Ahmadinejad: Germans exploited by 'greedy Zionists'

[Starr]

I like this guy more and more every time he opens his mouth.

LONDON, April 28 (IranMania) - Hardline Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took a fresh swipe at Israel Thursday by complaining that Germany was being exploited by "greedy Zionists" more than 60 years after World War II, AFP reported.

"Look at the German people. Three generations ago, there was a war. But today an intelligent people is still a hostage of World War II," he said in a speech carried on state television.

Germany, he said, "still doesn't have the right to have independent policies or proper defences."

"Every German born is indebted to the arrogant and greedy 'Zionists'," Ahmadinejad said, referring to German reparations for the Holocaust.

"When you visit a country, in every town there is a symbol of national pride," Ahmadinejad said, but added that in Germany "every town has something saying to the great German people that their parent and grandparents were murderers."

The firebrand president has already dismissed the Holocaust as a "myth" and has also called for Israel to be "wiped off the map".

"Sixty years after the war, why do the Palestinian people have to burn in the crimes of 'Zionists' under the pretext of the Second World War?" the hardline President said in Zanjan, situated 300 kilometres (200 miles) west of Tehran.

"For 60 years they've been massacring Palestinians and destroying their homes under the pretext that a certain number of Jew were killed during World War II," Ahmadinejad said.



http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=42371&NewsKind=Current%20Affairs

[Billy Score]

This should dispel some of that WN nonesense that decries him as a "sand monkey". Or maybe not, since they are a bunch of kooks anyway. It does show the sad state of things, however, that the greatest german nationalist of our age is the President of Iran.

[Dienekes]

I like this guy more and more every time he opens his mouth.

Really? How about this one.
Agence France Presse
Iran's Ahmadinejad looks to export 'new Islamic revolution'

"The era of oppression, hegemonic regimes, tyranny and injustice has reached its end," he said, in an apparent reference to the United States. "The wave of the Islamic revolution will soon reach the entire world."

Hope you like wearing your burka.:p Here's another little gem.

Associated Press
Iran offers nuclear technology to Islamic states

“Iran is ready to transfer nuclear know-how to the Islamic countries due to their need.”

Finally, now all the crazy Islamic countries with itchy trigger fingers can have nukes. You're right Starr, this guys great!:rofl:

[Starr]

Yes, Islam is going to take over the world,etc.etc. He, says what some of the people(in that part of the world) might want to hear. A lot of the anti-Israeli stuff is also part of that. No big shock. He is also one of the most evil men in the world, right now, so a lot of what he says is also going to be taken out of context and "spun" in a certain way to confirm this evil.

and besides all of that, do I have to like or agree with everything the man says to respect him?

[Kodos]

This should dispel some of that WN nonesense that decries him as a "sand monkey". Or maybe not, since they are a bunch of kooks anyway. It does show the sad state of things, however, that the greatest german nationalist of our age is the President of Iran.

LOL yeah hes a German nationalists.

[Dienekes]

and besides all of that, do I have to like or agree with everything the man says to respect him?

I guess not. It just seems a little odd that you are pumping up a gentleman who, aside from being a very real threat to world security, would probably have you beaten if you left the house without your headgear on, or maybe let your husband drown you in the case of infidelity. But I guess you have to take your Jew bashing where ever you can get it.

[Starr]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8071337793166478323


Aren't there also females in the parliament there?

And most importantly, I don't live there, so who cares?

[Kodos]

Hes not good for your average american joe because all the shit hes pulling is driving oil prices up so stop supporting him Starr mmmkay.

A hard drinking, maneating, chain smoking, bar gal such as yourself wouldn't like it much under Islam either.

[Ravenheart]

I guess not. It just seems a little odd that you are pumping up a gentleman who, aside from being a very real threat to world security, would probably have you beaten if you left the house without your headgear on, or maybe let your husband drown you in the case of infidelity. But I guess you have to take your Jew bashing where ever you can get it.

The point he made about Germany's situation still stands, though.

[Kodos]

You lose two major wars in a 30 year span( and btw I think in the 1st world war we backed the wrong side) and you are probably going to lose the ability to conduct an independent foreign policy for a while.

[Ravenheart]

You lose two major wars in a 30 year span( and btw I think in the 1st world war we backed the wrong side) and you are probably going to lose the ability to conduct an independent foreign policy for a while.

What was wrong about Germany's side in World War I? It always seemed like a fairly pointless conflict to me, though admittedly I do not know that much about it.

[Starr]

A hard drinking, maneating, chain smoking, bar gal such as yourself wouldn't like it much under Islam either.

I am a social drinker. I don't know or have enough men in my life, nor do I have the messed up required personality style to be a "maneater." and the smoking is a bit of a problem, though I wouldn't call myself a chain smoker. I hang out at the bars usually once a week or once every other week for two-three hours. In all reality, my party life is pretty non-existent.

I could be a good Muslim with a few minor lifestyle changes.:222:

[Kodos]

No I mean we should have sided with Germany in the 1st world war... we backed the wrong side.

[Anima Eternae]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8071337793166478323

Those Rambo scenes with the ragesses literally sitting out the window stiking poses were ridiculous.

[Felix the Cat]

Meh. Everybody exploits the poor Germans.

The country is a big fat milkcow which exists solely for the profit of foreigners, Jewish or otherwise

And if the Germans think they have it bad now, just wait until the Turks enter the EU and begin demanding their "fair share" of the EU budget

[Billy Score]

There are women in the Iranian army even- I've got the photos and i will post them when i get on my laptop. Some gorgeous lasses amongst them.

Who cares if his agenda is islamic? The point is right now he is doing far more to fight Israel and zionism and of course, american imperialism, than any of you. And he is hugely popular in his country (IE he won the vote by a landslide). The chances of Iran annexing Europe or launching an aggressive war against Europe is... practically none. The chances of Iran launching war against Israel is much greater. So why are we crying about Iran? That the women wear their traditional clothing is a beautiful thing. That European women dress like harlots and streetwalkers does not make them in any way superior to muslim women, infact, I have a far deeper respect for muslim women (and in real life the only girls who i treat with any resemblence of respect and kindness are muslim girls) than for pseudo christian sluts who go to church on sunday morning after getting drunk and having sex saturday night.

[Count Eustace II]

I see absolutely nothing false in what Ahmadinejad said relating to the 60 year German subjugation by Zionists. Prove 6 million Jews died by a systematic plan designed by every German citizen, open the subject up freely to scrutiny by various historians and academics, set up an open international debate, and then maybe, just maybe, Ahmadinejad is wrong to say what he said.

And please, enough of the "Islam will take over the world" nonsense.

The Muslims can't do it, and ultimately don't want to do it in spite of some leader's rhetoric. The flood of Islam and Muslims into Europe today is soley the European's fault. Don't mess with the Muslims in the Middle East and he won't mess with you.

[Slavic Enforcer]

The average German of today ist not so naive like the most Internet Revolutionaries.

First he (Ahmablabla) says that the Jews shall have their own state on German territory (because the Germans killed so many of them) and now this. :rolleyes:

This guy reminds me of the former Iraqi minister for propaganda ("We will destroy the Americans, right now we kick their asses.." :rofl: ).

[Daniel Shays]

First he (Ahmablabla) says that the Jews shall have their own state on German territory (because the Germans killed so many of them) and now this. :rolleyes:

He was being sarcastic. It was obvious to most people, German or otherwise. He actually said "IF" the Holocaust happened Israel should be moved to Germany. This was a swipe at the myth and showed how absurd the construction of a state is based on that myth.

Iranian panel discusses the holocaust (video). (http://www.national-socialism.com/OKB%20stash/Iranian%20Channel%20Two.wmv)

No I mean we should have sided with Germany in the 1st world war... we backed the wrong side.
What would have been your prerogative for fighting to keep the artificial borders of Catholic Poland and allying with the Soviet Union? Ohh I forgot, you like Jews, my bad.

[Billy Score]

I see absolutely nothing false in what Ahmadinejad said relating to the 60 year German subjugation by Zionists. Prove 6 million Jews died by a systematic plan designed by every German citizen, open the subject up freely to scrutiny by various historians and academics, set up an open international debate, and then maybe, just maybe, Ahmadinejad is wrong to say what he said.

And please, enough of the "Islam will take over the world" nonsense.

The Muslims can't do it, and ultimately don't want to do it in spite of some leader's rhetoric. The flood of Islam and Muslims into Europe today is soley the European's fault. Don't mess with the Muslims in the Middle East and he won't mess with you.

Exactly. If the Europeans attack the middle east, or there is conflict between them, the only winners are the Israelis. If the muslims were to actually attack a christian Europe, they would be entirely justified in nuking every islamic state a dozen times over. But that is not the issue.

[Felix the Cat]

How have the French and Scandinavians "messed" with the Muslims of the Middle East?

[Daniel Shays]

How have the French and Scandinavians "messed" with the Muslims of the Middle East?
You miss the point. He wrote that if we didn't let the Islamic World into our nations the Islamic World would not give a shit about us.

The French and Scandinavians screwed themselves by actively seeking large Islamo-Arab immigration. You can't blame the Muslim governments, what were they supposed to say, "No, you don't want these people, they are incompatible with your way of life."???

Stop looking to blame the Muslim world for the fact that Europe has demographic suicide as its top policy.

[Count Eustace II]

How have the French and Scandinavians "messed" with the Muslims of the Middle East?

They haven't really, at least not too much in the past 30 years. What Middle Eastern countries are overtly threatening France and Scandinavia?

[Felix the Cat]

If Europeans had passed laws 30 years ago banning Muslim immigration, would Euro-Arab relations today be friendlier?

[Jimbo Gomez]

If Europeans had passed laws 30 years ago banning Muslim immigration, would Euro-Arab relations today be friendlier?

Hard to say, but I dont rule it out. Certainly the arabian nations would be less arrogant towards us.

[Daniel Shays]

If Europeans had passed laws 30 years ago banning Muslim immigration, would Euro-Arab relations today be friendlier?
Yes. There would have been no domestic attacks for starters.

It doesn't even matter so much that we invaded Iraq, Iran supported that invasion; they hate Saddam for obvious reasons and still curse him in their prayers.

[Daniel Shays]

View / Download the video of this speech! (http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ai=214&ar=1116wmv&ak=null)

:)

[Slavic Enforcer]

It doesn't even matter so much that we invaded Iraq, Iran supported that invasion; they hate Saddam for obvious reasons and still curse him in their prayers.

Saddam was much better than Ahmablabla.

[Evil_shah]

Ahmedinjad is one of my heros

[Billy Score]

Saddam was much better than Ahmablabla.
The Ba'athists in general were better than the Iranian leadership but i support both. Saddam was a throwback to the arab socialism of qaddafi and Nasser. But Iraq has been pretty much paralyzed since the first gulf war (despite doing a fine job for what they could).

[Kodos]

What would have been your prerogative for fighting to keep the artificial borders of Catholic Poland and allying with the Soviet Union? Ohh I forgot, you like Jews, my bad.

Nazi Germany had a viable economic system and Hitler's conduct in the east showed him to be just as bloodthirsty as Stalin, Nazi Germany would have been more of a threat while the Soviet Union was doomed to eventually self destruct( nor could they have won WWII without lend lease).

Since Nazi Germany actually declared war on America this is a moot point.

[Vindex]

"World security" means maintaining the gangster rackett of the global plutocrat's. The Iran People are Persians not Arabs mostly. I have read that in the upper ranks of their society people are mostly secular and it is the lower classes where the fundimentalists exist. Which given looking at people over here seems to be the same story. So I hope they keep sticking their finger in the jews face.

[Jofreidr_1488]

Hail Ahmadinejad!

Worse is Better for Now and whoever works to destroy the Current Order (which if it continues much longer means certain White Extinction) has my endorsement. One must remember that the name Iran comes from the word Aryan. It is highly likely that if a Racial Scientist were to make an Analysis of President Ahmadinejad they would find significant Aryan blood, probably about 1/4 to 1/3.

[Jimbo Gomez]

Hail Ahmadinejad!

Worse is Better for Now and whoever works to destroy the Current Order (which if it continues much longer means certain White Extinction) has my endorsement. One must remember that the name Iran comes from the word Aryan. It is highly likely that if a Racial Scientist were to make an Analysis of President Ahmadinejad they would find significant Aryan blood, probably about 1/4 to 1/3.


In other words: less white blood than Halle Berry has.

[Jofreidr_1488]

In other words: less white blood than Halle Berry has.

From my understanding Halle Berry is half jewish and half nigger.

Hypothetically speaking even if Halle Berry was half White and half nigger (mulatto) I would consider her to be more akin to an Animal due to the nigger portion. One drop rule.

[Jimbo Gomez]

And yet with her 50% white blood (even if she is jwish, most American jews are ashkenazi, who are white no matter what frustrated nazis say) she is closer to you and I than Ahmawhateverhisnameis biologically spoken.

EDIT: more than 50% in all likeliness, the American negro on average has almost 20% white blood in him, so she doesn't descend from a pure cogoid.

[Slavic Enforcer]

I have read that in the upper ranks of their society people are mostly secular and it is the lower classes where the fundimentalists exist.

Sure, money makes tolerant.

But I don't believe that the Moolahs are poor. :rolleyes:

[Vindex]

No it has more to due with intelligence levels then money.


Sure, money makes tolerant.

But I don't believe that the Moolahs are poor. :rolleyes:

[Slavic Enforcer]

No it has more to due with intelligence levels then money.

I don't understand the sense of what you write.

I hope you won't tell me that you believe you have many allies against the whole Jewish "race" amongst the intelligent, secular Iranians?

[Starr]

I would think "islamic fundamentalism" is embraced more strongly by the lower classes as a sort of comfort. Their existence is made a little easier by the thought of 72 virgins and "paradise" awaiting them in the afterlife,etc. They are also the ones who are going to be hit the hardest by western policies.

This does not always hold true, though, and you can look at the 9/11 hijackers. Mohammed Atta, for one, did not fit this stereotype.

[Ravenheart]

And yet with her 50% white blood (even if she is jwish, most American jews are ashkenazi, who are white no matter what frustrated nazis say) she is closer to you and I than Ahmawhateverhisnameis biologically spoken.

No, because whatever non-Europid elements Ahmadinejad carries are still closer to us than the Negroid element in Halle Barry. Ahmadinejad's racial character has nothing to do with his statements that are the subject of this thread, however.

[Kodos]

In other words: less white blood than Halle Berry has.

Pwn3d. -------------------------------------------------------------

[Kodos]

No, because whatever non-Europid elements Ahmadinejad carries are still closer to us than the Negroid element in Halle Barry. Ahmadinejad's racial character has nothing to do with his statements that are the subject of this thread, however.

No matter how white you are anyone who actually believes in Islam is a sand nigger.

[Starr]

Neither are white, but Ravenheart is correct. He is much higher up the scale, so to speak than her. Her non-white elements are bottom of the barrel.And besides, Hally barry is just another worthless dime a dozen hollyweird starlet, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has all my respect.

[Sulla the Dictator]

I like this guy more and more every time he opens his mouth.

http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=42371&NewsKind=Current%20Affairs

I'm sure you do. Especially since he shares your self-described ignorance of this subject. Two peas in a pod.

Islamic radicalism reminds me a great deal of "WN".

[Starr]

In his main point, where is the ignorance? His main point in this subject, all along has not neccessarily been that the holocaust did not happen, per se. He is talking about the ways in which the Jews use the holocaust to guilt trip the west into getting what it is they want. He has gone beyond the old tired "did it or didn't it" debate and brought up a more important aspect.

[Donny the Punk]

This, to start: http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/04/thin-edge-of-wedge-gets-big-thicker.html

[Sulla the Dictator]

In his main point, where is the ignorance?

The suggestion is that they SHOULDN'T view their WWII leaders as murderers. Which they certainly were.

[The Retard]

The suggestion is that they SHOULDN'T view their WWII leaders as murderers. Which they certainly were.

How the hell did you get that out of this statement

"When you visit a country, in every town there is a symbol of national pride," Ahmadinejad said, but added that in Germany "every town has something saying to the great German people that their parent and grandparents were murderers."

[Starr]

This, to start: http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/04/thin-edge-of-wedge-gets-big-thicker.html


Dr. Tibi wrote, "The Holocaust was the expression of one of the most despicable crimes against humanity carried out by the Nazi enemy during one of the human history's most shameful eras." He added, "We mustn't deny the fact that the Jews were victims of the Nazis. Denial is an immoral act. We need to understand the other and its distress, and recognize its sacrifice."

where is that violin?

I must say I am somewhat outraged by these words! "one of" how dare he imply that the most holy chosen people are not THE greatest victims in the history of the world. Shocking! A self-hating jew.

Sulla probably agrees with my righteous anger.

[Sulla the Dictator]

How the hell did you get that out of this statement

"When you visit a country, in every town there is a symbol of national pride," Ahmadinejad said, but added that in Germany "every town has something saying to the great German people that their parent and grandparents were murderers."

Quite easily. Read it.

[Starr]

Do you see nothing wrong with a people eaten up by guilt being used to further another's agenda? This is what the Iranian president is getting at.

He is another one who hates our freedoms, though.:rolleyes:

[Donny the Punk]

where is that violin?

I must say I am somewhat outraged by these words! "one of" how dare he imply that the most holy chosen people are not THE greatest victims in the history of the world. Shocking! A self-hating jew.

Sulla probably agrees with my righteous anger.
I see Starr shut up about this gem: "Sixty years after the war, why do the Palestinian people have to burn in the crimes of 'Zionists' under the pretext of the Second World War?" the hardline President said in Zanjan, situated 300 kilometres (200 miles) west of Tehran.

"For 60 years they've been massacring Palestinians and destroying their homes under the pretext that a certain number of Jew were killed during World War II," Ahmadinejad said.

It's not hard to see why.

Do you see nothing wrong with a people eaten up by guilt being used to further another's agenda? This is what the Iranian president is getting at.
A little contrition is good for the soul. Especially among a nation of butchers.

[Starr]

And if anyone dares to bring up the Palestinian situation the jews will cry, call you an anti-semite, talk about "the holocaust", and cry some more.

A little contrition is good for the soul.

yes, I suppose it is good for the Jews to have "the souls" of the goyim eaten up with guilt. Israel exists because of the support and protection of these people who, with the Jew leading the way, are eaten up by holocaust guilt, that is some of what he is saying. Is it any wonder that the jews have a fanatic hatred of this guy?:nono:

[Slavic Enforcer]

There's no "the Jews". You people should rather say "some Jews".

I would also never equate the whole US American nation with its government.

[Crowley]

Any national leader that encourages the Germans to throw off their pathetic humiliation at the hands of the Jews has my support, at least for now. The man speaks truth to power. For that he is admirable.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Do you see nothing wrong with a people eaten up by guilt being used to further another's agenda?


Do you see nothing wrong with murdering innocent people? Because thats what happened. If the Germans feel guilty about it, its not a conspiracy. Its conscience.

[Crowley]

Do you see nothing wrong with murdering innocent people? Because thats what happened. If the Germans feel guilty about it, its not a conspiracy. Its conscience.

I guess it needs to be said again: In World War ll 60 million people died, the vast majority of them innocent people.

[Sulla the Dictator]

I guess it needs to be said again: In World War ll 60 million people died on all sides.

And those responsible for that conflict are right to feel guilty about it.

What, exactly, should the Germans erect statues to? The liquidation of the ghetto? Their slaughter of Soviet POWs? The Pripet marshes? The reprisals against civilian populations? The massacre of the sick? The camps?

Or do you want to put up 1,000 marble monuments honoring Rommel? :rolleyes:

[Ahknaton]

And those responsible for that conflict are right to feel guilty about it.

What, exactly, should the Germans erect statues to? The liquidation of the ghetto? Their slaughter of Soviet POWs? The Pripet marshes? The reprisals against civilian populations? The massacre of the sick? The camps?

Or do you want to put up 1,000 marble monuments honoring Rommel? :rolleyes:
The problem is that German crimes during WW2 are used as a means of denying the legitimacy of racialist thought amongst White people in nations who were not party to the conflict, or who were fighting on the other side. The implication is that Nazi crimes somehow forfeited the right to racial and national self-preservation for White people as a whole, and that anyone who tries to invoke race in a political context is somehow automatically the ideological bedfellow of Hitler, and guilty by association for his crimes.

Since I believe that a racialist revival is necessary for the preservation of Western civilisation in a state that I would be happy to pass on to my children, and constant harping on the Holocaust militates against that, it is natural that I would support any attempts to play down or minimise it's significance, and would be perfectly justified in doing so, since there is no moral reason why I should be obliged to pay the price for Hitler's misdeeds.

[Crowley]

Sulla's responsible for Vietnamese children deep-fried in boiling napalm. How many did YOU murder in Vietnam? Was it worth it? Did the commies overrun the world because YOU quit slaughtering Vietnamese peasants? Where are the monuments in your parks honoring them and begging forgiveness for Your atrocities?

[Starr]

How about erecting statues or German heroes and other things that would help to give them a sense of pride in who they are as a people?

[Sulla the Dictator]

Sulla's responsible for Vietnamese children deep-fried in boiling napalm. How many did YOU murder in Vietnam? Was it worth it? Did the commies overrun the world because YOU quit slaughtering Vietnamese peasants? Where are the monuments in your parks honoring them and begging forgiveness for Your atrocities?

Actually our Vietnamese monuments are very similar to the monuments for German war dead. A wall with names.

Though of course, we don't have the level of German embarassment and guilt. Different conflicts.

[Sulla the Dictator]

How about erecting statues or German heroes and other things that would help to give them a sense of pride in who they are as a people?

The Germans have other wars or time periods to be proud of. They have nothing to be proud of in their conduct of the Second world war.

[Crowley]

Actually our Vietnamese monuments are very similar to the monuments for German war dead. A wall with names.



Really Sulla? does the wall name Vietnamese peasant children that you murdered with hideous high tech and low tech weapons? :rolleyes:

[Sulla the Dictator]

The problem is that German crimes during WW2 are used as a means of denying the legitimacy of racialist thought amongst White people in nations who were not party to the conflict, or who were fighting on the other side. The implication is that Nazi crimes somehow forfeited the right to racial and national self-preservation for White people as a whole, and that anyone who tries to invoke race in a political context is somehow automatically the ideological bedfellow of Hitler, and guilty by association for his crimes.


Thats what happens when barbarism results from putting theory into action. And "WNs" have rarely done that, because of the level of barbarism of the Nazis.

Of course, thats an unpleasant result for someone of your worldview. However, I don't think that you would suggest that the Soviet Union shouldn't be brought up in discussion of the feasibility or morality of COMMUNIST societies. So why should the example of the Nazis be excluded from discussion your proposals?

[Crowley]

And then there is that little matter of native American genocide that Sulla is responsible for. :nono:

[Sulla the Dictator]

Really Sulla? does the wall name Vietnamese peasant children that you murdered with hideous high tech and low tech weapons? :rolleyes:

I don't remember the death camps to cleanse Vietnam for American living space.

[Sulla the Dictator]

And then there is that little matter of native American genocide that you are responsible for.

LOL You won't find many people erecting monuments to the cavalry in this day and age. Good example. We're not proud of how we treated the Indians.

[Starr]

And then there is that little matter of native American genocide that Sulla is responsible for. :nono:


Don't forget about the war on terror that Sulla firmly supports. He needs to erect some statues in his backyard to atone for his sins against the Iraqi people.:nono:

Thats what happens when barbarism results from putting theory into action. And "WNs" have rarely done that, because of the level of barbarism of the Nazis.

No, that is what happens when the jews constantly bitch and moan and label anyone who cares about white people and white interests as an evil hater and a Nazi,:nono: that is also always around the time "the holocaust" enters into the "discussion." you can go onto a website like the ADL or SPLC and see, for example, that those who are opposed to immigration are evil haters and want to kill all the mexicans. They constantly pump this crap out to make the average white person feel guilty about not welcoming, with open arms all of the brown people of the world.

It is not always just whites either, they do the same thing, but to a much lesser extent with someone like Farrakhan. Almost anyone who is a seperatist is evil, but the white seperatist is the most evil of all. When it comes to Jews, though, they have every right to care about their own people, the preservation of their Jewish heritage and to work towards their own interests and if you disagree, or worse, yet, DARE TO POINT OUT THIS LITTLE HYPOCRISY, you are an anti-semite, a nazi, and an evil hater.

[Crowley]

I don't remember the death camps to cleanse Vietnam for American living space.

We hardly needed too after you cleansed an entire continent for our living space. No you didn't murder Vietamese peasants for land, you murdered them for Bell Helicopter and DOW chemical, much nobler. :rolleyes:

[Sulla the Dictator]

We hardly needed too after you cleansed an entire continent for our living space.


Bardamu wants a statue of a cavalryman erected in townsquare with his boot on an Indian throat. Right? Thats what you want?


No you didn't murder Vietamese peasants for land, you murdered them for Bell Helicopter and DOW chemical, much nobler. :rolleyes:

Did you get that from Oliver Stone or Howard Zinn? Just curious.

[Ahknaton]

Thats what happens when barbarism results from putting theory into action. And "WNs" have rarely done that, because of the level of barbarism of the Nazis.

Of course, thats an unpleasant result for someone of your worldview. However, I don't think that you would suggest that the Soviet Union shouldn't be brought up in discussion of the feasibility or morality of COMMUNIST societies. So why should the example of the Nazis be excluded from discussion your proposals?The implication is that I share a worldview with Hitler. I don't believe that simply sharing a belief that race is important in human affairs (which is, after all, the truth) makes us birds of a feather.

Your analogy with Communism is poor because supporters of Communism openly identify with that ideology, so should therefore be obliged to defend its track record. The connection between Naziism and WN is far too tenuous, and based on something so broad (race) for that obligation to apply likewise to us. If someone supports government-funded healthcare, are they suddenly to be expected to defend the track-record of Stalinism simply because they both believe in state-provided services? So why should we be associated with Naziism just because we both believe in race?

Furthermore, why is it that racialist politics is only verboten for other White people due to Naziism? If this was due to racialism as an abstract principle having been demonstrated to be unworkable by the Nazis (as you suggest) then why shouldn't this also apply to Blacks, Jews, Hispanics and other ethnic lobby-groups or racial pride movements?

[Crowley]

Bardamu wants a statue of a cavalryman erected in townsquare with his boot on an Indian throat. Right? Thats what you want?

If it is good enough for Germans and their eternal crimes, why not Sulla's?



Did you get that from Oliver Stone or Howard Zinn? Just curious.

Oh, you are going to explain to me how you were justified incinerating Vietnamese peasants? Go right ahead, I'm all ears.

[Sulla the Dictator]

The implication is that I share a worldview with Hitler.
I don't believe that simply sharing a belief that race is important in human affairs (which is, after all, the truth) makes us birds of a feather.


We can't have a niche for everyone, Ahknaton. There is no 'political movement of one'. That may be the only view you share with Hitler, but that isn't the way it looks when we examine most "WN" organizations.


Your analogy with Communism is poor because supporters of Communism openly identify with that ideology, so should therefore be obliged to defend it's track record.


No. There are many 'brands' of Communism, why should a Che Guevarra Commie be held responsible for Stalin's atrocities? After all, just because they share a view that wealth should be redistributed from the hands of the few to the masses doesn't mean they're 'birds of a feather'.


The connection between Naziism and WN is far too tenuous, and based on something so broad (race) for that obligation to apply likewise to us.


That isn't the only connection between Nazism and "WN". In fact, you folks usually share Nazi talking points about the United States and the West, especially as it pertains to Jews (Who are not a race).

And thats when things most often peter our, because modern "WN" isn't nearly as sophisticated as the Nazi party, which was, after all, trying to govern a nation. And thus you guys usually lose your steam when it comes to day to day issues.


If someone supports government-funded healthcare, are they suddenly to be expected to defend the track-record of Stalinism simply because they both believe in state-provided services?


LMAO Thats a specious comparison. You can do better than that.

[Sulla the Dictator]

If it is good enough for Germans and their eternal crimes, why not Sulla's?


Ummm, you seem to forget which side you're on and which side I'm on. I DON'T think the Germans should be proud of their conduct of WWII. I'm also NOT proud of our treatment of American Indians.

...Since you disagree with me, I assume think the Germans SHOULD be proud of how they fought WWII, and you ARE proud of how we treated the American Indians.


Oh, you are going to explain to me how you were justified incinerating Vietnamese peasants?


Nope. You don't seem interested in discussing the issue rationally. Also, that is off topic.

[Ahknaton]

We can't have a niche for everyone, Ahknaton. There is no 'political movement of one'. That may be the only view you share with Hitler, but that isn't the way it looks when we examine most "WN" organizations. "White Nationalism" is an idea, as well as a movement. I'm interested in defending the idea. If I believe that I have a right to protect my racial interests, how do the (oftentimes crazy) views of other people who share that belief negate it? Your argument is basically, "A is false/crazy/evil because many people who believe in A also believe in B, which is false/crazy/evil".
No. There are many 'brands' of Communism, why should a Che Guevarra Commie be held responsible for Stalin's atrocities? After all, just because they share a view that wealth should be redistributed from the hands of the few to the masses doesn't mean they're 'birds of a feather'. Well that's true. The degree to which a "communist" is obliged to defend Stalinism is proporational to the similarity between their worldview and Stalinist Communism. Likewise for "WNs" and Nazis. You were the one who brought up Communism in the first place, and now you are inadvertently demonstrating how some Communists actually AREN'T obliged to defend the Soviet Union. :D
That isn't the only connection between Nazism and "WN". In fact, you folks usually share Nazi talking points about the United States and the West, especially as it pertains to Jews (Who are not a race). See point above. If I don't adhere to those talking points, why should I have to be held to them just because other people who share by belief in White Nationalism do so?
And thats when things most often peter our, because modern "WN" isn't nearly as sophisticated as the Nazi party, which was, after all, trying to govern a nation. And thus you guys usually lose your steam when it comes to day to day issues. I think that this will change within 10-15 years as it goes more mainstream once the failure of multiracialism is undeniable.
LMAO Thats a specious comparison. You can do better than that.No it's an apt comparison. In both cases someone is being obliged to defend an entire worldview based on one similarity.

Also, I notice that you conveniently neglected to answer my last point about the double-standard vis-a-vis racialism between Whites and non-Whites.

[Crowley]

Ummm, you seem to forget which side you're on and which side I'm on. I DON'T think the Germans should be proud of their conduct of WWII. I'm also NOT proud of our treatment of American Indians.

No one should be "proud" of World War ll. Monuments instilling guilt in subsequent generations is something any healthy nation needs to throw off, just like Ahmadinejad says. You are all for Germans living under personal guilt for something that happened 60 years ago but as an American you don't fee the necessity of monuments for your participation in the Vietnamese genocide. Hypocrisy itz.


Nope. You don't seem interested in discussing the issue rationally. Also, that is off topic.

It is you that is irrational with double standards.

[OVERWATCH]

So why should the example of the Nazis be excluded from discussion your proposals?

Because it's nothing more than a slippery-slope fallacy and an appeal to emotion.

[Sulla the Dictator]

No one should be "proud" of World War ll.


LOL That implies equal levels of guilt. False.


Monuments instilling guilt in subsequent generations is something any healthy nation needs to throw off, just like Ahmadinejad says.


Monuments, erected by the people who FOUGHT WWII, will be whatever they want them to be. Those significant aspects which strike them. In this case, the inhumanity of the German state strikes them.

Of course, since you folks want to establish the same type of monstrosity, its quite obvious why you dislike people KNOWING what it would mean. Your motives are quite obvious.


You are all for Germans living under personal guilt for something that happened 60 years ago but as an American you don't fee the necessity of monuments for your participation in the Vietnamese genocide. Hypocrisy itz.


I'm unfamiliar with the "Vietnamese genocide". Espeically since we were allied to the Vietnamese.


It is you that is irrational with double standards.

Really? So far only one of us needs their tinfoil hat.

[OVERWATCH]

Heroism, bravery, self-sacrifice, and martial skill is rare and valuable, Germany should be proud of these things which thier soldiers often displayed during that second world war.

Such things transcend mere ideology, race, culture, and nation.

[Ahknaton]

Of course, since you folks want to establish the same type of monstrosity, its quite obvious why you dislike people KNOWING what it would mean. Your motives are quite obvious.No. My ideal WN state would not resemble Nazi Germany. I am however realistic enough to recognise that the example of Nazi Germany will always be used in an emotional fashion to invalidate WN ideas, and I don't see why I should be subject to the emotions of the herd. Therefore it is my desire to keep from them constant reminders of facts that are easily misused in an emotional way to the detriment of higher individuals. If the average person wants to learn about Nazi Germany, they can go and look it up in a library. Of course, they won't, because they are idiots uninterested in educating themselves, which is why advocates of the status quo recognise the need to constantly shove it in their face. It's also the reason why it's irrational that their emotional reactions to events such as the Holocaust should be given any legitimacy.

[Starr]

[QUOTE=Sulla the Dictator]LOL That implies equal levels of guilt. False.

Does this mean like we=good, they=bad. that is typical of how war propaganda works. I can see why you so easy bought into the idea of how we have to get all of them evil doers who hate our freedoms.


Of course, since you folks want to establish the same type of monstrosity,

Are you listening to yourself? :rofl: this is getting funnier by the minute.

its quite obvious why you dislike people KNOWING what it would mean. Your motives are quite obvious.

Do tell of these evil dark motives, and do excuse me for a few mintues, I must pray to satan.:222:

[Sulla the Dictator]

Heroism, bravery, self-sacrifice, and martial skill is rare and valuable, Germany should be proud of these things which thier soldiers often displayed during that second world war.


They already have those.

http://www.egy.com/P/alamein/germanmemorial2.jpg

http://www.egy.com/P/alamein/rommelplaque.jpg

http://www.egy.com/P/alamein/germantablet.jpg

[Sulla the Dictator]

"White Nationalism" is an idea, as well as a movement. I'm interested in defending the idea. If I believe that I have a right to protect my racial interests, how do the (oftentimes crazy) views of other people who share that belief negate it? Your argument is basically, "A is false/crazy/evil because many people who believe in A also believe in B, which is false/crazy/evil".


LOL Try "You agree that B is false/crazy/evil, and you're one of a handful of people from A who recognize that fact."

What you should realize is that you are immaterial when describing "WN", at large. We don't need to take my word for it.

http://www.natvanbooks.com/cat/940.gif

http://www.natvanbooks.com/cgi-bin/webc.cgi/st_prod.html?p_prodid=618

Where is the evidence that YOU are representative of "WN"?


Well that's true. The degree to which a "communist" is obliged to defend Stalinism is proporational to the similarity between their worldview and Stalinist Communism.


Agreed. Because Che Guevarra led a failed revolution, he wasn't able to match the atrocities of Stalin or Mao or Castro or Pol Pot.

So too, you folks are prevented from harming innocent people by the due dilligence of decent people.


Likewise for "WNs" and Nazis.


Yes. You are like Communist extremists. You just have less popular appeal, which is fortunate. We don't need two violent prole movements.


You were the one who brought up Communism in the first place, and now you are inadvertently demonstrating how some Communists actually AREN'T obliged to defend the Soviet Union. :D


Not at all. You misunderstand. Marxist rebels ARE on the defensive, because of the records of Communist takeovers elsewhere. And justifiably so. None of those movements PROMISE a bloodbath, but they always seem to deliver one.

Hitler didn't run against Hindenberg promising German coffers stuffed with gold teeth and mutiliation twin studies, either. It all just seems to 'happen'.


See point above. If I don't adhere to those talking points, why should I have to be held to them just because other people who share by belief in White Nationalism do so?


Because I'm obviously not talking about you, in that case. YOUR personal philosophy is completely irrelevant to talking about "White nationalism". You aren't representative of it, if what you say about your politics is true. For some reason you decided to defend it, but only seem interested in talking about what YOU believe.

Though I don't know why, since you suggest you find it loathesome.


I think that this will change within 10-15 years as it goes more mainstream once the failure of multiracialism is undeniable.


So then you contradict your earlier point. If white nationalism is so one dimensional, those things it agrees with Nazism on in fact become pretty significant, in light of how few positions they actually care about.


No it's an apt comparison. In both cases someone is being obliged to defend an entire worldview based on one similarity.


LOL The Communists have done better than you, and they have plenty of bloodbaths to serve as a precedent. You folks have fewer, but all rather repugnant. One reason you have fewer is because you have an antique ideology. Atleast the Communists are more modern.


Also, I notice that you conveniently neglected to answer my last point about the double-standard vis-a-vis racialism between Whites and non-Whites.

What double standard?

[Ahknaton]

What you should realize is that you are immaterial when describing "WN", at large. We don't need to take my word for it.
My point is that we are not discussing a movement, we are discussing an idea. Namely that Whites have racial interests and have a moral right to defend them, and that this right is not forfeit by the actions of German Nazis. It's not about "me" versus "WN at large". Individual personalities are simply irrelevent, it's ideas that matter. Naturally, since you are having this argument with me, it is the ideas that I am defending that you should address, not those falsely ascribed to me by association.
Where is the evidence that YOU are representative of "WN"? Again, "WN" is just the idea that Whites have racial interests and are that these are protected by separation into their own nation state. Since I ascribe to that idea, I'm a White Nationalist. See what happens when we ascribe to words their actual meaning, instead of attaching to them the baggage aquired through the actions of people who happen to label themselves as such? Things become a whole lot clearer.
Not at all. You misunderstand. Marxist rebels ARE on the defensive, because of the records of Communist takeovers elsewhere. And justifiably so. None of those movements PROMISE a bloodbath, but they always seem to deliver one.

Hitler didn't run against Hindenberg promising German coffers stuffed with gold teeth and mutiliation twin studies, either. It all just seems to 'happen'. Actually that's not true. The Nazis were very clear about their violent intentions early on.

Again, you are assuming that the WN and ideologies are similar enough that the prior history of Naziism can be generalised to cover all racialist movements and used as a reasonable predictor of what would happen if a WN racialist movement came to power in a Western country. My contention is that they are not similar enough (I'm talking about White Nationalism as defined by the true meaning of the words, not some Linderite or Millerite perversion of it) for this inference to be made.

Believing in racialism doesn't make you a "Nazi". You keep on pushing forward arguments with these bogus premises and thinking eventually I'll just take them for granted.

Because I'm obviously not talking about you, in that case. YOUR personal philosophy is completely irrelevant to talking about "White nationalism". You aren't representative of it, if what you say about your politics is true. For some reason you decided to defend it, but only seem interested in talking about what YOU believe.

Though I don't know why, since you suggest you find it loathesome.My personal political philosophy is White Nationalism, by any reasonable definition of the term.
So then you contradict your earlier point. If white nationalism is so one dimensional, those things it agrees with Nazism on in fact become pretty significant, in light of how few positions they actually care about.I'm not following you here. I don't see why racial nationalism in Anglo countries will necessarily mirror racial nationalism as practised in Nazi Germany. There are many different cultural and historical factors at play.
LOL The Communists have done better than you, and they have plenty of bloodbaths to serve as a precedent. You folks have fewer, but all rather repugnant. One reason you have fewer is because you have an antique ideology. Atleast the Communists are more modern.
Your "you folks" generalisations are getting tiresome.
What double standard?
This one:

"Furthermore, why is it that racialist politics is only verboten for other White people due to Naziism? If this was due to racialism as an abstract principle having been demonstrated to be unworkable by the Nazis (as you suggest) then why shouldn't this also apply to Blacks, Jews, Hispanics and other ethnic lobby-groups or racial pride movements?"

[Dan Dare]

Heroism, bravery, self-sacrifice, and martial skill is rare and valuable, Germany should be proud of these things which thier soldiers often displayed during that second world war.

Such things transcend mere ideology, race, culture, and nation.

Agreed.

The only soldiers for whom British forces returning from both world wars expressed any admiration were the Germans.

[Donny the Punk]

And if anyone dares to bring up the Palestinian situation the jews will cry, call you an anti-semite, talk about "the holocaust", and cry some more.
Funny, the only person whining about any of these things is you. If Palestinian scholars have no trouble affirming the Holocaust, what is the pretext for Ahmadinejad's lie that its invention is used to justify their oppression? As if Muslim states actually cared about Palestinians.

yes, I suppose it is good for the Jews to have "the souls" of the goyim eaten up with guilt.
If lady Macbeth sees blood on her hands, it's because she killed Duncan. Germany has twice turned Europe into a Golgotha and it is with approval that we note the shock and fear expressed in the voice of an older generation when confronted with the stupidities of its younger neo-Nazi cadre. Conscience, of which Germans are presumably capable (contrary to what your Jewish brainwashing x-rays from space theories would imply), begets both humility and culpability.

Israel exists because of the support and protection of these people who, with the Jew leading the way, are eaten up by holocaust guilt, that is some of what he is saying.
This seems to contradict another Wn conspiracy, namely that Israel exists by the grace of the United States. I don't see WWII GIs feeling too bad about liberating Dachau or pissing in the Rhine.

Is it any wonder that the jews have a fanatic hatred of this guy?
When he gleefully froths that Israel should be wiped off the map, not really.

[Dan Dare]

...Germany has twice turned Europe into a Golgotha ...

Over-egging the pudding again, Potty, few people these days assign the resposibility for WW I to the Jerries.

I'm more inclined to go along with Niall Ferguson and place the preponderance of blame on the British who could have stopped it but didn't.

[Sulla the Dictator]

My point is that we are not discussing a movement, we are discussing an idea.


Well, thats not what we're talking about. We were talking about the movement.

The connection between Naziism and WN is far too tenuous, and based on something so broad (race) for that obligation to apply likewise to us

"Us" being plural, and applying to people, not an 'idea'. So if you're going to defend THEM, why are you talking about yourself?

Lets establish a test. If we both look on the Internet, will we see more "WN" groups supporting or denouncing Nazism?


Namely that Whites have racial interests and have a moral right to defend them, and that this right is not forfeit by the actions of German Nazis.


Why don't most of you folks denounce Nazism? Why does National Vanguard come out with issues celebrating Hitler's 100th birthday? Why do your friends peddle Rosenberg's tripe on their websites? Whats with this "Prussian Blue"? Why are "white nationalists" listening to songs dedicated to (LMAO) Rudolf Hess of all people?

You're saying, "So what if the loudest, most visible, most numerous representatives of my movement have a deep sympathy and admiration for the Nazis and Hitler? That doesn't have anything to do with me, personally, and thus my ideology, of which they are a part."

Which is ridiculous. I can say that since I am an atheist, the members of the Republican Party have 'nothing to do with' Christianity. Thats obviously nonsense.

It sounds like your associates have a large amount of respect and admiration for the Nazis, and the suggestion that WE who oppose Nazism are in any way forging an association is patently absurd.


It's not about "me" versus "WN at large". Individual personalities are simply irrelevent, it's ideas that matter.


Right, so now the MEMBERS of the movement don't matter, nor do the ideas they espouse, nor do both elements combined to form the consensus. Now it just matters what your ideas are. Thats farsical.

I mean, this is relatively moderate racialist board, and look at this:

National Socialism: good or bad?

Good. 24 35.82%

Bad. 25 37.31%

Other. 18 26.87%

http://thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=3397

Now, its reasonable to assume that every person who finds your ideology rather repugnant voted no, as Nazism is simply a more virulent form. So subtracting our votes, "Good" is the prevailing view on THIS board. This moderate racialist board, where you've been framed as being associated with Nazis. :P


Naturally, since you are having this argument with me, it is the ideas that I am defending that you should address, not those falsely ascribed to me by association.


LOL Is the idea of pissing on Jew graves one of those that marks your distinction from Nazism?


Again, "WN" is just the idea that Whites have racial interests and are that these are protected by separation into their own nation state.


What are these White Nationalist ideas that are different than the views of the Nazis, other than the very generic nature of your ideology?


Actually that's not true. The Nazis were very clear about their violent intentions early on.


Actually the Nazis lied quite often about 'expelling' and 'resettling' people when they actually had to campaign for office. They probably put Madagascar on the map for most Germans.


Again, you are assuming that the WN and ideologies are similar enough that the prior history of Naziism can be generalised to cover all racialist movements and used as a reasonable predictor of what would happen if a WN racialist movement came to power in a Western country. My contention is that they are not similar enough (I'm talking about White Nationalism as defined by the true meaning of the words, not some Linderite or Millerite perversion of it) for this inference to be made.


LOL For what reason do you divorce Linder and Miller from your movement? And what is the 'standard bearer' of the movement that Linder and Miller are divorced from?


Believing in racialism doesn't make you a "Nazi".


It isn't exclusionary, either, which is what you're trying to suggest.


You keep on pushing forward arguments with these bogus premises and thinking eventually I'll just take them for granted.


You don't want to talk about the actual evidence. You want to talk about theories, unique to you. Thats not what this is about.


My personal political philosophy is White Nationalism, by any reasonable definition of the term.


At the same time, you want to divorce "white nationalism" from actual "white nationalists", which is yet again, another 'white nationalist' call for exceptionalism. Yet again, the standards applied to other people can't be applied to you folks. Yet again, you're not responsible.


I'm not following you here. I don't see why racial nationalism in Anglo countries will necessarily mirror racial nationalism as practised in Nazi Germany. There are many different cultural and historical factors at play.


I don't know that they 'necessarily will'. I simply know that they usually do. In fact, that isn't in dispute by you. You don't even deny that an examination of "white nationalist" websites will directly contradict your claims, yielding a great deal of Nazi hero worship. In not outright declarations of fealty to their dead Fuehrer God.


Your "you folks" generalisations are getting tiresome.


Thats too bad.


This one:

"Furthermore, why is it that racialist politics is only verboten for other White people due to Naziism? If this was due to racialism as an abstract principle having been demonstrated to be unworkable by the Nazis (as you suggest) then why shouldn't this also apply to Blacks, Jews, Hispanics and other ethnic lobby-groups or racial pride movements?"

Jews aren't a race, and "hispanics" are a pretty dubious one. I don't support any 'racial pride' movement.

[Starr]

When he gleefully froths that Israel should be wiped off the map, not really.

and this, is in no way, of course a response to repeated threats of war coming from the U.S and Israel.

[Donny the Punk]

Over-egging the pudding again, Potty, few people these days assign the resposibility for WW I to the Jerries.

I'm more inclined to go along with Niall Ferguson and place the preponderance of blame on the British who could have stopped it but didn't.
Quoting court historians, I see.

[Dan Dare]

Credit where it's due is my motto.

[Donny the Punk]

and this, is in no way, of course a response to repeated threats of war coming from the U.S and Israel.
When has Israel ever threatened Iran with aggressive warfare or invasion? Answer: never. When lunatic dictators bend their minds towards acquiring nuclear capability and long-range tactical missiles capable of hitting all of Europe in the same six months, only the most unhinged, rabid anti-semites would say that the world has no right to sit up and take notice.

[Donny the Punk]

Credit where it's due is my motto.
I give it to Fritz Fischer and his German colleagues.

[Dan Dare]

When has Israel ever threatened Iran with aggressive warfare or invasion? Answer: never. When lunatic dictators bend their minds towards acquiring nuclear capability and long-range tactical missiles capable of hitting all of Europe in the same six months, only the most unhinged, rabid anti-semites would say that the world has no right to sit up and take notice.

I'm not aware of any groundswell of public opinion in Europe for any miltary action against Iran. I suspect that most people, if asked privately, would say that what is sauce for the goose (Israel) is sauce for the gander (Iran).

It seems obvious that the solution for the impasse is for Israel to give up its nuclear weapons in return for security guarantees from the United States (which it already has anyway).

[Starr]

there have been a few different Israelis who have talked about a pre-emptive strike. And there has also been repeated remarks coming out of Israel and from jews not in Israel that the world should not stand by and allow Iran to become a nuclear power. They are very obviously trying to goad the U.S in action. This has to be as obvious to Ahmadinejad is it is to me, and should be to you.

The Iran crisis is more immediate in the eyes of the Bush administration, in part because Iran is among the president's "Axis of Evil." Israel, which has long regarded Iran as a more dire threat than Iraq, is making thinly veiled threats of a unilateral pre-emptive attack, like its 1981 airstrike against Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor. "If the state decides that a military solution is required, then the military has to provide a solution," said Israel's new Air Force chief of staff, Maj. Gen. Elyezer Shkedy, in a newspaper interview last week. "For obvious reasons,"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6039135/site/newsweek/

http://thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=6511

As for the other topic i will just add that "killing all of the Jews" is not something I have in mind for dealing with them either.

[Dan Dare]

I give it to Fritz Fischer and his German colleagues.

Nevertheless, if Britain had stayed out the whole affair would have been over by Christmas.

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with a German hegemony in continental Europe.

[Ahknaton]

Well, thats not what we're talking about. We were talking about the movement.

The connection between Naziism and WN is far too tenuous, and based on something so broad (race) for that obligation to apply likewise to us

"Us" being plural, and applying to people, not an 'idea'. So if you're going to defend THEM, why are you talking about yourself?
When I said "us", I meant people who believe that White people have a right to preserve their race and their heritage. In other words, people who subscribe to the same views as me. I'm not the only person on the planet who thinks like I do. I wasn't referring to the "WN movement" which includes a lot of groups that would be more appropriately labelled white supremacists.
Lets establish a test. If we both look on the Internet, will we see more "WN" groups supporting or denouncing Nazism?What would that prove? Absolutely nothing.
Why don't most of you folks denounce Nazism? Why does National Vanguard come out with issues celebrating Hitler's 100th birthday? Why do your friends peddle Rosenberg's tripe on their websites? Whats with this "Prussian Blue"? Why are "white nationalists" listening to songs dedicated to (LMAO) Rudolf Hess of all people?

You're saying, "So what if the loudest, most visible, most numerous representatives of my movement have a deep sympathy and admiration for the Nazis and Hitler? That doesn't have anything to do with me, personally, and thus my ideology, of which they are a part."
I denounce the genocide of Jews by the Nazis and Hitler's policy of aggressive military expansionism. I don't regularly denounce the Nazis because I feel in no way obliged to, since Naziism has nothing to do with my views.
Which is ridiculous. I can say that since I am an atheist, the members of the Republican Party have 'nothing to do with' Christianity. Thats obviously nonsense.
Correct. However if you said that Christianity is not an essential part of conservatism then you would be correct. In other words, "conservatism" is distinct from "the Republican Party", and when arguing against you it would be unreasonable of me to make you defend the viewpoints of others in the Republican Party to which you do not subscribe. Also, I am not a member of any of those groups, so there is no reason that I should be held to their definition or conception of what White Nationalism is. I have my own version (along with many others), which in my view is closer to the meaning of the words "White Nationalism", and I'm defending that.
It sounds like your associates have a large amount of respect and admiration for the Nazis, and the suggestion that WE who oppose Nazism are in any way forging an association is patently absurd.You are forging the association by labelling them as my associates, when all they are are people whose internet forums I have browsed and whose beliefs share a superficial ideological resemblence to mine.
Right, so now the MEMBERS of the movement don't matter, nor do the ideas they espouse, nor do both elements combined to form the consensus. Now it just matters what your ideas are. Thats farsical. Well it depends what we're talking about. If we're talking about the principle of the right to preserve one's nation and race then yeah, it's true that the lunacy of self-proclaimed racialists does not in any way negate the fact that those are legitimate principles.
I mean, this is relatively moderate racialist board, and look at this:

National Socialism: good or bad?

Good. 24 35.82%

Bad. 25 37.31%

Other. 18 26.87%

http://thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=3397

Now, its reasonable to assume that every person who finds your ideology rather repugnant voted no, as Nazism is simply a more virulent form. So subtracting our votes, "Good" is the prevailing view on THIS board. This moderate racialist board, where you've been framed as being associated with Nazis. :P
I voted No.
LOL Is the idea of pissing on Jew graves one of those that marks your distinction from Nazism? Heh. That's from a post I deleted within seconds of posting it because I made it in a hotheaded state of mind. It's meant symbolically. I do not wish to honour or memorialise those who suffered under the Nazis because that is being cynically used to justify my extinction.
What are these White Nationalist ideas that are different than the views of the Nazis, other than the very generic nature of your ideology?The principle of ethno-nationalism can be implemented in hundreds of ways that do not fit the label of "Nazi". Even Ghandi believed in nationalism for crying out loud.
Actually the Nazis lied quite often about 'expelling' and 'resettling' people when they actually had to campaign for office. They probably put Madagascar on the map for most Germans.
That is true, but they had their moments of honesty. Their intentions were quite clear.
LOL For what reason do you divorce Linder and Miller from your movement? And what is the 'standard bearer' of the movement that Linder and Miller are divorced from? I divorce Linder and Miller from "my" movement because they explicitly advocate killing all Jews, which I find morally repugnant. There is no "standard bearer" for the WN movement, which is why you can't hold me to any definition of WN except my own.
It isn't exclusionary, either, which is what you're trying to suggest.The onus is not on me to prove it's exclusionary. Quite a number of valid ideas are compatible with Naziism. That doesn't make them any less reasonable. It up to you to show that I am advocating an ideology that will likely lead to a similar outcome to Naziism if you want to associate me with the Nazis.
You don't want to talk about the actual evidence. You want to talk about theories, unique to you. Thats not what this is about.These "theories" are not unique to me. And your "evidence" is only valid if I first accept your premise that I am supporting the same ideology as the likes of Linder and NV.
At the same time, you want to divorce "white nationalism" from actual "white nationalists", which is yet again, another 'white nationalist' call for exceptionalism. Yet again, the standards applied to other people can't be applied to you folks. Yet again, you're not responsible.Because someone labels themself a "White Nationalist", doesn't automatically make everyone else who self-identifies as such responsible for their views. How about we define White Nationalist according to the meaning of the words, and I'll defend that?
I don't know that they 'necessarily will'. I simply know that they usually do. In fact, that isn't in dispute by you. You don't even deny that an examination of "white nationalist" websites will directly contradict your claims, yielding a great deal of Nazi hero worship. In not outright declarations of fealty to their dead Fuehrer God.There are plenty of historical examples of ethno-nationalist states that did not descend into genocide. It's the norm rather than the exception. And I'm not interested in defending Nazi hero worship by Internet sites that I have nothing to do with.
Jews aren't a race, and "hispanics" are a pretty dubious one. I don't support any 'racial pride' movement.Jews are both a race and a religion. They have interests and protect them, just like Whites should. But at least you're being consistent in your anti-racism, although it sounds like lip-service to me.

[Donny the Punk]

I'm not aware of any groundswell of public opinion in Europe for any miltary action against Iran. I suspect that most people, if asked privately, would say that what is sauce for the goose (Israel) is sauce for the gander (Iran).
That's nice; however, the opinion of the mob rarely, if ever, has bearing on reality. European leaders intelligent enough to recognise the risks have time and time again expressed grave concern over Iran's nuclear ambitions. And for good reason.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4599078.stm


It seems obvious that the solution for the impasse is for Israel to give up its nuclear weapons in return for security guarantees from the United States (which it already has anyway).
To a Nazi-sympathising anti-semite, maybe. Leveller heads seem to think that the solution to the impasse lies in Iranian accountability to the IAEA, at the very least. Israel isn't rattling any sabres. Israel isn't calling for seventy million Persians to be wiped off the map. Israel isn't using its arsenals to intimidate or threaten its neighbours or Europeans.

[Donny the Punk]

Nevertheless, if Britain had stayed out the whole affair would have been over by Christmas.
If Germany had stayed out the whole affair would have amounted to just another Balkan feud. But Germany's bloody lust for land and power made that an impossibility, I'm afraid. Even Austria began to think that German participation in the war was meant for control of Belgium rather than for survival against Russia and Serbia.
There is nothing fundamentally wrong with a German hegemony in continental Europe.
You think so because you are a quisling, and because it is not your countrymens' necks under a Boche jackboot. It is easy to be complacent when one has nothing to lose. English lads of yore had a slightly different perspective:

To rid the map of every trace of Germany and of the Hun
we must exterminate that race, we must not leave a single one
Heed not their children's cries, best slay 'em now, the woman too
Or else some day again they'll rise, which if they're dead they cannot do.

[Starr]

Israel isn't using its arsenals to intimidate or threaten its neighbours or Europeans.

Something Petr posted a while ago:

http://www.masada2000.org/sharepain.html

Therefore, Israel would be wise to notify each country that, either pre-emptively or as a vicious second-strike option, Israel will hit all hostile parties with nuclear weapons, regardless of who launched the first attack. Israel will hold all collectively and severally responsible - as if they had met and conspired together.

Martin Van Crevel, a professor of military history at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, recently put it this way... “Our armed forces are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. Israel has the capability of hitting most European capitals with nuclear weapons. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that this will happen before Israel goes under.”


this sounds just as insane as any kind of talk you might hear coming from the most radical Mullahs

[Sulla the Dictator]

Something Petr posted a while ago:

http://www.masada2000.org/sharepain.html



sounds pretty insane.

LOL The official website of Israel. The US has its website on Geocities.

[Donny the Punk]

Something Petr posted a while ago:

http://www.masada2000.org/sharepain.html



sounds pretty insane.
LOL indeed it does. Are you trying to look as incredible as possible? Nice midi music playing in the background. :rofl:

[Sulla the Dictator]

Has anyone visited Japan's Myspace page recently?

[Starr]

Is it that impossible for either of you to believe that a jew would say these things?:rofl:

Here is a search on this guy's name, and these comments a lot of oddball sites are coming up, but there are some more reliable one in there also

http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=Martin+Van+Crevel%2C&FORM=QBRE

[Donny the Punk]

I added Angela Merkel and Nicholas Sarkozy to my Yahoo list the other day. We chat about South Park episodes and ytmnd. :p

[Sulla the Dictator]

Is it that impossible for either of you to believe that a jew would say these things?:rofl:

How old are you, HitlerGoddess? :rofl:

[Donny the Punk]

How old are you, HitlerGoddess? :rofl:
Eighteen at the most.

[Sulla the Dictator]

I added Angela Merkel and Nicholas Sarkozy to my Yahoo list the other day. We chat about South Park episodes and ytmnd. :p

LOL I already heard. Kissinger told me about it while we were playing CS.

[Dan Dare]

If Germany had stayed out the whole affair would have amounted to just another Balkan feud. But Germany's bloody lust for land and power made that an impossibility, I'm afraid. Even Austria began to think that German participation in the war was meant for control of Belgium rather than for survival against Russia and Serbia.

German participation was meant for control of Belgium? Surely you jest.

You think so because you are a quisling, and because it is not your countrymen's neck under a Boche jackboot. It is easy to be complacent when one has nothing to lose. English lads of yore had a slightly different perspective:

To rid the map of every trace of Germany and of the Hun
we must exterminate that race, we must not leave a single one
Heed not their children's cries, best slay 'em now, the woman too
Or else some day again they'll rise, which if they're dead they cannot do.

My grandfather's name is inscribed on the Menin Gate, along with that of his brother, so I'm quite familiar with English men of yore. They did what what they were called to do because they believed in King and Country. If they had known what we know now they would have probably have stayed down the pit.

Germany posed no threat to Britain in 1914.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Eighteen at the most.

She has a weird fascination with Hitler, though she doesn't seem interested in reading about him. As she's often said, it must be the Fuehrer's uniform. :p

[Starr]

How old are you, HitlerGoddess? :rofl:


Is this something that you just figured out now? Would you like a cookie or something?

I wish I was only 18:(

Can we get back at least somewhat on topic, here?:nono:

[Ahknaton]

You guys have never heard of the Samson Option? Masada2000 is a pretty wacky site, but it's not made up out of whole cloth.

[il ragno]

Those statements by van Creveld appeared worldwide; he has never denied nor disassociated himself from them.

"Nice midi music playing in the background, LOL" is par for the course for a multi-culti left as eager to sink to trailer-park/basement dweller/dude where's my teeth? to get the kollege krowd chortling as they are to mount the podium wiping away stage-tears to bemoan the 'hurtful' rhetoric of their opponents.

Maybe I should be applauding your simultaneous embrace/abhorrence of the cheap shot and the low blow instead. Because a crowd who'll hoot and holler at the Other on cue when a nog-hugger gives them the societal all-clear to dogpile away will be just as malleable and ripe for rope-knotting when the economy goes belly-up and the dark side of Our Multicultural Wonderland comes to the fore. It'll just be a different, much more traditional Other they'll be focusing their displeasure on.

[Donny the Punk]

German participation was meant for control of Belgium? Surely you jest.
German participation was meant for control of the continent. I'm simply delineating the Austrian view of their dubious allies, which you can read about for yourself in hundreds of sources.

"By that time[1917], of course, the differences in war aims had become so great that the new Austrian emperor, Karl, had declared that a German victory would be the ruin of Austria-Hungary.

[...]

As the Germans came increasingly to dominate the coalition through sheer weight of economic and military power, relations proportionately worsened for a number of reasons. Many Austrians came to resent sacrifices they were making in the service of an ally who increasingly seemed to be a hegemon rather than a partner. The Germans' Mitteleuropa scheme, first officially endorsed in Bethmann Hollweg's famous 'September Memorandum', seemed almost as great a threat to the monarchy's survival as a sovereign state as did its internal enemies."

R.L. DiNardo and Daniel J. Hughes, "Germany and Coalition Warfare in the World Wars: A Comparative Study," in War in History 2001 8 (2), p. 172.

My grandfather's name is inscribed on the Menin Gate, along with that of his brother, so I'm quite familiar with English men of yore. They did what what they were called to do because they believed in King and Country. If they had known what we know now they would have probably have stayed down the pit.
I'm glad your forbears could see the wisdom in fighting for Europe's freedom against a race of Cains and their grasping, would-be emperor. If they had known then the true extent of Germany's ignominious ambition, they'd have doubly redoubled their contempt and zeal.

Germany posed no threat to Britain in 1914.
Revisionist tripe.

[Dan Dare]

German participation was meant for control of the continent. I'm simply delineating the Austrian view of their dubious allies, which you can read about for yourself in hundreds of sources.

"By that time[1917], of course, the differences in war aims had become so great that the new Austrian emperor, Karl, had declared that a German victory would be the ruin of Austria-Hungary.

[...]

As the Germans came increasingly to dominate the coalition through sheer weight of economic and military power, relations proportionately worsened for a number of reasons. Many Austrians came to resent sacrifices they were making in the service of an ally who increasingly seemed to be a hegemon rather than a partner. The Germans' Mitteleuropa scheme, first officially endorsed in Bethmann Hollweg's famous 'September Memorandum', seemed almost as great a threat to the monarchy's survival as a sovereign state as did its internal enemies."

R.L. DiNardo and Daniel J. Hughes, "Germany and Coalition Warfare in the World Wars: A Comparative Study," in War in History 2001 8 (2), p. 172.

It's not altogether clear what this has to do with German territorial ambitions on Greater Belgium, which I understood was one of your earlier claims.

I'm glad your forbears could see the wisdom in fighting for Europe's freedom against a race of Cains and their grasping, would-be emperor. If they had known then the true extent of Germany's ignominious ambition, they'd have doubly redoubled their contempt and zeal.

I suspect that once they became aware that German soldiers weren't really bayoneting Belgian babies, and that Germany posed not the slightest threat to Britain and its Empire, and all that they really wanted to do was give the Froggies a good old kicking, they might even have volunteered to join in.

Revisionist tripe.

On the contrary, an Anglo-German Alliance would have made far more sense in terms of long-term peace and stability for Europe and the World than the albatross otherwise known as the Entente Cordiale.

[Donny the Punk]

Those statements by van Creveld appeared worldwide; he has never denied nor disassociated himself from them.

"Nice midi music playing in the background, LOL" is par for the course for a multi-culti left as eager to sink to trailer-park/basement dweller/dude where's my teeth? to get the kollege krowd chortling as they are to mount the podium wiping away stage-tears to bemoan the 'hurtful' rhetoric of their opponents.

Maybe I should be applauding your simultaneous embrace/abhorrence of the cheap shot and the low blow instead. Because a crowd who'll hoot and holler at the Other on cue when a nog-hugger gives them the societal all-clear to dogpile away will be just as malleable and ripe for rope-knotting when the economy goes belly-up and the dark side of Our Multicultural Wonderland comes to the fore. It'll just be a different, much more traditional Other they'll be focusing their displeasure on.
...what? Your bizarre and unnecessary grammatical convolutions have rendered this totally illegible. Don't force it next time.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Those statements by van Creveld appeared worldwide; he has never denied nor disassociated himself from them.

"Nice midi music playing in the background, LOL" is par for the course for a multi-culti left as eager to sink to trailer-park/basement dweller/dude where's my teeth? to get the kollege krowd chortling as they are to mount the podium wiping away stage-tears to bemoan the 'hurtful' rhetoric of their opponents.

Maybe I should be applauding your simultaneous embrace/abhorrence of the cheap shot and the low blow instead. Because a crowd who'll hoot and holler at the Other on cue when a nog-hugger gives them the societal all-clear to dogpile away will be just as malleable and ripe for rope-knotting when the economy goes belly-up and the dark side of Our Multicultural Wonderland comes to the fore. It'll just be a different, much more traditional Other they'll be focusing their displeasure on.

Potyondi is correct. This is a bit muddled.

[Donny the Punk]

It's not altogether clear what this has to do with German territorial ambitions on Greater Belgium, which I understood was one of your earlier claims.
It was one of Austria's claims. I think that the suspicions of Germany's closest ally about its motives warrant your greater appreciation.
I suspect that once they became aware that German soldiers weren't really bayoneting Belgian babies,
Oh? Care to discuss Louvain? Laughable categorisations of civilians as francs-tireurs?

and that Germany posed not the slightest threat to Britain and its Empire,
A farce, which would be an even more egregious farce should Germany have succeeded in spreading its talons across the continent.

and all that they really wanted to do was give the Froggies a good old kicking, they might even have volunteered to join in.
Good to see you admitting that German aggression and military aims were what fueled the fires of war.
On the contrary, an Anglo-German Alliance would have made far more sense in terms of long-term peace and stability for Europe and the World than the albatross otherwise known as the Entente Cordiale.
Interesting that Germany specifically pursued those policies deliberately calculated to be most antagonistic to Britain, then. I suppose that's what comes when statesmen like Bismarck are replaced by half-deranged cripples with inane military pretensions, though.

[il ragno]

I couldn't have been plainer.

Discrediting your opponents by focusing on irrelevant trivialities that mock purported physical/class characteristics in order to play to a mob mentality - say, for instance, responding to someone by asking them if they live in a trailer park, or if they have any of their original teeth, hoping to reduce their argument to ridiculousness by encouraging an audience to laugh at their lack of "sophistication" (usually defined as possessing all the standard upwardly-mobile tchotchkes) - is no better or nobler than playing more nakedly to that mob mentality when the stakes are higher (and potentially more lethal to the goat being scaped).

The kid with the Hummer who you prod into laughing at the dumb ol' nose-picking racist - who can't see the "point" of "hate" because his life's ok and he barely ever interacts with aliens and minorities except when he turns on the tv - is going to even more ripe for manipulation when and if the economy implodes, his Hummer and all of his goodies get taken away from him, and he's thrust into a far more Darwinian sort of struggle with those same aliens and minorities.

How is that 'bizarre' and 'muddled'? It's as clear as an unmuddied lake - the pendulum you swing at me swinging right back at you, with even greater momentum.

[Donny the Punk]

You seem to have confused looking for a reasonable source with this odd fantasy of yours.

[il ragno]

Your original comment strongly inferred that the Van Creveld quote was spurious, in part because of the cheap/silly MIDI music playing at the hosting site. It was just an upscale version of Oberon, for instance, trying to disqualify his opponent's argument by characterizing him as 'trailer trash' or some such nonsense.

Could you kindly stop playing dumb on this one? Because belaboring the obvious isn't big on my list of favorite activities.

[Donny the Punk]

On the contrary, needless prolixity seems to be your bread and butter. Authoritative sources don't come with theme songs and flashing .gifs liberally sprinkled about. Find me something that wasn't cobbled together by a manic teenager and I'll consider it.

[il ragno]

Look, Poty, before we come out of our respective corners for Round 2, let me clarify something. I don't think van Creveld is a bloodthirsty lunatic but a realist. He gave this interview to the Dutch magazine ELSEVIER in 2002, and his only bone of contention with its republication is that certain Islamic agitprop websites have been selectively quoting (thus misquoting) his remarks - and even then, only those comments relating to Palestinian-transfer. He's never denied giving the interview or saying what he said (and is not especially beloved by his fellow Israelis for his outspokenness).

For instance, he has militated against the Iraq invasion ("For misleading the American people, and launching the most foolish war since Emperor Augustus in 9 B.C sent his legions into Germany and lost them, Bush deserves to be impeached and, once he has been removed from office, put on trial along with the rest of the president's men. If convicted, they'll have plenty of time to mull over their sins") and is even more uneasy about the prospects of an action against Iran.

But you seem to be saying "if you can't link me to the NYT article on this interview then it probably doesn't exist."

Hello! Disquieting truths about Israel tend not to get major play in 'respectable' American media: end of story. If you rely upon American media, you might not know there even is a major Stephen Walt-John Mearsheimer essay on the unhealthy and disproportionate role Israel plays in shaping US policy....it barely got a mention here, except as a sidebar, complete with dark editorial allusions about 'anti-Semitism'. Yet it was and is a major story in the European press.

Believe it or don't, the Rense/Indymedia transcription of the van Creveld interview is a complete and accurate one. The interview took place, realy and truly, and van Creveld was just being forthright about the potential role Israel might play in the physical annihilation of the Western World.

PS: spare me re 'needless prolixity'. Once you get going, you're every bit the motormouth with no 'off' switch that I am. If this were for publication, I'd ruthlessly edit my drafts. As this is an informal hangout and not the Paris Review, I'll talk until I'm done, thanks.

[Fade the Butcher]

Ahknaton,

You keep forgetting that our friend Sulla is a one trick pony who seems to be interested in practically nothing outside of Nazi Germany. Sulla was saying just the other day that I must be a Nazi because I am a racialist from Alabama. It's like he has become so obsessed with the Third Reich that he has forgotten that the Confederate States of America or Jim Crow ever existed.

[Kodos]

You think so because you are a quisling

WTF would have been wrong with the Kaissereich running continental europe, I understand and agree with objections to the 3rd Reich but if Imperial Prussia had survived we'd have colonized the solar system by now. And these shitty 3rd world countries would have never gotten their independence and we'd be much better off.

[Jimbo Gomez]

Neither are white, but Ravenheart is correct. He is much higher up the scale, so to speak than her. Her non-white elements are bottom of the barrel.And besides, Hally barry is just another worthless dime a dozen hollyweird starlet, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has all my respect.

This has nothing to do with their job or beliefs. Either you have European genes or you don't. They'll both have European ancestry, and a good deal of foreign blood. Whatever nonwhite elements exist in your sandnigger, they're not 'less unwhite' than those in Halle Berry. His semitic blood may be of higher quality than her negroid blood or not, that is irrelevant. Neither of these elements are white though. If you're going to compare them both to yourself, it only makes sense to compare the genes of the same stock, i.e. European genes. There's no way to twist out of this, Halle Berry is closer to you than the sandnigger, biologically spoken.

[Fade the Butcher]

Let's refresh Sulla's memory. Some of my old research.

Eugenic America

"Eugenics is the science which deals with all influences that improve the inborn qualities of a race; also with those that develop them to the utmost advantage . . . the aim of eugenics is to bring as many influences as can reasonably be employed, to cause the useful classes in the community to contribute more than their proportion to the next generation."
--Sir Francis Galton, 1904

"Eugenics is the science of the improvement of the human race by better breeding."
--Charles Davenport, Heredity in Relation to Eugenics, 1911

Eugenic Sterilization Laws

By 1935, thirty three American states had passed compulsory eugenic sterilization laws. The constitutionality of eugenic sterilization was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Buck v. Bell in 1927. This decision has never been overturned. State mandated compulsory eugenic sterilization remains constitutional in the United States today and many of these laws are still on the books. They are just rarely enforced. 64,000+ Americans were sterilized during the twentieth century.

Indiana (1907), Connecticut (1909), California (1909, 1913, 1917), Washington (1909), Nevada (1911), New Jersey (1911), Iowa (1911, 1915), New York (1912), Oregon (1913, 1917), North Dakota (1913), Kansas (1913), Michigan (1913, 1923), Wisconsin (1913), Nebraska (1915, 1929), South Dakota (1917), New Hampshire (1917), Alabama (1923), Montana (1923), Delaware (1923, 1929), Virginia (1924), Idaho (1925), Utah (1925), Maine (1925), Minnesota (1925), Mississippi (1928), North Carolina (1929), West Virginia (1929), Oklahoma (1931), Vermont (1931), South Carolina (???), Arizona (???)

States with compulsory eugenic sterilization bills pending in 1935

Texas, Illinois, Missouri, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland

Eugenic Marriage Restriction Laws

By 1912, thirty-four American states had passed compulsory eugenic marriage restriction laws restricting marriage amongst the unfit. More eugenic marriage restriction laws were passed in other states in later decades. I don't have much specific information about this at the moment, but I will turn up more later.

Eugenic Segregation

Fourteen states had eugenic segregation laws in 1890. Again, I am still researching the matter. More such laws were passed in later decades.

American Eugenic Organizations

1.) American Breeders Association (1903-1913); American Genetics Association (1914-present)
2.) Eugenics Committee of the United States (1922-1923); American Eugenics Society (1925-1972); Society for the Study of Social Biology (1973-present)
3.) Race Betterment Foundation (1906-1955)
4.) Eugenics Research Association (1913-1938)
5.) Eugenics Society of Vermont (1925-1936)
6.) Eugenics Registry (1915-1936)
7.) Eugenics Record Office (1910-1939); Genetics Record Office (1939-
8.) Human Betterment Foundation (1926-1942)
9.) The Galton Society (1918-1939)
10.) The Repository for Germinal Choice (1979-1999)

American Eugenics Journals

American Breeders Magazine (1910-1914); Journal of Heredity (1914-present)
Eugenics (1925-1931); People (1931); Eugenics Quarterly (1954-1968)
Eugenical News (1916-1953); Eugenics Quarterly (1954-1968); Social Biology (1969-present)

Eugenic Education

By the 1930s, every major university in America taught courses in eugenics and eugenics was a common theme in primary school textbooks. Some of the most outspoken American eugenicists of the early twentieth century were themselves presidents of distinguished American univerisities. David Starr Jordan of Stanford University and Charles W. Eliot of Harvard University are two examples.

Wealthy Americans Who Supported Eugenics

John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, Mary Harriman, John Harvey Kellogg, Wickliffe Draper

U.S. Presidents Who Supported Eugenics

Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, Woodrow Wilson, Calvin Coolidge.

TR was an outspoken eugenicist who decried race suicide and criticized multiculturalism. He wrote to Charles Davenport that one day Americans would realize that their highest civic duty is to leave their blood behind in the world. Taft was a justice on the Supreme Court and voted in favor of the Buck v. Bell decision in 1927. Woodrow Wilson signed New Jersey's sterilization law when he was Governor of New Jersey. He was also an admirer of D.W. Griffith's The Birth of a Nation and was probably the most racist American president of the twentieth century. Coolidge was an unabashed nordicist who signed the Johnson-Reed Act of 1924 into law. He once made the remark that Nordics degenerate when they breed with other races.

Eugenic Immigration Restriction

1882 - The Chinese Exclusion Act excludes Chinese immigrants from the United States for ten years. It also bars the immigration of undesirables, idiots, lunatics, convicts, and paupers. The act was amended and extended in 1884, 1892, and 1902.

1907 - The Immigration Act of 1907 bars idiots, imbeciles, feebleminded persons, epileptics, the insane, paupers, polygamists, anarchists, professional beggars, and prostitutes from becoming naturalized U.S. citizens.

1924 - The Johnson-Reed Act of 1924, based on the Census of 1890, radically restricts immigration to the United States from sources outside Northwestern Europe.

Notable Americans Who Supported Eugenics

An incomplete list.

Margaret Sanger, F. Scott Fitzgerald, H.L. Mencken, Alexander Graham Bell, Oliver Wendall Holmes, and W.E.B. DuBois

Notable American Eugenicists

Charles Davenport, Harry H. Laughlin, Luther Burbank, David Starr Jordan, Irving Fischer, Arthur Estabrook, Henry Fairfield Osborn, Frederick Osborn, Clarence Campbell, Henry Pratt Fairchild, Albert E. Wiggam, Lothrop Stoddard, Henry H. Goddard, Wihelmine Key, Gifford Pinchot, Raymond Pearl, William E. Castle, Madison Grant, Charles W. Eliot, Paul Popenoe, Frederick A. Woods, Edward G. Conklin, Robert M. Yerkes, E.S. Gosney, Michael F. Guyer, Samuel J. Holmes, Ellsworth Huntington, Leon Whitney, Charles C. Little, Robert K. Graham, Hermann Muller, Roswell H. Johnson, Henry Perkins.

Racial Marriage Restriction Laws

Forty one American states have had anti-miscegenation laws at some point in their history.

Racial Segregation Laws

There were so many of these I don't know where to begin.

[Petr]

You are labeling all eugenicists into one huge pile, as if they were all the same. (Just like you guys pretend that there are no real differences between ID and creationism)

How many of the people mentioned above would have supported transhumanism?


Petr

[Fade the Butcher]

You are labeling all eugenicists into one huge pile, as if they were all the same. (Just like you guys pretend that there are no real differences between ID and creationism)

I never said they were all the same. Every single one of the men and women I listed above though was a eugenicist.

"Eugenics is the science of the improvement of the human race by better breeding."
--Charles Davenport, Heredity in Relation to Eugenics, 1911

How many of the people mentioned above would have supported transhumanism?

Transhumanism was unfeasible during the early twentieth century. I don't even think Hitler was a transhumanist. There is not a doubt in my mind though that the vast majority of the people listed above would have been enamored with the reprogenetics technology we possess today.

[Fade the Butcher]

Eugenics was a predominantly Anglo-American movement during the early twentieth century. Francis Galton, the cousin of Charles Darwin, was the founder of modern eugenics. The First International Congress of Eugenics was held in London in 1912 a year after Galton's death. The Second and Third International Congress of Eugenics were held in New York City in 1921 and 1932 respectively. Germany passed its first eugenic sterilization law in 1933. This law was consciously modeled American eugenic sterilization legislation that had long been in existence.

[Jimbo Gomez]

This thread is about Ahmadinejad. OPEN A SEPARATE THREAD ABOUT EUGENICS INSTEAD OF DERAILING EVERY GODDAMN SINGLE THREAD IN THE BOARD DAMMIT.

:)

[Sulla the Dictator]

When I said "us", I meant people who believe that White people have a right to preserve their race and their heritage. In other words, people who subscribe to the same views as me. I'm not the only person on the planet who thinks like I do. I wasn't referring to the "WN movement" which includes a lot of groups that would be more appropriately labelled white supremacists.


I have yet to meet the "WN" who wasn't actually a white supremacist. You people favor expelling large elements of society, rather than leaving yourself. That ascribes value to each relative party. Your justifications and rationalizations always seem to end up in social problems being blamed on them.


What would that prove? Absolutely nothing.


LOL It would prove that your claims apply to a "White nationalist movement of one".


I denounce the genocide of Jews by the Nazis and Hitler's policy of aggressive military expansionism. I don't regularly denounce the Nazis because I feel in no way obliged to, since Naziism has nothing to do with my views.


Thats false. You know that PLENTY of Nazis are associated with your views now. But my ealier quesiton is, what MOVEMENT denounces Nazism? And why is that movement representative of "white nationalism" as a whole when it is in the minority?


Correct. However if you said that Christianity is not an essential part of conservatism then you would be correct.


If I said that "Conservatism as it exists has nothing to do with Christianity" I would be wrong.


In other words, "conservatism" is distinct from "the Republican Party", and when arguing against you it would be unreasonable of me to make you defend the viewpoints of others in the Republican Party to which you do not subscribe.


It wouldn't be the slightest bit unreasonable if I was saying how I disliked that my party was being held accountable for its Christian element.


Also, I am not a member of any of those groups, so there is no reason that I should be held to their definition or conception of what White Nationalism is.


You seem to forget where we originally started:

Thats what happens when barbarism results from putting theory into action. And "WNs" have rarely done that, because of the level of barbarism of the Nazis.

Of course, thats an unpleasant result for someone of your worldview. However, I don't think that you would suggest that the Soviet Union shouldn't be brought up in discussion of the feasibility or morality of COMMUNIST societies. So why should the example of the Nazis be excluded from discussion your proposals?


In the context of society, we aren't discussing the proposals of Joe "Akhnaton" Smith on the street. We're talking about individuals chosen as representatives of movements. And thus when I said the Nazis were a perfectly legitimate historical example when discussing racialist societies in rebuttal, we must gauge whether that is true or not as it applies to GROUPS, not you specifically.


I have my own version (along with many others), which in my view is closer to the meaning of the words "White Nationalism", and I'm defending that.


Why don't you purchase land somewhere, rather than suggest others should be expelled?


You are forging the association by labelling them as my associates, when all they are are people whose internet forums I have browsed and whose beliefs share a superficial ideological resemblence to mine.


What is the key ideological difference? That you think Israel should exist? They think that (Sometimes). They also claim Hitler thought that, and tried to help the Jews.


Well it depends what we're talking about. If we're talking about the principle of the right to preserve one's nation and race then yeah, it's true that the lunacy of self-proclaimed racialists does not in any way negate the fact that those are legitimate principles.


For one, its illusionary. For another, its not even universal. Jews, for example, are to be expelled by you folks while they are members of your race. Also, it ascribes value to peoples, determining who stays and who leaves. Thats not legitimate.



I voted No.


You're in the minority.


Heh. That's from a post I deleted within seconds of posting it because I made it in a hotheaded state of mind. It's meant symbolically. I do not wish to honour or memorialise those who suffered under the Nazis because that is being cynically used to justify my extinction.


Do you think that maybe Jews have an interest in the Holocaust because they were victims of it?

Justify your extinction? Please.


The principle of ethno-nationalism can be implemented in hundreds of ways that do not fit the label of "Nazi". Even Ghandi believed in nationalism for crying out loud.


Gandhi believed in ETHNIC nationalism? Its weird that he opposed the breakup of India so much. Its also strange considering what a multicultral nation India actually is.


I divorce Linder and Miller from "my" movement because they explicitly advocate killing all Jews, which I find morally repugnant.


Your movement is a movement of one person, which isn't relevant to social policy as it is.


There is no "standard bearer" for the WN movement, which is why you can't hold me to any definition of WN except my own.


WN is defined by the average positions of all these little groups. Those issues they share a view on are what defines the 'movement' overall.


The onus is not on me to prove it's exclusionary. Quite a number of valid ideas are compatible with Naziism. That doesn't make them any less reasonable. It up to you to show that I am advocating an ideology that will likely lead to a similar outcome to Naziism if you want to associate me with the Nazis.


No, its up to me to show that "white nationalists" advocate policies and use rhetoric similar to the Nazis, and in fact 'have something to do with' them. Which they do. And that isn't even disputed by you.


These "theories" are not unique to me. And your "evidence" is only valid if I first accept your premise that I am supporting the same ideology as the likes of Linder and NV.


My evidence is valid if you consider that you're one person, and the WN movement more closely resembles NV than you.


Because someone labels themself a "White Nationalist", doesn't automatically make everyone else who self-identifies as such responsible for their views. How about we define White Nationalist according to the meaning of the words, and I'll defend that?


Because thats a back door into dozens of issues. Do you define TRADE policy by race? Do you define borders with white countries by race? Is this like a white version of the Arab League? Whats abortion policy? Whats tax policy? Whats health care policy? Do problems with Russia disappear?

Lunacy. White nationalism is, in fact, farse.


There are plenty of historical examples of ethno-nationalist states that did not descend into genocide.


Not many 20th century examples I can think of.


It's the norm rather than the exception.


Sure, 200 years ago. :rolleyes:

I don't believe in rolling back the clock centuries.


And I'm not interested in defending Nazi hero worship by Internet sites that I have nothing to do with.


The Internet is essential to white nationalism, and has been responsible for most of its relatively modest growth.


Jews are both a race and a religion.


What is the "Jewish race"?

[Jake Featherston]

Link to Expatica original artricle (http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=52&story_id=29620&name=Germans+should+stop+feeling+guilty%3A+Ahmadinejad)

Germans should stop feeling guilty: Ahmadinejad

27 April 2006


TEHRAN - Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad declared Thursday that it was time for Germans to stop feeling guilty for "crimes" of Nazi Germany more than 60 years ago.

In a speech in Zanjan, north-west Iran, carried live on state television, Ahmadinejad did not directly mention the Holocaust, the term for the mass extermination of Jews in Europe during the Nazi German regime.

But he spoke of how "every new-born child in Germany is still regarded as being in debt to a mob of impudent and insatiable Zionists."

The Germans should no longer permit themselves to be made to accept guilt, Ahmadenijad said. In Germany, instead of parks there were "memorial sites" which now,

even in the third generation since the war, Germans are reminded of the crimes of their ancestors.

"The war has been over for more than 60 years, but when you go to Germany, you can clearly see how this civilized people must still atone for the crimes in the Second World War," he said.

Ahmadinejad's speech is the latest in a series of controversial remarks on the question of the Holocaust in recent months. At one point he used the term "fairy tale" to describe it and on several occasions said the Jews in Israel should go back to Europe.

[Vindex]

This is putting a dent in the Iron yarmulka, the signs are pointing to the jews being though as the time rolls on.

[<flame deleted>]

Hier Download here (http://rapidshare.de/files/19290878/Ahmadinejad-060424.wmv.html)
Click on "Free"

http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/659/mahmud7wx.pnghttp://img134.imageshack.us/img134/3561/mahmud29rt.png

The Text of the Video:

Now allow me to say a few words to the people of Germany and Austria. Look at the atmosphere today. See how those who purport human rights and democracy actual want to run the world.

Sixty years a war took place and 60 million people were killed by both sides. If we had any power in those days we would have prevented this carnage. To the best of our ability, we would have not allowed such a massacre. Sixty years have been past since that war and the people of Palestine still pay the price for a war in which they did not participate. The people of today`s Germany are paying reparation for a war in which they themselves didn`t participate.

My question is: Let`s assume that 60 years ago, a certain regime in Germany started a certain war and certain crimes were comitted. Three generations later - what is the fault of the current German generation that it must be so humiliated? Why can`t it play an independent role in international relations!

They are constantly being reminded that their parents were criminals. Monuments are built there. All countries build monuments for things what they are proud of and when tourists come, they show them these monuments. Overthere they build monuments and every German who passes by a park is constantly reminded: "Look you are the son of criminals, and you must be humiliated"

In culture, science, and international politics, Germany should have a prominent standing. But 60 years later, they still are held prisoner by a handful of people, who themselves had planned all the events of that era. Now they say that noone is allowed to talk about or research this event. Why not research it ?

Why should a handful of people ignite the entire world, merely in order to fill their pockets? Why? We are against this method of running the world, and we say this clearly. I am declaring clearly that I`m against the policies of the US and England in running the world. And by the way I support peace and quiet, and I am a very peace-loving man. How come whenever someone criticizes you or exposes your mistakes, you attack him through the media that you finance and you potray him as a criminal? Wrong! Ahmadinjad is a schoolteacher and a very peace-loving man. To this day I never hurt an ant in my life.