It gets tiring having to deal with the same nonsense, at least you added some new nonsense so I'll bite even if you wrote too much and saved the worst for last.
Rosenberg was seen as a joke by most NS. Hitler's secretary asked Hitler if she should leave the Catholic Church after reading Rosenberg's book, Hitler said no that the book was nonsense and he, Hitler, was Catholic. Although Rosenberg was more pro pan European than Hitler, he was hardly taken seriously in regard to his anti Christian positions. The Blonde ramble is rather silly, it's not a requirement for NS, nor do you claim it is, but why be upset by Blonde's preferences then?
I'm not Romantic so I feel no love for Rome, quantitively European states did far better without the Roman Empire. The HRE was a European power house at various points. To pretend the Croats weren't Slavs and that they weren't fighting a Civil War is kinda crazy.
Implying the German National Socialists were anti Slavic is a tired old lie that basic information would dispel. The Germans allied with the Slovaks, Bulgarians, Yugos (including the peoples within), MILLIONS of Soviet Slavs, and treated the Czechs and Poles better than they treated the Germans. Also Mein Kampf is irrelevant since Hitler said he regretted writing the book to begin with and contradicts his reasonable ultimatum to the Poles and the fact he gave them land first from Czechia then from Ukraine. Robert Ley (heading of the NS labor union, far more important than Rosenberg) described all Europeans as Aryans, as did NS law.
Yes Hitler was primarily a German Nationalist, why critique the German for supporting Germany? However his actions were pro Europe altogether.
Pope Pius backed the Axis since they were actually Christian, the Allies bombed the Vatican. NS is fairly pragmatic, it can be applied anywhere and is. Hating Jews is not the point of NS. To blame the Germans for the left declaring war on them, winning, and taking over Europe is victim blaming. I anxiously await when someone writes "Why I am right wing but oppose Nazis" and can give a reason that is actually true or makes sense. Not "they only liked Germans or they weren't liberals."
you can’t be a National Socialist if you’re a Slav or Med. Hitler hated Slavs (and presumably Meds too, why would he hate Slavs but love Meds?) and wanted to subjugate them to Germanic rule.
From Mein Kampf:
For the organization of a Russian state formation was not the result of the political abilities of the Slavs in Russia, but only a wonderful example of the state-forming efficacity of the German element in an inferior race. Numerous mighty empires on earth have been created in this way. Lower nations led by Germanic organizers and overlords have more than once grown to be mighty state formations and have endured as long as the racial nucleus of the creative state race maintained itself. For centuries Russia drew nourishment from this Germanic nucleus of its upper leading strata. Today it can be regarded as almost totally exterminated and extinguished.
It has been replaced by the Jew. Impossible as it is for the Russian by himself to shake off the yoke of the Jew by his own resources, it is equally impossible for the Jew to maintain the mighty empire forever. He himself is no element of organization, but a ferment of decomposition. The Persian empire in the east is ripe for collapse. And the end of Jewish rule in Russia will also be the end of Russia as a state.
nigga, It doesn’t get clearer than that. He’s saying Slavs are incapable of statecraft or ruling themselves because they’re racially inferior, so they must be governed by Germans. This fits in perfectly with his plans for Lebensraum, stealing land from Slavs and awarding it to Germans.
You're just too stupid to get it. Hitler saying Russians are biologically inferior to Germans, approving of Himmlers plan to makes Poles illiterate and view Germans as their masters, plan to deport 80 percent of Poles and kill off the Polish intelligentsia while also refusing to ally with slavs in the USSR until you start losing among other things actually proves the Nazis weren't anti slavic. You're just not on the level of carl mcnutty.
Not really. He was willing to work with Zionists in the 30s because it gave a place to deport German Jews and ended the boycott (I think) but him nor the other Nazi's were ideological Zionists.
In fairness I would say Hitler did not want the war and the biggest failures were not his fault (ex: in 1941 he wanted Southern Russia focused but his generals disobeyed and went for Moscow, Italy failed to take Malta and Rommel later recommended not taking it, Japan not helping with the Soviets, etc), so I wouldn't attribute the loss to him.
Were you the guy who linked Axis forums with Nuremberg documents that said Himmler and Goering argued for fair treatment of the Poles so long as it didn't hurt Germany's war effort with Hitler agreeing with them over the more harsh Frank, and who said Southern Slavs who the Nazis aided didn't count as Slavs? Or was that someone else?
That's exactly what your documents said, lmao and you call me an idealogue. Why are you back now when you deleted your comments from before? What's the point of trying to have this argument again when you lost it last time? Do I live in your head, will I be getting a bill? If I have to keep teaching you do I get to send you a bill?
Goering stated that the Poles were to keep any industry not needed for the war effort, the war Goering specifically wanted to be short. You had an obsession with saying Himmler only wanted to teach the Poles 10 words, instead he wanted the Germans to fund their education through the 4th grade during the occupation. Hitler wanted to give them independence to end the war. You know all this already, why do this again?
You mean your stupid argument. The Slavs are one group similar to Romantic or Germanic peoples. It's simply untrue to say they are different peoples. Even if we break them up into South, West, and East: the South was treated great, the West was treated fairly well especially when talking about the Czechs and Slovaks, and the East was treated harder due to the ongoing war but still had better treatment of the Slavic people than the Bolsheviks as a matter of policy with millions supporting the Germans. The only difference in treatment is based on the opposition of the people to the Axis. Again though, you know this already.
Month late to this as my account was deleted by susbtack.
My point is your an ideologue that will twist anything in a way that's amenable to national socialism.
Goering saying we should steal as much as we possibly can from Poles without causing them to die on mass is actually generous. Himmler only allowing Poles to be given 4 years of education and then forced to become low wage workers for German industry is very cool.
Genetically speaking Slavs aren't one group. The thing that connects them is language. I don't know why you're debating this as this isn't even an argument I came up with. It's a well established fact. More importantly, Hitler treated Slavic groups differently depending on geopolitical factors. Slovenians vs Czechs, Romanian vs Poles ect.
Hitler being anti slavic isn't a point up for debate. It's a position which even national socialists admit. You even debating it shows you don't actually know what you're talking about.
The Nazi were willing to give Poland "independence" in a peace deal but that was under the idea Britain would recognize Poland as under Germanies sphere of influence and not as a truly sovereign nation. I don't know why you are trying to argue that point as it wouldn't even make sense. Why would NS Germany want to relinquish control of a nation they just went to war with and took a bunch of land and people from.
I'm the idealogue, yet sub stack never deletes my account which I assume has happened to you twice now, sounds like you're the idealogue.
I've merely stated facts.
Not what Goering said and I disputed if your source was reputable or not, since you linked to a forum quoting Nuremberg documents when you realized I had beaten all your points. Once again that is Germany paying for Poland's education for the duration of the occupation in a time when for many 8th grade was all they would have gotten.
Okay but they're Slavs and no one except you disputes that, I like that in your definition you show you have no idea what a Slav is by calling Romanians Slavs. Will you accept I know more about Slavs than you yet?
Cry about it? As I previously pointed out, and you previously accepted, he supported numerous Slavic nations, most notably Slovakia (according to you not Slavs despite being in the name), Croatia and Bulgaria (even against non Slavs), and to a lesser extent Ukrainians, giving us Slavs from all 3 main groups. They were also defined as Aryan under Nazi law, other NS not knowing that is irrelevant to history but you did just make that up tbf.
Because they got the territory they wanted, West Prussia, and wanted to end the war? Is that really a complex idea to you? The choices are become a Soviet sphere: disaster, German sphere, or neutral, Hitler's peace proposal is somewhere between German sphere and neutral, being clearly amendable to end the war with Britain.
Alfred Rosenberg wasn't taken seriously by the National Socialists, nor was Evola. If only Hitler would have had dumb Black rappers to associate himself with then perhaps things would have worked out better.
And why should anyone like Nordicists? They're an obstacle to White unity. All they have done is sow dissension while at the same time achieved nothing organizationally. Where's the Nordic League or League of Nordics? Nowhere.
Nordics overestimate their value because they've started to believe their PR.
alfred rosenberg chief ideologue of national socialists LMAO!. we have so many unserious people talking about this. joel is even more sketchy knowledge.
And what do you propose to replace 'Whiteness' with?
As for the whole 'strong/winning' and 'weak/losing' paradigm, it's absurd.
There are no fixed positions in political language, only fluctuations.
Just because the racial enemies of Whites introduced the notion of 'Whiteness' doesn't mean that it lacks utility for the cause of raising White racial consciousness.
The reason that 'the left' (jews, basically) came up with 'Whiteness' was because the Black Panthers and similar negro racial nepotistic groups used the racially-essentialist notion of 'Blackness' to assert their unique racial interests and orientation.
'Whiteness' is an attempt at the same *and Whites should embrace it*, not reject.
There is 'something' that is 'White' in White people. It expresses itself in a variety of ways. That 'something' is Whiteness.
Using the enemy's tools gives us *more* tools, not less.
There's no point in re-inventing dynamite.
We use the enemy's tools to dismantle the enemy's house.
This might just inspire me to write “Why I am not a Christian” in response. All universalist ideologies/religions are doomed to failure. Weak, pitiable, and extremely feminine. And I don’t even consider myself a national socialist. But I do find it much more persuasive than prostrate Christianity.
You’re talking about cuckstianity - Christianity kept us safe and strong for over 1000 years and casting it aside has only occurred in the last 100 years as our enemy has grown stronger.
You are literally repeating what our enemy says - you’ve absorbed their rhetoric and are digging under our foundations thinking that your edgelord take is some radical position when in fact you’ve just internalised the enemies propaganda.
A rootless mass of godless degenerates is exactly what our enemies want for us whilst they are united under the strength of their faith binding them strongly together.
'Christianity' did not 'keep us safe and strong'. It destroyed valuable cultural and spiritual assets and replaced them with jewish nonsense.
As for the 'casting aside' of 'christianity' making our enemy 'stronger', the reality is that christians are part of the enemy, not opposed to it.
As for the 'rootless masses of godless' Whites, they're better off than under 'christianity'. The 'masses' have always been vulnerable to manipulation, but without 'christian' magical thinking, the 'masses' have become less manageable, more costly to control.
'Christianity' was a jewish conspiracy against Rome that turned into a jewish conspiracy against the entire White race.
Whites lived under the yoke of 'christianity' for over a thousand years and as soon as it was possible to get out from under that yoke, White people have been walking away.
'Christians' just don't like it that they cannot shake their bone rattle of 'damnation' and get compliance with the tithing scheme anymore.
99% of 'christianity' must die so that Whites may live.
Good essay. It's important that Whites newly entering the White Nationalist Conversation understand that the NSDAPers are not the whole of 'White Nationalism' Any more than skin-heads or pro-White 'ethnonationalists' represent the entirety of 'White Nationalism'.
At this point in time, 'White Nationalism' is *a White Nationalist Conversation*.
There's no real movement, not even a 'popular front'-type vague coalition.
There's a White Vanguard of persons who are committed in one form or another to the survival and thriving of the White Race. May of those folks have their own particular ideas of what will 'save Whites' and they do not all align.
There are 'Concerned Whites'. These are folks the feel something is wrong but don't quite have the tools at their disposal to properly articulate the cause of their feeling. These folks are open to ideas and solutions but require orientation in the White Nationalist space. These are the folks for whom the phrase, 'I'm not racist, but....' was invented.
The job of the White Vanguard is to turn more Concerned Whites into members of the White Vanguard so that they can create more concerned Whites.
The premise that 'National Socialism' of the ersatz NSDAP variety has all the answers has failed for 70+ years to yield a single durable victory. In fact, prancing around in uniforms and insignia reminiscent of the NSDAP era have driven away Whites who need White Nationalism.
Strategically, the NSDAPers decided to fight the enemy at their strongest point. It's like they never read Clauswitz or Sun Tzu.
After 70+ years, the NSDAPers have no substantial organization of any kind that can affect policiy. In fact, what one sees in the NSDAP-inspired community is endless schism revolving around different 'leaders'. They're as bad as communists.
While there are things to learn from NS literature, there's also a lot to ignore (and even unlearn from reading it). At best, NS is 50% useful and 50% counterproductive. That's a low effort-to-value ratio for those just getting involved.
Here's something to think about: Most movements and organizations who claim to be 'pro-White' or 'saving the White race' are, in fact, not assets to the White race but *parasites* on it. They suckle themselves on the blood and resources of concerned White people and deliver zero value in return.
The goal of every 'pro-White' should be to deliver value to the White race, not sustain itself on that race.
The trick is to take what works from NS and apply it to today’s situation. If it were to come from America it would be plain white supremacy that all of Europe could emulate. Perhaps Europe will lead the way and America will follow. Either way, what ethnic group is strong enough to break out of the matrix and subjugate all their white brothers? Aren’t we all crippled by miscegenation and Jewish multiculturalism? Are we not compelled to unite or die?
Anyway, not even Germany could be NS the way it was before, today.
I do feel for the poor Ukrainian nationalists who were fed to the meat grinder. It makes me sick to my stomach. We need something to wield real political power to save the white race. I agree LARPing as 1930s Nazis is not a winning strategy.
I still think it’s super useful to talk about NS and ww2 history to help wake up the masses. I do think if they had won the war, we’d be better off. Even if we had to kiss the nordicist ring. It was that way for a thousand years under the HRE. Wouldn’t have been so bad
NS-enjoyers have had 70+ years to 'wake up the masses' and failed. That seems like a long time. Perhaps the problem is that NS-enjoyers have been trying to attack the regime's anti-White logic at its strongest point. WWII propaganda never stopped. ZOG has been 'doing WWII' continuously. It's part of a larger strategy to 'stop time' by recycling the images and issues of WWII.
And the NS-enjoyers have actually played into this strategy.
The goal should be to make the players and positions of WWII irrelevant for the present.
This will nullify the massive investment of the regime in the WWII morality play of 'Good Whites' versus 'Bad Whites'.
Going on and on about Hitler and the Third Reich is mostly just playing their game.
As for whether Germany could have run the White world or not, I seriously doubt it. German chauvinism being what it is, my intuition is that eventually the whole thing would have fallen apart and we'd be worse off than we are now.
What do you say when someone calls you a Nazi when you say you're pro white and anti Jewish? You can't pretend WWII didn't happen, its consequences permeate through every level of our society.
I’d say ‘If being pro-White makes me a ‘Nazi’ then I guess I’m a ‘Nazi’. But really I’m just pro-White.’
As for being ‘anti-jewish’, that’s not my position. I oppose jewish power over White lands in the same way that jews oppose White power over jewish lands.
Now, jews may claim that jews don’t have power over White lands, but that’s transparently false. And, to some extent, the Noticing Movement is all about taking that response away from the jews.
No one’s pretending WWII didn’t happen. But, what I notice is that WWII is most important to only two groups of people: jews and ‘Nazis’.
The rest of us would just like to move on and start working on today’s problems instead of trying to sort our historical inequities.
The reality is that jews are not making friends. They’ve gone too far and ‘the youth’ are rejecting the jewish demand for special status for their complaints. The demand by the jews for ‘antisemitism’ speech laws is a last gasp. Every GOP person who supports ‘antisemitic hate speech’ laws will be turned out of office because many Whites - across the political spectrum - actually believe in ‘freedom of speech’.
The ordinary White and jewish person does not like ‘Nazis’ which is why it’s used as an epithet. But the reality is that ‘Nazism’ died in Germany in 1948. Calling someone a ‘Nazi’ is like calling someone a ‘Digger’. It’s an historical anachronism.
If someone calls you a ‘Nazi’ just ask them what they think being a ‘Nazi’ looks like…and then refute the things they think you are.
2. The Croatian Ustase wasn't strictly interested in 'Nordic supremacism' from what I understand. Their hatred for the Serbs, as sick as it was, was born from a negative ethnocentric form of nationalism. Croatians and Serbs share virtually the same group phenotype. Ante Pavelic was a brown-eyed European.
3. Ashkenazi Jews on average have around 30% European admixture but remain mostly Semitic, with a blend of Anatolian and Med.
This is a great essay. I realized recently as well that advocating for the extremist notions of Aryan world conquest and supremacy like NSN does would make us no better than the Jews.
ROTFL Mario Draghi is a Goldman-Sachs bitch, all his work is aimed to give US financial corps more profit in Europe. He also killed a lot of white people in Greece and he is so retarded to call an economic area with a trade inbalance greater than China "uncompetitive" (for the economic illiterate, Europe is "under-productive" but "competitive").
If this is the depth of Whyte Nashunalists understanding of Europe politicial architecture, I immediately understend why you got displaced by the Dissident Right.
This is a mostly good article, but I disagree with the seeming dismissal of the Holy Roman Empire. It was the true Thousand Year Reich, and sure near its end it kinda became a joke, but I blame that on the Protestant Reformation causing religious division and the 30 Years War. The HRE and early America are my models for decent governance. A confederation of different localities under a semi-strong Monarch or federal government that allows for mostly self-rule for the different peoples/cultures. And I believe that a Habsburg United Germany would’ve been much better in the long run over a Prussia one. Again, good article and I agree, I’m not a Nat-Soc either.
I just like the HRE and I think localism can go a long way to helping retake our cultures. While I believe the European Race is real, it's made up of many different groups that I don't want to see disappear in a white glob.
Who suggested to you that 'White Nationalism' means White ethnic erasure?
White Nationalism is Whites caring about Whites because they are White *and no other reason*.
As for the phrase 'European Race' unfortunately, the erasure of White Europe is complete. The 'European Race' now includes hottentots, jews, other semites and arabs.
I'm a North American White. I have no reason to look to 'Europe' for salvation.
I just don’t like some people who just use the term white as a catch all for all Europeans like there’s no differences. It’s sad what is happening in Europe, but (and maybe this is naive optimism) I think there’s still hope for Europe or maybe North America can become a New Europe. Also, on why I like he HRE, I like learning about the Medieval Era that and the American West are my favorite periods in history.
There are no relevant differences between Whites when compared to the differences between Whites and non-Whites. Whites exhausted their biological assets and technological advantages fighting one another over the very 'differences' that you seem to think matter.
What matters is that Whites stand together against the massive ocean of non-Whites that are in the process of dissolving everything it took thousands of years of White effort and White suffering to create.
It gets tiring having to deal with the same nonsense, at least you added some new nonsense so I'll bite even if you wrote too much and saved the worst for last.
Rosenberg was seen as a joke by most NS. Hitler's secretary asked Hitler if she should leave the Catholic Church after reading Rosenberg's book, Hitler said no that the book was nonsense and he, Hitler, was Catholic. Although Rosenberg was more pro pan European than Hitler, he was hardly taken seriously in regard to his anti Christian positions. The Blonde ramble is rather silly, it's not a requirement for NS, nor do you claim it is, but why be upset by Blonde's preferences then?
I'm not Romantic so I feel no love for Rome, quantitively European states did far better without the Roman Empire. The HRE was a European power house at various points. To pretend the Croats weren't Slavs and that they weren't fighting a Civil War is kinda crazy.
Implying the German National Socialists were anti Slavic is a tired old lie that basic information would dispel. The Germans allied with the Slovaks, Bulgarians, Yugos (including the peoples within), MILLIONS of Soviet Slavs, and treated the Czechs and Poles better than they treated the Germans. Also Mein Kampf is irrelevant since Hitler said he regretted writing the book to begin with and contradicts his reasonable ultimatum to the Poles and the fact he gave them land first from Czechia then from Ukraine. Robert Ley (heading of the NS labor union, far more important than Rosenberg) described all Europeans as Aryans, as did NS law.
Yes Hitler was primarily a German Nationalist, why critique the German for supporting Germany? However his actions were pro Europe altogether.
Pope Pius backed the Axis since they were actually Christian, the Allies bombed the Vatican. NS is fairly pragmatic, it can be applied anywhere and is. Hating Jews is not the point of NS. To blame the Germans for the left declaring war on them, winning, and taking over Europe is victim blaming. I anxiously await when someone writes "Why I am right wing but oppose Nazis" and can give a reason that is actually true or makes sense. Not "they only liked Germans or they weren't liberals."
you can’t be a National Socialist if you’re a Slav or Med. Hitler hated Slavs (and presumably Meds too, why would he hate Slavs but love Meds?) and wanted to subjugate them to Germanic rule.
From Mein Kampf:
For the organization of a Russian state formation was not the result of the political abilities of the Slavs in Russia, but only a wonderful example of the state-forming efficacity of the German element in an inferior race. Numerous mighty empires on earth have been created in this way. Lower nations led by Germanic organizers and overlords have more than once grown to be mighty state formations and have endured as long as the racial nucleus of the creative state race maintained itself. For centuries Russia drew nourishment from this Germanic nucleus of its upper leading strata. Today it can be regarded as almost totally exterminated and extinguished.
It has been replaced by the Jew. Impossible as it is for the Russian by himself to shake off the yoke of the Jew by his own resources, it is equally impossible for the Jew to maintain the mighty empire forever. He himself is no element of organization, but a ferment of decomposition. The Persian empire in the east is ripe for collapse. And the end of Jewish rule in Russia will also be the end of Russia as a state.
nigga, It doesn’t get clearer than that. He’s saying Slavs are incapable of statecraft or ruling themselves because they’re racially inferior, so they must be governed by Germans. This fits in perfectly with his plans for Lebensraum, stealing land from Slavs and awarding it to Germans.
incorrect.
You're just too stupid to get it. Hitler saying Russians are biologically inferior to Germans, approving of Himmlers plan to makes Poles illiterate and view Germans as their masters, plan to deport 80 percent of Poles and kill off the Polish intelligentsia while also refusing to ally with slavs in the USSR until you start losing among other things actually proves the Nazis weren't anti slavic. You're just not on the level of carl mcnutty.
Hitler was a Zionist too
Not really. He was willing to work with Zionists in the 30s because it gave a place to deport German Jews and ended the boycott (I think) but him nor the other Nazi's were ideological Zionists.
It was a joke
1. This is about Russians not all Slavs.
2. Hitler said he regretted writing Mein Kampf once he became Chancellor.
3. Why would Hitler hate the Meds?
4. No cursing.
In fairness I would say Hitler did not want the war and the biggest failures were not his fault (ex: in 1941 he wanted Southern Russia focused but his generals disobeyed and went for Moscow, Italy failed to take Malta and Rommel later recommended not taking it, Japan not helping with the Soviets, etc), so I wouldn't attribute the loss to him.
Were you the guy who linked Axis forums with Nuremberg documents that said Himmler and Goering argued for fair treatment of the Poles so long as it didn't hurt Germany's war effort with Hitler agreeing with them over the more harsh Frank, and who said Southern Slavs who the Nazis aided didn't count as Slavs? Or was that someone else?
That's exactly what your documents said, lmao and you call me an idealogue. Why are you back now when you deleted your comments from before? What's the point of trying to have this argument again when you lost it last time? Do I live in your head, will I be getting a bill? If I have to keep teaching you do I get to send you a bill?
Goering stated that the Poles were to keep any industry not needed for the war effort, the war Goering specifically wanted to be short. You had an obsession with saying Himmler only wanted to teach the Poles 10 words, instead he wanted the Germans to fund their education through the 4th grade during the occupation. Hitler wanted to give them independence to end the war. You know all this already, why do this again?
You mean your stupid argument. The Slavs are one group similar to Romantic or Germanic peoples. It's simply untrue to say they are different peoples. Even if we break them up into South, West, and East: the South was treated great, the West was treated fairly well especially when talking about the Czechs and Slovaks, and the East was treated harder due to the ongoing war but still had better treatment of the Slavic people than the Bolsheviks as a matter of policy with millions supporting the Germans. The only difference in treatment is based on the opposition of the people to the Axis. Again though, you know this already.
Month late to this as my account was deleted by susbtack.
My point is your an ideologue that will twist anything in a way that's amenable to national socialism.
Goering saying we should steal as much as we possibly can from Poles without causing them to die on mass is actually generous. Himmler only allowing Poles to be given 4 years of education and then forced to become low wage workers for German industry is very cool.
Genetically speaking Slavs aren't one group. The thing that connects them is language. I don't know why you're debating this as this isn't even an argument I came up with. It's a well established fact. More importantly, Hitler treated Slavic groups differently depending on geopolitical factors. Slovenians vs Czechs, Romanian vs Poles ect.
Hitler being anti slavic isn't a point up for debate. It's a position which even national socialists admit. You even debating it shows you don't actually know what you're talking about.
The Nazi were willing to give Poland "independence" in a peace deal but that was under the idea Britain would recognize Poland as under Germanies sphere of influence and not as a truly sovereign nation. I don't know why you are trying to argue that point as it wouldn't even make sense. Why would NS Germany want to relinquish control of a nation they just went to war with and took a bunch of land and people from.
I'm the idealogue, yet sub stack never deletes my account which I assume has happened to you twice now, sounds like you're the idealogue.
I've merely stated facts.
Not what Goering said and I disputed if your source was reputable or not, since you linked to a forum quoting Nuremberg documents when you realized I had beaten all your points. Once again that is Germany paying for Poland's education for the duration of the occupation in a time when for many 8th grade was all they would have gotten.
Okay but they're Slavs and no one except you disputes that, I like that in your definition you show you have no idea what a Slav is by calling Romanians Slavs. Will you accept I know more about Slavs than you yet?
Cry about it? As I previously pointed out, and you previously accepted, he supported numerous Slavic nations, most notably Slovakia (according to you not Slavs despite being in the name), Croatia and Bulgaria (even against non Slavs), and to a lesser extent Ukrainians, giving us Slavs from all 3 main groups. They were also defined as Aryan under Nazi law, other NS not knowing that is irrelevant to history but you did just make that up tbf.
Because they got the territory they wanted, West Prussia, and wanted to end the war? Is that really a complex idea to you? The choices are become a Soviet sphere: disaster, German sphere, or neutral, Hitler's peace proposal is somewhere between German sphere and neutral, being clearly amendable to end the war with Britain.
Alfred Rosenberg wasn't taken seriously by the National Socialists, nor was Evola. If only Hitler would have had dumb Black rappers to associate himself with then perhaps things would have worked out better.
He had Jesse Owens but he wasn't dumb or a rapper, pity.
Excuse me? I don't like tha comment. I know lots of NS types don't like him, but i like him
So basically you don't like nordicists, gotcha
And why should anyone like Nordicists? They're an obstacle to White unity. All they have done is sow dissension while at the same time achieved nothing organizationally. Where's the Nordic League or League of Nordics? Nowhere.
Nordics overestimate their value because they've started to believe their PR.
Lol I'm a Gaelicist, I like the Nordicists
alfred rosenberg chief ideologue of national socialists LMAO!. we have so many unserious people talking about this. joel is even more sketchy knowledge.
Good article! Winning lexicon use: "White Erasure".
Weak/losing lexicon use: "Whiteness".
When you use their Verbiage, you legitimize their Ideology.
"Whiteness" is yet another antiwhite slur from our victimizers.
And what do you propose to replace 'Whiteness' with?
As for the whole 'strong/winning' and 'weak/losing' paradigm, it's absurd.
There are no fixed positions in political language, only fluctuations.
Just because the racial enemies of Whites introduced the notion of 'Whiteness' doesn't mean that it lacks utility for the cause of raising White racial consciousness.
The reason that 'the left' (jews, basically) came up with 'Whiteness' was because the Black Panthers and similar negro racial nepotistic groups used the racially-essentialist notion of 'Blackness' to assert their unique racial interests and orientation.
'Whiteness' is an attempt at the same *and Whites should embrace it*, not reject.
There is 'something' that is 'White' in White people. It expresses itself in a variety of ways. That 'something' is Whiteness.
Using the enemy's tools gives us *more* tools, not less.
There's no point in re-inventing dynamite.
We use the enemy's tools to dismantle the enemy's house.
Very well reasoned article. I disagree with your conclusions, but I don't disagree with your methodology or logic.
This might just inspire me to write “Why I am not a Christian” in response. All universalist ideologies/religions are doomed to failure. Weak, pitiable, and extremely feminine. And I don’t even consider myself a national socialist. But I do find it much more persuasive than prostrate Christianity.
You’re talking about cuckstianity - Christianity kept us safe and strong for over 1000 years and casting it aside has only occurred in the last 100 years as our enemy has grown stronger.
You are literally repeating what our enemy says - you’ve absorbed their rhetoric and are digging under our foundations thinking that your edgelord take is some radical position when in fact you’ve just internalised the enemies propaganda.
A rootless mass of godless degenerates is exactly what our enemies want for us whilst they are united under the strength of their faith binding them strongly together.
'Christianity' did not 'keep us safe and strong'. It destroyed valuable cultural and spiritual assets and replaced them with jewish nonsense.
As for the 'casting aside' of 'christianity' making our enemy 'stronger', the reality is that christians are part of the enemy, not opposed to it.
As for the 'rootless masses of godless' Whites, they're better off than under 'christianity'. The 'masses' have always been vulnerable to manipulation, but without 'christian' magical thinking, the 'masses' have become less manageable, more costly to control.
'Christianity' was a jewish conspiracy against Rome that turned into a jewish conspiracy against the entire White race.
Whites lived under the yoke of 'christianity' for over a thousand years and as soon as it was possible to get out from under that yoke, White people have been walking away.
'Christians' just don't like it that they cannot shake their bone rattle of 'damnation' and get compliance with the tithing scheme anymore.
99% of 'christianity' must die so that Whites may live.
Good essay. It's important that Whites newly entering the White Nationalist Conversation understand that the NSDAPers are not the whole of 'White Nationalism' Any more than skin-heads or pro-White 'ethnonationalists' represent the entirety of 'White Nationalism'.
At this point in time, 'White Nationalism' is *a White Nationalist Conversation*.
There's no real movement, not even a 'popular front'-type vague coalition.
There's a White Vanguard of persons who are committed in one form or another to the survival and thriving of the White Race. May of those folks have their own particular ideas of what will 'save Whites' and they do not all align.
There are 'Concerned Whites'. These are folks the feel something is wrong but don't quite have the tools at their disposal to properly articulate the cause of their feeling. These folks are open to ideas and solutions but require orientation in the White Nationalist space. These are the folks for whom the phrase, 'I'm not racist, but....' was invented.
The job of the White Vanguard is to turn more Concerned Whites into members of the White Vanguard so that they can create more concerned Whites.
The premise that 'National Socialism' of the ersatz NSDAP variety has all the answers has failed for 70+ years to yield a single durable victory. In fact, prancing around in uniforms and insignia reminiscent of the NSDAP era have driven away Whites who need White Nationalism.
Strategically, the NSDAPers decided to fight the enemy at their strongest point. It's like they never read Clauswitz or Sun Tzu.
After 70+ years, the NSDAPers have no substantial organization of any kind that can affect policiy. In fact, what one sees in the NSDAP-inspired community is endless schism revolving around different 'leaders'. They're as bad as communists.
While there are things to learn from NS literature, there's also a lot to ignore (and even unlearn from reading it). At best, NS is 50% useful and 50% counterproductive. That's a low effort-to-value ratio for those just getting involved.
Here's something to think about: Most movements and organizations who claim to be 'pro-White' or 'saving the White race' are, in fact, not assets to the White race but *parasites* on it. They suckle themselves on the blood and resources of concerned White people and deliver zero value in return.
The goal of every 'pro-White' should be to deliver value to the White race, not sustain itself on that race.
The trick is to take what works from NS and apply it to today’s situation. If it were to come from America it would be plain white supremacy that all of Europe could emulate. Perhaps Europe will lead the way and America will follow. Either way, what ethnic group is strong enough to break out of the matrix and subjugate all their white brothers? Aren’t we all crippled by miscegenation and Jewish multiculturalism? Are we not compelled to unite or die?
Anyway, not even Germany could be NS the way it was before, today.
I do feel for the poor Ukrainian nationalists who were fed to the meat grinder. It makes me sick to my stomach. We need something to wield real political power to save the white race. I agree LARPing as 1930s Nazis is not a winning strategy.
I still think it’s super useful to talk about NS and ww2 history to help wake up the masses. I do think if they had won the war, we’d be better off. Even if we had to kiss the nordicist ring. It was that way for a thousand years under the HRE. Wouldn’t have been so bad
NS-enjoyers have had 70+ years to 'wake up the masses' and failed. That seems like a long time. Perhaps the problem is that NS-enjoyers have been trying to attack the regime's anti-White logic at its strongest point. WWII propaganda never stopped. ZOG has been 'doing WWII' continuously. It's part of a larger strategy to 'stop time' by recycling the images and issues of WWII.
And the NS-enjoyers have actually played into this strategy.
The goal should be to make the players and positions of WWII irrelevant for the present.
This will nullify the massive investment of the regime in the WWII morality play of 'Good Whites' versus 'Bad Whites'.
Going on and on about Hitler and the Third Reich is mostly just playing their game.
As for whether Germany could have run the White world or not, I seriously doubt it. German chauvinism being what it is, my intuition is that eventually the whole thing would have fallen apart and we'd be worse off than we are now.
What do you say when someone calls you a Nazi when you say you're pro white and anti Jewish? You can't pretend WWII didn't happen, its consequences permeate through every level of our society.
I’d say ‘If being pro-White makes me a ‘Nazi’ then I guess I’m a ‘Nazi’. But really I’m just pro-White.’
As for being ‘anti-jewish’, that’s not my position. I oppose jewish power over White lands in the same way that jews oppose White power over jewish lands.
Now, jews may claim that jews don’t have power over White lands, but that’s transparently false. And, to some extent, the Noticing Movement is all about taking that response away from the jews.
No one’s pretending WWII didn’t happen. But, what I notice is that WWII is most important to only two groups of people: jews and ‘Nazis’.
The rest of us would just like to move on and start working on today’s problems instead of trying to sort our historical inequities.
The reality is that jews are not making friends. They’ve gone too far and ‘the youth’ are rejecting the jewish demand for special status for their complaints. The demand by the jews for ‘antisemitism’ speech laws is a last gasp. Every GOP person who supports ‘antisemitic hate speech’ laws will be turned out of office because many Whites - across the political spectrum - actually believe in ‘freedom of speech’.
The ordinary White and jewish person does not like ‘Nazis’ which is why it’s used as an epithet. But the reality is that ‘Nazism’ died in Germany in 1948. Calling someone a ‘Nazi’ is like calling someone a ‘Digger’. It’s an historical anachronism.
If someone calls you a ‘Nazi’ just ask them what they think being a ‘Nazi’ looks like…and then refute the things they think you are.
Unless, of course, you’re actually a Nazi.
Then there’s nothing to refute.
1. Tesla was a blue-eyed European
2. The Croatian Ustase wasn't strictly interested in 'Nordic supremacism' from what I understand. Their hatred for the Serbs, as sick as it was, was born from a negative ethnocentric form of nationalism. Croatians and Serbs share virtually the same group phenotype. Ante Pavelic was a brown-eyed European.
3. Ashkenazi Jews on average have around 30% European admixture but remain mostly Semitic, with a blend of Anatolian and Med.
This is a great essay. I realized recently as well that advocating for the extremist notions of Aryan world conquest and supremacy like NSN does would make us no better than the Jews.
ROTFL Mario Draghi is a Goldman-Sachs bitch, all his work is aimed to give US financial corps more profit in Europe. He also killed a lot of white people in Greece and he is so retarded to call an economic area with a trade inbalance greater than China "uncompetitive" (for the economic illiterate, Europe is "under-productive" but "competitive").
If this is the depth of Whyte Nashunalists understanding of Europe politicial architecture, I immediately understend why you got displaced by the Dissident Right.
This is a mostly good article, but I disagree with the seeming dismissal of the Holy Roman Empire. It was the true Thousand Year Reich, and sure near its end it kinda became a joke, but I blame that on the Protestant Reformation causing religious division and the 30 Years War. The HRE and early America are my models for decent governance. A confederation of different localities under a semi-strong Monarch or federal government that allows for mostly self-rule for the different peoples/cultures. And I believe that a Habsburg United Germany would’ve been much better in the long run over a Prussia one. Again, good article and I agree, I’m not a Nat-Soc either.
If you vindicate the Holy Roman Empire or the Third Reich, how does that improve one White person's life one iota?
I just like the HRE and I think localism can go a long way to helping retake our cultures. While I believe the European Race is real, it's made up of many different groups that I don't want to see disappear in a white glob.
Who suggested to you that 'White Nationalism' means White ethnic erasure?
White Nationalism is Whites caring about Whites because they are White *and no other reason*.
As for the phrase 'European Race' unfortunately, the erasure of White Europe is complete. The 'European Race' now includes hottentots, jews, other semites and arabs.
I'm a North American White. I have no reason to look to 'Europe' for salvation.
They cannot even save themselves.
I just don’t like some people who just use the term white as a catch all for all Europeans like there’s no differences. It’s sad what is happening in Europe, but (and maybe this is naive optimism) I think there’s still hope for Europe or maybe North America can become a New Europe. Also, on why I like he HRE, I like learning about the Medieval Era that and the American West are my favorite periods in history.
There are no relevant differences between Whites when compared to the differences between Whites and non-Whites. Whites exhausted their biological assets and technological advantages fighting one another over the very 'differences' that you seem to think matter.
What matters is that Whites stand together against the massive ocean of non-Whites that are in the process of dissolving everything it took thousands of years of White effort and White suffering to create.
Fair enough, but I still think localism could be a useful tool.