Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old December 9th, 2008 #1
Jerrod Land
Proud to be WHITE!
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: America
Posts: 92
Default National Socialism & Aryanism?

What I dont get about NS or misunderstand about it or its appeal is that it was and is Anti-Democratic. Democracy can be used by the White Race, if applied correctly in white only nations. I believe American's for the most part will never follow such a political ideal, we are a Democratic-Republic and fought against Nazi Germany, mainly because of its authoritative-socialist style government and the fact that they invaded our allies. Only late in the war did the Anti-Semitism issue come into play, mainly from Jews within our nation.

What I don't get about some forms of Aryanism, is the belief that Blond haired/Blue eyed people were or are superior to all others, even other whites. This to me is BS. Now if this concept is dead and Aryanism includes all Whites of European descent because we come from Indo-Europeans as some use it then thats understandable.
The USA, British Empire, Roman Empire, Russian Empire(even the corrupt Commie USSR), the Greek Civilization & the 3rd Reich, were built by a combination of Brunettes, Blondes and Redheads who had Hazel, blue, brown, greyish and green eyes. This does not scream Blond-Haired Supremecy.


Let me make it plain right now, just incase there is some confussion. I am for the survival of the White Race,which to me includes the Nordic Peoples, the Teutonic Peoples, The Alpine(which Hitler belonged), the Slavic Peoples, the Celtic Peoples, the Italian, the Greek etc and Our Distinct Cultures.

And I am not 100% pro-Democratic-Republicanism either. I would be for a mixture with NS if that were possible. I would not be for a suppressive regime that takes their basic rights away, such as religious freedom and to live their lives with out fear.

Please inform me of any misunderstanding's that I may have or correct me of any misleadings that I have. But be specific. Thanks!
 
Old December 9th, 2008 #2
MikeTodd
Pussy Bünd "Commander"
 
MikeTodd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: land of the Friedman, home of the Braverman
Posts: 13,329
Default

You fail to differentiate between social democracy, (the American Republic, National Socialist Germany), which is a good, and political democracy, (the Kwa, the EU, the UN), which is a kike contrived abomanation.
__________________
Worse than a million megaHitlers all smushed together.
 
Old December 9th, 2008 #3
Jerrod Land
Proud to be WHITE!
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: America
Posts: 92
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeTodd View Post
You fail to differentiate between social democracy, (the American Republic, National Socialist Germany), which is a good, and political democracy, (the Kwa, the EU, the UN), which is a kike contrived abomanation.
Last time I checked National Socialism is no where near the same as Democracy in the States. Under NS/Fascism a person did not have the right to vote and other basic concepts of freedom.
You might be right about the Kwa and the UN, but the EU was began by Christian Europeans(who are Jew ass kissers) who want a United Europe, sadly with the backing of the Pope, who wants the EU to Return to its Catholic roots, which is blarney, we all know Christianity developed in Judea and that Europe's true roots reside with Paganism. Dont get me wrong, Im for religious freedom, but in no way should Europe or the US or any White area be controlled by Christians or any religious group. Religion mixed with Politics divides, just look at Northern Ireland, whites killing whites because of differences of opinions. Just horrible.
 
Old December 9th, 2008 #4
Karl Lueger
Senior Member
 
Karl Lueger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Beograd
Posts: 3,186
Default

"..is the belief that Blond haired/Blue eyed people were or are superior to all others, even other whites. This to me is BS."

Ofcourse, that replaces a Racial Philosophy with some
marketing scam by a cosmetics company.

Mr. Thomsons great line:
Nature is Nazi!!


"These conditions specify a life and death struggle for those dedicated to the survival and advancement of Higher Man through a New Order of Aryandom.
In such a struggle the prerequisite for effective action is a searching appraisal of ways and means.
All practices and procedures must be subjected to an analysis of cost-effectiveness, and retained or rejected accordingly. "
It is nothing less than absolute folly of the worst kind that squanders both time and valuable resources,
while sucking up to the enemy by playing the System's games;
affecting the posture of "rebellious radicalism, albeit shackled with the mental fetters of Democracy's notions of 'respectability' and 'moderation '.."
"the political party can do nothing other than present a feeble spectacle of the tail wagging the dog". - while the situation for Whites worsens and worsens day by day.
If the whole of the Aryan Folk is not served as one undivided whole, but instead we honour the idiocy-soaked vagary that geographical boundary is more meaningful than the life-blood itself of the whole Folk, an Aryan international racialism, we are no more than the traitors who have taken the pay of the enemy."
Jordan
__________________
"To survive a war, you gotta become war."

Rambo, John J.
 
Old December 9th, 2008 #5
MikeTodd
Pussy Bünd "Commander"
 
MikeTodd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: land of the Friedman, home of the Braverman
Posts: 13,329
Default

Quote:
Last time I checked National Socialism is no where near the same as Democracy in the States.
My fault.
I should have been clearer in my meaning.
When I used the term "the American Republic" I meant as it exited prior to the War of Union Aggression.
__________________
Worse than a million megaHitlers all smushed together.
 
Old December 9th, 2008 #6
Harry Flash
Sexist Bastard
 
Harry Flash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,123
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerrod Land View Post
What I dont get about NS or misunderstand about it or its appeal is that it was and is Anti-Democratic. Democracy can be used by the White Race, if applied correctly in white only nations.
In his time, Adolf Hitler was probably the most popular democratic leader Germany had ever known. He was the true democratic voice of Europe. Yet who can honestly say that in this corrupt Jew-ridden society, democracy is not the most poisonous system of government ever invented? No wonder then that it is democratic governments who hate and fear democracy the most. Look at the facts:

Adolf Hitler was of course absolutely correct when he said in 1938:

"Under the rules of Parliamentary Democracy I obtained the absolute majority of votes and today I have the unanimous support of the German people. The only difference lies in the fact that only a fraction of the English votes were cast for Mr. Churchill, while I can say that I represent the whole German people."

The election on July 31st 1932, the National Socialists polled 13,574,000 votes and with 38% of the total votes cast legitimately and democratically to become the largest Party in the Reichstag with 230 seats. The Social Democrats had 133 seats and the Communists 89. On January 30th, Adolf Hitler was appointed Chancellor of Germany.

At the polls of March, 5th, the NSDAP polled 17,277,180 votes; an increase of 5.5 million bringing their voting percentage up to 44% which when placed in coalition with the Nationalists led by Franz von Papen and Alfred Hugenberg who had polled 3,136,760 votes, showed an overwhelming majority of Germans had in free and open elections made their preference for German nationalism clear.

Immediately after his appointment as Chancellor, Adolf Hitler in his first appeal to the German nation on February 1st 1933 asked to be allowed just four years in order to carry out the task of national reconstruction. He repeated the same request when a few days later, when at a speech in the Berlin Sportpalast, he said:

"During fourteen years the German nation has been at the mercy of decadent elements which have abused its confidence. During fourteen years those elements have done nothing but destroy, disintegrate and dissolve. Hence it is neither temerity nor presumption if, appearing before the nation today, I ask: German nation, give us four years time, after which you can arraign us before your tribunal and you can judge me! Allow me four years, and I swear to you, as truly as I have now undertaken my duties, I will depart. It is not for any reward or benefit that I have taken office, but only for your sake. It has been the greatest decision of my whole life.

I cannot rid myself of my faith in my people, nor lose the conviction that this people will resuscitate again one day. I cannot be severed from the love of a people that I know to be my own. And I nourish the conviction that the hour will come when millions of men who now curse us will take their stand behind us to welcome the new Reich, our common creation born of a painful and laborious struggle and an arduous triumph - a Reich which is the symbol of greatness, honour, strength, honesty and justice."


True to his word, on March 29th 1936, the German nation was given as promised the opportunity to express their approval or disapproval of the National Socialist state. It was an entirely free election without fear or intimidation with adequate provision made for monitoring by neutral observers.

THE GERMAN NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC ELECTIONS MARCH 29th 1936

TOTAL QUALIFIED VOTES 45,453,691
TOTAL VOTES CAST 45,001,489 99.0%
VOTES 'NO' OR INVALID 540,211
VOTES FOR HITLER'S NSDAP 44,461,278 98.8%


THE SAAR ELECTION FOR SELF-DETERMINATION

JANUARY 13th 1935

The Versailles Treaty deprived Germany of the Saar territory, falsely claiming as justification that the region was historically French and with a French population of 150,000. In fact, the French population was just 2,000. For every French citizen in the Saar, there were 250 Germans.

On January 13th 1935, two years after the election of Adolf Hitler, free elections observed by international observers were held in which the electorate were asked whether they wished to remain as French citizens or would prefer to become part of the Third Reich.

IN FAVOUR OF UNIFICATION WITH GERMANY 477,119
THOSE FAVOURING NO CHANGE 46,513
IN FAVOUR OF REMAINING FRENCH 2,124

This was a 90.5% majority in favour of reunification with Germany


THE AUSTRIAN PLEBISCITE MARCH 13th 1938 - GERMAN-AUSTRIAN UNITY DECISION

On March 13th, 1938, the Austrian Government enacted a constitutional law concerning a plebiscite for the reunion of Austria with the Third Reich. On 18th March 1938 Hitler dissolved the Reichstag and announced conformity with the plebiscite which was announced on April 10th 1938. The peoples of both nations were given the opportunity to decide for or against unification with Hitler's Germany.

THE AUSTRIA PEOPLES VERDICT

ENTITLED TO VOTE 4,474,138
ACTUAL VOTE 4,460,778 99.07%
TOTAL VALID VOTES 4,455,015
VOTES IN FAVOUR OF UNIFICATION 4,443,208 99.73%
VOTES AGAINST UNIFICATION 11,807
SPOILT PAPERS 5,763

THE GERMAN PEOPLES VERDICT

ENTITLED TO VOTE 45,073,303
ACTUAL VOTE 44,872,702 99.55%
TOTAL VALID VOTES 44,803,096
VOTES IN FAVOUR OF UNIFICATION 44,362,667 99.02%
VOTES AGAINST UNIFICATION 440,429
SPOILT PAPERS 69,606

From Michael Walsh - WAS ADOLF HITLER THE MOST POPULAR LEADER IN EUROPEAN HISTORY?

What could be a better example of direct democracy? To enable the German public to express its opinion on the occasion of important events of social, national, or international significance, where Hitler provided the people a new means of approving or rejecting his own actions via plebiscite.

The "Plebiscite Law" was clear:

The Reich government may ask the people whether or not it approves of a measure planned by or taken by the government. This may also apply to a law. A measure submitted to plebiscite will be considered as established when it receives a simple majority of the votes. This will apply as well to a law modifying the Constitution. If the people approves the measure in question, it will be applied in conformity with article III of the Law for Overcoming the Distress of the People and the Reich. The Reich Interior Ministry is authorized to take all legal and administrative measures necessary to carry out this law. - Berlin, July 14, 1933.

The ballot was secret, and the voter was not constrained. No one could have prevented a German from voting no if he wished.

And, in fact, a certain number did vote no in every plebiscite. Millions of others could just as easily have done the same. However, the percentage of "No" votes remained remarkably low - usually under ten percent. In the Saar region, where the plebiscite of January 1935 was supervised from start to finish by the Allies, the result was the same as in the rest of the Reich: more than 90 percent voted "Yes" to unification with Hitler's Germany!

Hitler had no fear of such secret ballot plebiscites because the German people invariably supported him. What "democratically elected" politician today can boast that?
__________________
.
 
Old December 10th, 2008 #7
Kind Lampshade Maker
The paranormal silent type
 
Kind Lampshade Maker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Where you least expect
Posts: 8,265
Default

National Socialism could function, when a iron-clad constitution and Swiss-styled platform were to be used.
The Swiss governmental system, a Napoleanic conception, by the way, has no head of state. Instead, the parliament is made up of elected ministers and the citizens have a right to referendum voting on major issues.
Euthanasia, governmental annexation of private property, declaration of war and the setting up of labor camps for the purpose of destruction of life are not genuinely the products of NS. These policies have been used by Internatioinal Socialists, also.
The aforementioned policies are not relavent to the success of an NS governmental structure. The history of such policies, being used by a self-declared NS regime, have been abused by those opposing an NS governmental form
__________________
 
Old December 10th, 2008 #8
Jerrod Land
Proud to be WHITE!
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: America
Posts: 92
Default

Sorry but the election that accured at Hitlers election was allowed under the Weimer Republic not under National Socialism therefore does not count. After Hitler got into power elections were abolished in Germany. I cant speak for the Austrian elections of 1938. You may be correct, but eventually elections were abolished there aswell.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Flash View Post
In his time, Adolf Hitler was probably the most popular democratic leader Germany had ever known. He was the true democratic voice of Europe. Yet who can honestly say that in this corrupt Jew-ridden society, democracy is not the most poisonous system of government ever invented? No wonder then that it is democratic governments who hate and fear democracy the most. Look at the facts:

Adolf Hitler was of course absolutely correct when he said in 1938:

"Under the rules of Parliamentary Democracy I obtained the absolute majority of votes and today I have the unanimous support of the German people. The only difference lies in the fact that only a fraction of the English votes were cast for Mr. Churchill, while I can say that I represent the whole German people."

The election on July 31st 1932, the National Socialists polled 13,574,000 votes and with 38% of the total votes cast legitimately and democratically to become the largest Party in the Reichstag with 230 seats. The Social Democrats had 133 seats and the Communists 89. On January 30th, Adolf Hitler was appointed Chancellor of Germany.

At the polls of March, 5th, the NSDAP polled 17,277,180 votes; an increase of 5.5 million bringing their voting percentage up to 44% which when placed in coalition with the Nationalists led by Franz von Papen and Alfred Hugenberg who had polled 3,136,760 votes, showed an overwhelming majority of Germans had in free and open elections made their preference for German nationalism clear.

Immediately after his appointment as Chancellor, Adolf Hitler in his first appeal to the German nation on February 1st 1933 asked to be allowed just four years in order to carry out the task of national reconstruction. He repeated the same request when a few days later, when at a speech in the Berlin Sportpalast, he said:

"During fourteen years the German nation has been at the mercy of decadent elements which have abused its confidence. During fourteen years those elements have done nothing but destroy, disintegrate and dissolve. Hence it is neither temerity nor presumption if, appearing before the nation today, I ask: German nation, give us four years time, after which you can arraign us before your tribunal and you can judge me! Allow me four years, and I swear to you, as truly as I have now undertaken my duties, I will depart. It is not for any reward or benefit that I have taken office, but only for your sake. It has been the greatest decision of my whole life.

I cannot rid myself of my faith in my people, nor lose the conviction that this people will resuscitate again one day. I cannot be severed from the love of a people that I know to be my own. And I nourish the conviction that the hour will come when millions of men who now curse us will take their stand behind us to welcome the new Reich, our common creation born of a painful and laborious struggle and an arduous triumph - a Reich which is the symbol of greatness, honour, strength, honesty and justice."


True to his word, on March 29th 1936, the German nation was given as promised the opportunity to express their approval or disapproval of the National Socialist state. It was an entirely free election without fear or intimidation with adequate provision made for monitoring by neutral observers.

THE GERMAN NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC ELECTIONS MARCH 29th 1936

TOTAL QUALIFIED VOTES 45,453,691
TOTAL VOTES CAST 45,001,489 99.0%
VOTES 'NO' OR INVALID 540,211
VOTES FOR HITLER'S NSDAP 44,461,278 98.8%


THE SAAR ELECTION FOR SELF-DETERMINATION

JANUARY 13th 1935

The Versailles Treaty deprived Germany of the Saar territory, falsely claiming as justification that the region was historically French and with a French population of 150,000. In fact, the French population was just 2,000. For every French citizen in the Saar, there were 250 Germans.

On January 13th 1935, two years after the election of Adolf Hitler, free elections observed by international observers were held in which the electorate were asked whether they wished to remain as French citizens or would prefer to become part of the Third Reich.

IN FAVOUR OF UNIFICATION WITH GERMANY 477,119
THOSE FAVOURING NO CHANGE 46,513
IN FAVOUR OF REMAINING FRENCH 2,124

This was a 90.5% majority in favour of reunification with Germany


THE AUSTRIAN PLEBISCITE MARCH 13th 1938 - GERMAN-AUSTRIAN UNITY DECISION

On March 13th, 1938, the Austrian Government enacted a constitutional law concerning a plebiscite for the reunion of Austria with the Third Reich. On 18th March 1938 Hitler dissolved the Reichstag and announced conformity with the plebiscite which was announced on April 10th 1938. The peoples of both nations were given the opportunity to decide for or against unification with Hitler's Germany.

THE AUSTRIA PEOPLES VERDICT

ENTITLED TO VOTE 4,474,138
ACTUAL VOTE 4,460,778 99.07%
TOTAL VALID VOTES 4,455,015
VOTES IN FAVOUR OF UNIFICATION 4,443,208 99.73%
VOTES AGAINST UNIFICATION 11,807
SPOILT PAPERS 5,763

THE GERMAN PEOPLES VERDICT

ENTITLED TO VOTE 45,073,303
ACTUAL VOTE 44,872,702 99.55%
TOTAL VALID VOTES 44,803,096
VOTES IN FAVOUR OF UNIFICATION 44,362,667 99.02%
VOTES AGAINST UNIFICATION 440,429
SPOILT PAPERS 69,606

From Michael Walsh - WAS ADOLF HITLER THE MOST POPULAR LEADER IN EUROPEAN HISTORY?

What could be a better example of direct democracy? To enable the German public to express its opinion on the occasion of important events of social, national, or international significance, where Hitler provided the people a new means of approving or rejecting his own actions via plebiscite.

The "Plebiscite Law" was clear:

The Reich government may ask the people whether or not it approves of a measure planned by or taken by the government. This may also apply to a law. A measure submitted to plebiscite will be considered as established when it receives a simple majority of the votes. This will apply as well to a law modifying the Constitution. If the people approves the measure in question, it will be applied in conformity with article III of the Law for Overcoming the Distress of the People and the Reich. The Reich Interior Ministry is authorized to take all legal and administrative measures necessary to carry out this law. - Berlin, July 14, 1933.

The ballot was secret, and the voter was not constrained. No one could have prevented a German from voting no if he wished.

And, in fact, a certain number did vote no in every plebiscite. Millions of others could just as easily have done the same. However, the percentage of "No" votes remained remarkably low - usually under ten percent. In the Saar region, where the plebiscite of January 1935 was supervised from start to finish by the Allies, the result was the same as in the rest of the Reich: more than 90 percent voted "Yes" to unification with Hitler's Germany!

Hitler had no fear of such secret ballot plebiscites because the German people invariably supported him. What "democratically elected" politician today can boast that?
 
Old December 11th, 2008 #9
Harry Flash
Sexist Bastard
 
Harry Flash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,123
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerrod Land View Post
Sorry but the election that accured at Hitlers election was allowed under the Weimer Republic not under National Socialism therefore does not count. After Hitler got into power elections were abolished in Germany. I cant speak for the Austrian elections of 1938. You may be correct, but eventually elections were abolished there aswell.
The abolition of your precious elections was done legally, legitimately and democratically through the Enabling Act. This had the full support of the German people. Hitler was granted plenary powers with a sweeping majority of 441 votes to 94: he had won not just two thirds support from the Reichstag, but 82.44 percent of the assembly's votes. This "Enabling Act" granted Hitler for four years virtually absolute authority over the legislative as well as the executive affairs of the government. It was necessary as the communists and Jews were hell bent on assassinating Hitler, destroying the NSDAP and delivering the whole of Germany into the hands of Josef Stalin.

On August 19, 1934, about 95 percent of registered voters in Germany went to the polls and gave Hitler 38 million "Ja" votes (90 percent of the vote). Thus Hitler could now rightly claim he was Führer of the German nation with the overwhelming approval of the people.

For further information, I recommend Leon Degrelle's: How Hitler Consolidated Power in Germany and Launched A Social Revolution
__________________
.
 
Old December 11th, 2008 #10
Jerrod Land
Proud to be WHITE!
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: America
Posts: 92
Default

Well if the people are eager to give up their rights to vote then so be it. Were they told they would not have this freedom ever again under NS? Nice to know that it was through a Democratic voting process. Without this form and under a Fascist regime Hitler would not have come to power. Isnt that ironic.
As for me, its not my precious elections, you even admitted it was by elections that Hitler was given power. I said "Under NS/Fascism a person did not have the right to vote and other basic concepts of freedom." Which you have proven is true,well about voting. Most if not the majority of Americans will never give up these rights. My main concern is not voting, its basic freedoms and is with most Americans. Americans want the rights guaranteed to them in the Constitution(which originally only applied to whites). Unfortanetly those laws now extend to non whites. And Yes I believe under a Pro White Democracy, a white society can flourish, it did here for almost 200 yrs, until the civil rights movement and would still be a great system, if it had not been for negros being here and foreign non white immigrants moving here and our government bowing down to them. True under a non-pro white form of Democracy all forms of trouble can come upon a nation, look at the US and other nations.


How would abolition of the right to vote stop anyone from trying to assasinate anyone? Uh It wouldnt. Abolition of voting would keep commies and Jews from voting, but Under Law the Communist Party was outlawed and Jews wouldnt have the right to vote, so there was no threat in that respect from Commies or Jews. And any one could still atempt to assassinate Hitler with or without voting being outlawed.

I'll look over the link...Danka!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Flash View Post
The abolition of your precious elections was done legally, legitimately and democratically through the Enabling Act. This had the full support of the German people. Hitler was granted plenary powers with a sweeping majority of 441 votes to 94: he had won not just two thirds support from the Reichstag, but 82.44 percent of the assembly's votes. This "Enabling Act" granted Hitler for four years virtually absolute authority over the legislative as well as the executive affairs of the government. It was necessary as the communists and Jews were hell bent on assassinating Hitler, destroying the NSDAP and delivering the whole of Germany into the hands of Josef Stalin.

On August 19, 1934, about 95 percent of registered voters in Germany went to the polls and gave Hitler 38 million "Ja" votes (90 percent of the vote). Thus Hitler could now rightly claim he was Führer of the German nation with the overwhelming approval of the people.

For further information, I recommend Leon Degrelle's: How Hitler Consolidated Power in Germany and Launched A Social Revolution
 
Old December 11th, 2008 #11
Luis Quilico
Senior Member
 
Luis Quilico's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 687
Default

Why do you think that democracy is a desireable system?
__________________
Quote:
You'll catch a liar before a cripple.
-Catalan proverb
 
Old December 11th, 2008 #12
Jerrod Land
Proud to be WHITE!
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: America
Posts: 92
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Luis Quilico View Post
Why do you think that democracy is a desireable system?
A Pro White Democracy can be desirable, it was here for almost 200 yrs. Keeping it just Pro White, explain to me why it wouldnt be?

Even Hitler saw some use for democracy.

Quote:
"I am not a dictator," Hitler had often affirmed, "and I never will be. Democracy will be rigorously enforced by National Socialism."
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p299_Degrelle.html
 
Old December 11th, 2008 #13
Luis Quilico
Senior Member
 
Luis Quilico's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 687
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerrod Land View Post
A Pro White Democracy can flourish, it did here for almost 200 yrs.
America flourished in spite of its political system, which has been hopelessly corrupt and has mislead the great mass of a gullible, politically ignorant populace for well over a century.

Quote:
Keeping it just Pro White, explain to me why it wouldnt be?
Quoth Aristotle: man is a good judge of what he understands. The average person doesn't understand politics, and is unfit to dictate policy or influence policy. Mob rule - no matter how orderly - is still the domain and instrument of the ignorant and impulsive. Besides, it's a system that's totally susceptible to corruption and subversion. Don't just take my word for it. Everyone from Plato and the Cynics, to Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche and John Adams, right on down to Mencken and even Winston Churchill have all deconstructed democracy to expose it for the vulgar populist sham that it is. If you want references to good anti-democratic literature, I'll be happy to provide them. I liken democracy to Christianity in one way: both are regarded by differing parties to be among the finest products of the western world; in reality, the west has struggled so much harder to survive either of them.
__________________
Quote:
You'll catch a liar before a cripple.
-Catalan proverb
 
Old December 11th, 2008 #14
Harry Flash
Sexist Bastard
 
Harry Flash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,123
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerrod Land View Post
Well if the people are eager to give up their rights to vote then so be it. Were they told they would not have this freedom ever again under NS? Nice to know that it was through a Democratic voting process. Without this form and under a Fascist regime Hitler would not have come to power. Isnt that ironic.
Yes, I think you're really having trouble getting your head around this.

As I pointed out earlier, Hitler did not take away anyone's "right to vote".
__________________
.
 
Old December 11th, 2008 #15
Karl Von Clausewitz!
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,525
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerrod Land View Post
What I dont get about NS or misunderstand about it or its appeal is that it was and is Anti-Democratic.
That is what makes it so appealing, the fact that it is Anti-Democratic...

Quote:
Democracy can be used by the White Race, if applied correctly in white only nations.
Democracy is a joke that should never have existed in the first place. In no natural society should the fate of the nation be left in the hands of the stupid and the decadent.

In democracy there is a cycle shift the very first of it's leaders most possibly the best one of them all....the reason for this being that the elite (and for all intense purposes the Elite do monopolize the candidates) select only those from whom they can extract financial gain and power, not those who are of ability.

Schopenhauer made an interesting point in his written works titled "On Human Nature" he stated as follows :

Quote:
A peculiar disadvantage attaching to republics--and one that might
not be looked for--is that in this form of government it must be more
difficult for men of ability to attain high position and exercise
direct political influence than in the case of monarchies. For always
and everywhere and under all circumstances there is a conspiracy, or
instinctive alliance, against such men on the part of all the stupid,
the weak, and the commonplace; they look upon such men as their
natural enemies, and they are firmly held together by a common fear of
them. There is always a numerous host of the stupid and the weak,
and in a republican constitution it is easy for them to suppress and
exclude the men of ability, so that they may not be outflanked by
them. They are fifty to one; and here all have equal rights at the
start.
Quote:
I believe American's for the most part will never follow such a political ideal, we are a Democratic-Republic
As I've said before, the "loyalty" toward Democracy is only as deep as the pockets. The American people will have no objection to one ruler as long as that ruler benefits the people.

Quote:
and fought against Nazi Germany, mainly because of its authoritative-socialist style government and the fact that they invaded our allies. Only late in the war did the Anti-Semitism issue come into play, mainly from Jews within our nation.
I disagree with this, the intention for war with Germany was never because of it's authoritative Government, do you actually think yourselves the liberators of the German nation? freeing them from the "grip" that is Hitlers so called "Megalomaniac" fist?

You invaded Germany because of the jews, for the jews and only for them...the fact that Germany retaliated against Poland meant nothing to you in fact....as Historian Mark Weber noted in his written works titled "President Roosevelt's Campaign to Incite War in Europe" Poland was your bait.

Quote:
What I don't get about some forms of Aryanism, is the belief that Blond haired/Blue eyed people were or are superior to all others, even other whites.

I do not understand why this myth still lingers on despite the fact that it's been shown to be a fallacy.

Quote:
And I am not 100% pro-Democratic-Republicanism either. I would be for a mixture with NS if that were possible. I would not be for a suppressive regime that takes their basic rights away, such as religious freedom and to live their lives with out fear.
It is not possible to mix National Socialism with Democracy, the two are worlds apart.
 
Old December 11th, 2008 #16
Karl Von Clausewitz!
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,525
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerrod Land View Post
And Yes I believe under a Pro White Democracy, a white society can flourish, it did here for almost 200 yrs, until the civil rights movement and would still be a great system!

Actually, the United States as a Democratic society didn't really "flourish" for the first 200 years of it's life. The system was flawed and the system was corrupt for a long time, to believe otherwise is a fallacy.

I do not see why most Americans have this concern about "Freedom", under National Socialism everybody has freedom as long as it is within the boundaries of the law.

Fundamentally this concept is no different to the concept your founding fathers had when they set out the "basic freedoms". Hell looking back at the "Democratic" state then there are many modern Americans that would consider such a state today to be authoritarian.

The problem with "Freedom" is that it cannot ever be fully attained, yet people by their very selfish nature would demand more and more until eventually we sit with the shit hole society we have today.

If it requires force to squash the rantings of homosexual, liberal, communist and assorted lunatics in order for people to learn their place then so be it, fear is necessary for without it there will be no order.

Consider a Government a caring father, if you abide by his house rules he will provide you with food, he will provide you with money, but if you stand up to him and you challenge his authority as head of the household, he should rightly knock you on your ass, the same applies to society.

Last edited by Karl Von Clausewitz!; December 11th, 2008 at 09:08 PM.
 
Old December 11th, 2008 #17
Jerrod Land
Proud to be WHITE!
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: America
Posts: 92
Default

Im not saying it hasnt been corrupt, most man made governments have been in one form or another.

Yes please do,show me some GOOD references. Im open minded.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Luis Quilico View Post
America flourished in spite of its political system, which has been hopelessly corrupt and has mislead the great mass of a gullible, politically ignorant populace for well over a century.



Quoth Aristotle: man is a good judge of what he understands. The average person doesn't understand politics, and is unfit to dictate policy or influence policy. Mob rule - no matter how orderly - is still the domain and instrument of the ignorant and impulsive. Besides, it's a system that's totally susceptible to corruption and subversion. Don't just take my word for it. Everyone from Plato and the Cynics, to Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche and John Adams, right on down to Mencken and even Winston Churchill have all deconstructed democracy to expose it for the vulgar populist sham that it is. If you want references to good anti-democratic literature, I'll be happy to provide them. I liken democracy to Christianity in one way: both are regarded by differing parties to be among the finest products of the western world; in reality, the west has struggled so much harder to survive either of them.
 
Old December 11th, 2008 #18
Jerrod Land
Proud to be WHITE!
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: America
Posts: 92
Default

Actually I do think part of the fact was that the Nazi were anti-democratic facist. I never said I agreed with the invasion of Germany, so no I dont see us as liberators of Germany. In fact I think it was a bad decision on our part, but invading our allies, and I mean Britian, didnt help in keeping us out of the war in Europe.
If you believe your last statement about democracy then you disagree with Hitler.
Quote:
"I am not a dictator," Hitler had often affirmed, "and I never will be. Democracy will be rigorously enforced by National Socialism."
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p299_Degrelle.html
There are alot of things that I like about NS, but there are some things I am still iffy about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl Von Clausewitz! View Post
That is what makes it so appealing, the fact that it is Anti-Democratic...



Democracy is a joke that should never have existed in the first place. In no natural society should the fate of the nation be left in the hands of the stupid and the decadent.

In democracy there is a cycle shift the very first of it's leaders most possibly the best one of them all....the reason for this being that the elite (and for all intense purposes the Elite do monopolize the candidates) select only those from whom they can extract financial gain and power, not those who are of ability.

Schopenhauer made an interesting point in his written works titled "On Human Nature" he stated as follows :




As I've said before, the "loyalty" toward Democracy is only as deep as the pockets. The American people will have no objection to one ruler as long as that ruler benefits the people.



I disagree with this, the intention for war with Germany was never because of it's authoritative Government, do you actually think yourselves the liberators of the German nation? freeing them from the "grip" that is Hitlers so called "Megalomaniac" fist?

You invaded Germany because of the jews, for the jews and only for them...the fact that Germany retaliated against Poland meant nothing to you in fact....as Historian Mark Weber noted in his written works titled "President Roosevelt's Campaign to Incite War in Europe" Poland was your bait.




I do not understand why this myth still lingers on despite the fact that it's been shown to be a fallacy.



It is not possible to mix National Socialism with Democracy, the two are worlds apart.
 
Old December 11th, 2008 #19
Jerrod Land
Proud to be WHITE!
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: America
Posts: 92
Default

Actually it did. It grew from a few Colonies to what it became during WWII, then it began to decline.
So your telling me, under NS people were allowed to go anywhere they wanted, had no curfews, could own guns, had freedom of speech, etc etc just like in America? Its strange that Germans from that time claimed otherwise. But hey maybe Im misinformed, Show me the official Laws and other proof, individual confessios would be nice and I want doubt it. And what I am referring to doesnt concern Jews or commies because those would not live or be allowed in what I vision.

I see what your saying at the last part and I agree, if there is a threat to the over all good then so be it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl Von Clausewitz! View Post
Actually, the United States as a Democratic society didn't really "flourish" for the first 200 years of it's life. The system was flawed and the system was corrupt for a long time, to believe otherwise is a fallacy.

I do not see why most Americans have this concern about "Freedom", under National Socialism everybody has freedom as long as it is within the boundaries of the law.

Fundamentally this concept is no different to the concept your founding fathers had when they set out the "basic freedoms". Hell looking back at the "Democratic" state then there are many modern Americans that would consider such a state today to be authoritarian.

The problem with "Freedom" is that it cannot ever be fully attained, yet people by their very selfish nature would demand more and more until eventually we sit with the shit hole society we have today.

If it requires force to squash the rantings of homosexual, liberal, communist and assorted lunatics in order for people to learn their place then so be it, fear is necessary for without it there will be no order.

Consider a Government a caring father, if you abide by his house rules he will provide you with food, he will provide you with money, but if you stand up to him and you challenge his authority as head of the household, he should rightly knock you on your ass, the same applies to society.
 
Old December 11th, 2008 #20
Karl Von Clausewitz!
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,525
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerrod Land View Post
If you believe your last statement about democracy then you disagree with Hitler.
I do not disagree with Hitler, I disagree with Degrelle's statement concerning Hitler. There is nothing in National Socialism that suggests it was "Democratic" or intended to be incorporated into "democracy".

The only thing even remotely close to democracy was referendums. National Socialism's "Election" system was not based on popular vote but rather a lengthy rigorous system of selection based on Personality, Character and Ability.

This is fundamentally opposed to Democracy. And secondly, Democracy cannot be incorporated into National Socialism as a form of Government because National Socialism is a Governmental structure, a social structure, a racial structure, for all intense purposes it is a Worldview completely and wholly different to Democracy.

Edit : As I demonstrated below (with the help of Harry Flash), the "Democracy" Hitler referred to was neither a Political agenda nor a Governmental structure, it was never intended to become some cheap imitation of a Governmental structure that is one leap from Marxism and always finds Marxism in it's close company.

Last edited by Karl Von Clausewitz!; December 12th, 2008 at 12:04 AM.
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:06 AM.
Page generated in 2.19981 seconds.