Page 15 of 19 FirstFirst ... 510111213141516171819 LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 189

Thread: Is National Socialism a Germanic Ideology? To What Degree Is It Compatible With Germanic Preservation?

  1. #141
    Active Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Skadi Funding Member
    John Smithwick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Canadian
    Ancestry
    British/German/French
    Country
    Canada Canada
    State
    Ontario Ontario
    Gender
    Occupation
    National Folk Faith ;)
    Politics
    Ethno-Nationalist
    Religion
    Pagan/Christian/UU
    Posts
    113
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    289
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    81
    Thanked in
    49 Posts
    Hi velvet, hope you're having a good evening. I'll do this last response, and then I'm bowing out - too time consuming; but tremendous thanks for the discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    Mass slaughtered each other? You're still talking about the 100 killed?
    Nein. I was referring to WWII in general and the 50 million who were dead afterwards.

    It wasn't just Hitler's personality that was obtuse and devoid of easy-goingness (although he topped the list IMO), but all of them: Chamberlain, Churchill, Daladier, Roosevelt, Stalin, Mussolini, etc.

    These men could have sat down over a few beers and hashed out an agreement within hours. Instead they opted for: the mass extermination of "little people" like we were insects through war. Of course this wasn't new to our civilization, but you think they would have learned by then: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...icts_in_Europe

    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    But it's not true that Hitler had no humour. Maybe you need to be German (we are "famous" for our weird sense of humour) to see it, but he even still joked in speeches in 41/42 when things were no laughing matter in general, due to the war, anymore.
    Schadenfreude? lol
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schadenfreude

    No I agree with you (it was just hyperbole on my part). Hitler had a witty and good sense of humour at times; albeit, a rather dark sense of humour at other times -_-.

    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    In many cases they werent banned, just stripped off their official support (which is something very different), just like all churches were and even the DC movement at the end, which came closest to the "positive christianity" nonsense. But yes, I agree. It's unfortunate that there was no full heathen approach from the start of it all.
    Yes; however, unlike the mainstream Christian churches, our desired religions weren't allowed to congregate. I'm aware he let them continue to exist in a form, but by banning them from congregating, he effectively ended them. They could still publish a magazine - that was about it.

    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    It's called "making an example". Röhm's "thug SA" (SA was merely a police force) ambitioned to take over the military, which basically equals preparing a coup. So you think Hitler should have just watched this and wait what happens? Röhm and his vandalising troups also were troublemakers who cost NS much of its good reputation that it had earned prior to 1933. This had to stop, and it was stopped. Ruthlessly? Yes. But sometimes such things are just necessary to get back order.
    It's called "strategy". I think he should have jailed them, indefinitely, if necessary. Our side viewed the incident as a Divine Right King mass murder, and we didn't want that old style of government as our neighbor (because it could creep back into our civilization). We created the Magna Carta 800 years ago to stop Divine Right Kings.

    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    Look at any (horror/mystery/crimie) movie, there's a similar situation always. The victim escapes the "monster" and then plays "gentleman", not killing the monster (because mimimi how would I then be "better" blah blubb), monster comes back and kills the wanna-be gentleman. Lesson: sometimes things are just necessary, and if you fail to do them, it likely cost you your life. Harsh truth, but truth nontheless.

    A dead king can not lead. I dont think it had ruined anything. People who didnt like him before saw their thoughts "justified", and people who liked him before he likely earned an extra in respect through swift and thorough action. You dont get far if you're a sissy, y'know. We will just have to agree to disagree on this
    It was nice of the establishment not to execute Hitler (instead they just jailed him) when he was causing problems - wasn't it? Sad that when the roles were reversed, Hitler decided to execute people (hypocritically).

    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    Inacceptable. Hitler stepping down? Because (((Roosevelt))) and (((Churchill))) didnt like him? Ehrm, nope.
    For the love of Odin velvet lol, even Hitler thought it was acceptable:
    There Was No Need For World War II - Rense.com

    There is a hint that Hitler would have volunteered to retire had his retirement meant that Britain would have assumed a friendly attitude toward Germany. "Days before the beer hall bomb [Munich, November 8, 1939] there was a hint that [Hitler] was prepared to go very far, indeed. German Prince Max Hohenlohe had spoken in Switzerland with representatives of Vansittart, secretary of the British Foreign Office, returning to Germany to report to Göring that peace with England was possible, but only with Hitler and Ribbentrop removed from power. One observer recorded in his diary that Göring replied that Hitler would agree to this."
    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    Btw, let's see what Churchill had to say on the matter:
    "You must understand that this war is not against Nationalsocialism or Hitler, but against the strength of the German People, which has to be crushed once and for all, regardless of whether it's in the hand of Hitler or a Jesuit priest".
    Here's a CODOH thread about that quote: Churchill quote: is it genuine? - CODOH Forum

    I'd agree with the conclusion at the end of page 2 of that thread, in that it doesn't matter whether Churchill said the above or not - he made it happen anyways.

    The thing is: Hitler's goal should have been to avoid the British electing Churchill; avoid the Jews organizing their international power to destroy him and Germany. The war was not inevitable. Lloyd George and our Canadian Prime Minister Mackenzie King were fond of Hitler. Even Churchill spoke fondly of Hitler before the (((Focus Group))) began refocusing his attention.

    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    Nothing could have prevented this war.
    We'll have to agree to disagree there. I think a lot could have been done to prevent the war. One simple example being: Germany not invading Poland.

    In any case, if nothing could have been done to prevent the war, why have it anyways given that the combined (((Soviet + West))) GDP and populations were something like 10X the Axis. Hitler losing the war was a forgone conclusion. Him being an arts student, instead of a science student, may have contributed to his shortsightedness. It's unfortunate someone like Wernher von Braun didn't run the country. There'd have been no war, and we'd probably have a Moon and Mars base by now.

    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    Because the destruction of Germany was planned and desired ever since 1871. We had been there, almost, finally, an alliance between the German Reich and Russia, we could have become our own "bloc", benefitting all of Europe, Bismarck had explained this nicely and it's an undeniable truth: 'if Germany and Russia stood together, both countries were well off and all of Europe. If any one force managed to drive Germany and Russia against each other, both countries suffered and all of Europe.' It was so 150 years ago and it is so today.

    British secret service trained and equipped the assassinator of Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary in Serbia, the incident started WWI (or rather, was declared so in hindsight, and of course Germany was guilty...huh?), in 1917 US finance and secret service organised the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia and Germany (yeah, we had our fair share of communist take-overs as well, Räte-Republik, a communist cell in Munich, (((Liebermann))) calling out the Rebublik in Berlin, almost at the same time Scheidemann did the same just a few streets away etc pp, it wasnt as successful as in Russia, luckily, still the Weimar Republic was full of Jew-communists). The (((West))) recognised this coup-regime and calls it now the "first democracy on German soil". Give me a fkn break! But because the coup in Russia had worked, Bolshevist Russia of course was an ally of Britain/US/France against Germany. The fall-out against muh evil communism (which they had installed themselves there, which cost 100mio Russians their lives and NO ONE EVER GAVE A FLIE'S SH!T ABOUT THIS OF THESE FINE ALLIES) came only much later, in 1948, which cohencidentially is also the year in which these fine Allies installed the "state-simulation" in Germany. Do you even have an idea what they had planned for us?

    No Sir, the (((West))) had no more right to tell us what to do or who we're allowed to have as leader. Look at that approach in the world today. The US and its NATO friend Turkey (and Saudi Arabia and Mossad) create IS, the (((West))) labels them the "good rebels" and Assad, the legitimate leader of Syria, a "terrorist" and tells him to walk out. Of course he doesnt, and his country is bombed to dust. Or Ghaddafi in Libya. Look at those countries now, when the (((West))) is done with them. Chaos, terror, starving, destruction everywhere, and now US' NATO friend Turkey prepares to "support the western-imposed government in Tripolis" against the legitimate "Berber" govt. New war, new terror, new bombing, new shuttle service for rapefugees to Europe by US war ships. Great, thanks, but no thanks. It is that same (((West))) that you think had a right to tell us who we can have for a leader and who not. Such demands are simply inacceptable. What kind of "diplomacy" is that? That is "do as we say or we bomb you to dust". Which the (((West))) does anyway, regardless of whether you comply or not. Because it is never about the "leader" or his alleged deeds, it is always geopolitics. Only. The rest is just invented WMDs, propaganda.
    Yes. Very unfortunate. Good points. I always like seeing your perspective. Nevertheless, I think the view that Hitler was the only solution is very wrong. A more strategic position in my opinion, would be to suggest Hitler should have retired in 1939 and new faces been introduced. No invasion of West Prussia/Poland. Hitler was not supposed to be in power that long:


    Full text of "Memoirs of Alfred Rosenberg"
    The ever greater power given to Hitler was a temporary exception .... This was not one of the goals of the National Socialist idea of state. The first leader had to come into power as Hitler did. All others were to be elected to serve only for a limited period of time. Thus it was provided, though no Wahl-Gremium (electoral college) was founded. Before the Ordensrat (Council of the Order) of sixty-one men from all walks of life, anyone could, and would have to, speak confidently and freely. Before it every minister would have to defend his measures. It was the National Socialist plan to find a strong personality for every given task, and to give that individual all the authority he needed. Adolf Hitler later broke this rule which he himself had made.

    Germany could have kept him around as a motivational speaker perhaps, but whatever they did: "don't rock the boat to the point of tipping it over". If they hadn't invaded Poland, they'd probably still be with us today, and our side would have remained the racialist societies they always had been. It was the horror of WWII that allowed the (((left))) to takeover our countries. It was long overdo that Hitler step down by the summer of 1939 and end his messiah/divine right king complex.

    By 1944 his delusions began reaching epic proportions. You had a guy talking about how "the Hand of Providence" protected him from the Operation Valkerie bomb blast. He interpreted Roosevelt's death as "a sign from Providence". That's a type of religious freak speak in my opinion.

    Hitler supposedly enjoyed watching movies at night, including Disney cartoons. He enjoyed having someone bring him tea and cakes upon request. He was doing this while 1000s of his "beloved volk" were getting slaughtered daily on the Eastern Front. Typical divine right king behaviour - they enjoy luxury, while we little people die like insects.

    He had a mystical grip over Germany, and had he just retired/resigned/disappeared, the insanity of WWII would have ended far sooner.
    Britain Reveals Elaborate Plots to Kill Hitler as War Neared End - NYTimes.com

    Expressing the view that prevailed, the Special Operations Executive's air adviser, Vice Marshal A. P. Ritchie, said that Hitler had a ''mystical hold'' on the German people. ''Remove Hitler, and there is nothing left,'' he concluded.
    The thing is by 1943 (((our side))) didn't want him to go before (((we'd))) thoroughly destroyed Germany (at that point, all patience was lost in terms of trusting Germans to get rid of their bad Divine Right King Fuhrer, and not produce another one years later). If he stepped down or was killed, it would have brought the slaughter of Germans to an end sooner. That's why (((our side))) didn't organize an assassination attempt and just toyed with the German Resistance. (((We))) even revealed/leaked the names of all the people in the German Resistance after Operation Valkerie failed, so that Hitler would kill them all and prolong his regime (he killed 5000 of them 1944-1945). I guess (((we))) were hoping that someone (i.e. Stauffenburg) would have had the balls to stay with the bomb briefcase to ensure it killed Hitler, and then die simultaneously properly as a martyr. When that last chance failed, every last drop of patience ended.

    Make no mistake velvet, I realize that (((our side))) is not my side; and we British descendants were rewarded for our servitude to (((our overlords))) afterwards by witnessing the erasure of our people.

    Anywhoodle, happy happy holidays! Lol. Happy thoughts. Lol. Take care. I'm bowing out of the discussion at this point (too time consuming). In case Jews read this - look, we're sorry for what happened (i.e. we didn't increase the Jewish refugee quotas during WWII - the Nazis offered us all their Jews, but we didn't want any more of them). You have to realize that your Jewish moguls back in the 1930/40s were partially responsible for the war (they bribed Winston Churchill through the Focus Group), and today, let's let bygones be bygones, and please help us by allowing us to have a British Faith as I describe in my signature. Please use your media empire to promote something like it. Thank you and happy holidays.
    We need a reservation system for our people and our own ethnic-nationalist faith, where we'll have sermons about our people and nations, real history, science, philosophy, etc., in addition to our older religions. Throw in some open bar nights, comedy club hours, music and dance, etc., and it'll be a cracker barrel of good times lol.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to John Smithwick For This Useful Post:


  3. #142
    Senior Member
    velvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Online
    Sunday, March 8th, 2020 @ 03:10 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Northern Germany
    Subrace
    Faelid
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    North Rhine-Westphalia North Rhine-Westphalia
    Gender
    Age
    46
    Zodiac Sign
    Sagittarius
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Pestilent Supremacy
    Politics
    Blut und Boden
    Religion
    Fimbulwinter
    Posts
    5,000
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,295
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,439
    Thanked in
    644 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by John Smithwick View Post
    Hi velvet, hope you're having a good evening. I'll do this last response, and then I'm bowing out - too time consuming; but tremendous thanks for the discussion.
    Have a good Yule too, Herr Smithwick

    Nein. I was referring to WWII in general and the 50 million who were dead afterwards.
    It's interesting that all the fault always falls on Germany, however, and not on the US who dropped nukes on millions of civilians, mass slaughtered Koreans, split their country in half (talking of hypocrisy, all the while the US and Russian soldiers on the ground slaughtered each other and uncounted thousands of civilians while still "coordinating" their efforts on the govt levels) and all the other 200+ wars the US was involved in without ever being once attacked. And what exactly was the US's business in Europe again?

    It wasn't just Hitler's personality that was obtuse and devoid of easy-goingness (although he topped the list IMO), but all of them: Chamberlain, Churchill, Daladier, Roosevelt, Stalin, Mussolini, etc.
    I guess a Canadian can miss the irony since you have the embodiment of #Clownworld for a president (WHO?!? in his right mind elected this absolute horseshit freak for a second term?!? LOL, srsly), but it's not that today's politicians would be any more amenable/approachable than those 70 years ago. I mean, have you had a look at Merkel, Macron, Trudeau, Kurz, Theresa May or any other politician after WWII? But then it's always, "but Hitler was the worst of all", because Hitler really is Satan who killed 6garillionjews singlehandedly 'n stuff. C'mon, that's a bullshit argument, no?

    These men could have sat down over a few beers and hashed out an agreement within hours. Instead they opted for: the mass extermination of "little people" like we were insects through war. Of course this wasn't new to our civilization, but you think they would have learned by then: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...icts_in_Europe
    We had an agreement with Russia (Molotov-Ribbentrop), WE send some 40 peace appeals to Britain, which were all rejected, Hitler made concessions after concessions and offered more, even Prussia itself in exchange for a little corridor to Danzig, but it never was enough.

    Why are you not asking the same from Churchill, from Roosevelt and all the others but instead demand that Germans continually eat the guilt-bug of Hitler?

    It's called "strategy". I think he should have jailed them, indefinitely, if necessary. Our side viewed the incident as a Divine Right King mass murder, and we didn't want that old style of government as our neighbor (because it could creep back into our civilization). We created the Magna Carta 800 years ago to stop Divine Right Kings.
    Ohmygods, WHO EVER!!!! sticked to that worthless piece of paper (srsly)? Right, no one did, it's the weapon of the opposition, not that of rulers, and has never been ever since it was pinned down.

    It wasnt our (German) paper either, so why do you think we are bound to its "claims" (I dont say values) or rules?

    It was nice of the establishment not to execute Hitler (instead they just jailed him) when he was causing problems - wasn't it? Sad that when the roles were reversed, Hitler decided to execute people (hypocritically).
    It's not that strategic to watch a forming coup, it's stupid.

    For the love of Odin velvet lol, even Hitler thought it was acceptable:
    Just that Britain still had not left us alone. It was a void consideration, because everyone knew that Britain would never give a reliable guaranty to leave us alone then.

    Btw, why is it that no one ever questions the prerequisite, ie the illegal (according to Völkerrecht and international law) annexation of Prussia through the Parisian Treaties and therefore the likewise illegal guaranty of Britain to protect that illegal annexation?

    The thing is: Hitler's goal should have been to avoid the British electing Churchill; avoid the Jews organizing their international power to destroy him and Germany. The war was not inevitable. Lloyd George and our Canadian Prime Minister Mackenzie King were fond of Hitler. Even Churchill spoke fondly of Hitler before the (((Focus Group))) began refocusing his attention.
    Oh, c'mon:
    ///The Focus for the Defence of Freedom and Peace, but known as The Focus Group and originally the British Non-Sectarian Anti-Nazi Council to Champion Human Rights {...}
    The funding for the group came from Jewish sources;{...}
    As a secret pressure group, Focus started giving slush money to Churchill in the 1930s. Churchill was the center of this group.///

    Tell me, how could Hitler, in 1930, prevent a Jewish group in Britain funding another Jew in Britain and building him up?
    That would only be possible if Hitler had created himself a "terror group" operating in Britain, which in turn would then be used against Hitler and Germany and serve as the prerequisite to the (anyway wanted) war.

    This is getting ridiculous, demanding from Hitler to foresee things 10 years into the future and "prevent them" .
    And who would think anyway that this oh so civilised Britiain would allow a drunken Jew who promotes the use of poison gas against civilians (and he did from WWI onwards continually) to be Prime Minister? Why did the Brits not prevent this guy from taking office? Why did the Queen not prevent this guy from taking office?

    We'll have to agree to disagree there. I think a lot could have been done to prevent the war. One simple example being: Germany not invading Poland.
    You clearly havent read the protocols (and in case you think it's bull, watch this

    And again. The territory we are talking about is Prussia, the Heart of the German Nation. Why dont you ask the Brits why they protected an illegal annexation instead of serving justice and truth? Maybe even apologizing to us that they helped (instigated it, but never mind) this illegal activity?

    Why is it our fault that we - rightfully - want back what is ours, that was - wrongly - stolen from us and Britain giving, instead of helping to prevent a war, an unlimited guarantee to intervene on behalf of illegal usurpers, who, embolded by this backing, started to slaughter Germans indiscriminately in the streets? Answer, subject to the British Queen!
    (sry, couldnt resist)

    Of course, at the end it always falls back on that Hitler is really Satan and all that bullocks and no matter what, he is guilty, because the narrative has it that the (((West))) is the good guy. Except, they werent!

    In any case, if nothing could have been done to prevent the war, why have it anyways given that the combined (((Soviet + West))) GDP and populations were something like 10X the Axis. Hitler losing the war was a forgone conclusion. Him being an arts student, instead of a science student, may have contributed to his shortsightedness.
    ...if nothing could have been done to prevent the war, why have it anyways... again, for some reason it always falls back on Germany, even if it WAS NOT IN OUR POWER to prevent it.

    As mentioned above, we did have a non-aggression pact with Russia. Lesson: no treaty is worth the paper it is written on, if there are (((forces))) who wish otherwise.
    And once more. The thing in Poland was over within 3 weeks, march in, take it, end of story. It could have been over at this point. Why mobilise half the globe against Germany over FUCKN POLAND????????????

    It's unfortunate someone like Wernher von Braun didn't run the country. There'd have been no war, and we'd probably have a Moon and Mars base by now.
    Maybe, but no more Germany, or Europe for that matter, with Wernher "I want to be on the side of the victors" von Braun, the born traitor, he had happily bombed to dust half the world for enough money for his next rocket, he had (and has) sold his soul to the enemy. No backbone, no brain, no heart, no love, no loyalty, no honour, the embodiment of egotism. But of course I understand why the (((West))) would want someone like him to castrate Germany from within.

    Yes. Very unfortunate. Good points. I always like seeing your perspective. Nevertheless, I think the view that Hitler was the only solution is very wrong. A more strategic position in my opinion, would be to suggest Hitler should have retired in 1939 and new faces been introduced. No invasion of West Prussia/Poland. Hitler was not supposed to be in power that long:
    Again the Question: why inscenate a fuckn world war over fuckn Poland? No one (incl Britain btw) gave a fly's shit about Poland, which is there ILLEGALLY!!! to begin with. Why are we supposed to "simply get over it" and watch every other nation around us biting chunks at will out of Germany?

    Europe ca 1100 CE.


    On Tacitus' map there are no Poles anywhere. Nowhere. Who are they even? And why does Britain start a fckn World War to protect unfounded claims to not-their-land?

    Make no mistake velvet, I realize that (((our side))) is not my side; and we British descendants were rewarded for our servitude to (((our overlords))) by witnessing the erasure of our people and civilization.
    Indeed, the British Empire defeated itself, and the (((West))) defeated the White Race.
    You better start to understand what Hitler actually tried to do (see your groveling below), that is, to liberate the world from (((their grip))), instead of continuing to bash the scapegoat on which both were broken.


    Anywhoodle, happy happy holidays. Happy thoughts. Take care. I'm bowing out of the discussion at this point (too time consuming). In case Jews read this - look, we're sorry for what happened (i.e. we didn't increase the Jewish refugee quotas during WWII - the Nazis offered us all their Jews, but we didn't want any more of them). You have to realize that your Jewish moguls back in the 1930/40s were partially responsible for the war (they bribed Winston Churchill through the Focus Group), and today, let's let bygones be bygones, and please help us by allowing us to have a British Faith as I describe in my signature. Please use your media empire to promote something like it. Thank you.
    Happy Doomsday, Herr Smithwick


    We Jews, we are the destroyers and will remain the destroyers. Nothing you can do will meet our demands and needs. We will forever destroy because we want a world of our own.
    ~Maurice Samuel

    Consider that they are serious about this, that they mean every single word of it, in the fullest dimension imaginable, to the fullest conclusion.
    Ein Leben ist nichts, deine Sprosse sind alles
    Aller Sturm nimmt nichts, weil dein Wurzelgriff zu stark ist
    und endet meine Frist, weiss ich dass du noch da bist
    Gefürchtet von der Zeit, mein Baum, mein Stamm in Ewigkeit

    my signature

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to velvet For This Useful Post:


  5. #143
    Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Dagna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    Northern German, Scandinavian
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    Norway Norway
    Location
    Norway
    Gender
    Age
    42
    Politics
    Classic Liberalism
    Religion
    Agnosticism
    Posts
    2,103
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    19
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    103
    Thanked in
    67 Posts
    I have said it before and I will say it again, Hitler and National Socialism have very little to do with Germanic preservation. There is ample evidence to suggest this.

    One of those few who had predominantly Germanic inclinations, Himmler, was ridiculed for it by Third reich scholars and even Hitler himself. Hitler was a worshipper of the Roman and Greek spirit, which was reflected in the art he and the National Socialists promoted. Albert Speer, Hitler's chief architect called Himmler "half schoolmaster, half crackpot." Hitler himself was ashamed of our Germanic past and considered it inferior to ancient societies in southern Europe, whom he considered "more advanced".

    "People make a tremendous fuss about the excavations carried out in districts inhabited by our forebears of the pre-Christian era. I am afraid that I cannot share their enthusiasm, for I cannot help remembering that, while our ancestors were making these vessels out of stone and clay, over which our archaeologists rave, the Greeks had already built the Acropolis."

    Hitler initially promoted an un-Germanic religion, Christianity for propaganda reasons ("positive Christianity"), calling atheists and freethinkers Jews. Don't like paying church tax? Another one of Hitler's rotten eggs (along with the ban of homeschooling, which remained active in Germany to this day). He introduced the church tax to gain the support of the Vatican, which was the first state to recognize formally the legitimacy of Adolf Hitler's government. The Reichskonkordat gave Catholics a special protected status, and church organizations preference over public bodies in the running of hospitals and nursery schools. Under the same pretense, Christian employees can be sacked if their marriage should end in divorce. If Hitler had been a true Germanic preservationist, he would have instead given Germanic Heathens preference. Heinrich Himmler was ridiculed by Hitler for wanting to re-establish Germanic mythology. Imagine the following would be written by someone on Skadi:

    "Why do we call the whole world's attention to the fact that we have no past? It isn't enough that the Romans were erecting great buildings when our forefathers were still living in mud huts; now Himmler is starting to dig up these villages of mud huts and enthusing over every potsherd and stone axe he finds. All we prove by that is that we were still throwing stone hatchets and crouching around open fires when Greece and Rome had already reached the highest stage of culture. We really should do our best to keep quiet about this past. Instead Himmler makes a great fuss about it all. The present-day Romans must be having a laugh at these relegations."

    How long would it take until this person would be frowned at for being un- or anti-Germanic?

    Here is more of what Hitler thought of Germanic heathens and expressed in Mein Kampf:

    "The characteristic thing about these people [modern-day followers of the early Germanic religion] is that they rave about the old Germanic heroism, about dim prehistory, stone axes, spear and shield, but in reality are the greatest cowards that can be imagined. For the same people who brandish scholarly imitations of old German tin swords, and wear a dressed bearskin with bull's horns over their heads, preach for the present nothing but struggle with spiritual weapons, and run away as fast as they can from every Communist blackjack."

    Modern-day Germanic heathens who live and dress according to the old ways, Germanic reenactors and historians with a passion for our pre-Christian societies would not have always had a respectable place in Hitler's Reich. According to Hitler, not only could they not be true national socialists, but they were also beating a dead horse instead of getting with the times:

    "We will not allow mystically-minded occult folk with a passion for exploring the secrets of the world beyond to steal into our Movement. Such folk are not National Socialists, but something else - in any case, something which has nothing to do with us."

    "It seems to me that nothing would be more foolish than to re-establish the worship of Wotan. Our old mythology ceased to be viable when Christianity implanted itself. Nothing dies unless it is moribund."

    Imagine a modern politician spouting such gibberish. Who in their right mind would call them a Germanic preservationist?

    Hitler did not want to preserve, but to replace Germanic heritage it with a "glorious" pseudo-Germanic, in reality Roman empire. He had a fascination with the Roman empire, a desire to emulate it and rebuild Berlin as the capital into a Roman architecture model rather than a Germanic or Gothic city.

    He also banned the Fraktur font, an important symbol of German and Germanic heritage. The reason given for the ban was that they allegedly discovered some Jewish involvement in the development of the font. However, this cannot be verified historically, and we should assume the nazis had some non-amateurish historians after all. The nazis actually used the font heavily in their early propaganda to appeal to the German people, and called the Latin script a "Roman character used under Jewish influence". A more likely reason behind the ban is thought to be Hitler's personal dislike for the font. Declaring something Jewish had a big impact in that era, and was previously used for propaganda reasons as in the above-mentioned example. Hitler himself preferred the Latin script, and made it known to the Reichstag as early as 1934:

    "Your alleged Gothic internalisation does not fit well in this age of steel and iron, glass and concrete, of womanly beauty and manly strength, of head raised high and intention defiant ... In a hundred years, our language will be the European language. The nations of the east, the north and the west will, to communicate with us, learn our language. The prerequisite for this: The script called Gothic is replaced by the script we have called Latin so far ..."

    The Fraktur had been the official typeface since the foundation of the German Empire, making it the only European country where this font was officially and actively preserved. Today, Fraktur is a disappearing font, used mainly on street names, pub signs and beer brands. Descendants of Germans today find it difficult to decipher their ancestors' letters, diaries, or certificates. We have Hitler to thank for that, and why? Because he thought other countries wouldn't understand the writing. Does that sound like a particularly nationalist move? If any modern leader would state the same and base their ideas on what foreigners would learn more easily, they would be called a globalist.

    And while we are still on the religion topic, Hitler's sympathy for Islam also seems to escape a lot of modern day "National Socialists".

    While Hitler thought of the ethnic mass of Muslims as racially inferior (minus his political allies, whom he described as having a "respected racial genealogy"), he admired the Mohammedan religion and believed it could have been suited to the warmongering temperament he envisioned for his people. He believed that "Islamized Germans could have stood at the head of this Mohammedan Empire" and become heirs to "a religion that believed in spreading the faith by the sword and in subjugating all nations to that faith. Such a creed was perfectly suited to the German temperament." Once again, replace Hitler with any other political figure and most Germanic preservationists in their right mind would be disgusted by such statements.

    And if this is not enough reason to doubt Hitler's dedication to Germanic preservation, let us add his concocted nordicist theories and his support for the assimilation and "germanization" (he called it the "Eindeutschung") of non-Germanic populations, as long as they were "Nordic looking". Hitler had an inferiority complex due to his dark hair and short stature which was considered inferior according to NS racial standards as opposed to the tall, slender, Nordic poster types. This is anti-Germanic racism, belittling Germanics like himself, Himmler, Goebbels, and much of the NS leadership with his nordicist crackpot theories. As Germany was encroached by the war, Hitler was confronted with the incentive to produce more "Aryan children", so they came up with the idea to "reclaim their stolen genetic material". Part of this program involved kidnapping Eastern European babies and children from their families, adopting them out as German orphans from the East, and forcing them to become "cultural Germans". To assess who were Aryan enough, medical examinations were introduced in schools in the occupied areas (which were mostly body/anthropological measurements initially). Those who were identified as potentially Aryan were taken to 6-week school camps where further body measurements and psychological tests were made. The children who passed and were finally selected for the process were then told their parents were dead or some other made-up story that encouraged them to reject their parents and embrace the "Eindeutschung".

    And before you accuse this to be "Hollywood propaganda", have a look at the thread which described the specific criteria to establish desirable "candidates": RuSHA Racial Criteria for ϟϟ and Germanization Candidates - incidentally, it was started by a non-Germanic member, and favored by non-Germanic neo-NS who hang around Germanic forums believing they should be accepted because they believe they look Nordic or Hitler would have done so. Sure, if you are a non-Germanic Nordicist or a pigmentation fetishist who doesn't care about the preservation of Germanic ethnos and even wants to mix with Germanic blondes, then NS might be attractive to you. True Germanic preservationists, on the other hand, reject mixing with non-Germanics, regardless if they are blonde.

    Still not enough? Then let's have a look at the Nuremberg laws. How many times have we read around those forums that 1/4 and 1/8 Jews should be acceptable because the Third Reich would have accepted them? A person of 1/8 Jewish background was considered no less than a Deutschblütiger, while 1/4 or ​1⁄2 Jews were considered mixed race and only regarded as Jewish if they belonged to a cultural organization or married other Jews. Also, a Jewish grandparent was defined as a person who was ever a member of a Jewish religious community. So secular Jews were fine to mix with, and not considered to be Jews.

    Aside from his favorite Mohammedan leaders, Hitler considered the Han Chinese and Japanese to be "Aryans of the East", "Honorary Aryans" and the "Herrenvolk of the Orient". It does not end there though. Hitler also considered their past histories to be superior to Germanics':

    "I have never regarded the Chinese or the Japanese as being inferior to ourselves. They belong to ancient civilizations, and I admit freely that their past history is superior to our own."

    Because of this, Han Chinese soldiers were allowed to immigrate to and study in German military academies and serve in the Wehrmacht as part of their combat training. Also, since the Japanese and Chinese were given this "honorary Aryan" status, racial laws were applied to them in a more lenient manner as compared to other "non-Aryans" who were not granted the same status.

    Some NS will try to motivate Hitler's "dedication" to Germanic preservation by presenting his fantasy of a "pan-Germanic" empire, encompassing other Germanic countries. However, this idea was not of a truly pan-Germanic union, where each Germanic country would have a certain degree of autonomy and the right to preserve its unique traits, but rather his intention was to subjugate other Germanic countries and lead them through his Roman empire model. Hitler and most of his henchmen did not consider granting the subject populations of his pseudo-Germanic farce any national rights of their own. Other Germanic countries were seen as mere extensions of Germany. Hitler's pseudo-Germanic empire was to be called "Großgermanisches Reich Deutscher Nation" where Germany would have the only leading position and other Germanic folk would be treated like second or third-class citizens, used as breeding material. Thus Hitler's fantasy of a pseudo-Germanic empire was not about strengthening and protecting other Germanic brethren, but about turning their countries into war resources and their inhabitants into war laborers or soldiers for a foreign cause. This model was in turn met with an anti-German Scandinavism which surged in Denmark in the 1930s and 1940s.

    Speaking of pan-Germanicism, Hitler couldn't even stay true to pan-Germanism and betrayed his kin from South Tyrol, leaving them to become forcefully italianized by his ally Mussolini. Ethnic Germans in South Tyrol were given the option of either migrating to the German Reich or remaining in South Tyrol to undergo forced italianization.

    The NS like to justify Hitler's going at war with Britain and the US by citing "the Jewish question". However, they forget that Hitler himself was a supporter or Zionism. For what is Zionism, but Jewish National Socialism? Anyway, it is not only Allied countries that Hitler invaded. Apart from invading Germanic countries like Norway, Iceland or the Low Germanic countries, Hitler also planned to invade neutral Switzlerland, for whom he had contempt as "a pimple on the face of Europe" and "the most disgusting and miserable people and political system", despite his own repeated assurances before the outbreak of the war that Germany would respect "at all times, whatever happens, we will respect the inviolability and neutrality of Switzerland". Hitler considered the Swiss the mortal enemies of the new Germany, denouncing them as "a misbegotten branch." Which other true Germanic leader dared to disrespect Swiss tradition and attack a traditionally neutral country? The Swiss were even included on Hitler's fantasy map of a German empire, despite the fact that they had no such self-determination or desire, but wanted to keep their traditional independence and neutrality. Why was there not a plebiscite planned in Switzerland? Because all the NS propaganda would have failed and the overwhelming answer would have been no. Not to mention that Switerzland is the only country who has a truly ethnopluralist system. Why did Hitler not include South Tyrolean Germans in his empire instead, who were faced with forced italianization instead? Talk about priorities. Had Hitler's fantasy Reich become real, any Germanic not wanting to join his pseudo-Germanic empire would have been considered a mortal enemy. "One day we will group ourselves around a single banner, and whosoever shall wish to separate us, we will exterminate!", Hitler said. After the occupation of France, Hitler was rabid with outbursts of fury against Switzerland which even his generals found to be lunacy.

    And if all this is still not enough, Hitler is responsible for prolonging the war and sending millions of Germans of the best quality stock, including a good deal of the fertile male population, as well as teenagers and children to their deaths and wanted to drag the whole world down with him.

    "We will not capitulate - no, never! We may be destroyed, but if we are, we shall drag a world with us - a world in flames."

    I cannot find anything more anti-preservationist than this type of logic. If we had followed this logic, and allowed our populations to experience destruction each time a regime changed, we would have long been gone!


    Die Sonne scheint noch.

  6. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Dagna For This Useful Post:


  7. #144
    Active Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Skadi Funding Member
    John Smithwick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Canadian
    Ancestry
    British/German/French
    Country
    Canada Canada
    State
    Ontario Ontario
    Gender
    Occupation
    National Folk Faith ;)
    Politics
    Ethno-Nationalist
    Religion
    Pagan/Christian/UU
    Posts
    113
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    289
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    81
    Thanked in
    49 Posts
    Velvet, I've been into my cups at this point; so I'm letting caution swing to the wind.

    Today, (((they))) are essentially omnipotent. You and I are fleas to them typing on a message board. They'd occupy 70%+ of our secret services - and 100% of the senior administration of the secret service. They know who everyone is on this board, and if they wanted to, they could swing by and kill every single member here, make the deaths look like accidents or suicides, and the public wouldn't give a damn anyways.

    I feel stupid for saying this (as I'm especially inviting repercussions), but they pulled off 9/11 and no one gave a damn except for a small few at AE911truth.org (of which I'm a paying member).

    So, one thing that would help our optics is to be reasonable, and at least call a spade a spade.

    Velvet: "...if nothing could have been done to prevent the war, why have it anyways... again, for some reason it always falls back on Germany, even if it WAS NOT IN OUR POWER to prevent it."

    It wasn't in the average German's hands to prevent it, but it was in their totalitarian dictator's hands to prevent it. He could have said: "we'll have to let nature take its course in what was once West Prussia, now Poland; and NOT intervene." (PERIOD)

    Lol, I'm sorry velvet. I don't mean to fight with you. I'm just trying to mend things for all parties involved, as an 'anonymous' flea on a message board lol.
    We need a reservation system for our people and our own ethnic-nationalist faith, where we'll have sermons about our people and nations, real history, science, philosophy, etc., in addition to our older religions. Throw in some open bar nights, comedy club hours, music and dance, etc., and it'll be a cracker barrel of good times lol.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to John Smithwick For This Useful Post:


  9. #145
    Active Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Skadi Funding Member
    Idis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    Dutch, Low German & French
    Country
    United States United States
    Gender
    Age
    31
    Family
    Married parent
    Politics
    Free & Libertarian
    Religion
    Cultural Christian
    Posts
    160
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    107
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    148
    Thanked in
    66 Posts
    It depends what is meant by "Germanic". Something Germanic in origin, or something that was adopted/adapted once by a Germanic country or people? Moreover, do you consider an ideology to be Germanic if its central point is the preservation of Germanic heritage?

    Tbh, I have some trouble viewing national socialism as truly Germanic. First of all, isn't the origin of NS Greek/Spartan inspired? Hitler often referred to the ancient Mediterranean societies as examples to follow, including in his "Germania" empire idea. Second, NS is more German than Germanic centered. When I think of Germanic, I usually think all-Germanic, not just a single Germanic ethnicity. So I would call NS more nationalist than I would pan-Germanic. The only specifically Germanic ideology I can think of is pan-Germanicism.

  10. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Idis For This Useful Post:


  11. #146
    Senior Member
    Wyrd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Last Online
    1 Week Ago @ 11:45 PM
    Ethnicity
    Norwegian American
    Ancestry
    Norwegian, German
    Country
    Vinland Vinland
    Gender
    Age
    22
    Family
    Youth
    Occupation
    Student
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic
    Religion
    Heathen
    Posts
    133
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    12
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    56
    Thanked in
    29 Posts
    I mostly agree with the last post and the couple of posts before as well. I don't see NS as a truly pan-Germanic ideology, more like German nationalist. But even there, the Germanic character is questionable because Christianity was promoted and Hitler had the admiration for Roman and Greek traits that Dagna expanded upon. I also have to say I'm shocked to read those quotes where Hitler was ridiculing Germanic heathens and ancient Germanics in general. I agree with Dagna, if someone were to write such things today, I would probably question their dedication to preserving Germanic heritage. Our heritage is more than just race, what makes us Germanic is also in our culture, our history, our past.

    Finally there is a practical aspect. I question whether NS isn't somewhat outdated for today's realities. Not to mention that NS has a generally negative perception among the average population and is even illegal in some countries. So I believe it is highly unlikely that NS will have any chance to resurface as a form of government in Germanic countries. Even nationalism has trouble nowadays, we seem to be moving more and more towards globalization. In such an era, a pan-Germanic union might be more feasible.

  12. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Wyrd For This Useful Post:


  13. #147
    Account Inactive

    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Last Online
    Thursday, February 27th, 2020 @ 08:30 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Gender
    Religion
    Hitlerism
    Posts
    366
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    81
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    119
    Thanked in
    84 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    No he didn't. He started a 300 years long war against the Germans to conquer them for (((christianity))), starting at the massacre at Verden.
    And when (((christianity))) had taken over, the infighting about this or that interpretation of the jew-cult brought more wars over Europe than ever before, killing millions.
    Fine, I'll give more thought to this subject.

    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    I'll dig out more if you want, but you could of course also just read the Edda yourself.
    You know, it's not as if we hadnt scripture. You dont have to read jewbooks.
    Thanks, those quotes will do. Sometimes I can be too generous towards the Church, a possible weakness I share with Hitler.

    Well, I'm still pouring over the Oera Linda and Book of Sajaha, planning to read the Edda when I find a reliable English translation.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Smithwick View Post
    I would not want to have lived in Nazi Germany where books were banned, especially books by fellow nationalists, who accurately predicted that Hitlerism was going to end in absolute disaster:
    Really, using Wikipedia as an argument?

    Judging by the general obscurity of the source (a search for the provided quote only yields copy/paste statements with no context), the "prophecy" seems dubious. Hans Frank doesn't seem to have mentioned it in his memoirs.

    Besides, Spengler lacked the foresight to see beyond what was obvious to everyone. Therefore he is not a prophet.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Smithwick View Post
    It's nice seeing your thoughts and rationalizations, regardless of whether I agree or not.
    Thanks for the acknowledgement at least.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Smithwick View Post
    But two things in closing Terminus, I didn't quote anyone named Rosenberg. I quoted Henry Longfellow and Neville Chamberlain in the above post.
    In the Stormfront post.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Smithwick View Post
    Also, you have as your religion in your profile "Hitlerism" ... I mean, Terminus lol, come on man lol. I think you've been in the NS fishbowl too long. Perhaps you're just being satirical though.
    NS wasn't meant to be a religion plus I've never really identified with NS, which wasn't for export (even emphasized in the American Bund).

    NS was intended to be a social order in the long term (relayed by Otto Wagener, as a counterpart of Freemasonry, Jesuitism, Rosicrucianism, etc.), it suffices to say that like these aforementioned organizations, it had an inner circle. Himmler's Waffen-SS only represented it's "mysteries" (in antiquity, the existence of mysteries were known by everyone and accessible to the public. They were only concerned with the basics/practical). Not all of the top leading National Socialists were involved in it. The problem with exploring the inner circle is the scarcity of reliable information, even Julius Evola had to admit as much in Hitler and the Secret Societies, disclaiming the Thule Society's association with Hitler's movement.

    The only way to ascertain this inner circle is through a study of Hitler and the maxims he employed in his speeches and writings. The emphasis on Fate over Providence is highly significant. Julius Streicher appealed to it in his trial. His usage of Fate was distinct from Rudolf Hess' fatalistic interpretation (based on Schopenhauer). Unlike Hess, Streicher was addressed by the intimate "Du". Even in his final moments, he maintained the defiant struggle, being the only one who mentioned Hitler in his last words.

    Obviously Himmler was an initiate of this order, unlike his subordinates, as seen in his mention of Wralda. He said he believed in god and fate, the same way Hitler was said to have believed in god and a divine destiny. Goebbels and Bormann knew Hitler in his intimate moments, being mentioned in his Political Testament. Supposedly Hans-Ulrich Rudel would've been initiated into this inner circle if he hadn't evaded Hitler's wishes (Rudel himself noted how often he had rejected Hitler's attempts).

    I have argued several times that NS owes it's founding to one man. He was original in propaganda, organization, application of force, and in the concept of struggle between Weltanschauung of a spiritual nature (communism was acknowledged as a spiritual ideology, although incorrect), all of this was conceded by his enemies and mainstream historians. His enemies only denied his intellectual merit.

    I'm neither Christian nor pagan, kind of in-between, an intermediary. But I reject pantheism, mysticism, occultism, deism, Freemasonry, and Oriental religions. Obviously I am not agnostic/atheistic.

    Post-NS development went off-the-rails with Miguel Serrano (dualistic gnosticism), Savitri Devi (Hindu fatalism and cyclicism), etc. All that's left for me to embrace is Hitlerism (without deifying him, of course). As the linchpin which holds history together, it's necessary to reclaim him from the counterfeit nationalist sects and place him into a grander context.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Smithwick View Post
    It wasn't just Hitler's personality that was obtuse and devoid of easy-goingness (although he topped the list IMO), but all of them: Chamberlain, Churchill, Daladier, Roosevelt, Stalin, Mussolini, etc.
    Your statement reads like an indictment of Goethe, who kept himself aloof from strangers, but was readily intimate with his closest friends. Hitler was the same way.

    Stalin knew his limits and exercised restraint, despite his voracious appetite. He was a realist like Himmler and Charlemagne. He got along well with Heinrich Hoffmann. He was the only one suited to lead the Russians, this was admitted in both NS and Soviet circles (he had wanted to step down and initially shunned his own cult of personality). It was under his direction that Bolshevism (dictatorship of the proletariat) was transvalued into the slightly less dangerous pan-Slavism, this was supposedly relayed by Stalin to Molotov in an intimate moment and recognized by Hitler and Francis Parker Yockey. He was a loyal Leninist, although his methods diverged from Trotsky, but not naive towards the Jewish question.

    Hitler was willing to give Churchill the benefit of the doubt, leaving the possibility of him coming to his senses open. Churchill protested against the Morgenthau plan and tried to intervene on the behalf of Rudolf Hess.

    It was FDR who was inhuman among the Allied leaders. The amount of information I've gathered on him, from reviewing his subordinates and associates, is staggering. Not only physically, but mentally impaired. I dare say, he was more dangerous to German interests than the Rothschilds.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Smithwick View Post
    These men could have sat down over a few beers and hashed out an agreement within hours. Instead they opted for: the mass extermination of "little people" like we were insects through war.
    That's wishful thinking. The masses would never tolerate such a resolution, it would only pave the way for another Lenin. The masses will only answer to a display of strength and decisiveness, not half-measures.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Smithwick View Post
    Him being an arts student, instead of a science student, may have contributed to his shortsightedness. It's unfortunate someone like Wernher von Braun didn't run the country. There'd have been no war, and we'd probably have a Moon and Mars base by now.
    Him being artistic and musical afforded him an advantage over Bismarck, Ludendorff, and British statesmen.

    A theoretician or an inventor would've run the country into the ground, although Wernher von Braun was praised by Hitler.

    Colonizing space is a Jewish conception. It testifies to an absence of a sense of proportion. It's far too early to discuss this matter, when humans have hardly solved our problems on this planet. Until the evils which are contained only on this planet have been neutralized (the ancients, in particular Herakleitos, held that the inhabitants of the worlds beyond the earth and it's moons were of purer forms), almost everything in space is off-limits.

  14. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Terminus For This Useful Post:


  15. #148
    Active Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Skadi Funding Member
    John Smithwick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Canadian
    Ancestry
    British/German/French
    Country
    Canada Canada
    State
    Ontario Ontario
    Gender
    Occupation
    National Folk Faith ;)
    Politics
    Ethno-Nationalist
    Religion
    Pagan/Christian/UU
    Posts
    113
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    289
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    81
    Thanked in
    49 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Terminus View Post
    Really ... Wikipedia
    Similar to the Churchill quote, who knows. The first time I heard the statement "Spengler said: Germany doesn't need a tenor", was through a speech by Jonathan Bowden about ten years ago (the British National Party Cultural Officer). He's deceased now so we can't ask him for his source.

    Here's Wikipedia's source for the Spengler letter to his friend: http://docplayer.org/25794413-Engelb...gest-1918.html

    People like Winston Churchill were antagonizing the NS regime by 1936, so Spengler's prediction isn't that surprising.

    While I commend people for presenting the NS version of things, I find the "Hitler was 100% correct" stuff really ridiculous and I think it's self-defeating. Edward the VIII tried hard to stop the war. He had this to say afterwards:

    Edward VIII - Wikipedia

    After the war, the Duke admitted in his memoirs that he admired the Germans, but he denied being pro-Nazi. Of Hitler he wrote: "[the] Führer struck me as a somewhat ridiculous figure, with his theatrical posturings and his bombastic pretensions."[96]
    YouTube did a massive purge of Hitler speeches, but you can still find some. Here he is "talking" to Otto Wells, and at moments he's almost yelling at him - dinosaur like:
    https://youtu.be/4KW87Ccjq1E?t=464
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG5TiS6qVOU

    So in conclusion, is NS compatible with Germanic preservation? No - it really didn't work out well to say the least.
    We need a reservation system for our people and our own ethnic-nationalist faith, where we'll have sermons about our people and nations, real history, science, philosophy, etc., in addition to our older religions. Throw in some open bar nights, comedy club hours, music and dance, etc., and it'll be a cracker barrel of good times lol.

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to John Smithwick For This Useful Post:


  17. #149
    Senior Member
    velvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Online
    Sunday, March 8th, 2020 @ 03:10 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Northern Germany
    Subrace
    Faelid
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    North Rhine-Westphalia North Rhine-Westphalia
    Gender
    Age
    46
    Zodiac Sign
    Sagittarius
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Pestilent Supremacy
    Politics
    Blut und Boden
    Religion
    Fimbulwinter
    Posts
    5,000
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,295
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,439
    Thanked in
    644 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by John Smithwick View Post
    So in conclusion, is NS compatible with Germanic preservation? No - it really didn't work out well to say the least.
    You're confusing, like everyone, the "result" (ie the flattening of Germany and in extension, the destruction of the White Race as such by the (((Allies))) ) with what NS would have been on the inside. Indeed, it is nationalism. That's why it is called Nationalsocialism. It was supposed to provide a politicial, ideological and economic frame in which the German people can thrive and grow beyond all the "but's" and "if's" and in fact bullshit traditions. It was supposed to literally re-invent the German people.

    And while the actual structuring of this social revolution was entirely tailored to the German people and as such were not for export, its principle ideas and ideals, re-tailored to the Norwegians, the Swedes, the Dutch etc, indeed were; specially in terms of the economic order (breaking the international/supranational banking cartell), but also in terms of Race and Ethnicity, "breeding" quality, educating greatness and the Will for More-than-we-have-been. It is not even limited to Germanics, these principles essentially apply to every race and every ethnicity to work and thrive for its own greatness, its own expression, its own perfection.

    It's quite weird that NS is rejected "because it is nationalist", while usually all "pan"-ideologies are unevoqually rejected on this board. But when it's against NS, "pan" this is again perfectly fine. Talk of hypocrisy...

    One thing, re strategy. An alliance of independent nations would be much stronger than a single empire of Germanics. It is economically beneficial for each nation involved. Look at the Nordic countries. No one ever came to the idea to make one nation out of Scandinavia, and rightfully so. Even the communists of the Soviet Union got this very basic principle. While the (((West))) and propaganda paints the bloc as "one", it never was one. Czechslovakia, Poland, the Baltic states, Ukraine, Belarus, East-Germany etc were all independent nations with their own inner economic order, their own currency, their own government, their own people/Volk.

    The EU economic crisis is the Euro-currency itself and that trade no longer crosses borders, does no longer operate on local/national incentives and principles. EU and global "integretion" ARE the global economic crisis, and it cant be overcome with more integration, only with seperation. This at least Britain got (the population that is, the retarded politicians dont). It is an innate desire of every race to have its own nation, Blut und Boden is an innate desire of every people. Every supra-political power superimposed on this from the outside can only destroy local economy, culture and ethnic identity. NS was an ideology to stand against and overcome the globalistic fantasies, and once again put focus on the race and nation.

    NS provides a frame to establish truely independent nations, capable of deciding their own fate and further their own people.

    "Generally speaking, we must not forget that the highest aim of human existence is not the maintenance of a State of Government but the preservation of the Race."
    ~Adolf Hitler

    So, one thing that would help our optics is to be reasonable, and at least call a spade a spade.

    Velvet: "...if nothing could have been done to prevent the war, why have it anyways... again, for some reason it always falls back on Germany, even if it WAS NOT IN OUR POWER to prevent it."

    It wasn't in the average German's hands to prevent it, but it was in their totalitarian dictator's hands to prevent it. He could have said: "we'll have to let nature take its course in what was once West Prussia, now Poland; and NOT intervene." (PERIOD)
    Again, no. It was neither in the hands of the people nor was it in the hands of Hitler to prevent this war. If it hadnt been Poland the Allies had found another "reason" to go to war against Germany.

    One thing you really must understand is that WWII is not an isolated event. Its history starts in the 19th century. In the 1890s France said: Germany has 20mio people too many and too much land. Britain agreed and inscenated the assassination of Ferdinand in Serbia to start WWI. After it, Germany had 20mio people less and lost a third of its territory. Cant you just understand that NOTHING (short of a complete self-annihiliation of the German people) in this world, and nothing that we or any leader, regardless of flavour, could have done had prevented (((THEIR))) "redesign" of Europe?

    And actually it even started earlier than that even:

    "Es ist möglich, daß der Deutsche noch einmal von der Weltbühne verschwindet; denn er hat alle Eigenschaften, sich den Himmel zu erwerben, aber keine einzige, sich auf Erden zu behaupten, und alle Nationen hassen ihn wie die Bösen den Guten. Wenn es ihnen aber wirklich einmal gelingt, ihn zu verdrängen, wird ein Zustand entstehen, in dem sie ihn wieder mit den Nägeln aus dem Grabe kratzen möchten!"
    ~Christian Friedrich Hebbel, Tagebücher 1860

    'It is possible that the German could vanish from the world's stage; because he has every trait to earn heaven, but not a single one to content (?) himself on earth, and all nations hate him like the Evils hate the Good Ones. If though they ever succeed to displace him, a condition will arise in which they want to scratch him with their finger nails out of the grave again!'

    A similar sentiment has been displayed by Ernst Moritz Arndt and others even before them, we didnt even really exist as a nation or a people, we were merely an idea in our heads, and yet, every other people around us hated - and hates - us with a passion. Why is that? And why is it that each and every event that was not of our making nor of our wish is blamed upon us and no one ever questions this "inherent guilt of the German" for every woe that has befallen other nations when THEY pushed against us, and broke on it? Stop redesigning Europe without or against Germans and no one breaks. It's really as easy as that. Grow in our windshadow, every nation in Europe, and in fact the world, would benefit from it. But for some reason, people dont get that.

    We had overcome Hitler (and with him the intitial errors within NS, because yes, the obsession with Roman stuff was ultimately bad and some more MINOR details) soon enough, we had not needed "help" in that from the (((outside))). And let Nature its course? We had eaten Poland for breakfast, that was Nature. But the (((Allies))) (like all christians) are obsessed with helping the weak and nurturing the meek. Look at this world. Is that a good approach? No people on this planet has a true, functioning culture anymore thanks to (((Allied))) ideologies.

    Actually, I dont care about "optics". I care about what is Right and Wrong. The allied approach is wrong and NS / Blut und Boden / Racialism is Right. Either mankind gets that (better sooner than later) or kills itself on wrong, destructive principles and leftist defined "good optics" of race-mixing, inclusiveness and charity for the weak and meek.
    Ein Leben ist nichts, deine Sprosse sind alles
    Aller Sturm nimmt nichts, weil dein Wurzelgriff zu stark ist
    und endet meine Frist, weiss ich dass du noch da bist
    Gefürchtet von der Zeit, mein Baum, mein Stamm in Ewigkeit

    my signature

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to velvet For This Useful Post:


  19. #150
    Active Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Skadi Funding Member
    John Smithwick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Canadian
    Ancestry
    British/German/French
    Country
    Canada Canada
    State
    Ontario Ontario
    Gender
    Occupation
    National Folk Faith ;)
    Politics
    Ethno-Nationalist
    Religion
    Pagan/Christian/UU
    Posts
    113
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    289
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    81
    Thanked in
    49 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    It was supposed to provide a politicial, ideological and economic frame in which the German people can thrive....
    Yes and had it not tried to get back what was lost after WWI so quickly, I think it could have.

    Similarly, had it presented itself as "warm and fuzzy" instead of militant, I think it would have changed the destiny of the West.

    Also regarding the religious question, had they been explicit, instead of implicit, as torchbearers for a new German Faith (instead of just a political party), that would have rocketed us forward. The German Faith would have honoured our Christian AND Pagan heritage, while placing the new primary source of faith as: the German people and nation. Every European country would have imitated it.

    But your grandfathers didn't do that, and mine were conscripted to fight against them.

    Putin is a successful fuhrer-like figure today - it's working well in Russia. The regime in Saudi Arabia and the Chinese government are essentially NS for those people. We need to mobilize towards a stronger system (and faith) for us. Hopefully some billionaire moguls will sympathize.

    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    Again, no. It was neither in the hands of the people nor was it in the hands of Hitler to prevent this war. If it hadnt been Poland the Allies had found another "reason" to go to war against Germany.
    I think you're really off there. Had the NS not been so antagonistic towards the Jews, (((they))) wouldn't have manipulated you into a war. (((They))) were undoubtedly funding militias in Poland to begin the German refugee crisis in the summer of 1939. Hitler took the bait - sad, but reality. No one wanted war except the Jews, and they only wanted it because it seemed clear that Germans were going to nationalize all their assets and have them living an agrarian lifestyle in Palestine and Madagascar. So I can understand their motives (especially given how your concept caught on in Italy and, to a lesser extent, Spain - it was only a matter of time before it spread to France and Britain). Anyways, I'm someone who likes watching Seinfeld and Curb Your Enthusiasm from time to time - the Jews reading this should know that 'we' are not a hostile to them ; we're looking for their help. Please help us the Jews lol - don't the conversations in this thread warm you towards our donation button lol.

    I know any day now, especially when I'm making top-of-the-line sermons like this and this, the Monarchy and our peoples' billionaires will soon contact me to begin the rebirth of our nations with the new faith lol. It's going to be glorious lol https://www.bitchute.com/video/tiIxpDkqe1HU/

    This is the closest thing I could find to the new faith - decent job:
    https://www.bitchute.com/video/1Wsq2Zi5Km0/
    We need a reservation system for our people and our own ethnic-nationalist faith, where we'll have sermons about our people and nations, real history, science, philosophy, etc., in addition to our older religions. Throw in some open bar nights, comedy club hours, music and dance, etc., and it'll be a cracker barrel of good times lol.

Similar Threads

  1. Is Rock & Roll Compatible with Germanic Identity?
    By Ward in forum Music & Hymns
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: Friday, March 29th, 2019, 03:48 PM
  2. How Old Were You When You Became Interested in Germanic Preservation?
    By Unregistered in forum Questions About Germanics
    Replies: 66
    Last Post: Sunday, August 5th, 2012, 10:28 AM
  3. Is National Socialism a Germans' Only Ideology?
    By Siebenbürgerin in forum Political Theory
    Replies: 274
    Last Post: Tuesday, July 24th, 2012, 10:27 AM
  4. Is Socialism Compatible with Germanic Preservation?
    By Siebenbürgerin in forum Political Theory
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: Friday, August 8th, 2008, 10:18 AM
  5. Replies: 14
    Last Post: Saturday, February 26th, 2005, 11:27 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
  •