Question

[Dan]

Exactly what do you disagree with?

This:

I think it is fair to say that he got a little out of hand, and historically, he has gotten what he deserved. His ideas were not all that original and they are studied by many.

[spiral]

Originally posted by loseyourname As opposed to the old newbies?

Yes, you are considered an old newbie. I thought we could spare you and some others, so I mentioned -New* Newbies.

But if you'd like...

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Dan hmmm, actually... i disagree.. think about it this way: if Nazi Germany had won the war, wouldn't the Allies have been the 'evil' people who bombed the hell out of Dresden and massacred the 'poor Germans'? Whereas now, not a lot of people know about the fire-bombing of Dresden and even a smaller number of people talk about it. My point, I guess, would have to rely on the famous quote "history is written by the victors" (or something along those lines)... if Hitler had not made a few strategic mistakes and opened a Russian front, he would've won and maybe today, we would've been praising Hitler and treating the Allies (including good ol' USA) in the same way Nazism is treated historically (by popular culture), and in the same way groups that work to preserve European/White heritage are treated (i.e. White Pride = Nazism, racism, etc.)

You just repeated what I said. Hitler pissed people off, and so he was vilified when they defeated him. Exactly what do you disagree with?

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by spiral I think we should pull a 'Hitler' on all the new newbies.

As opposed to the old newbies?

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Anonymouse Wow, you finally said something valid. The "wrongess" is within all governments.

I agree with you a lot of the time, you dumbass. You just don't seem to notice.

As far as the murder of millions...what has Hitler done that hadn't been done by those before him, and even those during and after him, perhaps on scales far more horrendous. One can show that the overall effects of Communism in Russia and China and Eastern Europe, killed far more people than Hitler or the Nazis ever did, yet people can still praise about Marx, and I'm even taking a Marxist history class on Historical Materialism. You don't see anyone do that about Hitler or Nazism. The point is ideas have consequences, and ultimately Marxism has caused for worse on the scale of tragedy, than Nazism, but the average plebians don't know this.

The average person knows plenty about holocausts other than that perpetrated by Nazi Germany. The fact that he wasn't the only one doesn't make what he did right. Although I agree that communism is far more despicable than national socialism, purely on principle, regardless of the consequences of either.

Another gross misconception. Hitler never wanted to "conquer the civilized world" nor did he want war at the time, for anyone who studied National Socialism knows that Germany never achieved war footing on its economy until I believe 1943 or 44. First of all you must ask yourself how Hitler came to power, who funded him? Who funded the Bolsheviks? In both instances you'll see that powerful banking interests assured the rise of both powers which were based in Wall Street. The ultimate question for the rational person would be why?

He very nearly conquered all of Europe, Mousy. That's grandiose, and it got him into trouble. If he had just stuck with the original bit of Czechoslovakia containing Germans, he might very well still be in power.

I don't know as much about history as you do, and I have no idea who was behind Hitler coming to power. I realize he wasn't solely responsible for the war, but I do think he tried to do a bit much. His fixation on Stalingrad was particularly stupid of him.

As it follows since Hitler and the Nazis lost it is expected that he will be vilified and forever ostracized since well, history is written by the victors. The amount of propaganda that was spewed about Nazi Germany, before, during and after the war right up until now is- well- simply beyond belief. All that was needed was a show trial no different than Stalin's, called Nuremberg for one accusation after another to be mounted.

The Allies had enslaved 3/4 of the world in resources and in manpower ( meaning France, Britain, the Soviet Union, and America ) and all Hitler wanted to do was against was some white Poles and Jews.

Again, I'm not saying the allies or most other governments are a whole lot better. Ultimately, Judeo-Christianity and Islam are probably responsible for more deaths than any other belief systems that have ever existed, although I will admit that their proliferation alone has made this all but inevitable. Hitler was still wrong to do what he did.

[spiral]

I think we should pull a 'Hitler' on all the new newbies.

[PASAMONSTER]

you know that move with the guy kissing the curb and the kick to the back of the head.

It doesn't work.

The best a guy gets is a broken jaw and a lot a lot of loose teeth but unfortunetly still stays alive after consecutive kicks.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Dan Well, mouse, I agree with everything you said, except that I want to add to what you said an observation about communism.. while a lot of people are communists these days (i suppose they could be called bandwagoners, since half of them don't know what communism is all about), communism, to a certain extent, has been demonised by capitalism and capitalistic countries/societies. Firstly because, I think, it was an attempt by jews to place the holocaust in front of communism (communism being yet another creation of jews -- lenin, trostky, etc. were jewish).

You don't need to tell me this. I know they were all Jews, as was Hitler, well 1/3 Jewish. But then again U.S. President Wilson was alleged to be a Jew, originally his family from Germany were Wolfson, when moved to England they were Wohlson, and then Wilson. The Roosevelts were also rumored to have been Jewish, at least Franklin, as well as Truman, and even Clinton. The Wall Street bankers who funded Bolshevism also funded Hitler, although Hitler had no knowledge. When Stalin took over the Soviet Union, those Jews who had established it, lost control, so a force, a polar opposite had to be brought into existence, and that was Nazism, to combat Stalin, and ironically it was Jewish physicians who killed Stalin, his death is amazing how he was poisoned. Even Marx was of Jewish origin, as well as Mr. Adam Weishupt, of the Illuminati, who later converted to being a Jesuit, then later formed the Illuminati. Of course, both Weishupt and Marx were influenced by Jewish mysticism and the Kabbalah which has all sorts of strange mystical teachings about man is God, etc., etc.

Originally posted by Dan and now we're seeing a movement towards re-claiming communism and its victims as being the product/victims of human nature (like any/all revolutions), thereby making communism something to be looked upon not with contempt, but with a more or less objective attitude. the case with Nazism is not like that AT ALL. because Nazism has been SO demonised by the jewish owned media..

Well you have to understand that to make Nazism as horrendous as possible, is needed for Jewish group solidarity and survival. The creation of Israel was pretty much because of their persecutions in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. This is "anti Semitism" and its relation to Jewish group survival. Anti Semitism is essential for it, for Jews are conditioned to survive and see the world anti-Semetically, and Hitlerism is the epitome of this, that is why it must be equated with the most"evil' thing for Jews to realize this and survive. Few even remember the strong alliance that existed between the Nazis and the Zionists.

Originally posted by Dan and even now, with all the White supremacy groups and how the ADL goes on with its propaganda against them, calling them hate groups, etc., that's really not the case at all. White supremacy groups do not advocate killing non-white people. they just want White heritage to be conserved and frankly, it really is something they should be worried about, considering the fact that in another 50 years, the chinese and other non-whites (mostly muslims) will take over Europe.

Yes, given current immigration trends, whites will be a minority in America by 2050, and in Europe for the most part by 2090. Now I believe it is within the right of every people to preserve their selves and heritage but whites cannot due that and "Hitlerism" was essentially the last attempt to prevent and sustain this, and now that is is lost, you see that Europe is changing.

In a real sense, Hitler's defeat implicitly became the defeat of the European nation-state and the Enlightenment values that underpinned it. Germany's heirs, the United States and the Soviet Union, were both fundamentally transnational, multiracial empires whose territories were seemingly unlimited. As a result of this, for half a century we have been living in a "consumer capitalist" world in which the hierarchical order of sex and race which had originally sustained bourgeois nationalism has been disintegrating and in which the increasing relativization of values is encouraged by the ever greater globalization of the economy and consequent emergence of a multinational business elite.

So in this sense, Capitalism and "Democracy" are just a substitute for "Communism". "Communism" was merely test, you could say. Or you can argue that it was created as a boogey man to get people to be scared and thus run to this "alternative" which in many ways is not different at all. It is just the Hegelian Dialect in full effect. This new world order is less durable than it might appear. The collapse of the multi-ethnic, multi-racial Soviet Union portends similar problems for the American empire. Even a mere contraction of the economy could threaten to dissolve the United States into several races.

What Hitler said in the thirties is thus what our racial nationalists are saying today, namely, that a genuinely inclusive multiracial nation violates the natural order of things. The United States must either be a white dominated state or a collection of breakaway republics made up of this or that group. Thus Hitler pointed to history and all prior civilizations and noted that the rise and fall of civilizations always accompanied in his words "the defiling of the blood" when the original people of that civilization were replaced by people alien or hostile to that civilization. So in the end if Hitler is right, America is an increasingly unnatural and artificial construct that does not deserve to survive, and will not survive, rather will collapse. Hitler's fight against the British empire won him the admiration of colonial peoples from Ireland to India because they recognized Hitler was for the self preservation and determination of each group, not inclusion as was characteristic of multi racial societies.

To anyone who views the past with an open mind, history demonstrates the utterly fantastic nature of the goal laid out by by those that rule, from thinkers to Bill Clinton, a vision no less utopian than Marxian Communism. In any case, to meld the American population into a "universal" racial cultural entity would require government repression on a scale unimaginable today. In other words in order for making everyone blend and "equal" we need a repressive totalitarian regime that will institute this. Thus you can see why only America, Canada, and Europe or Australia embrace "diversity", not anyone else. Japan certainly doesn't want to flirt with it.

[Dan]

Well, mouse, I agree with everything you said, except that I want to add to what you said an observation about communism.. while a lot of people are communists these days (i suppose they could be called bandwagoners, since half of them don't know what communism is all about), communism, to a certain extent, has been demonised by capitalism and capitalistic countries/societies. Firstly because, I think, it was an attempt by jews to place the holocaust in front of communism (communism being yet another creation of jews -- lenin, trostky, etc. were jewish). and now we're seeing a movement towards re-claiming communism and its victims as being the product/victims of human nature (like any/all revolutions), thereby making communism something to be looked upon not with contempt, but with a more or less objective attitude. the case with Nazism is not like that AT ALL. because Nazism has been SO demonised by the jewish owned media.. and even now, with all the White supremacy groups and how the ADL goes on with its propaganda against them, calling them hate groups, etc., that's really not the case at all. White supremacy groups do not advocate killing non-white people. they just want White heritage to be conserved and frankly, it really is something they should be worried about, considering the fact that in another 50 years, the chinese and other non-whites (mostly muslims) will take over Europe.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Dan hmm, i haven't seen the movie,, but.. what is 'wrong' with White supremacy, mouse? and how was it portrayed in that movie?

I don't care nor am interested in what is wrong or right with white supremacy.

The movie presented it as the violent expressions of pimply faced teenagers who just said "Heil Hitler" and beat up Mexicans. That's just smearing it as usual.

Well, I know "white supremacists" have the argument that whites are superior and well most of the contributions are owed to whites. I even remember this phrase someone told me, "White people invent but they forget. Asians copy but remember. Blacks do neither".

With that said, I don't care who has "contributed" more than another, and if thats supremacy for you well then so be it. I personally don't mind those whites who are seperatists, as I believe it is within the right of us all to live how we want to, and I do not agree with the Federal Governments forced integration and "equality" being the law of the land.

I just don't like government because government is able to mobilize all our fears and insecurities, in the form of collective thinking and mass mindedness and use it for destructive purposes, to scales unimagined. Individuals always committ crimes, but can we really compare the damage individual criminals or bands have done, with what government has done historically?