethnic bourgeoisies where such does not already exist, to help rule the different ethnic groups in a multi-culti corporatist society.

They know from experience that when race and class overlaps 100%, the situation easily gets explosive.

Grimr
Sunday, August 15th, 2004, 04:33 PM
Why does White survival have to revolve around any form of politics? Don’t get me wrong I am not particularly against right or left I just think they are quite irrelevant.

Evolved
Sunday, August 15th, 2004, 05:29 PM
It will never come down to politics, as in controling races by politics. But politics do influence people in their personal life behaviors somewhat. Putting capitalism before the good of society is hardly good for any race. We're eating /watching/listening to poison, replacing having families with gaining material possessions and higher economic status (which is pointless without reproducing - the only reason to attain extra wealth is to provide for future generations), people are not charitable toward their neighbors and everyone is full of envy. How is this good for whites or anyone else?

Grimr
Sunday, August 15th, 2004, 06:57 PM
It will never come down to politics, as in controling races by politics. But politics do influence people in their personal life behaviors somewhat. Putting capitalism before the good of society is hardly good for any race. We're eating /watching/listening to poison, replacing having families with gaining material possessions and higher economic status (which is pointless without reproducing - the only reason to attain extra wealth is to provide for future generations), people are not charitable toward their neighbors and everyone is full of envy. How is this good for whites or anyone else?

I agree with everything you say however putting these good ideals under a banner of Communism is like Fidel Castro saying "Fuck these Bolivars I love this shit from Miami!" in order to promote the sale of cigars in Cuba.

ogenoct
Sunday, August 15th, 2004, 07:48 PM
If there were a communist movement of the White working class, cooperating with that of other races, respectful of differences and seeking to maintain harmonious societies, how is this terrible? Why must WP be right wing?

Friedrich Engels was not a Jew, but a pure-blooded German. Besides that fact, I think it is quite irrelevant that a lot of the early Bolsheviks were Jews. As a matter if fact, one could even argue that these Jews were good Jews! You should read some early essays by Ernst Niekisch on this topic. He argued that Soviet Russia was nothing but a battle station against the decadence of the West. Alexander Dugin says that (during the Glorious Bolshevik Revolution) there were good Jews and bad Jews. The bad variety were the Zionists who only cared about the welfare and advancement of their own tribe, even to the detriment of the host people. The good Jews were the ones who worked with the host people towards bettering society as a whole, for the benefit of all citizens. The worker-soldier state of Russia against the earth- and soul-destroyers of the Occident... Also, the multi-cultural variety of Communism is an invention of the West! If you look at the history of Eastern Europe, you will find that during Communist times it was ethnically homogenous. Not only that, it even celebrated its national past and its vibrant traditions. This was especially the case with East Germany (the DDR) where the Christian ritual of Confirmation was replaced by a heathen "Jugendweihe." Also, under Great Joseph Stalin the Trotskyite version of internationalist Communism was replaced by National Bolshevism which, in a sense, was identical to National Socialism, except that it did not a have particularist hatred toward a large segment of the White race (as was the case under madman Hitler and company). On the contrary, Stalin was a Germanophile who not only offered peace to Germany in 1944, but also - as opposed to the Western Allied pigs - wanted Germany to be unified, neutral and socialist after the war. I consider myself a National Communist (a left-wing racialist). HAIL Lenin!

Comradely Greetings,
Constantin

Grimr
Sunday, August 15th, 2004, 08:12 PM
Friedrich Engels was not a Jew, but a pure-blooded German. Besides that fact, I think it is quite irrelevant that a lot of the early Bolsheviks were Jews. As a matter if fact, one could even argue that these Jews were good Jews! You should read some early essays by Ernst Niekisch on this topic. He argued that Soviet Russia was nothing but a battle station against the decadence of the West. Alexander Dugin says that (during the Glorious Bolshevik Revolution) there were good Jews and bad Jews. The bad variety were the Zionists who only cared about the welfare and advancement of their own tribe, even to the detriment of the host people. The good Jews were the ones who worked with the host people towards bettering society as a whole, for the benefit of all citizens. The worker-soldier state of Russia against the earth- and soul-destroyers of the Occident... Also, the multi-cultural variety of Communism is an invention of the West! If you look at the history of Eastern Europe, you will find that during Communist times it was ethnically homogenous. Not only that, it even celebrated its national past and its vibrant traditions. This was especially the case with East Germany (the DDR) where the Christian ritual of Confirmation was replaced by a heathen "Jugendweihe." Also, under Great Joseph Stalin the Trotskyite version of internationalist Communism was replaced by National Bolshevism which, in a sense, was identical to National Socialism, except that it did not a have particularist hatred toward a large segment of the White race (as was the case under madman Hitler and company). On the contrary, Stalin was a Germanophile who not only offered peace to Germany in 1944, but also - as opposed to the Western Allied pigs - wanted Germany to be unified, neutral and socialist after the war. I consider myself a National Communist (a left-wing racialist). HAIL Lenin!

Comradely Greetings,
Constantin

All political structures and ideals are emotive, pathetic dark comedies because they consume human lives with really small ideas and I would hope that white racialism would have the ability to not get tied down by such things.

norcalnative1971
Tuesday, August 17th, 2004, 05:52 AM
What have White Power people against COMMUNISM? I am speaking not historically but ideologically.


Communism murdered tens of millions of the BEST Aryans.

Communism is INTERNATIONALIST and INTERRACIST socialism.

National Socialism is, on the other hand, RACIALIST and NATURAL socialism.

You CANNOT argue that Communism isn't of, by, and FOR the Jews for all its history.

Bill Noble
Tuesday, August 17th, 2004, 08:57 AM
Sometimes I wonder what makes Leftists tick. They argue that the former Soviet Union, China, Cuba and other such states aren't really Communist, due to the tyrants that usurped power; and true Communism is essentially Anarchy, a state of people with no government. Well, it's awfully hard not to notice what has consistently happened every time someone tried to initiate a Communist state. You'd think that a child who has burned his hand on a stovetop three times in a row would learn that placing his hand there results in something better avoided....

People are products of Nature, just as animals are. Even if you're too uppity to consider humans to be just another variety of animal, you still must concede that humans are subject to the same laws of Nature that the animals are. Just as animals have inherent natures that are part and parcel of their form, so do humans. And it is an essential part of human nature that humans are divided into followers and leaders. Someone will take the initiative and begin to be a leader, and others will see a leader they like, and willingly follow.

A state of anarchy, once achieved, can only continue to exist as long as its existence is enforced. Yes, even if no Soviet-style dictator arises, there must be a body of individuals absolutely dedicated to ensuring that no leader arises and takes followers under his wings. Thus, anarchy can only exist indefinitely as a form of tyranny.

There is no freedom in anarchy; only terror and suppression. People need to be free to choose a leader of their choice, and to support him as they wish. It is a fool who assumes that any autocracy or dictatorship is a tyranny simply because it is presided over by a single individual. Democracy has proven to be more tyrannic than many historic despots.

Bärin
Friday, September 5th, 2008, 11:59 AM
WPs hate Communism because they are ignorant about it and make hasty generalisations. For example, like in this thread. "Communism murdered tens of millions of the BEST Aryans." Bullshit. It's just like the liberals here who keep accusing NS of murdering millions of Germans. Communism is an ideology, it's political theory, it doesn't preach mass killing. Just because a communist leader like Stalin decided to implement ethnic cleansing doesn't mean that it's the legacy of communism. Honecker didn't conduct any ethnic cleansing. As for internationalism, it's not necessarily meaning to eradicate borders. The DDR wanted to "eradicate" borders so much that it built a wall to keep Germans in and foreigners out. Internationalism is cooperation between communist nations. The DDR cooperated with Vietnam. The Vietnamese came here as students and they learned from our country. And if a Vietnamese woman would cross the line and get pregnant with a German, she would be sent back to Vietnam. With internationalism, we should teach other countries how to solve their poverty and skill problems, instead of importing foreigners here permanently.

DanseMacabre
Monday, September 8th, 2008, 09:49 PM
It's funny how White Nationalists are against Marxism when their own ideology is very much like Classical Marxism, i.e. internationalist.

MockTurtle
Tuesday, September 9th, 2008, 01:50 AM
It's funny how White Nationalists are against Marxism when their own ideology is very much like Classical Marxism, i.e. internationalist.

Obviously, the so-called 'White Nationalists' are completely wrong in their goals/ideology, but do you think that a certain type of 'internationalism' could possibly serve as a viable outlet for those with pronounced 'racialist' and preservationist goals in our modern age?

I believe in 'nationhood' 100%, but I'm just wondering if perhaps the conditions of nationhood have been permanently altered. Myself, for instance, I would feel much closer to someone from say Germany or Denmark who was racially conscious than with a culturally deracinated, egotistical liberal from the US who just happened to be born Nordish. To me, nationhood requires both blood AND ideology -- both must be combined. Given that we can communicate and share ideas much quicker/easier than before, doesn't this mean that 'nations' can be expanded over a global scale in the sense that membership is more concerned with actual compatibility rather than geography?

NationalAnarchist
Tuesday, September 9th, 2008, 08:00 AM
I'm not WP, WN or a Nazi-fetishist so I guess the question isn't directed at me but I'm anti-Communist so I'll answer anyway.

Marxism in it's original form is simply a further step in the path of Judeo-Christianity which has (IMO) nothing to do with Europe and has caused more trouble than good. It is inherently an internationalist ideology which leaves ethnicity no space to serve their own interests and by definition, putting their own nations interests before the collective or "greater good" would be against the rules. I'll co-operate with other groups/tribes but if my own needs me that is where my loyalty lies, not somebody I have no connection with.

In practise, the dictatorship of the proletariat is just another dictatorship and I oppose it on principle. Any leadership should be supported by the community, not imposed. Communism in practise, especially the so-called National Bolshevism of Stalin was nothing more than another dictatorship so not Communism at all. Communism in modern times is anti-European, anti-Nationalist, is responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths and is as practically dead as National Socialism. It's time it is laid to rest forever.

I am however a socialist and believe in the collective interest over individualism. Though, I do not oppose private property or personal interest. If people wish to produce their own goods they should be allowed to profit off their own labour, not share it with those who didn't contribute. Work that directly serves the collective good, such as the harvest or work on infrastructure should be shared amongst the workers but I do not believe people should become more than just another material good to be bought, sold and enslaved by some "dictatorship of the proletariat."

DanseMacabre
Tuesday, September 9th, 2008, 06:11 PM
Obviously, the so-called 'White Nationalists' are completely wrong in their goals/ideology, but do you think that a certain type of 'internationalism' could possibly serve as a viable outlet for those with pronounced 'racialist' and preservationist goals in our modern age?

Well, I certainly believe in solidarity among Germanics. I don't think nationalism necessarily entails not caring about the fate of closely related nations/countries. So in a sense I support 'international' unity among Germanics or perhaps solidarity is a better term. I think it is important not only to struggle for the liberation of your nation/country, but also support other Germanics in their struggle and possibly lend assistance whenever possible. But overall I would say the best path is each Germanic nation pursuing preservationist causes in their country, while showing support and solidarity with other Germanic national causes.


I believe in 'nationhood' 100%, but I'm just wondering if perhaps the conditions of nationhood have been permanently altered. Myself, for instance, I would feel much closer to someone from say Germany or Denmark who was racially conscious than with a culturally deracinated, egotistical liberal from the US who just happened to be born Nordish. To me, nationhood requires both blood AND ideology -- both must be combined. Given that we can communicate and share ideas much quicker/easier than before, doesn't this mean that 'nations' can be expanded over a global scale in the sense that membership is more concerned with actual compatibility rather than geography?

I think you're right. But I also believe we should preserve traditionally Germanic lands. I believe in Blood and Soil. I think we are connected to the land on which our ancestors lived and died.

SwordOfTheVistula
Wednesday, September 10th, 2008, 07:37 AM
The goal of communism is to redistribute resources, from the most able to the least able, 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need'. WPs generally view whites/germanics as more able and less needy than those of other races, and thus damaged by communism, which on a large scale takes resources from whites/germanics and redistributes it to the less able&more needy blacks, muslims, hispanics, etc.

Patrioten
Wednesday, September 10th, 2008, 11:23 AM
I really don't get why every discussion about marxism/communism restricts itself to economical policies. The economics of marxism are well known to everyone, the catastrophic failure and suffering that they inevitably lead to when implemented in reality is also well known. What should be discussed more are the social policies, world views and ideas that have originated in marxist thought. Karl Marx who believed that the nuclear family needed to be deconstructed (destroyed) so that authoritarian and bourgeous ideas could be exterminated and make way for their socialist dream world of absolute equality. You have the Frankfurt-school with its ideas of destroying and over turning, perverting and twisting, everything in our socities so that the people and the state would become receptive to Communism and crumble from within.

You have open borders advocacy, feminism, multi culturalism, people being united by class not by nationality (which leads to the idea of equality inbetween races), sexual perversions of every kind being promoted to break the spirit and resistance of young minds (used under the dictatorship of Bela Kun, today translated into support for every perversion, every abnormality, even pedophilia), countless "theories" that deconstruct everything which makes us human (race, gender, heritage, culture) a value system where everything which benefits the revolution is moral and just, and anything which opposes it or stands in the way is immoral and unjust, traditional values such as tradition, heritage, culture, country, religion being seen as "bourgeous" and in need of deconstruction (mere tools used by the capitalist to keep the worker in place, without any real value). There are examples effecting virtually every part of our society in the most erroding and perverting way.

Marxism is anti-human, it stands against everything which is human and seeks to replace it with an inhuman society where humans are not humans anymore, but production units in a great machinery where they will work for nothing, starve to death when the system inevitably fails and have their minds perverted by the state's propaganda machine.

I do not hesitate to call Marxism by its real name, evil. Marxism is an enemy to all of mankind. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, but in the case of marxism, I fail to see even the good intentions.

Pino
Wednesday, September 10th, 2008, 01:31 PM
Communism wants to destroy ALL cultures of the world, it doesn't want anybody to have any identity what so ever and also promotes race mixing, it wants a bunch of raceless mongral slaves who will work there arses off and have no loyalities outside those of the totalatarian state, this is why National Socialism opposed Communism because it was the complete destrution of the excellence of Germanic man.

Anyway National Socialism has moved with the times, George Lincoln Rockwell who was the biggest advocator of National Socialism after Hitler died .

Guntwachar
Wednesday, September 10th, 2008, 01:58 PM
This thread seems to be kinda useless who cares about White Power people? most of the time i'm more ashamed of them then i am about the communists.

And those endless discussions about NS and communism are annoying to both of the ideology's are anti Germanic so people that embrace it shouldnt even talk about preservation, next to that most people today that say they are communists or nationalsocialists would have got killed by there own ideology in the 1940's.

Jäger
Wednesday, September 10th, 2008, 03:53 PM
You have open borders advocacy, feminism, multi culturalism, people being united by class not by nationality (which leads to the idea of equality inbetween races), sexual perversions of every kind being promoted to break the spirit and resistance of young minds (used under the dictatorship of Bela Kun, today translated into support for every perversion, every abnormality, even pedophilia), countless "theories" that deconstruct everything which makes us human (race, gender, heritage, culture) a value system where everything which benefits the revolution is moral and just, and anything which opposes it or stands in the way is immoral and unjust, traditional values such as tradition, heritage, culture, country, religion being seen as "bourgeous" and in need of deconstruction (mere tools used by the capitalist to keep the worker in place, without any real value). There are examples effecting virtually every part of our society in the most erroding and perverting way.

Marxism is anti-human, it stands against everything which is human and seeks to replace it with an inhuman society where humans are not humans anymore, but production units in a great machinery where they will work for nothing, starve to death when the system inevitably fails and have their minds perverted by the state's propaganda machine.
This is a good summary, and makes it more evident that Communism and "Capitalism" (as an ideology, not just economic model) are two sides of the same coin.


And those endless discussions about NS and communism are annoying to both of the ideology's are anti Germanic so people that embrace it shouldnt even talk about preservation...
NS is indeed anti-preservation, but not anti-Germanic. Communism is both.


next to that most people today that say they are communists or nationalsocialists would have got killed by there own ideology in the 1940's.
This seems to be true, but I wouldn't say killed, most likely they would have ended up in a conetration camp of either sort, and work there for their exitstence :)

Vingolf
Wednesday, September 10th, 2008, 04:29 PM
I do not hesitate to call Marxism by its real name, evil. Marxism is an enemy to all of mankind. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, but in the case of marxism, I fail to see even the good intentions.
Marxism is certainly not an enemy *to all of mankind*, and its *good intention* is to preserve the well-being of The Chosen People in the modern, post-religious era. If Marxism is *evil*, it is also *human*, from a certain point of view. As the saying goes, one man s loss is another man s gain. Various leftisms have certainly been a tragic setback for the Germanic and some of the other Indo-European nations in the 20th century.

Pino
Wednesday, September 10th, 2008, 08:42 PM
Marxism is certainly not an enemy *to all of mankind*, and its *good intention* is to preserve the well-being of The Chosen People in the modern, post-religious era. If Marxism is *evil*, it is also *human*, from a certain point of view. As the saying goes, one man s loss is another man s gain. Various leftisms have certainly been a tragic setback for the Germanic and some of the other Indo-European nations in the 20th century.

A gain for the Jews where working class equality applies to everybody other than there racial hierarchy, Marxism and Communism put Jews in power and have everybody else united under some false banner of Class Unity, give people a flag to wave and a sense of identity and they will think they are useful people when infact they are nothing but slaves of the state. Marxism desroys excellence.

MockTurtle
Thursday, September 11th, 2008, 07:11 AM
But overall I would say the best path is each Germanic nation pursuing preservationist causes in their country, while showing support and solidarity with other Germanic national causes.

Okay, in that case, I suppose my next question would be: how significant should this support/solidarity be among the various Germanic national movements? Is it purely propagandistic (i.e. verbal communication/support, writings, etc.), or something else?

I do agree that it's best for Germanic nationalisms to support each other, but at the same time I'm just unsure about whether this will be meaningful or not in the coming 'world situation'. In other words, I'm skeptical about how significant these traditional conceptions of nationality and national identity will be in the future that's unraveling right now. The traditional 'nations' of the West are rapidly crumbling apart due to lack of racial consciousness, loss of repsonsibility towards posterity, etc. But, around the globe, other races haven't suffered the same sort of 'spiritual blow' that we have, not by a long-shot. In this situation, perhaps it makes best sense for Germanic/Nordish peoples to rethink what constitutes a 'nation' and focus on shaping membership along the lines of being able to seriously compete against these other races? As it stands, I fear that the traditional 'nationalisms' just won't have either the internal will or the genetic capacity to be victorious.

Look at this forum as just one example. I would be much more willing to consider members here who are from Germany/England/Scandinavia (as well as other Nordish countries) as brothers and/or national fellows than most people who reside inside the territorial borders of my own country. I understand that the most practical course of activity right now is going to be directed within a more traditional national framework, but what about the long-term?



I think you're right. But I also believe we should preserve traditionally Germanic lands. I believe in Blood and Soil. I think we are connected to the land on which our ancestors lived and died.

I believe in the connection with soil too; I think it can play a very important role in creating the sense of responsibility to one's national community. But, having said that, where exactly does this leave New Worlders? Yes, many New Worlders have multiple generations of ancestors who have lived/died on their present lands, but realistically the bond is much less significant when compared with Old Worlders. Should New Worlders and Old Worlders approach the issue differently?

Plus, couldn't Germanic lands be preserved while the criteria for 'nationhood' is redefined at the same time? Old World lands, for example, and probably a substantial portion of New World lands, would not necessarily have to be compromised if genuine 'national membership' was reconsidered.

Soldier of Wodann
Thursday, September 11th, 2008, 10:40 AM
This thread reeks of ignorance and stupidity. It seems that a good 50% of this forum is pro-Communist (or at the very least, pro-Socialist), which is quite revealing of the general state of so-called 'preservationism'. Not only is communism a direct refutation of all authentic, traditional Germanic (more properly Aryan) principles and practices, but is also an inherently stupid idea. I find it highly hypocritical that one can claim that the offspring between individuals of two races is inferior than either race separately (as most people on here advocate), and yet claim at the same time that all people are inherently equal (as communism does). Even if we are working with a relatively stable racial mix, this idea is fundamentally retarded and against the most basic laws of nature, and relies entirely on human compassion, sympathy and above all, stupidity. Nothing in nature is equal to another member of its species, nothing is the same. The world is not a mathematical formula where everyone counts as a '1', nor does everything count as an 'all'. Somethings are inherently superior to others, some die, some live. Some people are successes, some failures (usually the people who endorse communism, hah).

Every single redeemable aspects of our race, the Aryan race, comes from our most ancient Traditions, which are as far away from Communism as one can get. We are a race of ranks, of order, of structure and of authority. We are a conquering race and not a submissive, prideless, compromising, egalitarian one. It is a shame to subject so great a race to so sick, so demented a plague, and I cannot help but wish unspeakable pain upon anyone who does. Egalitarianism has already destroyed many great Nations, and it is still doing a damn good job of destroying Europe and and it's colonies. Keep that in mind.

Equality is a farce, whether between individuals or races.

Beornulf
Thursday, September 11th, 2008, 11:07 AM
All that rubbish is just another form of egalitarianism which is a sick and misguided concept to begin with.

Nagelfar
Friday, September 12th, 2008, 10:53 AM
Mostly because the philosophic underpinnings of Communism are egalitarian and the more bolshevik / Marxist forms of revolutionary Communism violently opposed any aspect of any other form of social relating that wasn't fully internationally egalitarian in it's form or appearance; this included all note of difference between things whether race or class.

Pino
Friday, September 12th, 2008, 02:48 PM
Egalitarianism is correct that everybody should be given an equal chance to prove themselfs, but then depending on intelligence, contribution etc should be decided what role they play in society.

Obviously the greater the role the more rewards.

TheGreatest
Friday, September 12th, 2008, 03:38 PM
Why are we writing off the Jewish thing?


I could go on any Campus or Highschool and most Communist clubs would have a higher than demographically-portionate population of Jews.
This was/is the case today, 50 years and a 100 years ago.


In which case it could be argued as a societal ideology, with them being born into Communist households and whatnot. But then again the Former Soviet Union and it's Communist Parties are not all that popular on the national ballots...
I do not buy the equality crap. If it's equality than it's an equality requiring interpretation. If we're all equal because we're all slaving away in coal mines in Antartica or cutting rubber in Brazil, then yes we are ''equal'' in some ironic sense.
And this is the ''equality'' I sense when a lot of Jews talk about

communism. They wish to be a little Trotsky or Stalin, living in dozens of palaces and having the good life, while everyone else like me and you have lost everything: Our wealth, freedom of movement, security, et cetera - everything