0
0

[–] BumbleTummy ago 

When you hear 'Race', think 'Breed'. Are there breeds of dogs? Cats? Horses? Is it a valid system of differentiation? Are there 'Certified Breeds'? Why not 'Certifed Races'?

0
0

[–] BumbleTummy ago 

Ask any scientists, Is Animal Husbandry A Beneficial And Valid Science? You will get 100% affirmative answers. Are humans a form of Animal? Animal Husbandry is Eugenics by another name.

0
0

[–] Joe_McCarthy [S] ago 

0
0

[–] Narow_Foe_Minsk ago  (edited ago)

Using Nazi unironically

direct linking to Kikepedia

You're 0/2, faggot.

0
1

[–] Joe_McCarthy [S] 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Pretty much 100% certainty that you lack enough knowledge here to speak intelligently on the matter and be able to differentiate between fact, fiction, or good or bad ideas or policy. So just mail it in and yell Jew.

0
0

[–] Narow_Foe_Minsk ago  (edited ago)

I didn't call you a Jew, I called you a faggot. And how else do you expect me to respond? You used Wikipedia as a source of information, a website that is well-known to be compromised and controlled by the Jews. They have unabashed marxist "contributors" who openly admit to doctoring pages to suit their agenda. On top of that, you unironically used the Jewish-created slur Nazi. Do self-respecting whites go around calling themselves and other whites "crackas"? The answer is an obvious no. So why do self-respecting nationalists use the terminology of our enemy, terminology meant to belittle and dehumanize us? Marxists don't call themselves commies or pinkos. Jews don't call themselves kikes or heebs. Niggers are the only ones stupid enough to do that. You might not be a national socialist, but you're at least a nationalist, given the context of this conversation. Don't punch to the right, faggot.

0
0

[–] frooben ago 

crawl back to r/iamverysmart nigger

hitler did nothing wrong gas the kikes racewar now

0
1

[–] DavidSteinberg 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Mostly nonsense.

Modern HBD is more accurate. Races most certainly manifest behavioral and physical differences, even in as "little" as 20 generations.

What I don't approve of is assigning weight to this in some universalistic sense that Aryans are superior.

Superior for what? For their environment, granted. For other people's environments? Maybe not. For the future? Open question; the meek don't seem to be inheriting it any time soon and Western Aryans are among the most aggressive and dominant peoples if prone to getting Gog'd and Magog'd by another enterprising tribe.

The problem with this is the gene strife involved, catching us in an inescapable cycle of tribalistic violence that allows some otherwise insignificant middleman merchant minorities, such as the Jews, to exploit the rest of us and rise to such inordinate power buoyed up by their ancient and irrevocable intent.

Playing that game leads only to that sort of outcome. We have to break out of this to a new era of realistic and respectful racial relations. We have to begin the most eugenic possible program of gene conservation for the benefit of all human descendants. Every population has beneficial genes to contribute. Every population has shitty genes. Some have more in one direction than the other. We can benefit from each other especially in an age of mass horizontal gene transfer. A shared genetic inheritance is a forward basis for human solidarity going into space where the real adventure begins insofar as any significant human meaning or purpose business whether self appointed or imaginably otherwise.

Aside from the genetic process there is the equivalent cultural memetic process. Clearly and to an even greater extent cultures, like genes, are not created equal. The Western inheritance, like some other inheritances that spring to mind - Chinese and Indian included, is not to be lost, it is to be expanded on, refined, revived and rescued from the cult of irrelevance that has seized the cultural organs at the behest of the cult of Israel.

Everything we value about the Western civilizational inheritance is at a pivotal point in history, it will either survive and spread itself, intermingling with other civilizations and their gainful contributions to the human endeavor - or it will implode in its own final stages of corruption both by its own [inertial] forces, so to speak, and that of an alien parasite's capitalizing on the weaknesses of Christian slave morality and Roman Imperial ambition.

0
1

[–] Walk1 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

It was built around a very narrow minded view of the world. For instance, considering Poles subhumans is about as low as it gets.

Poles are basically white and part Western in many ways, even though they are of Slavic origins(Czechs and Slovenians are probably the most Western influenced of the Slavic groups, but Poles fit into that grouping more or less). I think essentially adulating a certain phenotype, that of the long, blonde haired, and blue-eyed Nordid is incredibly narrow-minded and does not account for other racial types within the white race. Essentially, the only pan-Germanism centered around Germany and did not account for other parts of the white race. The Germans were stupid enough to think in such a manner and in a sense it does not reflect on race not being real, but that it can become quickly distorted and misunderstood very quickly.

The Nazis took things out of proportion and generally speaking it got them in massive trouble, as they basically took on the whole world.

They fought and killed other whites and basically maimed the idea of there ever being a chance for a white nationalist state to ever rise to power again, as leftists will continually hit back at us with this notion that it is a bad thing to have such a state and they do so because we need to be guarding and protecting the other parts of humanity(which I consider different species, but interconnected in a somewhat disjointed way to other human species that are more directly connected back into the white race; like how Middle-Eastern blood has gotten into Africa and some of it has some relation back to Europe, but there is not really any distinct relationship between the two areas going back to prehistoric times, except that Homo Heidelberenesis might have moved from Europe into Africa).

0
0

[–] Joe_McCarthy [S] ago  (edited ago)

I think the evidence is pretty plain that Nazi racial theory served geopolitical objectives when it came down to it. This was reflected in the fluidity with which Serbs were viewed depending on whether they served German strategic interests. When they didn't the preference shifted to Croatians - another group of Slavs ultimately viewed far more favorably. The general view of Slavs though was unsurprising given that the Nazis wanted their land.

This emphasis on superiority-inferiority is also a problem with them and of much of classical racialism in general. Though the Nazis took it to unusual extremes as even American eugenicists believed. Ultimately what was inferior was a matter of taste. And even German speaking populations in central Europe were being told they were inferior to the Nordic type. Perhaps this could plausibly be claimed on aesthetic grounds but in terms of technical or intellectual prowess there are too many other factors that go into human accomplishment (much of which even refutes a race based theory) to reduce it to something so simplistic. Speaking of the Nordic countries themselves I have never been massively impressed with them. In 1915 Sweden was probably more backward than Argentina. Nordicist racial fetishists, if they attempted to explain this at all, would probably ascribe this to some 'Nordic' component in immigrants heading there.

Unconvincing stuff. And ultimately one should not push something strongly unless he has a compelling reason to do so. Merely having something as an open question is not enough. And I think it fair to say that the Nazis often didn't even get that far.

0
0

[–] Walk1 ago 

That is a pretty rational response, but I do believe intellectual and technical prowess translate over into being able to practically effect things that lead to the production of highly, more complex, and more developed civilizations that are qualitatively better than those in other parts of the world.

Sweden might have been a backwards country, but that was given the time and it still produced some notable people, such as Carl Linnaeus, while non-white countries, outside of the Middle-East, South-Asia, and East-Asia, have not produced notable ideas, accomplishments, and inventions on a large-scale since the Medieval period(Middle-East) and in more recent modern times South-Asia and East-Asia have produced one or two geniuses but nothing on the scale of Europe.

I think creativity and inventiveness are also important characteristics and when you have great intelligence and technical skills it certainly lends itself to opening the door or inspiring greater creativity and inventiveness(it arises from greater intelligence and technical skills to say the least). I do think racial theories can get warped, but a lot of that is because empirical evidence for what exactly constitutes race in an archaic sense is not understood properly and whatever can be made of it is hit or miss, hear and there, and basically finding one missing link that proves essentially that race has some more archaic root and is not something that is more of a diffusion of different archaic races(which is what most people believe, when in fact it seems very unlikely that this is so; the white race is not a unified race either, which explains in part the warfare between different European states).

I certainly agree it was meant to serve a national and geopolitical objective and what the Nazis did to Slavs was so barbaric and uncouth that it phases the mind that one can consider the Nazis an honorable role model.

The main question I have is what are those other factors that go into human accomplishment(because I think its pretty straightforward that whites would dominate this department; it does not mean non-whites can't be good professionals, scientists, et cetera, but much less likely to invent and be inventive and less likely to be creative and to create and less likely to be original and to originate; its of course my opinion, but its somewhat in the stats/data and I suppose the question at the end of the day is have we found the missing link in race to hammer the final nail onto the coffin or is this a pipe dream that will never be solved(I do agree the naturalistic argument is essentially somewhat very much tenable, but at the end of the day its proof lies in empirical undertakings and kind of a brutish willing of something to an ends which could lead us right back to the Nazis and personally I am very much opposed to ethnic cleansing or genocide).

0
1

[–] GimmeTheUsual 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Holy cow, civil discourse on a complex topic. Refreshing, honestly.

I do have a question if you feel like answering/elaborating.

I've been thinking about the conditions in which the Nazis kept their prisoners. There's documented accounts of experimentation and other atrocities. As for the mass-killings via gas chambers, I'm having a hard time reconciling how that would go down. There have been accounts about "showers" in which they were tricked into stepping into, then gassed.

I don't see how that would work if you have a holding area (you can't gas them all, so there is a some kind of interstitial containment) and suddenly your best friend who was going to the "shower" didn't come back after an hour or so. Were they that demoralized that they didn't have any desire to fight? To storm the gates and get shot instead of poisoned to death, even if the chances of surviving were remote?

Putting myself in that situation, if my friend didn't come back -- I would know something is up. The last thing I'd want to do is wait for my turn.

I'm getting the feeling that there were such things that took place, and are all horrible, but the narrative of millions upon millions being killed that way just doesn't compute to me -- unless they had given up completely and were shambling zombies. I know there were gulags where they basically starved to death, so perhaps that was a factor.

Any opinion on that? Is the gassing and whatnot decisively documented on the scale that is part of the mainstream narrative? Or was it limited instances used as leverage for some kind of victimhood play.

Yeah, I'm serious.

0
0

[–] frooben ago 

The map shows Poles as mostly Nordic. Have you even looked at it? Maybe you don't know shit about Scandinavian migration and conquest into Poland and rest of Baltic world huh? I don't give a fuck what the natsoc party thought, the scientists were on point unlike the fucking History channel drivel that people keep spouting everywhere. SIEG

0
0

[–] Walk1 ago 

I said the Poles should not have been treated the way they were treated. Everyone knows the Poles are part Western and part Nordic. It testifies to how stupid and debauched the Nazis were.

In fact, Jews are also part Western and part Nordic according to DNA tests, and I bet the Nazis would have not considered them that, as they were considered part African(and although I believe its true in an ancient kind of sense, we all know groups like Sicilians probably have more recent African heritage). The Nazis were essentially idiots when it came to most things involving race and politics, but they knew how to get a society and an economy going and were generally good bureaucrats and managers of society.

I like the MeyersLexicon map the best, but Hans Gunther map is very interesting as well. The Nazis focused their conquest simply around the German race being the best and purest. We have no proof that it is, although one thing is for certain, Northern Germans were never infected with the Roman system of laws and with Eastern genetic influences for the most part(the same applies to part of the Netherlands to an even greater extent), but this means nothing.

One could say the British typify the white race much better than Germans do and I think the Nazis prove this point.