My embrace of National Socialism - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The non-democratic state: Platonism, Fascism, Theocracy, Monarchy etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14644330
Dagoth Ur wrote:No I don't because we have distinctly different views of racism. Blacks and Native Americans are victims of racism for very specific historical reasons, but even these heavily disaffected groups are considered Americans by our "natives". In the UK and France "multiculturalism" means that you move in new cultures and you segregate them. There is no becoming French or English to the natives no matter how much they assimilate.

America isn't perfect at integration either. Our modern treatment of South Americans and Mexicans proves that.



Dagoth Ur wrote:
@noir: it doesn't matter to the english or the french how much you assimilate. Those that do are still Asains, or Arabs, or whatever slurs the french use. This refusal to take in non-natives who assimilate causes a feedback loop where migrants are increasingly taught to not waste their time ostracising themselves from their native community for an attempt at assimilation that will be automatically refused. Add to this that many minority nationalist groups and white nationalist groups in Europe have complimetary anti-assimilation outlooks and you got Europe's problem with integration.


It was the Arab states demand. That's the difference from Arabs who immigrate to USA

The political laxity of the European governments was worsened by the permission they granted to Arab countries to export their culture and their customs together with their population, as formulated by the Damascus EAD Declaration. Thus from the 1970s on, these immigration policies, correlated with the economic and political goals of the EAD that had been dictated by the Arab states and their European lobbies, did not envisage scattered immigration by individuals who wanted to integrate into the host country. Nor were they framed for genuine seekers of political asylum, as was the case for those who fled Eastern Europe before 1989. Rather, it planned throughout the European Communities an implantation of homogeneous ethnic communities, which in two decades would number millions.

One cannot suspect the conceivers of EAD policy of gross ignorance. All European participants in the Dialogue were specialists of the Arab/Muslim world. Diplomats, politicians, academics, journalists, Christian theologians engaged in Qur’anic studies—they all had strong affinities with, and often long professional contacts or jobs, in Arab countries. This knowledge of Islam might explain the European governments’ reluctance to insist that the millions of Muslim migrants should be integrated into the host societies. Simply put, Muslims are traditionally forbidden by their religion to adopt the laws of non-Muslims; hence, Arab governments negotiated special arrangements through the EAD for the preservation of the migrants’ separateness, particularisms, and for maintaining them under their own jurisdiction.

The EAD conceptions facilitated the creation of fundamentalist trends among people who came  with no intention of integrating into European society and culture. Instead, they arrived with the desire and the legal right, granted by the EC itself, to impose their own culture upon the host country. These immigrants rejected Europe’s secular institutions as inferior to those of the shari’a,  which  they believe have been revealed by Allah through the Qur’an to the  umma,  the  universal  Muslim  community. Whereas the EAD claimed for Arab immigrants the rights conferred by European legal secular institutions, many of the immigrants despised these institutions and preferred their own. Thus, from the start of this  mass  immigration, integration was  compromised if  not rendered impossible.  The European host countries seemed to have heeded, implicitly, the  call  of  the  1974  Islamic  conference in Lahore to protect Muslims from “the ways, customs and concepts of non-Muslims.”

There were also other sources of immigration. Since the 1950s, European economic   development—as in the U.S.—has been linked to the availability of cheap and unskilled labor. Within Europe, this generally stimulated migration from poorer to richer regions: notably the successive waves of emigrants from Italy, Spain, and Portugal. However, none of these migration flows developed within a framework comparable to the EAD. In the 1980s, opposition to mass immigration became the  banner of xenophobic extreme-right parties; thus, any critical discussion immediately provoked accusations of racism, Arabophobia, or Islamophobia. A  sober, comprehensive, and  regular assessment of the impact of Muslim/Arab immigration into Europe was impossible: it was shrouded  with a taboo or identified with  Nazi  antisemitism. Since  all  main European parties  were associated  with the Parliamentary Association of Euro-Arab Cooperation, the future of Europe would develop according  to  the plans of the EAD’s architects.

The foremost consequence of the EAD has been a rampant transformation of the European continent engineered with EU leaders’ approval. The Mediterranean Partnership has increased the influx of Muslim immigrants into Europe from Arab and Muslim countries, and ensured their status as the preferred source of immigration to Europe. This policy, as we have seen, will continue. The EEC, and then the EU, never planned to integrate so many millions of Muslim immigrants into  European society (multiculturalism); instead, the countries from which they came expected the European host countries to adapt themselves to the immigrants’ cultural and religious customs. And indeed, any reluctance or hesitation from Europe about immigration is labeled racism by the EAD’s agents and executives.

At the Hamburg Symposium in 1983, both European and Arab speakers presented reports about the integration of the two civilizations. Participants were divided into three workshops. The participants noted that, since Arab immigration was becoming permanent, the December 1978 Damascus Declaration was inadequate to deal with the situation of 1983.

This workshop made several other proposals for the assimilation of migrant workers—none of which, however, involved the latter adapting to the customs of the host countries. It recommended that the social integration of migrant workers and their families in the host countries should be facilitated by providing equal rights in lodging, work opportunities, schooling, and vocational and professional training. It was recommended to make the general public more aware of the cultural background of migrants, by promoting cultural activities of the immigrant communities or “supplying adequate information on the culture of the migrant communities in the school curricula.” Special training and educational course were required for civil servants, medical staff, members of the police  force, teachers, social workers, and others who had functional relations with the  immigrants. Access  to  the mass media had to be facilitated to the migrants in order to ensure “regular information in their own language about their own culture as well as about the conditions of life in the host country.” Another proposal called for broadening cooperation between immigrant groups and the indigenous  population. The participation of immigrant groups in trade union activities and their participation in political life were to be encouraged by special measures. Point 6 stated, “It is recommended that the Arab countries of origin strengthen their cultural support to Arab migrants in Europe.”12




Eurabia
#14644379
Lexington wrote:I agree! What should we call this Nazi - racialism = ?

Nazi Lite ?


Zam
#14644426
Zamuel wrote:Well, given that you call them "Slovakians" I'm not surprised you don't know much ...


I am not a native speaker of English so a mistake in spelling hardly indicates my lack of knowledge of a topic. Besides, "Slovakian" is routinely used in articles and books, even if perhaps "Slovak" is considered more appropriate (I really don't know). I live about a hundred kilometres from the Slovak/Slovakian border and have met tons of them in a mountain town called Zakopane (we usually understand each other's languages to a large extent). Sure, for some misterious reason it has never occured to me to ask if they consider themselves "Aryans" instead of Slavs, but I think I would know about it if they did. This conversation feels absurd.

My wife's family has a rich heritage, they're Roman Catholics, which is an Aryan Tradition, from the old country,


What do you mean by Catholicism being an Aryan Tradition? Something along the lines of Evola's thinking?

and were somewhat disappointed when my wife married outside the faith. -SO- I learned quite a bit about Slovak differentiation. Her Grandmother (1st generation American) would run down the family tree, and distinguish all the old Marriages HER mother had disapproved of because they were to Slavs or Rom ... And she would get teary about her cousins who died fighting the Nazis ... and proud about the ones who lived. I met some of their Slav friends visiting the US ... who talked a lot about their local Slavic Festivals ... I gather there are some fraternal organizations for the different heritages. Hunt clubs ? Though I don't think they actually HUNT much.

I'd compare it to the differences between my Grandmother's family ... Danish Andersons and Norwegian Loretsons ... Not really a lot of difference, but a definite attitude about it.

Zam


It looks like your wife's great-grandmother had some obsession with purity and concocted a weird fantasy about their racial identity. It happens. Doesn't really say anything meaningful about the the self-image of Slovaks in general.

They belong to Western Slavs, it's just not controversial. You'd be hard-pressed to find an anthropologist with a different opinion (unless maybe if we're talking about old Nazi anthropologists trying desperately to justify the German alliance with Joseph Tiso, just like they tried to make Aryans of many other groups when it was ideologically necessary).
#14644464
Heinie wrote:National Socialism without its Aryan master race doctrine is not National Socialism at all.
Maybe but then Jeffersonian democracy without Negro slavery is is not Jeffersonian democracy at all.

In fact I'd say that Nazism is not Nazism without Adolph Hitler. This Nazis made very clear that there programme was Adolph Hitler. Nazism was what ever Hitler wanted it to be.
#14644512
Rich wrote:Maybe but then Jeffersonian democracy without Negro slavery is is not Jeffersonian democracy at all.

In fact I'd say that Nazism is not Nazism without Adolph Hitler. This Nazis made very clear that there programme was Adolph Hitler. Nazism was what ever Hitler wanted it to be.

I refer you to Post #4 on page 1.
#14644555
Zamuel wrote:Well, given that you call them "Slovakians" I'm not surprised you don't know much ...
Orestes wrote:I am not a native speaker of English - it has never occured to me to ask if they consider themselves "Aryans" instead of Slavs, but I think I would know about it if they did.

Assumptions are often the basis of ignorance.

Zamuel wrote:My wife's family has a rich heritage, they're Roman Catholics, which is an Aryan Tradition, from the old country,
Orestes wrote:What do you mean by Catholicism being an Aryan Tradition?

Exactly that ... I can't speak with authority about Slavic traditions, but I understand they tend towards the Orthodox denomination.

Orestes wrote:It looks like your wife's great-grandmother had some obsession with purity.

Like I said ... traditions. They're not so strong with the native born American generation, but they are remembered.

Orestes wrote:They belong to Western Slavs, it's just not controversial. You'd be hard-pressed to find an anthropologist with a different opinion (unless maybe if we're talking about old Nazi anthropologists trying desperately to justify the German alliance with Joseph Tiso, just like they tried to make Aryans of many other groups when it was ideologically necessary).

No, Pretty sure they out number the Slavs ... I think someone (3rd party?) posted the Genetic stats already if you want to page back ... I seem to recall they do in Poland too ... The Germans were right ... these countries all have significant Aryan populations, ain't no ideology about it. AND they weren't talking about blue eyed blonds. That's ANOTHER ignorant assumption.

Zam
#14644564
Heinie wrote:In fact I'd say that Nazism is not Nazism without Adolph Hitler. This Nazis made very clear that there programme was Adolph Hitler. Nazism was what ever Hitler wanted it to be.

And as usual you'd be wrong. The Nazis proposed - The 3rd Reich - THE "THOUSAND YEAR REICH" I don't think they expected Hitler to live that long. Ignorance about this subjects abounds ... What people THINK is mostly COMIC BOOK stuff ... Inform yourself. After assuming power, Hitler concerned himself with tactics and strategy, both political and military ... Nazi Ideology was administered by Borman with Himmler handling the immediate, short term, expediencies and Goebbels doing the long term thinking. Speer contributed practical advice, Goering smiled a lot ... Hitler was kept informed, but didn't concern himself.

Zam
#14644566
[youtube]qrZoQQ2rftA[/youtube]

I recently discovered Nicole Rajičová, a Slovak figure skater who is a three-time Slovak national champion. Nicole was born in America and she can represent either the US or Slovakia but it's extremely competitive in America and hard to get into the top three, which may be why she chose to skate for her native country.

I learned quite a bit about Slovak differentiation. Her Grandmother (1st generation American) would run down the family tree, and distinguish all the old Marriages HER mother had disapproved of because they were to Slavs or Rom ... And she would get teary about her cousins who died fighting the Nazis ... and proud about the ones who lived.


The Slovak Republic was a puppet state of Nazi Germany from 1939 to 1945 and many other European states such as Denmark, the Netherlands and Belgium actively cooperated with Nazi Germany. The Germans sought and found true collaborators among the locals except for Poland, where the largest resistance movement in occupied Europe existed. In the post-war era, Germany was praised for its swift reconciliation with other European states that were occupied by Nazi Germany but people tend to forget that most European countries were full of Nazi collaborators at the time, who were deeply sympathetic with the National Socialist ideals of the Aryan master race.

It illustrates that they were quite correct that Slavs are a heavily diluted (they would say polluted) bloodline whose immigration into Europe failed when they encountered Aryans. And that, to a certain extent. Aryans PUSHED BACK and came to dominate the interface between the genotypes.


Image

The map shows the spread of Indo-European R1a and R1b lineages around Europe and R1b is found at the highest frequency in the British Isles (over 80%). R1a and R1b are both Indo-European lineages with the light skin allele SLC24A5. The genes for blond hair are strongly correlated with the distribution of Haplogroup R1a and R1b people are either red-haired (Irish) or brown-haired (Spanish). Roughly 30% of Germans are blond-haired, while 60% of Russians are blond-haired, and the Slavic people are ironically more Aryan than the R1b branch of Indo-Europeans in Western Europe.
Last edited by ThirdTerm on 21 Jan 2016 22:18, edited 3 times in total.
#14644578
@ Zam

I honestly don't know if you're taking the piss now or are just very confused. If there are like three people in a thread telling you you're wrong from different angles, maybe you should allow for the possibility that you are indeed mistaken.

Simply put:

- Slovaks and Poles, among others, are Slavs (a smaller subset). If someone's great-grandmother says otherwise, this great-grandmother is sadly wrong.

- Slavs, among others, are Indo-Europeans (a larger subset which doesn't negate the smaller one).

- Indo-Europeans used to be called "Aryans" in old scientific discourse (or "Indo-Aryans" and a couple of other names).

- Third Term's link goes to show that Nazis were wrong to think Slavs were generally not a genuine part of the "Aryan race" (since Germans, and most Westerners really, had a hard time believing that backward nations could have ever sprung from the Aryan stock).

With this I will leave.
Last edited by Orestes on 21 Jan 2016 23:36, edited 1 time in total.
#14644585
Orestes wrote: If there are like three people in a thread telling you you're wrong

Really ? Step up folks I guess I missed that ...

Orestes wrote: Slovaks and Poles (among others) are Slavs (a smaller subset)

Definitely NOT ...

Orestes wrote: Slavs (among others) are Indo-Europeans (a larger subset which doesn't negate the smaller).

NO ... the genetics are definitively different. Which is why the distinction exists.

Orestes wrote: Indo-Europeans used to be called "Aryans" in old scientific discourse

Yes, and they still are in a traditional frame of reference.

Orestes wrote:Third Term's link goes to show that Nazis were wrong to think Slavs were generally not a genuine part of the "Aryan race"

No! It illustrates that they were quite correct that Slavs are a heavily diluted (they would say polluted) bloodline whose immigration into Europe failed when they encountered Aryans. And that, to a certain extent. Aryans PUSHED BACK and came to dominate the interface between the genotypes.

Orestes wrote:With this I will leave.

Oh goody! (we'll see.)
#14644597
a) Nazi's formed their narratives according to their militaristic & political needs, as such populations that could help them were exalted as 'Aryans' and populations that they had no intention of tolerating were trashed as 'dirties'. There was not even a leaf of scientific, historical or linguistic basis to their claims. The Nazis were not accidentally wrong about the Slavic peoples, they were intentionally trashing them and dehumanizing them so that they gobble them up because that was their primary concern.

b) The only real Aryans in this earth are the Iranians and nobody else.

c) Ethnic/racial/religious-identity is not based on genetics or phenotypes but on historical memory, people are and can only be what they remember to be and nothing more or less. If you(your ancestors and their historical memory) cannot remember being Aryan(or whatever), then you are not, it is actually that simple. If you cannot organically narrate the history of your people through your own oral or written memory, then no amount of genetics can or will sing a poem for you.

d) "Indo-European/Aryan" and other crap names invented throughout the course of the 20th century depending on who you ask, refer to the study of comparative linguistics between the Hindu/Sanskrit and the Greek languages and hence the original name Indo-Greek, which has since then be extended to the other languages of the same family.

------------------------

It is disheartening that people would adopt a ridiculous ideology such as German national socialism. Any country that is on full total war mode of production can produce amazing amounts of products by conscripting the entire nation and all its resources to its service, regardless if that country is called Germany, England, or Spain and regardless of its official ideology.
#14644633
noemon wrote:Nazi's formed their narratives according to their militaristic & political needs.

Not really, they definitely fudged things to arrange them as they wanted, but there is an underlying consistency.

noemon wrote:There was not even a leaf of scientific, historical or linguistic basis to their claims.

In many cases that's true, in others they were spot on.

noemon wrote:The Nazis were not accidentally wrong about the Slavic peoples, they were intentionally trashing them and dehumanizing them

Kind of, the Nazi intent was to break what little spirit was left amongst the Slavs and then selectively breed them as slaves. This kind of backfired on them as the smarter and more audacious amongst the Russians were the ones who survived, and carried their genes into a new generation that displayed considerable genetic advantages.

noemon wrote:The only real Aryans in this earth are the Iranians and nobody else.

Bullshit ... There was still "pure" Aryan blood when they reached the region, and there are still some bloodlines there that are very close, while rare this also occurs along the Migration routes that followed the Mediterranean coast and the Mountains bordering Eastern Europe. There's a VERY notable enclave in Switzerland.

noemon wrote:Ethnic/racial/religious-identity is not based on genetics or phenotypes but on historical memory

More Bullshit. Race is strictly a genetic discipline, Culture and Language are certainly valid methods of tracing origins, but are not as empirical as raw genetics. Historical Memory can be rewritten in a generation, it doesn't change the past or obviate the adoption of lost tradition. Israeli Jews are a prime example.

noemon wrote:"Indo-European/Aryan" and other crap names invented throughout the course of the 20th century depending on who you ask, refer to the study of comparative linguistics
Genetic science disagrees ... and proves (or disproves) associative linguistic patterns.

noemon wrote:It is disheartening that people would adopt a ridiculous ideology such as German national socialism.

Many of them didn't freely adopt it ... they were coerced. That may not excuse them, but it mitigates.

National Socialism remains a valid concept ... If not for the anti-communist agenda inflicted on it from it's inception, it would have worked wonderfully in Germany and probably spread (no one, no where, REALLY liked Jews). Today it requires some modification and adaptation, but that may be part of what Stormvessel finds attractive.

Zam
#14644642
I can tell you with total honesty and without having any reason whatsoever to be biased that you are completely wrong in everything and that you will need to devote many hours of study to dislodge this symphony of cliches and stereotypes that inform your reasoning.

"Race" has only been used as a by-word for ethnic-identity(ethnos), genos(family name), phyle(tribe), religion. And all these things depend on historical memory alone. Why would anyone claim to be something that he does not remember himself to be? And how can he/she in his absolute ignorance define that thing? Whatever concoction mangled can only be laughable.

This is nonsense of the highest order.

The other usage of "race" the one you are subscribing to has been debunked and trashed, as such when I use the term race I use for its valid usages as above, not within the context of its nazi narrative.

Jews(Israeli or otherwise) are an example of ethnic-continuity, not a prime example of the opposite as you claimed, the national(not ethnic) identity is different for Israeli Jews than other Jews which is normal.

Genetic science is irrelevant to ethnic or national identity. Also these markers you are using such as 'Aryan' are not valid markers neither on their name nor on the content they seek to describe.

The Iranians are the only people who remember themselves being Aryan, that is all that matters in so far as this word goes on an ethnic-sense.
#14644646
I can tell you with total honesty and without having any reason whatsoever to be biased that you are completely wrong in everything and that you will need to devote many hours of study to dislodge this symphony of cliches and stereotypes that inform your reasoning.

It seems that no matter what topic to which Zamuel directs his intellect, he manages to be wrong about almost everything concerning that topic. He's the most astonishingly ignorant and opinionated person I have ever come across in my life. It's as though he has attended the University of Life and obtained a PhD in Being Totally Fucking Wrong About Everything. It's quite extraordinary.
#14644652
Potemkin wrote:It seems that no matter what topic to which Zamuel directs his intellect, he manages to be wrong about almost everything concerning that topic. He's the most astonishingly ignorant and opinionated person I have ever come across in my life.
Now that's quite a claim, particularly on PoFo. There's surely some dedicated competition for most ignorant and opinionated person. Kman I remember as being somewhat opinionated and had a certain flexibility of mind when it came to facts.

A lot of the time I can't quite follow what Zam's argument is, I might be more annoyed if I could. Ignorance of ignorance is bliss as they say.
Last edited by Rich on 21 Jan 2016 23:17, edited 1 time in total.
#14644655
noemon wrote:Genetic science is irrelevant to ethnic or national identity.

What a crock ... ! Genetic science is the MOST consistent factor -OF- Ethnic and National Identity and will generally delineate what influences came from where.

noemon wrote:The Iranians are the only people who remember themselves being Aryan, that is all that matters in so far as this word goes on an ethnic-sense.

No one remembers anything from before they were born (unless you're a scientologist and I think they are banned from Iran (and Greece, last I knew)... Traditions are distorted by time and transitional events ... Even the purest of Iranian bloodlines have no MEMORY of being Aryan. Yet, they are.

Next you'll be telling us about the Spartan revival.

Zam
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 8

https://twitter.com/SocialistFuture/status/1172795[…]

I could not believe when I saw that this morning […]

43% of my electricity is renewable. !00% of my e[…]

Election 2020

We are pretty late in the business cycle, so a re[…]