Any social darwinists around here?

[bananabrain]

don't you dare preach to me. hitler was a maniac and a despot who plunged the world into chaos and caused the deaths of millions. if i "discriminate" against you by saying that, then so be it. if you are so stupid that you cannot see the practical consequences of your beliefs if anyone tried to apply them, then i have nothing more to say to you. your views have no place on this website or in any decent human society.

National socialism is nothing but zionism for non-jews. I would support zionism, if Israel was located in Eastern Europe (where your people's ethic backgrounds are), if they did not opress other people and if they did not suck so much money out of the economy of other countries.

so you're not an racist anti-semite, but you equate zionism with nazism, further evidence of your ignorance (as is your statement that 'my people's ethic [sic: not surprising you can't distinguish between ethics and ethnicity] backgrounds' are in eastern europe) - being both a nationalist and a socialist does not make one a nazi, or you'd have to call our labour party nazis (oops, i forget, people already do) and as for your accusation that "they [..] suck so much money out of the economy of other countries"; an accusation european antisemites have been making for a very long time - what's this if not most overt and blatant antisemitism?

you are a fool and i only hope that you grow out of it. i'm done talking to you.

bananabrain

 

[IlluSionS667]

hitler was a maniac and a despot who plunged the world into chaos and caused the deaths of millions.

He was not. The world war was started by the UK and France, and not by Germany. And it's this war which caused the death of so many people.

Hitler was not a maniac, but an intelligent man who loved his country, but hated what had happened to it.

if you are so stupid that you cannot see the practical consequences of your beliefs if anyone tried to apply them, then i have nothing more to say to you.

your views have no place on this website or in any decent human society.

The economical aspects have been applied by the Incas, a great civilisation, until they were destroyed by Christian barbarians.

Concerning the social aspects, my ideal is much more peaceful and respectful to other than what Israel is doing in the Middle East. It is somewhat similar though, but without the oppression of other people.

so you're not an racist anti-semite, but you equate zionism with nazism, further evidence of your ignorance.

Are you familiar with the Lechi (also written as 'Lehi')? They're a 'terrorist' organisation, which fought against the British empire for an independent Israel in Palestine. When the Israeli Defense Force was established on May 31, 1948, the Lechi was disbanded and its members enlisted in the IDF.

The Fighters for the Freedom of Israel (FFI) The Lechi, By Avraham Stern
(written approximately 1940)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. The Nation
The Jewish people is a covenanted people, the originator
of monotheism formulator of the prophetic teachings, standard
bearer of human culture, guardian of glorious patrimony. The
Jewish people is schooled in self-sacrifice and suffering; its
vision, survivability and faith in redemption are indestructable.

2. The Homeland
The Homeland in the Land of Israel within the borders
delineated in the Bible ("To your descendants, I shall give
this land, from the River of Egypt to the great Euphrates River."
Genesis 15:18) This is the land of the living, where the entire
nation shall live in safety.

3. The Nation and its Land
Israel conquered the land with the sword. There it became a
great nation and only there it will be reborn. Hence Israel alone
has a right to that land. This is an absolute right. It has never
expired and never will.

4. The Goals
1. redemption of the land.
2. Establishment of sovereignty.
3. Revival of the nation.

There is no sovereignty without the redemption of the land,
and there is no national revival without sovereignty.

These are the goals of the organization during the period of war
and conquest:

5. Education
Educate the nation to love freedom and zealously guard
Israel's eternal patrimony. Inculcate the idea that the nation
is master to its own fate. Revive the doctrine that "The sword
and the book came bound together from heaven". (Midrash Vayikra
Rabba 35:8)

6. Unity
The unification of the entire nation around the banner of
the Hebrew freedom movement. The use of the genius, status and
resources of individuals and the channeling of the energy,
devotion and revolutionary fervor of the masses for the war of
liberation.

7. Pacts
Make pacts with all those who are willing to help the
struggle of the organization and provide direct support.

8. Force
Consolidate and increase the fighting force in the homeland
and in the diaspora, in the underground and in the barracks, to
become the Hebrew army of liberation with its flag, arms, and
commanders.

9. War
Constant war against those who stand in the way of
fulfilling the goals.

10. Conquest
The conquest of the homeland from foreign rule and its
eternal possession.

These are the tasks of the movement during the period of
sovereignty and redemption:

11. Sovereignty
Renewal of Hebrew sovereignty over the redeemed land.

12. Rule of Justice
The establishment of a social order in the spirit of Jewish
morality and prophetic justice. Under such and order no one will
go hungry or unemployed. All will live in harmony, mutual respect
and friendship as an example to the world.

13. Reviving the Wilderness
Build the ruins and revive the wilderness for mass
immigration and population increase.

14. Aliens
Solve the problem of alien population by exchange of population.

15. Ingathering of the Exiles
Total ingathering of the entire exiles to their sovereign state.

16. Power
The Hebrew nation shall become a first-rate military,
political, cultural and economic entity in the Middle East and
around the Mediterranean Sea.

17. Revival
The revival of the Hebrew language as a spoken language by
the entire nation, the renewal of the historical and spiritual
might of Israel. The purification of the national character in
the fire of revival.

18. The Temple
The building of the Third Temple as a symbol of the era of
total redemption.



Now, I've taken the liberty to make some small changes, and I ended up with the ideals of National Socialist Germany.

Ideals of NS Germany, 1933 - 1945
(my own adaptation of the ideology of the Lechi)
------------------------------------------------
1. The Nation
The German people is a covenanted people who defeated the Roman empire, children of Wotan, standard bearer of human culture, guardian of glorious patrimony. The
German people is schooled in self-sacrifice and suffering; its vision, survivability and self-confidence are indestructable.

2. The Homeland
The Homeland is the Land of Germany within the borders delineated in 1871. This is the land of the living, where the entire nation shall live in safety.

3. The Nation and its Land
Germany united under the sword. There it became a great nation and only there it will be reborn. Hence Germany alone has a right to that land. This is an absolute right. It has never expired and never will.

4. The Goals
1. redemption of Sudetenland, East-Prussia, Austria and the Alsace.
2. Establishment of sovereignty in all German areas.
3. Revival of the nation.

There is no sovereignty for all Germans without the redemption of the stolen land, and there is no national revival without sovereignty.

5. Education
Educate the nation to love freedom and zealously guard Germany's eternal patrimony. Inculcate the idea that the nation is master to its own fate. Revive the doctrines of "mens sana in corpore sane".

6. Unity
The unification of the entire nation around the banner of the National Socialist movement. The use of the genius, status and resources of individuals and the channeling of the energy, devotion and revolutionary fervor of the masses for the war of liberation.

7. Pacts
Make pacts with all those who are willing to help the struggle of the organization and provide direct support.

8. Force
Consolidate and increase the fighting force, to become the National Socialist army of liberation with its flag, arms, and commanders.

9. War
Constant war against those who stand in the way of fulfilling the goals.

10. Conquest
The conquest of the stolen land from foreign rule and its eternal possession.

11. Sovereignty
Renewal of German sovereignty over all German territories.

12. Rule of Justice
The establishment of a social order in the spirit of traditional Aryan morality and natural law. Under such and order no one will go hungry or unemployed. All will live in harmony, mutual respect and friendship as an example to the world.

13. Reviving the Wilderness
Build the ruins and revive the wilderness for the advancement of the Aryan race and national prosperity.

14. Jews
Solve the jewish problem by forced migration and a national jewish boycot.

15. Redemption of the Stolen lands
Total ingathering of all Germans to their sovereign state.

16. Power
The German nation shall become a first-rate military, political, cultural and economic entity in the Europe and the rest of the western world.

17. Revival
The revival of pre-Christian German traditions and values by the entire nation, the renewal of the historical and spiritual might of Germany. The purification of the national character in the fire of revival.

18. Welthauptstadt Germania
The re-building of Berlin as 'Welthauptstadt Germania' to become a symbol of strength and righteousness of the German people.

It's all very similar.

not surprising you can't distinguish between ethics and ethnicity

I'm not a native speaker, and in my language we don't even have a word such as ethnicity. Feel free to enlighten me about the differences.

being both a nationalist and a socialist does not make one a nazi, or you'd have to call our labour party nazis

Nazi is a derogative word for national socialist. National stands for nationalism. Socialist stands for socialism. National socialism is a rather extremly nationalist right-wing socialist movement. That's the orriginal meaning, which has nothing to do with racism whatsoever. When I call myself a national socialist, I refer to this meaning and not any modern designation it has recieved.

and as for your accusation that "they [..] suck so much money out of the economy of other countries"; an accusation european antisemites have been making for a very long time - what's this if not most overt and blatant antisemitism?

It's not anti-semitism, it's the truth. You deny the moneyflows to Israel by wealthy jewish capitalists and the US government?

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Illusions!

I am not versed well enough on WWII to cite from memory, but I have seen a few things that raise questions in my mind.

the Germans never started the war.

I was reminded only last night of "Kristallnacht," Nov 9, 1938. Coincidence?

At any rate, I seem to recall Germany invading many countries, some of which are no longer on the map (the territories having been absorbed in post-war border redistribution). This, before any serious defensive posture was offered by France, Britain or the US. Even the Baltic countries of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were taken by Germany before any serious opposition was offered. It wasn't until after Poland was taken that serious opposition by Allied forces was undertaken. So I find it difficult to believe "the Germans never started the war." What was the alternative? Left unchecked, the advance would not have stopped of its own accord. The advance fuelled further advance, kind of like a bully realizing that he has no opposition and can get away with anything he wants to. That's called "wartime economy."

They never wanted to attack England nor America.

This may or may not be. I have heard many times that Hitler feared America's entry into the fray, because of America's industrial ability. Since Roosevelt's social programs were already in full swing, America's industry could be mobilized to wartime production quite easily, and quiet support of Britain was increasingly becoming the norm. I cannot help but wonder how much influence Hitler had on the Japanese, encouraging the Pearl Harbor attack, in an effort to deflect attention away from Europe. I don't think anybody realized, including Americans, how we could or would fight on two fronts successfully.

And France was not planned to be invaded for quite a while, and only because that had defeated Germany in the previous war.

But that defeat came also at the hands of the British, and a much lesser extent the Americans. So if the occupation of France was retaliation for WWI, why should I believe "they never wanted to attack England nor America?" Further, many of the nations Germany overran were allied with them during WWI, or were neutral. So retaliation as reward for actions during the previous war seems a very stretched argument, in my mind. After all, actions speak louder than words, especially words from politicians.

I do not have enough information on the first war to say whether it was justified to take revenge on France. Hitler had the right to take Sudetenland and East-Prussia as they have always been German territory.. But I agree that he should have left Bohemia alone. This however does not justify a full scale war as was launched against Germany.

So, let's take stock. Germany overran countries at will for some time before Allied opposition was offered. The countries overran included those against, for and neutral to Germany during WWI. The German expansion reached as far as Russia and most of the European continent before opposition was offered. And while you offer a differing philosophical take on the matter, people of many races, religions and cultures were being systematically slaughtered in wholesale numbers simply for being different from the German ideal. And this, somehow, "does not justify a full scale war as was launched against Germany." Have I understood correctly?

 

[IlluSionS667]

I seem to recall Germany invading many countries, some of which are no longer on the map (the territories having been absorbed in post-war border redistribution). This, before any serious defensive posture was offered by France, Britain or the US.

Poland was attacked to re-aqquire East-Prussia. Chzechoslovakia was attacked for re-aqquire Sudetenland. Both were parts of Germany, until it was taken away in 1918. Austria had been an ally ever since the Franco-Prussian war, and as this was a country of ethic Germans and Hitler himself came from that country, he decided this too should be a part of larger Germany.
I do however not know the reasons for him invading Bohemia.

Even the Baltic countries of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were taken by Germany before any serious opposition was offered.

Actually, there countries were overrun by Stalin's troops. It was not until the attack on the Sovjet Union that Germany sent troops to the Baltic states.

So I find it difficult to believe "the Germans never started the war." What was the alternative? Left unchecked, the advance would not have stopped of its own accord.

There never were plans to invade other Western European countries, except France which (Hitler believed) had to be punished for its previous war against Germany and to re-aqquire the Alsace, which was a part of Germany between the Franco-Prussian war and the first world war.

This may or may not be. I have heard many times that Hitler feared America's entry into the fray, because of America's industrial ability.

Actually, for a long time Hitler assumed that the Americans would follow Germany's example... He tought the same of the UK. Quite an error of jugdments, one might say. I think that presumption was which made him believe that these countries would never start a war against him.

I cannot help but wonder how much influence Hitler had on the Japanese, encouraging the Pearl Harbor attack, in an effort to deflect attention away from Europe.

He did not want a war with the US, so I don't see how he could have been involved in Pearl Harbor. By the way, he allready had his hands full with a war against England, France and the Sovjet Union.

I don't think anybody realized, including Americans, how we could or would fight on two fronts successfully.

But that defeat came also at the hands of the British, and a much lesser extent the Americans. So if the occupation of France was retaliation for WWI, why should I believe "they never wanted to attack England nor America?"

The war was started by France, and France took a bite out of Germany. I think there were considered main offences by Hitler. I'm not sure why he didn't want to attack England. He just didn't, and he even mentioned that in the political testament that he never wanted a war with England. Maybe that's the reason why he never sent an invasion force to the UK, when he could... Hitler was not quite the greatest military tactician.

Further, many of the nations Germany overran were allied with them during WWI, or were neutral. So retaliation as reward for actions during the previous war seems a very stretched argument, in my mind.

The attack on France was the only planned invasion with retalliation as a motive. As I states above, for other nations the goal was to unite the German people.

The German expansion reached as far as Russia and most of the European continent before opposition was offered.

Then you're clearly misinformed. At the moment England and France declared war, Hitler had aqquired only Austria, Czechoslovakia and parts of Poland.

And while you offer a differing philosophical take on the matter, people of many races, religions and cultures were being systematically slaughtered in wholesale numbers simply for being different from the German ideal.

In case you're referring to the German ideal as a racial ideal, you're definitely wrong. Hitler had Slavs and Muslems fighting for the empire. He had an alliance with Japan and Turkey, not quite Aryan countries. There was religious tolerance for all religions that did not pose a danger to the national socialist spirit.

The national socialist spirit was a spirit of unity between all people, of love for the nation and its history, of cooperation, ... Jews have a way of living in a closed community, with love for capitalism. That's why they were considered a threat. Gypsies were also considered harmful, as they too live in a closed community, and they don't do any kind of work. Homosexuality was considered a crime (also before and after the NS regime... this was not a national socialist issue, but a general conception of that time), because homosexuality was considered perverted. All others who were sent to camps were sent there for political reasons. And the camps were NOT meant to murder people, but to prevent them from harming a state that is weakened by war and to provide labor at the same time. There were prisoners in the camps before WW2, but all of them were strictly political, of which no more than 20000 were jewish. This was to ensure the growth of the state, without fear of a counterrevolution.

 

[iBrian]

I have my own ideology, based on social darwinism and the orriginal national socialism. I am anti-racist, but I do believe that races should be seperated.

Are there other people out here with a similar ideology?

I've have a read of the site and some of the concepts used appear quite confused. There seems to be a general misunderstanding of Communism, National Socialism, and Racism in general.

The idea that "races" need to be separated is in itself a racist remark. Racism isn't about being violent to someone because of their skin colour, ethnicity, creeds, etc - it is simply about discriminating against people on these grounds. And this is precisely what you are doing. Therefore your beliefs are effectively racist.

I have to say, though, there seems to be something rather "questing" and "confused" about your general outlook - as if you are looking for a system of absolutes to belong to - but rather than work on any real and actual history involved, you seem to invoke an idea that something there is a Zionist revision of history that effectively seeks to demonise the poor and innocent who believed in absolutes. In this aspect you've missed the boat completely.

National Socialism is simply about one thing - the strong rule. It isn't about creating a perfect society for all - it's about creating a violent and oppressive oligarchy to rule the rest.

You seem to imagine that by associating yourself with the ideology that you are associating yourself with the "strong" - but all you are doing is aligning yourself with the violent. I'm sure you would like to claim that there are social goals achieved in NS, and this is true - but this is only so that the fattened new bourgeious could feed off the workers more effeciently. National Socialism has one goal - institutionalised exploitation, via whatever violent means are required.

What is actually especially interesting is how you know this is an inflammatory subject - yet you have walked into an interfaith community and openly asked - as one of your first threads - if anyone else shares such a controversial view.

This suggests firstly that the motivation is part attention seeking - but partly because you are still looking for a sense of "belonging". It would be rather misguided of you to imagine that a multifaith forum would be receptive to such ideologies.

I do not see anything of my ideology in South-African history. The only comparison lies with the seperation of cultures. But I also do believe no culture should rule over another and that all cultures should have an independent economy and political freedom. This is a very important aspect of my ideology. This is completely missing in the former South-African situation.]

The sovjet union was indeed a cooperative state, but was seriously flawed in some specific areas : people were paid per hour and not for the amount of work they did, there was no competition between companies, state leaders were not always competent enough, they never passed the temporary fase of repression, ... Also missing is an ideological foundation, as the Marxist ideal was rather different from the implementation.

Your understanding of these rather complex subjects seems rather flippant and superficial at best, I'm afraid. I recommend you read about them outside of the narrow band of sources you are using for the moment.

National Socialist Germany did not fail. It was still in it's temporary repressive fase, when it was attacked by Great Britain and France, but was still evolving in a positive way, when it was defeated by these states. They attacked Germany, because they were afraid their countries would follow Germany's example or Hitler and because of zionist pressure. With France, there was another reason : it feared retalliation from the war it won from Germany in 1918.

My ideology mostly resembles the one of NS Germany, however there are some ideological differences. By the ideology of NS Germany, I mean the real ideology of course, and not the lies that have been told about them to demonize them and make them look like monsters.

The ideology of NS is in itself repressive, so there is no place for claiming that repression in Nazi Germany was therefore a "temporary" thing.

You also seem very unclear about the actual history of the situation - Britain declared war on Germany for the invasion of Poland, for Britain had a protective treaty to defend Polish sovereignty against invasion. Therefore Hilter's military action was in itself flagrantly antagonistic and invited war. Hitler knew this - that's why he tried to fob off Chamberlain with that famous "piece of paper", assuring Britain that Nazi Germany would enact no expansionist plans.

There is enough diversity amongst the people in one culture. And I clearly say culture, because I believe seperation should be based on culture. Because culture and race are often a unit, I mentioned seperation by race. But I should have said seperation by culture. I was a bit too quick in submitting Culture to me is a much more important divider of people than race.

You seem a little confused on the issue - you have already made a clear point on your site of people being divided by race. Now you are not sure. You do not seem very sure about what you believe in. Perhaps that is part of the problem? Or else perhaps you are simply attempting to manipulate the emotions of members by striking out with as many baseless assumptions as possible? Maybe it's fun for you, but it's not really something that shuold be tolerated.

I did not contradict myself. My ideology are based on social darwinism and the orriginal national socialism, which have nothing do do with racism. The reason why I believe in seperation of race/culture, is because I believe this is the best way for each race/culture to develop. By mixing races and cultures, you're destroying some things you can only find in some races/cultures and the depth of a culture is lost. The American society is a perfect example of the latter. I do not believe one race is superior to others. I actually opose this, which is why I also believe that no race/culture has the right to rule another.

"Social Darwinism" sounds like such a nicety - almost Galtonian in it's attempt at innocent euphemism. As for ulture being "lost" - you would really have to define firstly what "culture" is, and then why the preservation - even stagnation of "culture" is such a good and great thing.

You can learn from eachother without mixing. Are you familiar with the folklore of Asia or Europe? These countries have much richer cultures than your country. If you start mixing them too much, the entire world would become a clone of North America. And I do not like the sight of that.

Europe and Asia have undergone extensive cultural mixing - the arising of the more modern exclusive expressions comes simply from the temporary geographic isolation of pockets of earlier culture.

Yeah, I know my ideology is pretty controversial. However, I'm one of the most tollerant and openminded persons you'll ever meet. I dare you to prove otherwise .

I don't doubt your opern-mindedness and tolerance - after all, you are trying to argue the case for being more tolerant of Hitler and the persons behind the Final Solution. But I should hope this open-mindedness extends to the alternative views of these otherwise "alternative views" in themselves. In other words, I recommend you be more mindful of general accepted history. Arguing that there is a universal semitic conspiracy to defraud Hilter and the Nazi's, of their real role in history, would be rather disingenious, and make you quite anti-Semitic, though you claim not to be elsewhere.

So I do not see why I should be banned. As this thread also is not in any way disrespectful to anyone, I do not see why this thread should be pulled.

As before, CR is neutrally inclusive. That means that people are not judged on their beliefs, but their actions. However, it is perhaps time to question your own actions, because you are continuing to make claim to holding genuine inflammatory beliefs, yet these remain self-contradictory. Conclusion - there is a different motivation behind the expression of such beliefs.

I'm talking about social darwinism, not darwinism. Social darwinism is a theory that's just a bit older than the actual darwinism (it should be called social spencerism, however Howard Spencer never got the credit he deserved). It is darwinism applied to our society. It has been an inspiration for both Marx and the early national socialists.

I'm a little out of my league on the details of the social history pertaining to Marxism (Das Kapital was another book that, for some reason, Father Christmas didn't bring ), but the actualities of "Social Darwinism", as it is most cutely being referred to, are nothing more than the rule of the violent minority over the passive majority. It's as simple to synthisise as that.

Not exactly what I would call a perfect society For me, a perfect society is a society that resembles the tribal nation, combined with modern technology.

Now that's more like it - you are looking for tribe - a sense of identity. And I guess you're hanging on the sense of identity being formed by the ideology that you are trying to align with goes way beyond what you are looking for - but I guess that's for you to explore.

The symbol of the swastika means something different to me than it does to you. To me it doesn't stand for hate, but it stands for harmony, welfare and peace. This was the meaning Hitler gave it, and that meaning was deducted from the orriginal Nordic swastika (called fylfot, by the vikings). Just try to get past your bias and read the text.

We've actually discussed the origins of the swastika before.

But harmony, welfare and peace is certainly not something that Hitler ever gave to the Swastika in action. Mobilising one nation against others is hardly an attribute of peace, let alone harmony.

But aren't the differences between races part of the richess of the human race? Does it really matter of these differences are strenghts of weaknesses? They're a part of what we are, and it's a part of our identity. I do not like the idea of that diversity being destroyed in the creation of one world race.

Humanity is already One Race - the divisions are actually a recent invention - our friends in the British Victorian era looked to try and understand why Britain was the master of the known world. One more obtuse theory is that the British were one of the last tribes of Israel, and therefore carried the "real" covenant with God. Don't laugh - it's still a popular theory, especially where in America, where some are doing precisely what the Victorian British did - and figure that because the most important "lost tribe" became Britain, and that America was originally a British colony - that therefore the white Anglo-Saxon Americans are therefore the inheritors of the "lost tribe" status - America as the empire of the world as proof of that. Go figure.

Back to the divisions - it was an attempt to apply the new theory of evolution to humanity. The differences are not based on genes or inhertance but simply on arbitrary factors, often expressed in terms of skin colour. It was a rather racist theory, and Darwin's cousin Galton took the idea to the extreme in postulating the theory of Eugenics to breed a new "master race" from this "superior" English stock - a concept that the German Nazi's took to it's logical extreme.

People will always mix with neighboring people. That way, certain races get sufficient new genes from other races not to degenerate. Also, the gene pool within a race is already pretty diverse.

Whenever you seek to narrow the shores of any gene pool, the disadvantageous mutations begin to have ascendency over possible constructive mutations. The nobility of Europe found this out for themselves in keeping noble lineages too narrow, and ended up breeding what can only be described as genetic back-steps. The general laws preventing intermarriage of close relatives are a result of this general observation through history - which teaches us to keep our gene pools diversified for the common good.

And I'd just like to add that a friend of mine had lived for a while amongst the mixed people in South America (part hispanic, part native). According to him, these women are damn ugly, while pure native women are often very beautiful.

Well, perhaps a single source becomes the definitive account for an issue in your eyes - but the reality is actually more considered than that. Here in Britain there's a good mixing of Pict, Celtic, Roman, Saxon, and Scandanavian. Add to that a good sprinkling of Jew, Indian, and African, and you have a society with no specific cultural or "racial" mix. Except on issues of skin colour, you wouldn;t be able to tell the difference between many of these supposed racial groups.

The top 5% of the most intelligent people in the world (still about 300.000 people) are capable of thinking way beyond the capacities of the average man. With such people in charge, laws would make much more sense and would apply more to the wishes of the public.

Not in the slightest - this is rather a poor straw man. Just because somebody is good at physics, does not mean they have the insight of human behaviour to make them a good judge of social issues. Although there's a counter claim that therefore people with difference specialities would therefore administer in their speciality area, it simple fails to note that understanding and empathising with fellow humans doesn't take an academic degree or a high IQ (whatever that is) - but simply the ability to...um, understand and empathise with others.

 

[iBrian]

The Russian model failed for several reasons. One was a lack of competition between corporations. Another was that people weren't paid for the work they did but per hour of so. Then there was a lack of competence by the top. Also was there a lack of ideological foundation, as Marx's ideals differed a lot from the implementation. Then there was the need to compete with the US. etc....... It's not the cooperative state per se that failed. Hitler's Germany was going the right way until they were destroyed by their enemies, and the Inca society already have a complex but functional cooperative state with a strict hierarchy.

The Russian model failed because of human nature - ultimately, the socialist ideal will always be usurped by a self-elected oligarchy falling prey to greed and general issues of self-preservation and exploitation of the masses. It actually happens to any ideology - religion can also be a vehicle for this.

'Social-democratic' kapitalism will never please me, as it is rotten in its core.

cf above.

The Hitler jugend SS brigades, who are amongst the bravest soldiers ever (despite their young age) are a perfect example of how education can make a person put the common welfare before the individual welfare. They were fighting for a dream which got destroyed by England, Russia and the US.

Of all the statements you have made, I find this the most appalling. What the Nazi Party effectively did was demand to children that children lay down their lives, as worthless cannon fodder, for the self-preservating self-elected violent oligarchy that was all the Nazi Party aspired to.

These soldiers were not brave - they were militarily incompetent and worthless, and sacrificed by ultimate vanity (as they were, by the way, at Banockburn, when the Highland children were sent charging into the lead-shot fired from English cannons).

Sacrificing other people's children for one's one self-presevation is an horrific act of inhumanity, and cannot be lauded or justified under any means.

Those who were raised by the national socialist ideal, were the bravest fighters and the hardest workers.

You're talking about raising sheep - and the continued exploitation of the lower working classes by a self-appointed bourgeois.

The welfare system was great, and the people loved their leader.

I hear that the Jews and Romanies especially enjoyed their time under it.

As I said, I believe in national socialism. I'm not a racist, nor an anti-semite. I am someone who believes in the true meaning of national socialism : a right-wing socialist state based on natural law.

You have already contradicted yourself previously on these statements, as above.

If the swastika was not related to hatred and anti-semitism these days, I would wear a swastika around my neck. However, as the orriginal meaning is lost, I cannot, as I do not want to associate myself with hatred and anti-semitism. I respect Hitler for who he was, and I'm disgusted about the filthy lies told about him.

Come, now - the idea that the entire world is governed by a Zionist conspiracy is old hat, flat crap, and not worth entertaining. That the entire academic world should be regarded as a part of this conspiracy should illustrate to you what a poor and ill-justified claim you are trying to make. Hitler may not have pressed any "gas this" buttons in the Final Solution, but he was very much responsible for its implemention.

I'm not a coward. The mere fact of me speaking out, dispitie the controversy proves otherwise.

Indeed, you are not. But it needs to be asked why you have effectively stepped into a crowded room, and then announced that you had extreme and inflammatory views. It rather sounds attention seeking - as if you are looking for a way, and are a little lost on where you fit it.

I have had contacts with racist skinheads, who call themselves national socialists. Let me tell you that I've even been threatened by them for trying to ally with the ultra-left and for not hating people like you.

That's maybe where the problem lies - you don't really seem very National Socialist - just someone looking for a peer group to confer some real sense of identity.

National socialism is nothing but zionism for non-jews. I would support zionism, if Israel was located in Eastern Europe (where your people's ethic backgrounds are), if they did not opress other people and if they did not suck so much money out of the economy of other countries.

This is where you roll into anti-semitism again.

I'm not the discriminating person here. You are. Think about that.

Alas - you are not simply discriminating - but also confused about what you are discriminating about.

 

[iBrian]

He was not. The world war was started by the UK and France, and not by Germany. And it's this war which caused the death of so many people.

WWII was started by Germany, whose armies, marched upon Warsaw, despite the full and purposeful knowledge that there was a British treaty of protection on Poland.

Hitler was not a maniac, but an intelligent man who loved his country, but hated what had happened to it.

Hitler lloved his country and hated what happened to it - but all in a rather rabid way.

The economical aspects have been applied by the Incas, a great civilisation, until they were destroyed by Christian barbarians.

How you can extoll the Nazi Party with their Aryan ideals, only to then turn to the blood-thirsty Incas as a model for society, surprises myself in one sense. I guess it doesn't in another.

Concerning the social aspects, my ideal is much more peaceful and respectful to other than what Israel is doing in the Middle East. It is somewhat similar though, but without the oppression of other people.

Whatever Sharon's government is doing now, does not justify that others take up a violent ideolgy of National Socialism. Israel does have more moderate parties, you know.

Are you familiar with the Lechi (also written as 'Lehi')? They're a 'terrorist' organisation, which fought against the British empire for an independent Israel in Palestine. When the Israeli Defense Force was established on May 31, 1948, the Lechi was disbanded and its members enlisted in the IDF.

I'm familiar with them - but they are not representative of Judaism as a whole, anymore than it would be fair to use the Gestapo as an example of why all 20th century Europeans should be reviled.

There never were plans to invade other Western European countries, except France which (Hitler believed) had to be punished for its previous war against Germany and to re-aqquire the Alsace, which was a part of Germany between the Franco-Prussian war and the first world war.

France and Germany have military conflict stretching back a good hundred years prior - Alsace Lorraine was originally a part of France, until Bismark sent the German army in to dine at Versailles around the 1870's - an utter humiliation to the French. Alsace Lorraine was the only really industrialised part of France, and Bismark took it as his prize in return for leaving Paris.

Also, Germany did have plans to attack Britain during 1941 - it was to be called Operation Sealion, but general mobilisation was not possible during the calmer summer months, when crossing was tenable - this putting paid to any actual invasion force being launched. By 1942 the German Army was too busy on the Russian Front to allow free resources for any further Channel hopping expedition.

The war was started by France, and France took a bite out of Germany. I think there were considered main offences by Hitler. I'm not sure why he didn't want to attack England. He just didn't, and he even mentioned that in the political testament that he never wanted a war with England. Maybe that's the reason why he never sent an invasion force to the UK, when he could... Hitler was not quite the greatest military tactician.

WWI was *not* started by France - Serbian Nationalists assassinated Duke Ferdinand, the heir to the Austro-Hungarian Empire, in Sarajevo - so Austro-Hungary declared war on Serbia. HOWEVER, because of the complex mutual defence treaties established at the time, this meant that Germany, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and the Ottoman Empire, effectively declared themselves at war on the Entente - France, Belgium, Great Britain, Italy, Russia - as well as Serbia. I explained the Alsace Lorraine issue above.

In case you're referring to the German ideal as a racial ideal, you're definitely wrong. Hitler had Slavs and Muslems fighting for the empire. He had an alliance with Japan and Turkey, not quite Aryan countries. There was religious tolerance for all religions that did not pose a danger to the national socialist spirit.

They were alliances of opportunity, not alliances by ideology. Hitler also had an alliance with Stalin - that was soon dissolved.

There were prisoners in the camps before WW2, but all of them were strictly political, of which no more than 20000 were jewish.

You have absolutely no historical position to back this up with.

Nazi is a derogative word for national socialist. National stands for nationalism. Socialist stands for socialism. National socialism is a rather extremly nationalist right-wing socialist movement. That's the orriginal meaning, which has nothing to do with racism whatsoever. When I call myself a national socialist, I refer to this meaning and not any modern designation it has recieved.

It's not anti-semitism, it's the truth. You deny the moneyflows to Israel by wealthy jewish capitalists and the US government?

That's the problem - National Socialism is a system of oppressive exclusivism, that by ideology and practice demonstrates that it's core ideal is that of a "strong" and violent oligarchy, who oppress and exploit the "lower" populations.

The trouble is, you don't really seem to know what National Socialism actually is - not from a social, political, or even historical point of view. Probably the best illustration of this is your posturing with your gothic-lettering title on Mein Kampf - coupled with the fact that you have never actually read the book. It's not as if it's hard to find a copy either - it's freely available on the internet with the lamest of searches. That's how I downloaded my copy, probably last year. Point is, it's a great image, and very mystical seeming - until you actually start to read the words. And then the mystique and the power of the book is gone.

You come across as someone who's looking for a path to fit in, and while NS is remote from you as a theory, it seems to fit. Better off reading about technocracy in general - at least it doesn't (yet) have a bloodied past to expose bare it's flaws and recommend against it.

Really, though, coming into CR and making this whole thread one of your first was just a little attention seeking. Not many people effectively walk into a crowded room, and then suddenly announce that they have an extremely inflammatory opinion. Not without an agenda. The fact that you are so contradictory about what you actually believe in makes me wonder if this whole thread was nothing more than a "dark path" act: of manipulating people on an emotional level, simply because you could. Like dropping stones in a pond to fright the little fishes. That would be genuinely disappointing, as I read and enjoyed some of your other posts, on the Alternative board.

Overall, though, this entire thread is not conducive to CR for the following additional reasons:

- it is generally inflammatory against the CR community,
- generally inflamatory against other CR members
- generally against the Code of Conduct:

The administrators, moderators, and other staff of comparative-religion.com reserve the right to edit, modify, or delete, in whole or part, any aspect of this forum, including user messages, at their own discretion and without notice or warning.

This is especially applicable to content of the following nature:

...
e) Posts that seek to promote discrimination, hate, or violence either within or outside of the comparative-religion.com forum,

Ultimately, I accept you for your spiritual beliefs, and hope to have some really good discussions with you from that perspective. But there is no honour in this talk of National Socialism. It has nothing to offer the CR community, and has everything to take from it. Therefore it's time to close this topic down, and get on with general discussions as before.

If National Socialism rears it's head in other discussions then I will simply remove it, and instruct the site moderators to do so. CR is a very public resource, and far more people read this board than actually post on it. There is therefore a certain standard that has to be held as to what is acceptable to discuss here, and what is not. The democratic nature of the internet says that if anybody is not happy with that, then they are happy to state their case on their own website. For the moment at least, CR cannot be seen to promote dialogue of a perception that has such a bloody and angry close history - especially one that many of us will have living relatives, who either fought against it, or else who were otherwise embroiled in its unforgiving violence.

If you would like to respons to any of the comments that I made, then you are welcome to do so - by Private Message.

For the meanwhile, I'm sorry but this thread is now closed.