PDA

View Full Version : My Dear German Women and Girls!



Glenlivet
Wednesday, November 5th, 2003, 05:33 PM
National Socialist Racial Policy:

A Speech to German Women


My Dear German Women and Girls!

When Germans come together today to discuss the things that concern us both as individuals and as a nation, it is a solemn occasion, whether we wish it to be or not. During the political struggles of the past, we could speak of party programs or of civilization without any involvement of our soul.

Now we have forgotten how to approach an issue merely with our understanding, merely with our mouth, merely with our heart. We have become whole people once again. When we speak with others, we do so with our full being.

That is what made the movement strong, and great, and powerful from its first days. It is also that which the enemy on this side of the border and the other cannot understand, and which it hates with deadly strength. As this great and beautiful people's movement began, so too began a hard and bitter struggle between enemy and German forces, between an old world that is really long dead and buried, and the new world that is struggling to reach the light through us. This struggle has been going on in people's hearts and souls for years, and is nowhere near its end. The world finds it difficult to understand that which is at the center of our endeavors:

the value of blood and race.

Our enemies first laughed in pity, then in hatred as we spoke of it.

Let us speak of what we National Socialists mean by that so that it will become clear why the German woman may be even more concerned about these matters than the man, his state, and his fighting organization can be.

There was a time in the past when we were untrue, untrue in the deepest sense. We were untrue not to other people, or parties, or states, or kings, but untrue to something far greater, untrue to the laws of life. As long as the world exists, as long as life grows, flourishes and perishes, so long will this life have the urge to live on into the future and win new territory. Whether plant or animal or man—as we, or I, or you:

wherever there is life, it has the longing to bring forth new life.

It should be unnecessary to speak of such things. We speak of them only because for a few decades a crazy era ignored, blasphemed and mocked these greatest, most beautiful and purest dreams of life. This was an age that made the idol of money supreme and said: "The world should be governed not be what serves life, rather by what some fool of an accountant decides is best." We know the results. The great laws of life were evaluated according to money sacks and checkbooks. When we think back on our parents, grandparents and great grandparents, there were many children in the house. It may have been crowded and hard financially, but we were happy, perhaps because there were so many of us in so large a family. But the time came when people said: "As man or woman, as parents or teachers of leaders, you have the duty to show the people the way to a better future." That better future, people thought, could only be a richer future, a future in which the individual had more money. And when they were asked where this money would come from, a false teaching arose in the last century: "The fewer people there are, the more an individual child can inherit from his parents." He who loves his children and wishes a prosperous future for his nation should therefore see to it that Germany's population is small, and that only a few children continue the family after he is gone. That was the terrible teaching of birth control, which Marxism preached and the bourgeois followed. No one dared stand against it. That was the doctrine that made us what we are today:

a dying people,

in which fewer children are born each year, in which today more people die each year than are born. This all was supposed to lead to a happy future. It understood happiness only in terms of possessions. It was therefore inherently false. But even in its own terms it was false, for it forgot something:

When a people begins to die, when a people no longer obeys the laws of life, when a people values money more than its existence and posterity, this people is on the path to disaster, both historically and politically. Within a few decades it will be dead, oppressed by other peoples who are stronger, closer to life, and who follow life's laws better than we.

If present trends continue, by the end of the century Germany will be a nation with only 40-50 million inhabitants,

and we know that on our borders other peoples are growing quickly and strongly. Sooner or later, these other peoples will come in conflict with a shrinking and dying German people, and the result of the supposed doctrine of happiness will be a hard and bitter

national death for our children.

Those who believed that they can give their children a happy and peaceful future by reducing the number of children err deeply. They give the children only the promise of a hard and bitter struggle for Germany's existence as a state and as an idea.

Today when we work to show people that the ideas of yesterday are false, that the state and nation cannot do without the family, that the family cannot exist without children, and when we not only provide economic support to make it easier to begin families and have children, but also tell people again and again of the sanctity of life and the necessity of continuing our people into the future, our enemies on both sides of the border suddenly have insults and hateful things to say about us. They wish to disturb our work. Suddenly there are voices saying: "National Socialism's doctrines are inhumane and barbaric. National Socialism's views on children turn people into breeding animals. When it says

that it is the duty of men and women to continue the eternal chain of life, a chain that begins in the distant past and continues into the future, a chain of which we are only a link leading into the distant future,

our enemies on both sides of the border claim: "You reject the dignity and value of humanity. National Socialism holds that men and women have no value other than that of breeding cattle." It is a shame that we have to respond to such words, but it is necessary because our enemies have always tried to persuade women to oppose us, even though what we say is rooted in the souls of the men and women we speak to. This is our response: "You are mistaken in accusing us of thinking that the only purpose of humanity is to continue the species by passing on our blood to future generations. We know the other values. We support them and find wherever we can those values that the individual shows in his work and selfless service. We know well enough that

each person lives a double life. The first is the one he lives between birth and death. We are to do as much as we can to make this life rich, to accomplish that which is good and beautiful, to use our strengths and gifts for others. That is the duty of the individual. But as a person you are something more:

You are a member of the chain of life, a drop in the great bloodstream of your people.

There too you have duties and obligations before the eternity of the nation. You have the duty to pass on what you received from your parents and ancestors. I do not believe that such behavior, which obeys both the laws of reason and of life, is barbaric, hateful or inhumane. I believe instead that the barbarism is to be found in the years we have left behind us, when any dirty lout could besmirch the most valuable, holy life of a man or women in their families, or drag children through the filth, without anyone defending their culture against such an attack.

I believe that when we tell people once more of the great value of blood, and remind them that they have duties not only for the 60-year span in which they work and serve, but also to the millennia of the past from which we come and to the millennia of the future to which we are heading, then we are giving them higher values than those of yesterday. Let me say also, however, that it is wrong if someone thinks that only those who found families and bear children are valuable to our state. We know that is not so. We know there are reasons why some people leave their people's flow of blood. We know that some are denied what the nation places great value on. We do not ignore them or think ourselves their betters. We only say this: "My friend, you and I must do our duty to our people, and when we cannot fulfill it in one way, then we must do what we can with even greater energy and devotion.

When you do your duty, you are one of us,

we extend our hand to you, we honor your humanity and your service for Germany. Let us work together so that in the future, as many people as possible will be able to serve the nation in both ways.

That is a piece of the thinking of blood and race that National Socialism has taught us. And there is another aspect. When we see people today, we can recognize that we are not all alike. There are differences in value;

each person does not have the same value as everyone else.

In the past, people believed that these differences were superficial, the result of the environment in which one grew up. People believed that what became of a person depended primarily on the house he grew up in or in his social environment, or the class he came from. They believed that a person born in a slum, surrounded by shadows, troubles and poverty, a child lacking in love and affection, could only become a second-class human being, a physically and psychologically ill member of the society, someone failed by the society and the state. One thought that a child growing up in such slum inevitably became sick, or even criminal. It was because he grew up in such a poor environment. The Marxists claimed that if every child in Germany grew up in an environment that gave him all he needed, he would inevitably become a useful, decent, upright, proud and honest adult. After a few years or decades, the entire German people would consist of such decent and useful people. In the past people believed the environment was responsible even when a person failed miserably.

We recall the days of delirium, when millions of unemployed had been thrown on the street by a sick political and economic system, made superfluous. A single person pried the tracks apart and derailed a train in the middle of the night. Within a minute he murdered 30 innocent people who had never done anything to him, and stole their money. And what did the world of yesterday say? "He can't help himself. He is a victim of circumstances. He has Beethoven's hands and an artistic temperament. We need not put him on the gallows or in prison to protect us and our children. No, this poor Schlesinger is only sick because of his environment. Put him in a modern sanitarium, give him what he needs: radio, a library, a smoking salon, a language teacher, a pastor, a newspaper room, give him everything he needs to put him in touch with better things. In a few years, this mass murderer of 30 people will leave as an ideal human being, so pure and innocent that one can put him in charge of a kindergarten." That's what people thought in the past.

Today that seems a bad joke to us, a crazy fantasy, but a few years ago it was government policy in Germany. Those who did well under such policies and have joined to fight us think that they can accuse our doctrines of blood and race as barbaric.

Why do we see things differently? Because we have learned something:

In the end, you are not as important and significant as you thought yesterday;

your strength and abilities are not as great as you believed during the liberal era. Oh yes, it was a lovely dream to say: "I will do with my life what I want, and if I happen to be a teacher, I will teach what I want, and do what I enjoy, and what I think right." Well, that was your idea of the environment.

We are a bit more modest, a bit more humble before the laws of fate.

We have learned that what I can do for myself or what you can do for yourself, or what we can all do to each other, is not as important, or as deep, as that which a greater power has already done to us. It is that power that even before our birth gave us a part of our nature, and laid out our path for us in the world. Here are joined two things: the knowledge of modern science and the sensitivity and understanding of a humble person. Suddenly we see that:

What you are, what I am and what I can be in my life is in part predetermined by that which I have inherited.

If my inheritance is good and strong, and if I am true to it and develop what is within me, my life will be successful, and perhaps of benefit and joy to others. If such an inheritance is denied me, or if for some inexplicable reason fate has given me other, perhaps weak, perhaps even bad traits, I can struggle against them for my entire life, and will still not be able to rid myself of that which slumbers in me because of the actions of a higher power.

We see then that a good part of a people's history is determined by what it has inherited. If we ask what sorts of physical or intellectual traits these may be, or what groups there are, we will see that each people has three groups. The first is a large group of people with average gifts, the most of us who are able to deal with the normal problems life presents us with. Next there is a very small group. This group has received a better inheritance than most of us, not because of any particular virtue on its part, but simply because of fate. The leaders of humanity, those who build states, lead people, or touch the soul, come from this group. And there is a third small group with particular traits, also not their fault: those who are sick or genetically defective. They are not up to the challenges of life, and need outside help to survive.

As humanity of a nation go through the centuries, the decisive fact is which of these three groups is the strongest. One might say: "That is not a question at all. The strongest will win, the group from which the leaders come. This superior group has to be the strongest in the end, it must gradually have its way." Well, that is how things would be without people, if people with their little brains did not believe that they could change the laws of life given to the world by heaven.

Man has interfered in these matters. He has tried to change the laws of struggle and existence and selection. Those were ancient laws of life, to which men too were subject:

That which cannot meet the challenges dies.

That is hard, perhaps, but it is also the way that nature makes life stronger and better. Man has tried more and more to abolish these laws. He has kept life going by using artificial means in cases where, left to itself, it would have ended. He used all his understanding, love and sympathy to keep a person alive, even when it is no joy, but only a burden and misery. We now keep thousands, even tens of thousands of unhappy creatures alive through artificial means, those to whom life itself has denied the right to life. But keeping them alive was not itself the problem. What is worse is that they were given the opportunity to pass on their unfortunate physical and mental characteristics. That was the worst that happened: we took the physically weak, the mentally ill, the genetically defective criminals and not only kept them alive and cared for them—that is our duty as human beings, which we certainly do not want to ignore in the future either—and gave them the ability to have children with the same deficiencies, thus doubling or multiplying their misery. The German people do not know the extent of this misery, it does not know the depressing spirit of the homes where thousands of cripples live their lives only by being fed and cared for, poor creatures who are worse than any animal. The animal at least is as it should be. These poor creatures are distortions of life, no joy either to themselves or others. They are a burden throughout their miserable existences, but thanks to the selfless care and devotion of those who care for them may live 60, 70 or 80 years. The German people do not realize the enormous sums that have been spent for decades, money that is taken from those who are healthy, who could do something useful, but cannot because the money is lacking.

There was a winter in which children in Bavaria did not even have wooden shoes to wear as they walked through the snow on their way to school. They had to walk for hours bare-footed. At the same time, the government made sure that those unfortunate souls in a large institution had fresh bananas twice a week so that they got the necessary vitamins. But these vitamins could not give them joy or strength or health. But they were thus denied to those somewhere in the Bavarian forest, or in the Ruhr, or in a poor fishing village on the Frisian coast, where they could have reduced the poverty and need in some worker's house. At the same time there was a case where

a single mentally ill Negro of English citizenship lived for 16 years in an institution in Berlin, costing 26,000 Marks.

26,000 Marks were thrown away on a life that had no meaning. 26,000 Marks that could have been used to prepare a dozen strong, healthy and gifted children for life and a job.

But I am not speaking of this as a kind of theft. Money is not an end in itself. Rather, we have here committed a theft of spirit and soul, because we tried to persuade the nation and humanity that our own greatness could come from sacrificing for the worst and most helpless. In the end, we went so far as

to put the sick and the dying before the young, strong, healthy and promising.

That is against nature and life. A nation going this way is heading for the abyss. We went so far as to preach year after year to healthy families that they should have no children, or at most one, else they sinned against the nation and the spirit of this enlightened age. But if some imbecile of a whore and a genetically ill criminal had children, they were not only a financial burden for their entire lives, but also took the labor of people who our society gave nothing better to do than to change these poor creatures three times a day and feed them. That is a perversion of everything great and healthy, and is a sin against life and the spirit of creation.

With full knowledge of our duties as human beings and the requirements of pity, we made the decision not to allow such miserable creatures to pass on their misery to the next generation, multiplied perhaps two or three or more times. That is a major accomplishment, for which our children and their children will one day thank us.

I know that there are those who will say: "You are meddling in matters that are not your concern. You are interfering in an area outside human control. Life and death are not in the hands of man, but in those of a higher power. If God wants sick and genetically ill people to be born, you may not interfere through laws, operations, or any other measures with God's will. And if you do so—and you have with your Law to Prevent Inherited Illness—then you are acting against the will of God, and you are heretics."

This is our answer: "My friend, you are wrong. It is true that we are subject to a higher power. We humans may never interfere with the great laws of the Creator. But you are wrong. See the laws the Creator has established for his world and your life. The great law is that life must be able to preserve itself, and that if it cannot, it will collapse. It is the hard, brutal law of the struggle for existence and of selection and extinction. It was the law we saw day by day, hour by hour, under all the clouds of heaven and all the stars of the sky, in which life seemed to find a senseless death, whether plant or animal or person, whether in distant Africa or near us.

That which cannot meet the challenges of life dies, no matter how much pain it causes,

and even if your small understanding or mind cannot comprehend it, these are the great laws of life and the world that God himself gave us. These are the laws, my German friend, that in our crazy fantasies we broke in the past."

With overweening human pride and false pity, we broke the great law and kept those alive who under the laws of God would long since have perished.

Today we are once more following these old laws, using humane methods, for they follow a more hard and brutal course in nature according to God's will. We are doing nothing more than reestablishing the laws of creation, and bowing to the heavenly order. We are thus showing piety and true humility—you are the heretics.

This applies as well to the third and last principle of our racial thinking. This third and last principle is that the people on this world, in America, Africa or China, are different both in body and soul. They are not equal, as yesterday's lie had it.

People are different.

They not only speak different languages and look different: no, they are different in the depths of their hearts and natures, and in their abilities for good and evil. In the past people believed that these differences were accidental, the result of climate or civilization, and that one could overcome these differences and create a unified man in a unified state in which all would be equally happy. We have learned that such ideas are false. We have learned that the differences between the major blood groups of the world, between the major races, are not the result of human action, but of the laws of Creation. We have learned that the lines between blood and blood, race and race, are also the lines between soul and soul and spirit and spirit. We have learned that the opposite of the old phrase "What God has brought together, let no man put asunder" is also true. We have learned:

What God has separated, man should not bring together.

Heaven thought it good not to have only one type of people on the earth, but different kinds, various racially-bound peoples. That is a part of Creation. We bow before this truth and respect the borders. That means that the foundation of our separation of the races is not a matter of politics or economics, rather it rests on a higher level, to which we in the end are responsible.

In our Reich, we are separating that which belongs to us, because it is blood of our blood, from that which does not belong to us, because it is foreign. We are doing that which is right not only for the moment, but for eternity.

Believe me, my dear German fellow citizens, it is not true, as some say, that this doctrine is a sign of arrogance or superiority or boasting. We do not think ourselves better than the other races on the earth. No, we do not think ourselves better, nor do we believe that others are worse than we are. We insist only on one thing—a law established by the Creator himself:

Man differs from man and race from race in this world.

The others may not be better or worse, but they are different than we are, and because they are different than we are, there is a kind of wall between us that is part of the laws of life. That is the core of National Socialism's racial thinking. Our goal is not to insult others, to say: "What a great guy I am!" Rather, we hold to the humble recognition that each healthy piece of life has its corner of the world, and its special tasks. This is just as true of humans as it is of plants and animals in all their multiplicity. We know that one type is no more valuable than another. But we also know that each variety of life has a right to existence only as long as it keeps itself pure and strong. Only when a tree bears the proper fruit does it have a right to live. Otherwise it will be cut down and destroyed. We do not know why things are the way they are, and it would be foolish to ask the reason. That is how things are. Our task is to humbly accept the laws that govern our human existence, and to accept the fact that we are born Germans in Germany, not as Chinese or Eskimos. That is not because of our virtues, nor it is our fault, nor was it our will. It was fate that came from above. We have no choice but to accept this fate and to develop the abilities that fate has given us according to necessity and law.

Others may develop in their own way, in their own land. We must listen to the depths of our own people, to draw from blood and inheritance the strength we need to build our homeland. A higher power will take care of the life beyond.

I believe, my dear German fellow citizens, that everyone who is of our spirit will grant the correctness of our thinking about blood and race, and will say: "I see now that you are not only on the right path, but are honest and in the deepest sense true to demands that are greater than the laws of man."

Let us then together follow the path to a new worldview. Let us go the path of blood and race, which does not ignore faith and knowledge and a sense of higher powers. Let us go this path, not a path of matter, superstition and heresy, rather a path of deep humility and piety before the laws of God. Let us go along this path together and listen to the deepest depths where blood and soul rule. Let us draw from there the strength to build the state, and even more important the Reich. It will be a Reich not only of politics, a Reich of organization, or the economy, but a Reich of people. Germany today has the fortune to find a new way, led by a great Führer. German women today have the good fortune to see a strong and loyal woman at their head. Let us together go forward, hand in hand, as befits comrades building the future, and let us join the strength of men and women, rooted deep in their blood, to build what the world has never before seen:



The holy Reich of the German soul.

Source: Dr. Groß, "Nationalsozialistische Rassenpolitik. Eine Rede an die deutschen Frauen (Dessau, C. Dünnhaupt, 1934).



Heil!

Dr. Solar Wolff
Thursday, November 6th, 2003, 05:16 AM
Volksdeutsche, you know your people far better than I do. Do German women of today listen to this type of thing?

Glenlivet
Thursday, November 6th, 2003, 01:24 PM
I think that those who grew up in Germany know it better. I know more about the Swedish mentality. They are liberals or leftist, and the prettiest, blondest and most Nordid Swedish girls mix the most with swarthy Europids and Negrids.

I am simply sharing articles and some knowledge. I do not always agree with what has been said in those papers.



Volksdeutsche, you know your people far better than I do. Do German women of today listen to this type of thing?

Gesta Bellica
Thursday, November 6th, 2003, 03:01 PM
That's true unfortunately.. quite a lot of scandinavian girls are attracted by non-european immigrants,
I have some friends up there and when i was visiting i have seen so many mixed couples, what a pity that they don't even have respect for themselves...

Nordhammer
Thursday, November 6th, 2003, 04:20 PM
Unfortunately racial purity and racial beauty don't always go along with racial instincts.

Sigrun Christianson
Thursday, November 6th, 2003, 04:52 PM
That is such a beautiful speech! I want lots of babies! :weep

Glenlivet
Thursday, November 6th, 2003, 07:44 PM
People usually pick any beauty without the person being similar-looking or not, especially at a young age. I am not sure if there is a greater chance for a good, healthy relationship if the couple are similar. It is subjective, how can you decide who is better or not? Is it better just because a racialist says so? You must have some relevant arguments why "racial mixing" is wrong. It must have other implications just than that your child will be "mixed". Are they social? Is it not because of discrimination? Are behavious inherited? Is intelligence and the crime rates in a society important factors that we must consider?

Regarding Swedish girls, the issue is that Swedish men, like most men in Nordic countries do not take action first. Women can pick you up in Sweden. So the Mediterranean (do not take this as an insult now) are more aggresive when it comes to picking up girls. Negroids are in that way similar to the Mediterranean (does not even need to be racial) people. It is a way of lifestyle, probably acquired by the environment. I am not sure though, as the psychology of the races is even more pseudoscientific than the study of racial types.

Having said that, I still enjoy reading about that part of anthropology. I would think that it is a bit sad if a physical type does not go hand in hand with a psychological one. Nevertheless, we have to accept it if that is the reality.

Prodigal Son
Thursday, November 6th, 2003, 08:15 PM
Volksdeutsche, you know your people far better than I do.

I think Phlegethon and Thorburnulf are better sources if you want to gain a comprehension of modern-day German mentality...


I removed the first part of your message. Please do not classify or describe the ethnic heritage of members without their explicit wish, in particular if you have limited knowledge about their ancestry.

- Thorburn

Gesta Bellica
Friday, November 7th, 2003, 08:16 AM
I don't take it as an insult if yous ay that we mediterraneans are more willing to make the first move..
It's surely somethign that comes out from our lifestyle, we are also quite the same when it comes to make new friends in a foreign country or to talk with unknown people in a train so it's not quite related with sexual instinct.
Why we shoulds stick with somebody fo "your own kind"? Well the answer to this question is obviously personal.. as you staded a lot of people don't feel this need at any level.
I think that the main issue is cultural.. i am talking about the transimission to my children of my values and traditions as italian.
I am not worried if a nordic person marry an italian.. the background is not so distant after all and the little genetical changement will surely realign in the future,
and anyway this phenomenon has never been too big to become a menace of a nationality's integrity.
For example it doesn't seem to me that the majority of italo-americans are so darkhaired or strongly mediterranean, after all. Some of them might be taken as englishmen or germans
I'm more worried about muslims, blacks and asiatics mixing as thy are so many and surely sexual relationships are a really good way for them to integrate and try to influce and change our society...

Vojvoda
Tuesday, May 18th, 2004, 10:38 PM
So the Mediterranean (do not take this as an insult now) are more aggresive when it comes to picking up girls.I'm sure it depends more on the person's personality than where he is from.Sure,culture can play a role but every man is capable of being aggressive when picking up girls :D

dux ducis
Tuesday, June 1st, 2004, 03:59 PM
Excellent essay, with an elegant fusion of scholarly and spiritual approaches to explain his ideas. The author clearly lays out the most common arguemnt used by opposers of racial perseverance in a scholastic manner; by citing those who oppose his viewpoints...


You reject the dignity and value of humanity. National Socialism holds that men and women have no value other than that of breeding cattle.

...and then gives his rebuttle. He proceedes to explain the wrongfulness and ignorance of the "Nazis view people as cattle" argument in a fashion that is likely alien and undoubtedly impossible to comprehend by the majority of the world's population (espically those races with genetically inherited lower intelliegence [negroid] (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=G2E3xRl57O&isbn=0684824299&itm=1) and malformed morality [mongoloid] (http://www.kimsoft.com/kr-japan.htm) ).


Also brought up is the idea of genetically inherited mental predispositions, which he ascribes to "fate" and which has been given to us by a "higher power" (presumably the Christian God, due to his reference of heaven)...


...This applies as well to the third and last principle of our racial thinking. This third and last principle is that the people on this world, in America, Africa or China, are different both in body and soul. They are not equal, as yesterday's lie had it.

People are different.

They not only speak different languages and look different: no, they are different in the depths of their hearts and natures, and in their abilities for good and evil.

Today, in more modern science, we have genetics to explain the differences between people; the differences of hair color, skin tone, eye color and so forth. But what about the differences of psychology and brain chemistry that constitute what values and morals each individual has? Genetics, too, form your brain, what persionality traits you inherit, what psychological attributes you are born with. There are clear and obvious differences between the psychology in the different major races. As the author says, just as their physical appearence and languages are different, so to are their minds, their values, their morals, their personal beliefes and so on.

Just as different is the mind and values of a Nigeran or Somalian from the mind of a German or an Englishman as are the differences in the color of their skin and shapes of their skulls. Yet liberal mad scientists would have you to believe, as the author in this essay denounces, that it is simply a result of environment. That is BLASPHEMY!

Of the many articles I've read on the topic, espically topics protesting that "race does not exist," these liberal mad scientits use to their defence the fact that the human genome has shown that, on a genetic basis, all humans are 99.8% similar (http://www.sanger.ac.uk/HGP/publication2001/facts.shtml).

To that I say: tell the dog breeder that the genome (the entire genetic makeup) of a wild, ravenous and attack-prone wolf is 99.8% equal that of a obedient, calm, protecting and mild mannared Blood Hound. Tell the dog breeder that the genome of a Pit Bull is 98.9% similar to that of a Golden Retriever. Should he now abandon the idea of breeds, or of race, and completely ignore the obvious differences between them? Millions of years of domestication by man, through selective breeding, has lead to the differences in dog breeds we see today. Should the entire world, because of a few modern liberal fanatics, dismiss these basic and ever-present principals of life, and how they apply to humans? To sum up the analogy I'm trying to convey: the differences between a Caucasian and a Negroid are as vast and stark as those between the wild wolf of the forset and the domesticated Golden Retriever.

dux ducis
Tuesday, June 1st, 2004, 04:22 PM
I am not sure if there is a greater chance for a good, healthy relationship if the couple are similar. It is subjective, how can you decide who is better or not? Is it better just because a racialist says so? You must have some relevant arguments why "racial mixing" is wrong. It must have other implications just than that your child will be "mixed". Are they social? Is it not because of discrimination? Are behavious inherited? Is intelligence and the crime rates in a society important factors that we must consider?

I, as well as some if not most people here, and the author of this essay, support the idea that there are undeniable differnces between the psychology of the men and women from the different major races, and that these differences are surely inherited, not a producty simply of environment. Anecdotally and through one's personal experiences, the differences are obvious (for example being mugged by African-Americans repeatedly, and never by whites in the same poor economic state, something I can attest to). Statistically and mathematically, the differnces are laid before your eyes, in black and white (although there is a discriminatory factor espically in places like America, which makes raw facts somewhat biased). Either way, the differences are clearly there. Even with 150 years of assimilation, Africans, even thouse who are only 1/8th or 1/16th African, display ENORMOUS differences both physically and mentally.

I think it is important to lead the mass of people to believe that "mixing" is bad. The idea may be fuled by complete ignorance, and it may be purely blind hatred, but if it convinces them to maintain racial integrity, it's only for the better. Think of it as the intelligent, educated ruling class imposing their will upon the less fortunate in the lower strats of society, who are simply too stupid to think for themselves. This sort of ignorant social conditioning, like what we see in the Southern states of the U.S., I see as simply a necessary evil. Certainly a lot better than the modern day ignorant social conditioning, which would have us think that everyone are equal, being homosexual is natrual, and so on. I say, even though it may be ignroant hate for the most part, it's better off overall.

Agrippa
Tuesday, June 1st, 2004, 10:46 PM
I do agree with most parts and if its about the problems you spoke about, I think that culture plays a big role

All men have inherited personal traits but on the other hand, culture can form them further, can make certain parts even stronger or weaker.

Emancipation and false ideas of how males should be raised up are a serious problem. A problem which is not too old, but old enough.

Getting even worse from the 60's on.

In parts I had the same ideas and argumentation as Dr. Groß if its about my worldview. Maybe folk and race are not exactly that dominant (but still very, very important), but how he sees the biological rules, and what is our goal in life he is absolutely right.
He is also right in his idea that our kinship, our people, and our race play a major part in this system. The biological rules of life are our rule, our first rules.

Skando-naivian-Girl
Friday, June 4th, 2004, 01:02 AM
Well said Agrippa!


That's true unfortunately.. quite a lot of scandinavian girls are attracted by non-european immigrants,
I have some friends up there and when i was visiting i have seen so many mixed couples, what a pity that they don't even have respect for themselves...
Media has a lot to do with it. especially the glamourazation of "non-europeans" the rap hiphop culture in particular and a lot of girls who aren't all that bright or have little respect for themselves and no pride in their race buy into it. I for one know better.

I'd say negroes are the most dangerous to the existence of the Nordic Race. That is to say negroe traits are the opposite of nordic traits and strongly suppress Nordic ones via their "dominance" and can't be watered down. Even if a person is just 1/8 negrid it is easy to tell. While a person who say is 1/8 med or even 1/8 mongoloid blood and 7/8 nordic is hard to distinguish if distinguishable at all.


Even with 150 years of assimilation, Africans, even thouse who are only 1/8th or 1/16th African, display ENORMOUS differences both physically and mentally.

That's because they haven't assimilated at all. the reason is they really stand out and their blood is like i said almost impossible to water down, due to the vast genetic distance between them and the other races of mankind. Yes tests and countless other studies have shown on Sub-Saharan Africans are significantly below the average intelligence of whites. The few that are in my class only prove justify my opinion. I'd describe them as feeble minded, suprisingly unoberservant and lacking in all civility. but that's what one expects and is suprised if to find otherwise:D



Regarding Swedish girls, the issue is that Swedish men, like most men in Nordic countries do not take action first. Women can pick you up in Sweden.
Well when you compare how good looking Swedish men are to Negroes than it becomes obvious.

Nordhammer
Friday, June 4th, 2004, 03:17 AM
I am not sure if there is a greater chance for a good, healthy relationship if the couple are similar. It is subjective, how can you decide who is better or not? Is it better just because a racialist says so? You must have some relevant arguments why "racial mixing" is wrong. It must have other implications just than that your child will be "mixed".

Quite liberal of you, Volks. You think preserving race itself isn't valuable? As long as two people are nice to each other and good citizens it's okay?

Glenlivet
Friday, June 4th, 2004, 02:53 PM
I was arguing from a sociological perspective. I do want to preserve those whom I consider my kins.

I do read about mental differences between races but I can only say that it is impossible for me to decide whether the differences are environmental that have been passed on by upbringing or if they are inherited, thus of a more deep-rooted and fundamental, biological origin. Such things as culture and mentality must be at least partially environmental. When it comes to temperament I do not deny that there differences between even sub races of Europids. I have met few non-Europids, and I have certainly encountered less Negrids than you have. I think that Negrids in USA might had other cultural and sociological characteristics if they were in another environment. However, that is also true for Europids, and from what I have read, heard and experienced (albeit too little!) of USA, Englishmen in England and Americans of English descent have about the same psyche. The few differences are probably explained by divergent cultural evolution. It is again impossible for me to say whether that is due to behaviours that are passed on genetically or because of acquired behaviour.

I frankly oppose miscegenation, which is, if I have understood it right, a term for people of different human races, usually between Europid and Negrid.

The older people in my family see Negrids as completely alien and as an unwanted element. We do not see many here. When I was recently in London with my mother and a Negroid man stood in the background she did not even want her photo to be taken in the airport. I was quite surprised. She thought the photo would look ugly. I have noticed that some Europid women are scared of Negrids. There are of course those who jump in bed with them too. They are more often than not from the younger generations. We who are of the younger generation are more altruistic because of schooling and media. We live in a secluded part of the world and do not see many of the problems in the inner cities of USA.

A more serious issue, a sort of tradegy if you like, happened quite recently with my uncle in USA. There's a woman (a Nordid with medium brown hair, dark blue eyes and an angelic face) that he wanted to marry for many years now. He knew that she has a child, who is almost 10 years old now. We always saw that the child is much darker than the mother and her family had explained it by saying that the father is Arab. I had seen a picture and I told my uncle that it is impossible, as he was just too dark with thick black curly hair and flared nostrils. I thought it was too much of an exception and my uncle told me that the boy does not look anything like the mother. He used to discuss this a lot. Then when the woman's father passed away we found out. My uncle saw him at the mourning ceremony. Also one of the woman's sisters told my uncle "why don't you go for it, talk to her", and so forth. The sister also told him that the Negrid man treated her badly! I myself would become a bit cold after such an episode. The man is a Negrid with a face similar to an American hip hop artist, like Tupac Shakur. Now my uncle is upset over this, not only because she did that, but also that the family lied to him. They must have been ashamed of it. Everyone think it is odd and the ladies in our family say "why did the poor girl need do that!". No one understand. Now my uncle told me that Negroid must be reported 7 generations back. Is there any truth in that? Did you have such a thing in the past? Or was it just called the "one drop rule"?

So, in conclusion, I think that miscegenation can create social problems. Europids should preferably settle down with Europids and if possible, although it is sometimes impractical, with someone who have a reasonably similar morphology and colouration.




Quite liberal of you, Volks. You think preserving race itself isn't valuable? As long as two people are nice to each other and good citizens it's okay?

Nordgau
Friday, June 4th, 2004, 03:05 PM
I do read about mental differences between races [...]

Have you read the works of Clauß? :D

Glenlivet
Friday, June 4th, 2004, 03:23 PM
I have not. I assume that you have. I would appreciate it if you would share. I would like know about "Rasse und Seele", which is mostly about Europe. From USA there are mechanical-hypercritical works by Garth ("Race Psychology") and Klineberg ("Race Differences"). The German psychologists B Petterman have in "Das Problem Der Rassenseele" scrutinized Günther's, Clauss and Garth's works (Klineberg's works came later). There's also one in Italian by Landra. I have not been able to get it and it would not be so useful as I would not understand much of it.

I have read from Gaston Backman in MÄNNISKORASERNA OCH MODERNA RASPROBLEM (1935). I have also read a bit from R Nordenstreng, although he is too much of a Nordicist, not that is bad but that make him less objective. In the end it is about perspectives, how this or that group perceive the other.
Also a political, social, religious or economical revolution can rapidly change the "face" of a folk.

One should therefore be cautious about a rash conclusion that give the characteristics of cruelty, courage, talents in art etc. There are quantitative differences between two races, e.g. one being, generally speaking, more or less, cruel or courageous. Also as often the same folk react different in different environments, different races often react in varying ways in the same environment.



Have you read the works of Clauß? :D

Nordhammer
Saturday, June 5th, 2004, 02:32 AM
I was arguing from a sociological perspective. I do want to preserve those whom I consider my kins.

Who do you consider your racial kin? Please be more specific than just Caucasoid or Europid (which includes mixed race people, e.g., Indians and North Africans).



I do read about mental differences between races but I can only say that it is impossible for me to decide whether the differences are environmental that have been passed on by upbringing or if they are inherited, thus of a more deep-rooted and fundamental, biological origin. Such things as culture and mentality must be at least partially environmental. When it comes to temperament I do not deny that there differences between even sub races of Europids.

Behavior is partly heritable, this is without a doubt. Twin studies show this to be very true. Twins who are genetically identical, yet were raised apart their whole lives, until they meet up again when they are adults, show very similar behavior. Some twins even raised in other countries. They find out that their mannerisms are very similar, the foods they like are very similar the TV shows they like to watch are very similar, etc. This must be genetic.

Not just racial, but also specific to the family.



I have met few non-Europids, and I have certainly encountered less Negrids than you have. I think that Negrids in USA might had other cultural and sociological characteristics if they were in another environment. However, that is also true for Europids, and from what I have read, heard and experienced (albeit too little!) of USA, Englishmen in England and Americans of English descent have about the same psyche. The few differences are probably explained by divergent cultural evolution. It is again impossible for me to say whether that is due to behaviours that are passed on genetically or because of acquired behaviour.

You can take the African out of Africa, but you can't take Africa out of the African.

Of course environment, experiences and what people learn does affect them, but we are not born blank slates, as some theorize.


I frankly oppose miscegenation, which is, if I have understood it right, a term for people of different human races, usually between Europid and Negrid.

Europid and African or rather Northern European and Congoid is probably the most extreme coupling. Though when you start getting into really dark, foreign races, like Congoids, Australoids, Melanesians, etc, it's all nearly equally as nasty.

Miscegenation to me is any pairing of dissimilar phenotype and ancestry. There is some opinion about it of course, but a good gauge is if the offspring will represent to a good degree both parents. As a good standard I see miscegenation as European with any nonEuropean. I also see Northern Europeans as distinct from Southern Europeans, a lesser form of miscegenation. Again, will the children represent both parents? Ultimately it's best to stay within one's own ethnic group, then people look how they should look, they know who they are, there is no confusion and rootlessness. Often times with miscegenation the children will take the identity of the darker race. Like with Jeb Bush, governor of Florida, brother of George W. Bush. Jeb married a mongrel Mexican, who is probably a triracial mix with some minor Negroid. The children look nothing like Jeb at all, but have inherited the larger size of his European ancestry, and probably more intelligence as well. They do not see themselves as white of course, and they shouldn't, they are "Latino". So you see, Jeb has completely wasted his ancestry on these mongrel offspring. What does this egoistic sense of indiscriminately passing on one's genes accomplish here? Nothing, he betrayed his ancestry and has only made the Latino people stronger because of it.



The older people in my family see Negrids as completely alien and as an unwanted element. We do not see many here. When I was recently in London with my mother and a Negroid man stood in the background she did not even want her photo to be taken in the airport. I was quite surprised. She thought the photo would look ugly. I have noticed that some Europid women are scared of Negrids. There are of course those who jump in bed with them too. They are more often than not from the younger generations. We who are of the younger generation are more altruistic because of schooling and media. We live in a secluded part of the world and do not see many of the problems in the inner cities of USA.

Disliking blacks is easy. Even black people don't like black people. I don't regard this as true racialism, when it's such a natural aversion. It is not some great accomplishment. There are some men with an Asian wife and mixed kids that think they're great racialists just because they can hate black people. What a joke.

I don't blame your mother. I wouldn't want blacks or Asians or anyone I think is ugly or nonwhite in a picture I took. Did you feel ashamed that she felt this way? Would you have done the same as she did?




A more serious issue, a sort of tradegy if you like, happened quite recently with my uncle in USA. There's a woman (a Nordid with medium brown hair, dark blue eyes and an angelic face) that he wanted to marry for many years now. He knew that she has a child, who is almost 10 years old now. We always saw that the child is much darker than the mother and her family had explained it by saying that the father is Arab. I had seen a picture and I told my uncle that it is impossible, as he was just too dark with thick black curly hair and flared nostrils. I thought it was too much of an exception and my uncle told me that the boy does not look anything like the mother. He used to discuss this a lot. Then when the woman's father passed away we found out. My uncle saw him at the mourning ceremony. Also one of the woman's sisters told my uncle "why don't you go for it, talk to her", and so forth. The sister also told him that the Negrid man treated her badly! I myself would become a bit cold after such an episode. The man is a Negrid with a face similar to an American hip hop artist, like Tupac Shakur. Now my uncle is upset over this, not only because she did that, but also that the family lied to him. They must have been ashamed of it. Everyone think it is odd and the ladies in our family say "why did the poor girl need do that!". No one understand. Now my uncle told me that Negroid must be reported 7 generations back. Is there any truth in that? Did you have such a thing in the past? Or was it just called the "one drop rule"?

I had a similar experience. Of course I know a mulatto when I see one. ;)

I talked to a racialist girl I met at the NAAWP message board. We chatted on the net and then on the phone. She was a racialist, without a doubt, at least according to her words and behavior. I thought this is great. Seems like a nice girl, blonde, attractive, her beliefs are similar to mine, and she's interested in me... maybe something will come of this. Time went on, and she said she wanted to send me some pictures of her, her family and her child. I said sure. She then mentioned that the father was part Indian. So I think, well, maybe it's just a small part, let's see. I get the pictures, and to my surprise, this child is actually part Negroid! Without a doubt, clear as day. I try not to be mean about it, but at the same time, I was in such a shock over all of the contradictions involved. Not to mention she lied about it.

At the time she was living with a skinhead guy, and I asked her how he felt about it. She said he just grumbled about it and ignored it. That's not something one can just ignore! She goes on to tell me how having her mixed child was the greatest thing that ever happened to her. Another obvious contraction... she's racist, wants to preserve and fight for white people, talks about how she hates blacks and would never work with them... but she had a relationship with a black man and says the greatest thing in her life is giving birth to a mixed child! :lol Unbelievable... But according to AWAR such duplicitous behavior is "socially advanced." I rather call it socially degenerate.

Obviously the relationship wasn't going to work, on any level. Though she was the one who broke it off. I asked her how she could reconcile her beliefs when she has lived her life totally opposite of what she professes and has a mixed child. She became hysterical and said, "Don't ever talk about my child!" Last I heard from her.

To add to that already disgraceful contradiction... the vice president of NAAWP is Egyptian, married to a full-blooded Mongoloid woman. He says he's white, his wife is white, and his children are white. When I asked him how having children with an Asian woman is "advancing the white race", as is the name of their organization, he became hysterical and called me a racist and banned me. :D



So, in conclusion, I think that miscegenation can create social problems. Europids should preferably settle down with Europids and if possible, although it is sometimes impractical, with someone who have a reasonably similar morphology and colouration.

It creates a genetic problem, and that's why it's a social problem.

I'm suspicious of your beliefs though. You seem to think the only problem is because it creates a social problem. That "racism" is the problem, rather than racemixing being a problem.

Glenlivet
Saturday, June 5th, 2004, 07:23 PM
Who do you consider your racial kin? Please be more specific than just Caucasoid or Europid (which includes mixed race people, e.g., Indians and North Africans).

Generally speaking all Europids, except maybe Assyroid and Orientalid/Arabid that are more distant.

Those with similar physical characteristics. In strict terms the range would be childhood blondism up to the age of 7 or so, but not lighter than light brown as adult. A bit of reddish shades of brown would fit best. Eyes light to dark mixed and fair skin. Thus, those who show weak blondism, intermediate pigmentation, and what is perhaps called Peripheral Nordish and some Keltic Nordics. As for kin I would say most Western and Central European populations where one can find similar phenotypes. Preferable is a more rugged Keltic Nordic or predominantly Phalian (Brünn) with a weak Dinarid (alternatively Atlanto-Mediterranid) strain.

Although there may be completely Europid (and even blondish) North Africans I exluded that, as well as Indids.


Behavior is partly heritable, this is without a doubt. Twin studies show this to be very true.

I think so too.


There is some opinion about it of course, but a good gauge is if the offspring will represent to a good degree both parents.

One can only guess the result. I imagine that one can be pretty sure if the phenotypes of the parents are very similar. One can look at grandparents so to be more sure of what can be passed on.


Often times with miscegenation the children will take the identity of the darker race.

From what I have read they usually take the identity of the mother.


Disliking blacks is easy. Even black people don't like black people. I don't regard this as true racialism, when it's such a natural aversion. It is not some great accomplishment.

True, but many times such people do not want black people in their family either.


Did you feel ashamed that she felt this way? Would you have done the same as she did?

I understood her point. I did not feel really ashamed, just a bit sorry for the black man. I got an altruistic side that I am working on.


She became hysterical and said, "Don't ever talk about my child!" Last I heard from her.

Yes, they tend to be hysterical if you mention their children. They do not see it as we do. To them it is a child like any other and they love it regardless of if it looks like them or not. I myself would feel a bit ashamed to go out with a woman who got a child that look racially different to us.


To add to that already disgraceful contradiction... the vice president of NAAWP is Egyptian, married to a full-blooded Mongoloid woman.

How does he look himself?


I'm suspicious of your beliefs though. You seem to think the only problem is because it creates a social problem. That "racism" is the problem, rather than racemixing being a problem.

I think that there is discrimination but regardless of it I am against mixing between the Europids and another geographical race because it will negate the Europid physical characteristics.

No, I do not think it just create a social problem. It is also the destruction of Europid traits. Some would argue that a few half-castes here and there is no problem. That can be discussed.

It is another story when it comes close to you. If a girlfriend would tell me that she has previously been with a Negrid man that would give me a bad headache. One would compare to him and think "am I not worth more" etc.