View Poll Results: Is Political Violence Ever Justified?

Voters
26. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, always..and I'll explain why..

    5 19.23%
  • No, never..and I'll explain why..

    3 11.54%
  • Sometimes in the right circumstances..and I'll explain why..

    16 61.54%
  • It is inevitable no matter what..and I'll explain why..

    2 7.69%
Page 1 of 8 123456 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 74

Thread: Is Political Violence Ever Justified? / Is Violence a Legitimate Means of Changing Society?

  1. #1
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Nachtengel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    German
    Gender
    Posts
    5,916
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    94
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    763
    Thanked in
    420 Posts

    Lightbulb Is Political Violence Ever Justified? / Is Violence a Legitimate Means of Changing Society?

    I think the RAF were right to be dissatisfied with the anti-German, treasonous state of the FRG, however I agree they were wrong in their approach and they were too extreme.

    Anyhow:
    Quote Originally Posted by Valkyrie View Post
    And I refuse violence as a political mean generally.
    @Valkyrie and the others who disagree with violence. I think violence should be the last option to solve political problems, but do you really think the current parties in Germany from the right-wing scene are going to solve anything? Do you really think they are going to be able to implement important changes for Germany? The Jews and Israel are going to ban the NPD before it enters Parliament and if they don't manage to do that, the Mossad are going to turn to assassinations, like they did with Jörg Haider. In our history, some things only came only through revolution of the populace. 1848. 1933. 1989.

  2. #2
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Ulf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Online
    Saturday, June 12th, 2010 @ 08:23 PM
    Ethnicity
    Deitsch
    Gender
    Posts
    775
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Absolutely.

    But this is coming from an American whose nation's history was born of violence, so I may be a bit biased.

  3. #3
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Æmeric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    Britain, Ulster, Germany, America
    Subrace
    Dalofaelid+Baltid/Borreby
    Y-DNA
    R-Z19
    mtDNA
    U5a2c
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Indiana Indiana
    Gender
    Age
    57
    Family
    Married
    Politics
    Anti-Obama
    Religion
    Conservative Protestantism
    Posts
    6,271
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    573
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    522
    Thanked in
    229 Posts

    Is violence a legitimate means of changing society?

    The threat of violence is used to prevent peaceful political change. Does anyone really believe that America's disaffected minorities would allow a pro-Germanic or White or Euro-American political party to peacefully seek changes beneficial to our interests? Of course not. They would respond with violence or the threat of violence. The point of the pro-immigration rallies of May last year, was intimination. Negroe civil rights leaders threaten mass protests (riots) if their demands are not meet. The only way to realistically deal with these people is with force & violence. It is the only thing they understand, not some proposition about equality for all regardless of race or religion.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Pino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Online
    Friday, January 30th, 2009 @ 08:30 PM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    Location
    Liverpool, England
    Gender
    Age
    31
    Family
    Single, looking
    Occupation
    Construction
    Politics
    National Socialism
    Religion
    Asatru
    Posts
    261
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    All revolutions have had some sort of violence attached to them as have all super powers and empires in history. Some more violent than others but all violent to an extent.

    To dismiss violence all together is reality denial and to think that our struggle is not going to need ALOT of Violence is quite stupid in my opinion and I would say that person does not fully understand the hard task we have if Germanic preservation is to be fully achieved.

  5. #5
    Secure a future for Germanic children
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Bärin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    German
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    Berlin Berlin
    Gender
    Age
    29
    Family
    Married parent
    Occupation
    Mother
    Politics
    National Communism
    Religion
    Atheism
    Posts
    1,899
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    119
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    316
    Thanked in
    122 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Valkyrie
    And I refuse violence as a political mean generally.
    Then how do you expect Germany to get out of this mess? There is no decent party anymore. Or do you think the REP are going to save Germany with the insignificant, tiny percentage of votes they get in elections? The FRG is rotten from within, Germany can't be saved by tiny parties which kiss its behind.

    Violence is necessary to win a struggle against the enemy. But there are alternative means before getting there, like political intimidation. Find some scandalous details from a politician's life and make him to resign. It's what our enemies do, rightwing politicians have to resign all the time for their "Holocaust denial". Fire can only be fought with more fire.

  6. #6
    Senior Administrator "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Aeternitas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    German
    Gender
    Family
    Married
    Politics
    Libertarian
    Religion
    Christian
    Posts
    1,566
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    44
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    385
    Thanked in
    131 Posts
    Not all revolutions are synonymous with violence. Non-violent revolutions, particularly those that advocate freedom, democracy, human rights promote various forms of non-violent protest and campaigns of civil and/or intellectual resistance to bring about the departure of governments seen as entrenched and authoritarian. 1848 and 1989 were predominantly non-violent revolutions. 1848 was dominated by large popular assemblies and mass demonstrations. Its leaders were actually against the use of force and preferred an intellectual means of debate. Actually the Frankfurt Parliament gained the reputation of a "talking shop with no teeth" due to this. The preference for passive means is cited by some historians as a cause of the revolution's failure.

    1989 and the fall of communism was also largely non-violent (with one notable exception being the Romanian revolution) and characterized by mass demonstrations and protests. Communism in Germany was not overthrown violently. There was already pressure coming from Russia's Gorbachev who insisted that reforms be implemented in the GDR a.s.a.p. Erich Honecker was passively removed from power, by being forced to resign by the SED itself, and not shot as it happened with Romanian communist leader Ceausescu for example.

    I too agree that ideally, one should strive to achieve things diplomatically. The 1938 unification of Germany and Austria (Anschluss) is such an example. But yes, this isn't always possible, as we don't live in an ideal world. I don't believe in "turning the other cheek" when one receives a big slap either. Self-defence and self-determination are also honorable values. Though generally, non-violent action should not be confused for pacifism. It differs from pacifism by potentially being proactive and interventionist. There are many effective means to express discontent and the desire to bring about change in a non-violent manner. Symbolic protests, picketing, marches, boycotts and strikes, leafletting, protest through art and music, and more importantly, information warfare.

  7. #7
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Nachtengel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    German
    Gender
    Posts
    5,916
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    94
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    763
    Thanked in
    420 Posts
    I understand why people frown at skinheads but their violence conducts to something afterall. It's not moral to scare away some immigrant on the street, however more actions like this lead to turning the zone immigrant-free. We have these zones in Eastern Germany, where immigrants hardly set foot because they're afraid of the skinheads. It also goes vice versa for sure, there are no-go zones for native Germans too. The immigrants turn more and more to violent ways to scare native Germans away and we have to defend ourselves.

    All in all;
    Violence has two ends and it results in injures and lost blood on our side too, I don't think neither it must be the first attempt to solve a problem, but we can't be the sheep in the mouth of the wolf when the wolf comes hungry. Today the liberals and pacifists are in a hurry to classify anyone who uses violence as a "terrorist". Even protesters are classified as "terrorists" sometime. It's exaggerated. When push comes to shove, the end can justify the means.

    & Aet; yes, I agree with what the historians say about 1848. The reluctance to turn to violence was a sentence to its goals.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Psychonaut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Last Online
    Wednesday, May 18th, 2016 @ 02:34 AM
    Ethnicity
    Acadian
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Pennsylvania Pennsylvania
    Gender
    Age
    36
    Politics
    Old Stock Nativism
    Religion
    Heathen Theosophy
    Posts
    928
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    The interesting thing about political change that is affected through violence is that the only means of legitimization is victory. The violent uprisings of the losers of history are rarely depicted as just, but in successful cases, these are revolutions rather than acts of coordinated terrorism.
    "Ocean is more ancient than the mountains, and freighted with the memories and the dreams of Time."
    -H.P. Lovecraft

  9. #9
    Senior Member Rainraven's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Last Online
    Saturday, February 18th, 2017 @ 11:24 PM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Subrace
    Don't know
    Country
    New Zealand New Zealand
    Location
    Dunedin
    Gender
    Age
    30
    Family
    In a steady relationship
    Occupation
    Student
    Politics
    I'm Elite
    Religion
    Jesus isn't
    Posts
    213
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Yes I believe it is. Because sometimes it is the only means to create change.
    That doesn't mean I advocate violence as a solution to any problem, but as a last resort I do think that violence can be necessary.
    I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.

    - Bilbo Baggins

  10. #10
    Lost in Melancholia
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Thusnelda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Bavarian tribe
    Ancestry
    Bavarian
    Subrace
    Nordid-Borreby
    State
    Bavaria Bavaria
    Location
    Over the hills and far away
    Gender
    Age
    34
    Occupation
    Breathing the forest
    Politics
    Regionalist-conservative
    Religion
    Ásatrú/Forn Siðr
    Posts
    4,380
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    37
    Thanked in
    26 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Todesengel View Post
    I think the RAF were right to be dissatisfied with the anti-German, treasonous state of the FRG, however I agree they were wrong in their approach and they were too extreme.
    The RAF was anti-German and anti-national to the bones. Well, the government back then was at least a little bit more patriotic than nowadays.

    I agree with you that the FRG is not preserving our culture, ethnicy and identity, but the goals of the RAF were even more hostile towards our ideals! Internationalistic cultural-marxism is not a solution, but a threat.

    @Valkyrie and the others who disagree with violence. I think violence should be the last option to solve political problems, but do you really think the current parties in Germany from the right-wing scene are going to solve anything? Do you really think they are going to be able to implement important changes for Germany?
    I reject street violence because I think it´s useless, inadequate and below our level. Angry mobs (mostly consisting of minorities) use street violence as a mean to change something or to voice their opinions, but we Germanics are more worth, we shouldn´t step down from our moral superiority only to use the means of savages.

    (Street) violence has no big political influence. It´s far more important to win elections and to convince the people, to attain their hearts and minds. Violence disgusts the large majority of a population. My opinion is that a change can only be a longer-range success if the change is built up on a convinced mass instead on a atmosphere of violence, terror and angst.
    (Even if I dislike Hitler and NS: Hitler came to power not by the street rampages of the SA but by democratic elections! Because he has won the hearts of the mass before. The previous SA brute force on the streets was more or less insignificant)

    Quote Originally Posted by Bärin View Post
    Then how do you expect Germany to get out of this mess? There is no decent party anymore. Or do you think the REP are going to save Germany with the insignificant, tiny percentage of votes they get in elections?
    The REPs refuse violence, and as far as I know they had a better election result in Hessen and Bayern (for example) than the NPD.

    But just to make it clear, I don´t reject violence generally. I just reject street violence.
    Violence by the authority of the state against those who´d fight against us may be a useful last resort in the case of the cases. State violence is more effective and many-sided.

    A exaggerated example: Send ten skinheads in a multicultural hellhole like Berlin-Kreuzberg to get the hostile Turkish-gangs out of the city. The skinhealds will achieve nothing. But send in 10 panzers, backed by the government body, and the outcome will be a more positive one...
    So, to put it in a nutshell: Our political ideals need emphasis. Street violence can´t offer that. We must gain power trough political and dimplomatic means. And if "we" are in power then, violence can be a mean among others, of course. But surely not the primary mean. Only as an ultima ratio from my point of view. Because a political system based on force, oppression and extreme observation has no long half-life period, this shows the history.

    I´m not a pacifist, but I´d support violence only if there´re no other working options anymore.

    "Judge of your natural character by what you do in your dreams" - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Page 1 of 8 123456 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. A Life Free of Violence is Our Right
    By Mrs. Lyfing in forum Parenthood & Family
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: Friday, April 18th, 2008, 02:55 AM
  2. Violence Inevitable?
    By Grettir in forum England
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: Tuesday, March 27th, 2007, 08:46 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •