PDA

View Full Version : Why I Am Not a White Nationalist



Stríbog
Sunday, July 13th, 2003, 09:10 AM
Most of us of the racialist persuasion refer to ourselves as Nationalists. More and more, though, I have been thinking that nationalism per se, *as an organized system relating to a state* has long since failed us. It gave us countless internecine wars that depopulated Europe of both its rank-and-file and its would-be leaders. Nationalism has been used to justify two world wars that resulted in millions upon millions of dead on every side. Nationalism is even being used today, with great success, to whip up fervor for the Zionist invasion of Iraq and 'liberation' of its oil assets.
The problem lies, I think, in confounding the STATE or NATION-STATE with the Folk. Nationalism has come to mean unwavering support for the GOVERNMENT of one's land; a flag-waving, hypnotic blind faith. I think that ethnic and also racial solidarity needs to be encouraged, but as a folkish trend from the people themselves, not as a government-dictated program of loyalty to the state. I also think that people have a right to form their own communities as they wish. If they dislike being born/raised in a particular community, they are welcome to leave and found their own or find one that suits them. I think people with an instinct for ethnic preservation will band together; the rest are free to go their own routes and sink into oblivion. I think this is preferable to the older European 'nationalist' systems which actually coincided quite poorly with ethnic boundaries and created countless wars, invasions and ethnic cleansing.

Vigilant
Sunday, July 13th, 2003, 01:10 PM
I'm starting to think this way too,if only from a propaganda point of view.One of the tenets of propaganda is that it should reinforce widely held presuppositions and myths,such as SCIENCE or HAPPINESS, rather than contradict them.With so many people talking about the world becoming a smaller place it's futile to cut yourself off from it.Nationalism is now considered backward in Europe - it has a negative stereotype which is hard to contradict.So perhaps discussions of the Volk or race should build on this widely-held assumption.As if to say,"at least it's not nationalism".

Ederico
Wednesday, July 16th, 2003, 02:19 PM
Nationalism is not of benefit to our Race as a whole. I am of the opinion that most Racialists claim to be Nationalists either out of true Nationalism or to downplay the importance of Race due to the implications associated with Race.

How many of us here really say they are Racists with pride and without a sense of, and how many of you think that this would be a positive image to portray to the public when they hear the term Racist they simply imagine an oppressor, and in most cases an European oppressor. Due to the implications of the term Racist/Racialist the term Nationalist comes into play.

I think Anarch could be useful here to describe the differences between Vertical and Horizontal Nationalism. From what I know, Vertical Nationalism is sort of Fascist, dedication to something that is above the Folk, Horizontal Nationalism stresses that militancy and devotion must be given only to the Nation, the Folk, and not a structure such that as a State.

I do not consider myself a Nationalist, but that is due to the situation in the Society I live in, do not get me wrong, I would want to see my Nation prosper and be as independent from non-European or simply foreign influence, yet first of all I consider my Race as my real Folk.

Europe needs Pan-European Racialism and a Social Revolution, Nationalism could help each single Nation independently from the others but unfortunately due to the Dictatorship that is the European Union in regards to Nationalism and Racialism, the two cannot flourish unless great Social Disorder is created. I see Europe at war within itself in the future, and I can only hope that it will be a war of liberation from the chains that hinder European men.

hardcorps
Wednesday, July 16th, 2003, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by Stríbog
Most of us of the racialist persuasion refer to ourselves as Nationalists. More and more, though, I have been thinking that nationalism per se, *as an organized system relating to a state* has long since failed us. It gave us countless internecine wars that depopulated Europe of both its rank-and-file and its would-be leaders. Nationalism has been used to justify two world wars that resulted in millions upon millions of dead on every side. Nationalism is even being used today, with great success, to whip up fervor for the Zionist invasion of Iraq and 'liberation' of its oil assets.

Yes but what was before nationalism? Answer: feudalism! Nationalism is certainly a better option for the majority in a white nation-state. Also, I don't think it makes a huge amount of difference if people die for their state or their lord.


The problem lies, I think, in confounding the STATE or NATION-STATE with the Folk. Nationalism has come to mean unwavering support for the GOVERNMENT of one's land; a flag-waving, hypnotic blind faith. I think that ethnic and also racial solidarity needs to be encouraged, but as a folkish trend from the people themselves, not as a government-dictated program of loyalty to the state.

I don't see the problems with western nations as the fault of nationalism as a political ideology. They’re caused by an inappropriate understanding and application of nationalism, IMO. If a majority of the policymakers of previous generations understood that healthy nationalism cannot really exist without a strong element of homogeneity (both cultural and biological) they would not have allowed absolute racial outlanders into the national fold.

The problem is that nationalism was never deliberately applied except perhaps in NS Germany, it basically grew out of feudalism.


On the plus side, nationalism (or the nation-state system) not only causes, but also prevents, conflict. There is a lot more room for discussion when the heads of nations meet. This might not be the case with loose communities meeting in the wilderness!

Nationalism also helps a group of people quickly unite under the auspices of a shared identity in their territory’s DEFENCE.


I also think that people have a right to form their own communities as they wish. If they dislike being born/raised in a particular community, they are welcome to leave and found their own or find one that suits them. I think people with an instinct for ethnic preservation will band together; the rest are free to go their own routes and sink into oblivion. I think this is preferable to the older European 'nationalist' systems which actually coincided quite poorly with ethnic boundaries and created countless wars, invasions and ethnic cleansing.

This is rather Hobbesian. That is, if people don't like the nature of the social contract, they are free to go elsewhere and live a life 'solitary [or otherwise], poor, nasty, brutish and short' – ROFL well hopefully not, Hobbes was a staunch monarchist after all! The main problem is: go WHERE?! The habitable land is all taken now. (Look what happened to the poor Southern states when they tried for independence!)

Additionally, who would want to be that first successful secessionist group? Obviously the western world is fairly stable now, but for the long term I wouldn't want to be in a 'folk community' without a good established military, or else very strong military alliances.


I also think that people have a right to form their own communities as they wish. If they dislike being born/raised in a particular community, they are welcome to leave and found their own or find one that suits them.

Yes people SHOULD have this right, but they don’t literally have that right in the current international community. Wishing will not make it so!


I don't mean to be bombastically critical of these ideas, but I don't think it's going to do us good in the long term to break off into Amish-like communities while in the shadow of predatory nation-states, even if it’s possible. The international community DOES operate along almost completely realist lines, IMO.


It's hard to be optimistic here. Perhaps, indeed, Arthur de Gobineau was right in saying that the human species is inexorably de-evolving.

The only real hope, IMHO, is through power acquisition in existing nation-states. Thus it is may be counterproductive to try to engender anti-nationalist sentiment in the folk, when the reality might be that the ONLY successful path is to somehow become the party in charge of that nation. It is hardly prudent to encourage future enmity for the governments we will run;) Thus I think we racialists who live in nation-states with a, say, 70% white populace should not be against nationalism. Criticism of poor government is one thing, suggesting anarchist scenarios is another altogether! (If your nation has very few whites, nationalism is possibly a moot point – it might be necessary to accept that your future lies in another, whiter, state.)

@Stribog
Apologies if I misinterpreted any of what you wrote or implied. This is a rather large and nebulous topic!

mad frank
Wednesday, July 16th, 2003, 07:10 PM
Surly nation-states are artifical,nineteenth century
imperualism.Which in time will be eradicated(with luck)
and consequently replaced by autonomous village-communities.


:smilies

mickmaloney
Wednesday, July 16th, 2003, 07:39 PM
Nationalism is dead and has been since at least 1945 and possibly since 1914.A nation state or nationality or nationalism without a racial dimension is a complete nonesense.
Look at sport teams full of negros most western nations now have millions and millions of alien invaders who are legal citizens of the countries they have settled in.

Götterschicksal
Thursday, July 17th, 2003, 07:47 AM
It`s natural for mann to group themselves. Has national rivalry not produced advancement in technology, science and culture? Since early times, man has rivaled themselves and built bigger things than the of ones. Would have the Hittites started iron making if they didn`t rival their neighbors? I hope Europa unites and europeans become one, then when will be strong and stand agianst the threat of die Außereuropäer. Also when we are a united Europa, different cultures and volk in Europa will still group themselves into German, Russian, French and English (etc.).

Saoirse
Thursday, September 4th, 2003, 05:29 AM
Theres 'Nationalism' in the animal kingdom. All different species of the Cat groups themselves. Same with Wolves, Bears, Birds ect.

Stríbog
Thursday, September 4th, 2003, 06:08 AM
Theres 'Nationalism' in the animal kingdom. All different species of the Cat groups themselves. Same with Wolves, Bears, Birds ect.

That's about a 1st-grade analogy. In fact, since all Europeans are of the same species, biologically speaking, and all humans in fact seem to be as well, that would argue against European nationalism at the very least, if not against all racial identification. :p Cat, dog, horse, etc. breeds when left to themselves will interbreed into homogeneity. I don't think animal analogies are particularly relevant here.

Saoirse
Thursday, September 4th, 2003, 07:03 AM
We still would group ourselves as Scottish, English, Irish, Russian, German no matter what.

Stríbog
Thursday, September 4th, 2003, 07:17 AM
We still would group ourselves as Scottish, English, Irish, Russian, German no matter what.

I'm not questioning or opposing that. What I object to is the mindless "patriotic" mob fervor to which nationalism commonly refers, and which led to numerous European fratricidal wars. The "my country is better than yours and deserves to beat yours" mentality is what I oppose.

Saoirse
Thursday, September 4th, 2003, 07:23 AM
The "my country is better than yours and deserves to beat yours" mentality is what I oppose.

I agree with that. But I want to see Northern Ireland free, but without bloodshed.

Stríbog
Friday, September 5th, 2003, 08:42 AM
Thus, nationalism is not passé, and will never be; but it will have to be embedded in a greater European racial consciousness which fortunately developed already in many young people.

Kind regards,

- Thorburn

I am in agreement with the ideals suggested by your more strict definition of nationalism. However, I think that the Golden Rule does not apply, in that one can be what is commonly perceived "nationalist" without respecting other nations' sovereignty. Russian "nationalism", German "nationalism", British "nationalism" all have entailed conquering other countries at one time or another. I would say that Hitler was a German nationalist in the popular sense, and that he was not supportive of other Europeans' sovereignty. Thus, I was referring more to what nationalism has come to mean, i.e. that one should not question one's government, that the ambitions of one's own nation-state are always justified, etc. I do think one must be careful to guard true nationalism from drifting towards imperialism, because the tendency/temptation is always there. I actually prefer the old-style IRA model for nationalism, because I think *that* was legitimate, true nationalism. It didn't seek to expand at anyone else's expense, it only sought to regain what rightfully belonged to the Irish people. Unfortunately, the country may well become majority immigrant before they even regain the North.

Saoirse
Friday, September 5th, 2003, 10:40 AM
There is "racism" on the rise throughout Ireland, we still may have hope. Plus, theres a party being formed :)

Phlegethon
Friday, September 5th, 2003, 01:31 PM
However, I think that the Golden Rule does not apply, in that one can be what is commonly perceived "nationalist" without respecting other nations' sovereignty. Russian "nationalism", German "nationalism", British "nationalism" all have entailed conquering other countries at one time or another.

That has absolutely nothing to do with nationalism though, but is plain and simple imperialism.


I would say that Hitler was a German nationalist in the popular sense, and that he was not supportive of other Europeans' sovereignty.

Hitler was hardly a nationalist. He imprisoned and murdered nationalists instead or forced them into exile. The whole Lebensraum idea was suicidal and costs Hitler the sympathy of peoples who normally would have supported his fight against Bolshevism. Of course one cannot speak of national sovereignty as far as test tube countries like Czechoslovakia and Belgium are concerned.



Thus, I was referring more to what nationalism has come to mean, i.e. that one should not question one's government, that the ambitions of one's own nation-state are always justified, etc.

The word for that is patriotism and describes the unnatural love affair an individual has with an artificial lifeless entity called "state".


I do think one must be careful to guard true nationalism from drifting towards imperialism, because the tendency/temptation is always there. I actually prefer the old-style IRA model for nationalism, because I think *that* was legitimate, true nationalism. It didn't seek to expand at anyone else's expense, it only sought to regain what rightfully belonged to the Irish people. Unfortunately, the country may well become majority immigrant before they even regain the North.

One may argue that the IRA was the first nationalist terror organization that actively pursued internationalization, long before the Palestinians did it. One may also debate whether nationalism expresses itself in attacking British installations outside the U.K. Sometimes there is something imperialist about being anti-imperialist.

Stríbog
Friday, September 5th, 2003, 04:19 PM
Note that I referred to the old-style IRA; I was professing respect for the likes of Mike Collins and not Gerry Adams. :P

Jack
Tuesday, September 23rd, 2003, 07:44 AM
I thought of putting it on SF, but then, maybe not. And I think a lot more people here will understand what I'm saying.

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

I've been registered at Stormfront for a long time. I've read Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler, White Power by George Lincoln Rockwell, and The New White Nationalism in America by Carol M. Swain. I've read the Protocols, and Who Rules America. Yet I do not consider myself a White Nationalist. Why?

1) The endless praising of Adolf Hitler. Adolf Hitler was a fool. He realised that teaching Slavs German didn't make them into Germans, and so he went onto the false conclusion that Slavs are different from Germans by blood. This is wrong. Slavs are different from Germans by culture. The Pan-Europeanism of the Waffen SS only emerged during the war, and the mission of 'saving Europe' from the USSR was projected on to the German nation too late to do anything. Put simply, Germany was still too high from its victory binge to get together with the French, Italians, Scandinavian countries and so on to actually get around to uniting Europe against the USSR. Some say Hitler wanted to cease war against the British and bring them into an alliance against the USSR - you want to know how he intended to do that? Demand surrender. Hitler should've known that a nation like Britain with an empire spanning the planet developed over three hundred years doesn't surrender to a country less than sixty years old. For those who think National Socialism is pro-white, read Mein Kampf again: Slavs are viewed as inferiors. That's right everyone, National Socialism is NOT pro-white, it is based solely on German Nationalism. Hitler was more than willing to ally with the Japanese who put my nation on the edge of annihilation.

2) The insistance that culture comes from blood. WRONG. Culture comes from the most intelligent elements in a society (which is founded on common identity, blood included amongst other things), who produce works of literature, poetry, music, philosophy, and so on. Germany as a political unit wasn't created by some mystical 'blood' - it was created and developed by the man who wrote Deutschland Über Alles, and the German speaking population. Nations are not specific blood-collectives with definable limites. Nations are biological-spiritual communities founded on common blood and common ideals. Common blood can underline several nations, and when a group of nations sharing common blood share common values and ideas, we can speak of a civilization. Hitler messed this up and said nations were specific groups founded on blood which distinguished them from other nations.

3) "White" doesn't mean anything. White Nationalism always has been, and always will be, an American phenomenon, for the sole reason that America doesn't have much of a history behind it. Europeans have the legacy of Greece, Rome, Christendom, Kings, Empires spanning the world and America has ' [white] life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'. There is no American 'nationality' because anyone can be American, so Euro-Americans have to recoil and identify themselves by their blood when contrasting themselves to racial foreigners. Europeans don't really have this problem, because transplanting a black from Kenya to France does not, and never will, make him French. This is a socially accepted fact. Everyone knows it except the elite. "Americans" don't. That's why Euro-Americans call themselves "White Nationalists" because "American Nationalism" is easily hijacked by the Neoconservatives.

4) "Marxism" is evil. Most WN’s don’t know a great deal about Marxism. Marxism has little to no political influence. It is a corpse, but it is a big corpse, and a potentially useful one – it just needs to be picked apart, have the useful bits selected, and rearranged. There’s a lot to gain. But how many are doing this?

5) White Nationalism is heavily materialist. Yes, I said materialist, and I don't care if you say "in my opinion materialism is the economic motivations of people" blah blah WRONG, materialism is a class of ideological systems that places more emphasis on physical reality rather than ideals. What is the reason blacks can't be integrated into Western Civilization? "Because they don't have the genes for it", says the White Nationalist, with quite good justification - blacks have lower intelligence and higher testosterone, which makes them far more likely to make stupid, violent decisions - not good things to have in a civilized society. But the problem is White Nationalism is TOO biologically orientated. That's why we have people come here and ask "how white is white?" - as if there's an absolute standard of 'whiteness' to measure everyone else against. White is the person that conforms to your personal conception of white. White is also cultural. There are certainly Iranians who would conform to a socially accepted standard of 'white', but these people aren't who we deal with, are they? WHICH IS EXACTLY WHY IT SHOULDN'T BE CALLED WHITE NATIONALISM. The emphasis is not 'white', but 'people descended from European natives'. Race is a biological-psychological group. Common blood is not enough to call a collection of individuals a race, and common identity alone is not enough to call a group of individuals a race. Common blood and identity is what a race is. Both the left wing and the white nationalists are right – race is a social construct, and it is biological.

6) "Socialism". On one hand, 88and308 claims that NS is capitalist. On the other hand, he claims NS is socialist. Which is which? The WN movement, and post-Marxist nationalism as a whole, regardless of race, has yet to come up with a definition of what socialism is - a definition that does not exclude any variety of 'socialism', whether marxist, syndicalist, corporatist, market socialist, or whatever. Here's the definition: socialism is a social system which recognises man exists in a society. Hence, ALL NATIONALISTS ARE SOCIALISTS, private property or not. The second a nationalist is willing to back down if private property is used against the interests of his nation, he is no longer a nationalist. Hence property rights do not exist in a nationalist society, property priveliges do.

7) Fascism. White Nationalism is heavily tied in with National Socialism, which is tinged with Fascism. Fascism I'm going to define as a political system which places all power within arm's reach of the Government - hence Government can do anything. This is cowardice. A lot of White Nationalists do not believe in self-reliance and are therefore willing to invest all their capability to act in a Government, so long as it is owned and controlled by whites. This is because White Nationalism is built on the National Socialist/Leninist approach to revolution, not the mass-street movement approach of classic Marxism/Strasserite NS. White Nationalists would be willing to have their rights suspended in order to let the Government handle the race problems. I would not. I would rather roll up my sleeves and struggle myself than have my freedoms suspended so the Government can keep them suspended to deal with 'counter-revolutionary actions' into eternity. Simply put I do not trust the idealism of many who would put themselves forwards as leaders.

Because I am not a White Nationalist. I don't think blood alone is the foundation of everything. I'm quite well aware that blacks, Asians, Arabs and mesitzos and other races are never going to equal white culture, but being of European descent doesn't make you a cut above anyone else. It's not enough to draw an ‘average’ of IQ points for each race, that’s quantity – quality is what matters.

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

:)

Phlegethon
Tuesday, September 23rd, 2003, 11:43 AM
That whole "White Nationalist" nonsense is just a label used by Americans for jingoist right-wing reactionary leanings. Stormfront is a website and webboard run by a conservative who does not like blacks and Jews. Apart from that he is the typical Republican.

NS was socialist in theory and capitalist in practice. But so were and are most socialist states. Historical NS was anything but nationalist.

I do not think Marxism is evil. Marxism is a philosophy with a lot of truth to it. The only thing that matters and makes it good or evil is how you turn these philosophical tenets into actual policies. If you look around the world you'll find that at least 90% of all nationalist groups are of a Marxist nature. Only those freaks at Stormfront believe that being a reactionary right-winger means being a nationalist. They don't even care that they lack a nation as a target for their nationalism.

Siegfried
Tuesday, September 23rd, 2003, 12:45 PM
I too disagree with all these ideas you tie to 'White Nationalism', yet I have called myself a 'White Nationalist'. Why? For lack of a better term. I am a nationalist ('nationalism' here as an idea opposing globalism, not the collectivist herd mentality), and I care about the future of the White European race. Unless I find a better term to describe my beliefs, I'll stick to 'White Nationalist'.

p.s. Hitler made a lot of mistakes (especially in the military field), and I am not a national-socialist, but I refuse to dismiss him as an 'idiot'. He was a brilliant demagogue, though his abilities in other fields were rather limited.

edit: Perhaps the term 'Occidentalist' would be fitting.

Jack
Tuesday, September 23rd, 2003, 01:49 PM
Well, it needed to be said. I'd use Occidentalist instead of 'White Nationalist', as Siegfried Aurelius suggested. Like Plegethon said, most Nationalist groups contain socialism - socialism is always a part of nationalism, but nationalism (in theory - in practice, check out North Korea's Juche idea (I'm going to do some reading on that, it sounds interesting)) is not always a part of socialism.

Masterman
Tuesday, September 23rd, 2003, 02:14 PM
This is an interesting thread.

I agree in a way that the term 'White Nationalist' is too vague to have much meaning, but yet for many that is all that's needed. Personally, I consider myself a white nationalist, but not in the sense that others mean. I am a EUROPEAN nationalist; meaning that I see a future in a UNION of WHITE EUROPEAN nations, not in some loose, meaningless 'confederation' of white peoples in the world, nor do I see a future in a nationalist Britain as advocated by the BNP, our only 'white nationalist' party. I'm sick by all this fuss about the Euro and the EU when there are far more pressing issues to be dealt with, such as the state of the economy and the level of crime.

The argument I have with the white nationalists so often present on this and similar boards is their manifest ignorance of poilitics, history and science. This is demonstrated most clearly in the OBSESSION with Nordic supremacy, as advocated by Richard McCulloch, amongst others. I do not identify with this policy; it's divisive and causes conflict within the white community.

I believe that the only way forward is to do the following:

1) Identify our enemies and attack them relentlessly, mercilessly and continuously. These are not just Blacks, Jews, Muslims or other coloureds, but most importantly, the existing political elite and its acolytes. The worst enemies are always internal.

2) Identify our friends and those who can be useful to us as friends. We must look globally. Personally, I see a future in establishing a 'modus vivendi' with China and establishing a cordial relationship with this country. I also believe in having friendly relations with Arab countries, as a counterweight to Israeli/Jewish power.

3) Destroying the established political system. Those who feel that carrying on with liberal democracy will save the White race and European culture need to see their psychiatrists! I see the future only in terms of establishing an AUTOCRATIC regime with strong centralised power, but with a 'controlled' free-market economy - similar to modern China or 19th century Austria-Hungary. I do not believe in returning to National-Socialism or Fascism because that is history, there are too many negatives associated with these ideologies and, besides, they'll only cause divisions in our community. A patrician autocracy is the best way forward. One thing is for sure: the present democratic system as it stands cannot continue, however what replaces it must ensure that it receives enough support from the bourgeoise to be credible and solid.

4) Terminate the nonsense of free-trade and establish a strong protectionist economy. Modern Western governments don't give a damn about protecting jobs in their countries. This must change; everybody who is willing and able to work should get a job - it's as simple as that. This has nothing to do with Communism, it is possible and it can be done. The first step is to stop thinking about the 'Third World' and other crap and concentrate on fixing the problems at home. Then we must have an effective welfare system that encourages work while protecting the unemployed from poverty. The rich must realise that they have to contribute to society in order to continue to proifit from it. This of course necessitates government intervention to regulate the economy, but not like it has been done before. This time, disobedience, whether in the form of strikes from employees or defiance by employers, will be punished swiftly, severely and mercilessly. The new social order must ensure that every law-abiding citizen receives the basic necessities of life, no matter what his circumstances are: a house/apartment and enough money to live on decently. House prices will be fixed and controlled by the government to ensure that everybody can afford to buy. Likewise for rents. Real estate speculation will be abolished forever.

5) Encourage traditional values. We need to return to a time when families were valued and respected and both old people and children could feel safe, loved and cared for. This means ending the nonsense of 'feminism' and the excessive social freedoms we have been seeing since the late 1960s. Homosexuality must be treated like a disease and socially unacceptable, abortion for social reasons made illegal, divorce made more difficult and adultery punishable by law.

6) Destroy crime forever. The first step must be to liquidate all the scum that creates the crime in the first place: career criminals, psychopaths, anti-social types, Gypsies and perverts. The next step is to restore the death penalty and even corporal punishment for certain crimes. Prison isn't sufficient as a punishment when you are dealing with violent maniacs and sexual perverts - they must be made to feel physical pain as well.

Moody
Tuesday, September 23rd, 2003, 06:08 PM
1) Adolf Hitler's achievements were great ones - let those who can compare with him demonstrate their worth. As it is, great deeds deserve PRAISE

You say that "Adolf Hitler was a fool" - that is the most foolish statement you have made thus far - I hope you can back it up, although I see little in this diatribe of yours that does that.

Gemanic and Slavic are two different cultures, yes; but the Germans saw themselves as being (ideally) Aryan Nordic, while the Slavs were seen as having Mongoloid, Turkic admixture. The slightly/highly orientalised appearance of many Slavic peoples adverts to this.
Also, as the name Slav implies, the Slavs were regarded as a slave race who were bought and sold by the Nordics [see the Travel Report of Idn Fadlan written in the Middle Ages which describes the Viking Rus trading with the Muslims in Slavic slaves].
Also, it was claimed that when Nordic tribes migrated westwards, Slavic tribes followed behind and occupied their eastern homelands. Therefore the Germans regarded these eastern lands as legitimately their own.

You say; "The Pan-Europeanism of the Waffen SS only emerged during the war, and the mission of 'saving Europe' from the USSR was projected on to the German nation too late to do anything".
- This is disingenuous; Bolshevism was always declared an enemy by the NSDAP - the pan-European outlook of the SS was a natural outcome of the PRE-NSDAP groups like Thule, from which the Nazis grew.
In other words, the Weltanschauung was ALWAYS primarily ARYAN - the perspective necessarily German.

At that time of WWII only the Germans had the requisite military and ideological excellence with which to challenge the menace of Bolshevism. The armies of Italy etc., were pretty hopeless [a sorry fact], and the SS often had to rescue them from certain defeat.
The German effort and sacrifice was superhuman.

The Germans and English are close racial brothers - the NSDAP wish for an alliance between England and Germany was based on this realisation. A "surrender" as you claim was not the intention, but rather an accomodation. Of course, someone like Churchill was not up for that - but then he himself was later forced into a position of weakness by his own 'allies', - as the Reds and the Yanks squeezed Britain out.
Anyway, it's easy for me - and you - to be wise in retrospect.

You say; "Hitler was more than willing to ally with the Japanese who put my nation on the edge of annihilation".
- You are politically naive; 'my enemy's enemy is my friend' - THAT is how international politics works.
As for the Slavs, they were considered inferior WITHIN the category of the White Race for the reasons I have already mentioned.
There is always a hierarchy, just as the ancient Greeks regarded the Northern tribes as barbarians at the time of their Classical Culture.
Such things are clearly fluid.
That the Russians had adopted the barbarous and Jew-led creed of Communism only emphasised Slavic inferiority as it was seen ... at the time.
The Japanese ethos was second-to-none; all Aryans would respect the Samurai ethic of the Japanese, and rightly despise the surrendering armies of the capitalist 'West' ... at the time.

You say; "2) The insistance that culture comes from blood. WRONG. Culture comes from the most intelligent elements in a society (which is founded on common identity, blood included amongst other things), who produce works of literature, poetry, music, philosophy, and so on".

- Not so - the Epic cycles etc., derive from the common culture of the Folk - only much later do named artists appear.

You say; "Common blood can underline several nations, and when a group of nations sharing common blood share common values and ideas, we can speak of a civilization. Hitler messed this up and said nations were specific groups founded on blood which distinguished them from other nations".

Quite the opposite; to the NSDAP ALL Germans, whether they lived in Nations such as France, Holland, Denmark, Austria etc., were regarded as being of a 'common blood'. The notion of Aryanism then extended this to the ideal of a Nordic Race [this view had been held long before the NSDAP was formed].

You say; "3) "White" doesn't mean anything".

Of course it means something - it is an admittedly wide racial categorisation referring to people of European descent.

You say "America doesn't have much of a history behind it. Europeans have the legacy of Greece, Rome, Christendom, Kings, Empires spanning the world and America has ' [white] life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'".

America itself is the outcome of all that, a result of European expansion, so it has a common history with Europe. The latter ideals you mention came from Europe [Tom Paine, Rousseau etc.,].


You say; "4) Marxism just needs to be picked apart, have the useful bits selected, and rearranged. There’s a lot to gain. But how many are doing this?"

- You seem to be somewhat shyly fond of Marxism - are you a Marxist or not?

You say; "5) White Nationalism is heavily materialist. Yes, I said materialist, and I don't care if you say "in my opinion materialism is the economic motivations of people" blah blah WRONG, materialism is a class of ideological systems that places more emphasis on physical reality rather than ideals".

- Blurring of terms - 'materialism' is usually taken as being the worship of money, or else as being the rejection of ALL spiritual values in favour matter [such as Marxism].
Nationalism clearly holds the Nation as a Spiritual Value, so Nationalism CANNOT be materialist.

You write; "The emphasis is not 'white', but 'people descended from European natives'".
- This is a tautology!

You say;"race is a social construct, and it is biological".

- You mean to say that it is BOTH at the same time - of course; but it cannot be one without the other.

You write that "6) socialism is a social system which recognises man exists in a society".

- Another tautology - all 'social systems' believe in 'society'.

And then you say; "ALL NATIONALISTS ARE SOCIALISTS".

- As usual, your approach is too absolutist - few things in life are "all" anything. To use your own word, it is a matter of EMPHASIS.
Private property allowable in the service of that spiritual ideal, the Nation.
A mixed economy, yes; but then econmics is not the end-goal, but only a means to an end.
Also, beware of taking the names of parties and movements too literally.

You claim; "7) A lot of White Nationalists do not believe in self-reliance and are therefore willing to invest all their capability to act in a Government".

- Spoken like a true Neo-Con!
The Leadership Principle is very important, and stands at the apex of the Aryan need for hierarchy.
Order of Rank is Aryan - some are born to serve!

The word 'governance', means literally the 'steering'; the state is a ship which MUST be steered by powerful men, by great men, by men who regard their Race and Nation as a High Spiritual Ideal.

You admit; "I don't think blood alone is the foundation of everything".

- Again the use of absolutes ['everything' - what to you is 'everything'?]
Self belief is most important - Racial Nationalism gives a Spiritual uplift to those who adhere to it; it allows them to achieve great things - example being the achievements of Adolf Hitler, praise his name on High!

Are we to conclude that you are rather a Slavic Marxist?

Vojvoda
Tuesday, September 23rd, 2003, 07:00 PM
Gemanic and Slavic are two different cultures, yes; but the Germans saw themselves as being (ideally) Aryan Nordic, while the Slavs were seen as having Mongoloid, Turkic admixture. The slightly/highly orientalised appearance of many Slavic peoples adverts to this.

Also, it was claimed that when Nordic tribes migrated westwards, Slavic tribes followed behind and occupied their eastern homelands. Therefore the Germans regarded these eastern lands as legitimately their own.

I'm sure there are many "Brits" nowadays that have Mongoloid admixture as well:)

Slavs never migrated anywhere, except to the Balkans between the 4th-6th centuries, but you won't find that information in "western" history books.Sorry.

Stríbog
Tuesday, September 23rd, 2003, 07:19 PM
I've been thinking about how I wanted to reply to this thread.

1) I'm not sure I'll go so far as to say Hitler was a fool, but he was definitely misguided and many of his actions were indeed ill-advised. He was not a God-man or a superhero, just a man. I agree with you that he was not a pan-Europist but a German supremacist to some extent, which got him and Germany into quite a bit of trouble. The SS was not pan-Europid, despite a few volunteers from other countries. These volunteers were mainly opportunists fighting against the Stalinist machine, not out of total sympathy to Hitler. Hitler and other NS figures' views on Slavs were absurd (It's ludicrous to say that "many/most Slavs" have slant eyes and other Mongoloid features). The end result of his actions was that Hitler led his own country to ruin.

2) Blood is an important factor in determining a culture, but not the only one. There will always be a small minority of outsiders who can genuinely assimilate into another culture; that is not to say this should be permissible. I think that most European nations emerged when a common ruler imposed language and cultural mores upon a *somewhat* homogeneous population. Every European nation has differing subraces, so I don't believe that subrace *alone* dictates culture. However, certain subraces definitely have different genetic predispositions, and this should always be taken into account.

3) I don't have too much to add to what Aloysha said; "White" is only meaningful to Americans of mixed Europid ancestry. "White nationalism" is a vague banner under which many groups have sought to incorporate themselves. Speaking as an American, "White America" has a very vague and somewhat mutated sense of Europeanism. I wouldn't say America is the *outcome* of progress in European thought; it incorporated some of these ideas, but they rapidly went in a different direction on the new continent, IMO.

4) "Marxism" to me is more a perspective on history in terms of class struggle than it is a defined political system. Some of its observations are correct, others fundamentally flawed. At the very least, it has been effective enough to generate revolutions in a relatively wide variety of circumstances. I think certain things can be learned from its methods.

5) Economics is a means to an end, as Moody pointed out. I do not consider some economics systems morally superior in theory; what matters is how they function in practice. I think the "materialist" aspect of WN of which you speak is a fundamentally American phenomenon; especially among the old conservative white sector, the Neo-Confederates and Paleolibertarians at Stormfront and other America-centered fora, for example. I think economics is an experimental science as opposed to an abstract system of concepts; I would consider a variety of economic plans and implement them based on experimental effectiveness.

6) National Socialism's economic policy was far from clear. Hitler campaigned as a populist and socialist and then made contracts with Krupp, Farben, Mercedes-Benz, and other large corporations. The Strassers were eventually purged, were they not? I think a lot of NS fetishists harbor the misconception that NS is a perfectly defined system with an absolute position on every issue, which is hardly the case. I do not believe in the value of contracts, property rights, etc. above all else as Locke did.

7) National Socialism was authoritarian, but I think lumping it in with Fascism is a mistake. One author correctly noted that NS differed greatly from Fascism in its spiritual outlook. Fascism was technocratic and futurist, while NS largely looked back on the past with fondness and sought to resurrect a Romantic Volk-Geist. Nevertheless, I disagree with NS statist attitudes and repressive measures.

I am not a White Nationalist either, for the reasons I hope I made clear above. I'm not convinced that no other race can equal white culture, for I've seen firsthand what the Northeast Asians can do. I think that being from Australia, perhaps your experience has been mainly with Southeast Asians, who are another breed altogether. I also have to ask who the judge of cultural progress is to be? Certainly to us our culture seems best, but that is circular reasoning. I don't really believe in endeavoring to judge other cultures absolutely, but only in context/comparison with our own, to preserve our own culture and genes. Again, I am a separatist, not a supremacist.

Johnny Reb
Tuesday, September 23rd, 2003, 07:48 PM
As a North American, I do consider myself a White Nationalist. Calling myself a Canadian Nationalist wouldn't mean too much these days, except that I support sodomy, hard drug use, and multiculturalism (which I don't). Coming from North America, I would imagine that I have a different perspective than you Europeans. Half a century ago, North America was largely agrarian, with the majority of the population tracing their heritage to Europe. Since then, our demographics have totally changed in every way. In my mind, White Nationalists just want to cut away part of the country and live there away from Non-Whites. There are of course different varieties of White Nationalist. I consider myself some sort of Christian Libertarian. Other people, for whatever reason, identify with a 60 year old Germanocentric ideology. To tell you the truth, when I was becomming racially awake, I subscribed to nazism as well, simply because that's what the media made me believe we had to act like, and it seemed the most reactionary thing. Now of course I realize the many flaws in that line of thinking, and have since changed my ways. It still works for some people, but I wish they'd get their facts straight. For instance, Slav means "glory", not "slave". Second, lumping us all as mongols is pretty ignorant. Seems to me there were/are a lot of nordic Poles, as well as large nordic aspects in other Slavic ethnicities. I wonder what an alpine or med German would think about that.

Triglav
Tuesday, September 23rd, 2003, 07:54 PM
I'm sure there are many "Brits" nowadays that have Mongoloid admixture as well:)

Slavs never migrated anywhere, except to the Balkans between the 4th-6th centuries, but you won't find that information in "western" history books.Sorry.

Are you aware that history was recorded by the Germanic Christianisers who, spurred on by their Christian zeal, suppressed not only the Slavic languages and culture, but regarded the latter as uncivilised heathens often on a par with animals (not sharing their right to be treated equally) who have to be subordinate to their Christian overlord? Every means to suppress those "evil savages" was justified by the fact that the heathens were not chosen by God and thus inferior. Christianity was a moral boost that facilitated such a supremacist view toward one's rivals/enemies (in case that it still has not dawned on you, this is a Lord vs. Goy stance that is so often bemoaned here). But since it works for you, it is obviously legitimate.

If some established facts suit one's own image of desirability and romantic wishes, they are taken for granted and shielded from any critical approach. Different opinions are not even considered. That's no search for facts and the truth, it is merely a means of underpinning one's desire for attacking the hated enemy. Admit it and strike instead of trying to convince yourself of its righteousness.

"The Slavs" on today's Slovene territory defeated the Langobards in 569 and banished them, thereby establishing their official existence.

Perhaps you might educate yourself before you get on your soapbox. I am not trying to insult you - I am even embarrassed to descend to a personal level. However, if this kind of scant knowledge is enough for a WN or whatever you might call yourself (that's of no consequence - the point is that you proclaim your opinion and contest against the others), then I have a problem with such people who can be discredited solely for want of knowledge.

Evolved
Tuesday, September 23rd, 2003, 08:10 PM
I'm not a White Nationalist either. I hate my own country, it's history and government, so nationalism is ridiculous. The term "white" means nothing to me, either. I'm not white by a lot of American racists' definition, others say there is no question that I am white. Same thing for a lot of people, or even countries. No one can agree on what "white" is and isn't so it does not exist in solid reality.

I've come to the point where I believe, overall, Adolf Hitler's fight against Jewish domination of Germany is the only thing I admire about him. He, his movement, and his actions are otherwise totally unlikeable and actually a detriment to serious study of race, eugenics or racial politics. I think the less people rely on Nazism and it's symbols the better.

Culture comes from all parts of society, there are subcultures and countercultures within any given culture. There's a farm culture, an urban culture, a suburban culture, a hillbilly culture, a WASP culture, an Amish culture, an extreme sports culture, an SUV culture, a drug culture, etc..

At least in America, the most intelligent and powerful people are the most culturally bankrupt of all. It is the professors, writers, filmmakers and artists who vomit their filth into everyone's hearts and minds and their "culture" spews out of television, magazines and books.

True culture is an expression of blood and history. I have a different DNA (and hence, a different phenotype and different mental capabilities) and different history from a Bhutanese or Kenyan, other than that we're human with the same basic needs and desires- food, shelter, family, a need for racial/tribal feeling, some communion with God/Gods, etc.

Races cannot be defined in any way spiritually. A Jew who becomes a Christian does not lose their essential Jewish nature. Mongoloids come in all religious flavors - Buddhist, Christian, Muslim, Taoist, Shintoist, Falun Gong, etc.., though they essentially have the same societal and behavior patterns regardless of faith.

Europeans had contact with nonwhites long before Americans. It was Southern Europeans who brought Negroes into America in the first place, I suppose they looked to their not so distant past and realized they enjoyed mixing it up with Africans so much themselves they wanted to give Americans the same charity. :P

As far as the white label, it is today meaningless. Early on, Native Americans who cooperated with settlers were honorary whites. East Asians are now honorary whites. In America, everyone who is non-black is considered to be white. Osama bin Laden is as much a white man as Kiefer Sutherland. People are very confused by design, because it is easy to capitalize on this confusion. :snake

Scáthach
Tuesday, September 23rd, 2003, 09:48 PM
This is an interesting thread.

I agree in a way that the term 'White Nationalist' is too vague to have much meaning, but yet for many that is all that's needed. Personally, I consider myself a white nationalist, but not in the sense that others mean. I am a EUROPEAN nationalist; meaning that I see a future in a UNION of WHITE EUROPEAN nations.

Hmm, I don't believe you are at all. I believe - and this is based on your own words and what they have inferred to me - you're another simple British supremacist. That, or you're utterly sincere and just follow Tyndall's line of thought (The Irish aren't white or European et al) which makes it laughable that you suggest others are ignorant, be it in a political or scientific context. Your comment:

''Yes.......and I hate Irish nationalists! If I had the power Ireland would cease to exist. We would send all Paddies into the sea and populate the island with English people. Ha, ha, ha!''

Perhaps that was meant to be a JOKE...? I wonder but since the thread was closed following your intelligent remark I have to assume it wasn't.

6) Destroy crime forever. The first step must be to liquidate all the scum that creates the crime in the first place: career criminals, psychopaths, anti-social types, Gypsies and perverts. The next step is to restore the death penalty and even corporal punishment for certain crimes. Prison isn't sufficient as a punishment when you are dealing with violent maniacs and sexual perverts - they must be made to feel physical pain as well.

How do you propose to halt crime, realistically?
Could you elaborate on what you mean by ''career criminal'' and when you say ''anti social types'' do you mean people who prefer their own company or perhaps that's a bit of a synonym for gays?

It's been proven time and time again that the DP doesn't stop crime and is not a deterrent. You can take from this what you will - many would argue that the reasoning behind this is a mental defect/illness inherent in murders etc (the types who end up on death row in the first place) rather than straight out violence. You're right - prison is not a solution to criminals such as ''violent maniacs and sexual perverts'' for the plain reason that the vast vast majority of these people are not mentally sound - years in prison couldn't make a person sane or no longer psychotic/psychopathic. wishful thinking. Neither could corporal punishment. Serial killers, lets pick Ian Brady for instance, may have commited heinous crimes and nothing will change that or bring children back to life - however, the man thought mentally ill. classified as psychotic. What use would corporal punishment do him - or us? How would it get rid of crime or stop other such people, from commiting crime?

That we can alleviate crime so easily with the extermination of a few gypsies here a few perverts there and a bit of the ole corporal punishment is naievety.

Gladstone
Wednesday, September 24th, 2003, 01:38 AM
It's been proven time and time again that the DP doesn't stop crime and is not a deterrent. You can take from this what you will - many would argue that the reasoning behind this is a mental defect/illness inherent in murders etc (the types who end up on death row in the first place) rather than straight out violence. You're right - prison is not a solution to criminals such as ''violent maniacs and sexual perverts'' for the plain reason that the vast vast majority of these people are not mentally sound - years in prison couldn't make a person sane or no longer psychotic/psychopathic. wishful thinking. Neither could corporal punishment. Serial killers, lets pick Ian Brady for instance, may have commited heinous crimes and nothing will change that or bring children back to life - however, the man thought mentally ill. classified as psychotic. What use would corporal punishment do him - or us? How would it get rid of crime or stop other such people, from commiting crime?

That we can alleviate crime so easily with the extermination of a few gypsies here a few perverts there and a bit of the ole corporal punishment is naievety.

Very well said Scathach.

As for the other poster, perhaps bringing back the prison hulks would stop crime...but seriously,

Adults were not born criminals.

Yes, to be sure there are the cases of FAS (fetal alcohol syndrome) and the cases of the "sociopath" but that seems to be the rarity. Almost always adult criminals came from abusive and or neglectful homes and basically results in many of them growing up as damaged individuals unable to cope with life and very susceptable to all sorts of anti-social behaviour, crime among them. Does the abuse and neglect excuse the criminal behaviour? No, not at all, and society has the right to, and must, protect itself by locking them up if necessary. But the problem continues to grow and locking the person up is merely arresting the individual that commited a crime for a time, and this after the person has done damage to society. What does society do, continue building more prisons as in the US? The recidivism rate at prisons is massive; the problem of criminality clearly at present (and has been for that matter) a chronic one.

We are dual beings at minimum and some say more than that. For brevitys sake here I will simply say we are both emotional and physical, each part as important as the other. While society has made great advances in the realm of physical health the last several hundred years, it seems there has been a great lag in the area of emotional health. In fact, if one considers Freud (and to be sure it is well known now that a lot of his findings were a bit dubious) to be the start of an understanding of our emotional selves we are still only a 125 years later at a rather primitive state as to the application of this understanding. We do have a basic understanding of what constitutes good emotional health and relationships now and this understanding needs to be applied.

I would therefore propose to greatly reduce crime the initiation of a massive education campaign to combat child abuse and neglect, with the aim of erradication of it. The education would simply entail the basics of what is and what is not good emotional and relational health at age appropriate levels starting at preschool. The classes would be just like the physical health ones in structure and would continue thruout the entire education process. Bear in mind, just as the basic concepts of physical health go beyond politics and culture, the same is true for emotional and relational health. That is in the same manner that brushing your teeth is a wise idea regardless of what country or culture you might be from, the same is true of basic emotional health concepts, ie no one has the right to emotionally abuse you... control you..etc. If there is an odd culture that thinks those unhealthy practices are cool, it needs to either reform itself or die out. This addition of teaching good emotional helath would be a permanent one to the education system. In addition ot the public school education efforts there would also be a general public education effort as well.

The education effort would be the primary thrust, but there would be an important secondary effort as well. That would be identifying those parents that are engaging in child abuse and or neglect and the implementation of a "three strikes" law, that is the removal of the child after the third instance of abuse and its placement in a healthy loving home. Here we're not speaking of the momentary very rare lapse, which can happen to anyone, but the person who is showing all the signs of engaging in chronic regular abuse. It would be important to catch this as early as possible if it is occurring, within the very first year(s) if possible. As it is now, Child Protective Services is far too late and far too little to help in prevention of child abuse. The primary aim of this would be providing the child every opportunity to reach adulthood as a healthy individual, which ought to be something of an inherant right. I for one have seen far, far, too many adults screwed to hell by abuse almost always by their very own families and allowed to happen by a largely indifferent public, and it is entirely needless.

This whole effort would be modeled broadly after the great physical health campaigns of the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries which brought us clean water, sanitation, and an end to a whole assortment of opportunistic diseases which decimated our peoples at one time (visit an old grave yard sometime and see what I mean). But while society has succesfully confronted many of our physical health problems in a preventive manner it has yet to confront our emotional health problems in a meaningful and similar way. It's time it did. The effort will not be a pleasant one and just as in the great innoculation efforts of the past (ie Smallpox, polio, etc), you will have more than a few shouting "it's all the devil's work" and fighting it every bit of the way.

Over the course of a few generations such an effort ought to put a stop to much of the crime that is plaguing our socieities. Not all crime would stop, just the chronic stuff ought to largely dissapear. And when crime did happen, as the person commiting the rare crime would most likely be relatively healthy, he would likely learn from the punishment unlike now.

Sure, this would cost a fortune, but as time went on the cost would greatly decrease as society got healthier. As it is now, a fortune is being spent and the problem is increasing.

Gladstone

cosmocreator
Wednesday, September 24th, 2003, 02:43 AM
Adults were not born criminals.

I was looking through a book last night called Reading Faces. It actually suggests that criminals have a certain type of face with specific characteristics. I don't remember all of it but it did say that weak chin or receding chin is indicative of a criminal. A wide prominent chin was a person with strong character.

It talked of many features, type of jaw bone, height of forehead, position and size of ears, lines on the forehead, etc.

Vojvoda
Wednesday, September 24th, 2003, 03:29 AM
How do you propose to halt crime, realistically?

In Brazil the police usually shoot criminals "on the spot".

Jack
Wednesday, September 24th, 2003, 03:32 AM
1) Adolf Hitler's achievements were great ones - let those who can compare with him demonstrate their worth. As it is, great deeds deserve PRAISE

You say that "Adolf Hitler was a fool" - that is the most foolish statement you have made thus far - I hope you can back it up, although I see little in this diatribe of yours that does that.

Gemanic and Slavic are two different cultures, yes; but the Germans saw themselves as being (ideally) Aryan Nordic, while the Slavs were seen as having Mongoloid, Turkic admixture. The slightly/highly orientalised appearance of many Slavic peoples adverts to this.
Also, as the name Slav implies, the Slavs were regarded as a slave race who were bought and sold by the Nordics [see the Travel Report of Idn Fadlan written in the Middle Ages which describes the Viking Rus trading with the Muslims in Slavic slaves].
Also, it was claimed that when Nordic tribes migrated westwards, Slavic tribes followed behind and occupied their eastern homelands. Therefore the Germans regarded these eastern lands as legitimately their own.

One word: Vlasov. Hitler should've utilised the man straight away and torn Russia apart as a political unit opposing Germany as soon as he could, then occupied and Westernised Russia. Have you read Yockey’s “The Enemy of Europe”? It’s available here: http://www.lbp2.com/EBooks/enemyofeuropescree.pdf Yockey’s ideas on the matter are what I follow. The aim should have been to depose Bolshevism and Westernise Russia, not deport its population and colonise it with Germans.


You say; "The Pan-Europeanism of the Waffen SS only emerged during the war, and the mission of 'saving Europe' from the USSR was projected on to the German nation too late to do anything".
- This is disingenuous; Bolshevism was always declared an enemy by the NSDAP - the pan-European outlook of the SS was a natural outcome of the PRE-NSDAP groups like Thule, from which the Nazis grew.
In other words, the Weltanschauung was ALWAYS primarily ARYAN - the perspective necessarily German.

Bolshevism is not Russia. Bolshevism was the reigning political system. This should have been the only enemy as far as West Europe (under the Germans) in relation to Russia. The Russians were not the enemy. I’d like it if you could point out where Hitler, in Mein Kampf, which has now become a quasi-holy tome for White Nationalism in America, even said the Russians were white Europeans. I’m not aware he did. I am aware that he wished to annihilate Russia as a political unit, deport masses of white Russians from their homelands, and colonise it with Germans


At that time of WWII only the Germans had the requisite military and ideological excellence with which to challenge the menace of Bolshevism. The armies of Italy etc., were pretty hopeless [a sorry fact], and the SS often had to rescue them from certain defeat.
The German effort and sacrifice was superhuman.

Italy’s armies were hopeless on the battlefield. I do not disagree. Had the German effort been put to the service of crushing Bolshevism and Bolshevism alone, and aimed to Europeanise Russia, I would have had no objections. But this was not the aim of the Germans.


The Germans and English are close racial brothers - the NSDAP wish for an alliance between England and Germany was based on this realisation. A "surrender" as you claim was not the intention, but rather an accomodation. Of course, someone like Churchill was not up for that - but then he himself was later forced into a position of weakness by his own 'allies', - as the Reds and the Yanks squeezed Britain out.
Anyway, it's easy for me - and you - to be wise in retrospect.

I’m aware of the American effect on the 1938 defence pact Britain had with Germany, which was then abolished after the American administration gained more influence.


You say; "Hitler was more than willing to ally with the Japanese who put my nation on the edge of annihilation".
- You are politically naive; 'my enemy's enemy is my friend' - THAT is how international politics works.

I know how international politics worse. If America was an Asiatic country, and Germany allied with them, and while Hitler was invading Russia, America invaded Britain, perhaps you would not be so eager to support Hitler’s alliance with the Japanese. Please inform me as to how Germany gained power due to the Japanese war effort against Europe’s Cultural colonies.


As for the Slavs, they were considered inferior WITHIN the category of the White Race for the reasons I have already mentioned.
There is always a hierarchy, just as the ancient Greeks regarded the Northern tribes as barbarians at the time of their Classical Culture.
Such things are clearly fluid.
That the Russians had adopted the barbarous and Jew-led creed of Communism only emphasised Slavic inferiority as it was seen ... at the time.
The Japanese ethos was second-to-none; all Aryans would respect the Samurai ethic of the Japanese, and rightly despise the surrendering armies of the capitalist 'West' ... at the time.

Nanking is not something I would consider ‘honour’, nor the slavery white troops were pressed into on the Burma railway after they surrendered, and furthermore, I wonder how in hell you can compare Japanese conduct with that of the Germans in relation to other West European troops once they surrendered.


You say; "2) The insistance that culture comes from blood. WRONG. Culture comes from the most intelligent elements in a society (which is founded on common identity, blood included amongst other things), who produce works of literature, poetry, music, philosophy, and so on".

- Not so - the Epic cycles etc., derive from the common culture of the Folk - only much later do named artists appear.

Hardly. Someone has to produce the culture. That is always those with the intelligence to reach into themselves and become aware of their own instincts, and then turn that into form. The creation of culture is inseparable from those who produce it.


You say; "Common blood can underline several nations, and when a group of nations sharing common blood share common values and ideas, we can speak of a civilization. Hitler messed this up and said nations were specific groups founded on blood which distinguished them from other nations".

Quite the opposite; to the NSDAP ALL Germans, whether they lived in Nations such as France, Holland, Denmark, Austria etc., were regarded as being of a 'common blood'. The notion of Aryanism then extended this to the ideal of a Nordic Race [this view had been held long before the NSDAP was formed].

And France, despite most of the population being descended from German barbarians after the fall of Rome, was a ‘Latin country’? The original notion of ‘German’ simply meant any European who spoke German. This has nothing to do with ‘common blood’. It has everything to do with common culture.


You say; "3) "White" doesn't mean anything".

Of course it means something - it is an admittedly wide racial categorisation referring to people of European descent.

No, ‘white’ doesn’t mean anything. Perhaps it is different, you living back home in Mother Europe. Out here in Europe’s colonies, ‘white’ means nothing on a cultural level. ‘White America’ is a rather hazy designation. ‘Euro-American’, ‘Euro-Australian’ and so on mean a lot more.


ou say "America doesn't have much of a history behind it. Europeans have the legacy of Greece, Rome, Christendom, Kings, Empires spanning the world and America has ' [white] life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'".

America itself is the outcome of all that, a result of European expansion, so it has a common history with Europe. The latter ideals you mention came from Europe [Tom Paine, Rousseau etc.,].

See what Lady Goethe said.


You say; "4) Marxism just needs to be picked apart, have the useful bits selected, and rearranged. There’s a lot to gain. But how many are doing this?"

- You seem to be somewhat shyly fond of Marxism - are you a Marxist or not?

I have a collection of ideals taken from many places, some are from what is called ‘Marxist’. I like a lot of the analysis Antonio Gramsci made about cultural revolution, I think there’s a lot to learn from the national-liberation ideas of Mao Tse Tung, and Lenin’s theory of revolution is something I think is far more developed than anything National Socialism has on offer.


You say; "5) White Nationalism is heavily materialist. Yes, I said materialist, and I don't care if you say "in my opinion materialism is the economic motivations of people" blah blah WRONG, materialism is a class of ideological systems that places more emphasis on physical reality rather than ideals".

- Blurring of terms - 'materialism' is usually taken as being the worship of money, or else as being the rejection of ALL spiritual values in favour matter [such as Marxism].
Nationalism clearly holds the Nation as a Spiritual Value, so Nationalism CANNOT be materialist.

Nationalism is also a hell of a lot more than genetic code, too.


You write; "The emphasis is not 'white', but 'people descended from European natives'".
- This is a tautology!

Hardly. ‘White’ is a historyless, cultureless, purely biological notion. That is why it is so easily picked apart by Leftist academics out here in Europe’s colonies. Europeans have something else altogether. Thousands of years of history, thousand of genius’s,


You say;"race is a social construct, and it is biological".

- You mean to say that it is BOTH at the same time - of course; but it cannot be one without the other.

Common blood is an easy basis for distinguishing ‘us vs them’ before culture develops beyond pottery and spears. Stronger common identity is built out of the social relations between the individuals within the ‘us’. As I said, I’m quite sure there are Iranians who I would consider white if I saw them walking down the street. But until they assimilate, lose their old national identity, and take on a social identity in relation to the society I am in, that is rather meaningless.


You write that "6) socialism is a social system which recognises man exists in a society".

- Another tautology - all 'social systems' believe in 'society'.
Hmmm… true. Better put: ‘Socialism is an ideological construct which recognises man’s social relations’. Better put?


And then you say; "ALL NATIONALISTS ARE SOCIALISTS".

- As usual, your approach is too absolutist - few things in life are "all" anything. To use your own word, it is a matter of EMPHASIS.
Private property allowable in the service of that spiritual ideal, the Nation.
A mixed economy, yes; but then econmics is not the end-goal, but only a means to an end.
Also, beware of taking the names of parties and movements too literally.

Private property ‘allowable’ is not any sort of property ‘right’. Rights are absolute. Any nationalist notion of private property rights are only the privileges of living within that society. They are the privileges of power, the national power.


You claim; "7) A lot of White Nationalists do not believe in self-reliance and are therefore willing to invest all their capability to act in a Government".

- Spoken like a true Neo-Con!

What?


The Leadership Principle is very important, and stands at the apex of the Aryan need for hierarchy.
Order of Rank is Aryan - some are born to serve!

Some are born to serve, I agree. My point is that if they believe in it, they should act of their own will, not sit at home eating meat pies watching television while the Government carries out the dirty work. Total mobilization, national liberation – that is what I’m referring to. Actively joining a group during the revolution is what I’d consider acting. Saying ‘leave me alone, go ahead and do it yourself’ is a bourgeois attitude, not one out of race instinct. It is cowardice.


The word 'governance', means literally the 'steering'; the state is a ship which MUST be steered by powerful men, by great men, by men who regard their Race and Nation as a High Spiritual Ideal.

I’m for total mobilization, not partial. That is why I am against a Government apparatus doing all the dirty work, unless you consider coordination of a massive section of the population ‘Government apparatus’.


You admit; "I don't think blood alone is the foundation of everything".

- Again the use of absolutes ['everything' - what to you is 'everything'?]

Everything worth considering.


Self belief is most important - Racial Nationalism gives a Spiritual uplift to those who adhere to it; it allows them to achieve great things - example being the achievements of Adolf Hitler, praise his name on High!

Codrenau, Strasser, Rockwell, Mosely and Yockey are people I would more consider ‘heroes’ than Hitler. Hitler accomplished much, but his vision was narrow.


Are we to conclude that you are rather a Slavic Marxist?

I’m for the ressurection of traditional European culture across all nations where Europeans exist, the survival of the European race, the collapse of American mass-consumer culture, and the restoration of European world power. And I don’t think the Russians are inferior. I think the Russians are going to play a key role in the coming world European revolution, and I think America is far less European than Russia is. Disturbing? I don’t really think so… http://www.forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=4362 and http://www.forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=4426 are posts I’d recommend. I have discussed the ideas in the second link with a few Russians, and they agree.

Gladstone
Wednesday, September 24th, 2003, 04:36 PM
I was looking through a book last night called Reading Faces. It actually suggests that criminals have a certain type of face with specific characteristics. I don't remember all of it but it did say that weak chin or receding chin is indicative of a criminal. A wide prominent chin was a person with strong character.

It talked of many features, type of jaw bone, height of forehead, position and size of ears, lines on the forehead, etc.

I suppose I am a bit leery of the idea of "face reading"; I had thought that had been dropped generally by researchers by the 50's. After all we've all probably seen a person (ie. boss or distant relative) that by the looks of their face we immediately presumed to be a criminal of some sort;) and then find out they are perfectly fine people. Was this a modern book or published decades back?

As for genetics I do certainly accept the idea of the "bad seed" where the person was raised in every way proper, both physically and emotionally but still goes bad and for no apparent discernable reason. It does seem to happen, but that also appears to be quite rare.

They are finding out some strange things of late, people have heart transplants and find afterwards they can now play the piano, whereas before they could not; then it is found out the person they got the heart from was a regular piano player. This is found to happen with other organs too when transplanted, even to the point of people having memories not their own that appear to be from the person that donated the organ. Books by well respected doctors have documented this. So somehow it seems the essence (emotional and or spiritual, etc) of the person is literally in every physical cell of the human body. Which all gets back to why, in a big part, we want to preserve our Europeon peoples, those behaviours that are actually in the genes and took many generations to get there.

And so if behaviours can literally be "impressed" upon genes and the cells of physical organs then it may be possible in a somewhat similar manner the same happens to people's faces in a peculiar way and may well even be "read". Perhaps science will tell us more as time goes on.

Gladstone

nightandthefog
Thursday, September 25th, 2003, 12:31 AM
edit: Perhaps the term 'Occidentalist' would be fitting.

I agree that the term White Nationalist has become something that is hard to identify with in it's current right-wing, christian oriented patriotism. I think the term 'Occidentalist' is fitting, but what about radical traditionalist? I think it's a fairly fitting term that I borrowed[plagarized] from the periodical TYR.

cosmocreator
Thursday, September 25th, 2003, 12:36 AM
I suppose I am a bit leery of the idea of "face reading"; I had thought that had been dropped generally by researchers by the 50's. Was this a modern book or published decades back?

1989. I've never heard of such a thing before. But the book itself is classified as Character Analysis/Divination. CA I would understand but Divination?

Gladstone
Thursday, September 25th, 2003, 12:51 AM
CA I would understand but Divination?

I suppose that would be an allusion to something like palm reading or astrology. People have in the past and do now "read palms" and the book claims people now "read faces" in each instance to tell something of a person. The book was written later than I might of suspected, probably made for an interesting read.

Jack
Thursday, September 25th, 2003, 08:57 AM
I agree that the term White Nationalist has become something that is hard to identify with in it's current right-wing, christian oriented patriotism. I think the term 'Occidentalist' is fitting, but what about radical traditionalist? I think it's a fairly fitting term that I borrowed[plagarized] from the periodical TYR.
Radical Traditionalism, I think, would work within the framework of Occidentalism (I don't think you can have Occidentalism without Traditionalism - otherwise you might as well call it 'Western Nationalism'), but Radical Traditionalism is not nessecarily Occidentalist - you can (do) have Muslim Radical Traditionalists, Japanese RT's, and so on. Occidental Radical Traditionalism?

Phlegethon
Thursday, September 25th, 2003, 09:50 AM
In Brazil the police usually shoot criminals "on the spot".In Brazil most cops are the criminals.

Phlegethon
Thursday, September 25th, 2003, 10:06 AM
1989. I've never heard of such a thing before. But the book itself is classified as Character Analysis/Divination. CA I would understand but Divination?
Cesare Lombroso first linked criminality to a certain physiognomy, picking up Franz Josef Gall's phrenology. Both totally unscientific, of course.

Quote:
"Despite the unscientific nature of his theories, Lombroso was highly influential in Europe (and also in Brazil) among criminologists and jurists. Among his books are L'Uomo Delinquente (1876; "The Criminal Man") and Le Crime, Causes et Remèdes (1899; Crime, Its Causes and Remedies).

Lombroso died Oct. 19, 1909, in Turin, Italy."

19th century pseudo-science.

Scáthach
Thursday, September 25th, 2003, 03:37 PM
In Brazil the police usually shoot criminals "on the spot".



That does not halt crime - that kills one criminal, for every one killed there are probably two who have gotten away with their particular crime.
''For every hundred hacking at the leaves of evil there is one striking at the root''

Moody
Thursday, September 25th, 2003, 05:08 PM
[QUOTE=providenje]"I'm sure there are many "Brits" nowadays that have Mongoloid admixture as well:). Slavs never migrated anywhere etc.,"

Moody Lawless: Not so - remember that the Mongol Empire [1206-1696] covered not only Russia but Eastern European countries like Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia. Although Mongol attacks were made into Western Europe, the Mongols never reached the British Isles.

Moody
Thursday, September 25th, 2003, 05:19 PM
Johnny Reb wrote; 'I wish they'd get their facts straight. For instance, Slav means "glory", not "slave" '.

Moody Lawless; You misunderstand; the word 'slave' derives FROM the tribal name 'Slav', not the other way around!
In other words, we started to call any bondman a 'slav', or 'slave', whether he was a (tribal) Slav or not.
So the tribal name came to be used generally to mean a bondman because the Slavs had been widely enslaved.

As an illustration; in English we have the expression to 'welsh on a deal'. This comes from the tribal name 'Welsh' and the Welsh's supposed reputation as cheaters.
So to 'welsh' means to cheat, although the tribal name itself means something different.

So, that the Slavs have given their name to 'slav-ery' only underlines the subjection to which they were formerly held.

Such facts should be faced - it is not meant as disrespect to the Slavs [or the Welsh].

cosmocreator
Thursday, September 25th, 2003, 05:38 PM
Occidental doesn't solve anything. Who is and isn't part of the occidental in the racial sense? It's no more defined than white.

Moody
Thursday, September 25th, 2003, 05:47 PM
Stríbog wrote -1)" ...Hitler and other NS figures' views on Slavs were absurd ..."

Moody Lawless replies; I agree that there was some excessive anti-Slav rhetoric, but the following passage is far from 'absurd';

"Tsarist Russia, within the framework of her pan-Slav policy, propagated the qualification Slav and imposed it on a large diversity of people, who had no connection with the Slavonic race.
For example, to label the Bulgarians as Slavs is pure nonsense; originally they were Turkomans.
The same applies to the Czechs. It is enough for a Czech to grow a moustache for anyone to see, from the way the thing droops, that his origin is Mongolian".
[A. Hitler, Table Talk, 12 November 1941]

Do we have here, on this board, the continuing conflict between the pan-German and the pan-Slavic [with the latter as eternal underdog]?

Stribog -2) "I think that most European nations emerged when a common ruler imposed language and cultural mores upon a *somewhat* homogeneous population".

ML ; Yes, but as the Hitler quote above suggests, those languages and cultural mores originally belonged to one tribe, i.e., one kin-group related closely by Blood.

Stribog -3) "I wouldn't say America is the *outcome* of progress in European thought; it incorporated some of these ideas, but they rapidly went in a different direction on the new continent".

ML: Interesting, but can you think of any American ideology that doesn't have its roots in Europe/Old World?

Stribog - 4) "Marxism - Some of its observations are correct ..."

ML; Again, we need to know what they are in order to utilise them - can you think of any?

Stribog - "5) Economics is a means to an end"

ML; Yes, but shouldn't the means justify the ends?

Stribog - 6) " ... a lot of NS fetishists harbor the misconception that NS is a perfectly defined system with an absolute position on every issue, which is hardly the case".

ML; Enough ground was made by NS in theory AND practice to provide much material for future developments in White Nationalists - if that's what we are!


Stribog -7) "I disagree with NS statist attitudes and repressive measures".

ML; That suggests you favour more ... liberal ... measures?


Stribg - 8) "I also have to ask who the judge of cultural progress is to be"?

ML; That sounds like the liberal multiculturalist position.
Of course we must be judgemental, and of course we must be assertive.
Only by believing in ourselves as being the Best are we going to have the confidence to actually BE the best.
Non-judgemental liberal multiculturalism is a deception meant to undermine the White Race. Its inventors are the Jews who regard themselves as the Chosen People - think about it!

Moody
Thursday, September 25th, 2003, 06:05 PM
ladygoeth33 wrote; "I hate my own country, it's history and government, so nationalism is ridiculous".

Moody Lawless; That is an appalling statement!
Such self-hate is what the liberal establishment WANT to inculcate into Whites. You don't have to like the present government to admire the endeavour and adventurism of your ancestors, surely? What's ridiculous about European colonists creating the most powerful Nation on Earth?

Ladygoeth; "No one can agree on what 'white' is and isn't so it does not exist in solid reality".

ML; Of course it does! It is not meant to be brain science. That we can point to non-Whites [negative] shows that by the laws of logic there are Whites [positive]; therefore a modicum of meaning exists there in itself.
Of course, it is the broadest definition and can be further refined, but this is all about different levels.
'White' is surely the 'minimum'.

Ladygoeth - "I think the less people rely on Nazism and it's symbols the better".

ML; You agree with the Jews and the liberals there!

Ladygoeth - "I have a different DNA ... from a Bhutanese or Kenyan, other than that we're human with the same basic needs and desires ... Races cannot be defined in any way spiritually"

ML; That again is straightforward liberal multiculturalism. I regard non-Whites as being a different 'species' as far as I am concerned, and find that when one one race adopts the culture of another, the result is always spiritually distorted.
In order to enslave a race you need to view that race as completely OTHER.
As for "honorary whites" - the operative word is "honourary"; it replaces "actual".

Moody
Thursday, September 25th, 2003, 06:10 PM
Occidental doesn't solve anything. Who is and isn't part of the occidental in the racial sense? It's no more defined than white.

Moody Lawless; 'Occidental' only means 'Western', and is contrasted with 'Oriental', which merely means 'Eastern'.
So it's hardly an exciting departure to call ourselves 'Westerners'.

Moody
Thursday, September 25th, 2003, 07:00 PM
Aloysha wrote -"One word: Vlasov".

Moody Lawless; Interestingly, I came across this name in a recent piece by Colin Jordan. Mr. Jordan was criticising the British National Party, who under their new leader Nick Griffin are trying to distance themselves from White Nationalism;
"Griffin denounces Hitler for being wary of arming and relying on captured Russians. Hitler suspected them of being unreliable, and was eventually proved right in that, after eventually agreeing to the captured Russian general Vlasov being allowed to form an army, in the final stage of the war, Vaslov and his men turned against the Germans in favour of aiding an uprising of their fellow Slavs of the 'Red Resistance' in Czechoslovakia".
[C.Jordan, 'Gothic Ripples 46', 2002]


I have read Yockey - who is "the hero of WWII" to whom he dedicated his masterpiece 'Imperium'?
Yockey's 'The Enemy of Europe' is written in the post-war era of the emerging Cold War. He generally reasoned that it would be 'better' for Europe to be conquered by Communist Russia than by Capitalist America. Such a controversial standpoint is fairly irrelevant today as Soviet Russia fell over ten years ago.
In the study of geopolitics we must always be aware of the NOW.
In Hitler's time, things were very different, as he wrote in Mein Kampf;

"In delivering Russia over to Bolshevism, Fate robbed the Russian people of that intellectual class which had once created the Russian State and were the guarantee of its existence.
For the Russian State was not organised by the constructive political talent of the Slav element in Russia, but was much more a marvellous exemplification of the capacity for State-building possessed by the Germanic element in a race of inferior worth".
[Hitler, My Struggle, XIV]

Hitler's position is perfectly understandable in its historical context, no matter how 'politically incorrect' it may be today.

As for your suggestion that Russia should have been "Westernised/Europeanised", Hitler said in 1941;

"This Russian desert, we shall populate it ... we'll take away its character of an Asiatic steppe, we'll Europeanise it ...
As for the 2 or 3 million men whom we need to accomplish this task ... they'll come from Germany, Scandinavia, the Western countries and America".
[Hitler, Table Talk, 17 October 1941]

You couldn't get more 'Western/European' than that!

Japan's defeat of Russia in 1905 was an Earth shattering event. Indeed, the Japanese had been visiting Bismarck's Reich in the 19th century to study Prussian military methods.
You can compare, therefore, the Japanese military tradition with the German, particularly with the SS. Of course, in terms of 'honour', nothing compares to the bombing of Dresden and the two Atom Bombs.

Culture comes ORIGINALLy from the Folk - i.e., the kin-group. All tribal notions begin in this way - why, the word 'nation' itself refers to being born [cf., 'nat-al', 'nat-ivity', 'nat-ure' etc.,] of a particular blood-line.
That such tribal names become generalised and refer only to speakers of a certain language etc., [as liberals maintain] does not negate the original meaning based on Blood.
So you are completely wrong to say "the original notion of ‘German’ simply meant any European who spoke German". You describe the LATER usuage, not the original!
The great Scandinavian Eddas, the Hellenic Epics, the Germanic/Celtic sagas were all products of the Folk; only much later do named scribes, artists and writers appear to make the pursuit we call 'literature' ... much later.

You have modified your position slightly when you say that " ‘white’ means nothing on a cultural level".
Ah! 'cultural' level!
But the term 'White' is our 'racial minimum', that's all.
It is understood as that universally.
When we start bringing in the cultural perspective, then we refine our terms. However, at the most general level of Race, White means White [Negroes like to call themselves 'people of colour' I hear!].


You say that "Lenin’s theory of revolution is something I think is far more developed than anything National Socialism has on offer".
That's your opinion, of course, but the main difference being that National Socialism comes from a Racial perspective, while Communism comes from a Class perspective.
I eschew the latter, and regard World History as being dominated by Race conflict, rather than Class conflict.
So, just as Christian Theology may be more developed than Pagan [it is], I am not a Christian and so remain a Pagan, no matter how 'undeveloped' that may be!

You say; "Rights are absolute".
That's real nonsense - all rights are limited. And ultimately, all rights are only privileges. If the state decides to rescind your rights, it can do so - IF IT HAS THE POWER.
Ultimately, rights are based on power.

You write; "Codrenau, Strasser, Rockwell, Mosely and Yockey are people I would more consider ‘heroes’ than Hitler".
- Rockwell for one, would consider your reasoning to be completely upside-down as he considered Hitler to be "the greatest man that ever lived".

You say that "America is far less European than Russia is" - I'm surprised that you don't start agonising over what being "less European" is. I mean how long before you begin to declare 'European' as being 'meaningless'?

Siegfried
Thursday, September 25th, 2003, 07:54 PM
Moody Lawless; 'Occidental' only means 'Western', and is contrasted with 'Oriental', which merely means 'Eastern'.
So it's hardly an exciting departure to call ourselves 'Westerners'.

The word 'Western' is far too often associated with capitalism, consumerism, American imperialism, etc. Even though 'the West' and 'the Occident' point towards the same area and racial groups, 'Occident' does not bear the negative stigma 'the West' has come to carry (especially if used in the way Aloysha uses it). By calling ourselves 'Occidental', we separate ourselves from all those christian-conservative patriots who preach about the superiority of 'the Western world'.

Stríbog
Friday, September 26th, 2003, 04:03 AM
For the Russian State was not organised by the constructive political talent of the Slav element in Russia, but was much more a marvellous exemplification of the capacity for State-building possessed by the Germanic element in a race of inferior worth".
[Hitler, My Struggle, XIV]

Hitler's position is perfectly understandable in its historical context, no matter how 'politically incorrect' it may be today.

Right, once again we hear how everything that Slavs accomplished was actually the work of Germans. :lol



"This Russian desert, we shall populate it ... we'll take away its character of an Asiatic steppe, we'll Europeanise it ...
As for the 2 or 3 million men whom we need to accomplish this task ... they'll come from Germany, Scandinavia, the Western countries and America".
[Hitler, Table Talk, 17 October 1941]

You couldn't get more 'Western/European' than that!


Funny, the Aryans in Germany and Scandinavia originally came from Russia, not vice versa. :P



So, just as Christian Theology may be more developed than Pagan [it is], I am not a Christian and so remain a Pagan, no matter how 'undeveloped' that may be!


Earlier you said that Christianity was important to Europe, that Christian Identity could be an acceptable religion, and that Hitler was Christian. Now you're a pagan? :) You also refused to accept Hitler's remarks denouncing Christianity from the Tischreden, claiming they were forged, yet you cite the same Tischreden as evidence of his "wisdom" towards Russia. Which is it?



You have modified your position slightly when you say that " ‘white’ means nothing on a cultural level".
Ah! 'cultural' level!
But the term 'White' is our 'racial minimum', that's all.
It is understood as that universally.
When we start bringing in the cultural perspective, then we refine our terms. However, at the most general level of Race, White means White [Negroes like to call themselves 'people of colour' I hear!].

Are some Iranians white? Are Indian Brahmins white? Are unmixed Arabs white?
I'd like to hear your racial definition of what white IS, not what it ISN'T.



Moody Lawless; That is an appalling statement!
Such self-hate is what the liberal establishment WANT to inculcate into Whites. You don't have to like the present government to admire the endeavour and adventurism of your ancestors, surely? What's ridiculous about European colonists creating the most powerful Nation on Earth?

Endeavours like a war over whether blacks should be brought here to work for us, or their importation ceased but the ones here assimilated? How about neither; we shouldn't have imported them in the first place, and failing that, we should have deported the ones that were here. However, both parties were greedy/deluded, and look where it got us.
America also has a grand history of unbridled gluttonous capitalism and the concomitant human and enviromental disasters which far surpasses Europe. Yes, we should really be proud of our Carnegies, Rockefellers, Mellons? :stop
You may have a Nietzschean orgasm over sheer power, but I don't. America's history of blundering into wars like a large, stupid animal is damnable.



"I think the less people rely on Nazism and it's symbols the better".

ML: You agree with the Jews and the liberals there!


Actually the Jews would probably like us to keep using stereotyped symbols and ideologies, as it makes their job easier. Furthermore, defining yourself by adopting the opposite philosophy of whatever your opponent believes is a stupid and irrational philosophy. You seem to want to define everything in negative terms, of what it is NOT. That never works. Define yourself in proactive, positive terms. Let your adversaries worry about reacting.



The same applies to the Czechs. It is enough for a Czech to grow a moustache for anyone to see, from the way the thing droops, that his origin is Mongolian"


This from a man who picked Himmler to be in charge of racial purity. :rofl



Stribog -7) "I disagree with NS statist attitudes and repressive measures".

ML; That suggests you favour more ... liberal ... measures?


I favor more traditionally European views on liberty. You talk about European ideals, and then throw them out the window. Ever heard of Anglo-Saxon common law? Right to trial by jury of peers? What are your opinions on NS gun policy?

You still haven't addressed the fact that NS was hardly monolithic in doctrine. How do you feel about the Strasser brothers, and Hitler's economic promises compared with his financial policy?

Moody
Friday, September 26th, 2003, 05:37 PM
Stríbog; "Right, once again we hear how everything that Slavs accomplished was actually the work of Germans".

Moody Lawless replies; The original Russian State was the work of the Viking Rus, who were Germanics, not Slavs; indeed. it was the Rus who traded in Slavic slaves.
Russia derives its name from these Nordics.
This original Russian State was overwhelmed by the Mongolian conquest

Stribog; "Funny, the Aryans in Germany and Scandinavia originally came from Russia, not vice versa",

ML; Yes, but they were not Slavs, they were Germanic [compare the languages of German and Scandinavian].

Stribog; "Earlier you said that Christianity was important to Europe, that Christian Identity could be an acceptable religion, and that Hitler was Christian. Now you're a pagan? You also refused to accept Hitler's remarks denouncing Christianity from the Tischreden, claiming they were forged, yet you cite the same Tischreden as evidence of his "wisdom" towards Russia. Which is it"?

ML; Wrong; the Table Talk from which I quoted is genuine; I reject Rauschning, which is a completely different work and a proved forgery.
Hitler is right to reject the Semitic elements of Christianity; however, there is much in Christianity which is Aryan.
Even the cross is Aryan, only being adopted in the 6th century - before that the Christian symbol was the Lamb.
The cross was known as the 'staff of Apollo' or the 'hammer of Thor'.
The whole Christian cycle is based on the mythos of the Aryan Sun God.
This is why the Third Reich was able to fashion an Aryan Christianity, because Christianity had taken much that was Aryan. [For more on this see 'Aryan Sun Myths' by Titcomb].
The whole point is to reject the Semitic aspects of Christianity which largely reside in Christian Morality.
Hitler's Mein Kampf [as a reading of it shows] is couched in Aryan-Christian terms.
The 25 Points of the NSDAP call for religious toleration providing that the religion is pro-Aryan.
Therefore it is possible for NS to be Pagans, Aryan-Christians etc.,

But you have side-tracked;
The point I made in my reply to Aloysha was only a comparison anyway; he claimed that Communist theory is more 'developed' than National Socialist theory. This is true, but it doesn't make a theory any more correct because it is more developed [much verbiage was written under Communism].
Just as Christian theology is vast, it doesn't make it any truer than paganism which doesn't go much on theory.
I fear that it is typical of Marxists to be impressed by pages upon pages of waffle.

Stribog; Are some Iranians white? Are Indian Brahmins white? Are unmixed Arabs white? I'd like to hear your racial definition of what white IS, not what it ISN'T.

ML; Iranians, Arabs and Indians are too mixed to be White, and anyway, they aren't Europeans. I have already said that White is a broad term to describe people of European descent - it isn't brain surgery!

Stribog; " ... we shouldn't have imported Blacks to America in the first place, and failing that, we should have deported the ones that were here. However, both parties were greedy/deluded, and look where it got us.

ML; You and others here are always saying "we shouldn't have" done/said this or that. You are in denial over a past which cannot be changed; learn to think positively in terms of Destiny, rather than of Christian guilt.

Stribog; America also has a grand history of unbridled gluttonous capitalism and the concomitant human and enviromental disasters which far surpasses Europe. Yes, we should really be proud of our Carnegies, Rockefellers, Mellons?
You may have a Nietzschean orgasm over sheer power, but I don't. America's history of blundering into wars like a large, stupid animal is damnable.

ML; Those who only see the bad and negative in things are Nihilists, and have been twisted by mutliculturalist anti-White Guilt teaching.
The European pioneers who created America were fine specimens of the Aryan race; they were slave-owners and racists; Americans should be proud of them, as well as of people like Ezra Pound, R.W. Emerson, Henry Ford and G.L. Rockwell just to name a few.

You are nothing without Power - that's a sad fact of life; that the wrong people now have the power is the reason that America 'blunders'. Those who hate power are those pacifists and liberals who secretly want to rule the world in their own covert way.

Stribog; " ...the Jews would probably like us to keep using stereotyped symbols and ideologies, as it makes their job easier. Furthermore, defining yourself by adopting the opposite philosophy of whatever your opponent believes is a stupid and irrational philosophy.

ML, Oh, so we should believe what the Jews believe - that's why you're advocating liberal values - good strategy!
The Swastika is an ancient Aryan symbol, and I am not going to let any Jew tell me that I can't fly it!
Please don't descend to personal abuse - my philosophy has been evidenced on the Philosophy Forum here and is far from "stupid". You only make yourself look petty and immature by such remarks.

Stribog; "You seem to want to define everything in negative terms, of what it is NOT".

ML; Example please! [I do not count correcting mistakes as being negative].


Stribog; "Define yourself in proactive, positive terms. Let your adversaries worry about reacting".

ML; I am replying to a thread that says "Why I am NOT a White Nationalist" - what could be "negative" than that!
Such negativity must be refuted.
Obviously, my position is that of a White Nationalist [a positive position].

Stribog; "This from a man [Hitler] who picked Himmler to be in charge of racial purity".

ML; I hardly think that you are in a position to sneer at a great man like Himmler!
Why is it that the Jews so hate Hitler and Himmler?
Because those NS began the work of BREEDING UP the White Race to a Nordic Ideal - they never claimed to be "it"!
They rather got down to the business of making possible the Pure Nordic type of the Future.
Their project was destroyed by the Capitalists and the Reds ... the Russians, Anglo-Saxons and Jews.

Stribog; "I favor more traditionally European views on liberty. You talk about European ideals, and then throw them out the window. Ever heard of Anglo-Saxon common law? Right to trial by jury of peers? What are your opinions on NS gun policy"?

ML: There is some controversy over what the latter actually was; the NS State was thoroughly mobilised, with all youth undergoing military training.
Trial by jury has become a joke in the West, and Anglo-Saxonism has given us parliament, so-called democracy and liberalism.
The Anglo-Saxon is just a branch of the great European tree, a branch that has been thoroughly coveted by the Jew. Our British 'Lord Chief Justice' is a Jew, Lord Woolf.
Obviously, the liberal Anglo-American status quo suits you fine - are there any White Nationalist left on this board?

Stribog; "You still haven't addressed the fact that NS was hardly monolithic in doctrine".

ML; Who said that it was?
NS was in the broad tradition of central European culture; that's why a great philosopher like Martin Heidegger was a NS and not a commie or liberal like the Anglo-Saxon philosopher Bertrand Russell.

Stribog; "How do you feel about the Strasser brothers, and Hitler's economic promises compared with his financial policy"?

ML; I agree with Hitler - the Strasser aims were too communistic; as I've said a hundred times before, economics is not the goal; the production of a high Aryan Race and Culture is the goal - economics is just one of many means.
But that is what makes the difference between a Nationalist and a Communist.

Stríbog
Saturday, September 27th, 2003, 01:40 AM
Moody Lawless replies; The original Russian State was the work of the Viking Rus, who were Germanics, not Slavs; indeed. it was the Rus who traded in Slavic slaves.
Russia derives its name from these Nordics.
This original Russian State was overwhelmed by the Mongolian conquest


Talk to Ross, he can disabuse you of this misconception.
Furthermore: "Other theories trace the name Rus to a Slavic origin."
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0827617.html
No one is disputing the role of Rurik in this, but his tenure was relatively short and only built upon an existing Slavic infrastructure. The Slavs themselves had created almost all of what became Kievan Rus, and they ruled it from about 900 on. To claim that the Kievan Rus is Germanic is like claiming Italy is Germanic because the Holy Roman Empire governed much of it.

Later, Poland-Lithuania managed to become the strongest state in Europe without any Germanic influence; in fact, they regained much of the Baltic coastline that Germanic knights had been taking in the 12th-14th centuries. :)



ML; Yes, but they were not Slavs, they were Germanic [compare the languages of German and Scandinavian].


They were actually Indo-Europeans originally, and spoke something closer to Sanskrit than anything else. The Baltic languages were the first European languages to develop after the influx of Aryans/IEs. Germanic and Slavic languages were both offshoots of this. Germanic was a linguistic type and it only later became an "ethnic" identity. Bavarian Alpines have nothing in common with Hallstatt Swedes or Falid Low Germans subracially.



ML; Iranians, Arabs and Indians are too mixed to be White, and anyway, they aren't Europeans. I have already said that White is a broad term to describe people of European descent - it isn't brain surgery!

If Iranians, Arabs and Indians aren't white then neither are most Greeks, southern Italians and many Iberians. Simple enough. It would be consistent and fair to admit this.

Stribog; " ... we shouldn't have imported Blacks to America in the first place, and failing that, we should have deported the ones that were here. However, both parties were greedy/deluded, and look where it got us.



ML; Those who only see the bad and negative in things are Nihilists, and have been twisted by mutliculturalist anti-White Guilt teaching.
The European pioneers who created America were fine specimens of the Aryan race; they were slave-owners and racists; Americans should be proud of them, as well as of people like Ezra Pound, R.W. Emerson, Henry Ford and G.L. Rockwell just to name a few.


ROFL you say the Great Men of America were racists, and then you go on to praise Emerson. Are you missing something? :rofl



ML, Oh, so we should believe what the Jews believe - that's why you're advocating liberal values - good strategy!
The Swastika is an ancient Aryan symbol, and I am not going to let any Jew tell me that I can't fly it!
Please don't descend to personal abuse - my philosophy has been evidenced on the Philosophy Forum here and is far from "stupid". You only make yourself look petty and immature by such remarks.


I never said you should be told you can't fly it. Go ahead, by all means. My point was that it's irrelevant to most of us here since we aren't NS and there's no reason to handicap ourselves in public debate by using outdated and reactionary symbols.



ML; I hardly think that you are in a position to sneer at a great man like Himmler!
Why is it that the Jews so hate Hitler and Himmler?
Because those NS began the work of BREEDING UP the White Race to a Nordic Ideal - they never claimed to be "it"!
They rather got down to the business of making possible the Pure Nordic type of the Future.
Their project was destroyed by the Capitalists and the Reds ... the Russians, Anglo-Saxons and Jews.


How about the fact that he was more Mongoloid than 95% of Slavs? :lmao
On top of that, he married a half-Polish woman while calling the Slavs a scum race. KräuterHeini was an insecure, neurotic loser, and you aren't going to convince me otherwise. He compensated for his own shortcomings by abusing others. The men serving under him hated him.



ML: There is some controversy over what the latter actually was; the NS State was thoroughly mobilised, with all youth undergoing military training.
Trial by jury has become a joke in the West, and Anglo-Saxonism has given us parliament, so-called democracy and liberalism.
The Anglo-Saxon is just a branch of the great European tree, a branch that has been thoroughly coveted by the Jew. Our British 'Lord Chief Justice' is a Jew, Lord Woolf.
Obviously, the liberal Anglo-American status quo suits you fine - are there any White Nationalist left on this board?


Liberalism started with the French Revolution and Enlightenment, not with "Anglo-Saxonism." England's decline began with the Norman invasion and the introduction of aspects of Southern European/Roman law.
Trial by jury may be a joke now, so you propose to finish the job and do away with it altogether? :)
I don't identify as Anglo-American at all, nor am I a "white nationalist." I am a Northern European preservationist. I believe in free speech and open debate. I also believe in the right of the individual to bear arms. It is quite clear that Hitler didn't.

You have the classic adolescent attitude of "I don't like the world as it is. People who think as I do should be given absolute power to do whatever we need to correct the situation." You haven't even stopped to think about what happens when the first regime dies, and the reins of power are handed to someone different. Every authoritarian state crumbles eventually because of two factors: people grow tired of being ordered around incessantly, and gradually as leadership changes, policy will also change. It's immutable. You romanticize NS because it died a violent sudden death which you view as martyrdom, rather than crumbling under its own weight some years later. You are free to do that, but don't expect me to respect such a juvenile view.

Moody
Saturday, September 27th, 2003, 05:11 PM
"Race is a controlling influence in the Jew, who, for two millenniums, under every climate, has preserved the same character and employments.
Race in the Negro is of appalling importance.
The French in Canada, cut off from all intercourse with the parent people, have held their national traits.
I chanced to read Tacitus 'on the Manners of the Germans', not long since, in Missouri, and the heart of Illinois, and I found abundant points of resemblance between the Germans of the Hercynian forest, and our 'Hoosiers', 'Suckers', and 'Badgers' of the American woods".
[R.W. Emerson, 'Race', 1856]

Stríbog -" ...No one is disputing the role of Rurik in this [i.e., Russia] ..."

Moody Lawless; The Rus were Vikings - read the aforementioned eye-witness travel report of Ibn Fadlan; they traded in Slav slaves.
The factor you are avoiding is the Mongol conquest of Russia by Genghis Khan and his successors. This Mongol Empire, which covered Russia and much of eastern Europe, lasted from the early 11th to the 17th centuries!

Stribog;"The [Slavs] were actually Indo-Europeans originally, and spoke something closer to Sanskrit than anything else. The Baltic languages were the first European languages to develop after the influx of Aryans/IEs. Germanic and Slavic languages were both offshoots of this".

ML; So were Celtic, Greek, Latin, Tocharian, Hittite etc., off-shoots of Proto-Indo-European; so how is it that you "feel no kinship with Mediterraneans" as you say! Are you a complete hypocrite?

Stribog; "If Iranians, Arabs and Indians aren't white then neither are most Greeks, southern Italians and many Iberians ..."

ML; I've already given my definition of 'White', but you seem deaf to it - 'Whites are people of European descent'.
Greeks, Italians and Spanish are Europeans - straightforward.
If you want to argue that they have acquired, in some cases, non-White admixtures - sure. But then so have many Russians acquired non-White admixtures of Mongolian, Turkic etc., [that small matter of Mongolian conquest you gloss over has something to do with that].
So why not defend the Italians like you do the Russians - just to be consistent.

Stribog; " ... you say the Great Men of America were racists, and then you go on to praise Emerson. Are you missing something?"

ML; I said that the founders of America were slave owners and racists [in the Constitution a Negro is only 3/5ths of a human being, for example].
I then WENT ON to mention great Americans like Emerson; here you deliberately misconstrue what I said to score a cheap point which actually isn't one. Look at the Emerson quote above.

Stribog; "[The Swastika] is irrelevant to most of us here since we aren't NS and there's no reason to handicap ourselves in public debate by using outdated and reactionary symbols".

ML; The Swastika is the Aryan symbol par excellence being found in ancient Troy and Scandinavia [and therefore not only NS]; those who consider it 'irrelevant' then also reject Aryanism.
If we are not to be 'out-dated' and 'reactionary', are we then to be 'modern' and 'liberal'!?!

Stribog; "Himmler ... was more Mongoloid than 95% of Slavs?
On top of that, he married a half-Polish woman while calling the Slavs a scum race. KräuterHeini was an insecure, neurotic loser ..."

ML; Now you exhibit the sort of Slavophobia you accused Hitler of - make up your mind!
Himmler's organisation and development of the SS, both as a fighting unit and as a Knightly Order was one of the great achievements of the 20th century - some 'loser'!.

Stribog; Liberalism started with the French Revolution and Enlightenment, not with "Anglo-Saxonism." England's decline began with the Norman invasion and the introduction of aspects of Southern European/Roman law.

ML; The French Revolution was pre-dated by the Cromwellian Revolution in England. That provided a model for the French, not only by its regicide but by its giving liberty to the Jew.
The ideas of Locke and Paine contributed most to liberalism.
England's decline begins with Cromwell's victory and the subsequent creation of the Bank of England/National Debt in 1689 - all made possible by Cromwell's crimes and the Jews who bought him out.
The Norman Conquest predates King Edward the First's ejection of all Jews from England in 1290, and of course the great Elizabethan culture of Shakespeare et al., How can that be 'decline'?

Stribog; Trial by jury may be a joke now, so you propose to finish the job and do away with it altogether?

ML; A jury of 'one's peers' is a contradiction in terms in a liberal/multicultural society.

Stribog; " ...I am a Northern European preservationist. I believe in free speech and open debate. I also believe in the right of the individual to bear arms. It is quite clear that Hitler didn't".

ML; Such 'freedoms' and 'rights' are not deserved by aliens, communists and anarchists. Such rights and freedoms are privileges deserved only by those who are loyal to Race and Nation.
Your position is completely liberal.

You say that you are a 'Northern European Preservationist', and you say that you feel 'no kinship with Mediterraneans'? But you contradicted this above when you spoke of how all our cultures derive from INDO-European.
Where is the boundary between north and south? Are the Lapps far north enough for you?
And what of Celtic Meditterraneans in Ireland, Scotland, England and Wales? They lived there long before the Germanics migrated to Britain; aren't they 'Northern' enough for you?

Stribog; "You have the classic adolescent attitude of "I don't like the world as it is. People who think as I do should be given absolute power to do whatever we need to correct the situation."

ML; At least I am 'classic'!
Is it 'adolescent' to be against the status quo? - If so, most artists, thinkers and politicians were 'adolescent' to you!
No, you are wrong - the jibe is another example of a cheap shot.
Since when was 'power' ['absolute' is your word - there is nothing 'absolute' in life] a dirty word?
Power is necessary to change things - as Napoleon said, 'power is never ridiculous.

Stribog; "You haven't even stopped to think about what happens when the first regime dies, and the reins of power are handed to someone different. Every authoritarian state crumbles eventually because of two factors: people grow tired of being ordered around incessantly, and gradually as leadership changes, policy will also change.

ML: I am aware that all 'regimes' decline and fall - that is Destiny after all.
The certainty of Death should not stop us from LIVING.
To run away from power and honesty seems to me a completely timid and senile attitude [touche].
Heroism is that which seeks to create even in the face of certain death and decline.

Stribog; You romanticize NS because it died a violent sudden death which you view as martyrdom, rather than crumbling under its own weight some years later. You are free to do that, but don't expect me to respect such a juvenile view.

ML: And don't expect me to respect such senility.
You are now telling us what DIDN'T happen to NS!
Why not look at what DID happen; it was defeated by the overwhelming power of the combined Judaeo/Democratic/Anglo-Saxon/Russian/Multiculturalism power, called 'the Allies'.
It seems to me that were this 1939 you would be rooting for the Allies rather than the Axis - am I right?
Like the Allies you want to divide Europe - just as they did artificially between East and West in 1945, so do you want to do that between 'North and South'.

I, on the other hand, am a White Nationalist who believes in the holistic Europe of North, South East and West, as symbolised by the four arms of the Swastika.
Divide and rule is the tactic always used by the enemies of Europe - those poorly disguised Marxists who continue their underground war against the Unity of the White Race

Stríbog
Saturday, September 27th, 2003, 05:45 PM
Moody Lawless; The Rus were Vikings - read the aforementioned eye-witness travel report of Ibn Fadlan; they traded in Slav slaves.
The factor you are avoiding is the Mongol conquest of Russia by Genghis Khan and his successors. This Mongol Empire, which covered Russia and much of eastern Europe, lasted from the early 11th to the 17th centuries!

I'm not avoiding it, there are many Mongoloids living in Russia. But they are not ethnic Russians, and all have their own languages/breakaway movements. Whatever mixing occurred resulted in people who are not considered Russian by the majority of Russians. HG10, the Mongol marker, is not even present. Spain was controlled by North Africans for 800 years and Greece was ruled by Turks for 400 years but you don't seem to have a problem with that. :)



ML; So were Celtic, Greek, Latin, Tocharian, Hittite etc., off-shoots of Proto-Indo-European; so how is it that you "feel no kinship with Mediterraneans" as you say! Are you a complete hypocrite?

No, the Mediterraneans were not originally Indo-European. They had the language brought to them by conquerors from the North. Greek people have told me there are still non-IE words in Greek. It is documented that Basque and Pictish are non-IE. Inhabitants of the Italic peninsula spoke non-IE native languages before the incursions from the north. In contrast, Slavs were always IE because Russia and Ukraine were the source of the Indo-European people!
This isn't hypocritical.



ML; I've already given my definition of 'White', but you seem deaf to it - 'Whites are people of European descent'.
Greeks, Italians and Spanish are Europeans - straightforward.
If you want to argue that they have acquired, in some cases, non-White admixtures - sure. But then so have many Russians acquired non-White admixtures of Mongolian, Turkic etc., [that small matter of Mongolian conquest you gloss over has something to do with that].
So why not defend the Italians like you do the Russians - just to be consistent.


Mongolian mixture is present in Russia. However, genetic tests have revealed that it is far less significant than North African, Turkic and even Negroid admixture in Southern Europe. :) Your definition of race is geopolitically improvised, not biologically consistent. You belong at Stormfront.



ML; Now you exhibit the sort of Slavophobia you accused Hitler of - make up your mind!
Himmler's organisation and development of the SS, both as a fighting unit and as a Knightly Order was one of the great achievements of the 20th century - some 'loser'!.


How was I being Slavophobic? I was pointing out Himmler's hypocrisy about racial standards and his insecure sadism.



You say that you are a 'Northern European Preservationist', and you say that you feel 'no kinship with Mediterraneans'? But you contradicted this above when you spoke of how all our cultures derive from INDO-European.
Where is the boundary between north and south? Are the Lapps far north enough for you?


Well, Lapps are European, so by your logic, they are white :D
Actually, I operate on a biological definition, not a cultural one. That is why Estonians who speak a non-IE language are acceptable to me, while Sicilians who speak an IE language are not.



And what of Celtic Meditterraneans in Ireland, Scotland, England and Wales? They lived there long before the Germanics migrated to Britain; aren't they 'Northern' enough for you?

Nope.
I've already said I don't consider people like Colin Farrell to be racially Northern at all. They fit well in Portugal or Sardinia. :P



ML: And don't expect me to respect such senility.
You are now telling us what DIDN'T happen to NS!
Why not look at what DID happen; it was defeated by the overwhelming power of the combined Judaeo/Democratic/Anglo-Saxon/Russian/Multiculturalism power, called 'the Allies'.
It seems to me that were this 1939 you would be rooting for the Allies rather than the Axis - am I right?
Like the Allies you want to divide Europe - just as they did artificially between East and West in 1945, so do you want to do that between 'North and South'.

No, I actually don't really care for either side in the Second World War.
A divide between North and South is not artificial at all.



I, on the other hand, am a White Nationalist who believes in the holistic Europe of North, South East and West, as symbolised by the four arms of the Swastika.
Divide and rule is the tactic always used by the enemies of Europe - those poorly disguised Marxists who continue their underground war against the Unity of the White Race

Good for you. You want a frickin' medal? :)
I'm not a white nationalist, because "white" is not a nation. :P
I'm not concerned with the whole of Europe, so I'm not an 'enemy.' I'm not underground, I'm stating openly that I don't believe in 'white' unity. I'm concerned with my own Folk. You can feel free to take up the cause of Mediterraneans. Just keep them out of our lands. ;)

Moody
Sunday, September 28th, 2003, 04:27 PM
Moody Lawless; Stribog says "our lands"
- But what are 'his lands'?
Ah, I see - Stribog calls it 'Hyperborea' - the mythical lands beyond the North Wind; very poetic, but ultimately IMAGINARY.
Why is Stribog so reticent in stating what his own land IS?
We can draw our conclusions from that as we look at the following points.

Stribog finally admits that the European periphery, whether in the Mediterranean regions or in the North East, have been subject to non-White admixture over long periods of history [and no doubt of pre-history].
This is of course a 'problem', but not an insurmountable one. Indeed, those White peoples of the periphery should be held in esteem for their valour in keeping aliens out, although this has not always been humanly possible [the Hordes of Genghis were particulary unstoppable].
But just as the Mongolian Empire collapsed, and just as the Greeks got free of the Turks, then so may the White Race World-Wide be free of the present alien invasions that plague us today, in the near future.
I believe that this will only be accomplished by White Unity - that's why I have no problem with the term 'White Nationalist'.
[And the alternatives you supply - 'Northern European Preservationist' - what a mouthful! - or take the accidental 'Occidentalists'! - no thanks!]

Stribog ; "the Mediterraneans were not originally Indo-European. They had the language brought to them by conquerors from the North. Greek people have told me there are still non-IE words in Greek. It is documented that Basque and Pictish are non-IE ...".

ML; You have confused many things there, and assumed too much as well. 'Indo-European' is a linguistic designation, not a racial one. As you know, many Whites do not speak IE languages [see the Finno-Ugric group, who would surely concern you more than any other - that includes the Finns, the Estonians and others including Hungarian].
While some IE speakers have ended up speaking non-IE [think of Gothic and its disappearance in the region of the Crimea - whither the Gothic race, have they disappeared like the language?]
No, care must always be taken not to confuse race and language.

The Basques are an Old European White people who resided in Europe long before IE speakers - the fact that the Basques speak a non-IE language shows they were not 'conquered'.
Nor does it mean that they are any less 'White'!
There are non-IE words embedded in all IE languages, words derived in some cases from the original, predominantly Old European culture.
It was this White Old European culture [which was subracially predominantly Mediterraneanid] that stretched from Europe to Russia, and gave rise to such important centres of ancient civilisation as the Minoan and the Harappan.

The assumption you make is that there was some kind of IE single-point 'homeland' in 'Russia'. The whereabouts of such a 'homeland' [and whether it was a 'single-point'] is still a matter of controversy and so can only be specualted upon. Strangely, pan-Germanicists put the homeland in Germany, while pan-Slavicists put it in Russia etc., etc.,

Stribog; "Mongolian mixture is present in Russia".

ML; And that is the point - it is as far as we need to go within the ambit of a thread dedicated to the geopolitical.

Stribog; "However, genetic tests have revealed that it is far less significant than North African, Turkic and even Negroid admixture in Southern Europe. Your definition of race is geopolitically improvised, not biologically consistent. You belong at Stormfront".

ML: This is a 'geopolitical thread!
It is you who are on the wrong thread. If you want to argue 'genetic tests' then go to the subracial forums here [and you can put the 'bore' back in Hyperborean]. After all, it is not so hard to drag up lists and graphs of genetic percentages from the 'net.
Here we are dealing with geopolitical/cultural ideas, as you admit - and this where you have fallen down on every post so far. This is obvious by your frustrated use of abuse [and what is this 'Stormfront' obsession - are you that insecure?].

Stribog; Well, Lapps are European, so by your logic, they are white.

ML; The Lapps are not culturally or racially European [i.e., 'White'!]. They reside in Northern Europe, so they are embraced by your own NON-RACIAL definition, not by my racially specific one.
To go on and talk of "racially Northern" is idiotic as this completely blurs race and geography just as before you sought to blur race and language.

Stribog; I actually don't really care for either side in the Second World War.

ML; A startling admission! Here was European culture fighting against the Jew, and you 'can't take sides'!

Stribog; "A divide between North and South is not artificial at all".

ML; There is nothing that is so mutually exclusive to justify an impassable divide.
Whites, whether Mediterranean, Nordic, Baltic or Alpine are all evolved from a basic stock. The basic European culture, whether North or South, is from a similar pagan/Christian stream, just as politically the influence of Roman institutions has been all-pervasive Europe-wide.
Europe is a Unity - only her enemies have tried to divide her.
Look at the infamous division of East and West Germany - something you have no opinion on, no doubt.

Stribog; I'm not a white nationalist, because "white" is not a nation.

ML; That's just obtuse!
'White' is the racial minimum, while 'nationalism' is type of politics!

Stribog; I'm not concerned with the whole of Europe, so I'm not an 'enemy.' I'm not underground, I'm stating openly that I don't believe in 'white' unity. I'm concerned with my own Folk. You can feel free to take up the cause of Mediterraneans. Just keep them out of our lands.

ML: I take up the cause of Europa - which includes all sub-divisions.
But you have not told us just what your own 'Folk' are.
Nor have you told us what your own 'lands' are.
How can you accuse others of having meaningless definitions when you fight shy of defining yourself?
Do actually HAVE A HOMELAND?

Stríbog
Sunday, September 28th, 2003, 06:07 PM
My homeland is the Baltic, my Volk are those sharing common lineage with me, residing in Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Russia, Byelorus, Poland, and Eastern Germany.

Tore
Sunday, September 28th, 2003, 07:03 PM
ML; The Lapps are not culturally or racially European [i.e., 'White'!]. They reside in Northern Europe, so they are embraced by your own NON-RACIAL definition, not by my racially specific one.
To go on and talk of "racially Northern" is idiotic as this completely blurs race and geography just as before you sought to blur race and language

The Lapps culture is of Uralic derivation, shared with Finns/Estonians, and many Finno-Ugrians of Northern Eurasia.

I suppose this is irrelevent unless one can truly define what is "European" culturally and what is not.

May you be so kind as to supply a definition? :)


Genetically, the Lapps are really no different from other North-Eastern Europeans in terms of Y-Chromosome markers, with exception to that they show a lower incidence of Tat-C than other Uralic Europeans.

Of course, Tat-C isn't a real Mongoloid marker, as it only correlates with extreme depigmentation and negligable levels of Mongoloid mtDNA (see: Finland/Baltic/Northern Russia).

Maternally, the Lapps are unique in their high incidence of rare U5b1 and V haplogroups.

Both are of European origin.

Mongoloid markers make up 5-8% of mtDNA, which translates to 2.5-4% overall.

In phenotype, most, but surely not all, Lapps are of European racial type.

Having said this, the same can be applied to Greeks, Southern Italians, etc.

For myself and others, simply being "Caucasoid" does not suffice.:)

Nihilist
Monday, September 29th, 2003, 07:27 AM
....My biggest problem with WN is the amount of dead weights associated with the "movement" that blame the jews, niggers ect for all their problems, and cannot accept responsibility for personal mistakes...

..The amount of egalitarian princibles that seems to exist IE: "brotherly love, comrade" nonsense, is also quite repulsive.

Moody
Monday, September 29th, 2003, 05:02 PM
Nihilist says.... "brotherly love, comrade nonsense, is ... quite repulsive".

You rightly call yourself a 'nihilist', Nihilist.
You have recognised the truth of your position.
From what little you wrote here, it seems that you are an Individualist, an Egoist, and like Mrs. Thatcher, believe there is 'no such thing as society'.

This is not a new position, being found among the ancient Cynics, the Russian Anarchists, Nihilists and Stirner's book 'The Ego and Its Own' (1844).
Today's relativists and Deconstructionists are of this sterile lineage.

Clearly, you will have no sympathy with Fascism/National Socialism or White Nationalism [WN].

However, is the challenge presented by yourself and others in this thread something different?
Has WN died and been replaced by its Antithesis - i.e., by Nihilism?

Are ex-WNs now completely a-political Nihilists who despise all others except themselves and those like themselves - a kind of crude caricature of 'hate-filled racism' taken to the nth degree; i.e., to misanthropy?

This is the next stage in the discussion which must be taken up [that's if the nihilists can bear to use a language which they no doubt regard as being full of 'constructs'].

Moody
Monday, September 29th, 2003, 05:28 PM
Trønder asks that we "define what is 'European' culturally and what is not".

This is a vast question which has vexed greater minds than I.
I will give you my immediate ad hoc impressions as I sit here typing without any reference material of any kind.
My response is initially emotional, or better - spiritual.

I think of the Greek word 'Europa'.
That's where Europe begins culturally.

An off-shoot of Indo-European culture, yes, but a distinct one.
The Greeks demonstrated this by the myth of Zeus and Europa.

So 'Europe' begins in the Geek peninsula in ancient times - we look at Homer, Hesiod, the Greek Dramatists, the city-states, the philosophers - philosophy as we know it BEGINS here.

For racial indicators we note that the Greek sculptors tried to CONSISTENTLY describe a Hellenic 'type'.
That noble straight-nosed and broad-browed Hellenic type is the model European.

Indeed, 'Europa' literally means 'broad-browed'; this is racially suggestive.

Everyone knows how broad-browed Alexander brought this Hellenic culture to the wider world.
Most are aware that the Romans learnt at the knees of the Greeks and created a military culture of unsurpassed excellence.

The Roman type an off-spring of the Greek - noble, hard, stoic and masterful.

The Romans were men at a time when the world was still childish.

I saw on television last night a dramatisation of the Celtic Briton Boudica's rebellion against the Romans in Brittannia. I wept as I saw these red-haired and crusty Britions, looking like the average peace-march hippies, throw themselves against marvellous Romans. It was futile - the childish Britons cut down by masterful, disciplined Roman armies.

Why is this significant?
Because the Roman conquest of the Celtic regions in the West, such as Gaul and Britain, extended the notion of Europa north-ward and west-ward.
When Roman rule in the West collapsed, the invading Germanics were quick to adopt the residue of Roman culture such as they could.

The European idea as we know it today had been born.

The Church itself was based on Roman organisation.
But then the Renaissance rediscovery of Graeco-Roman paganism was itself a further consolidation of Europa [just as the Romans identified their own paganism with that of the Celts, Slavs and Teutons].
Neo-Classicism in Germany - with people like Holderlin, Goethe, Wincklemann, sees Europa fully absorbed in the Northern lands.
The feeling for Europa even extends to the Nordics [if not the Lapplanders] of Thule!

And thus Europa goes out into the world as Europeans colonise other continents.

Hail Europa!

Your legacy is awesome to behold - only an Atlas can carry it!

Ave!

Tore
Tuesday, September 30th, 2003, 02:56 AM
An off-shoot of Indo-European culture, yes, but a distinct one.
The Greeks demonstrated this by the myth of Zeus and Europa.

If such is the case, then "Celtic" Mediterraneans have no better claim to European culture than Finno-Ugrics.

Jack
Tuesday, September 30th, 2003, 03:29 AM
Trønder, a brief idea of European culture (from my point of view) - European culture is the folkways of all peoples of Caucasian descent whose ancestors a thousand years ago resided between the Ural Mountains and the the Atlantic, between the Mediterranean and the Arctic Circle, and whose descendents held to some form of Christianity around 400 years ago.

:D

Nihilist
Tuesday, September 30th, 2003, 07:50 AM
Nihilist says.... "brotherly love, comrade nonsense, is ... quite repulsive".

You rightly call yourself a 'nihilist', Nihilist.
You have recognised the truth of your position.
From what little you wrote here, it seems that you are an Individualist, an Egoist, and like Mrs. Thatcher, believe there is 'no such thing as society'.

This is not a new position, being found among the ancient Cynics, the Russian Anarchists, Nihilists and Stirner's book 'The Ego and Its Own' (1844).
Today's relativists and Deconstructionists are of this sterile lineage.

Clearly, you will have no sympathy with Fascism/National Socialism or White Nationalism [WN].

However, is the challenge presented by yourself and others in this thread something different?
Has WN died and been replaced by its Antithesis - i.e., by Nihilism?

Are ex-WNs now completely a-political Nihilists who despise all others except themselves and those like themselves - a kind of crude caricature of 'hate-filled racism' taken to the nth degree; i.e., to misanthropy?

This is the next stage in the discussion which must be taken up [that's if the nihilists can bear to use a language which they no doubt regard as being full of 'constructs'].

I respect your forthcoming, so I guess i better explain myself...

Nihilism is a complex idea which is open to all kinds of different interpretation and I think it's effectiveness depends on the way it's exercised
My interpretation of nihilism, in it's purest form, is a hypothetical nothingness, or a void of nonexistence. If one practices this as an ends within itself, as many left wingers/anarchists tend to, then i admit it is definitely destructive, leading to a general apathy, indifference and fatalistic relativism towards life in general.
Because regardless of whether or not nihilism is ultimate reality (or unreality?) practicing it as an ends within itself inevitably leads to it's self fulfillment. Therefore anyone that values existence, or atleast the hope of it in one form or another, understands that such rigid interpretation of nihilism is undesirable.
The way in which i practice nihilism, is as a means. IE: I Have a subjective will which aims at an ends, and i use nihilism (or excessive pessimism, or absolute cynicism) to provide me with the highest level of emancipation and liberation from dogmatic, foreground untruths, that i can possibly possess, within my place in space and time.

Now for what you contended about me being an individualist....I guess at heart, i am, but isn't all life individualistic?
Even life which behaves collectively is inevitably individualistic. For example, although a pack of wolves may work collectively to hunt down a kill, when it comes to deciding which wolf gets the most/least proportion of meat, individualism within the collective transpires. The strongest wolf will earn the rights to the most substantial division of the meat, after this a complex hierarchy will sort each individual wolves meat division, congruous with their value to the rest of the pack. It would seem that self interest is the prime motive of all life, which epitomizes the necessity of individualism.

I think collectivism is highly valuable, but it is only worthwhile if it is inevitably valuable to the individuals that formulate it. In a truly libertarian enviroment, collectivism would occur only through choice, ie: a group of elite banding together to secure their interests over the trash. But I think it is naive, and marxist in nature to believe that collectivism and the needs of a society universally (even the needs of those who are inevitably weak and unfavorable to nature) should take priority over the individuals who are strong healthy valuable ect...

goidelicwarrior
Tuesday, September 30th, 2003, 09:33 AM
My homeland is the Baltic, my Volk are those sharing common lineage with me, residing in Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Russia, Byelorus, Poland, and Eastern Germany. with all respect, those diverse peoples have many phenotypes, nordic, alpine, med types are found among these nations.. but I get your point.. u mean strictly Nordic..?

Moody
Tuesday, September 30th, 2003, 05:50 PM
I suspect that Stribog, while identifying with those regions he mentioned, is not actually a National of any of them.

Moody
Tuesday, September 30th, 2003, 05:58 PM
Tronder; "Celtic" Mediterraneans have no better claim to European culture than Finno-Ugrics.

Moody Lawless; Not so; Keltic Mediterraneans played a decisive and CENTRAL part in European culture, particularly that of ancient Rome.

Moody
Tuesday, September 30th, 2003, 06:10 PM
Nihilist;"The way in which I practice nihilism, is as a means. IE: I Have a subjective will which aims at an ends, and i use nihilism (or excessive pessimism, or absolute cynicism) to provide me with the highest level of emancipation and liberation from dogmatic, foreground untruths, that i can possibly possess, within my place in space and time".

Moody Lawless; Such a strategy is alright ONLY as a tool. When it becomes an outlook in itself, then it hardens into a dogma - a 'foreground truth'.

Nihilist;" ... isn't all life individualistic? Even life which behaves collectively is inevitably individualistic".

ML; I recall that when Dawkins put forward his 'Selfish Gene' theory, it was adopted by those of the Free-Market Right during the 'Greed is Good' phase.

Dawkins was at pains to point out that, on the contrary, it is not the individual creature who behaves 'selfishly', but the Gene!

Indeed, it is in the gene's selfish interest that the creature it inhabits behaves altruistically within the group - only thereby the gene will survive.

Clearly, the more individualistically Western creatures become, the less their genes are passed on.

So if the goal is the passing on of White Genes [not to mention the improvement of said genes], then individualism is a suicidal strategy.
Of course, the Nihilist cares nothing about the future of a Race - why should he?

Tore
Wednesday, October 1st, 2003, 12:16 AM
Moody Lawless; Not so; Keltic Mediterraneans played a decisive and CENTRAL part in European culture, particularly that of ancient Rome.

I used "Celtic" as opposed to "Keltic" tp distinguish between the tall, gracile, dark-haired, dark-eyed, dilochocephalic megalithic people common in Cornwall, Wales, and Ireland {who are often (incorrectly?) termed as Celtic}, from the Iron Age Nordic (like) type found in Central Europe and the Benelux, which would later migrate to the British Isles (Coon's: Keltic Nordic).

Nevertheless, both had Indo-European culture imposed on them by others.

Nihilist
Wednesday, October 1st, 2003, 06:52 AM
Nihilist;" ... isn't all life individualistic? Even life which behaves collectively is inevitably individualistic".

ML; I recall that when Dawkins put forward his 'Selfish Gene' theory, it was adopted by those of the Free-Market Right during the 'Greed is Good' phase.

Dawkins was at pains to point out that, on the contrary, it is not the individual creature who behaves 'selfishly', but the Gene!

Indeed, it is in the gene's selfish interest that the creature it inhabits behaves altruistically within the group - only thereby the gene will survive.

Clearly, the more individualistically Western creatures become, the less their genes are passed on.

So if the goal is the passing on of White Genes [not to mention the improvement of said genes], then individualism is a suicidal strategy.
Of course, the Nihilist cares nothing about the future of a Race - why should he?

Oh definitely, I think this is the primary reason why I differentiate from contemperary right wing neo-liberalism. I am in total agreement that it is in the interest of the individual genes that formulate the individual, for a certain amount of loyalty and altruism to exist, so that the genes secure a better chance of healthy propergation in the future. But only if it remains within an exclusive, accountable and homogeneous in group.

I think we envision similar political goals, it's just we have differ in the means of achieving it.

Nihilist
Wednesday, October 1st, 2003, 07:01 AM
...I guess the point i've been trying to make here, is that i believe in both intra and inter based competition, in otherwords, i believe competition should encompass not only group based competition (which is the imperative goal of nationalism), but also individual based competition within the group (Which nationalism often neglects).

Jack
Wednesday, October 1st, 2003, 01:02 PM
...I guess the point i've been trying to make here, is that i believe in both intra and inter based competition, in otherwords, i believe competition should encompass not only group based competition (which is the imperative goal of nationalism), but also individual based competition within the group (Which nationalism often neglects).

Nihilist, I discussed (and defended) a rather similar idea a while ago here: http://www.forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=3227 in the first section of the first post, although I've since changed my views on several things in that topic.

Moody
Wednesday, October 1st, 2003, 07:23 PM
Tronder; "The Celts had Indo-European culture imposed on them by others".

Moody Lawless; Wrong. Celtic derives from the Celto-Italic branch of Indo European. Of course, various Indo-European tribes fought among themselves, and Celtics who had once spoke IE Celtic could have ended up speaking IE Italic after being conquered by Italic tribes.
We know that the Celts were anciently established in Northern Italy and fought wars with the Etruscans, and later with the Romans, even defeating the latter in the siege of Clusium [391 BC].

Moody
Wednesday, October 1st, 2003, 07:32 PM
...I guess the point i've been trying to make here, is that i believe in both intra and inter based competition, in otherwords, i believe competition should encompass not only group based competition (which is the imperative goal of nationalism), but also individual based competition within the group (Which nationalism often neglects).

Moody - Yes, good point. I suppose the worry is that an undue emphasis on competition within the group can be unnecessarily self-destructive, particularly in times when the outer threat is greater.
One thinks of how rival tribes united to fight Atilla, or how White Nations put aside personal differences to unite and drive out the Mongolian Hordes.
In both cases it was literally life or death for the White Race.
Also, think of Hitler's banning of duelling. He thought that too many good-quality Germans were lost in such duels.
As usual, it's where you place the emphasis. In times of dire outside threat, it is better to bury the individual hatchets, and try to save the larger group.

Tore
Thursday, October 2nd, 2003, 07:51 PM
Moody Lawless; Wrong. Celtic derives from the Celto-Italic branch of Indo European. Of course, various Indo-European tribes fought among themselves, and Celtics who had once spoke IE Celtic could have ended up speaking IE Italic after being conquered by Italic tribes.
We know that the Celts were anciently established in Northern Italy and fought wars with the Etruscans, and later with the Romans, even defeating the latter in the siege of Clusium [391 BC].

And for Atlanto-Mediterraneans?

Moody
Friday, October 3rd, 2003, 05:50 PM
Trønder; "And for Atlanto-Mediterraneans"?

These were the Megalith builders - and what a great achievement that was!
Even to this day, these constructions inspire religious awe in Europeans.

Tore
Saturday, October 4th, 2003, 07:58 AM
These were the Megalith builders - and what a great achievement that was!
Even to this day, these constructions inspire religious awe in Europeans.

Yes, I agree, although this culture was not of Indo-European inspiration.

Siegfried
Sunday, October 5th, 2003, 08:39 AM
you others remind me of middle ages church types arguiong about how many angels dance on the head of a pin,

A Marxist friend of mine at one point ridiculed the racialist 'movement' for lack of philosophical underpinning, and I think he's right (to a certain extent, of course). At this point, we do not only need activists, we also need theoreticans. We need a coherent Weltanschauung, not just a Nazi rehash.

Moody
Monday, October 6th, 2003, 05:02 PM
I may have to repeat the following formula in other posts;

1) Not all White Cultures are Indo European [IE].

2) Non-IE White Cultures were in Europe BEFORE IE.

3) Non-IE White Cultures SURVIVE throughout Europe.

4) The Stone Circles are the work of pre-IE/non-IE White Cultures.

5) IE peoples came to revere and worship these Megaliths, such as Stonehenge.

6) Pre-IE/Non-IE White Cultures were advanced civilisations.

Tatoo this on your forehead.

goidelicwarrior
Tuesday, October 7th, 2003, 10:17 AM
[QUOTE=Moody Lawless]1) At that time of WWII only the Germans had the requisite military and ideological excellence with which to challenge the menace of Bolshevism. The armies of Italy etc., were pretty hopeless [a sorry fact], and the SS often had to rescue them from certain defeat.
The German effort and sacrifice was superhuman.

QUOTE] with all respect for your exelent posts, I just want to ad... :D
http://members.odinsrage.com/racofspain/blue/blau_div.html

Jack
Wednesday, October 8th, 2003, 10:51 AM
you try that go out and try to reason with the enemies of your race better yet try reasoning with your own people,

I tried reasoning with reds, I found out that they understand a bop on the head much quicker and lasts a lot longer,

Thats why you dont get mein kampf. Adolf Hitler is the ultimate reality show !

I own a copy of Mein Kampf, I've read it, and I understand it fine. Hitler, however, is not God. I can reason with Reds. One of my best friends last year was a white power communist. Of course, you probably don't understand how that works, nor do I expect you to. Put simply: I don't fight until I'm attacked, or one of my own kin are attacked. Until then, I intend to learn as much as I can, because knowledge is power.

And please remind me what you're doing in an intellectually orientated subforum calling for open violence and street warfare.

goidelicwarrior
Wednesday, October 8th, 2003, 11:08 AM
you try that go out and try to reason with the enemies of your race better yet try reasoning with your own people,

I tried reasoning with reds, I found out that they understand a bop on the head much quicker and lasts a lot longer,

Thats why you dont get mein kampf. Adolf Hitler is the ultimate reality show ! Adolf was a very skilful orator and a man of intuitition... but I am not so sure his history or racial skills where that enormous.. or.. so its not the ultimate story....

Moody
Thursday, April 22nd, 2004, 06:40 PM
Jack; "Put simply: I don't fight until I'm attacked, or one of my own kin are attacked".

Moody; But there are DEGREES of attack, are there not?
The physical attack is the most blatant, and that itself has degrees.
But there is also the psychological attack, the cultural attack, and yes ... the racial attack.
Given that wider reading of the true nature of "attack", who can say today that the White Race is not under attack?

http://www.unitedtreasures.com/images/product/couples/20000.jpg

Mac Seafraidh
Sunday, October 31st, 2004, 04:49 PM
I do not associate with the lamest sounding crap like "WN" Sounds like a merchandiser trying to make cheap crap with. As I said before the Zionist tool is for us to say white, thus we are being whitewashed by it. Statistics in government abominate us with 20 pecent of whites this, 38 percent of whites that, NOOOOO I am EUROPEAN-AMERICAN!!!!!! (maybe a mutt,multi-nationalitied, but still.) I am European-American Nationalist.

infoterror
Wednesday, November 17th, 2004, 03:02 AM
Numerous people come across various items on this site and come away with the ignorant opinion, "OMG those guys are Nazis - they're bad." It's funny to watch, since their intolerance is both shocking and misguided. They see only what they want to, according to narrow categories artificially defined by their own lock-step dogma, and as a result are much like the conservatives and reactionary racists they claim to despise. Even if your dogma is 100% against something, if your methods and values are the same outside of that, you are what you despise.

While we support Nationalism and the Indo-European tribes, the members of this site have nothing to do with neo-Nazi, White Nationalist, or White Power groups. And this isn't because of social taboo: we agree with said groups on many things, most fundamentally that Indo-Europeans ("Caucasians","whites") have the right to establish nations where no other races are welcome as residents. This is nationalism, by its very definition (nation = a people), and in my belief it should be extended to every ethnic group, from Basque to Eskimo.

However, speaking both for myself and other members of this site, that's where the resemblance ends; "White Nationalists" and others who are basically hate groups in disguise piss me off because they're incorrect in their philosophical assumptions and method. It's well and good to stand up for your tribe, but don't expect me to embrace everything that looks white and lump it all together into one ethnic group. That's insane talk, and when it's coupled with hatred for other races, you can count me out.

First, I don't buy into the idea that I should accept someone as a comrade because he or she is "white." The majority of the "white" race needs nothing better than a bullet in the head; they're people of substandard intelligence, character and strength, and eliminating them would make each tribe stronger. When you go to a mall and see the fat, slow-moving, greedy, sloppy people who buy products for entertainment and work like slaves at moronic jobs, enforcing that same moronic standard on the rest of us, think of this statement.

That isn't to say that I "hate" those people; I simply want them removed, for the greater health of all of us. There is no ethnic group that doesn't benefit from eugenics, as for each weaker person that you eliminate a stronger one takes their place. It isn't a moral judgment on these people of "bad" or "good" but a simple recognition of their genetic value relative to other potential people. If, hypothetically, you had 100 places on a spaceship and could have no more, every retarded person or lazy person or child molestor or fat freak you let on would be excluding someone better from having their place.

It's in everyone's interest to simply put a bullet in them and move forward with healthier breeding. I don't trust any government or central bureaucratic agency to do this, so instead I favor smaller tribes who have the ability to exclude anyone they want, without some idiot bureaucrat coming in and crying foul over the person's race, color, gender, sexual orientation, weight, etc. Discrimination is a fact of life, and it should be encouraged. Not every person belongs in every place. In whatever town John F. Kerry finds ideal, for example, I wouldn't be allowed, nor would I want to live (same goes for many other politicians).

I don't hate them, but I don't want to tolerate them. In my local group, "white" or not, no one who is grotesquely fat, dependent on viagra, prone to idiotic actions, or unable to self amuse would be tolerated. If they didn't leave, they'd get a hollowpoint to the forehead. On our little spaceship, the 100 places would each go to people of high ability and character. This wouldn't be some absurd interpretation that only permitted people who looked like celebrity models to exist, but a pragmatic one: find the better people and breed them while quietly ushering the weaker ones to elsewhere. This gives the next generation of children a fighting chance by making them better and stronger than those who came before.

Most "white" people wouldn't make the cut, for me, and White Nationalist/White Power types would immediately call me a blasphemer for this. I would not tolerate insane Semitic religions like Christianity, either, nor would I tolerate people from outside of my tribe. Races are the major divisions: black, white, asian and various hybrids. The smaller divisions within each race are tribe, such as French, German, Russian, Welsh. Within each race there are castes, but that's a complex matter for a different essay.

White Nationalists tend to believe that if "we just offed all the Jews and muds," the world would be a perfect place. I don't. I believe the white tribes have been in decline even before Christianity arrived. Christianity made the situation vastly worse by destroying most records of pre-Christian times, slaughtering those who wouldn't convert and encouraging people toward blind obedience of central one-size-fits-all issues (these are similar to the moral commands from the Jewish god of Christianity). If you kill all the non-whites, the white tribes will still be in the same deep doo-doo; that others appear in our midst is a sign of the degeneracy, not its cause.

White Power freaks also tend to embrace Christianity alongside a virulent anti-Semitism, which is insane to me. I'm against Semitic religions in Indo-European countries, and Jews by their nature as hybrids originating in the middle east would not be welcome in our tribes. I support the idea of Israel, however, as in my view each ethnic population should have a state. This isn't to say that I don't find Jewish values, and Jewish culture, repugnant. They are passive aggressive parasites with a sick god complex as manifested in Tikkun Olam, their doctrine of "repairing the world," and to my mind that makes them fit for a mental institution, but outside of Indo-European society standards are different and it's not my business to police them.

Christianity is the single most destructive religion I can imagine, and despite its origins in Judaism and Buddhism, it is more destructive than either because of its blind supernaturalist and absolute dualism. It literally promises immortality to those who do its bidding. This fits my definition of an insane virus, and barring any reason to believe there's a god in a perfect world commanding this one in the first place, I would never even consider taking it into my head. This isn't to say that I'm against gods, because in the ancient sense of Hindu and Pagan gods, the gods were part of this world and were not as much supernatural as they were supermetaphorical.

White Power, and "White Nationalism," both resemble religion more than reality. They have little in common with National Socialism, which was Adolf Hitler's attempt to resist (a) rampant Communism which did things like turn Russia from a cultured civilization into a third-world country, (b) rampant Industrialism which overconsumed land as was pollution Europe, and (c) admixture of third-world blood into European society, destroying native European ethnic stock. I don't have any beef with Adolf Hitler, and I believe he has been slandered. Those who died in his concentration camps in Germany died of disease, although those who were outside the country were killed, often by the natives of various countries who understood the Jewish connections to Communism. His wars were fought with honor, and all of his killings had purpose, unlike those of the Soviets. However, his modern day disciples understand neither his principles nor sense.

Beating up immigrants, and "hating" entire races, is not only stupid but ineffective. If you want non-native groups out of your natively ethnic society, be strong about it and simply say: we must preserve our ethnic consistency in order to avoid being bred into hybridization, which destroys us. You don't have to pass moral judgment over these people, something especially dangerous since not every society shares the same values. Cite statistics to me all day about how black people commit more crime; this is "crime" as defined by Indo-European society, and the same rules don't apply in other cultures. Let them have their culture, and you can have yours.

Further, "white power" people want to accept all "whites" as being of the same tribe, which is error. The French are distinct from the Germans and Scotts for historical reasons, and the differences which define them as a tribe are important to preserve in each case. Any "white nationalist" who endorses mixing Indo-European tribes clearly doesn't understand nationalism, which is the independence and isolation of every ethnic group, not their mixing because of nearby ancestry. I view mixed "white" people as English, and you can find these populations in the majority in the UK, US, Canada and Australia. If these Alpinized Germanocelts wish to create their own ethnicity, they can, by eugenics, eventually define themselves ethnically as well as politically.

I could go on. White nationalists don't understand caste; they believe in societies without distinction. While I'm no fan of class, which uses the insane doctrine of social Darwinism to rank us by "ability" according to how much money we're willing to earn, "caste" makes sense to me. Some were born to be warriors, some to be priests, some to be leaders, and some to be cooks. Each job is vital and none is more important than the others. Mixing those together produces people with no specialization who are thus incompetent at any and every job they undertake.

It's clear to me that in nature, nothing is equal. No tribe is equal to another, no race is equal to another, no individual equal to another. Thus any doctrine of equality, even including Hitler's casteless society, is insane bureaucracy in my eyes. White nationalists are weenies who want all "white" people to be made equal because of their general ethnic heritage, and accepted for that reason, but to my mind that's destructive. It's better to enforce Eugenics of even a positive, non-violent kind in all of the "white" populations than it is to embrace everyone, thus breeding weaker people.

I'm no liberal either. I recognize that injustice, murder, war, ethnic hatred and genocide are not just permanent fixtures of our world, but are necessary methods for evolving better human beings. Trying to get rid of these things in order to create a Utopia is an insane practice that will lead us further into illusion and make the name of that Utopia the banner under which we kill, much as occurred during the Crusades. Incoherent minds would have you believe that if we cease certain behaviors, the world will be perfect and everyone will be equal, but to anyone who has spent time in a forest, "perfection" is a misplaced goal as it is the unbalances and inequalities of life that drive the natural system toward greater heights of evolution and efficiency. There is no end, and it is flexible in any situation, thus more perfect than any Utopian order.

I don't trust the "science ueber alles" types either. Sometimes these blockheads deny that race exists by using artificially narrowed definitions of race, which they argue against sagaciously as if others were actually using said definitions. Often they remark, wittily, that soon we'll understand genetics and will be able to create perfect beings. My response to this is that we'll soon be able to create beings that look perfect from their collection of outward traits, but that genetics is literally a history of the decisions made by each bloodline, and science will never be able to fake this. Nature literally is far more complex than we're going to be, and if we fake it, we once again chase illusion to our doom.

Even more disturbing are the "White Supremacists," whose vision of "whites" at the top of a mythical food chain is a sleight of hand redefinition of stewardship. I don't want any group with which I'm associated to be worldwide bureaucratic administrators; I want us to have our own society, and our own culture and customs, independent of Christianity, centralization, bureaucracy, morality and other fabrications of a modern kind. While I recognize that there's an evolutionary chain, by which some groups adapted to more complex survival parameters than others and thus developed more general intelligence, strength and character, it isn't my concern to pass this on to the rest of the world or to, like Jesus Christ, hold it up as an example for others.

Sounding a bit like a cheesy liberal here, I like diversity. I like that you can go to another country and have it be completely friggin' different in every way possible, even down to genetics. Go to Bosnia and there's a certain look, behavior and feel to the people; go to Nigeria, and it's another. That's true diversity. No culture survives interbreeding, because the genetic histories of the newcomers and the natives are merged, resulting in a chaos which settles on the lowest common denominator. This is why mixed societies inevitably turn into trading centers and mercantile republics.

It's worth adding here that I'm proud to have friends with other races and, while I will never breed with them or assimilate or be assimilated by their culture, I don't "hate" them or their races. The mixing of races I might "hate," were I prone to emotional outbursts, but I don't hate them. That they are here, and that our society is collapsing, are symptoms of the same cause: modernity, and its bureaucratic attitudes. They have as much to lose as we do. Thus I refuse to indulge in mindless bigotry against them when I care about them, and view them as allies for the eventual quest of Nationalism to overtake the world.

I don't like democracy. I don't believe everyone has equal aptitude for the kind of decisions required to run a nation or even a town, and thus I believe most voices should be silenced on those issues. Every person has some area where their judgment alone is supreme, and only reality judges whether they succeed or fail (for some, such as bomb defusers, the judgment is swift and absolute). I don't believe all "whites" should somhow be lauded just for having a certain amount of heritage; that's democracy. If we breed the best of each white tribe and throw out the rest, we increase the aptitude of those who remain.

People act like politics is rocket science, and that it's a raison d'etre for their individual lives as "activists" or "compassionate, forward-thinking people," but really that's a hoax. Politics has never changed. The crowd always wants power, and with that power, they'll destroy any who rise above the lowest common denominator. Each people (nation) needs its own place, because without it, their unique culture and contribution to learning is lost. I would grant each its own space, and send the mixed race people to the Middle East, as traditionally has occurred. There, they will produce their own society, one that will undoubtedly resemble Judaism, itself a product of cultural and racial and caste-mixing.

Clearly I'm a fascist. I've spent enough time on this world to realize that most people will, without meaning ill, do what is selfish unless coerced otherwise. Whether by money, or the barrel of a gun, their will shall be denied in certain areas; and what of it? The reality is that life isn't found in having the ability to live anywhere you want, or in having the biggest pickup truck on the block, or in being able to watch gay porn and smoke crack cocaine all night. It's in finding your own character and developing it to the fullest, so that you are a hero in your own life, no matter what that may be.

This concept applies to all people and all races, and while I agree with White Nationalists that the Indo-European race is under assault and will soon be bred out of existence by hordes of invading immigrants, I see this problem as a symptom of general degeneracy in modern society. We've come to trust our technology and believe that newer is better, and to follow centralized commands instead of our internal voices, and we're products of bureaucratic, cosmopolitan living who are steadily lapsing in the ability to have independent thought. On this front, Malcolm X and Adolf Hitler, Rabbi Meir Kahane and Cesar Chavez, Moses and Chuck D are all in agreement.

So if you're looking for a witch hunt, which is what the crusade against "racism" is, take your little hateful plans and bail out. I recognize you for the broken, low-self-esteem cowards that you are, and I don't see you as any "better" than the neo-Nazis you despise. If you've ever joined an Antifa group, you did it because you want to consider yourself better than other people because you believe in something that raises your self-esteem by making you feel like you're gifting the world with tolerance. Forget it. You're crazy and I'd have you shot.

"Racism" only exists in mixed societies. It exists where groups side by side must compete, and therefore learn to detest one another. Unfortunately for White Nationalists, most of them have discovered "racism" and not true nationalism, and therefore are total failures, since they descend into hatred, name-calling, cowardice and bigotry without any hope of achieving their aims. I and most other sane people want nothing to do with you losers because unlike you, we're not caught up in our low self-esteem like some broken antifa liberal, but we believe in a positive future for a humanity that overcomes modernity.

November 16, 2004
http://www.anus.com/zine/articles/nazi