25 Points of National Socialism

[RealmOfThePureForms]

Yes it would, and basic jobs like that could be rated just on time spent because they don't take much effort, or amount of customers served
however I gaurentee that screwing up an order would have an effect on the LTVs you got lol.

So the motivation for people to do their jobs well would be bonus LTV's? Still we are dealing with the same problem here as we would in a system of money. Remember Marx's Alienation Through Capitalism? Think about what causes that alienation. Who is responsible for it? If you continue to dig into this mystery you will eventually realize that everything points back to the mega-corporation. They are what cause the alienation of each person from their humanity.

Couldn't agree more. I'm listening if you have a new system.

Divorce rates are up. That's, well odd I'd say because I don't understand the cause. Pop-culture? doubt it. Loss of spirtuality? maybe but if someone is forced to stay married because of religion despite the fact that they're unhappy it'd make no sense. Corporations? maybe.

I do not believe voting works. I don't think people can be trusted to keep politicians in check. Just look at our country. Half the people don't vote, is that democracy? Only the rich can be elected, is that democracy? If you stray from either of the elected parties they will use their money, power, and influence to make sure you are never elected to office again. It's like a gang war and if you stray from one side too far, you risk destroying yourself.

As far as the divorce, perhaps I need to go into more detail. The reason divorce is so high is because in our society which is dominated by corporations. People are not viewed as human, as a result this mentality permiates every aspect of our society from our children to their parents.

Think of the subliminal messages which are being taught to everyone.

A corporation doesn't reward loyalty. To those who have been with a corporation for a long time, the corporation finds a way to remove them and higher a lower paid worker who was probably trained by the old employee.

Subliminal message taught to society by the corporation - loyalty doesn't matter in this world.

A corporation like Wal-Mart moves into a small city and wipes out the local shops that have been there for decades which paid their workers decent wages. Wal-Mart now pays 7.50 an hour as opposed to the small shop that paid 10 dollars an hour. Wal-Mart makes sure to lower their wages to destroy the small competition knowing that while it will take bearable losses for the meantime, the competition will go bankrupt in that same time frame.

Subliminal message taught to society by the corporation - It's ok to destroy the livelihood of your neighbors as long as you can profit from it.

A corporation advertises 24/7 in your face in every aspect of your life that you need this and that to be happy. Aside from taking all of your time away working 50 hours a week for a place that would toss you away like your nothing, they continue to brainwash you day and night that materialism not people, is what will bring you happiness.

Subliminal message taught to society by the corporation - You need to buy their products to be happy. In order to buy their products you must work 50 hours a week at their low paying jobs. So you sacrifice your family, friends, quality of life, in order to spend long hours at work to get things that you are told every day will make you happy when infact they don't.

A corporation places an add on tv talking about how it is helping a family or victims from some disaster such as Home-Depot and Wal-Mart did during Katrina. They are not doing this because they care about the people at all. They are doing it because they know people will buy more products from them. In a capitalistic society, a corporations only goal is to make profit for its shareholders. They will fake empathy, pretend to care, lie, cheat, steal, and even allow people to die for their profits.

The following is a real example of this.

"In a 1933 Supreme Court judgment, Justice Louis Brandeis finally made the obvious connection, when he stated that corporations were “Frankenstein monsters” capable of doing evil.

The author cites another famous case from 1994, in which General Motors was sued because on Christmas Day 1993 a mother with her four children in the car was hit from behind while stopped at a stop light, causing her gas tank of her 1979 Chevy Malibu to explode, burning and badly disfiguring all five of them. During the trial, a report was introduced showing that GM knew the gas tank was set so far back that it could explode on impact, killing the car’s occupants. In fact, about five hundred people were being killed this way at the time of the report in 1973 when the new Malibu style cars were being planned. He figured that each fatality could cost the company $200,000 in legal damages, then divided the figure by 41 million, the number of cars GM had on the road. The engineer concluded that each death cost GM only $2.40 per automobile. The cost of ensuring that fuel tanks did not explode in crashes was estimated to be $8.59 per car. That meant the company could save $6.19 per car if it let people die in fuel-fed fires rather than alter the design of vehicles to avoid such fires. (Bakan, pp. 61-63)"


Subliminal message taught to society by the corporation - It's ok to sacrifice what makes us human if we can profit from it.

Lenin once said that fascism is capitalism in decay. It's true. I think what you're saying is on the right track but also I think money is the bull's eye. Money? Yes, money. People are almost enslaved to their wages. They run their lives around it and it screws with people's minds.

Money is the bullseye in the sense that money is the sole existence for the creature known as the corporation which is responsible for making every person in every capitalistic society around the world do things that are contrary to the values we generally wish to aspire for. Honor, Justice, Loyalty, Courage. Corporations steal these things from us, and they leave us hollow and empty, like wraths or spirits, wandering, consuming endlessly the things we are told will make us so happy, only to never realize these are the very things which are destroying every part of us which is human.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

RealmofthePureForms,

Can you explain to me your point of view on the evils of greed and materialism? And just how Corporations steal our Honor, Justice, Loyalty or Courage?

Whats your ideal government/economic system and how would it work?

 

[LeftyHenry]

So the motivation for people to do their jobs well would be bonus LTV's? Still we are dealing with the same problem here as we would in a system of money. Remember Marx's Alienation Through Capitalism? Think about what causes that alienation. Who is responsible for it? If you continue to dig into this mystery you will eventually realize that everything points back to the mega-corporation. They are what cause the alienation of each person from their humanity.

The reason why LTVs would be different would be that it would only be for non necessities. Things like food, clothing, shelter, and electricity would be provided for the people. This would ensure people aren't left on the streets to die. It would also destory crime because there would be no incentive to steal since basic things are provided for you. I think the sole reason for crime in today's world is poverty. Of course there are catalysts like for example hip-hop which rants about how you can only be cool if you're a rich pimp with a nice car and a huge mansion.

I do not believe voting works. I don't think people can be trusted to keep politicians in check. Just look at our country. Half the people don't vote, is that democracy? Only the rich can be elected, is that democracy? If you stray from either of the elected parties they will use their money, power, and influence to make sure you are never elected to office again. It's like a gang war and if you stray from one side too far, you risk destroying yourself.

I completly agree. The sytem is screwed up. What would you propose though? I completly believe in a government for and by the people and while democracy like we see it here in America is a far cry from that, it's still better then totalitarianism and feudalism.

As far as the divorce, perhaps I need to go into more detail. The reason divorce is so high is because in our society which is dominated by corporations. People are not viewed as human, as a result this mentality permiates every aspect of our society from our children to their parents.

Think of the subliminal messages which are being taught to everyone.

A corporation doesn't reward loyalty. To those who have been with a corporation for a long time, the corporation finds a way to remove them and higher a lower paid worker who was probably trained by the old employee.

Subliminal message taught to society by the corporation - loyalty doesn't matter in this world.

I agree completly. I also think that marriage is tested and tested again until it snaps because of financial reasons. My own parents, although never divorced, but separated because of finiancial reasons.

A corporation like Wal-Mart moves into a small city and wipes out the local shops that have been there for decades which paid their workers decent wages. Wal-Mart now pays 7.50 an hour as opposed to the small shop that paid 10 dollars an hour. Wal-Mart makes sure to lower their wages to destroy the small competition knowing that while it will take bearable losses for the meantime, the competition will go bankrupt in that same time frame.

Subliminal message taught to society by the corporation - It's ok to destroy the livelihood of your neighbors as long as you can profit from it.

A corporation advertises 24/7 in your face in every aspect of your life that you need this and that to be happy. Aside from taking all of your time away working 50 hours a week for a place that would toss you away like your nothing, they continue to brainwash you day and night that materialism not people, is what will bring you happiness.

Subliminal message taught to society by the corporation - You need to buy their products to be happy. In order to buy their products you must work 50 hours a week at their low paying jobs. So you sacrifice your family, friends, quality of life, in order to spend long hours at work to get things that you are told every day will make you happy when infact they don't.

A corporation places an add on tv talking about how it is helping a family or victims from some disaster such as Home-Depot and Wal-Mart did during Katrina. They are not doing this because they care about the people at all. They are doing it because they know people will buy more products from them. In a capitalistic society, a corporations only goal is to make profit for its shareholders. They will fake empathy, pretend to care, lie, cheat, steal, and even allow people to die for their profits.

The following is a real example of this.

"In a 1933 Supreme Court judgment, Justice Louis Brandeis finally made the obvious connection, when he stated that corporations were “Frankenstein monsters” capable of doing evil.

The author cites another famous case from 1994, in which General Motors was sued because on Christmas Day 1993 a mother with her four children in the car was hit from behind while stopped at a stop light, causing her gas tank of her 1979 Chevy Malibu to explode, burning and badly disfiguring all five of them. During the trial, a report was introduced showing that GM knew the gas tank was set so far back that it could explode on impact, killing the car’s occupants. In fact, about five hundred people were being killed this way at the time of the report in 1973 when the new Malibu style cars were being planned. He figured that each fatality could cost the company $200,000 in legal damages, then divided the figure by 41 million, the number of cars GM had on the road. The engineer concluded that each death cost GM only $2.40 per automobile. The cost of ensuring that fuel tanks did not explode in crashes was estimated to be $8.59 per car. That meant the company could save $6.19 per car if it let people die in fuel-fed fires rather than alter the design of vehicles to avoid such fires. (Bakan, pp. 61-63)"


Subliminal message taught to society by the corporation - It's ok to sacrifice what makes us human if we can profit from it.

Money is the bullseye in the sense that money is the sole existence for the creature known as the corporation which is responsible for making every person in every capitalistic society around the world do things that are contrary to the values we generally wish to aspire for. Honor, Justice, Loyalty, Courage. Corporations steal these things from us, and they leave us hollow and empty, like wraths or spirits, wandering, consuming endlessly the things we are told will make us so happy, only to never realize these are the very things which are destroying every part of us which is human.

That is true. You said they use low wages, but also they buy wholesale for cheap and than sell for less. Something the family business cannot afford to do. Thankfully here in New York we fought Wal-Mart and said 'no' to them. However we still have Home depots and the largest concentration of McDonalds in the world in lower manhattan. Where I live there are about 5 McDonalds less than a mile from my apartment. The sickest part is that people still eat there after Super size me the movie. It's like shooting yourself in the foot but not noticing since you're already a zombie.

 

[RealmOfThePureForms]

RealmofthePureForms,

Can you explain to me your point of view on the evils of greed and materialism? And just how Corporations steal our Honor, Justice, Loyalty or Courage?

Whats your ideal government/economic system and how would it work?

Corporations steal our honor because of what they represent. The only purpose of a corporation is to profit. Because of this, a corporate entity does not pay attention to the impact it is having on it's surroundings. Instead, it will destroy the lives of anyone and anything. This includes people, places, and things. To a corporation, nothing is sacred. Honor is lost in a corporation and slowly but surely, like a child to a parents faults, the people slowly become complacent with what the corporation is doing and allow it.

Corporations steal our justice. To put into perspective just what a corporation is now capable of just imagine that you support a specific candidate to be elected. You might give him some money to show your support. A corporation has a single mindset, to make a profit. It searches for the candidates that will allow it to grow quicker, manipulate laws to get past them if they are costing the corporation money, and other things of this nature. When they find that candidate they back him with enormous amounts of money, money that you or I could never compete with. So for corporation A which has 10 million dollars of political spending money to throw its weight behind a politician that will help it expand would be the equivelant of taking a $20,000 a year salary of 500 men and women, and donating it all to the same politician. And since $20,000 is barely enough to survive on these days, and nobody could pay their entire annual salary to a candidate and still survive, a more modest assumption would be that each person would give between $100-$1000 dollars to a candidate. So it would take appoximately 20,000 men and women donating 500 dollars each, to the campaign of the other politician just to counter the donations given to the opposing candidate by a single corporation. That is why 95% of all politicians who win office have more money and why they serve the corporations and not us. Justice of law has been destroyed by the corporation.

They steal our loyalty by laying off American workers by the thousands for cheaper labor. They regularly replace loyal workers who have been part of the companies for 5-10-15 even 20 years, and before these workers are fired, they unknowingly train their replacements who will be paid half their wages and have all the same skills. Loyalty has been violated and lost to the American worker. As a result of this pervasive system, a loss of permanent loyalty can be seen in our culture, especially through TV. But politicans and people alike, have allowed this way of thinking to become acceptable.

Finally courage, the American people have lost their courage to do what our forefathers did. To fight tyranny. Today, the corporations stand tall and mighty, almost unlimited in power. To each and every one of us, they are like giants. They control our lives, giving us shifts to work that range anywhere from 7am-1am to ensure our loyalty remains only to them, but at the same time will get rid of us the first chance they get to hired cheaper labor. They have robbed the average American of any fight, made us complacent zombies who must buy their products or risk being unhappy. What most people don't realize is, we are already very unhappy and it shows in all the abuse and divorce that takes place in families around the country. All the constant fights most of us grew up with, our parents working different shifts just to survive, never seeing eachother. We have become a nation of apathetic people. We no longer care, no longer have the courage to fight, we just come home from work, grab a tv dinner and sit down infront of the tv for 6 hours before we go to sleep and do it all over again tomorrow.

We have lost our humanity in the process. Our creativity, our spirituality, our intellect. We have allowed our minds to rot away in a mindless repetative task. That is how our courage has been taken from us.

My system of government is as follows

I like the LTV system for basic needs to ensure no one is poor.

Another type of currency would be a bonus for jobs that are dangerous(construction worker, rescue worker), noble (doctor, scientist), or beneficial to public health (social worker, psychologist). Such jobs could fit multiple catagories and a scale could be worked out for such jobs.

If a job had all 3 of the qualities, you could get 100% for the first quality, 50% for the second, and 25% for the 3rd. Giving you 175% value for your service to the community.

It would be illegal for any one person to make in a single year, more than three times what is required for a nice lifestyle. By todays standard that would mean that nobody could make more than about $400,000 dollars a year.

The process for being a citizen who can vote would be redone. With plenty of excess money in this kind of government, a brand new voter education system would exist. People who wanted to vote would be required to take classes on American history and politics. If we make immigrants learn these things when they come into our country when Americans who were born here don't even know them, what does that say about us as a country?

Voters who are not educated in this manner will have no right to vote. In my opinion, our system was neve intended to allow people who had no idea who they were voting for or why they were voting, to vote. These people destroy our system and prevent people who want to make change from ever doing so.

 

[Auftrag]

Awww, how touching. What are they guilty of if I might ask?

Being jews.

 

[Auftrag]

I am Jewish. I don't believe we have ever met, and yet you have indicted me and impugned my integrity. Would you care to elaborate?

I suppose one can compare it to the Catholic belief in "Original sin".

Be specific here Auftrag. What exactly are Tashah's high-crimes and misdemeanors?

Apart from the enslavment of the modern world, the destruction of the moral standards in society and the perpetuation and advancment of the jewish world order I would say, simply, that it is your very existence.

You bring creedance to the very notion that the Aryan world is unattainable. In certain respects you are probably right; but commeth the day, commeth the hour.

Seig Hiel!

 

[Auftrag]

Is that why they got their a$$es kicked in WWI and WWII?

The first world war was run by liars, imperialists and jews. The second world war was lost because of purely logistical and pragmatic reasons.

How do you answer the vast bulk of scholarship, history, archaeology and anthropology that differs sharply from this assertion?

I would take each case individually and formulate my opinion.

I've read hundreds of "history books" as you call them, including a couple dozen that would bear directly on this topic. While I could name 20 or 30 primary contributions to civilization made by non-Aryan people...

There are examples, of course.

I'm hard pressed to think of any primary contributions by Aryans.

Medicine, warfare, architecture, art, music, politics, economics, ethics, science, technology.

In fact (and don't think I confuse Germans with Aryans), IIRC, Germany was the most backward nation in Europe until well into the Baroque period.

Perhaps, but if you take into consideration Scandanavia and Britain at these times (Teuton/Anglo-Saxon) you will see that our advancments were greater.

Ironically, however, the clearest and most powerful piece of prose written almost surely by an Indo-Aryan speaks a message of love and tolerance for everyone. It's called the Isa Upanishad. Perhaps you would benefit from reading what your self-proclaimed ancestors might have thought of your current position.

I'm of Scandanavian-Teuton ancestry.

It's also the natural order of things for people with skin cancer to die a horrible death, but diagnosed in time, it can be cured and the person can be given sometimes several more decades of life. Similarly, though it may be that different races also naturally have different cultures, it seems to be a good thing when people of different races come to understand each other.

Yes, that's the modern view point but if we look at modern societies in the west and indeed around the world we can see that, just like all animals, differential conflict will always exist. It's in our nature.

Society has undergone decades of "mutli-culturalism" and all it has lead to is a degradation of moral standards, the implosion of communities and open conflict in the streets.

This attempt to bring people togher has not worked and never should have been attempted in the first place.

I've always felt that I've benefitted by having dialogue with someone who is a good person but different from me.

All people are different, but that has nothing to do with racial intergration.

Finally, your argument eats itself up--if the strongest/ fittest survive, then surely the Teutons, and specifically those who adhere to your ideals, would be in a much stronger place than they are now.

Unfortunately the majority of my people have been overcome by capitalism, consumerism and multi-culturalism. We live in an age where Aryans of all kinds live in a world of greed, manipulation and oppression by the liberal democratic agenda of the rich.

This is a perpetuation of the jew, who watches and observes, but ultimately makes a profit.

It's not until the people of North Western Europe take control of their lives and destinies and all Aryans in the world reject this world order will we have the chance to take control of our lands.

You've mentioned several times that the Teutons or Aryans are superior thanks to their culture and ethics. Those are ideas, clearly. If you're prescribing a weird kind of social darwinist method for judging such ideas, then it's fairly clear that the ideas you're espousing have already lost to some other obviously more fit (or perhaps more fit-making) ideas.

People are blinded by wealth and the illusion that the world can be a better place if we just follow the leaders we have.

The Aryans in question (aka the Indo-aryans for clarity) are not the modern-day Teutonic people. In fact, the Aryans in question are no longer; their blood (as it were) suffused with that of most southern and eastern Asian people.

That point has been reiterated several times in this thread.

Omnia Mors Aequat.

Ante mortem, omnia mutantur

 

[Medussa]

This attempt to bring people togher has not worked and never should have been attempted in the first place.

Pulling them apart hasn't really been fruitful, ask me I live with the consequences on a daily basis. Unless you are fully able to have a separate culture, separate country totally self sustainable and excluded from the rest of the world this will never work. And face it, the rest of the world will kill you for it, we got hammered with sanctions that broke our back. Oh and uprisings, riots etc.. etc..

 

[ashurbanipal]

The first world war was run by liars, imperialists and jews.

You'd get no argument from me except on the last part. World War I was hardly run by Jews.

The second world war was lost because of purely logistical and pragmatic reasons.

As if there had been wars that were lost due to some esoteric philosophical conjecture. You said that the Aryans (and presumably you would include most Germans in the Third Reich) are militarily superior to other races. If that were so, those logistical and pragmatic reasons should have gone the other way (i.e. against the allies); it is part and parcel of military strategy to handle pragmatic and logistical concerns. Where one side loses due to such concerns, especially as roundly as the Germans did in World War II, they are clearly not militarily superior.

I would take each case individually and formulate my opinion.

If you mean "opinion" in the sense of offering a studied and well thought-out argument, great. If you mean an opinion of the type one might have of a favorite color or kind of music, I don't see that your answer has any relevance.

So, I'd be interested in hearing your opinion (of the first type, above) of, say, Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel."

There are examples, of course.

Yes, there are. Perhaps you would also say that the Italian Masters such as Leonardo, Raphael, Michaelangelo, Caravaggio, etc. provide some examples of Renaissance art, eh?

Medicine, warfare, architecture, art, music, politics, economics, ethics, science, technology.

1) Medicine--no one knows who first invented Medicine as people were clearly using herbs, performing surgery, and using mineral substances to heal illness long before writing was developed anywhere. However, the first organized attempts to classify and remedy illness and promote health are from IVth Dynasty Egypt circa 2500 B.C. The Egyptians were not Aryan.

2) Warfare--this would be a dubious "contribution" regardless of who invented it. Again, we don't know who first formed an army and marched it against a foe, though we can be fairly confident that both the Summerians and the Egyptians were doing it from the very dawn of recorded history.

3) Architecture--there is evidence of regular building techniques from digs in the fertile crescent dating to roughly 8000 B.C.; IIRC there are similar dates from the Indus River Valley civilization--well before the Aryan diaspora. So this is false.

4) Art--we find art being done very early in human development, again, long before history is recorded. So I don't know how it would be possible to determine exactly who invented art. However, the Egyptians are once again the first people to have apparently trained artists to decorate in a specific way through the application of specific techniques. The Chinese were not far behind them; the Picts and also the various Summerian people not far behind them.

5) Music--yet again, we know that people were making music very, very early. We find evidence of log druming in Africa circa 10,000 B.C. The earliest surviving undisputed depiction of a musical instrument is Egyptian. But I would grant that the world has been immeasurably enriched by the musical genius of such as Bach, Mozart, Schubert, Beethoven, Schumann, etc., all of whom were either German or Austrian. Then again, the Russians, Spanish, Italians, French, and Polish made quite a number of contributions, and it's hardly as if Non-European cultures lack great music.

6) Politics--already well established over all cultures the world 'round by the time writing was invented. The first actual political theory distinct from a legal code is Chinese, though.

7) Economics--Summerian, circa 4000 B.C.--or perhaps earlier.

8) Ethics--you've got to be kidding. You're aware that Chimpanzees have ethics, surely? If you mean the first recognized ethical code, that also is Summerian. The Egyptians were among the most Ethical people the world has ever seen, as were the Chinese. The Rig Vedas also propose a set of ethics pre-Aryan invasion.

9) Science--Depends on what you mean, here. If you mean simply the empirical study of the world, the Egyptians win yet again. If you mean the organized and systematic empirical study of the world, it would be the Greeks--specifically Aristotle. If you mean the notion of experimentation or the notion of abductive reasoning, that would be the English--none of which has kept some of the greatest contributions to science from being made by non-English/ Scandinavian/ German people. Galileo was Italian, Einstein was Jewish, Neils Bohr was of Polish ancestry (IIRC), etc.

10) Technology--again, you've got to be kidding. Technology (i.e. the invention and use of a device to acheive a certain aim) was clearly invented in Africa, and not by humans, either, though Africa would also be home to the first human use of technology.

Perhaps, but if you take into consideration Scandanavia and Britain at these times (Teuton/Anglo-Saxon) you will see that our advancments were greater.

No, the Italians provided the impetus for British and Scandinavian advancement out of Medievalism. Michaelangelo's art was never matched or exceeded by anyone in Northern Europe. Newton stood on the shoulders of Galileo, Hume on those of Descartes, Culpepper on Ibn-Sina, . And what's with this sudden inclusion of the Anglo-Saxxons anyway. They were hardly of purely Teutonic origin.

I'm of Scandanavian-Teuton ancestry.

Though the Isa Upanishad was written, almost certainly, by an Aryan.

Yes, that's the modern view point but if we look at modern societies in the west and indeed around the world we can see that, just like all animals, differential conflict will always exist. It's in our nature.

Of course there will always be conflict. That doesn't answer the point, though. There will always be death--so why cure disease? The existence of bad is no excuse to fail to go after the good. There will always be conflict, but there will always be friendship, brotherhood, laughter, love, and joy--even across races and cultures.

Society has undergone decades of "mutli-culturalism" and all it has lead to is a degradation of moral standards

So long as you take some moral standard that existed (if it ever really did) prior to the age of exploration as the standard, then of course you'll think that. But the justification for the original standard appears to be assumed, not supported. There are new morals and new standards now, and very good reasons to think that we ought to strive to achieve them. For one thing, Medieval morality led to anti-humanism, which in turn had some very horrible consequences.

the implosion of communities and open conflict in the streets.

I don't think multi-culturalism is responsible for that. Try blatant subjugation, greed, and corporatism. Together, they form a vastly more compelling case.

This attempt to bring people togher has not worked and never should have been attempted in the first place.

I believe it has worked; what should never have been attempted is the institution of a classed society. Europe owes a huge debt to the near east, for instance, for having given them everything from buttons to optics to chemistry.

All people are different, but that has nothing to do with racial intergration.

Yes it does--race is just a specific case or set of cases taken from the larger set of differences.

Unfortunately the majority of my people have been overcome by capitalism, consumerism and multi-culturalism.

The point having been that if they were all that ethically and culturally superior, that wouldn't have happened. You admit that it clearly has happened, so you have no case.

We live in an age where Aryans of all kinds live in a world of greed, manipulation and oppression

As does everyone else.

by the liberal democratic agenda of the rich.

I would consider myself a liberal, but given that my agenda would be to distribute money in a more egalitarian fashion--though with regard for who is working and who just wants to be lazy, I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. The liberal agenda is hardly to promote greed or oppression.

This is a perpetuation of the jew, who watches and observes, but ultimately makes a profit.

Which Jew would that be? Not any of the ones I know. The Jews I know are middle class hard working folks who make no more profit than I do.

It's not until the people of North Western Europe take control of their lives and destinies and all Aryans in the world reject this world order will we have the chance to take control of our lands.

Anyone anywhere could say the same.

People are blinded by wealth and the illusion that the world can be a better place if we just follow the leaders we have.

But morally superior people would reject exactly that--yet the only people who seem to do so aren't really defined by race, geography, culture, or other similar boundary.

That point has been reiterated several times in this thread.

Reiterated...and never answered by you.

Ante mortem, omnia mutantur

Doesn't seem to answer the point, which was that death levels all. A certain convocation of politic worms will eat your flesh just as it will Jewish flesh, and your claims of Aryan superiority will melt into the earth just as Jewish claims of being the chosen people.

 

[Joby]

Man, y'all are getting your *** kicked by a nazi.

After reading this thread, some comments:
--Ashurbanipal:Yes, those things you mentioned were created by non-aryans. However, Ahtung has already stated that he personally does not see the contemporary races existing anciently. However, when it comes to modern contributions, any High School level history book will show you that almost all contributions in these areas came from Europeans, specifically aryans. Unless you can tell us about that African Magna Carta, or the Chinese Mozart, you have nothing much to add.

--Yes, World War I was hardly run by Jews. The Gernman economy was, however in a large part, and it can be argured that this left the war effort shortchanged.

--World War II was lost by several German TACTICAL mistakes, I would argue. These occurred most notably at Dunkirk, Stalingrad, and, of course, Normandy. And when you say Germans lost to non-aryans, my question is Have you seen any pictures of Non-Europeans taking the Normandy beaches?

--Yes, the Italians have done some great painting. It's a worthy trade to give up the bee-hive empire of Rome (and later the Third Reich) and become a termite country to get some art.

Other Points:

--Hitler was not gay or a pedophile. Whoever posted this was thinking of Ernst Rohm, an early Nazi and leader of the SA. He was executed, although I imagine you all feel sorry for him now.

--Any Israeli exempliflies Jewish guilt as you are, at the moment, living on STOLEN land. Wrapping that fact in excuses is fun, I imagine.

 

[ashurbanipal]

Man, y'all are getting your *** kicked by a nazi.

I don't think so.

Ashurbanipal:Yes, those things you mentioned were created by non-aryans.

In actual point of fact, Ahtung mentioned them as being primary contributions to the enterprise of civilization made by Aryans. In context, it appears his claim is that Aryans invented those things. I was showing that he was incorrect.

However, Ahtung has already stated that he personally does not see the contemporary races existing anciently.

And this has exactly nothing to do with the point at hand.

However, when it comes to modern contributions, any High School level history book will show you that almost all contributions in these areas came from Europeans, specifically aryans.

Well, High School history books often tend to distort things--I recommend you get a little university under your belt and get back to us. Anyway, what does modernity have to do with it?

If you're going to expand the scope of the argument to include all Europeans in modern times, I would grant you that it seems you are correct. But there are then two problems--the biggest being that of course, to a person of European descent and growing up in essentially European culture, the Europeans are going to seem to be better than everyone else. But that's likely due to cultural blinders, not any objective analysis. It would be sort of like wondering how the map kiosk at the mall knows where you are--it's a closed loop. You have to be in front of it to read it. Similarly, if you've been given an inculturated education with an inculturated metric, of course you're going to measure other cultures, and their achievments, by that metric.

You also come up (here it comes again) against the argument made by Jared Diamond that this has absolutely nothing to do with race and everything to do with three or four primary accidents of environment.

Unless you can tell us about that African Magna Carta, or the Chinese Mozart, you have nothing much to add.

The minute you can show me the German Lao-Tzu, The Scandinavian Alexander, and the English Siddhartha, I'll do just that.

Oh, wait, you wanted some modern examples, apparently contemporary with the Magna Carta or later--though I'm not sure I can figure out why that'd matter. But for your edification:

Poetry: Let's try Hafiz and Rumi--both easily as good as Goethe. Even more modern would be Rabindranath Tagore. Federico Garcia Lorca. Jorges Luis Borges. Nikos Kazantzakis. Leo Tolstoy. Fyodor Dostoyevsky.

Music--The Russians such as Tschaikovsky, Rachmaninoff, Modest Mussorgsky, and Rimsky-Korsakov are generally considered to be pretty good. Albeniz. Chopin. Debussy. Liszt. The primary authors of modern music are the bluesmen of the Mississipi Delta, all of them black. Robert Johnson inspired the likes of Keith Richards, John Lennon, David Gilmore, and Jimmy Page. Howlin Wolf inspired Ray Manzarek, Janis Joplin, Peter Frampton. And we can't forget Jimi Hendrix, or guys like Wilson Picket, James Brown, Little Richard, Chuck Berry. How many Cellists are there that measure up to Yo-Yo Ma? How many pianists measure up to Vladimir Horowitz or Vladimir Ashkenatzy?

Politics--Ghandi is an obvious one, as is Nehru. Mao-Tze Dong clearly. Ho Chi Minh. Martin Luther King. Peter the Great. Shaka Zulu. Sulayman the IVth. Phillip the IInd of Spain. Ernesto Guevarra.

Medicine--Didn't the Turks invent virolation, which in turn led to the first smallpox vaccine?

Literature--Al Ghazzali. Rabia. Rabelais. Elie Wiesel. Omar Kayam.

Philosophy--Descartes (obviously, and obviously not Aryan). Baruch Spinoza. Antonin Kropotkin. Wang Yang-Ming. Tarski. Camus. Moses de Leon (maybe a little earlier than the Magna Carta--I don't recall his exact dates).

Science--Albert Einstein and Neils Bohr (again). Marie Curie. Xi Hua. Galileo. Nicholas Copernicus. Raymond Lully. Noam Chomsky. Sigmund Freud. Giordanno Bruno.

Athletics--way too many Africans, American Indians, and Oriental people to mention.

Exploration--Columbus, clearly. Magellan. Yuri Gregarin.

Or, if we get to mention manuscripts or art with multiple or unknown authors (as with the Magna Carta), how about A Thousand Nights and a Night? How about The Secret of the Golden Flower?

Yes, World War I was hardly run by Jews. The Gernman economy was, however in a large part, and it can be argured that this left the war effort shortchanged.

Not that I buy that for a moment, but if that were the case, a superior people would have taken the necessary steps to ensure their economy kept up.

World War II was lost by several German TACTICAL mistakes, I would argue.

And in so doing, you would dig the hole even deeper. Strategy has at least something to do with politics and economics--tactics is the sole province of the military. Strategy also tends to beget tactics.

These occurred most notably at Dunkirk, Stalingrad, and, of course, Normandy. And when you say Germans lost to non-aryans, my question is Have you seen any pictures of Non-Europeans taking the Normandy beaches?

No, but I've also seen plenty of pictures of non-Aryan Europeans. In case you didn't realize, that's what the argument more or less pivots on.

Yes, the Italians have done some great painting. It's a worthy trade to give up the bee-hive empire of Rome (and later the Third Reich) and become a termite country to get some art.

A trade I would make any day--empires fail after a couple centuries, usually. But Leonardo with be in the minds of the very last humans in the universe long after Diocletian is forgotten.

Again, however, you argue disengenuously. The point had to do with contributions to culture. I was pointing out that no Teutonic painter ever matched what the Italian masters did.

 

[Joby]

The reason I expressed the concern of modernity is because the German Nation did not exist before 1870, although, of course, the English and Dutch had been conquering the world since 1600.

The minute you can show me the German Lao-Tzu, The Scandinavian Alexander, and the English Siddhartha, I'll do just that.

Shakespeare, Gustav II, and Adolf Hitler are the best Aryan examples.

In context, it appears his claim is that Aryans invented those things. I was showing that he was incorrect..

To a degree, yes. In the sense that Aryans invented these things. However, in a short time the Aryans advanced these areas farther than any other.

Politics--Ghandi is an obvious one, as is Nehru. Mao-Tze Dong clearly. Ho Chi Minh. Martin Luther King. Peter the Great. Shaka Zulu. Sulayman the IVth. Phillip the IInd of Spain. Ernesto Guevarra.

A great list of people who fought against Aryan supremacy, and used popular opinion to stay the more advanced hand of the Aryan. Except for a few cases, like Phillip II, who was too busy enslaving Indians and the like.

Medicine--Didn't the Turks invent virolation, which in turn led to the first smallpox vaccine?

Yes, I believe they did. And the Chinese invented gun powder. And the Arabians "invented" algebra. And all were divided up by upstart Aryan nations, some not 20 years old.

A trade I would make any day--empires fail after a couple centuries, usually. But Leonardo with be in the minds of the very last humans in the universe long after Diocletian is forgotten.

The reason many Romans will be forgotten is that the period after the fall is commonly refered to as the Dark Ages. Don't get me wrong, Rome was corrupt and was on the verge of collapse for centuries, but the centralized empire must have been better to live in than feudal europe. Also, classical art is, in my opinion, more beautiful than the neo-classical art made during the renaissance. And no, I didn't get this opinion from Hitler.

As for sciences, I agree there are many examples of non-aryan geniuses. Many. But not by the sheer number. For the size of the Aryan population, you would be hard pressed to find a population that has contributed more. Even many of the best American scientists were of Nordic descent.

Athletics is a moot point. Nordics have always been keen to watch other races play our games and entertain us. Since these groups have very limited avenues other than this of making money, I don't blame them.

As for World War I personally I agree, just trying to throw up some defense.

As for World War II, I find it stupid when scholar after scholar points out that "Germany could have won if Hitler didn't invade Russia!" Wow, great point. Allowing Stalin to consolidate more and more industry behind the Urals before the inevitable match would have helped.
Germany could have won if 1.5 million men weren't wasted at Stalingrad, by fault of High Command. That's 50% of all German casualties-IN ONE BATTLE.
But I was simply trying to say Germany could have one with better tactics. A better strategy could, of course, have helped. A plan, any long term plan, for the Russian campaign could have changed the course of history. Also, launching Barbarossa 2 months earlier could have avoided winter, but the Nazis thought Yugoslavia more important.

*Anyway, I am only arguing for the academic points. I'm not a racist, and a truly well-educated Nazi could have made an infinitely finer argument than I have.

 

[ashurbanipal]

The reason I expressed the concern of modernity is because the German Nation did not exist before 1870, although, of course, the English and Dutch had been conquering the world since 1600.

Three points, in somewhat scrambled order:

1) The English and Dutch were simply points along a line that extends back to earliest history, and that includes (and probably will again include) many non-European peoples.

2) You'd nevertheless think that a superior populace, and one so homogenous as Ahtung wants us to believe, would have always been able to maintain a nation.

Shakespeare, Gustav II, and Adolf Hitler are the best Aryan examples.

I have an eternal soft spot in my heart for Shakespeare--you don't really understand Shakespeare until you've acted in one of his plays, I think. But your mention of him is ironic, as he was one of the most egalitarian, humane, and human souls I know of. He wrote Shylock and Othello as believable human beings, not as monsters as others of his time would have done. He showed the awful burden of racism and what it could drive a man to do. If he was another of Ahtung's ancestors (in a loose sense), Shakespeare certainly wouldn't have agreed with his philosophy.

As for the others, and the point as a whole: I'm afraid your reply makes no sense. Recall that you challenged me to show the Chinese Mozart or the African Magna Carta. While I would admit that no precise analogs of those examples exist in the specified cultures, neither do precise analogs of other truly great geniuses exist in Aryan culture. There is no German Siddhartha. There is no English Lao-Tzu (well, maybe Crowley--but Lao Tzu had a talent for simplicity that Crowley didn't share). There is no Scandinavian Alexander.

The point here is that while cultures are all different, they all have their heroes, their great people, their contributors. If you establish Mozart as the prime example of culture, then of course no one will measure up because there are no precise analogs of Mozart anywhere, and there never will be. Even Freidrich Mendelsohn, the only man history records as having been as talented, wasn't as great.

To a degree, yes. In the sense that Aryans invented these things. However, in a short time the Aryans advanced these areas farther than any other.

That's hardly true. It may seem that way to one who was inculturated by Aryanity (if that's a word). But that's to be expected and is hardly the place from which to start an objective evaluation.

A great list of people who fought against Aryan supremacy, and used popular opinion to stay the more advanced hand of the Aryan. Except for a few cases, like Phillip II, who was too busy enslaving Indians and the like.

If the hand of the Aryan was all that advanced, they shouldn't have been very successful.

Yes, I believe they did. And the Chinese invented gun powder. And the Arabians "invented" algebra. And all were divided up by upstart Aryan nations, some not 20 years old.

And I'm sure I could kick Einstein's butt. Does that make me superior to him? I think not-history will remember Einstein and likely forget me.

The reason many Romans will be forgotten is that the period after the fall is commonly refered to as the Dark Ages.

But people know who both Diocletian and Leonardo are right spankin' now. Unless you think the immediate aftermath of the fall of Rome is still working it's dark spell.

Don't get me wrong, Rome was corrupt and was on the verge of collapse for centuries, but the centralized empire must have been better to live in than feudal europe.

For the vast majority, that's entirely true. Sort of puts the lie to the whole Aryans are superior idea.

Also, classical art is, in my opinion, more beautiful than the neo-classical art made during the renaissance. And no, I didn't get this opinion from Hitler.

Your opinion is noted, but most people, both educated in art and otherwise, would tend to agree that Michaelangelo was the greatest artist we know of.

But classical art is surely beautiful as well.

As for sciences, I agree there are many examples of non-aryan geniuses. Many. But not by the sheer number. For the size of the Aryan population, you would be hard pressed to find a population that has contributed more. Even many of the best American scientists were of Nordic descent.

The Italians and the Jews have contributed at least as much as the Aryans.

Athletics is a moot point. Nordics have always been keen to watch other races play our games and entertain us.

I know a number of Nordic people who would take serious exception to that statement.

Since these groups have very limited avenues other than this of making money, I don't blame them.

Isn't part of the argument against the Jews that they control all the money, to the detriment of the "superior" Aryan people?

As for World War II, I find it stupid when scholar after scholar points out that "Germany could have won if Hitler didn't invade Russia!" Wow, great point. Allowing Stalin to consolidate more and more industry behind the Urals before the inevitable match would have helped.

Well, they very well could have. Stalin had no imperialistic designs, and his industry was quite well advanced by the time Hitler invaded. Hitler needed the Baku oil fields, but stopped at Stalingrad for a symbol.

But I was simply trying to say Germany could have one with better tactics. A better strategy could, of course, have helped. A plan, any long term plan, for the Russian campaign could have changed the course of history. Also, launching Barbarossa 2 months earlier could have avoided winter, but the Nazis thought Yugoslavia more important.

All of which argues for their military inferiority.

Anyway, I am only arguing for the academic points. I'm not a racist, and a truly well-educated Nazi could have made an infinitely finer argument than I have.

You don't say! Anyway, you can't shake the devil's hand and say you're only kidding.

 

[Joby]

If the hand of the Aryan was all that advanced, they shouldn't have been very successful.

You right. It's just too bad the Aryan shows mercy. Too bad Kenedy or Johnson didn't deploy 6,000 tanks to Vietnam. Too bad England didn't beat Gandhi to death, and likewise for MLK. Che's boss pretty much handed him over to us, though.

There is no Scandinavian Alexander.

No, but there's Adolf Hitler. Gustav II could have conquered more, if it weren't for supply lines.

But people know who both Diocletian and Leonardo are right spankin' now. Unless you think the immediate aftermath of the fall of Rome is still working it's dark spell.

And people know who Lao Tzu and Shakespeare are Right Now! Unless you think the fall of his dynasty is still working its dark spell.

For the vast majority, that's entirely true. Sort of puts the lie to the whole Aryans are superior idea.

Not at all. They did a better job resisting the Roman invader than the Greeks, Jews, Egyptians, and Arabs, wouldn't you say? After all, Caesars toe hold in Germania lasted only 30 years or so. At about the same time as this occupation, Jerusalem was being leveled and the Jews scattered across
Europe.

Isn't part of the argument against the Jews that they control all the money, to the detriment of the "superior" Aryan people?

No, the argument goes the Jews are leeches on society who steal money from every group. That includes, for instance, the blacks born in poor neighborhoods who go one to play in the NBA.

All of which argues for their military inferiority.

And us knowing their codes and still taking years to beat them argues for our military inferiority.

You don't say! Anyway, you can't shake the devil's hand and say you're only kidding.

True, but I'll root for Satan when 50 wanna-be Jesus's come after him. You're honestly the only one who has argued even remotely effectively on that side.

 

[Auftrag]

I apologise for not replying in depth, I am in the middle of research for my forthcoming dissertation.

I will reply soon. However, I thought this particular quote was overwhelming naive.

There is no Scandinavian Alexander.

Askold and Dir, Harald Blåtand and many other Viking leaders who from the beginning of the 8th Century onwards dominated the western and onto the eastern worlds, founded modern France and helped, along with the Huns (other Aryan people) destroyed the Roman Empire.

 

[ashurbanipal]

Askold and Dir, Harald Blåtand and many other Viking leaders who from the beginning of the 8th Century onwards dominated the western and onto the eastern worlds, founded modern France and helped, along with the Huns (other Aryan people) destroyed the Roman Empire.

Oh, I'm well aware of the Vikings, and I'm well aware of who toppled the Roman empire. But no single individual conquered--what was it?--seven million square miles. No single individual fought battles such as those at Issus, Tyre, or Gaugamella, at such terrible odds, and won. The Roman Empire was ready to be destroyed when the goths came raging over the borders. The Persian Empire was at the height of it's power when Alexander cut off its head.

Sorry, sir, but they're not quite the same.

 

[Auftrag]

Oh, I'm well aware of the Vikings, and I'm well aware of who toppled the Roman empire. But no single individual conquered--what was it?--seven million square miles. No single individual fought battles such as those at Issus, Tyre, or Gaugamella, at such terrible odds, and won. The Roman Empire was ready to be destroyed when the goths came raging over the borders. The Persian Empire was at the height of it's power when Alexander cut off its head.

Sorry, sir, but they're not quite the same.

Perhaps, but wasn't Alexander Hellenic? The Hellenes are a type of Aryan.

http://www.hschamberlain.net/arischeweltanschauung/aryanworldview.html#Hellens and Indo-Aryans

 

[ashurbanipal]

You right. It's just too bad the Aryan shows mercy. Too bad Kenedy or Johnson didn't deploy 6,000 tanks to Vietnam. Too bad England didn't beat Gandhi to death, and likewise for MLK. Che's boss pretty much handed him over to us, though.

I don't think it's "too bad" for anyone to show mercy except in certain extreme circumstances. That said, I can only think of 2 examples of peoples less merciful in victory than the Germans. The Mongols would, of course, top the list of the most unmerciful, followed closely by the Assyrians.

No, but there's Adolf Hitler. Gustav II could have conquered more, if it weren't for supply lines.

Hitler lost most of the battles in which he was outnumbered. He also didn't actually fight at the head of his troops as Alexander did.

And people know who Lao Tzu and Shakespeare are Right Now! Unless you think the fall of his dynasty is still working its dark spell.

I don't understand your reply at all. You said that the reason people would forget Diocletian but recall Leonardo was because of the Dark Ages. I replied that the Dark Ages are over, and we still remember both--but in the end, Leonardo's acheivements will be held in esteem even when Diocletian will be lost in the mists of time.

Not at all. They did a better job resisting the Roman invader than the Greeks, Jews, Egyptians, and Arabs, wouldn't you say? After all, Caesars toe hold in Germania lasted only 30 years or so. At about the same time as this occupation, Jerusalem was being leveled and the Jews scattered across
Europe.

Again, your reply doesn't make any sense. You said that it was better to live in the Roman Empire than Feudal Europe. I agreed, but pointed out (by implication) that it was the Germanic peoples who set up the feudal system--which actually made life harder. A superior race would have figured out how to make life easier, one would think. In actual point of fact, a whole ton of knowledge was completely lost amid the ravages of barbarity. Standards of hygeine, education, agriculture, and medicine went backwards by a staggering degree, all thanks to these allegedly superior people.

No, the argument goes the Jews are leeches on society who steal money from every group. That includes, for instance, the blacks born in poor neighborhoods who go one to play in the NBA.

Your claim was that groups other than Aryans have few avenues open for making money (as if to imply that they have no business acumen). I pointed out that this seems to contradict the notion, also part and parcel of the ideology of National Socialism, that the Jews control all the money.

And us knowing their codes and still taking years to beat them argues for our military inferiority.

I'm not sure why. We used them to good advantage, and we did actually beat them. On the other hand, to my knowledge, the axis powers never cracked our codes.

 

[ashurbanipal]

Perhaps, but wasn't Alexander Hellenic? The Hellenes are a type of Aryan.

He was Macedonian--more or less Greek but not strictly the same.

In any case, that link you provided seems to be quite down on the Hellenics. So I'm not sure I understand your reply--though admittedly, I only read the section that had to do with Aryans and Hellenics.

 

[MSgt]

This is perhaps the most retarded and horribly ignorant thread on the site. I won't go as far as to say that it is the worst, because there has to be a thread about camel poopoo somewhere. So far, all I have seen is some racism, backed solely up by ignorance (No doubt a product of upbringing.) I see no thought process of any kind of study into civilizations where bigotry trumps all notions of real nation building. I see only racism backed up by hate speech. Where's the intelligence to recognize "racism" and it's destructive power?

Now, for those of you who have their heads completely rooted into their upper intestines.....follow along as I produce two relevant points to "racism" and "superiority"....

First, let's break this retardation down. It is a widely known fact that America, despite the individual problems that all governments in all nations have, is the most progressive and most industrial nation on the planet. We have the best assimilation programs, the best universities, and the best personal opportunities. Now, there is a reason we have come so far in such a short amount of time. It is because we do not deny our population the ability to contribute towards our society. We choose the best man for the job. We vote for the best man. We do not exclude the talent, based on their color, religion, or background. There have been speed bumps on our way here and we are still traveling the road to progress, but one thing is certain, our civilization has always seen an accelerated boom after civil rights movements. We hear often enough from racists and egotists, that "white" men don't get a fair shake (this is often accompanied by belittling women too). The standard counterargument heard in failing states and individuals is that there are insufficient jobs for the white male population, thus it is impossible to allow minorities and women to compete for the finite incomes available. The argument is archaic and wrong. When talent enters a work force, it creates jobs. Competition improves performance.

Now, let us look at the present day Middle East. This is a civilization that prohibits an entire gender from education and from contributing. Furthermore, they entertain wide sweeping prejudices and sectoral exclusion and superiority from other sects (There should be no wonder why Germany opposed Iraq.) They have succumbed to a culture of blame and pity, for which the ignorant of the world is all too happy to give them. Thirteen hundred years of effort came down to an entire civilization that can't design and build an automobile. They do not vote for the best man (if they can vote at all). They vote for their fellow tribesman. They vote for who is "pure" to their roots. They govern through a single dogmatic religion (all others are inferior) and the result has been widesweeping radicalsim that has taken a massive turn towards terrorism. By doing such things to their civilization, they have stagnated. They have refused their civilization it's full potential, because the individual personal core need in this culture is to believe that they are superior.

Now, let's go back in time to Nazi Germany. A very prosperous country built on the backs of Jews. The financial wizards and shop owners. This was the most prosperous element inside Germany. Were it not for the jealoousy that raged amongst non-Jewish Germans, who's to say what Germany could be today. Germany's full potential has never been achieved, because it denied it's most successful element the chance to contribute. Instead, a charismatic leader chose to ride the racial and passed down biggotted horse into what it became. The German egotistical mind proved very deadly to a lot of people and their own civilization. Military power replaced social progress. In today's Europe, we see "over-skilling," in which inherent and learned abilities wither in calcified workplaces, produces social peace at the cost of cultural and economic lethargy, security at the price of mediocrity. The occasional prime minister notwithstanding, it is far rarer to encounter a female executive, top professional, or general officer in that mythologized, "more equitable" Europe than in the United States. Change that men long resisted and feared in our own country resulted not only in greater competition for jobs, but in the creation of more jobs. Today's Germany is as bigotted and as racial as it was in 1943. The only difference is, like the other core country in Europe, that it lacks the will and the military power to act on it. We are seeing this very same sentiment in the Middle East today. The same jealousy and rage as they look upon Israel in self-shame. Israel, a country recognized by the UN in just 1949, is only 57 years old. Yet, it is the most civilized, freest, prosperous, and progressive nation in the region. There isn't much difference between the German Nazi and the Muslim Radical. They are both cut from the same cloth and they have both suffered for their self-inflicted needs to hate others. Interchange the Swastika and the Radical Qu'ran and you will always find the same black heart lost in depression, hate, and a need to throw temper tantrums.

The lesson here is simple. The Jews have proven themselves to be among the most successful people in history, even though they must continue to defend their right to exist within populations and civilizations. As a nation that embraces the notion that all are equal and not superior, America has proven, in it's short history, what the recipe to social progress is. It is the mixing of the races and the religions. It is the diversifying of the cultures. It is the notion that no one is superior than their neighbor. It is the recognization that jealousy and ego can destroy entire nations and regions when it affects an entire civilization.

And finally we get to my second point. One of the reasons we have seen such hatred towards America since the fall of the Swastika, has been that these kinds of people know that no matter what they do, countries that recognize equal rights will always stand in their way to "superiority" and prevail. One of the reason we are so hated by Muslim Radicals and their populations is that we and Israel stand in their way of a theocratic Middle East, of which is based mostly on myth and fantasy. The 20th century and the last six years has proven to the tyrants, dictators, religious fanatics, and racists of the world that they will never be anythihg more than mesquitoes that need an occassional spanking. At the end of their rants and raves, they always amount to nothing. Their power is either always short lived or they never really accomplish anything at all. Worse is their inability to recognize through out the worlds civilizations that today's world and the future belongs to diversity and progress - not racism and secularism. In every region and country where we find oppression and a forceful need to remain "superior" to others through religion or nationalism, we see failure and conflict.

We are all aware of how deep rooted anchient Muslim bigotry against Jews goes. It is historical. However, considering the massive carnage inflicted by the Nazi in such a short period of time, today's Radical Islamists is just the "Nazi lite."

 

[ashurbanipal]

GySgt,

Just to add emphasis to one of your points: History shows definitively that nations and empires that embrace diversity thrive, especially in comparison to those that don't. Xenophobia isn't necessarily a recipe for disaster, but it seems to be a contributing factor.

The Empires that embraced the cultures they conquered flourished. Those that subjugated and destroyed them perished more often than not. Rome began to decline shortly after they decided to stop offering citizenship to conquered people. Persia was able to unite much of Asia by allowing the conquered people their culture, their own rulers, and by appreciating the strengths that each culture brought to the table.

 

[MSgt]

GySgt,

Just to add emphasis to one of your points: History shows definitively that nations and empires that embrace diversity thrive, especially in comparison to those that don't. Xenophobia isn't necessarily a recipe for disaster, but it seems to be a contributing factor.

The Empires that embraced the cultures they conquered flourished. Those that subjugated and destroyed them perished more often than not. Rome began to decline shortly after they decided to stop offering citizenship to conquered people. Persia was able to unite much of Asia by allowing the conquered people their culture, their own rulers, and by appreciating the strengths that each culture brought to the table.

Very well stated. By the way, with regards to Persia uniting and embracing cultures, you are speaking of "Cyrus the Great." One of histories greatest leaders. One of the facts Khomeini kept form his masses as he preached on these glory days, was that Cyrus freed the Jews from Babylon and allowed them to return to Israel.

 

[Jay R]

:bravo: Well done Gunny, excellent contribution. I'll refrain from dissenting the point about modern Germany as we've discussed our respective positions before.

If I could just briefly state that Hitler's leadership was, with the exception of American industrial power, without doubt the primary reason for Germany losing the 1939-45 war. At every significant decision he was called to make he chose based on his own opinions, regardless of qualification or practicalities and in some cases even facts. Hypothetically,if he'd gone straight into conquering Eastern Europe and pushing into Russia to accquire the territory for his Lebensraum policy he probably would not have even had to fight the US, so unpopular was Communism in Western Europe and Washington the allies would possibly have been supporting the Third Reich against Stalin. With Russia in his pocket he'd already have a Nazi industrial power to rival the US, and Europe would have been an insignificance he could likely have plucked at any time. This is coming from the top of my head, I'm sure there's a book waiting to be written about how Germany would have won if it wasn't for Hitler's input.

With regards to the war as it actually happened, he was an inept and incompetant commander in chief who did the Nazi war effort more harm than anyone, routinely overuling his senior officers with far better command abilities. His opening the war on two fronts and obsession with Stalingrad simply because of it's name cost him the forces that would have made entering Germany unnacceptably costly to the allies, added to his refusal to surrender he thus committed the nation to total war and the destruction it would inevitably see. His inability to focus Germany's excellent arms industry on efficient mass produced weapons in favour of costly prototypes played into the hands of Americas technically inferior but easily manufactured equipment. His support for Mussolini's Italy and Il Duce's misguided delusions of an Italian Fascist imperialism opened a third front and exposed 'Fortress Europes' weak underbelly to the allies.

The fact that the majority of the people the Nazi's were slaughtering were white Europeans cannot fail to raise an wry smile of amusement, how dumb must you be to draw a distinction between a white person of Nordic, Anglo-Saxon, Slavic, Mediterranean or Celtic blood? If you're going to be a racialist then surely common sense would tell you one white is as good as another? He was killing people he should have been integrating if he truly wanted a Thousand Year Reich. I laugh my a** off over this point when I think about the girl's of Eastern Europe or Russia, maybe Hitler was smarter than me but they don't strike me as an inferior species!:mrgreen: He must have been retarded. And this with a policy of accquiring territory, just who was going to populate all the land he intended to take in Russia?:rofl

 

[Joby]

I don't think it's "too bad" for anyone to show mercy except in certain extreme circumstances. That said, I can only think of 2 examples of peoples less merciful in victory than the Germans. The Mongols would, of course, top the list of the most unmerciful, followed closely by the Assyrians.

Except for, maybe, the Romans in Judea, Stalin with his own people, and the Japanese in Manchuria, agreed. Hitler addressed this point when he stated that the nations like the US and Britain show to much mercy, and that instead they must focus their energy. If the US and Britain had, Vietnam and India would still be colonies.

I don't understand your reply at all. You said that the reason people would forget Diocletian but recall Leonardo was because of the Dark Ages. I replied that the Dark Ages are over, and we still remember both--but in the end, Leonardo's acheivements will be held in esteem even when Diocletian will be lost in the mists of time.

I was saying the same thing for Lao Tzu and Shakespeare. Shakespeare will be celebrated for a long time after Lao is forgoten. This was in the same line of thought when you were talking about how great Lao was. Personally, I'll agree that many of his simplest, "purest" poems if you will, rival many of Shakespeares sonnets.

Another allegory would be that if there had been a nuclear holocaust in 1962 and most of the 'civilized' world was destroyed, would da Vinci be remembered as well?

Again, your reply doesn't make any sense. You said that it was better to live in the Roman Empire than Feudal Europe. I agreed, but pointed out (by implication) that it was the Germanic peoples who set up the feudal system--which actually made life harder. A superior race would have figured out how to make life easier, one would think. In actual point of fact, a whole ton of knowledge was completely lost amid the ravages of barbarity. Standards of hygeine, education, agriculture, and medicine went backwards by a staggering degree, all thanks to these allegedly superior people.

That's like saying if a 40 year old who hasn't excersized for 10 years tries to rob a 17 year old, and gets himself killed, it's the 17 year olds fault the old mans kids will suffer.

Your claim was that groups other than Aryans have few avenues open for making money (as if to imply that they have no business acumen). I pointed out that this seems to contradict the notion, also part and parcel of the ideology of National Socialism, that the Jews control all the money.

I apologize for any confusion. I was trying to point out that minorities, like blacks, have few avenues to money other than entertaining Aryans via Athletics, Music, or Drugs.

I'm not sure why. We used them to good advantage, and we did actually beat them. On the other hand, to my knowledge, the axis powers never cracked our codes.

Outnumbering them 10 to 1 and taking 4 years to beat them is not efficient.

Now, let's go back in time to Nazi Germany. A very prosperous country built on the backs of Jews. The financial wizards and shop owners. This was the most prosperous element inside Germany.

So you admit the Jews were a seperate, richer group from the rest of the Germans? So you admit they never assimilated, but remained a inclusive group among themselves? The reason I say this is evident in one Hitler quote:"When I saw him, I asked myself, is this a person? My next question immediately was, is this a German?" The answer should be evident.

Also, by pointing out that they were there own group, who were rich, it should not be hard to understand the starving Germans frustration, that was released when he heard a speech given by the young National Socialist captain.

Now, let us look at the present day Middle East. This is a civilization that prohibits an entire gender from education and from contributing

You're right. Unless they accept Paris Hilton and MTV their evil. Funny thing, they don't see it so much as keeping their women in bondage so much as protecting them. Meanwhile, we watch Desperate Housewives as couples.

First, let's break this retardation down. It is a widely known fact that America, despite the individual problems that all governments in all nations have, is the most progressive and most industrial nation on the planet. We have the best assimilation programs, the best universities, and the best personal opportunities

Agreed. And it is also a widely known theory that the American Empires control might have crested when this assimilation took place. We won in WWII. We have 55,000 names on a wall from Vietnam.

Thirteen hundred years of effort came down to an entire civilization that can't design and build an automobile

Agreed. Personally, I think BMWs are the nicest cars.

They have refused their civilization it's full potential, because the individual personal core need in this culture is to believe that they are superior.

I very, very much recommend Thomas Friedmans FROM BEIRUT TO JERUSALEM (no, I'm not a Nazi and don't inform me he's jewish with an uncle killed by the Nazis) Anyway, he discusses this point in depth to a point were you will understand why they support there tribe. As he states, in the Middle East the policy is Me against my Brother, Me and My Brother against my cousin, My Tribe against the world.

People who grow up in Fat countries, to paraphrase TE Lawrence, have a hard time understanding middle eastern philosophy.

Yet, it is the most civilized, freest, prosperous, and progressive nation in the region.

Yes, you can do a lot with a blank check from the US. Steal land, murder civilians, pick fights...

The lesson here is simple. The Jews have proven themselves to be among the most successful people in history, even though they must continue to defend their right to exist within populations and civilizations. As a nation that embraces the notion that all are equal and not superior

What the **** are you talking about? They claim their God tells them that the land millions live on is theirs, and they throw those millions into refugee camps? No, not a racist people at all...

America has proven, in it's short history, what the recipe to social progress is. It is the mixing of the races and the religions. It is the diversifying of the cultures. It is the notion that no one is superior than their neighbor. It is the recognization that jealousy and ego can destroy entire nations and regions when it affects an entire civilization.

What America has proven is that wealth determines who is better. Look at the Legal system. Would OJ from the Bronx have gotten what OJ from LA got?

It's fun to talk about how great assimilation is, especially when one color of people control nearly all the dtermining factors AND write the History Books.

One of the reason we are so hated by Muslim Radicals and their populations is that we and Israel stand in their way of a theocratic Middle East, of which is based mostly on myth and fantasy

Newsflash-Israel and the Muslims were figting over LAND before the rise of militant islam. If you don't believe all the BS we've been fed after 9-11 you'd realize that Pan-Arabism was the key factor in many of these wars. You'd also realize these wars were between the US and Israel against SECULAR leaders, such as Hafez al-Assad, Gamal Nasser, Yasser Arafat, Sadat, and, if I might add, Saddam Hussein. All these leaders FOUGHT militant Islamists.

Look up the 1967 war, 1973 war, Iran-Iraq War, and the 1930s conflicts between Palestinians and Zionists.

 

[Joby]

We are all aware of how deep rooted anchient Muslim bigotry against Jews goes

uhhh, yeah......except for that relative period of peace between _(when Islam was created exactly) and the 1930s when they began to take muslim land...

The Empires that embraced the cultures they conquered flourished. Those that subjugated and destroyed them perished more often than not. Rome began to decline shortly after they decided to stop offering citizenship to conquered people

I believe you mean it the other way around. Rome didn't really assimilate anyone unless they had first destroyed you Empire, Leveled your city, and taken the young as slaves. Then, maybe your right.

Hypothetically,if he'd gone straight into conquering Eastern Europe and pushing into Russia to accquire the territory for his Lebensraum policy he probably would not have even had to fight the US, so unpopular was Communism in Western Europe and Washington the allies would possibly have been supporting the Third Reich against Stalin.

Yeah. Too bad that little thing called Poland was in the way. Anyway, don't forget who did bring the US in, and don't forget Hitler was having little trouble conquering the world to that point. Those pesky Aryan Islanders were the only ones causing any reall trouble worth mentiong.

His inability to focus Germany's excellent arms industry on efficient mass produced weapons in favour of costly prototypes played into the hands of Americas technically inferior but easily manufactured equipment.

Germany did not have the huge arms capacity near the end. It needed things like a. The first jet fighter, b. The first truly modern tank, and c. The first assault rifle to turn thing around. My Grandfather was in a tank destroying outfit in the fight and will be first to tell you that had Germany been able to get some real numbers King Tiger tanks rolling things would have gotten really ugly really fast.

His opening the war on two fronts and obsession with Stalingrad simply because of it's name

Seriously, look at were Stalingrad is on a map. A good Toporaphic one with, you know, strategic points showing like mountains, steppes, and rivers.

But you're right. Hitler has no excuse for what happened. If anything, it was the Napolean syndrome of invincibilty no matter what which, even for a master race wouldn't exist.

how dumb must you be to draw a distinction between a white person of Nordic, Anglo-Saxon, Slavic, Mediterranean or Celtic blood?

You're probably one that wants to lead your peole out of the ahses.

His support for Mussolini's Italy and Il Duce's misguided delusions of an Italian Fascist imperialism opened a third front and exposed 'Fortress Europes' weak underbelly to the allies.

Your right. Italians never have been able to measure up to the Aryan in courage and fighting stregnth.

And this with a policy of accquiring territory, just who was going to populate all the land he intended to take in Russia?

Germans who now had their living space.