Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Nazis and Nationalism

NHA

Nazis and Nationalism
January 14, 2010, 07:35:42 PM
I really have trouble understanding how someone who listens to death metal and black metal can be horrified by neo-nazis.



Re: Nazis and Nationalism
January 14, 2010, 10:03:32 PM
Fair weather fans who also like to pretend that they have a "conscience", in the Modern way.

Re: Nazis and Nationalism
January 14, 2010, 10:23:58 PM
I really have trouble understanding how someone who listens to death metal and black metal can be horrified by neo-nazis.

But you said it: they're horrified by neo-Nazis, not the ideals of Nazism.

I've read your postings enough here to know a little bit about where you're coming from. You think in the abstract, and think of these ideals as good social solutions. It's not personal to you.

But to most people, it's personal. First, because this infantilizing domesticating idiot farm society cultures them to; second, because their first encounter with neo-Nazis was probably a scared black, Hispanic, Jewish or Asian friend.

National Socialism is an interesting ideal, but it's not all that unique. It's a modernization of the Volkisch movement with some ideas from fascism that even got adopted by the Americans during wartime, where industry is allowed to thrive under a command economy that defines goals but lets the market regulate them.

Are people really horrified by this?

* Honest nationalism: one ethnic group per nation, without Holocausts (!)
* Command economies defining objectives for large powerful corporations
* Eugenics, or promoting the good to breed and beating down the criminal, stupid and mean
* Really cool uniforms, flags and icons
* Pagan religion: view life as a process/cycle, transcendental idealism, morality of ends not means

That's about all that's left of National Socialism that hasn't been adopted by other groups. Is that so bad?

Yes, but... how much of that does your average neo-Nazi understand? They understand beating up black teenagers, teabagging Muslim women and hurting elderly Jews.

Who the fuck would stand for that? I think that's where ANUS splits off from these guys: they're traditionalists, idealists, integralists etc but don't like the personality politics, hatred and destruction. ANUS is probably about 75% compatible with H.L Mencken and T.S. Eliot, about 50% compatible with Nazism, about 25% compatible with Republicans, and 5% compatible with Democrats.

Re: Nazis and Nationalism
January 14, 2010, 10:43:31 PM
About Alaska... I have never been there but I have had vivid dreams about the beautiful land....

And the Basques come to mind when thinking about National Socialism.  We know that Euskadi Ta Askatasuna or E.T.A has been fighting their fight to regain their sense of Basque-ness.  

    * Recognition of the right to "self-determination and territoriality" for Euskal Herria.
    * That the Basque citizenry are the "unique subject" ("subject" in the sense of "one who acts") to make decisions about the future of the Basque Country.
    * Amnesty for all members, whether prisoners or self-imposed exiles.
    * Respect for "the results of the democratic process in the Basque Country"
    * "Total ceasefire" once these points are guaranteed through a political agreement.

Seems fair to me.. It irritates me that other countries see them only as a terrorist group.  They have been there for a long time. And what they ask for is not too much to ask for....

Re: Nazis and Nationalism
January 14, 2010, 11:40:05 PM
As long as you're "opressed" you can practically hold any views and dodge all criticism. Take the Israeli\Arab conflict for example. Hamas is far more a racist ethnic cleansing movement than the Lechi were (a jewish terrorist group in Israel in the 30's and 40's that wanted to establish a racist imperialist theocracy), and non of them come under criticism fire, why? They are the "opressed", however, Israel, keeping its enemies at bay, instead of whiping them out completely in the good old Mechiavellian way come under criticism all the time. This is why the Basques aren't really being taken seriously, and Neo-Nazis won't get anywere, they are either percieved as victims with silly dreams or view themselves as some sort of victims (of Jews nontheless) and people just view their ideas as backwards.
Most people, even those who like lying to themselves to feel better, hold such views to some extent. But if you call it as it is, you're over reacting. We need in some way to de-demonize Nazism so it won't be regarded as "The Darkest Chapter In Human History", and make sure the word nazi couldn't be used as a weapon. Besides, I always like to go over people's views with them, and at the end I say, "Well, that's nationality?" and they say "yes," and "Is that Socialism?" "off course!" "So.... You're a National Socialist?"

Re: Nazis and Nationalism
January 15, 2010, 03:31:40 AM
I am far more horrified by much of what passes for modern Death Metal than any so-called neo-nazi, actually.   

Re: Nazis and Nationalism
January 15, 2010, 12:03:53 PM
When discussing politics it is impossible to seperate the term Nazi with 1930s Germany for msot people. That or violent, paranoid racist groups in corners of western societies. Just stay away from the term in general if you want to be heard, there are may other labels you can use to get your views across, and taken more seriously if you avoid the word Nazi, even if your views may coincide with many of theirs. Thats how politics works for the herd. Emotive snap judgements.

Re: Nazis and Nationalism
January 15, 2010, 12:52:51 PM
While having some positive aspects (such as a strong state, unification of its people, encouraging loyalty, etc), Nazism and Neo-Nazism fail because of their belief that one race is inherently superior in all ways to others.

Reality check: different races are good at different things. You wouldn't ask a Ugandan how to make the best automobile, similarly as you would not ask a Mexican to explain the concepts of Confucius. There are always exceptions, true, but by and large each ethnic group has their own customs and their own way of life.

Hitler and his followers were flawed and irrational in their thinking. Round up the Neo-Nazis and gas THEM, is what I say.

Re: Nazis and Nationalism
January 15, 2010, 01:07:52 PM
Again, this "supremacy" thing comes up, and I have to say, I don't see where, in (original) Nazi doctrine, the concept of "supremacy" comes up, except when referring to Germans in Germany.  As far as I understand it, a number of Nazis took their ideology to mean that they were Herrenmenschen or something, and so decided to start hating everybody who wasn't of Aryan descent.  This doesn't seem, to me, to be a decision made by the top, given their acceptance of the Japanese (for one).

It's not good enough to say that "different races are good at different things".  Nazi Germany looked at the Japanese, their culture, and their history, and instantly said "Yep, those are Warriors, and they're fighting against our globalist (i.e. anti-Nazi) enemies over there, so we'll send out a friend request".  The Japanese are, certainly, a "Warrior race", because their entire culture is based on war, their caste system focused on it, and much of their religion(s) focuses on morality with respect to war.  Even the lowliest peon in Feudal Japan understood (and generally accepted) his/her place, which is more than can be said for the majority of White Europeans.  I'm absolutely sure that, had Greece been the absolute continuation of Sparta (and had they never been invaded by the Turks), they would have been firm allies of Nazi Germany.  The only way in which race comes into that scenario at all is in sentences like "the Spartans are a Warrior race, we should ally ourselves with them".

Bugger.  I've just made the most unfortunate breakthrough that, as in almost anything, different races must be better than others.  Now I have to be a racist again.  I thought I was safe, from now on, but Reality rears its ugly head every time I attempt to temper my understanding to the whims and wishes of those around me, so as not to cause distress.  The existence of "Warrior races" (Sparta, at the very least) suggests that there must be "non-Warrior races", and, in my book, a Warrior is always higher than a non-Warrior.  While the non-Warrior fights for himself, the Warrior fights for something that extends beyond himself.  To put it even more plainly, there are people who have found generally hospitable regions of the planet to live in, and in which to procreate and continue their line (Sub-Saharan Africans), and there are people who have had a pretty bad time of it in general (Northern Europeans, almost).  "That which doesn't kill you makes you stronger" certainly applies to the evolution of a "race", therefore it could easily be accepted that a race which has endured, and still endures, a generally harsher climate/location, must be "better", at least in survival ability, than a race which has had to "endure" very little.  If you take two men, one from above the cold North, and one from the warm South, and switch their positions, one would do substantially better than the other in his new home.

Re: Nazis and Nationalism
January 15, 2010, 03:23:05 PM
Bugger.  I've just made the most unfortunate breakthrough that, as in almost anything, different races must be better than others.  Now I have to be a racist again.  I thought I was safe, from now on, but Reality rears its ugly head every time I attempt to temper my understanding to the whims and wishes of those around me, so as not to cause distress.  The existence of "Warrior races" (Sparta, at the very least) suggests that there must be "non-Warrior races", and, in my book, a Warrior is always higher than a non-Warrior.  While the non-Warrior fights for himself, the Warrior fights for something that extends beyond himself.  To put it even more plainly, there are people who have found generally hospitable regions of the planet to live in, and in which to procreate and continue their line (Sub-Saharan Africans), and there are people who have had a pretty bad time of it in general (Northern Europeans, almost).  "That which doesn't kill you makes you stronger" certainly applies to the evolution of a "race", therefore it could easily be accepted that a race which has endured, and still endures, a generally harsher climate/location, must be "better", at least in survival ability, than a race which has had to "endure" very little.  If you take two men, one from above the cold North, and one from the warm South, and switch their positions, one would do substantially better than the other in his new home.

They're better at something, but NOT better at everything. That's the point I want to make. I do not subscribe to the viewpoint that a race is inherently superior to another, because there are ALWAYS exceptions. Nothing is black and white. Call me a liberal shithead, but that's how it is for me.

Re: Nazis and Nationalism
January 15, 2010, 04:02:54 PM
Peoples can often change when circumstances merit it.  And it is not enough to assume that warrior races are static as they themselves can become decadent and "refined."  Sub-Saharan Africa while having a relatively pleasant climate in some ways is in reality as very brutal place.  There are constant wars, food shortages, starvation, and resulting culls because of those factors.  Some of the more successful African ethnic groups are warrior peoples who managed to subjugate the others in a type of caste system in itself.  Industrialization was originally opposed and resisted throughout Europe and Asia, bringing us to the fact that many areas in Europe now linked by transportation and economy were at best backwaters, if not primitive hellholes, as little as sixty years ago.  With the rise in literacy and different political structures the societies changed drastically even though a class system still existed.  The IQ's skyrocketed when introduced to modern education, nutrition, and medicine.  We can see similar circumstances happening in China, India, and parts of the Middle East even though the class and caste systems are still intact.  If globalization continues, the peoples will still homogenize.

The Nazis, Communists (Soviet Union), and Fascists (United States was a soft fascist country, Italy) were the precursors to globalism, not any of the true democracies (even though Switzerland and others may benefit from globalization).  They developed ties with other countries and disseminated information and technology which proliferated and changed many lands and peoples, even if the means or production remained in the hands of the ascendant castes.  The European Union was in itself an application of reformed ideas of Fascists, National Socialists, and Communists alike.

Re: Nazis and Nationalism
January 15, 2010, 05:19:08 PM
Sub-Saharan Africa while having a relatively pleasant climate in some ways is in reality as very brutal place.  There are constant wars, food shortages, starvation, and resulting culls because of those factors.

I wish people were more readily able to think back further than the Modern era.  The "brutality" you've described there has been generated by humans, against humans, and most of it in very, very recent times.  Potentially, if we'd left Africa alone, it would still be functioning perfectly adequately, instead of being an absolute cesspit.  If you go back even two thousand years, Sub-Saharan Africa was a far easier place to live in.  There is abundance of flora and fauna, the climate is neither too cold (Northern Europe) nor too hot (Northern Africa), and the land is, as far as I know, arable (never mind the fact that many African tribes never seem to have developed agriculture to anything like the same extent that Europeans/Asians have).

The Nazis, Communists (Soviet Union), and Fascists (United States was a soft fascist country, Italy) were the precursors to globalism, not any of the true democracies (even though Switzerland and others may benefit from globalization).  They developed ties with other countries and disseminated information and technology which proliferated and changed many lands and peoples, even if the means or production remained in the hands of the ascendant castes.

This is an absolute fallacy, the way you've worded it.  Of all of those different groups, the only one that advocates Globalism is America - the others (actively) fight against it.  I would accept, however, that the combination of Nazi, Communist, and Fascist thought, often brought to the table by individuals who still do or once did subscribe to those views, may have contributed to the more recent proliferation of Globalism.  However, it is bad logic to suggest that the actions of individuals within (or without) the parties involved should be counted as being representative of the goals or wishes of those parties.

Quote from: deadite
They're better at something, but NOT better at everything. That's the point I want to make. I do not subscribe to the viewpoint that a race is inherently superior to another, because there are ALWAYS exceptions. Nothing is black and white. Call me a liberal shithead, but that's how it is for me.

I respect your sentiments, as they were the same as mine until earlier today.  However, it's become apparent that it is "better" to be "better" at some things than others, which is why I overused the word "general" in that paragraph - I wanted to explain that one race developing the natural abilities to deal with an exceptionally difficult climate/location (exceptionally difficult in every conceivable way) would, at least by my standards, and I suppose by the standards of many of the people who come here, make that race "better" than a race which has everything handed to it on a platter.  Consider: racial group surviving -> living -> thriving in barren tundra, versus racial group surviving -> living -> thriving in Mediterranean forest/pasture.

Imagine two great civilisations, one coming from empty Siberia, the other from vibrant Greece.  Both are of equal magnitude and glory, and their achievements mirror each other, if they are not the same.  Which would you commend more, the civilisation founded in one of the easiest places to live in the world, or the civilisation founded in one of the least hospitable places in the world?

Re: Nazis and Nationalism
January 15, 2010, 05:55:30 PM
Let's say this, there's a reason you haven't heard of any great Jewish warriors or Viking Philosophers. Is a warrior better than a philosopher? What about a warrior philosopher, like the Mughals, or the Japanese, who found beauty in art and poetry just after brutally cutting down their enemies or raiding a village. Well, I don't think it's simple enough to say one is better than the other. My ideal civilization would probably value philosophy/complete freedom of speech but also have faith in it's own nation and the interests of it's own nation, which ultimately culminates in a "warrior" nation.

In regards to climate, the people that founded each civilization know exactly how to thrive in their own environment, which is why civilization even occurs. So they might have been better apes in that they attained a larger range of skills in the north to deal with the environment, but a better ape does not make a better person. In civilization people produce art, music, ideas, technology, governments, etc. These exist outside the ability to survive, and really have nothing to do with it once survivability is established.
Maybe a civilization is BETTER if it's climate is easier, thus giving it's people the luxury of leisure, which leads to free time to think and express ideas since you're not out constantly worrying about your own survival.

Re: Nazis and Nationalism
January 15, 2010, 05:59:01 PM
I would commend both. While true that the people in Siberia would have a much more difficult time constructing a civilization, who is to say that those in Greece would have a cakewalk? Greece is quite arid, especially around the islands. There is great difficulty growing any sort of crops (save olives and other things which do well in deserts). It also is quite mountainous, which leads to all sorts of agricultural and architectural challenges.

I respect your point of view, Cargest, as it makes a good deal of sense. However, I do suppose it is the liberal shithead in me that believes individuals are better than other individuals, nothing more.

Re: Nazis and Nationalism
January 15, 2010, 06:00:57 PM
I do not subscribe to the viewpoint that a race is inherently superior to another, because there are ALWAYS exceptions. Nothing is black and white. Call me a liberal shithead, but that's how it is for me.

This is basically where I come from, except the "nothing is black and white" meaning "no decisions are binary" part -- clearly false.

I think there's a couple issues here:

  • Diversity doesn't work
Quote
"Diversity" is a difficulty to be overcome, not an advantage to be sought. True, America does a better job than most at accommodating a diverse population. We also do a better job at curing cancer and containing pollution. But no one goes around mindlessly exclaiming: "Cancer is a strength!" "Pollution is our greatest asset!"

AT THE END OF THE DAY, DIVERSITY HAS JUMPED THE SHARK, HORRIFICALLY

History shows us no successful examples of "diverse" societies, but a repeated pattern: wealthy civilizations in decay import labor and mercenaries, then become embroiled in constant race/class conflict, which helps kill them off. They leave behind mixed-race civilizations that while they have a few good people, are unable to do anything constructive, because the mob mentality is too strong. Examples: Mexico, Brazil, Iraq, Russia.

Diversity is the new Swastika, King George or Hammer and Sickle: official unrealistic dogma you must obey, in denial of reality; a means by which the stupid get ahead of the smart. When the stupid get ahead of the smart, and form a lynch mob to drown them out because they bring up unpopular truths, your society becomes third world.

  • Preserving each ethnicity is important


I am a Conservationist. I believe in conserving forests. I believe in conserving the Purple House Finch just as much as the sparrow. To that end, Germany for Germans, Israel for Jews. Kick the Jews out of Germany, and the Palestinians out of Israel.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/30/europes-looming-demise/?feat=home_commentary

Unfortunately, our mania for "diversity" and commerce, democracy and popularity contests -- it destroys these things.

http://www.theroot.com/views/how-american-idol-paved-way-barack-obama?gt1=38002

  • Most people are stupid or corrupt, so we should clear them out and keep the 5% who are good


This is the point that deadite is slyly making: you're not good just because you're white, and you're not superior to anyone by birth, because in the dice roll of genetic recombination at birth, you could have turned out bad. Encoding errors happen. Sometimes good families give birth to retards, autistics, sociopaths and others.

  • Evolution is real


Yes, some races evolved in more challenging climates, and so have multiple physical attributes that are different and often improved. Santayana calls them "favored races"; if he's talking about North Asians, Northern Europeans and Jews, I agree. These groups are the smartest and most capable people we have and we should encourage them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations

IQ determines ability, and correlates highly with health, strength and good moral character. It is the single most important measure of a human being, but alone predicts nothing other than the ability to be intelligent. If you're a high-IQ sociopath, you're still no good. But if you're a low-IQ person, you're more likely to steal, rape, destroy, etc. out of pure stupidity. People under 105 IQ points cannot understand this discussion, although they always pretend to be able to. What does that tell you?

True, Africa is lagging behind on average IQ -- that means there are fewer smart people, and others who possess other evolutionary leaps, among them. Still doesn't mean you treat them badly. Evolution is also real at the individual level, whcih is why the previous point: we should smite the stupid/bad, and protect/nurture the good/smart.
[/list]

Not rocket science. I'm glad we have a topic to finally fight this out after years of doing it in the Summoning topic. I hope it doesn't take over the board like it did in the past, because then neither side can speak to the other.

I came from a leftist background, and from it I retain the ideals of (a) fairness and (b) rabid environmentalism, although the latter originated in the far-right. My problem with leftism is that it's the lynch mob mentality: it's individuals deciding the world did them wrong, so they're going to blame society and destroy it, and they always replace societies with third world regimes.

This cycle has been documented for longer than the Bible has existed; you can find it in not only Plato, but Herotodus, and Tacitus, as well as many others. Modern versions are Spengler and Toynbee, and even liberal Jared Diamond points out much of it.

The chaos at this board was so much that SRP/VP documented his opinions on this topic here: