25 Points of National Socialism (1 Viewer)

[massive_attack]

You're right, it's not that complicated.

You, as the person making the claim are responsible for the burden of proof. When pressed to satisfy this burden you simply say, " read a history book ".

You don't give a title, time period, author, publishing company or any other information to go buy. I've read *several* history books and none of the jive with what you're claiming.

So, what history book ?

Furthermore surely you understand that history shouldn't be taken from just one history book, but several from various authors with various back grounds and various political / social affiliations , etc , etc , etc.

In the end it appears your belief that whites are superior simply rest on your desire to believe such a thing.

You've already admitted [a] it's not about strength it's not about intellect [c] it's mainly about your selective "history" [d] and such vague things as "culture".

I really almost had a laugh at that one given that the importance of culture is in the eye of the beholder.

And so on..

 

[Auftrag]

The burdon of proof may lay with me, but the burden of educating yourself lies with you and if for some reason you have not been afforded the opportunity of an education and therefore never come across a history book that is, I'm afraid for you, not my fault.

If you have read any history book you can clearly see that civilisation and the advancments thereof originated by the Aryan. It's practically self-evident for any western person who has paid attention.

I'm here to debate, not educate you.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

I'm here to debate, not educate you.

It's not unusual in debate to provide citations and sources for facts that are presented. It's actually quite common. It's part of the debate.

 

[Auftrag]

It's not unusual in debate to provide citations and sources for facts that are presented. It's actually quite common. It's part of the debate.

I cannot list to you every western history book, but if you pick up any of them you will find the facts in it. Often embelished, but usually fairly accurate when discribing who built civilisation.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

I cannot list to you every western history book, but if you pick up any of them you will find the facts in it. Often embelished, but usually fairly accurate when discribing who built civilisation.

As an illustration, I'll rebut in a like manner:

If you have read any history book you can clearly see that civilisation and the advancments thereof were not solely the province of folks Auftrag calls Aryan. It is entirely self-evident for any person who has paid attention.
​

See how helpful that is? Don't do a great deal to further the debate now do it?




Obviously, someone other than you has read one or more of these books and reached different conclusions. Rather than listing books, you could instead list some of the facts that led you to your conclusion. I mean if you actually want to debate rather than merely berate.
You may thank me at you leisure for being here to educate.

 

[massive_attack]

You may thank me at you leisure for being here to educate.

:rofl

bravo

bravo

 

[Auftrag]

As an illustration, I'll rebut in a like manner:

If you have read any history book you can clearly see that civilisation and the advancments thereof were not solely the province of folks Auftrag calls Aryan. It is entirely self-evident for any person who has paid attention.
​

See how helpful that is? Don't do a great deal to further the debate now do it?

Indeed, but one must recognise one's limits when debating with such palpable ignorance.

Obviously, someone other than you has read one or more of these books and reached different conclusions.

What conclusions are there to make? Who dominated two thirds of the globe and advanced culture, political science, ethics, art, medicine, military strategy and architecture?

Who was it who created modern day economic and social ordering? Who is it that has survived throughout history in a position of power, strength and wealth?

Africans? Asians? South Americans maybe? No. It was Anglo-Saxons, Teutonic’s and Vedic Aryans!

Rather than listing books, you could instead list some of the face of ts that led you to your conclusion.

If for some fantastical reason you read 'Race and Race history' by Alfred Rosenberg you will see the argument of the Aryan Invasion Theory which presents facts, including cultural and archaeological evidence which suggests that a tribe of Vedic Aryans travelled to what is now South East Asia and dominated the region.

The Hindu language derives specifically from old Vedic languages and traces of Vedic political governance still remains in Hindu society.

Rosenberg argues that the Aryans mixed with the natives and this is how you have such pale skinned inhabitants of countries such as India.

You may thank me at you leisure for being here to educate.

Likewise.

 

[Tashah]

If for some fantastical reason you read 'Race and Race history' by Alfred Rosenberg you will see the argument of the Aryan Invasion Theory which presents facts, including cultural and archaeological evidence which suggests that a tribe of Vedic Aryans travelled to what is now South East Asia and dominated the region.

Ahem... would this be the same Alfred Rosenberg?

Judgment of the International Military Tribunal for the Trial of the German Major War Criminals, Nuremberg, 30th September and 1st October, 1946: Rosenberg Nuremberg Tribunal Judgement

 

[Auftrag]

Ahem... would this be the same Alfred Rosenberg?

Judgment of the International Military Tribunal for the Trial of the German Major War Criminals, Nuremberg, 30th September and 1st October, 1946: Rosenberg Nuremberg Tribunal Judgement

Yes, that very same Alfred Rosenberg.

 

[faithful_servant]

You people are so boring. Where's the argument, where's the refutation? You people rely solely on emotion in your dramatic little speeches and assert irrational arguments in an attempt to understand a set of ideas you have been programmed to hate.

Why not try listening?

OK, here's a little logic for you. Your hatred literally only runs skin deep. You differentiate between people based on the level of melatonin in their skin. I tan darker than a lot of blacks I know (with a Norse, Scottish, English and German ancestry, no less), does that lower my intelligence? Does it make me less ethical during the summer months when I'm tanned?
The genetic difference between black and white is almost neglible and the cultural differences are not racially defined, so what's the difference??
If blacks are so inferior to whites, then why are there so many brilliant blacks?

 

[faithful_servant]

He's not Aryan.

Define "Aryan", please

 

[Auftrag]

Define "Aryan", please

A descendent of the Vedic Aryan and Teutonic tribes of North Western Europe.

 

[Auftrag]

OK, here's a little logic for you.

Yes, it's all very original and not at all covered in this thread...

Your hatred literally only runs skin deep. You differentiate between people based on the level of melatonin in their skin.

No I don't, and if you had paid attention to this thread you would understand that.

I tan darker than a lot of blacks I know (with a Norse, Scottish, English and German ancestry, no less), does that lower my intelligence?

No it doesnt.

Does it make me less ethical during the summer months when I'm tanned?

I don't know you, you may not be very ethical in the first place.

The genetic difference between black and white is almost neglible

There are defining physical and biological characteristics.

the cultural differences are not racially defined, so what's the difference??

Of course they are. Culture sepcifical differentiates race.

If blacks are so inferior to whites, then why are there so many brilliant blacks?

There are of course exceptions to the rule.

 

[Willow]

There are defining physical and biological characteristics.

Like what? Do tell ~ especially the biological part. You keep saying that but you never say what you are talking about. I mean really. What biological differences? Different reproduction systems? Different brains? Do their vital organs behave differently? Do they have different biological functions like menstruation? Do they have different limbs? Tails? Fur? Exactly what biological differences? Do you know what biology is? Do you realize that a Felis Domesticis is a cat whether it's black or white, Siamese or Manx? And that a Homo Sapien is a human irregardless of whether it's black or white, African or European? Because biologically we are the same..period.

What conclusions are there to make? Who dominated two thirds of the globe and advanced culture, political science, ethics, art, medicine, military strategy and architecture?

Who was it who created modern day economic and social ordering? Who is it that has survived throughout history in a position of power, strength and wealth?

Africans? Asians? South Americans maybe? No. It was Anglo-Saxons, Teutonic’s and Vedic Aryans!

The question should be who dominates it now? Oh that's right America, the country made up of immigrants of every colour, race and culture and built on the backs of African Americans.
Incidentally the Vedic Aryans haven't dominated anything since 500 BC, That was 2500 years ago, get over it. The Teutons have only been calling themselves that since 900 AD, the Romans mistakenly gave them that name. and most scholars now believe they were actually Celtics. And the Anglo Saxons had a good run of it in the medieval times but then were absorbed with everyone else. So there is in fact no such thing in the modern day world as Anglo Saxons, Teutonics or Vedic Aryans. not even a professional genealogist could accurately trace your family far enough back for you to know for certain whether you came from one of those obsolete tribes. And that's without even mentioning the fact that if it wasn't' for the rest of the world, mainly America rebuilding Germany fifty odd years ago, it would still be a big pile of Hitlers rubble.
Seriously you're a student? Of what?

 

[Auftrag]

Like what? Do tell ~ especially the biological part.

Blonde hair, blues eyes...white skin...

You keep saying that but you never say what you are talking about.

That's because I assume I'm talking with people whose intelligence is more tangible. Evidently I should spell it out and perhaps draw diagrams for you.

I mean really. What biological differences? Different reproduction systems? Different brains? Do their vital organs behave differently? Do they have different biological functions like menstruation? Do they have different limbs? Tails? Fur? Exactly what biological differences? Do you know what biology is?

Oh such spark you have!

The biological characteristics which differentiate races are purely aesthetic.

Do you realize that a Felis Domesticis is a cat whether it's black or white, Siamese or Manx? And that a Homo Sapien is a human irregardless of whether it's black or white, African or European? Because biologically we are the same...period.

And I have never once tried to argue to the contrary.

The question should be who dominates it now?

America is certainly a dominant power, but so are the UK, France and Germany.

Oh that's right America, the country made up of immigrants of every colour, race and culture and built on the backs of African Americans.

That's besides the point...

Incidentally the Vedic Aryans haven't dominated anything since 500 BC, That was 2500 years ago, get over it.

I don't need to get over it. I'm a direct descendent of those tribes and I take pride in their achievements and developments.

The Teutons have only been calling themselves that since 900 AD, the Romans mistakenly gave them that name. and most scholars now believe they were actually Celtics.

The word Teuton is used to describe a large section of Aryan people, including Celtics.

And the Anglo Saxons had a good run of it in the medieval times but then were absorbed with everyone else.

Largely you're right, but there still remain groups of North Western European people who remain "pure" of blood.

The main physical characteristic of Teuton’s is their blue eyes and blonde hair. If these people had mixed with not Teutonic races, this physicality would have altered dramatically.

If you have ever been to Scandinavia, you will see that this is generally not the case. Many Norwegian, Swedish and Danish people remain true to their ancestry. This is partly due to our once strict immigration and euthanasia policies,

So there is in fact no such thing in the modern day world as Anglo Saxons, Teutonics or Vedic Aryans.

Historians have confused these distinctions, but in reality, especially where I come from there remains a distinct community of Aryans.

not even a professional genealogist could accurately trace your family far enough back for you to know for certain whether you came from one of those obsolete tribes.

That's true, but one doesn't need to date all the way back, if one did you would end up tracing right back to when we were apes, surely.

One only needs to establish your link with an overall Teutonic tribe and ensure that you have not mixed with any other Non-Aryan races. I think that's quite simple.

The reason why blonde hair and blue eyes has become so characteristic of National Socialism is because it is these aspects which specifically define the Aryan/Teuton.

And that's without even mentioning the fact that if it wasn't' for the rest of the world, mainly America rebuilding Germany fifty odd years ago, it would still be a big pile of Hitlers rubble.

And...?

Seriously you're a student? Of what?

I'm not quite sure what you have tried to prove to me. you're not at all clear about what your point is? What is your point? You have presented some irrelevant ideas which are not refutations to my arguments on race.

For your information, I'm a second year MA student (or its equivalent) in Political Philosophy at the University of København.

 

[Willow]

The biological characteristics which differentiate races are purely aesthetic

Then they are not biological characteristics. Aethestics are not biological.

For your information, I'm a second year MA student (or its equivalent) in Political Philosophy at the University of København.

There's a very good zoological museum near there. You might want to take a stroll one day and do some actual research into biology. I'm not trying to put you down but seriously do some research or maybe it's a language thing but biology is not aethestics and it sounds silly when you put it as such.

 

[Auftrag]

Then they are not biological characteristics. Aethestics are not biological.

Are you actually trying to argue that the difference in hair, eye and skin colour are not biological? If these differences are not biological, then what are they?

I'm not trying to put you down but seriously do some research or maybe it's a language thing but biology is not aethestics and it sounds silly when you put it as such.

What I meant by aesthetic was an address to your point that all humans had the same organs etc.

I am not arguing that human beings are on the whole biologically different, but there are aesthetic biological differences, such as hair, eye and skin colour, which differentiate race.

Negroes have black skin, black afro hair and brown eyes. Pygmies are dwarfs and have brown skin, black hair and brown eyes. Jews have light white skin, black hair, and dark eyes where as Teuton’s have red, blonde or light brown hair, white skin and blue eyes.

These are biological differences which, as I have admitted, are purely aesthetic, but which are biological differences nevertheless.

 

[Captain America]

Ach <hic> Tung!!

 

[Auftrag]

Ach <hic> Tung!!

That symbol on that mans forhead is the hindu symbol of peace?

 

[::Major_Baker::]

Negroes have black skin, black afro hair and brown eyes. Pygmies are dwarfs and have brown skin, black hair and brown eyes. Jews have light white skin, black hair, and dark eyes where as Teuton’s have red, blonde or light brown hair, white skin and blue eyes.

These are biological differences which, as I have admitted, are purely aesthetic, but which are biological differences nevertheless.

I've always wondered why hitler was such an idol to the aryans, as he has brown hair, and what color eyes?

 

[Auftrag]

I've always wondered why hitler was such an idol to the aryans, as he has brown hair, and what color eyes?

There are exceptions to the rule, of course, but Hitler descended from Austrian Teuton's of Vandal ancestry.

 

[::Major_Baker::]

There are exceptions to the rule, of course, but Hitler descended from Austrian Teuton's of Vandal ancestry.

Of course.....

 

[Auftrag]

Of course.....

If you had been following this debate, you would have seen me discuss this already. Vandals are primarily darker haired but Hitler had blues eyes for your information.

I also mentioned about jews in Hungary who tend to have lighter hair and eyes, again an exception to the rule.

Your implication here is that I am making exceptions for Hitler. I'm not doing that in the slightest, I'm merely presenting you with facts.

 

[::Major_Baker::]

If you had been following this debate, you would have seen me discuss this already. Vandals are primarily darker haired but Hitler had blues eyes for your information.

I also mentioned about jews in Hungary who tend to have lighter hair and eyes, again an exception to the rule.

Your implication here is that I am making exceptions for Hitler. I'm not doing that in the slightest, I'm merely presenting you with facts.

So do you mandate an extensive geneology/nationality check before you demonize fellow humans?

 

[Willow]

What I meant by aesthetic was an address to your point that all humans had the same organs etc.

I am not arguing that human beings are on the whole biologically different, but there are aesthetic biological differences, such as hair, eye and skin colour, which differentiate race.

Negroes have black skin, black afro hair and brown eyes. Pygmies are dwarfs and have brown skin, black hair and brown eyes. Jews have light white skin, black hair, and dark eyes where as Teuton’s have red, blonde or light brown hair, white skin and blue eyes.

These are biological differences which, as I have admitted, are purely aesthetic, but which are biological differences nevertheless.

They are genetic traits, with blue and green eyes being recessive that were caused by geographical adaptations long long ago. Much like Manx cats have short tails which is caused a recessive gene. It does not make them a better cat then a Siamese. They are both cats.
Aesthetics has nothing to do with biology. It's like your analogy about the lions and mice. Assuming that lions are superior because they are bigger and prettier animals then mice is totally irrelevant to any biology. That's an aesthetic judgement on your part. Not a biological fact. There are NO biological differences based on aesthetics. Aesthetics is a purely personal decision. Not a science.

There are exceptions to the rule, of course, but Hitler descended from Austrian Teuton's of Vandal ancestry.

That's plain old BS. Hitler was the son of an illegitmate man. Noone knows who his grandfather was. Could have been anyone. And as I've said the Teutons disappeared so long ago noone can claim to be one. And the Vandals left that area and went into Africa even long before the Teutons disappeared. So there are more chances of a black African having Vandal ancestory then a white Austrian having Vandal ancestory.