View Poll Results: Please state which ideology resembles your views most

Voters
531. You may not vote on this poll
  • National-socialism

    154 29.00%
  • Zionism

    13 2.45%
  • Fascism/corporatism/solidarism

    32 6.03%
  • National-anarchism/third positionism

    29 5.46%
  • New Right

    30 5.65%
  • Paleo-conservatism

    49 9.23%
  • Neo-conservatism

    9 1.69%
  • Christian democracy

    7 1.32%
  • Libertarianism/anarchism

    52 9.79%
  • Social democracy

    23 4.33%
  • Communism

    18 3.39%
  • (left wing) ecologism

    6 1.13%
  • Other

    94 17.70%
  • I'm not very interested in politics. I don't have any ideology.

    15 2.82%
Page 21 of 40 FirstFirst ... 11161718192021222324252631 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 210 of 398

Thread: What is Your Political Orientation?

  1. #201
    Senior Member
    Patrioten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Online
    Saturday, June 27th, 2020 @ 10:02 PM
    Ethnicity
    Swedish
    Country
    Sweden Sweden
    Gender
    Politics
    Conservative
    Religion
    Protestant
    Posts
    1,920
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    21
    Thanked in
    20 Posts
    Because I believe it is immoral, unhumanitarian and unjustified to hate or discriminate someone simply because of their race and ethnicity.
    I doubt that there are many individuals who hate people because of their race or ethnicity or whatever.

    Imagine a skinhead, the very symbol of racial hatred. Put this skinhead infront of an immigrant in the skinhead's own backyard and notice his reactions.

    Then take the same skinhead and place him infront of a tv and the immigrant back in his own country with a tv monitor infront of him which allows him to speak to the skinhead and for the skinhead to see the ex-immigrant. Notice his reactions.

    Then give that same skinhead the opportunity to make a two week vacation trip to anywhere in the world where the inhabitants are of a different race than his. Follow him on the trip and notice his reactions.

    What is the most likely result of such an experiment? Most likely, the level of irritation that the skinhead is experiencing will be at its highest in the first test, much lower bordering to non-existant in the second and non-existant in the third. In all three situations, the skinhead is exposed to foreigners of a different race, but the reactions differ, why? Because the circumstances and situations differ. In the first scenario the immigrant is inside the skinhead's own territory and represents a unwelcomed threat, in the second, both the skinhead and the immigrant are in their own territory and are not intruding on one anothers space. In the third, the skinhead voluntarily visits the territory of a foreign people of a foreign race or culture knowing that his own territory is safe back home (in a better world at least) and that he will return to it once the trip is over. The host population also knows that he is only visiting and can therefor treat the skinhead as is befitting of a guest.

    Then take into account that very few people, even in here, are raging skinheads.

    When you force foreign people together, you create antagonism and conflicts. When people come together voluntarily under positive and relaxing circumstances, the end result is almost always a positive one. The reactions of people differ according to the situation and the circumstances that they find themselves in.

    Again, you wont find many people who hate people simply because of their race, that is not what we are about, and that is not what the critique against multi racial societies is about.

  2. #202
    Senior Member
    Viking King's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Online
    Sunday, May 17th, 2009 @ 02:50 AM
    Ethnicity
    Norse-Irish
    Ancestry
    Norway, Ireland, Scotland, France
    Subrace
    Sub-Nordid + Bruenn
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    Location
    London
    Gender
    Family
    Youth
    Occupation
    Student
    Politics
    Libertarian
    Religion
    Taoist
    Posts
    48
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    I agree absolutely that it's immoral, inhuman and unjustified to hate someone solely because of their race or ethnicity. It's not about 'hate' (there's that word popping up again) but if that race or ethnicity represents a clear and identifiable threat discrimination would very likely be necessary. That doesn't mean 'hating' anybody, but it might mean restricting entry or even deportation. Unfortunately for the North (and South) American 'Indians' they were not in a position to exercise the sort of 'discrimination' that might have saved them.
    I agree with your point. But it's perfectly possible that a leader or group someone with obvious paranoid or delusional tendencies (i.e. Hitler) could make it seem to the general public through propaganda, media brainwashing, that this group is threat, when in reality they're not. Wasn't it Hitler who said: "If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed?"
    Like I said before, you need to be sceptical about what messages, any form of authority or the media, are telling you.

    I've got lots of opinions of Richard Dawkins, that's another thread The sort of 'intellectual' I have no time whatsoever for would be the sort of whining non-productive parasite who listens to jazz and sneers at the working man whose sweat allows the idler the luxury to indulge his 'intellectual' lifestyle and fantasies.
    Yeah - yuppie scum . I was thinking more along the line of Greek Philosophers such as Plato.

    So absolute 'equality' isn't always a prerequisite to a 'fair' and civil society.

    Effects of Feminism and Destruction of the Family
    I think that depends entirely on your definition of equality.

    So you don't 'fully' support it?

    Rapid Rise in Number of Mixed Race Britons

    Males of African descent in particular seem unable to help themselves, often fathering several children by various women who couldn't help "falling in love". Check out your local high street to see the mess that results.
    You've got to remember, that a lot of this results from social conditioning and doing what you're parents did before you - a common feature in impoverished urban communities.
    No doubt that there are some genetic and evolutionary factors possibly playing here. Particularly males of African descent (and females too) being more "testosteronized" than the average Caucasian male or female. Resulting in promiscuity, increased libido - and therefore likely to keep "spreading the seed".

    Do you really think we need more and more of this: 'I love my mixed race baby - but why does she feel so alien?'

    If this was something that happened on a small scale it could, arguably, be tolerated, we're supposed to be 'tolerant' after all, but it is happening on a mass scale which represents a very real, not so long term, threat to ethnic and cultural diversity in Europe. It has been estimated that indigenous white Britons will become a minority in their own country within a few generations. This has already happened in British cities including Leicester and Birmingham. It's probably already happened in London, if you look around there, but not yet officially. If trends continue we will effectively cease to exist, assimilated into a grey multicultural mass a few generations after that. This scenario, which is being forced on a nation who never asked for this, is quite unacceptable to many people, myself included.
    I agree with you here, in Hackney (in East London) - where I live (and grew up) when not on my Campus, it's almost like driving into Syria, then into Kenya, then into Bangladesh, then into Pakistan, then back to England - all in half an hour.

    By the word "fully" was a mistake, sorry about complicating things over that.

    Patrioten: I'm with you. I now understand where you're all coming from now.

  3. #203
    Senior Member
    Rozenstorm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Last Online
    Friday, April 6th, 2012 @ 11:09 PM
    Ethnicity
    Flemish
    Ancestry
    Flanders
    Subrace
    Alpinid-Nordid
    Country
    Dietsland Dietsland
    State
    East Flanders East Flanders
    Gender
    Age
    31
    Family
    In a steady relationship
    Occupation
    Student
    Politics
    National-Conservatism
    Religion
    Christianity
    Posts
    424
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    My viewpoint are most similar to national-conservatism, paleo-conservativism and Nouvelle Droite of Alain de Benoist. The translation of that is New Right, but in the Anglo-Saxon world it mostly indicates neo-conservatism which is, far from the same. Since both neo-conservatism and New Right are represented in the topic, would the author explain what his New Right indicates? Nouvelle Droite or neo-conservatism?

    Anyway, I choose paleo-conservatism.

  4. #204
    Senior Member
    Haereticus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Online
    Saturday, September 3rd, 2011 @ 09:57 PM
    Ethnicity
    Northern European
    Subrace
    Nordid/Alpinid
    Country
    England England
    Gender
    Family
    Married parent
    Occupation
    Designer
    Politics
    Pan-European Nationalist
    Religion
    Agnostic
    Posts
    317
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    4 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Viking King View Post
    ...Wasn't it Hitler who said: "If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed?" ...
    That quote attributed to Hitler has also beeen attributed to Joseph Goebbels, amongst others by this authoritative source.

    However, don't believe everything you read. Joseph Goebbels wasn't very popular with the Soviet, British and American authorities at the time and wasn't likely to get a 'good press'.

    The false Goebbels quotation above is actually a take-off on Hitler's familiar statement in Mein Kampf, which is often misunderstood. Hitler stated:

    “In this they [the Jews] proceeded on the sound principle that the magnitude of a lie always contains a certain factor of credibility, since the great masses of the people in the very bottom of their hearts tend to be corrupted rather than consciously and purposely evil, and that, therefore, in view of the primitive simplicity of their minds, they more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a little one, since they themselves lie in little things, but would be ashamed of lies that were too big. Such a falsehood will never enter their heads, and they will not be able to believe in the possibility of such monstrous effrontery and infamous misrepresentation in others.…” (p. 231 of the Manheim translation)

    Hitler is accusing the Jews the Vienna press of this strategy. It is often taken as evidence that Hitler advocated the "Big Lie." He is, in fact, accusing his enemies of lying.
    source
    “It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words”

  5. #205
    Senior Member
    Neophyte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Online
    4 Weeks Ago @ 09:27 PM
    Ethnicity
    Scandinavian
    Subrace
    Nordic + some Atlantid
    Country
    Sweden Sweden
    Gender
    Age
    48
    Politics
    Blut und Boden
    Posts
    2,051
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    187
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    187
    Thanked in
    123 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Viking King View Post
    Well it's just from my current understanding when it comes to social issues they are usually:

    Racist
    Anti-SemiteHomophobic
    Anti-equality between men and women
    Anti-mentally ill
    Anti-disabled/handicapped
    Anti-intellectual
    Ethnocentric
    Statist/totalitarian
    Pro-eugenics etc...

    That's practically almost everything I firmly stand against.

    Enlighten me if I'm wrong.
    These are my somewhat random thoughts in the matter:

    Those are not necessarily bad things if you—as we all here do— believe in the preservation of the racial integrity of your society. Racism and anti-Semitism is simply the enemy’s terms for the attitudes and behaviors that result from such a conviction, but it is not really a question of ‘hating’ Jews or people of other nationalities, simply the desire to exclude them from our cultural, social and biological processes.

    It all rests on the conviction that there is a close connection between culture and biology. Ethically and genetically homogenous societies function better than heterogeneous ones, and there is much scientific evidence to support that view. And there is the understanding that we as Germanics benefit more from certain forms of social organization than from others and that the biological composition of society over time will have a major impact on its organization.

    You must also understand that the National Socialist view of the world is not based on the same concepts as the Judeo-Christian one. It places less weight on the value of the individual human life than the Christian, and more on behavior contra conviction. Christianity comes from the multicultural and racially mixed Hellenistic world of serfs, slaves and proletarians, an environment in which—see above—there would have been a rather low measure of internal cohesion and mutual commitment whereas the National Socialist worldview is that of a nation state, of a people united in blood, spirit and soil. In such a more cohesive and united society there would naturally be a larger focus on the survival and well being of the group rather than on the individual, and from that perspective eugenics would seem a wholly sound and natural idea.

    In such an environment you would also see a different attitude towards the state than you would in the Jewish and Christian antiquity. In the case of the Jew Jesus and the early Christians the state would have been represented by the most foreign Roman state with which they would have found very little common ground. In the case of the modern national state the identification between the individual and the state is much stronger as there exists a mutual bond of blood and spirit between the individual and the state, the modern state being nothing more than the political expression of the nation. Thus a National Socialist would identify more strongly with his own state—or the concept thereof—than would a random citizen of a multicultural state.

  6. #206
    Senior Member
    Viking King's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Online
    Sunday, May 17th, 2009 @ 02:50 AM
    Ethnicity
    Norse-Irish
    Ancestry
    Norway, Ireland, Scotland, France
    Subrace
    Sub-Nordid + Bruenn
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    Location
    London
    Gender
    Family
    Youth
    Occupation
    Student
    Politics
    Libertarian
    Religion
    Taoist
    Posts
    48
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Christianity comes from the multicultural and racially mixed Hellenistic world of serfs, slaves and proletarians, an environment in which—see above—there would have been a rather low measure of internal cohesion and mutual commitment whereas the National Socialist worldview is that of a nation state, of a people united in blood, spirit and soil. In such a more cohesive and united society there would naturally be a larger focus on the survival and well being of the group rather than on the individual, and from that perspective eugenics would seem a wholly sound and natural idea.
    But that type of society never has worked, look at communist countries, the soviet union and its satellite states, when these collectivist societies do exist, they usually (and fortunately) don't for long, and typically result in tremendous human suffering. It seems to me what you're talking about is more along the lines of wishful thinking.
    Human beings are not ants or sheep, unlike socialist views would hold. Human beings (at least smart ones) are usually indepent, autonomous and free thinking (to a certain degree), and will resist being treated in a hive mentality.

    It all rests on the conviction that there is a close connection between culture and biology. Ethically and genetically homogenous societies function better than heterogeneous ones, and there is much scientific evidence to support that view. And there is the understanding that we as Germanics benefit more from certain forms of social organization than from others and that the biological composition of society over time will have a major impact on its organization.
    To me that's simply racial or ethnic discrimination (grounded on a pseudo-scientific level), something that I detest.
    Thus a National Socialist would identify more strongly with his own state—or the concept thereof—than would a random citizen of a multicultural state.
    A person from a multicultural state would be more likely to fight for his/her loved ones, not his state. Which I fully agree with. I don't believe in "for the good of Germany or for the good of Britain". To me it's just a mass of land. A more appropriate phrase would be to die "my loved ones" or maybe “for the German people”, though they’d be a lot of people there that you wouldn’t fight for, which is why I’d stick with the “loved ones” one, at least to me from an individualist perspective makes more sence.

  7. #207
    Senior Member
    Neophyte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Online
    4 Weeks Ago @ 09:27 PM
    Ethnicity
    Scandinavian
    Subrace
    Nordic + some Atlantid
    Country
    Sweden Sweden
    Gender
    Age
    48
    Politics
    Blut und Boden
    Posts
    2,051
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    187
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    187
    Thanked in
    123 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Viking King View Post
    But that type of society never has worked, look at communist countries, the soviet union and its satellite states, when these collectivist societies do exist, they usually (and fortunately) don't for long, and typically result in tremendous human suffering. It seems to me what you're talking about is more along the lines of wishful thinking.
    Human beings are not ants or sheep, unlike socialist views would hold. Human beings (at least smart ones) are usually indepent, autonomous and free thinking (to a certain degree), and will resist being treated in a hive mentality.
    There is a huge difference between Communism and National Socialism. As I see it, NS is is focused on building a society for the people as it is whereas Communism is intent on building a people to fit the society dictated by its political theory, a theory which, incidentally, seems to have been put together by a group of Jews (from Marx to Adorno) in order to destroy Western civilisation.

    But no, human beings are not ants, but nor are they clams. We do intend to interact in a structured and organised manner, something we call society. And the continuation of that structure is something which transcendes us as individuals. I could also point to the virtual absence of Libertarian states, or something that comes close to fulfil even the less exacting Libertarian standards. Such a society is simply neither appealing to most people or able to sustain itself politically.

    To me that's simply racial or ethnic discrimination (grounded on a pseudo-scientific level), something that I detest.
    "Pseudo-scientific" is a term that comes in very handy when one does not like to discuss the real merits of an idea. Google for "Putam" and "diversity" and see what you find. There you have a liberal who simply could not explain away his own findings but who, characteristically, managed to come to the wrong conclusions in the end anyway. Now, if everything that scientists like J.P. Rushton says is wrong, why do Putnam's results confirm it so clearly?

    The fact of the matter is that a genetically, culturally and etnically homogenous society funtions better than a multicultural one. In order to keep the society that way, or to transform it into such a society, foreign elements must be excluded.

    A person from a multicultural state would be more likely to fight for his/her loved ones, not his state. Which I fully agree with. I don't believe in "for the good of Germany or for the good of Britain". To me it's just a mass of land. A more appropriate phrase would be to die "my loved ones" or maybe “for the German people”, though they’d be a lot of people there that you wouldn’t fight for, which is why I’d stick with the “loved ones” one, at least to me from an individualist perspective makes more sence.
    And that is why a multicultural state such as the USA will lose against a homogenous national state such as China. The first test of a political entity is its ability to sustain and defend itself, and when it fails that test it will cease to exist. Fill your army with foreigners and the army will be loyal not the the people but to the army itself.

    And again, you represent the opposite world view when you talk about Britain and Germany as pieces of land. The National Socialist world view does not concern itself so much with geography as with people. When we talk about Germany it is not the piece of land currently known as the BRD we talk about but about the German nation as in the sum of all people German by descent. This is something that runs counter to the modern, late Roman concept of the nation as an administrative unite, as a piece of land.

  8. #208
    Senior Member
    Viking King's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Online
    Sunday, May 17th, 2009 @ 02:50 AM
    Ethnicity
    Norse-Irish
    Ancestry
    Norway, Ireland, Scotland, France
    Subrace
    Sub-Nordid + Bruenn
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    Location
    London
    Gender
    Family
    Youth
    Occupation
    Student
    Politics
    Libertarian
    Religion
    Taoist
    Posts
    48
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    "Pseudo-scientific" is a term that comes in very handy when one does not like to discuss the real merits of an idea. Google for "Putam" and "diversity" and see what you find. There you have a liberal who simply could not explain away his own findings but who, characteristically, managed to come to the wrong conclusions in the end anyway. Now, if everything that scientists like J.P. Rushton says is wrong, why do Putnam's results confirm it so clearly?

    The fact of the matter is that a genetically, culturally and etnically homogenous society funtions better than a multicultural one. In order to keep the society that way, or to transform it into such a society, foreign elements must be excluded.
    I'm not sure if you're aware about this, but Robert Putnam (the political scientist you're talking about) also agrees that you need a balance. He's decrees that there are two types of social capital - social bonding (where you socialize with people of the same race, ethnicity, class) and social bridging (where you socialize with people from a different race, ethnicity, class) - now he believes that these two working together strengthen each other, and ultimately strengthen a society. What you arguing for - more bonding and less bridging, and at the same time arguing against – more bridging and less bonding, would weaken a society – under his theory.

    But no, human beings are not ants, but nor are they clams. We do intend to interact in a structured and organised manner, something we call society. And the continuation of that structure is something which transcendes us as individuals. I could also point to the virtual absence of Libertarian states, or something that comes close to fulfil even the less exacting Libertarian standards. Such a society is simply neither appealing to most people or able to sustain itself politically.
    I agree, and most libertarians would probably agree too. Only the hardcore anarchists would agree that we don't any form of government or state what so ever, and human beings can operate by themselves sufficiently. Unfortunately that's not the case, and we do need some kind of small hierarchal government (however localized) to govern and give aid to it's citizens.

  9. #209
    Senior Member
    Rozenstorm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Last Online
    Friday, April 6th, 2012 @ 11:09 PM
    Ethnicity
    Flemish
    Ancestry
    Flanders
    Subrace
    Alpinid-Nordid
    Country
    Dietsland Dietsland
    State
    East Flanders East Flanders
    Gender
    Age
    31
    Family
    In a steady relationship
    Occupation
    Student
    Politics
    National-Conservatism
    Religion
    Christianity
    Posts
    424
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Haereticus View Post
    I agree absolutely that it's immoral, inhuman and unjustified to hate someone solely because of their race or ethnicity. It's not about 'hate' (there's that word popping up again) but if that race or ethnicity represents a clear and identifiable threat discrimination would very likely be necessary. That doesn't mean 'hating' anybody, but it might mean restricting entry or even deportation. Unfortunately for the North (and South) American 'Indians' they were not in a position to exercise the sort of 'discrimination' that might have saved them.
    Exactly! Most of the time 'racism' is abused. It's used as a stop to every discussion, thereby avoiding the subject of multiculturalism. We're not about hate.

    "La vie est la vie, c'est-à-dire un combat, pour une nation comme pour un homme"
    Charles de Gaulle


  10. #210
    New Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Online
    Sunday, January 11th, 2009 @ 05:41 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    Saxony Saxony
    Location
    Torgau
    Gender
    Family
    In a steady relationship
    Occupation
    selfemployed
    Politics
    Socialist
    Religion
    Atheist
    Posts
    6
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    I'm a Socialist. Equality and Welfare have to be spread around the world so that all people can live in social security and welfare.
    Only a worldwide system on socialist nations will ensure that there is no overimmigration and negative competition between countries and ethnical groups.
    A fair market with realistic prices has to be set up in place of a mostprofit market that only favors those with the lowest bidding. Competition is good but only under the preferences of the human needs. fair payment and secure working conditions plus medical care are a must. profits gained should be transferred into welfare. all burocracy should be broken down to real simple rules and laws - that way you can put away with unnecessary hinderings of economic growth + lowering cost etc. and there are no loopholes. there shouldn't be a 5 year plan - the economy should be run by private interest but under national control. the private part has to have its share to ensure innovation and progress. but the economy has to serve the society not otherwise.
    private gain should still be allowed but only to a certain limit. wealth is okay but millionaires - no. every country should be partly dependent on all other countries to ensure a willing to cooperate.
    that system under a democratic nations should turn out fine.
    basicly this is a reformed socialism which most socalled hardcore communist parties support today - the label communist is only used by those who fear that new socialism - they try to provoke fear of oppression and loss of freedom - the opposite is true. socialists are not here to take away your freedom - they are here to free you from those corrupt economy that degraded people to mere tools. capitalism spits on the human needs and capitalism is the death of nations - money knows no fatherland.

    Born in the GDR and proud of it.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: Thursday, June 24th, 2010, 01:39 PM

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
  •